You are on page 1of 116

The Defense Technology Base: Introduction

and Overview

March 1988

NTIS order #PB88-192562

Recommended Citation:
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Defense Technology Base:
Introduction and Overview–A Special Report, OTA-ISC-374 (Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, March 1988).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 88-600517

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325
(order form can be found in the back of this report)
Keeping ahead of the Soviet Union technologically is a central element of U.S.
national security strategy, and the Nation spends a large amount of money in
order to do so. In recent years, however, there have been troubling indications
that the U.S. technological lead is slipping, and that it is increasingly difficult
to maintain a meaningful edge.
These concerns–expressed both by the Administration and within Congress—
prompted the Senate Committee on Armed Services to request that the Office
of Technology Assessment (OTA) undertake a major assessment on “Maintain-
ing the Defense Technology Base. ’ This special report is the first product of that
assessment. It provides an overview of the subject, including specific concerns
about the health of the defense technology base and the related issues before Con-
gress. Subsequent reports will probe aspects of this immense problem in greater
Concern centers on the health of those industries, both defense-oriented and
civilian, that provide the technology that winds up in defense systems, and on
the management of the Defense Department technology base programs and tech-
nology facilities. Within the Department, management is being reorganized in the
wake of the Goldwater-Nichols Reorganization Act (Public Law 99-433). This re-
port reflects the state of that management system as of February 1, 1988.
The cooperation of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Office of the Secretary
of Defense are gratefully acknowledged.
Defense Technology Base Advisory Panel
Walter B. LaBerge, Chairman
Vice President of Corporate Development
Lockheed Corp.

Michael R. Bonsignore Jan Lodal

President President
Honeywell International INTELUS
William Carey Edward C. Meyer
Consultant to the President General, USA (retired)
Carnegie Corp. of New York Robert R. Monroe
Thomas E. Cooper Vice Admiral, USN (retired)
Vice President Senior Vice President, and
Aerospace Technology Manager, Defense and Space
General Electric Bechtel National, Inc.
John Deutch William J. Perryl
Provost Managing Partner
Massachusetts Institute of Technology H&Q Technology Partners, Inc.
Robert Fossum Richard Pew
Dean, School of Engineering and Principal Scientist
Applied Sciences BBN Laboratories, Inc.
Southern Methodist University Herman Postma
Jacques Gansler Senior Vice President
Senior Vice President Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
The Analytic Sciences Corp. Judith Reppy
B.R. Inman Associate Director
Admiral, USN (retired) Cornell Peace Studies Program
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Richard Samuels
Westmark Systems, Inc. Professor, Department of Political Science
Paul Kaminski Massachusetts Institute of Technology
President John P. Shebell
H&Q Technology Partners, Inc. Manager, RAMP Engineering
Lawrence Korb Customer Service Systems Engineering
Dean, Graduate School of Public & Digital Equipment Corp.
International Affairs Michael Thompson
University of Pittsburgh Executive Director
George Kozmetsky Integrated Circuit Design Division
Executive Associate for Economic Affairs AT&T Bell Laboratories
University of Texas System, and S. L. Zeiberg
Director, IC2 Institute Vice President Technical Operations
University of Texas, Austin Martin Marietta Electronics and Missiles
Ray L. Leadabrand Group
Senior Vice President
‘Ex officio member from OTA’S Technology Assessment
Advisory Council.

Project Staff—Defense Technology Base
Lionel S. Johns, Assistant Director, OTA
Energy, Materials, and International Security Division

Peter Sharfman, International Security and Commerce Program Manager

Alan Shaw, Project Director

Gerald L. Epstein
William W. Keller

Congressional Research Service Contributor

Michael E. Davey

Administrative Staff
Jannie Home Cecile Parker Jackie Robinson

P. Robert Calaway

Page Page
Part I: Overview Management of Government
Chapter 1: Introduction and Principal Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Military Dependence on Foreign
Why Be Concerned? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Principal Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Health of the Dual-Use Commercial
Chapter 2: Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 High-Tech Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
What Is the Defense Technology Problems in the Defense Industries 46
Base? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Supply of Scientists and Engineers 51
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Chapter 4: Managing Department of
Department of Defense Defense Technology Base
Mechanisms for Making Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Technology Policy and Technology Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Investment Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
DoD Technology Base Funding . . . . 12 Funding Categories for DoD’s
The Management of Government RDT&E Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 An Overview of Defense Research
Foreign Dependence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Programs (6.1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
“Dual-Use” Civilian High-Tech Technical Review of Research
Industries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Proposals and Programs . . . . . . . . 57
Defense Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 An Overview of DoD’s Technology
Supply of Scientists and Engineers 18 Base Activities in the
Exploiting the Defense Technology Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..., . . . . . . 18 Special Technology Base Initiatives 58
How the Defense Department Makes Planning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
and Implements Technology Oversight and Management in the
Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Office of the Secretary of Defense 61
Roles of the Component Research The Department of the Navy . . . . . . . 64
Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Management of the Navy’s
Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Research (6.1) Program . . . . . . . . . 64
Navy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Management of the Navy’s
Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Exploratory Development and
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Advanced Technology
The National Aeronautics and Development Programs (6.2&
Space Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 24 6.3A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Other Federal S&T Activities . . . . . 24 The Department of the Air Force, . . . 71
University Research Programs . . . . 25 Management of the Air Force’s
Research (6.1) Program . . . . . . . . . 72
Management of the Air Force’s
Part II: Background and Analysis Exploratory and Advanced
Chapter 3: Maintaining Defense Technology Development
Technology Capacity: Policy Programs (6.2 and 6.3A) . . . . . . . . 73
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 The Department of the Army. . . . . . . 75
Introduction: An Interactive Management of the Army’s
Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Research (6.1) Program . . . . . . . . . 77
Policy and the Health of the Defense Army’s Management of
Technology Base. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Exploratory and Advanced
DoD Technology Base Program Technology Development
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Programs (6.2 and 6.3A) . . . . . . . . 78
DoD Technology Base Program The Defense Advanced Research
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Projects Agency (DARPA) . . . . . . 80

Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Figures
Programs and Priorities . . . . . . . . . . 81 Figure No. Page
The Strategic Defense Initiative 1. Technology Base Funding,
Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 1964-1987 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 2. Management of the Department of
Chapter 5: Research Institutions and Defense Technology Base Program . 62
Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 3. Navy Organization for Science and
Defense Department Laboratories . . . 85 Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Army Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . 85 4. Office of Naval Research. . . . . . . . . . 66
88 Navy Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. Office of Naval Technology . . . . . 68
Air Force Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . 90 6. Navy 6.2 Program Structure . . . 69
Department of Energy National 7. Navy 6.2 Program Strategy . . . . . . . 70
Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 8. Air Force Systems Command R&D
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Organization and Management . . . . 93 9. Air Force Office of Scientific
Multiprogram Laboratories . . . . . . 95 Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
National Aeronautics and Space 10. Army Research and Development
Administration Laboratories and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Centers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 11. Army Materiel Command R&D
Background, Organization, and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 12. Army Technology Base Investment
Field Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Other Federal Activities . ..........103 13. Management Structure for DOE
National Science Foundation .. ....103 Field Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Department of Commerce . .......103 14. National Bureau of Standards .. ...104
Department of Transportation ....105
Other Federal Agencies . .........106 Tables
Small Business Innovative Table No. Page
Research (SBIR) Program . ......107 1. Department of Defense Fiscal Year

Private Nonprofit Laboratories. .. ...108 1988 Funding of Technology Base

Federally Funded Research and Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Development Centers . ..........108 2. Department of Defense Fiscal Year
University Affiliates . ............109 1988 Funding of Technology Base
Independent Nonprofit Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Laboratories . . . . ..............109
Glossary of Acronyms . ..............111

Part I: Overview
Chapter 1

Introduction and Principal Findings

For roughly three decades, U.S. national the field. In trying to close the technology gap,
security planning has rested heavily on the the Soviets have the advantage of following
premise that superior technology can offset So- rather than leading. They can learn from U.S.
viet advantages in numbers of military per- successes and failures, saving billions of dol-
sonnel and major military equipment. But in lars by adopting existing technology and
the past few years there has been mounting avoiding activities already demonstrated to be
concern that the United States is not main- unpromising. Furthermore, their massive mil-
taining the necessary technical lead. If the itary production capacity can quickly turn new
United States cannot maintain a meaningful system designs into large numbers of fielded
technological lead and there are no fundamen- systems. The Soviets could never overcome our
tal changes in the competition between the two lead if they only played catch-up, but they can
superpowers, the nation will be faced with a also draw on a large and improving technol-
choice among accepting a significantly de- ogy base of their own.
creased level of security, relying more heavily
There are troubling indications that the U.S.
on our allies, or making major increases in the
technological lead in fielded equipment, as well
size of its armed forces.
as in some underlying technologies, is eroding.
There are several ways to assess a techno- The Defense Department’s position is that “In
logical lead, but in defense the most important recent years, the U.S.S.R. has significantly re-
indicator of technological advantage-perhaps duced the lead previously held by the United
the only one that ultimately matters—is the States and its Allies in technologies of mili-
technological lead in fielded military equip- tary importance.”3 Both the time to produce
ment. Wars are not fought or deterred by engi- the next generation of major items of equip-
neering drawings, but by existing forces.1 How- ment (tanks, airplanes, ships, missiles, etc. ) and
ever, major technical advances that are still the time to translate new technological discov-
under development can have profound effects eries into fielded equipment are increasing. The
on superpower relationships, as the Strategic latter is particularly ominous because once a
Defense Initiative (SDI) has illustrated. technology is discovered, the United States is
more or less in a race with the Soviets to get
Maintaining a technological lead in fielded
it into the field. If, for example, the United
military equipment is a far more difficult task
States develops a particular technology 3 years
than catching up.2 It requires a dynamic, crea-
before the Soviets learn about it, but takes 4
tive, and innovative technology base, as well
years longer than the Soviets do to turn it into
as an efficient industrial structure that can rap-
fielded equipment, the U.S. lead will have been
idly translate technical developments into
negated. Furthermore, if each year the Soviets
meaningful numbers of effective products in
produce three times as many pieces of equip-
ment using that new technology as the United
States does, the United States will find itself
‘Quality of equipment is not the only factor that matters. Num-
bers, particularly numbers of the most advanced equipment ac- behind in fielded capability.
tually in the field, are important. So are factors such as train-
ing, leadership, geography, and logistics. U.S. equipment tends to be complex and
‘The difficulty of maintaining a meaningful technological lead costly, and therefore tends to get built slowly
may itself call into question the validity of relying on a strat-
egy that requires such a lead. That, however, is a separate topic.
This report begins with the premise that the United States seeks ‘U.S. Department of Defense, Soviet Military Power, 1986,
to maintain its technological lead. p. 103.


once production starts. Much time is taken get- weaknesses. This special report is the first
ting the “bugs’ out of new systems and train- product of that project. It describes the de-
ing crews to be proficient in their use. This fense technology base, presents significant
reflects a technological emphasis on higher mil- technology base problems now facing the Na-
itary performance at the expense of factors tion, and discusses the issues Congress will
such as cost and maintainability, and an em- confront in dealing with those problems. It also
phasis on the technology of design over the describes how the Department of Defense is
technology of production. Cost reductions on organized to manage its technology base pro-
the subsystem and component levels generally grams and discusses the roles of the major gov-
fail to translate into less costly systems. On ernment research organizations that contrib-
the bright side, once the bugs are out, many ute to the defense technology base. In the
recent U.S. systems have proven more relia- course of the discussion it mentions, but does
ble, available, maintainable, and operable than not analyze, solutions that have been proposed
their predecessors. And as Soviet equipment to some of the problems. These suggested so-
becomes more complex it also tends to be lutions, and others, will be explored in later
plagued with the problems attributed to U.S. OTA work.4
The remainder of this chapter presents the
Congress is concerned over the health of the principal findings of this special report. Be-
defense technology base. Particular concerns cause this is an interim product, these are
include the apparently lengthening time to largely observations of the staff and outside
translate laboratory advances into effective experts. Chapter 2 is a summary of the report,
and dependable fielded systems; declining U.S. which elaborates on the principal findings and
leadership in vital high-technology industries; provides background material. Chapters 3
and a downward trend in the proportion of the through 5 present the data and analyses on
defense budget devoted to the technology base. which these findings are based.
The Senate Committee on Armed Services has
asked the Office of Technology Assessment
(OTA) to examine the health of the U.S. de- ‘Solutions have been suggested and analyzed in the 1987 De-
fense Science Board Study on Technology Base Management,
fense technology base and suggest options for Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, March
exploiting its strengths and remedying its 1988.

The health of the defense technology base aged, and funded; and what can be done
depends on many complex factors and is af- to ensure that they are?
fected by policy in diverse areas. It responds 2. Do government policies toward industry
to actions Congress takes regarding the De- support the existence and maintenance of
fense Department technology base programs; a healthy industrial technology base, both
overall government science and technology pol- defense-oriented and commercial, from
icy; and industrial, trade and fiscal strategies which defense developments can be
that are relevant to vital high-technology in- drawn; and what can be done to ensure
dustries. In deciding what to do about the de- that they do?
fense technology base, Congress faces two
broad issues: Resolving these broad issues will entail ad-
dressing a number of component issues.
1. Are the government programs that affect
the health of the defense technology base ● The defense technology base resides in a
appropriately organized, staffed, man- broad range of institutions that includes

DoD laboratories, other government labora- technology base funding when DoD seeks
tories, universities, private research facil- to reduce it. The optimal level of funding is
ities, defense industries, and ‘‘dual-use’ ci- difficult, if not impossible, to gauge ac-
vilian industries. As the civilian industries curately. However, funding that fluctuates
move increasingly to the cutting edge of widely from year to year is inefficient and
technology, the defense technology base be- can be very disruptive. Congress faces the
comes embedded in—and largely inseparable very difficult decision of whether it should
from-the national technology base. The De- be actively involved in the selection of tech-
fense Department technology base pro- nology base programs and the determina-
grams are major contributors to the defense tion of specific funding levels, or whether
technology base, but they are far from all instead it should give DoD managers wide
of it. latitude to construct programs within
agreed overall funding levels.
The Defense Department’s system for man-
aging its technology base programs has The government laboratories that together
recently been overhauled as part of the gen- perform about one-third of the technology
eral reorganization of the acquisition sys- base program work have been the subject
tem. But it remains to be seen whether this of a vast amount of study and discussion.
will lead to fundamental improvements in There has been significant concern over the
the way technology base programs are plan- quality and value of their work, and the abil-
ned and managed. One basic question is ity of the laboratories to attract and keep
whether the system works as well as can be top-quality personnel. Many experts per-
expected, or whether major improvements ceive them as uneven in quality and utility.
can be brought about. Suggestions have been made regarding
● Observers in government and industry be- changing the relationships of some labora-
lieve that DoD is finding it increasingly tories to their parent organizations, alter-
difficult to attract and keep the skilled man- ing laboratory management structures (i.e.,
agement personnel necessary to the func- removing them from Civil Service), and im-
tioning of its technology base programs. proving their ability to compete for and com-
This appears to be, at least in part, a result pensate researchers.
of Civil Service salary structures and Con- The United States is becoming increasingly
gress’ efforts to limit the movement of per- dependent on foreign sources for defense
sonnel between industry and the Defense technology. Some of this-like increasing in-
volvement in NATO cooperative programs
● Funding for technology base programs is —is intentional. But much of it is a conse-
particularly vulnerable during times of tight quence of the movement abroad of high-tech-
budgets. The rapid spend-out rates of tech- nology industries, particularly those that
nology base programs mean that cuts in deal primarily in the commercial market-
R&D go farther toward reducing deficits place. Reliance on foreign sources makes
than similar size cuts in procurement pro- more technology available, distributes the
grams. And the lack of obvious, tangible out- costs of technical advances, and ties the Na-
puts from R&D projects makes the value tion closer to its allies. But dependence on
of individual programs difficult to define. others risks losing access to technology, if
Technology base programs are particularly political or economic conditions change. The
vulnerable to “raiding’ to support programs United States faces basic policy issues of
in procurement or the later stages of devel- how much dependence on others for defense
opment. Congress will have to determine technology is advisable, and how much the
what it thinks are proper levels of funding, Nation should spend to retain domestic
which may entail acting as an advocate for sources of technology.

The foreign dependence issue is most pro- uct innovation and the application of ad-
nounced in the “dual-use” sector: those high- vanced manufacturing technology to plant
technology industries that sell primarily in modernization. Companies can recover part
the international commercial marketplace, of the cost of innovation from the govern-
but provide important technology and prod- ment through the Independent Research
ucts as components of defense systems. and Development (IR&D) reimbursements.
High-technology products are increasingly But this program has been controversial, in
manufactured outside the United States, part because it has become complex and dif-
raising concern that the ability to design at ficult to understand.
the leading edge will follow manufacturing,
reducing DoD’s access to the technology it Despite the United States’ superior gradu-
needs. Other nations have national policies ate education programs, there is concern—
to attract, nurture, and protect high- particularly within DoD and the defense
technology industries. These tax, trade, and industries-that U.S. citizens are not becom-
other policies contribute to the continuing ing scientists and engineers at a sufficiently
deterioration of U.S.-based industries. Fail- high rate.
ure to counter conditions which cause U. S.-
based companies to move offshore will al-
low the deterioration to continue, affecting Many experts believe that the long delays
national defense. If Congress chooses to ad- in getting new technology into the field arise
dress these issues, it is important that na- not in the technology base, but in the subse-
tional security be part of that consideration. quent programs that translate the products
of the technology base into new systems.
The defense industry is highly regulated. Full-scale development and production
Government controls and regulations tend times are increasing, and the longer it takes
to discourage innovative small- and me-
to develop and build a system, the older its
dium-sized companies from entering the
technology will be when it finally reaches
business and create competitive advantages the field. Unfortunately, adding new tech-
for those companies with experience in the
nology to a system already under develop-
specifics of selling to the government. ment is likely to delay it still further. Insert-
Detailed specifications for military hard- ing new technology through retrofitting
ware tend to limit the availability of com- fielded systems or block upgrades of sys-
mercial products for defense needs. More- tems in production might get new technol-
over, many in industry believe that the
ogy into the field faster than waiting for
government maintains an adversarial rela-
an entirely new system to be developed.
tionship with industry, to the detriment of
Changes in the organizational links among
the defense effort.
developers, planners, operators, and tech-
There is concern that, in the defense sector, nologists also have the potential for speed-
government regulations inhibit both prod- ing the progress of technology into the field.
Chapter 2


The defense technology base is that combi- fense applications, and not all is equally acces-
nation of people, institutions, information, and sible to defense. Any research published in open
skills that provides the technology used to sources (e.g., scientific journals) is available
develop and manufacture weapons and other for use by engineers and scientists for defense
defense systems. It rests on a dynamic, inter- applications. This includes foreign research
active network of laboratory facilities, commer- and development, even work done in the So-
cial and defense industries, sub-tier component viet Union. Proprietary work that is conducted
suppliers, venture capitalists, science and engi- by private companies, and remains unpub-
neering professionals, communications sys- lished in order to preserve competitive advan-
tems, universities, data resources, and design tages, may also find its way into defense sys-
and manufacturing know-how. It includes lab- tems as those companies build the systems,
oratories run by the Department of Defense subsystems, or components.
(DoD), other government departments and
There are some practical limitations-ampli-
agencies, universities, and industrial concerns.
fied by recent government policy–on the
It draws on the work of scientists and engi-
neers in other nations. Information circulates transfer of technology between the defense and
civilian sectors. ’ First, much defense technol-
both through formal routes dictated by chains
ogy is classified. Hence it is only available to
of command, research contracts and other
those working on defense projects. Second, re-
agreements, and through informal contacts
searchers and engineers working on defense
within specialized technical communities, in-
projects tend to forma community that inter-
terdepartmental projects, seminars, etc.
acts through mechanisms such as defense-
Department of Defense technology base pro- related professional society meetings. Commu-
grams-and the accumulated results of these nication with those in similar fields doing non-
programs-are an important part of the de- defense work exists, but is often more limited.
fense technology base, but are far from all of Indeed, in companies that do both defense and
it. Although DoD officials tend to speak of the commercial work, engineers in either “side of
defense technology base and the Department the house” tend to be isolated from those in
of Defense technology base programs inter- the other.
changeably, they are not the same. The defense
There are also mechanisms that reduce tech-
technology base is an accumulation of knowl-
nology transfer and communication from non-
edge, skills, capabilities, and facilities, while
defense areas to researchers and engineers do-
the Defense Department’s technology base
ing defense work. Companies that develop com-
programs are a collection of thousands of in-
mercial products seek to protect their invest-
dividual research projects funded through the
ments by concealing their best technology as
DoD budget, the results of which contribute
long as possible. Thus, cutting edge technol-
to the defense technology base.
ogy may remain inaccessible to DoD until af-
Almost all research and technology develop- ter it has been introduced into the commercial
ment can be drawn upon in producing defense
systems, so that with the exception of classified ‘For example: Department of Defense Directi\e 5230.25, NOIT.
research available only for defense applications, 6, 1984; and Executi\’e Order 12356. For more detail see Sci-
the defense technology base is largely the same ence Policy Stud~’ Background Report No. 8. Science Support
By The Department of Defense, prepared by the Congressional
as the national technology base as a whole. Of Research Ser\ice for the Task Force on Science Polic~’ of the
course, not all technology is of interest for de- House Committee on Science and Technology, December 1986.


marketplace. Additionally, some scientists and Basic research, by definition, is almost en-
engineers prefer not to do defense-related work. tirely non-specific in its potential applications.
Finally, regulations on doing business with the Most could lead just as easily to defense ap-
government tend to enforce a separation be- plications, commercial applications, or no prac-
tween companies that work for the government tical applications whatsoever. There are, how-
and those that do not—including separations ever, a few areas in which the Department of
between divisions of the same company. Know- Defense has a specific interest in basic research
ing how to do business with the government because the connection to defense systems is
creates a competitive advantage for some, clear. Examples are underwater acoustics (im-
while government regulations and contracting portant for submarine detection and hiding)
procedures present barriers against others. In- and the physics of explosive nuclear reactions
deed some observers argue that the problems (of obvious application to the nuclear weapons
of doing government business—close scrutiny, programs run by the Department of Energy
regulation of profits, and excessive military (DOE)).
specification of product characteristics-tend
As science leads to technology, potential ap-
to discourage innovative small- and medium-
plications become clearer, and a sharper deline-
size companies and steer them away from gov-
ation of technologies with defense applications
ernment work.
becomes possible. Some technologies are almost
Thus, while in principle the defense sector entirely military while others have little, if any,
can draw from a very wide technology base, defense application. This separation is height-
there is some degree of isolation. Not all of that ened as military programs become classified.
more general technology base flows into de- Nevertheless, many technology areas are pur-
fense applications with equal ease. sued for both military and commercial appli-
DoD organizes its technology base programs
into three categories which provide a working As technologies lead to the development of
definition of the kinds of work and informa- defense systems, developments that had been
tion that are considered part of the technol- pursued primarily for commercial reasons can,
ogy base. DoD’s technology base programs and do, work their way into the defense sys-
consist of research into basic and applied sci- tems. Prime contractors call on subcontractors
ences (funded under budget category 6.1), the for subsystems, and subcontractors call on
exploratory development of practical applica- lower tier suppliers for the components of their
tions of that research (budget category 6.2), subsystems. Many of these lower tier suppliers
and the building of prototypes to demonstrate sell to both military and commercial buyers,
the principle of an application (budget category and use their commercial technology to develop
6.3A). Work funded under the remainder of the products that are used in defense systems.
Defense Department’s budget for research, de- Commercial components are sometimes de-
velopment, test, and evaluation (most of DoD’s signed directly into defense subsystems.
RDT&E budget) is not part of the technology
A diverse group of organizations contributes
base.’ In DoD jargon, “the tech base is 6.1,
to the defense technology base. A large por-
6.2, and 6.3 A,” but the defense technology base
tion of basic research is performed at univer-
is actually the accumulated results of those 6.1,
sities, which also train the next generation of
6.2, and 6.3A programs and much more.
scientists and engineers. University research
is funded by the Department of Defense, other
‘Strictly speaking, by the Office of the Secretary of Defense
definition, the technology base programs are 6.1 and 6.2. Tech- parts of the federal government (e.g., the Na-
nology base plus 6.3A are the science and technology programs. tional Science Foundation and the Department
However, these definitions are often used interchangeably, and of Energy), industry, and various private funds
in recent years common useage has been to refer to 6.1, 6.2,
and 6.3A as technology base programs while 6.3B and 6.4 are and endowments. DoD’s university research
specific system developments linked closely to procurement. program is growing and appears to have gen-

erated significant interest in the academic com- tions. 3 And because there is only one customer
munity. There appears to be more interest and (albeit one with many branches) and a limited
capability than available funding permits DoD type of competition, the defense market has
to support. evolved a unique set of business characteris-
tics. There is controversy over whether this
The Army, Navy, and Air Force maintain is the most efficient way to produce defense
systems of research laboratories. Of the more systems, and how to maintain sufficient ca-
than 140 individual laboratories, research and pacity to meet surge requirements in the event
engineering centers, activities, and test facil- of a conflict. These production issues are not
ities run by the Armed Services (Army, Navy a focus of this study, but the business struc-
and Air Force), about half contribute signifi- ture of these companies strongly influences
cantly to the technology base. The rest con- how they invest in technology. A more rele-
centrate on activities such as testing pro- vant issue is identifying the best methods for
duction aircraft. In addition to conducting stimulating these companies to develop cut-
research, some of these laboratories fund and ting edge technology for defense applications,
monitor research by other organizations. draw on developments elsewhere, and incor-
porate the latest technology into products and
Other government laboratories–primarily
the Department of Energy national labora-
tories, the National Bureau of Standards, and The industrial sector includes not just the
NASA’s research centers–contribute both defense industries that produce major defense
directly and indirectly to the defense technol- systems, but also civilian industries. The so-
ogy base. DoD contracts with the national lab- called “dual use” industries, which produce pri-
oratories and engages in cooperative research marily for the civilian market, provide com-
projects with NASA in areas of mutual inter- ponents for defense systems, and stimulate
est. The results of research conducted at these technological advances that find their way into
institutions is generally available to organiza- defense systems. Perhaps the best-known ex-
tions engaged in defense work. ample of a dual-use industry is the semicon-
ductor industry, the subject of a recent Defense
A substantial part of the defense technol- Science Board study. In addition, laboratories
ogy base is embedded in the defense industrial run by companies that do very little defense
base, and in the broader national industrial work provide important basic technology that
base. Much of the technology that finds its way is eventually engineered into defense systems.
into defense systems is developed by defense
contractors and subcontractors, and by com- In some areas, civilian industries merely
mercial high technology companies. In addi- keep pace with or lag behind technologies that
tion, some companies —e.g., AT&T, IBM, and are being developed in the defense sector. But
UTC–run research laboratories that do a great in other areas it is the commercial firms that
deal of basic and applied research, most of drive the pace of technological development.
which is available for defense applications. In general, the Department of Defense exerts
strong influence on industries that are primar-
The large defense contractors—e.g., Lock- ily devoted to defense and on newly emerging
heed, Martin-Marietta, General Dynamics, technologies. But DoD has far less influence
McDonnell-Douglas, Rockwell–primarily de- with industries that have large commercial
sign, develop, and produce weapons and other markets. For those industries it is very much
defense systems. They develop technology in- a minor customer: the civilian market shapes
house and draw on technology developed else- the industry and dictates the large investment
where. They are both users of, and contribu- in and consequent rapid progress of technical
tors to, the defense technology base. Because
the defense industry sells only to the govern- ‘Those divisions of defense companies that sell in the civilian
ment, it operates under a special set of regula- marketplace operate differently.

development. Defense production is a con- tions of this erosion for national defense. The
sumer of technology from these industries; de- concern here is much less shaping technology
fense interests are far less able to stimulate development—defense is often a minority cus-
technology development in these industries tomer with only limited leverage on the indus-
than they are in the defense industries. If tech- tries–than it is ensuring that the technology
nologies that are dominated by the commer- and technical capacity will be available when
cial market could not be transferred into de- needed. If these industries deteriorate substan-
fense applications, the defense sector would tially, the source of the technology will be in
have to rely solely on technology developed in question, and if they leave the United States,
isolation, and would likely end up buying less DoD may find that the technology is no longer
advanced technology than is available in the available and secure. Thus DoD has a vital in-
commercial marketplace. terest in the future of these industries. The gov-
ernment as a whole has an interest both from
A major focus of this OTA study is identifi-
a national security perspective and a national
cation and evaluation of the factors behind the
economic perspective, although these two per-
erosion of important dual-use U.S. industries at
spectives may not always coincide.
the leading edge of technology, and the implica-

Maintaining this diverse defense technology Department of Defense Mechanisms
base raises a large number of individual issues, for Making Technology Policy and
which fall generally into the following seven Technology Investment Strategy
1. DoD’s mechanisms for making technology The DoD science and technology program
policy and determining investment strat- is a complex and sometimes bewildering array
egy to implement that policy; of 160 program elements encompassing thou-
2. funding for DoD technology base pro- sands of individual projects, whose success is
grams; often difficult to judge. Consequently, there
3. the management of DoD laboratories and is widespread uneasiness that DoD may not
other government research institutions; be making the most effective use of its tech-
4. foreign dependence; nology budget, and that its program may not
5. dual-use civilian high-technology indus- be efficiently run. Some critics charge that
tries; technology base programs do not receive at-
6. the defense industries; and tention at a sufficiently high level, that Pen-
7. the supply of scientists and engineers. tagon bureaucracies have no equivalent of a
corporate vice president for research and de-
This section discusses these individual issues velopment. Recognizing this problem, DoD has
and the concerns from which they arise. These recently taken steps to address the situation.
issues and concerns raise analytical questions Other observers believe that the management
that are not generally amenable to definitive system has developed the wrong focus: that
answers, but provide a basis for analysis and performance is emphasized too highly over cost
informed debate. This section also presents— and quality, and product technology is empha-
but does not analyze-some solutions that sized to the virtual exclusion of process (man-
have been proposed. OTA reports these sug- ufacturing) technology.
gestions because they appear to merit explo-
ration as Congress considers the issues, but There is also concern that “requirements
OTA does not endorse them. OTA will explore pull” and “technology push” may be out of
some of these proposed solutions in further balance. Some argue that overly strict appli-
work on this project. cation of relevance tests in determining

projects to be funded maybe stifling creativity, Some observers suggest that large-scale
while others point out that excessive loosen- demonstration programs ought to be pursued
ing of the ties between research projects and as engines of technological innovation. They
military needs could lead to a technology base point out that projects such as Polaris and
program that produces little practical benefit. Apollo have served to focus the efforts of crea-
There is an overriding concern that communi- tive people and have produced much impor-
cations between developers of technology and tant technology. Like Apollo, such projects
military operators and planners are not suffi- need not be confined to military goals. Some
ciently well developed. Developers could be cite SD I and the National Aerospace Plane as
more aware of military needs and planners current examples of such large-scale technol-
could be more attuned to technological oppor- ogy drivers. Others fear that such programs
tunities. consume too much funding, driving less dra-
matic efforts out of existence, and that while
Research is by nature disorderly and risky,
providing a dramatic stimulus to technical and
Its twin goals of seeking breakthroughs–
scientific development they are an indirect and
including serendipitous, unanticipated discov-
inefficient path to developing the technology
eries—and evolving previous discoveries into
that is desired. These critics argue that such
useful applications are somewhat contradic-
programs take on lives of their own, and that
tory. Overconcentration on either is a prescrip-
as funding levels decrease the secondary goal
tion for disaster sooner or later. It maybe that
of spinning off technology is sacrificed to the
the apparent chaos of defense R&D programs
primary goal of completing the program.
is a reflection of these contradictions, and that
it cannot and should not be managed in any Each Service runs its own R&D program,
more orderly fashion than it now is. Or it may and the Office of the Secretary of Defense
be that valuable gains can be made through (OSD) coordinates these along with the efforts
more effective management. Clearly, orderly of the Defense agencies, the Strategic Defense
evolution can benefit from orderly programs, Initiative Organization, and a few special proj-
but overly focused and controlled programs ects. The Armed Services have different sys-
will inhibit the wide-ranging exploration that tems for setting R&D policy and for imple-
produces breakthroughs. menting that policy. These systems, and OSD’s,
have recently been reorganized. (Current orga-
An area of growing concern is that of highly
nizations for making R&D policy are described
classified or "black" programs.4 Congressional
briefly in a later section of this summary and
and bureaucratic oversight of these programs
in more detail in the main body of this report.)
is very limited. Critics charge that black pro-
It is reasonable to ask whether each Service’s
grams retard the diffusion and exploitation of
management system is optimized for its unique
important technology, while providing cover
needs, or whether organizing them all along
for poorly managed programs. Others claim
the same lines would be preferable, taking the
that freedom from excessive oversight allows
best features of the three existing systems.
much more rapid progress and more efficient
Some observers believe that it would be use-
management. Some observers claim that tech-
ful to adopt management techniques used by
nology transfers out of black programs slowly,
other organizations that plan and manage
if at all, but others claim that much of the tech-
R&D activities, such as private corporations
nology in black programs came from “white”
and foreign governments. They claim that
programs and only became highly classified
some of these organizations are better than
when potential applications were identified.5
DoD at setting and realizing technological
‘See, for example, Alice C. Maroni, “SpecialAccess Program
and the Defense Budget: Understanding the ‘‘Black Budget, ‘‘ If few people know about a project, there will be few opportuni-
Congressional Research Service, Issue Brief IB87201, Dec. 2, ties to envision other applications for the technology. Very lit-
1987, tle technology is born highly classified; it only becomes worth-
‘Of course, these contentions can only be verified by those while to limit access to information when its potential
with access to the black programs. However, both are logical. applications have been identified.

goals and moving technology forward into may be misallocated. Imbedded in this latter
products. Some in industry believe that DoD’s concern is a worry that tech base program
systems suffer from the lack of a chief techni- funding may not be adequately protected from
cal officer at a very high level, and from an em- “raiding” to support specific systems devel-
phasis on managing programs rather than set- opments that are well beyond the tech base.
ting policy. Similarly, there is concern that large develop-
ment programs like SD I or the Advanced Tac-
Some observers argue that DoD’s ability to
tical Fighter tend to drain funds from technol-
attract and keep skilled management person-
ogy base programs, and that the increasing
nel is declining. They point out that skilled peo-
emphasis on prototyping will be funded not
ple can work effectively within a flawed sys-
with new dollars, but out of the existing tech-
tem, but that even a perfect system cannot
nology base program. If the diversion of tech-
function well without top-quality people. They nology base budgets to support other pro-
see these problems flowing at least in part from
grams turns out to be a significant problem,
legislated restrictions on career paths, particu-
Congress may wish to consider taking mea-
larly those aimed at closing the “revolving
sures to protect technology base program
door” between industry and government. Peo-
ple may be willing to sacrifice salary to serve
their country, but are much less willing to sac- Gauging a proper level of technology base
rifice their careers. funding is difficult, as is the allocation of fund-
Congress faces some fundamental issues re- ing within that overall level. Since the output
garding technology base program manage- of a technology base program cannot be meas-
ment, including that of whether the DoD orga- ured with any precision, the effect of adding
nization needs yet another shakeup, or a radical or subtracting any particular sum of money
new management approach. Even if the sys- cannot be calculated as it could be for programs
tem is less than ideal, it may not make sense such as procurement or maintenance. Some ob-
to reorganize it frequently rather than allow servers believe that it is most important to
it to settle down and do its job. Congress will maintain a level of funding that is predictable
be making implicit or explicit decisions regard- and avoids dramatic fluctuations: constant
ing the extent to which it should be involved changes in funding make it difficult to attract
in detailed problems like organizing the DoD and keep staff.
staff or selecting R&D programs and specify- The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) ac-
ing their funding levels. Congress may wish counts for more than 40 percent of the tech-
to involve itself in the complex process of se- nology base funding, and almost all of the in-
lecting technologies to be pursued and deter- crease in technology base funding since 1981.
mining funding levels for each program. Al- But SDI is outside the system that controls
ternatively, it may choose to limit its role to the remainder of the technology base pro-
ensuring that the technology base programs grams. Major changes in SDI could have im-
have proper goals, adequate funding, and ca- plications for technology base funding as a
pable management. whole, particularly since many programs that
have more general utility are funded through
DoD Technology Base Funding SDI.
Intimately tied to the issue of how DoD If Congress sets, or endorses, guidelines on
manages its technology base programs is that basic R&D policy issues–such as the proper
of the funding levels for those programs. This balance within the program between the or-
is a more immediate issue, since Congress wres- derly exploration and exploitation of known
tles with the budget each year. There are con- phenomena and the search for new break-
cerns that current levels may be inappropri- throughs in areas that are not yet recognized–
ate, and that within the overall totals funding is there a straightforward methodology that

can be employed to determine the allocation sary functions, or functions that could be per-
of funding to implement those guidelines? formed more effectively elsewhere. Depending
on the answers to these questions, Congress
The Management of may wish to take measures to ensure more ef-
Government Laboratories ficient use of government laboratories—e.g.,
closing, merging, or consolidating facilities;
There is concern that the large array of gov- altering the command of Service laboratories;
ernment research institutions that contribute making greater use of non-DoD laboratories;
to the defense technology base does not form or setting up systems to enhance technology
a coherent system to support technology transfer.
needs. At issue is whether it could, and whether
Service R&D managers claim that it is be-
coherence is, on balance, desirable. There is also
coming more difficult for the Service labora-
concern that some reorganization or consoli-
tories to attract and keep top technical talent,
dation may be in order, particularly among the
and that the United States may be risking de-
DoD laboratories, and that they could func-
terioration of these important assets that have
tion more productively if the organizations
been built up over many years. Civil Service
that operate them—or their relationships to
salary scales, never competitive with industry,
those organizations—were changed.
are now in many instances not competitive
Many of the Service laboratories are at- with academia either. Aging physical plants
tached to systems commands with charters to are becoming increasingly less attractive rela-
develop specific classes of military hardware tive to industry and academia. Finally, gov-
(e.g., airplanes, communications equipment, ernment service is becoming less prestigious.
missiles). These laboratories are more like prod- If these trends continue, are there measures
uct centers run for their ‘customer’ than they that Congress could take to make defense lab-
are technology centers. Others, like the Naval oratories more attractive to top scientists and
Research Laboratory, which the Navy views engineers? Changing the management struc-
as a corporate lab and not a product lab, have ture of these laboratories to allow compensa-
greater latitude in their technical programs. tion beyond that permitted under Civil Serv-
There is concern that important areas of tech- ice rules has been suggested. This is being tried
nology may be overlooked because of the nar- on a limited basis at the Naval Weapons Cen-
row focus of parent organizations, and that ter (China Lake).
innovative technologies that might ultimately
benefit the overall mission of the command will Foreign Dependence
be overlooked because they do not support the
This issue is intimately bound up with the
current major products of that command. Fur- next two—erosion of important civilian high-
thermore, unlike the contractor-operated De-
technology industries and problems in the de-
partment of Energy laboratories, DoD’s lab-
fense industries. The United States is part of
oratories appear to have a relatively difficult
a global economy, particularly in high-technol-
time shifting as the focus of technology shifts, ogy industries. Foreign components are engi-
or otherwise adapting to change. Others be- neered into important defense systems, and
lieve that a product focus is necessary and
other nations lead us in some areas of technol-
proper if the labs are to produce anything use-
ogy that are key to building defense systems.
ful, pointing out that ultimately the task is to
This is, at least in part, a result of the success
put systems into the field. They claim that
of post-war U.S. policy to build up the econ-
many labs are not responsive enough.
omies of friendly states. Many economists ar-
The actions that Congress may wish to take gue that the United States has no choice but
will depend on understanding whether there to buy what it wants on a dynamic global mar-
are laboratories with unnecessarily redundant ket, and that to do otherwise will have major
programs, substandard programs, unnecess- adverse effects on our own economy.

But we are caught on the horns of a dilemma. But this dependence risks cut-off of supplies
The least-risk approach from a national secu- for either economic or political reasons. For-
rity perspective is to satisfy all our needs from eign high-technology companies may be reluc-
domestic suppliers, so that our ability to get tant to commit resources to design specific
what we need is under U.S. control alone. This items required by DoD when they find it more
is, however, almost certainly not the least-cost profitable to turn their energies in other direc-
approach. And it may ultimately risk losing tions. If the United States lacks a base of tech-
access to important technology that either is nical knowhow in a particular technological dis-
not developed here or can only be developed cipline in which foreign sources cannot be
here at a prohibitive cost or with a significant induced to make developments in militarily sig-
delay. Saving money through foreign sourc- nificant directions, the Nation would be faced
ing, while generally appealing as a principle, with a choice between stimulating domestic
can become much less attractive on a case-by- development or doing without the desired tech-
case basis when the specific economic impacts nology.
of funding a foreign project rather than its
If other nations dominate industries based
American alternative are examined.
on technologies that are important to U.S. de-
Thus, some argue that the United States is fense efforts, the United States will have to
becoming (or is in danger of becoming) too de- decide either to buy what it needs from for-
pendent on others for our defense technology. eign sources, or to invest whatever is neces-
Others take the opposite position, that we are sary to develop and keep a viable domestic
missing out by failing to take full advantage technology and production base. This latter
of the technological capabilities of our friends approach might involve inefficient measures
and allies. to ensure domestic markets for domestic sup-
Foreign dependence can be helpful and de-
Ultimately, interdependence among nations
sirable, harmful and avoidable, or just unavoid- may prove more advantageous to the United
able. In general, it is a mixture of all of these,
States than dependence on others. As the
complicating policy formulation. In a perfectly
United States gets more deeply involved in
competitive world market, exploiting the tech-
reciprocal buy/sell relationships with its allies
nology of our allies would permit a more effi-
(particularly those with whom we have formal
cient division of labor, with each nation con-
alliance ties), the risk inherent in relying on
centrating its technological efforts on what it foreign suppliers is mitigated by mutual and
does best, rather than duplicating effort and interlocking military and economic depen-
spreading national resources too thin. It would
dence. Ties and interdependence are the polit-
allow us to exploit superior foreign technology
ical basis of alliance cohesion. This is qualita-
where it exists, by contracting for foreign tech-
tively different from a situation in which the
nology development, licensing foreign technol-
United States buys high-technology products
ogy, or buying foreign products. In the real in the international marketplace, and is at the
world of today’s marketplace, realizing these
mercy of the policies (or whims) of other
benefits may require taking measures to en-
sure that the U.S. share of this pie is main-
tained. Some observers have suggested that Interdependence appears to be increasing in
the United States make a serious effort to both the defense and commercial sectors.
exploit foreign technology by establishing Within NATO, the United States participates
organizations to target, transfer, and exploit in a number of groups working on cooperative
leading edge foreign technology. This might development programs, and is involved in sev-
include reverse engineering of foreign products eral major international development pro-
(i.e., analyzing them to understand how they grams. The international nature of high-tech-
are designed). nology industry has led to interdependence

among companies in various countries for com- ures that will preserve a domestic technology
ponents and finished products. base despite market forces?

Congress is faced with the complex issues “Dual-Use” Civilian

of whether the United States should: 1) exploit High-Tech Industries
foreign technology to a greater degree; 2) look
for ways to reduce foreign dependence; or 3) The foreign dependence problem is most pro-
encourage development of strategic U.S. high- nounced in those industries—e.g., semiconduc-
technology capabilities, insulating them from tors, computers, machine tools, structural ma-
foreign competition, or at least preventing terials, and optics— that are vital lower tier
damage from unfair competition. A basic pol- suppliers for defense projects, but do most of
icy issue is how much the United States should their business in the commercial marketplace.
become involved in cooperative defense pro- These industries are the sources of much of
grams, thereby increasing its dependence on the innovation in their fields. But the Depart-
allies and third parties for military technology. ment of Defense has relatively little influence
The United States will also have to decide how over them.
to respond to the movement offshore of high-
The degree of foreign dependence varies from
technology industries that ultimately supply
key technologies to defense systems, and to industry to industry. In some, such as semi-
foreign ownership of U.S. high-technology conductors and machine tools, foreign compa-
companies. nies hold a majority of the market and control
a major share of the technology. In industries
like computers and materials, the United
Resolving these issues will involve under- States still holds a decisive lead in the tech-
standing whether, on balance, it is in the na- nology, but foreign companies are taking an
tional interest to rely on friends and allies for increasing share of the market. As the market
selected military technologies and to allow shares move to foreign companies, the tech-
those capabilities to diminish in the United nology is likely to follow. In the past, many
States. This will, in turn, depend on how con- major technologies began in the defense sec-
fident we are that our friends will remain our tor and expanded into commercial markets, re-
friends and technology will remain available. ducing DoD’s share and leverage. This pattern
Fostering economic, political, and defense in- is still strong, although perhaps not as preva-
terdependence may help. It will also depend lent as it once was.
on developing criteria to identify those areas
in which increased foreign dependence would These industries are strongly influenced by
be desirable or undesirable, and on determin- the global market. If political or market forces
ing the risks to national security of certain move them toward foreign manufacture, for-
technologies moving offshore. Ultimately, the eign management, or foreign ownership, or
United States will have to identify those tech- away from developments of interest to defense,
nologies for which it is most important to main- that is where they are likely to go. There is a
tain a domestic technology base. It maybe that twofold danger in this. First, defense contrac-
some technologies are so important to national tors may find it increasingly difficult to ob-
security that the United States cannot accept tain the latest high-technology products. Some
foreign dependence under any circumstances. U.S. manufacturers believe that foreign sup-
This may be particularly so in the case of tech- pliers of machine tools and computer parts sell
nologies that are important to many systems. U.S. companies products employing technol-
Some believe that dependence for any impor- ogy that is 2 to 3 years behind that of the prod-
tant military technology is unacceptable. Real- ucts they sell their domestic customers. Sec-
istically, what are the options to stop this ond, DoD may find it increasingly difficult to
movement and/or to take compensatory meas- induce those foreign companies that dominate

a technology to use their R&D talents to de- Most modern industrial nations have indus-
velop specialized devices for military applica- trial policies and specific bureaucratic organi-
tions that are remote from most of their busi- zations responsible for industry. The move-
ness. Ultimately, if the technical expertise ment of high-technology industries offshore
moves entirely out of the United States, the can be attributed, at least in part, to other gov-
Services would have little idea what new tech- ernments following policies that nurture these
nical developments they should request of the industries more effectively than do U.S. pol-
foreign suppliers. This latter stage would mean icies. Partnerships with industry, and the avail-
an obvious decline in U.S. technological leader- ability of ‘patient capital, which encourages
ship over the Soviets, and to some degree a long-term results rather than short-term re-
leveling of U.S. and Soviet access to the same turns, are examples of the ways in which other
advanced technology. governments encourage their industries. De-
veloping and marketing high-technology prod-
The government faces two problems with re-
ucts tends to be capital-intensive. The cost and
gard to these industries. First, from both de-
availability of capital affect both the ability
fense and national economic perspectives, it
of companies to undertake long-term develop-
faces the problem of keeping these industries
ments (which pay off handsomely but not soon)
viable here in the United States. Second, it has
and their ability to rush a product to market
the problem of keeping the companies inter-
once it is ready. The schedule for bringing a
ested in doing business with the Department
product to market can have a major effect on
of Defense.
its share of the market. Some observers believe
A number of rules and regulations pertain- that the United States should be building the
ing to doing business with the Department of structure for a government-industry partner-
Defense inhibit companies from seeking gov- hip to replace the current adversarial relation-
ernment business and limit the flow of com- ship. As Congress grapples with these prob-
mercial products into defense systems. Inno- lems, it will be important to understand the
vative small- and medium-sized companies are relationship between government policies and
particularly discouraged by conditions such as the deterioration of domestic high-technology
close scrutiny of their business, “red tape, ” industries that are important for defense. Are
and regulation of profits. Military specifica- there realistic policy options that could reverse
tions (MILSPECs) can have much the same these trends?
effect, keeping out high-technology products
that might be able to do the job but have not This problem will raise before Congress the
been designed to meet a complex list of speci- issue of whether the United States should have
fications. These regulations by and large serve a more active national industrial strategy, and
useful functions, but their utility should be if so, what it should be, and what government
weighed against the roles they play in keep- agency should be responsible for it. It will be
ing companies and products out of defense.6 necessary to determine how defense needs
They have served to create a situation where would be taken into account and balanced
experience in doing business with the govern- against other needs in the formulation and im-
ment is an important company asset in com- plementation of that policy. Should the United
peting for more government business, and lack States seek to maintain a viable domestic base
of such experience is a major obstacle to com- for all industrial technologies that are of value
panies trying to enter the market. Indeed, for defense? Or would it make more sense to
within some companies separations exist be- stimulate the international competitiveness of
tween divisions that sell to the government and some U.S. industries and rely on the world mar-
those that do commercial business, stifling the ket to meet the needs U.S. companies cannot
transfer of technology within the company. provide? If the former is chosen, should the
United States attempt to maintain, through
‘Some in industry see many of these regulations as unfair. government-funded projects, technical capa-

bilities that are being lost in the commercial modern manufacturing technology and what,
sector? if anything, should be done to stimulate these
companies to develop and invest in better man-
Defense Industries ufacturing technology. Related issues are
whether (and how) government policies inhibit
For most technical developments of military the transfer of technology to defense compa-
significance, the road from laboratory to field nies, discourage the entry of innovative com-
runs through the large defense contractors. panies into defense work, or encourage short-
Each of these companies can perform a vari- term planning rather than long-term planning.
ety of important tasks, but their major roles What options are available to correct these
are as prime system integrators, the compa- problems?
nies that assemble the products of subcontrac-
tors and component developers into finished The IR&D (independent research and devel-
missiles, airplanes, submarines, etc. These opment) program has been controversial, espe-
companies, which both consume and develop cially within Congress, for many years. IR&D
new technology, have a unique niche in the allows companies to recover some part of the
economy, which results in unique business con- cost of research programs initiated and funded
ditions. by the company by treating it as a cost of do-
ing business with, and developing products for,
There is longstanding concern that these the Department of Defense. The cost is recov-
conditions can inhibit technical development ered as an allowable expense, similar to over-
and efficient application of new technology. head, in contracts with DoD.7 The companies
Like many corporations selling in the commer- decide what areas to work in and keep the com-
cial market, defense contractors in the last few mercial rights to their work. DoD judges the
years have tended to plan for the short term relevance of the work to defense needs and de-
rather than the long term. This de-emphasizes cides how much of the cost can be recovered,
the value of investing in new technology which within an overall ceiling set by Congress. The
may only pay off 5, 10, or more years down- remainder of the company’s R&D costs are
stream. funded out of corporate profits.
Government procurement habits tend to In the view of the participating companies
reinforce this mode of planning. The method and other experts, IR&D benefits DoD because
of government contracting has also tended to it allows the companies to stay current in areas
discourage both plant modernization and prod- of technology that are important to defense,
uct innovation: the higher costs of operating and it encourages the generation of research
inefficient plants can be charged to the cus- ideas by company scientists and engineers.
tomer, but the risk of failure due to trying new IR&D is treated very seriously by most com-
technology cannot. Much of the benefits from panies and receives high-level corporate scru-
plant improvements–particularly large-scale tiny. Industry spokesmen point to long lists
improvements that pay back over relatively of specific systems that have originated in
long terms —accrue to the government, further work funded through IR&D. The companies
decreasing incentives for companies to fund contrast this to contract research-which they
such improvements. Of course, a company that also do—in which, for the most part, govern-
can bid lower costs, because it will employ mod- ment officials decide what areas to pursue, and
ern manufacturing technology or can produce exercise greater control over research projects.
a more capable product due to better technol- The companies are concerned that what they
ogy, has an advantage in the competition for see as overcontrol by DoD will strangle IR&D.
a contract. But it risks losses if it loses the com-
petition despite investing in better technology. ‘The results of IR&D recovery (reimbursement) improve a com-
pany’s competitive position by improving its technology base,
Congress may wish to consider whether gov- but the addition to the company’s cost basis reduces its com-
ernment policies are inhibiting investment in petitiveness on future contracts.

DoD, on the other hand, is concerned about become scientists and engineers has fallen be-
keeping IR&D relevant to defense needs. The hind that of our allies and the Soviet Union.
program tends to create friction between OSD Furthermore, a large percentage of graduate
—which supports the latitude for innovation students studying technical disciplines in the
that IR&D is supposed to provide–and the United States are foreign nationals, often sup-
Services, who want greater control over how ported by State and Federal grants and subsi-
their money is spent. Both DoD and industry dies. Although about two-thirds remain in the
agree that one benefit of the IR&D program United States at least 5 years after complet-
is the communication it forces between gov- ing their degrees, many go home once their edu-
ernment and industry researchers. cation is complete (or a few years thereafter),
and contribute their talents to foreign compa-
Congressional and other critics see IR&D as
nies competing with U.S. high-technology com-
little more than a government giveaway, let-
panies. As long as these foreign nationals re-
ting the companies bill the government for ex-
penses they would incur anyway. They assert main in the United States, they contribute to
that the program is being abused. There is also the technology base. The fact that so many
choose to study in the United States is an in-
concern that the incentives of the IR&D pro-
dication of the quality of U.S. technological
gram are oriented toward short-term applica-
tions in which relevance can be demonstrated
and cost recovered quickly, rather than to long-
term advanced technology. One significant This raises the issue of whether there is a
problem of IR&D is its complexity: even if all need for additional scientific and engineering
parties could agree that its goals are worth- manpower-either across the board or in se-
while, understanding the mechanisms of the lected disciplines–to satisfy both national
program is very difficult. Some have suggested security and commercial needs, and if so, what
that the IR&D program be abolished in favor steps Congress could take to increase the sup-
of simpler means to support company-initiated ply. These might include measures to increase
R&D. the attractiveness of science and engineering
careers to U.S. citizens, and measures to in-
Supply of Scientists and Engineers crease the general quality of education. Con-
gress may wish to consider the role of foreign
Ultimately, a vibrant domestic defense tech- nationals in the defense technology base, and
nology base depends on a steady supply of whether steps are necessary to influence the
highly capable scientists and engineers. Yet number of foreign graduate students in U.S.
in recent years the rate at which U.S. citizens universities.


An important element of getting new tech- cited the VHSIC program as an example of
nology quickly into the field is how well the DoD’s failure to get new technology rapidly
technology base can be exploited. Indeed, some into the field:
observers believe that the major problems lie
While over 60 systems have VHSIC prod-
not in developing or maintaining the technol- ucts in their plans, VHSIC parts are only in
ogy base, but in exploiting it, and that the ma- one current, deployed system . . , The technol-
jor source of delay in getting technology from ogy is available and proven; and the Japanese
the laboratory to the field is not producing and are already using equivalent technology in
developing the technology, but successfully de- commercial applications . . .8
signing it into military systems once it has
been developed. Dr. Robert Costello, the Un-
dersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, has 8Quoted in Defense Daily, Dec. 3, 1987, p.203.

Exploiting the technology base is not, nology they know in order to minimize risks
strictly speaking, part of maintaining it. But of schedule slippage.
in practice, the two are inseparable. No clear
line separates developing technology from de- One proposed solution is to insert new tech-
veloping technology for applications. Part of nology in retrofits to existing systems. Retro-
creating a technology is developing the means fitting takes less time than new developments
to build something based on that technology. and, therefore, gets the technology into the
It is precisely in this area of manufacturing field faster. It also has the advantage of up-
technology that many observers believe the grading fielded capabilities without waiting for
United States has sustained the greatest losses a new generation of major equipment.
in technological capability. They believe that
the United States is not so much slipping in A related approach is to include new tech-
applied science and the development of prod- nology in scheduled block upgrades of systems
uct technology, as it is in the craft and know- in production. Introducing new technology
how of manufacturing devices: process tech- subsystems would not have to wait for the de-
nology must develop along with product tech- sign and introduction of an entire new genera-
nology if the product technology is to appear tion of the major system. A company that is
in actual devices. Moreover, designing a new now building a particular fighter airplane
technological advance into a useful device is might also be working on an upgraded design
itself a technology and may draw on several that it would switch over to in a year or two.
disciplines. For example, now that materials Both of these approaches are now used to some
having superconducting properties at rela- extent. Both require some degree of prior plan-
tively high temperatures can be produced, the ning to ensure that new technology can be in-
search is on both to find applications for these serted with minimum disruption.
materials, and to fabricate them into useful
Yet another approach is through the organi-
zational links between technology and systems
A related problem is that many program development. For example, the Air Force has
managers are reluctant to design new technol- reorganized its technology base programs to
ogy into their systems. Over the several years be closely linked to the systems commands
it takes a system to go through full-scale de- which are responsible for developing and buy-
velopment and into production, the technol- ing equipment. This is an approach with at-
ogy in some of its subsystems and components tractive features, because it is supposed to
is likely to fall behind the state of the art, espe- make program managers more aware of new
cially in areas that are evolving rapidly. Ig- technology and make technology development
noring new technology results in a system that more responsive to the needs of program de-
is behind the leading edge, but changing the velopment, thereby speeding the introduction
system to include new technology will intro- of technology into systems. But linking tech-
duce delays. Adding, new technology carries nology too closely to development also risks
a risk that unforeseen factors will lead to ad- stifling creativity-especially in areas that pro-
ditional delays. Thus, Service program man- gram managers do not currently recognize as
agers have incentives to stay with the tech- being relevant to their missions.


The Defense Department’s ability to man- fiscal year 1988 DoD invested $8.6 billion in
age its technology base programs is central to technology base activities. (See table 1.) One-
maintaining the defense technology base. In third of the work was conducted “in-house;”

Table 1 .—Department of Defense Fiscal Year 1988 Funding of Technology Base Programs
(in millions of dollars)

Army Navy Air Force DARPA Total

Research (6,1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $169 $342 $198 $83 $ 902’
Exploratory development (6.2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $556 $408 $557 $512 $2,033
Advanced exploratory development . . . . . . . . . $319 $227 $754 $202 $1,502
Total services and DARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,437
Strategic Defense Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,604
Other defense agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 564
Total DoD technology base programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8,605
aThis sum Includes $I1O miflion forthe URl which OSD has not yet allocated among the three SWViCes and DARPA.
SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment, 1988, from data supplied by the Officeof the Secretaryof Defense

more than half was contracted to industry,and bility for all RDT&E activities except those
universities performed the rest. Efficient man- of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organiza-
agement of the program-deciding what tech- tion (SDIO), which reports directly to the Sec-
nology base policy is, allocating resources to retary. For the Services, the principal focus
implement that policy, avoiding unnecessary for this guidance and the principal point of
duplication of effort, and ensuring that impor- contact is the Deputy Under Secretary of De-
tant areas donot’’fallbetween the cracks’’that fense for Research and Advanced Technology
separate the elements of the program--will be- (DUSD(R&AT)), a deputy to the Under Secre-
come all the more important if budgets become tary of Defense for Acquisition. After the Serv-
increasingly constrained. ices have formulated their programs, the role
of the DUSD(R&AT) is to structure the over-
Generally speaking, each Service depart- all program across service lines in order to elim-
ment assembles a technology base program to inate gaps and overlaps, and enhance the re-
suit its particular needs. OSD exercises over- turn on investment. DUSD(R&AT) works
sight, and attempts to ensure that these pro- continually with the services to help them
grams are balanced and coordinated into a co- achieve mutual interests and balance in their
herent whole with those of the defense agencies science and technology programs. DUSD
and the Strategic Defense Initiative Organiza- (R&AT) coordinates activities with other gov-
tion (which accounts for over 40 percent of ernment agencies and the scientific com-
DoD’s technology base program funding). How munity.
all this works in detail is rooted in the struc-
tures of the various organizations within OSD Although DUSD(R&AT) is involved in co-
and the Services that make R&D policy, but ordinating Service programs with those of
is not entirely determined by them. These DARPA and the other defense agencies, he
structures are still undergoing reorganization does not have oversight for the technology
in the wake of the Goldwater-Nichols Reorgani- base programs of the defense agencies. How-
zation Act (Public Law 99-433). Consequently, ever, since DARPA contracts most of its pro-
what follows may well change in the months grams through the Services, much of its effort
ahead. Once the structures are settled, it may in fact receives DUSD(R&AT) oversight. The
take even more time for the process to adjust DUSD(R&AT) and the directors of all the de-
to the structure. fense agencies except DARPA report directly
to the Director of Defense Research and Engi-
The three Services and the defense agencies neering (DDR&E), who reports to the Under
(particularly the Defense Advanced Research Secretary for Acquisition. The Director of
Projects Agency (DARPA)) formulate their DARPA is also the Assistant Secretary of De-
technology base programs with overall guid- fense for Research and Technology (ASD(R&T))
ance from OSD. The Under Secretary of De- and reports directly to the Under Secretary
fense for Acquisition has principal responsi- for Acquisition.

DUSD(R&AT) runs some programs directly. were run by the “buying commands” such as
The Computer and Electronics Technology the Naval Air Systems Command and the Na-
Directorate of the DUSD(R&AT) manages: the val Sea Systems Command. The decisions re-
Very High Speed Integrated Circuit (VHSIC) garding 6.2 work to be done in SPAWAR lab-
program; the Microwave/Millimeter Wave oratories are made by the Office of Naval
Monolithic Integrated Circuit (MIMIC) pro- Technology. Of the three Services, the Navy
gram; and the Software Technology for Adapt- has the smallest advanced technology demon-
able Reliable Systems (STARS) program. stration (6.3A) program; it is run directly by
the Office of the CNO (OPNAV).
The three Service departments maintain
structures for managing their technology base In contrast to the Navy’s program, which
programs that are similar in some ways, but is structured for finding and developing new
nonetheless have significant differences. Each technology of use to naval missions, the Air
has been planned to take into account the pe- Force structure puts greater emphasis on get-
culiar needs of the Service, and each is rooted ting technology into the field. The Air Force
in its own history. Each of the Services con- 6.3A program, which the Air Force sees as
ducts an annual “top down, bottom up” plan- transition money, is five times as large as the
ning exercise. From the top, each receives Navy 6.3A budget. The technology base pro-
OSD’s annual Defense Guidance Manual (as grams are run by Systems Command, the in-
well as specific Service guidance), and from the dividual divisions of which are the Air Force’s
bottom each research institution contributes “buying commands. ” These divisions run the
a technology base plan. Outside advisory laboratories which conduct and manage the 6.2
groups and in-house technical directors and and 6.3A programs. Roughly two-thirds of the
staffs also contribute. Planning includes a re- work is contracted out. The 6.1 programs are
view and evaluation of the previous year’s pro- administered by the Air Force Office of Scien-
grams. It culminates with decisions to start tific Research, which is also part of Systems
new programs, continue or terminate existing Command. Within Systems Command, the
programs, or transition programs into a new Deputy Chief of Staff for Technology and Plans
category (e.g., from 6.1 to 6.2). has oversight responsibility for the science and
technology programs, but these programs
Of the three Services, the Navy has removed must be approved by the Director of Science
its technology base management institutions and Technology Programs in the Office of the
farthest from its procurement institutions. But Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Ac-
relevance to Navy needs remains a powerful
quisition. The Air Force has recently taken a
factor in selecting projects, particularly those
decision to treat its technology base program
beyond 6.1. Although it has the smallest over- as a “corporate investment’ that deserves a
all technology base program, it has the largest fixed fraction of the total Air Force budget.
research (6. 1) program, and performs the larg-
est fraction of the work in-house. The 6.1 and The Army’s structure is perhaps the most
6.2 programs are run, respectively, by the Of- complicated and decentralized of the three
fice of Naval Research and the Office of Naval Services. The Army has the smallest headquar-
Technology, both of which report to the Chief ters staff and relies the most on elements out-
of Naval Research, who in turn reports directly side headquarters to run the technology base
to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and the programs. Some aspects of the Army system
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, are analogous to the Air Force system, while
Engineering, and Systems. Some Navy labora- others are similar to the Navy ’s. About three-
tories are run by the Office of Naval Research fourths of the science and technology programs
and others are run by the Space and Naval are run by the Army Materiel Command (AMC);
Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR), other S&T programs are run by the Surgeon
which also reports directly to the CNO. Until General of the Army, the Corps of Engineers,
recently the laboratories now run by SPAWAR and the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for

Personnel. The offices within these organiza- mission-specific “buying commands, ” which
tions that are responsible for the S&T pro- run laboratories and technology base pro-
grams all report for oversight by Army head- grams, and Laboratory Command (LABCOM)
quarters to the Deputy for Technology and which, like the Office of Naval Research, runs
Assessment who, in turn, reports to the com- laboratories and conducts generic research.
bined Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Under LABCOM, the Army Research Office
Army for Research, Development, and Acqui- is responsible for AMC’s 6.1 programs. Unlike
sition (RD&A) and the Deputy Chief of Staff the Office of Naval Research, the Army Re-
for RD&A. Within the Office of the Deputy search Office has no in-house capabilities and
for Technology and Assessment, it is the Di- contracts all of its work out.
rector of Research and Technology who has
responsibility for planning and coordinating
the entire technology base program. The Army
Materiel Command is analogous to the Air
Force Systems Command.9 It is organized into
The Navy equivalent, the Naval Material Command, was elim-
inated a few years ago in a reorganization. The component
commands-e. g., the Naval Air Systems Command-now re-
port directly to the CNO.


Nearly 200 Federal Government labora- tories that are focused on generic research and
tories, research and engineering centers, activ- development, primarily at the 6.2 and 6.3
ities, and test facilities contribute to the de- levels. The Army’s research (6.1) program is
fense technology base. About 65 of these play almost entirely contracted out. Some of the
a major role. Of these major centers, roughly mission-specific centers are more influential
50 belong to the Army, Navy, and Air Force than LABCOM, and greatly influence the
Departments, and the rest are run by the De- structure and priorities of the Army S&T
partment of Energy, the Department of Com- program.
merce, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). Many of the Depart- LABCOM runs the Electronic Technology
ment of Energy laboratories are Government and Devices Laboratory, the Materials Tech-
Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO) facilities, nology Laboratory, the Human Engineering
permitting the hiring of personnel outside the Laboratory (the Army’s lead lab for man-
Civil Service system. The defense agencies do machine interface and robotics), the Ballistic
not operate laboratories; however, DARPA Research Laboratory, the Atmospheric Science
maintains a close liaison with some Service lab- Laboratory, and the Vulnerability Assess-
oratories. ments Laboratory. It also runs Harry Dia-
mond Laboratories, which is involved in a va-
Army riety of areas including ordnance electronics,
electromagnetic effects, and advanced elec-
Within the Army Materiel Command, six tronics devices. These laboratories do most of
“mission specific’ systems commands run re- their work in-house, but contract out a sub-
search, development, and engineering centers stantial portion.
that conduct exploratory and advanced tech-
nology development into areas that are specific The facilities belonging to the systems com-
to the command’s mission, while the Labora- mands conduct some exploratory develop-
tory Command (LABCOM) operates labora- ment, but the main thrust is toward the ‘‘ma-

ture” end of the S&T program, leading to computer science, artificial intelligence, device
components, products, and systems. These technology, electronic warfare, radar, materi-
centers conduct some in-house work, but the als, directed energy, sensor technology, space
bulk is contracted out. For the most part, they technology, and undersea technology.
bear the names of their parent commands, and
Aside from ONR’s laboratories, all Navy de-
their missions are specified by their names: the
velopment centers and activities are assigned
Armaments, Munitions, and Chemical Com-
to the Space and Naval Warfare Command.
mand; the Aviation Systems Command; the
Although these facilities perform 6.2 and 6.3A
Missile Command; the Tank Automotive Com- work, the emphasis is on development. The ma-
mand; the Communications Electronics Com-
jor centers are the Naval Air Development Cen-
mand; and the Troop Support Command. 10 The
ter, the Naval Ocean Systems Center, the Na-
Missile Command Research and Development
val Weapons Center, the Naval Ship Research
and Engineering Center has the capability to
and Development Center, the Naval Surface
carry a concept nearly to production almost Warfare Center, the Naval Undersea Systems
without outside help. The Night Vision and
Center, and the Naval Coastal Systems Cen-
Electro-optical Laboratory, run by the Com-
ter. Science and technology programs in these
munications Electronics Command, is a rec-
centers include electro-optics, acoustics, micro-
ognized leader in infrared and other night vi-
waves, artificial intelligence and knowledge-
sion devices for all three Services. based systems, ocean science, bioscience, elec-
tronic materials, structural materials, ship
Navy magnetics, hydrodynamics, and charged par-
The in-house R&D capabilities of many Navy ticle beams.
laboratories are substantial, through the tech
base and into full-scale engineering develop- Air Force
ment. Some can carry a system through de-
velopment and almost to production, like the All of the Air Force laboratories are run by
Army’s Missile Commmand Research and De- the systems divisions of Systems Command—
velopment and Enginering Center does. At Armaments Division, Aeronautical Systems
least one Navy laboratory–the Naval Re- Division, Electronic Systems Division, Space
search Laboratory—does a substantial part of Division, and Human Systems Division—in
its work as the result of proposals by lab per- support of the division’s specific mission. Ex-
sonnel to conduct R&D for the other Services ploratory and advanced development (6.2 and
and other parts of the government. The Na- 6.3A) are funded directly by the divisions, while
val Weapons Center has developed major mis- research (6.1) is funded and managed by the
sile systems to the production stage. Air Force Office of Scientific Research. The
centers are the Air Force Armaments Labora-
The Office of Naval Research oversees the tory, the Rome Air Development Center, the
activities of several laboratories—including the Geophysics Laboratory, the Air Force Weap-
Naval Research Laboratory, the Naval Ocean ons Laboratory, the Air Force Astronautics
Research and Development Center, and the Laboratory, the Human Resources Labora-
Naval Environmental Prediction Research Fa- tory, the Aeromedical Laboratory, and the
cility. The Naval Research Laboratory is the Wright Aeronautical Laboratories. The Wright
Navy’s principal research laboratory and, in Aeronautical Laboratories is a cluster which
some areas, DoD’s. It conducts a broad-based includes the Aeropropulsion Laboratory, the
program that includes such diverse fields as Avionics Laboratory, the Flight Dynamics
Laboratory, and the Materials Laboratory.
‘°For example, the Armaments, Munitions, and Chemical Com- Managed outside Systems Command, but co-
mand runs the Armament Research, Development, and Engi-
neering Center and the Chemical Research, Development, and ordinated with it, is the Air Force Engineer-
Engineering Center. ing and Services Laboratory.

Department of Energy ter, the Marshall Space Flight Center, the

Johnson Space Center, the Kennedy Space
The Department of Energy’s laboratory sys- Center, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
tem, established during World War II to de- These centers conduct work in aeronautics,
velop nuclear weapons, has grown dramatically space, communications, propulsion, and com-
in scope and size. About 60 institutions em- puters, among other fields.
ploying 135,000 people and having a replace-
ment cost of about $50 billion conduct research
into physics, chemistry, cosmology, biology, Other Federal S&T Activities
the ecosystem, geology, mathematics, comput-
ing, and medicine, as well as a broad range of By far, the majority of federal science and
technologies that spring from these disciplines. technology activities with potential defense ap-
Nine multiprogram laboratories and 30 spe- plications are conducted within DoD, DOE,
cialized laboratories are involved in these fun- and NASA. There are pockets of activity
damental science and technology activities. within other agencies that can, and do, con-
These laboratories maintain close ties with aca- tribute to the defense technology base.
demic researchers, often subsidizing part of The National Science Foundation funds
their work at the DOE facilities. three times as much university research as
A primary focus of DOE work for national DoD. But NSF conducts no research of its own,
defense is the nuclear weapons programs. and does not contract for research; it funds un-
Moreover, some of the major multiprogram solicited proposals. NSF supports research
laboratories–Sandia National Laboratory, projects in almost every area of science and
Los Alamos National Laboratory, Lawrence technology.
Livermore National Laboratory, and Oak The Commerce Department’s National Bu-
Ridge National Laboratory–do 10 to 15 per- reau of Standards conducts a number of ap-
cent of their work under contract to DoD on plied research projects that contribute to the
defense related research not directly related defense technology base. NBS researchers, in
to nuclear weapons, and most of their work is partnership with others from industry, gov-
available for exploitation by DoD or its con- ernment, or academia, investigate areas such
tractors. Several other laboratories—Argonne, as electronic technology, information process-
Brookhaven, Lawrence Berkeley, Idaho Na- ing, biotechnology, chemistry, and manufac-
tional Engineering Laboratory, and Pacific turing technology. This partnership arrange-
Northwest Laboratory–do little or no work ment is designed to get the technologies
for DoD, although they do basic and applied quickly into applications. NBS technical work
research that is available for exploitation for is carried out in the National Measurement
defense purposes. Laboratory, the National Engineering Labora-
tory, the Institute for Computer Sciences and
The National Aeronautics and Space Technology, and the Institute for Materials
Administration (NASA) Science and Engineering.
NASA runs a number of major facilities, The Department of Transportation-partic-
many of which are dedicated almost exclu- ularly the Federal Aviation Administration
sively to the design and testing of space-launch and the Coast Guard-the Department of Agri-
systems and space systems. Several others, culture, the Department of Interior’s U.S. Geo-
while they also support the space program, logical Survey, and the National Ocean and
have a broader mandate. The major NASA Atmospheric Administration all share inter-
field centers are the Ames Research Center, ests with DoD, and conduct some research and
the Lewis Research Center, the Langley Re- development with potential defense appli-
search Center, the Goddard Space Flight Cen- cations.

University Research Programs its new programs for university research; many
more requests have been received than could
University laboratories perform a substan- be funded. The two most significant are the
tial portion of the basic and applied research University Research Instrumentation Pro-
conducted in the United States. They work in gram, to upgrade laboratory equipment, and
all areas of basic research and most areas of the University Research Initiative, most of
applied research and exploratory technology. which goes to multidisciplinary research pro-
University research is an area of potentially grams and programs to promote scientific
high leverage for DoD, since DoD funds less training. DOD has also put money into creat-
than 25 percent of it, but has access to almost ing university “centers of excellence” in
all of it. DoD has generated great interest in selected disciplines.

83-207 - 0 - 88 - 2
Part II

Background and Analysis

Chapter 3
Maintaining Defense Technology
Capacity: Policy Overview


The technology base on which our defensive may presage or necessitate large-scale altera-
strategy and capacities rest is a dynamic, in- tions in the way that business is conducted
teractive network of commercial and military within the Pentagon and in the military sec-
industries, laboratory facilities, sub-tier com- tor of the economy. Some analysts argue that
ponent suppliers, venture capitalists, science DoD will ultimately have to adapt its procure-
and engineering professionals, communication ment regulations and contracting procedures
systems, universities, data resources, and to accommodate private sector business prac-
design and manufacturing know-how. These tices if it is to draw efficiently on the vast re-
highly interrelated elements of the technology sources of the commercial economy. This would
base are driven by and react to international entail the elimination of many bureaucratic and
market forces and policies of foreign govern- regulatory barriers that have inhibited rela-
ments that cannot be precisely anticipated by tions between DoD and commercial industry
military or civilian planners, Congress, the ex- in the past. At a minimum, they suggest, DoD
ecutive branch, Wall Street, or anyone else. Yet would have to exchange military for commer-
Congress, even if it cannot exert close control, cial specifications where possible.
can do much to affect the general directions
in which the technology base moves—if it is The use of gallium arsenide (GaAs) wafers
clear about its objectives and willing to incur for semiconductor fabrication illustrates the
the costs. fluidity of technology transition among the
military, commercial, and dual-use sectors of
Conceptually, domestic technological struc-
the economy. GaAs wafer technology was de-
ture can be divided into four broad groupings:
veloped by the military because of specialized
1) technologies and industries that are defense
needs for higher speed processing and radia-
oriented, 2) those dual-use technologies that
tion hardness. Today, it is entering the dual-
respond both to defense and to commercial de-
use category as evidenced by increasing Japa-
mands, 3) those that are commercially domi-
nese commercial R&D and marketing of GaAs
nated, but are useful for some defense pur- processes and products. Japanese Government
poses, and 4) those that are purely commercial
and industrial sources predict that the mar-
in nature. There will always be extensive gray ket for GaAs and related compound semicon-
areas and overlaps when it comes to specific
ductors could exceed $5 billion by 1992.1 In
cases. It is also not unusual for particular tech-
such a market, the Defense Department would
nologies to start in one area and end up in
still be a major customer. But if the market
another. Historically, analysts have argued
for GaAs-related products and processes fol-
that the direction of the progression has been
lows the pattern set by silicon-based microelec-
predominantly from the defense sector into the
tronics, it would increase by an additional or-
dual-use arena. But there is substantial evi-
der of magnitude by the late 1990s and would
dence that the flow from commercial industry
become dominated by the commercial sector.
has increased markedly in recent years.
And in that case, significant barriers between
If this shift corresponds to a change in the
center of gravity for militarily relevant tech- ‘Richard C. Eden, et al., “Integrated Circuits: The Case for
nological innovation and development, then it Gallium Arsenide, ” IEEE Spectrum, December 1983, p. 33.


DoD and civilian suppliers-or a failure of U.S. many of the subsystems and components
GaAs producers to enter commercial markets would have much in common with a range of
—would have serious implications for the avail- commercial products. The subsystems that go
ability of such technologies for weapon sys- into brilliant guidance include computers, so-
tems in the future. phisticated microchips, sensors, mapping sys-
tems, and inertial guidance equipment. These
Each year the military Services compile lists
are usually produced to military specification
of key technologies that are critical to the na-
by second and third tier military subcontrac-
tional defense. These include such dual-use
tors. But if these subsystems are further dis-
items as fiber optics, high-temperature super-
aggregate, it is clear that some of the enabl-
conductivity, advanced semiconductors, very
ing and many of the pervasive2 technology
large-scale integrated (VLSI) circuit chips,
products will have been ordered off the shelf
supercomputing, biotechnology, and advanced
from suppliers whose business is primarily ori-
materials. These are pervasive technologies
ented toward civilian buyers.
that cannot easily be protected by special ar-
rangements between the prime defense con- The task of specifying technologies that are
tractors and the Department of Defense. In civilian or uniquely commercial is equally dif-
many cases, they depend on continuous inno- ficult. Even agricultural and medical technol-
vation on a scale that can only be stimulated ogies that are developed and marketed specif-
by the competitive forces and the massive ically to the commercial sector of the economy
capitalization generated by commercial mar- have military applications. Food produced by
kets. At the same time, national assets in dual- means of new fertilization, genetic alteration,
use technologies appear especially vulnerable and pest control technologies will be consumed
to erosion by world market forces as well as by soldiers. And many commercial medical
domestic fiscal, monetary, antitrust, and tax technologies, which are quickly adopted by mil-
policies which have tended to encourage off- itary doctors, would become even more valu-
shore production. able and critical to the Armed Services in time
of war.
An initial step in disaggregating the tech-
nology base is to isolate a specific technology The question is not whether a particular tech-
and ask how and to what degree it contributes nology contributes to national security or to
to the national security. Is the orientation pri- economic competitiveness goals, but rather,
marily to promote military security, or is it to what actions Congress can take to ensure that
contribute to economic competitiveness, or DoD will be able to obtain technology that is
both? When this exercise is conducted, some necessary for the national defense in the fu-
technologies appear uniquely military in char- ture. In part the policy question turns on the
acter, such as “brilliant” guidance, high-power issue of how the Department of Defense should
directed energy, and broad spectrum signature invest $170 billion annually in procurement
control. It is difficult to imagine civilian ap- and RTD&E to maximize military security. It
plications to which these technologies could is also a question of how best to stimulate and
profitably be put. Indeed, some are contra- organize the techno-industrial infrastructure
indicated, such as the application of stealth that supports both national economic and secu-
technologies to commercial aviation. rity goals.
But the matter does not end there. What the
military calls brilliant guidance is a subspecies ‘The term “enabling technology is used in some military cir-
of precision navigation, and precision naviga- cles to designate a technology that makes possible the develop-
tion technologies are used in commercial prod- ment of a specific weapons system, and “pervasive technologies”
are those that can be applied to more than one—hopefully
ucts. If the technology is traced backward from many—system concepts. Project Forecast 11, Find Report [u],
the military systems or prime contractor level, vol. 1, Director’s Report [u], June 1986, pp. 7-8.


In OTA’s discussions with OSD and the in- plement current policies may be insufficient
dividual Services, and with lab directors, aca- to manage effectively an enterprise of this mag-
demics, contractors, critics, businesspersons, nitude.
congressional staff, high-ranking military offi-
cials, and others, a wide array of questions and Stemming from this concern, recent discus-
concerns were voiced regarding the overall vi- sion has focused on four basic issues that af-
tality of the technology and industrial sectors fect the overall shape and functioning of sci-
on which the national defense relies. These are ence and technology programs within DoD.
grouped below in seven issue areas: 1) DoD First, is the question of how best to balance
technology base management, 2) funding for “technology push” against “requirements
DoD technology base programs, 3) manage- pull. ” On the requirements side, the basic
ment of government laboratories, 4) military thrust is to organize technology base programs
dependence on foreign technology, 5) health in response to the user and the situation he
of the dual-use sector, 6) problems in the de- will face under battlefield conditions. If the
fense industries, and 7) supply of scientists and warfighting requirement, for example, is for
engineers. firepower with a designated range and accu-
racy, then technologies can be refined or in-
DoD Technology Base vented for that purpose. Proponents of this ap-
Program Management proach often cite NASA’s Apollo Program as
a very successful example of requirements pull,
The fiscal year 1988 DoD Science and Tech- where the President specified the goal of put-
nology Program is an $8.6 billion enterprise ting a man on the moon, and technologies were
involving a complex matrix of DoD labora- developed to satisfy that requirement.
tories, research and development centers,
Critics contend that requirements pull and
universities, non-profit organizations, and in-
relevance tests dominate the planning process
dustry. It includes the technology base pro-
within the DoD science and technology pro-
grams of the Services, as well as those of the grams. They argue that radically different
Strategic Defense Initiative Organization
technological solutions—technology push—
(SDIO), the Defense Advanced Research Proj-
can change the nature of warfare and the way
ects Agency (DARPA), and the other defense
that we think about it. The introduction of nu-
agencies. (The structure of the DoD technol-
clear weapons and satellites come readily to
ogy base program is described in chapter 4 of
mind. These kinds of capabilities are not gen-
this report.)
erated as a response to specific requirements
Perhaps because of the magnitude of the in the field. Instead, major dramatic applica-
S&T program, DoD technology policy lacks tions become apparent when new ideas are ex-
focus when it is compared to R&D programs tended to their logical and technical limits.
in industry. There is no single chief technol- Some SDI technologies, such as high-energy
ogy officer as is found in large corporations. lasers and railguns, have been funded on this
Instead, science and technology policy and basis—where the possibility of an application
strategy are formulated by a network of indi- is suggested because the physics and princi-
viduals located in diverse offices spread across ples of the potential technology are under-
the formal structure of the DoD S&T program. stood. On the negative side, some analysts ar-
A principal concern is that this network may gue that these SD I technologies demonstrate
not be capable of producing a coherent, coordi- the weaknesses of technology push strategies
nated policy, and that techniques used to im- in R&D management. They contend that enor-

mous sums have been pumped into weapon When it comes to allocation of resources,
systems that cannot be made to work and will there will always be a tension and a need for
never be deployed. The difficulty, of course, balance between concentration on moving new
is to ascertain the best mix of both approaches, technology out to the field as quickly as pos-
so that the specific threat is met, but at the sible, and funding more indirect research that
same time, new technological opportunities are may have broad potential implications that
fully realized. cannot now be explicitly stated or exactly en-
visioned. Responsible and seasoned opinion
A second and closely related problem is the
supports both sides of this question. Some ob-
question of how much managerial emphasis
servers contend that the technology base pro-
should be placed on evolutionary development
grams must methodically provide new and im-
of known technologies as opposed to reaching
proved technology to the user on a regular
for revolutionary breakthroughs where the
basis. Others emphasize the importance of sup-
U.S. achieves technical advances that its ad-
porting more abstract work by talented scien-
versaries cannot quickly counter or duplicate.
tists who may make dramatic progress if they
With the evolutionary approach, it is reason-
are permitted to operate in an environment
able to expect technological progress that grad-
where they can set the direction of the enquiry.
ually enhances the military capacity of vari-
ous systems over time. In this environment, A third concern focuses on the appropriate
it is easier to predict the magnitude of the in- management role that the Office of the Secre-
vestment that is required, and to balance it tary of Defense should assume in the overall
against the nature of the upgraded capability. DoD Science and Technology Base Program.
In striving for revolutionary technological ad- The issue is how much OSD should centralize
vances, there is greater uncertainty, both with and directly manage tech base programs, and
regard to costs and with respect to the ulti- how much authority it should exert in coordi-
mate success of the project. But the potential nation and oversight of the Services. In recent
payoff—both in terms of new military capaci- years, an increasing percentage of research and
ties and in terms of deterrence—may be very development has been consolidated within
great indeed. OSD. The establishment of the SDIO in 1983
effectively split the Science and Technology
R&D management strategies that support
program into two parts, planned and organized
incremental approaches tend to place the allo-
by two different administrative structures. The
cation authority in the hands of midlevel man-
S&T program that preceded the establishment
agers in the Services, who assess the state of
of SDIO is largely conducted by the individ-
a particular weapon system and ask what R&D
ual Services and DARPA. In fiscal year 1988,
is necessary to improve performance of the sys-
it includes Research (6.1), Exploratory Devel-
tem. The alternative strategy would favor plac-
opment (6.2), and approximately one-third of
ing the funding decision in the hands of lab
DoD’s Advanced Technology Development
directors (or within special programs), and en-
(6.3A). All phases of the Strategic Defense Ini-
couraging them to support higher risk projects
tiative (SDI), however, are administered by
designed to generate qualitatively different
OSD, and are funded under 6.3A. In fiscal year
technical approaches. In many technology base
1988, SDI accounted for about 41 percent of
projects, however, the greatest “measure of
all DoD Science and Technology funds.
merit” is how quickly the new technology can
be injected into weapon platforms or made op- Those who adopt a Services-oriented per-
erational in the field. Critics contend that this spective on this question argue that the Serv-
emphasis introduces a conservative bias into ices need to operate the technology base pro-
the technology development process, minimiz- grams and in-house labs so that they are in
ing the likelihood that significant and unex- a position to obtain technology not only for
pected breakthroughs will occur. future systems, but also for those in full-scale

engineering development (FSED) or procure- grams tend to place the agency in a class by
ment. As it stands today, the linkage between itself, important lessons might be learned by
R&D resources of the Services and projects examining management techniques used by
that are already in or beyond FSED is weak other governments as well as some private sec-
because there is a tendency to contract out for tor R&D functions. Japanese officials appear,
needed technology, which could overlook rele- for example, to be able to identify promising
vant work in the universities and the DoD labs. new areas of technology development at a na-
Increasing OSD control over the S&T program tional level, and then to assist industry with
would only encourage the Services’ buying a variety of state resources to exploit those
agents to ignore technology in the DoD labs areas for economic gain.
because they would see the labs as outside of
their primary organization and areas of influ- Questions regarding congressional guidance
ence and responsibility. In this view, the proper and oversight of DoD’s technology base pro-
role for OSD is to provide general guidance and grams raise a final set of concerns. With re-
coordination, and to act as an advocate with spect to the DoD Science and Technology pro-
Congress for the specific programs of the Air gram, there is considerable controversy as to
Force, Army, and Navy. Moreover, effective what congressional action, if any, would be
science and technology base programs must productive and appropriate—given the extra-
be geared closely to the needs of the user in ordinary complexity and technical breadth of
the field, at sea, and in the air. The only way DoD’s activities in this area. Advocates of a
to ensure this fit is for the Services to conduct strong oversight role for the Congress argue
their own largely independent programs, con- that the committees of jurisdiction should re-
stantly subjecting them to the scrutiny of view the specific program elements (PEs) and
those for whom they are ultimately developed. allocate funds based on that review.

Advocates of a stronger, more assertive role Those who reject the idea of congressional
for OSD contend that a more integrated man- micro-management of defense programs urge
agement system, beginning at the R&D level, caution. They point out that the DoD Science
is necessary to overcome longstanding inter- and Technology program is comprised of ap-
Service rivalries, and to obtain maximum proximately 160 program elements, which are
cross-fertilization of research efforts. Some ar- the basic “building blocks” of DoD’s Planning,
gue that it is necessary to promote common- Programming, and Budgeting System, and
ality and inter-Service operability of military that each PE is subdivided into many projects,
systems at the earliest possible stage of de- which number in the thousands. Congress
velopment. This can best be accomplished if would be wasting its time to try to look into
the S&T programs are more directly controlled the intricacies of the S&T program-because
by a central authority. They suggest that this is daunting even for specialists who spend
higher level coordination is necessary to con- all of their time doing nothing but trying to
tain waste and eliminate duplication of effort understand and manage the existing system.
which results from a decentralized system. As In this view, Congress should confine itself to
an example, they point to the fact that the setting an overall direction for the S&T pro-
Services have developed independent and gram consistent with the larger issue of na-
largely incompatible communication systems tional security policy, leaving the supporting
for the field. science and technology apparatus in the hands
of professional administrators.
Some observers believe that DoD could learn
a great deal from the organization, policies, and Some Members of Congress have chosen to
working methods of successful, large-scale concern themselves with the overall health and
R&D operations in foreign nations. Although maintenance of the defense technology base
the tremendous scale and scope of DoD pro- in the United States. Part of that choice in-

volves developing some yardsticks with which has varied considerably over the past 20 years.
to judge the organization, management, and The funding issue has generated a great deal
content of DoD science and technology base of confusion, even among persons generally
programs. Does the present system result in knowledgeable in defense matters. There are
the most efficient and equitable division of ef- several distinctions that can help to clarify the
fort and funding? Does it provide an overall situation, and there are unmistakable trends
approach with sufficient integration and co- that can be sorted out. S&T funding must be
ordination? Does it result in an optimal bal- clearly distinguished from the larger Research,
ance between technology push and require- Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E)
ments pull, and between evolutionary and budget, of which it is only about 20 percent.
revolutionary R&D strategies? And finally, Figure 1 shows both RDT&E funding and S&T
what lessons might DoD learn from other orga- funding from the early 1960s to the late 1980s.
nizations that manage large-scale technology The graph on the left shows the magnitude of
programs? the S&T budgets in relation to the much larger
RDT&E budgets. In its discussions, OTA
DoD Technology Base found that many persons mistakenly believe
Program Funding that funding for basic research (6.1) was sub-
stantially increased during the Carter-Reagan
Funding for DoD Science and Technology defense buildup because they knew that fund-
programs (budget categories 6.1,6.2, and 6.3A) ing for RDT&E had increased by almost 100

Figure 1 .—Technology Base Funding, 1964-1987 (1988 dollars)

Total Department of Defense
Research, Development, Test,
& Evaluation
. Science & Technology

percent. But a quick glance at the graph on dicate a dramatic increase in advanced devel-
the right indicates that in constant dollars opment (6.3A), which almost doubles overall
funding for basic research has been relatively S&T funding since 1983. But even in this case,
stable over the past 20 years and has not ben- basic research (6.1) which has not been affected
efited substantially from recent increases in by SDIO funding has remained constant, even
defense spending. in a period of rapid buildup of defense spend-
ing. Accordingly, any substantial reduction in
On the other hand, funding for exploratory funding for basic research to accommodate
development (6.2) fell dramatically from a high
overall decreases in defense appropriations
of approximately $4.6 billion 3 in 1964 to about
would reduce basic research to its lowest level
$2.6 billion in 1974, reaching $2.5 billion in
in 20 years. The same argument can be made
1984. The trend for advanced development
for exploratory development (6.2). Finally, if
(6.3A), however, more nearly parallels the fund-
SDI funds are excluded, a reduction in fund-
ing history of basic research (6.1), if the funds
ing for advanced development (6.3A) of $0.8
for SD I are excluded. The non-SD I advanced
billion would put that budget category at its
development (6.3A) figures are approximately
lowest level in 20 years. These kinds of figures
as follows: $0.9 billion for 1964, $0.8 billion for
have led to a concern that Congress and mili-
1974, and $1.7 billion for 1984. When the
tary planners may not have provided for ade-
figures for 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3A are aggregated,
quate reinvestment in the technology base.
exclusive of SDI, the overall trend is a sharp
drop in funding throughout the late 1960s into Two major considerations bear on the ques-
the late 1970s with a modest recovery that tion of whether congressional appropriations
levels off at about $5.2 billion after 1984. This have been sufficient to maintain the DoD tech-
represents a real decrease in funding of about nology base. The first centers on the difficulty
25 percent from 1964 to 1984. of measuring the impact of research and ex-
ploratory development on the military secu-
Recent trends look very different if funds rity of the Nation. Most observers accept the
for SD I are considered as part of the S&T pro-
principle—as an article of faith-that research
gram than if they are treated as a separate
builds the foundation on which future techno-
‘‘add-on. The graphs in figure 1 indicate that
logical advances rest. But the connection be-
this is a matter of some significance because
tween today’s specific research projects and
they were authorized by DoD and treat SDI
future military products and technologies is
as a distinct category. The Strategic Defense not obvious, cannot be quantified, and is ex-
Initiative has accounted for over 40 percent
tremely difficult to render in explicit terms.’
of the S&T budget for the past two fiscal years, As a result, while everyone agrees that re-
and has been exclusively funded through the
search is important, it is difficult to make an
advanced development (6.3A) budget category.
argument that research funding should be sup-
Some analysts believe that SDI funds do not plemented in any given appropriation.
contribute substantially to the overall DoD
S&T program, that R&D conducted by the By contrast, it is comparatively easy to ar-
SDIO is highly specific to anti-ballistic mis- gue that a particular weapon system would en-
sile (ABM) warfare. Others contend that SDIO hance the force structure and contribute to the
programs make and will continue to make a
strong contribution to R&D throughout DoD’s
Science and Technology base programs. “’Studies of technological innovations have shown them to
depend on research results that are decades old and often in
If SD I funding is aggregated with the rest seemingly unrelated fields . . . A highly successful basic research
of the S&T budget, then the numbers alone in- effort may never generate technological innovation or economic
payoff if other factors in the economy are not conducive to tech-
nological change, U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-
ment, Research Funding as an Investment: Can We Measure
A11 budget figures in this and the following paragraph are the Difference? OTA-TM-SET-36 (Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-
taken from figure 1 and are in constant 1988 dollars. ernment Printing Office, April 1986), p. 5.
military security of the Nation. While the con- ers and advocates are few and far between. And
tribution of today’s research may not become in the second, there are strong incentives for
evident for 10 to 15 years or more, funds allo- powerful program and budget managers to
cated for anew missile or bomber can be justi- ‘‘raid’ R&D funds as a means of saving more
fied as necessary expenditure to meet a clear advanced, more visible and, therefore, more
and present threat. Moreover, the results of pressing programs.
cutting funds for technology base programs The second funding issue focuses on inter-
may not show up for years, and even then, it
nal allocation of funds within the technology
would be difficult to demonstrate a one-to-one
base programs that takes place subsequent to
or causal type relationship between insufficient
and largely independent of congressional ap-
R&D funding and future weaknesses in the
propriation. There is concern that technology
force structure. It is far easier to grasp the im-
base funds (6.1 and 6.2) may not be allocated
plications of cutting funds for new military most efficiently among a variety of compet-
hardware-where a budget cut of $100 million
ing interests, that they may ultimately not find
would translate into a definite reduction in the
their way to the areas in which the most im-
number of new tanks or fighter aircraft that
portant technology research is taking place.
could be procured. For these reasons, while There is a tendency for funds to go where it
almost everyone would advocate increased
is easiest for them to go, instead of where they
R&D funding in the abstract, few are willing would do the most good. This is often tied to
to trade more tangible programs for the va-
institutional mechanisms, and to historically
garies of indefinite technological advances in
based claims that may be difficult or impossi-
the future.
ble to resist. Critics argue, for example, that
These circumstances have contributed to a some DoD laboratories, which may not con-
low priority status for technology base funds. tribute significantly to the technology base,
But perhaps more important is the dispropor- are nevertheless funded because closing them
tionate vulnerability to which R&D funds are would be politically unpopular.
subjected during a period of budget reduction.
The policy issues related to funding of the
Suppose, for example, that the Navy is in-
technology base have not received a great deal
structed by the Secretary of Defense to cutout-
of attention in the past. Is it necessary to take
lays by $150 million. This could be achieved
measures to change the allocation of funding
in a number of ways. One method would be
among technology base programs? Is the tech-
to cut all programs across the board. Oppo-
nology base adequately funded relative to the
nents of this strategy contend that it fosters
overall DoD budget? With regard to this ques-
mediocrity by strapping the really good pro-
tion, analysts have pointed out that technol-
grams and by prolonging the lifespan of in-
ogy base programs are historically the first to
ferior projects. Another way to achieve the re-
be cut during a budget crisis, and that they
duction would be to cancel the decision to build
are among the last to be restored when fuller
a new aircraft carrier. This is an unlikely deci-
funding becomes available. Some have argued
sion because it would sacrifice a $3 billion car-
that the technology base functions best when
rier to save only about $150 million in the first
funding is level and predictable. And they sug-
gest that even if it may not be possible or advis-
R&D, on the other hand, has a very high pay- able to put all of DoD on a multiyear budget
out of approximately 50 percent. By cutting cycle, it might make sense to put R&D pro-
$300 million in R&D funding (which would, of grams on such a footing. And finally, is there
course, be a draconian measure), the controller significant misallocation of funding within the
could gain the same savings as canceling an tech base programs? Are technology base
entire carrier. Thus funding for technology funds redirected toward projects that are not
base programs is subjected to a kind of dou- tech base, and if so, what actions can Congress
ble jeopardy. In the first instance, its promot- take to correct the situation?

Management of Government cates who are in a position to remind Congress

Laboratories and the public of its value. High-level appoin-
tees at the Pentagon tend to gloss over the im-
The U.S. Government supports an extensive portance of the research function in favor of
network of laboratories funded principally by high profile, big ticket acquisitions. Most hold
their jobs for no more than a few years, and
the Department of Defense, the Department
cannot be expected to take the long-term, apo-
of Energy, and NASA. Over the past decade,
litical perspective which is needed to under-
these labs, and particularly those run by DoD,
stand and promote funding for basic research
have been the subject of many studies which
in a highly competitive, acquisition-dominated
have focused on problems such as inadequate
DoD environment.
pay, aging facilities, quality of work, and in-
appropriate allocation of workloads and re- Advocates of increased funding for basic re-
sources. search argue that of all R&D-related activities,
basic research is probably the most amenable
There is considerable concern that the net-
to centralized coordination and funding mech-
work of government laboratories does not form
anisms. This is because the objective is to an-
a coherent system to support technology needs
swer questions about the nature of physical
—not for the military and not for commercial
reality and technology, and not to apply what
endeavors that also support military produc-
has been learned. Applied research necessitates
tion. This concern is closely linked to the prob-
a specialized dialog, usually between the re-
lem of hiring and retaining first rank scientific
searcher and the ultimate user, to make sure
and engineering talent, particularly in the DoD
that the products of the former are compati-
laboratories. Some analysts suggest that the
ble with the needs of the latter. This relation-
quality of personnel recruited for the defense
ship favors a decentralized organization. Basic
labs will not be raised significantly until sala-
research, on the contrary, presupposes no end
ries are made competitive with industry. In
user, and could, accordingly, be organized in
some instances, they note, salaries in the DoD
a highly centralized manner. Proponents of
labs have failed to keep pace with salaries for
such a move believe that consolidation of gov-
similar positions in the universities.
ernment research into a central organization
Policy questions concerning the role of the would not only create new efficiencies, but
government labs in the defense technology would also give this activity the sponsorship
base focus on four concerns. First, is the work and visibility that it presently lacks.
of the DoD labs skewed too strongly toward
A second area for policy consideration con-
the development side of R&D and, if so, what
cerns the role of the DoD labs as intermedi-
are the implications of this trend? In recent
aries between the government and industry.
years, basic research at DoD has become a
To what extent should the labs maintain in-
progressively smaller proportion of the admin-
house capacities as opposed to contracting out
istration budgets. By any measure, research
research and development work? There are
is a minuscule part of the Federal budget. And
clearly two extremes that most observers agree
within DoD, basic research consumes only
should be avoided. The first is for the govern-
about 10 percent of Science and Technology
ment to contract out so much R&D that it loses
the capacity to assist the Services directly
Some observers argue that basic research is when a need arises, or loses the ability to set
slighted or overlooked because its value as an direction for and evaluate the work of contrac-
activity cannot be quantified and does not re- tors. At the other extreme, a lab or system of
sult directly in new products or weapon sys- labs might find itself in direct competition with
tems in the field. Basic research is treated in industry, denying commercial or contractor ac-
some quarters as an expendable activity, they cess to proprietary information developed in
suggest, because it has few long-term advo- government labs.

Some industry spokespersons contend, for ticularly true of basic research, where the fu-
example, that the Navy does what it wants to ture applications and benefits of today’s work
do in its labs, and keeps what it does for the cannot be known—almost by definition. Some
Navy. They claim that the Navy, which con- observers argue that the Services should place
tracts out approximately 40 percent of its a higher priority on basic research, and take
R&D, maintains excess in-house capacity. In a longer range view of the whole problem of
this view, some major research facilities have generating technology for future weapons sys-
set up rigid barriers that have introverted tems. Such a scenario is politically difficult be-
operations, withholding valuable information cause there is tremendous pressure to get
from DoD contractors. Some contractors feel equipment into the field as soon as possible
that they are in competition with the Navy in order to meet the threat and to have some-
labs, and are, accordingly, far less willing to thing to show for vast outlays of taxpayer and
share their data and results with the Navy. borrowed dollars.
They agree that the Federal Technology
Transfer Act may help to ease this situation, A final policy problem centers on increas-
but argue that the root of the problem is that ing coordination and cooperation between the
government should not be in competition with extensive laboratory operations of the DoD,
the private sector. DOE, and NASA. Within DoD, there are dif-
ferent laboratory commands for each of the
Some observers suggest that the boundary Services, and some believe there are too few
between the government labs and industry institutional mechanisms for cross-fertilization
needs to be a good deal more fluid than it pres- between the DoD operations and the more ex-
ently is. Government labs should not be con- pansive laboratory facilities both at NASA and
ducting research that has already been com- at DOE. Some analysts suggest that the pres-
pleted successfully in industry and vice versa. ent decentralized system is necessary to meet
In this view, DoD needs to institute some the highly individualized needs of the various
mechanism to ensure that the labs and indus- different organizations. They suggest that if
try cooperate more closely and do not dupli- the individual Services had to rely on a cen-
cate each others research when it is unnec- tralized system for R&D, it would greatly in-
essary. hibit the process by which technology is tran-
The question of rigid mission orientation sitioned into engineering development, and the
versus a more flexible approach to R&D forms essential connection to the end-user would be
a third issue area for laboratory management. lost.
All three Services attempt to construct plans
Others contend that the United States pays
and budgets on a mission-oriented basis. In-
a price for operating a highly fragmented sys-
deed, the Congress required this approach in
tem with diverse R&D agendas. Such a sys-
the 1974 Budget Reform and Impoundment
tem could result in unnecessary duplication of
Control Act. But there is considerable differ-
effort and in government support of labs that
ence of opinion, both within and outside of Con-
have long since stopped contributing to the
gress, concerning the interpretation of this re- leading edge of technology research and devel-
quirement. Some suggest that the linkage opment. They believe that the present config-
between technology base activity and specific
uration of laboratory facilities is a consequence
military mission ought to be tenuous and ten-
of tradition and uneven historical growth,
tative in character. rather than rational planning geared to late
If the work of the labs and their contractors 20th century conditions of high-technology
is too closely tied to a particular mission or warfare and international economic competi-
application, they contend, then the overall fo- tion. Some analysts suggest that the United
cus for R&D will be short range at best, and States should identify a set of national tech-
may lead to a kind of tunnel vision. This is par- nological goals, and then reorganize and con-

solidate its system of national labs to meet ogy base capacities that results from long-term
those goals. They attribute the success of the dependence on other nations. It should be
Apollo project to the fact that a goal was set, based on an assessment of whether or not in-
and resources were organized to meet the goal. ternationalization of the defense technology
They believe that the United States might al- base poses a threat to military security, and
ready be in a good position to take a lesson if so, it should take cognizance of the reasons
from the Japanese, who have achieved remark- for the decline of key technology areas in the
able success by selecting national technologi- United States. This, in turn, may suggest strat-
cal milestones and working toward them. Vari- egies that the United States can pursue to re-
ous schemes—ranging from a single executive sist or reverse dependence on foreign sources. 5
technology agency to a system of lead agen- Policy should be informed with the reality that
cies, each associated with a different national some forms of dependence maybe harmful and
technological goal-have been proposed. Pro- avoidable, others helpful and desirable, and
ponents argue that the resulting benefits could some others unavoidable whether we like it or
be realized both by the military and by the com- not.
mercial sector at the same time.
There are two significant dimensions to the
What steps, if any, should Congress take to problem of increasing military dependence on
ensure more efficient use of government lab- foreign technology. The first centers on grow-
oratories, including closing, merging, or con- ing foreign leadership and market domination
solidating facilities? What actions might be in important dual-use technologies, i.e., tech-
taken to enhance technology transfer among nologies that have significant commercial as
the various labs and between the government well as military applications. In some instances
and the commercial sector? What impediments the United States appears to be losing mar-
could be removed? Are there measures that ket share in high-technology products as well
could be taken to make government labora- as the leading edge in development of new tech-
tories more attractive places to work? Are pro- nologies. In others, advanced technology al-
grams being unnecessarily constrained be- ready exists in foreign countries, but is not
cause of the narrow focus of their parent produced competitively in the United States.
organizations, and are important areas of re- In part, this problem is compounded by con-
search being overlooked? What alternatives to tinuous pressure for DoD to take advantage
the present system might contribute signifi- of efficiencies and superior products that in-
cantly to the health of the defense technology ternational competition has brought to the
base in the future? commercial world. In the future, DoD may be
driven to buy a larger share of foreign military
products, particularly if foreign suppliers can
Military Dependence on achieve economies of scale, high quality, and
Foreign Technology low cost that have eluded domestic producers
in recent years.
In recent years, complex weapon systems
have come to exhibit some of the internation- There are significant potential liabilities in
alization of labor, materials, and component dependence associated with commercial loss
parts that has long characterized the commer- of capacity in dual-use technologies. It may
cial sector. There is increasing concern that be that the United States will be forced to
DoD is not immune from the larger economic maintain certain technologies because of their
forces that have produced the world car. strategic importance. Military dependence on
A coherent policy on military dependence on
foreign technology will have to balance bene- ‘This dependence has not yet reached significant proportions
in a great many technological areas. Many analysts believe that
fits obtained from access to foreign technol- the United States still holds a commanding lead in most tech-
ogy and products against the loss of technol- nologies that are military in character.

foreign dual-use technology will always have Consider a scenario, perhaps in the year 2000,
to be scrutinized when the technology is per- when DoD would place an order for the next
vasive in character-i. e., essential to the pro- generation of sophisticated GaAs-based in-
duction and maintenance of a great many mil- tegrated circuits made only in Japan. The Jap-
itary systems —especially when the domestic anese, who reportedly expect a substantial
capacity is appreciably below state-of-the-art. commercial market by the turn of the century,
might then be unwilling to produce the parts
This is precisely the situation that the De-
to military specification, at a price the United
fense Science Board (DSB) addressed in a
States could afford. The DoD order might not
study recommending the establishment of a
be large enough to justify the cost of new man-
semiconductor manufacturing technology in- ufacturing technology or the diversion of tech-
stitute, since named Sematech. The DSB re-
nical resources from more profitable commer-
port stated that U.S. military strategy depends
cial markets. In this scenario, the alternative
on leading edge electronics, and specifically on
would be to attempt to build the chips in the
semiconductors, that are essential to support
United States. But if the domestic industry
U.S. warfighting strategy and capabilities. The
was not already fabricating the chips for com-
DSB argued that decreased competitiveness
mercial markets, the cost would be prohibitive
by U.S. semiconductor makers would soon
because the order would have to pay for new
translate into loss of manufacturing know-how
factories as well. It is even possible that the
and the ability to fabricate future generations
capacity to design the desired product might
of semiconductors. At some point, loss of man-
no longer reside in the United States. And with-
ufacturing technique would lead, inexorably,
out recent experience, it is likely that the chips
to an inability to design the most sophisticated
that could be produced would not match Jap-
chips domestically. The study concluded, ac-
anese performance and reliability. Consider-
cordingly, that the military would shortly de-
ing the military need for enhanced computa-
pend on foreign sources to supply advanced
tional speed and for radiation hardness, such
semiconductors, and that this is an unaccept-
dependence would clearly be undesirable, even
able condition.
in the best of times.
Some observers argue that the Sematech
concept addresses the symptoms and not the On the other hand, depending on allies for
heart of the problem. The real issue, they con- advanced dual-use technology can be benefi-
tend, is the question of how the United States cial on a number of grounds. First, it increases
can stay at the leading edge of technologies economic interdependence which, if properly
that are crucial to the military defense of the managed, leads to strong incentives for con-
Nation. Sematech may provide the near-term tinued alliance and cooperation. Second, it can
ability to design and fabricate silicon-based dy- provide access to state-of-the-art technologies
namic random access memory chips, but it will that simply are unavailable in the United
do nothing to maintain state-of-the-art capac- States. In today’s global economy, it is no
ity if global market forces push subsequent longer possible for the United States to domi-
generations of equipment into gallium arsenide nate—and at present the United States is not
or optically based technologies. From this per- even competitive in— a full range of commer-
spective, the real question centers on how to cial technologies and markets. And finally, in
structure policy and markets to keep and main- many cases, internationalization of technology
tain technological capacity in the United makes possible a wide range of economies of
States. scale and manufacturing expertise that would
be difficult to achieve domestically.
Dependence on pervasive, dual-use technol-
ogies might be a critical factor even in peace- The second significant dimension of the is-
ful and prosperous times, when trade is mutu- sue of military dependence on foreign technol-
ally advantageous between two countries. ogy arises because DoD prime contractors pro-
duce major weapon systems that incorporate On the other hand, certain liabilities are asso-
components and subsystems developed by for- ciated with dependence on foreign components
eign defense firms. Both economic and politi- used in U.S. weapon systems. One can envi-
cal considerations contribute to “offset” agree- sion an international division of labor where
ments where U.S. allies contract to buy a the United States would produce the compo-
portion of the run for a particular missile, air- nents and systems for which it had developed
plane, or submarine, thereby lowering the unit the requisite technology base, and then would
cost of procurement and increasing military buy or trade with its allies to procure parts
and economic cooperation within the alliance. and systems supported by their leading edge
In return, the prime contractors agree to pur- technologies. While this kind of cooperation
chase a certain percentage of the components is probably necessary and unavoidable in some
and subsystems from participating allies. In technology areas, it presupposes a peaceful
addition, the United States has entered into world in which free and open trade are the norm
a number of cooperative agreements for con- in an interdependent world economy. Citing
ventional defense development programs with rising international economic tensions and
its NATO allies pursuant to congressional increasing regional military conflict, some
direction. analysts argue that the relatively stable post-
war economic and political order may be rocked
by significant changes in the future. For this
There are substantial benefits to be realized
reason, they caution that excessive military
from mutual and interlocking dependence
dependence should be avoided, even with al-
among allies in the development of military
lies and friendly trading partners.
technologies. To this end, the United States
participates in the NATO Conference of Na- There is, in addition, the issue of timely de-
tional Armaments Directors, is a major sup- livery of parts or components of military im-
porter of the SHAPE Technical Center located portance. In some cases, it might be more lucra-
in the Hague, and is a member of the NATO- tive for a firm to delay its deliveries to the
sponsored Advisory Group on Aerodynamic Department of Defense, giving priority to a
Research and Development in Paris. Techno- preferred customer. If the company is located
logical interdependence tends to strengthen in the United States, DoD or the prime con-
the alliance itself because it raises the costs tractor would have more leverage to press for
for any ally that would choose to withdraw delivery of scarce items. It is much more diffi-
from the alliance. International division of la- cult to ensure continuity in timing and sup-
bor also creates an opportunity for the United ply when the firm in question is located in
States to gain access to superior military com- another country.
ponent technologies that it cannot get at home. Governments now and in the future will seek
Few observers believe it is still possible in a
to create market advantages for their own do-
global economic environment for any country
mestic firms irrespective of whether they are
to maintain leading edge technology across the
organized primarily for commercial or military
entire range of significant military capabilities. production. While a blanket policy that op-
Just as international competition creates win-
poses military dependence on foreign technol-
ners and losers in commercial markets, inno- ogy might enhance security in the near term,
vation and leadership in military technologies it might also tend to undermine significant ben-
is increasingly dispersed across a spectrum of
efits that are realized through selected and in-
highly capable firms with different national ori- telligent cooperation with our allies, even
entations and loyalties. Under these condi- though such relationships might ultimately
tions, maintaining state-of-the-art military ca-
lead to a system of interlocking dependencies.
pabilities requires that the United States draw
on the best products emerging from an inter- It is, accordingly, important to look at the
national defense technology base. issue of foreign dependence not as an article

of faith, but rather in relation to specific tech- of a major weapon system. If the project is on
nologies, industrial sectors, and political and the scale of a nuclear submarine, for example,
economic realities that constrain our choices. the prime will contract, in turn, with hundreds
Under what circumstances should the United of subcontractors for the design and produc-
States rely on its allies and trading partners tion of subsystems and specific components.
for selected military technologies, even when Some of the subcontractors may execute addi-
such reliance leads to diminished domestic ca- tional agreements with other companies, and
pacities? By what criteria could areas be iden- soon down the line. At some point in this chain,
tified in which the United States should reduce many of the components and parts that end
dependence on foreign technology? What poli- up in the final product will be bought off the
cies—R&D, tax, trade, or otherwise—might shelf from corporations that do most of their
help minimize dependence, and at what cost? business in civilian markets.6
And finally, what and how severe are the risks
In terms of defense technology policy, de-
to United States national security when se-
cline in critical dual-use high-technology indus-
lected dual-use technology industries move
tries can be addressed both from an in-house
and from an economy-wide perspective. In the
first case, DoD can create a new capacity, or
Health of the Dual-Use Commercial “farm industry, ” within the defense contrac-
High-Tech Sector tor community and in the government labora-
tories to meet specified needs for advanced
Strong interaction between the military and
technology. In the VHSIC (very high speed in-
the civilian economy has characterized the
tegrated circuit) program, for example, OSD
growth of high technology in the United States
sought to extend conventional silicon technol-
in the post-WWII period. Today, commercially
ogies and to increase the pace of development
produced dual-use technologies-e. g., micro-
in design tools, advanced production equip-
electronics, computers, fiber optics, and ad-
ment, and semiconductor device designs.7 But
vanced composites—are necessary for the de-
high-ranking Pentagon officials indicate that
sign and production of a wide range of weapon
the VHSIC technologies have only been de-
systems. Recent losses in competitiveness and
ployed in one weapon system to date. This kind
leading edge technical capacities by commer-
of remedial action is extremely expensive, and
cially oriented domestic firms raise concern,
can probably only be maintained on a modest
principally for two reasons.
The first is that DoD depends on the dual-
The second option is to stimulate, directly,
use sector to develop and transfer new tech-
those high-technology industries in the com-
nologies that are of military significance. This
mercial sector that are deemed necessary to
can be a critical resource, even when the mili-
the development and manufacture of the next
tary uses only a small fraction of the products
generation of military hardware. In many
resulting from a given technology. Civilian con-
cases, however, the DoD share of the market
tributions to new and evolving technologies
for a given technology is not enough to pull
are especially important because military hard-
the industry forward. Under such conditions,
ware in some fast-moving areas can be 5 or
the resources and capital formation of commer-
more years behind the leading edge of the com-
cial markets are necessary to stimulate devel-
mercial sector.
opment and leadership in high technology. It
The second cause for concern is that the mil-
itary relies on commercially oriented firms for ‘In addition, the Pentagon buys a great deal of office equip-
high-technology products that are incorpo- ment, such as computers and typewriters, directly from com-
rated into military hardware. In general, the mercial firms.
‘Kenneth Flamm, Targeting the Computer: Government Sup-
Pentagon will designate a single prime contrac- port and International Competition (Washington, DC: Brook-
tor both for the development and manufacture ings Institution, 1987), pp. 77-78.

is likely, for example, that loss of competitive- a new high-temperature superconductor. But
ness in high-volume semiconductor markets once it is made the first time, and the research
by U.S. companies would lead, in time, to mil- is published, other researchers can duplicate
itary dependence on foreign sources for a wide the process. Even so, designing high-tempera-
range of enabling technologies. Accordingly, ture superconductors into products that are
the continued ability to produce state-of-the- useful and producible is extremely difficult. It
art weapon systems that are superior in the is costly and will require sophistication and
field may finally depend on the Nation’s ca- further research in a wide range of tech-
pacity to produce high-technology products nologies.
that are competitive in world commerce.
In addition, the capital requirements for
Because both of these options have severe mobilizing a new technology-of bringing new
limitations, it maybe necessary to go beyond ideas out of the universities and into efficient
the arena of defense policy and to consider ad- mass-market production operations—can be
ditional alternatives from a broader economic enormous. The difference between a capital
perspective. Some analysts argue that avoid- cost of 7 percent and one of 9 percent may make
ing dependence on foreign high technology the difference between success and failure. Cost
requires a better understanding of the relation- of capital affects the time it takes to get the
ship between the development of new knowl- product to market, and determines, in part, the
edge, the manufacturing process itself, and the kinds of activities that stockholders are will-
formation of capital for industrial purposes. ing to fund. When two companies are in com-
They suggest that one strategy, sometimes petition to produce a comparable product, the
pursued by the Japanese, is to begin operat- one that can acquire an equity base that ena-
ing in a technology area where an industry bles it to get its product to the market 1 year
must accept a certain degree of foreign depen- before the other will win. Some business per-
dence at the outset. But a primary objective sons are concerned that government does not
(en route to establishing a viable market share) understand the relationship between the cost
is to acquire technological know-how and the of capital and the capacity of their companies
manufacturing ability as a national asset, to transition new technology into the market-
severing relations with foreign industry as do- place. They cite the easy credit arrangements
mestic capacity increases. To accomplish this that governments of some Pacific Rim and
transition, industry must have access to do- European nations extend to industry. They be-
mestic arrangements and sources for capital lieve that anti-trust law can significantly dis-
formation that are superior to those extended advantage American manufacturing, particu-
in foreign countries. larly in high-technology sectors, because it has
tended to block the formation of combined cap-
Executives in high-technology industries ar-
ital resources that may be required if an in-
gue that when the venture is capital-intensive, dustry is to survive in the international com-
the ability to design new leading edge prod-
ucts will be closely tied to the manufacturing
process, which will be physically located where Under such conditions, a failure to provide
the most advantageous arrangements for capi- capital incentives to locate high-technology in-
talization can be made. It will also be tied to dustries in the United States will have predict-
the ability to transition new concepts and tech- able consequences on the process of technol-
nology breakthroughs into an efficient produc- ogy innovation. These can be expressed as
tion process. In this view, the capacity to mobi- three distinct steps in losing a technology. In
lize the technology base is a technology in its the first, an industry moves its manufactur-
own right—one that must be mastered before ing operations offshore, perhaps because
competitive new products can be introduced cheaper capital can be obtained or because pro-
to the marketplace. For example, it requires duction costs, including labor, are lower. The
specialized skills and techniques to discover United States may also retain a manufactur-

ing capability, but may not be able to produce tax credit, are not carefully enough tailored
at a competitive cost. Second, when the tech- to benefit most industries upon which the mil-
nology evolves to the next generation, the U.S. itary depends.
part of that industry may find that it has lost
Others think that U.S. free trade policies
the ability to manufacture the new products have led Congress and the administration to
on a stateof-the-art, competitive basis. At this be indifferent to the inability of technologically
stage, costs of getting back into the manufac- oriented American companies to compete more
turing end of the business maybe prohibitive.
successfully in world markets and with foreign
And finally, when the technology evolves yet
competitors at home. They argue that Amer-
again, and is now two or three generations ican business cannot “go it alone’ against un-
away from the original product line, it will be fair combinations of state power and industrial
difficult, if not impossible, for U.S. companies
might in the international marketplace. The
to design leading edge new products. To do so, belief that American companies can sustain
the industry would have to find designers with market share against the concerted national
access to the proprietary information gener-
economic policies of their trading partners is,
ated in the production process associated with they contend, a potentially disastrous holdover
the previous generation. In this scenario, a na- from a bygone era of American military and
tion loses a high-technology industry because economic hegemony.
it fails to pursue capital incentives sufficient
to keep the industry at home, and this leads, There is great diversity of opinion as to what
in turn, to a simultaneous degeneration of proc- Congress should do about the loss of world
ess and design know-how which may be com- market shares of some American high-technol-
bined with loss of market share and investment ogy industries, and the resulting damage to
capital. the dual-use technology base in the United
States. Some observers believe that Congress
Some observers believe that government pol- should do nothing because it is faced with what
icies have contributed to an overall decline in
amounts to an intractable dilemma. If the Pen-
the competitiveness of American industry.
tagon pursues a policy of buying the best avail-
They argue that government has not only
able high-tech products at the lowest price,
failed to stem the migration of U.S. factories
then it will introduce foreign dependence to the
to foreign countries, but has also neglected to
weapons procurement process over the long
support the interests of American business at run. This course of action would tend to advan-
home and abroad. In this view, U.S. compa-
tage foreign competitors at the expense of
nies have had to compete with foreign indus-
American companies. But these circumstances
try that enjoys advantages-such as protected might also create strengths in the military ca-
home markets, low cost capitalization, and
pacity of our allies, encouraging them to shoul-
R&D subsidies-that are the constituent parts
der more of the defense burden in the future.
of carefully orchestrated national industrial On the other hand, if the United States adopted
strategies. One result, they claim, is that the
a policy to buy only from American companies,
dual-use infrastructure of domestic technology
then it would lose access to some state-of-the-
is weakening. In addition, fiscal and monetary
art technology, and might have to pay exces-
policies have, until recently, kept the dollar ar-
sive costs associated with domestic produc-
tificially propped up against foreign curren-
tion. In this view, Congress should continue
cies, making imports relatively less expensive to stay on the sidelines because any course of
than domestically produced goods. A massive
action is likely to create extensive dislocation
trade imbalance, high interest rates, and ex-
and unacceptable adjustment costs.
cessive foreign investment have exacerbated
a comparative disadvantage in capital forma- Advocates of a more coherent industrial
tion for domestic firms. In addition, some ar- strategy argue that the United States cannot
gue that tax incentives, like the investment afford to lose certain essential industries. They

point out that other countries have taken steps tier subcontractors where many dual-use tech-
to avoid such losses, steps that have, in some nologies are developed. They contend that the
cases, damaged U.S. economic interests. Un- R&D base for the dual-use infrastructure of
der these circumstances, the United States American industry could be enhanced if DoD
should now consider legislative action not only would commit a greater percentage of its funds
to protect critical high-technology markets, directly to the sub-tier industries. But they also
but also to adopt tax and monetary policies note that this approach would require major
which guide American business toward greater simplifications in DoD contracting and report-
productivity and profitability. Such a perspec- ing processes, as well as substantial substitu-
tive, they acknowledge, envisions a more cen- tion of commercial for military specifications
tral role for government in the affairs of busi- in future weapon systems.
ness. But they also contend that such measures
Many analysts believe that the United
will be necessary if U.S. corporations are to
States should seek to avoid dependence on for-
remain competitive in the face of what amounts
eign manufacturers for high-technology prod-
to concerted Japanese and European economic
ucts that are critical for the defense of the Na-
policies that are structured to create advan- tion. This objective is particularly difficult to
tages for domestic firms in foreign markets.
achieve in many dual-use industries, where the
At a minimum, they argue, government should
Department of Defense is at best a minor cus-
adjust macro economic and other policies to
tomer. Nevertheless, if the United States is to
slow or halt the decline of American high- avoid foreign dependence, then state-of-the-art
technology industry. They do not expect a re-
design and manufacturing capacities must re-
turn to the overwhelming economic and mili- main in the United States for an array of tech-
tary leadership that the United States enjoyed
nologies that are critical to the development
in the immediate postwar decades, but they
of defense systems.
would hope to arrest its decline.
A central difficulty is that for many of the
Others oppose both the “do nothing” and most important technologies, the pace and
the “high-tech industrial strategy” scenarios direction of rapid innovation are driven by de-
in favor of a negotiated middle ground. They velopments in the commercial sector by indus-
contend that Congress must not allow the de- tries that are typically multinational in scope.
mise of a range of technological capabilities Moreover, the capital requirements for R&D,
and industries that are of strategic military design, and manufacture of successive gener-
importance. They seek national economic self- ations of many high-technology products are
sufficiency and independence for a limited enormous. Because DoD cannot fund the full
group of high-technology industries that are spectrum of technologies that are essential to
necessary for numerous weapon systems. the national defense, the health of these indus-
While it is not possible for the Department of tries will depend on profits from sales in the
Defense to underwrite every industry that commercial marketplace.
produces high-tech products for military sys-
tems, careful planning and prudent investment High-technology manufacturing in the
might support a stable of technical capacities United States cannot be expected to survive
that are essential to the national security. if the American market is dominated by for-
eign imports. The United States has pursued
Some argue that DoD could do a great deal a trade policy that assumes fair and open trade,
more to support the dual-use technology base and encourages Americans to purchase goods
in the United States. In this view, DoD has of the lowest price for a given quality, regard-
concentrated too many of its resources in a less of where they were made. In pursuit of
small number of defense prime contractors on lowest cost or access to foreign markets, many
the assumption that R&D and procurement American firms have moved manufacturing
funds will ultimately filter down to the lower operations offshore. In addition, many foreign

firms sell goods in the United States. At the tic high-technology industries? Are there areas
same time, many foreign governments prohibit where government inaction has contributed to
U.S. firms from selling similar products in their the problem?
home markets.
Recognition of the power of governments to Problems in the Defense Industries
create and alter international economic envi- For most technical developments of military
ronments through trade, tax, non-tariff bar-
significance, the road from laboratory to field
riers, and various industrial policies has led
runs through a select and highly concentrated
some observers to propose new approaches to
group of large defense contractors. While these
structuring the U.S. high-technology market
companies can perform a variety of major
and industrial base that go well beyond the
tasks, their principal role is to act as prime sys-
limits of existing U.S. policy. One such ap-
tem integrators. These are the companies that
proach would impose prohibitions against im-
assemble the products of subcontractors and
porting key high-technology products made by
component makers into finished missiles, air-
foreign industry as well as by American-owned
craft, submarines, and other defense systems.
operations located in foreign countries. In-
Over time, the prime contractors have devel-
stead, both U.S. and foreign-owned firms oped a unique relationship of mutual depen-
would be required to manufacture those key
dence with the government. Unusual business
products in the United States if they intended
conditions have created a situation in which
to sell them in the United States. Such a pol-
there is only one buyer, the Department of De-
icy would force some definite portion of the
fense, and following contract award, only one
high-technology manufacturing base to be lo-
supplier. The trend over the past quarter cen-
cated permanently in the United States. Pre- tury has been toward greater concentration
sumably, other countries would institute sim- and fewer contracts, resulting in winner-take-
ilar restrictions. Reciprocal arrangements
all sweepstakes for many major weapon systems.
would have to be negotiated to establish mutu-
ally acceptable manufacturing and merchan- Because the defense industry both consumes
dizing rights among participating nations, and develops new technology, there is long-
with the result that each nation would consider standing concern that its unique relationship
the interests of the larger trading block in form- with the government may inhibit technical de-
ing its own policies. Proponents agree that velopment and the most efficient application
while this approach might create more stable of new technology. The most prominent of
manufacturing conditions, the turmoil of tran- these concerns fall into three closely related
sition would be unprecedented. areas, each of which influences the health of
the defense technology base: 1) unstable busi-
Most observers agree that it is essential to
ness conditions, 2) inducements for corporate
view the issue of the health of the dual-use in-
R&D, and 3) outmoded manufacturing tech-
dustries both in terms of military needs for the
next generation of weapon systems, and from
the perspective of structural dislocation of the The Department of Defense and the prime
wider economy. Is it necessary and feasible to contractors have argued for years that Con-
establish policies to preserve selected high- gress should adopt a multiyear budgeting cy-
technology industries, together with govern- cle which would provide greater stability in the
mental institutions to carry them out? If so, complex and demanding business of building
how would DoD’s interests be represented? advanced technology weapon systems. If DoD
What degree and kind of government interven- could authorize a prime contractor to produce
tion, if any, will be necessary to ensure the fu- 500 aircraft at a rate of 50 per year for 10 years,
ture health of the dual-use sector of the Amer- stable business conditions could be achieved.
ican economy? Are there specific government Instead, economies of scale and other efficien-
policies that have weakened important domes- cies are sacrificed when Congress appropriates

funds for limited production runs on a year- tral policy issue is the question of what incen-
to-year basis. Or, alternatively, OSD or one of tives the IR&D mechanism actually provides
the Service buying commands may decide to for industry, and whether it is an efficient de-
shift funds away from a particular program, vice for meeting national goals. Congress may
creating the same perturbations. Under these wish to leave it alone, adjust its operation, or
circumstances, rational business principles and abolish the IR&D mechanism—substituting
planning processes cannot readily be applied. in its place a program that offers significant
inducements for company R&D, but which can
Critics argue that unstable business condi- be more easily monitored and evaluated.
tions exist in all markets, and that establish-
ing predictability is what planning and mar- In general, research and development con-
keting is all about. Like many firms in the ducted by the DoD contractors is either care-
commercial sector, defense contractors tend fully specified under contract with the govern-
to plan only in the short term of 12 to 24 ment or it is initiated independently (and not
months. Preoccupation with near-term sales under any contract). Under the IR&D fund-
discourages the defense sector from making ing mechanism, a portion of the costs of inde-
long-range investments in basic and applied pendent research is recovered as part of an
research. Such practice, they contend, deem- overhead charge on all contracts which a com-
phasizes the value of investing in new techni- pany enters into with DoD. Typically, major
cal developments, a kind of investment that defense contractors will present to DoD a
may not pan out for as much as 5 to 10 years. description of the IR&D they propose to con-
Government procurement processes and reg- duct–to receive a technical evaluation, and to
ulations may reinforce this trend, providing negotiate the terms and conditions for reim-
few inducements for defense contractors to put bursement. Although it is often referred to as
money back into the technology base. a “program” by DoD officials, and Congress
A second and highly related problem con- annually approves a ceiling for IR&D on an
cerns independent research and development advisory basis, there is no line item for IR&D
(IR&D), a principal mechanism through which funds in the defense budget.
government encourages the defense contrac- Companies that choose to conduct IR&D,
tors to develop technologies that can result in and receive DoD approval of their work, are
new products with defense applications.8 As able to recover a portion of their IR&D costs
presently constituted, IR&D is a major fac- as an additional, negotiated increment of over-
tor in building and maintaining the defense head (historically about 2 percent of the con-
technology base because the cost to DoD is tract cost) on their contracts with the Depart-
equivalent in size to approximately one-fourth ment of Defense. In addition, these companies
of the overall science and technology base retain proprietary and data rights for the R&D
activities (6. 1-6.3A, including SDI) funded by that is conducted. Such rights become a sig-
the Department of Defense. As it stands now, nificant asset for the company, can generate
administration of DoD’s funding of IR&D is future contracts with DoD, and can lead to ad-
so complex that even senior administrators ditional future IR&D.
and experts who study the problem have dif-
ficulty agreeing on the basic components and Within DoD there are actually two mechan-
concepts of the program. Accordingly, a cen- isms–IR&D and B&P (bid and proposal)–
which are managed as essentially a single ele-
ment, although the objectives and criteria of
For a comprehensive review of the history and present sta-
tus of the IR&D question, see U.S. Congress, Congressional each are different. IR&D is research, develop-
Research Service, “Science Support by the Department of De- ment and design activity conducted by defense
fense” (transmitted to the Task Force on Science Policy, Com- contractors that is not directly in support of
mittee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representa-
tives, Science Policy Background Report No, 8, Serial II,
funded DoD contracts. The word “independ-
Washington, DC, December 1986), ch. VIII. ent” is used to indicate that the companies re-
—. -. — —

tain final authority on what research is con- activities show potential military relevance
ducted, but it is somewhat confusing because (PMR). Due to ambiguity in the language of
DoD usually reviews and evaluates the re- Section 203, however, some projects that are
search in advance. In addition, the term is used used to calculate the IR&D/B&P ceilings do
to distinguish non-contractual (independent) not meet the PMR test. DoD administrators
R&D from R&D that is performed under con- maintain that they have brought this matter
tract with DoD. (It can also refer to R&D that to the attention of Congress, and that Congress
the company performs on its own that is not has not taken corrective action. In the absence
submitted to DoD for reimbursement.) The of further congressional direction, DoD re-
term “B&P” refers to costs that contractors quires that “the total portion of the ceiling al-
incur when they respond to government RFPs locable to DoD contracts must be matched by
(request for proposals) or prepare unsolicited IR&D work having a potential relationship to
proposals directed toward anticipated military a military function or operation, ” even though
needs. individual IR&D funded projects may not meet
the PMR requirement.9
DoD requires that B&P efforts not be di-
rected toward actual design and development. Detailed IR&D Technical Plans are prepared
In addition, data rights do not result from by participating companies each year. These
activities conducted with B&P funds because submissions include future plans as well as a
the purpose of these reimbursements is to off- review of past activities. Through OSD, the
set the costs of submitting project proposals military Services review these plans to ensure
to the Department of Defense. In actual prac- that a potential military relationship exists,
tice, however, companies do intermingle IR&D and to assign numerical scores, based on the
and B&P funds, and it is difficult for DoD to technical quality of the plans. In addition to
impose accountability and control mechanisms this technical documentation by each company
in this area. Indeed, regulations now permit and the rating process by DoD, onsite reviews
companies to shift costs between prenegoti- of IR&D efforts are conducted at major com-
ated B&P and IR&D cost ceilings for any given panies on a 3-year cycle. These reviews are
year, and B&P is not monitored as closely as often quite detailed, typically requiring 2 or
IR&D. Critics charge that companies are able 3 days of presentations to the review team.
to conduct virtually any type of activity they
While this review process is costly and time-
deem necessary to gain and maintain a com-
consuming, the fact remains that the bulk of
petitive edge, and that the government pays
the defense contractors receive almost auto-
without obtaining any rights to the design data
matic approval of their IR&D plans. In addi-
or the right to procure the product from tion, IR&D is highly concentrated in a few
another source. While it is true that govern-
companies. Roughly 90 companies receive 95
ment does not acquire proprietary or data
percent of IR&D funds, with wide distribution
rights, and the companies do have wide lati-
of the remaining 5 percent to approximately
tude in the selection of IR&D projects, DoD 13,000 firms.
has placed substantial controls on IR&D/B&P
reimbursements in an effort to ensure that such The initial funds to conduct IR&D/B&P ac-
work, when conducted by industry, is directed tivities are committed by the individual com-
toward the needs of the national defense. panies, and the portion of the costs deemed
“allowable” by DoD negotiators is accepted
There is considerable debate as to the effec- for allocation to all of the company’s business.
tiveness of the DoD regulations that control DoD does not permit the entire costs of com-
IR&D. Many industry leaders and some DoD
pany R&D to be recovered, and government
managers believe that DoD regulations go well
beyond those envisioned by Congress when it
enacted Section 203 of Public Law 91-441, ‘DoD fact sheet entitled “DoD Implementation of Public Law
which contains the requirement that IR&D 91-441, Section 203. ”

‘‘share’ is negotiated annually. 10 For example, 1960s, it has become increasingly conserv-
in fiscal year 1986, US defense contractors told ative in the 1970s and 1980s. Today, it has
DoD that they spent roughly $7.39 billion for become far more an effort to reduce techni-
IR&D/B&P ($4.97 billion for IR&D and $2.42 cal risk than to innovate. In some measure
billion for B&P). Of that, DoD recognized $5.26 the Pentagon is responsible for the new em-
billion ($3.51 billion for IR&D and $1.75 bil- phasis. The main criterion for reimburse
lion for B&P) as costs that could legitimately ment used to be the innovativeness of the
be associated with products sold both to gov- work; today the controlling question is apt
ernment and to commercial customers. Of this to be whether industry’s R&D is sufficiently
total, the government’s share came to $3.50 related to an ongoing weapons program.12
billion ($2.16 billion for IR&D and $1.34 bil- Defense industry executives argue that
lion for B&P). The overall ceiling for IR&D is IR&D is the mechanism through which their
set annually by Congress.11
companies build up internal technology bases.
The propriety of IR&D/B&P reimburse- They contend that IR&D is not a partnership
ments has been questioned by several Com- with the government, but rather that relations
mittees of Congress, and has been the object with DoD are sometimes strained and that
of sustained controversy over the past 20 there is a good deal of tugging and pulling over
years. The defense contractors argue that this issue. Many see IR&D as a creative alter-
IR&D is the lifeblood of their business, pro- native to government regulation. In this view,
viding a means for them to conduct innova- when the government lets an R&D contract,
tive research that contributes to the mainte- it is DoD bureaucrats and not industry tech-
nance of the defense technology base in the nologists who determine the direction of R&D
United States and results in major new weapon programs within industry. The IR&D mecha-
systems. From their perspective, it is analo- nism has the benefit that it originates in the
gous to new product R&D conducted in the defense companies and represents the best
commercial sector, with the difference that the thinking on technology that the private de-
element of risk is largely shifted to the gov- fense sector can provide. It is, they contend,
ernment because DoD has agreed to cover its the central mechanism that enables industry
share of the costs in advance. to tell the government where major R&D em-
phasis and projects should be placed. Accord-
A panel of senior officials with extensive de- ing to industry executives, IR&D proposals
fense experience has concluded that: receive internal corporate review at the high-
the substantial R&D undertaken by U.S. est levels of management and represent fun-
defense industry (reimbursed in part by the damental decisions concerning the direction
Department of Defense) has changed sig- of future corporate research.
nificantly in its character. While this effort
Some observers contend that IR&D is, at
was highly innovative in the 1950s and best, an inefficient means of supporting re-
search in the defense industries, and at worst,
‘nThe government “share’ of accepted costs is allocated as
overhead to government contracts and the government’s “al- a gigantic government giveaway. They point
locable share” is determined as a percentage of the total busi- out that the bulk of IR&D goes to fewer than
ness that the firm does under contract with the government. 20 contractors, and argue that it tends to
The level of costs to be allowed is usually negotiated. Firms
recover a larger portion of B&P costs then IR&D costs from strengthen existing companies and to inhibit
DoD, either as a percentage of incurred or accepted costs. See competition by handicapping new firms that
U.S. Congress, Congressional Research Service, 4’Defense- are not already doing business with DoD.
Related Independent Research and Development in Industry, ”
(prepared by Joan Dopico Winston, CRS Part No, 85-205S, Others are concerned that IR&D funds are tar-
Washington, DC, Oct. 18, 1985), app. III. geted toward short-term technical applications
11 In fiscal Vear 1986, DoD tended to be more generous in its
reimbursem~nt for B&P than for I R&D, reimbursing 76.6 per-
cent of recognized B&P and only 61.2 percent of recognized 1 jFrom ‘‘Discriminate Deterrence, Report of the Commis-
IR&D. sion on Integrated Long-Term Strategy (January 1988), p. 46.

for which relevance can easily be demonstrated that will catch the eye of some project manager
and costs recovered quickly. In this view, it in DoD. When the contract comes through,
contributes little to long-term research and de- they assert, the defense companies have not
velopment on which the health of the defense developed sophisticated manufacturing facil-
technology base depends. ities capable of delivering the new product on
time, at agreed costs, and up to military speci-
Are the interests of government best served
fications. They conclude that a myopic focus
by the IR&D/B&P system as presently consti-
on super high-tech, complex systems, has led
tuted? Is industry technically enhanced as a
to shortfalls in manufacturing technologies
result of IR&D, or could these funds more ef-
that cannot be sustained indefinitely.
fectively support the defense technology base
through some alternative mechanism? Does Other observers contend that the system of
the system of IR&D reimbursements discour- government contracting, particularly the cost-
age new companies from contributing to the plus-fee instrument, creates disincentives for
defense technology base? Does IR&D inhibit firms that would like to modernize their man-
DoD from drawing more widely on the com- ufacturing processes.14 They argue that such
mercial sector? contracts encourage high production costs be-
A third area of concern centers on antiquated cause profit, overhead, and other fees are cal-
culated as a percentage of the total cost of pro-
and inefficient manufacturing practices within
duction. In the defense industry, where firms
the defense industries. For more than two dec-
are comparatively more insulated from inter-
ades, DoD has supported the Manufacturing
national competition, supply, demand, and
Technology Program (ManTech) and, more re-
other market forces, there is less incentive (and
cently, the Industrial Modernization Incen-
less progress) to contain costs and to increase
tives Program (IMIP).13 But these efforts have
efficiency by upgrading outmoded manufactur-
not provided sufficient incentives to encourage
ing practices. Indeed, increased manufactur-
modernization of many plants that build ad-
ing costs can translate into increased profits
vanced weapons systems. The result is that
and other fees on future contracts.
inefficiencies and excessive costs, that would
not be tolerated in the commercial sector, have There are additional disincentives. If a con-
come to characterize a large portion of the de- tractor attempts to modernize manufacturing
fense industries. technology, he must face the risk that the new
process may not work in the short run, or may
Critics charge that many prime contractors introduce significant delays into production
have largely neglected the manufacturing proc-
that may result in angry program managers,
ess, despite the fact that a few have built state-
negative publicity, investigative reporting, au-
of-the-art demonstration facilities. In this view,
dits, and congressional ill will. In addition,
contractors have tended to emphasize labor-
some analysts contend that government has
intensive product technologies that strive to
failed to provide sufficient inducements to sup-
reach the outside limits of performance. They
port research, development, and implementa-
contend that many contractors concentrate on tion of costly new process technologies, Man-
fancy, expensive new product technologies
Tech and IMIP to the contrary notwithstanding.
And finally, some observers argue that when
lsThe Nation~ Rese~ch Council concluded, “The actual im - industry makes major investments in more ef-
pact of the [ManTech] program, however, was limited . . . Sev-
eral groundless but widely held myths have been used to sup-
port the erroneous belief that manufacturing technology was ’’ The defense procurement system creates a business envi-
either an unimportant or an inappropriate concern of DoD. Con- ronment that provides inadequate incentives for process im-
tinued acceptance of these myths could be devastating for the provement. Both the nature of competition among contractors
next generation of weapon systems. ” National Research Coun- and the contract pricing policies act to inhibit emphasis on pro-
cil, Manufacturing Technology: Cornerstone of a Renewed De- duction efficiency.” National Research Council, The file of DoD
fense Industrial Base (Washington, DC: National Academy in Supporting Manufacturing Technology Development (Wash-
Press, 1987), p, 16. ington, DC: National Academy Press, 1986), pp. 10-11.

ficient process technology and manufacturing Various studies indicate that over the next
plant, the benefits accrue only to the govern- 10 years the United States will experience a
ment, and may even damage the position of decline of up to 25 percent in the number of
the defense contractor. This would occur typi- young people entering college. This includes
cally when a future contract is negotiated with an expected increase of 20 to 30 percent in the
the government, and the company’s cost base number of minority students who, historically,
is reduced, decreasing profits and other fees. have not entered advanced degree programs
In such circumstances, the company might be in science and technology in large numbers.
unable to recoup the investment that it had If these trends persist, they could exacerbate
made in new manufacturing technology. This an already significant decline in the number
mechanism, it is argued, encourages small and and percentage of U.S. citizens receiving ad-
incremental improvements where the costs can vanced degrees in science and engineering. In
be recovered in a single contract run. It is a previous work, however, OTA has found this
direct disincentive to major upgrading of man- scenario unconvincing. OTA concluded in 1985
ufacturing facilities, and acts particularly to that “it is entirely possible that supply of peo-
the detriment of small companies that cannot ple trained in science and engineering will not
withstand losses which would result from less decline at all, despite the drop in college-age
favorable terms on future contracts. population." 15
The decrease of U.S. citizens entering these
With regard to the defense industries, the advanced degree programs has generated spe-
policy question turns on the issue of what can cial concerns both within DoD and in the de-
be done to stimulate large defense contractors fense industries because demand for engineers
to plan and invest in longer range technology, and scientists in specialized fields significantly
and to invest in modem manufacturing or proc- outpaces supply. In 1981, for example, there
ess technologies. Should Congress substan- were 10 jobs for each new degree holder in com-
tially alter the relationship between DoD and puter sciences and 4 jobs for each new nuclear
the defense contractors? Do government pol- engineer. Defense analysts also cite shortfalls
icies inhibit the transfer of technology to de- in the area of aeronautical engineers, and in
fense companies or the entry of innovative the fields of avionics, computer software, and
companies into the defense business? Does the electrical systems, among others. l6
emphasis on short-term planning inhibit tech-
nological innovation and, if so, what govern- Recent strong demand has been coupled with
ment policies would have to be changed to re- a long-term increase in the number and per-
verse this orientation? centage of foreign nationals enrolled in grad-
uate degree programs in science and engineer-
ing. In the 20 years between 1964 and 1984,
Supply of Scientists and Engineers the proportion of foreign Ph.D. candidates in
these disciplines increased from 17 to 26 per-
Because the vitality of the defense technol- cent. Among engineering Ph.D. candidates
ogy base ultimately depends on the supply of alone, the proportion of foreign nationals ad-
qualified scientists and engineers, demo-
graphic trends that forecast shortfalls and a
‘sU.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Demo-
change in the national character of the supply graphic Trends and the Scientific and fi~ngineering \$’ork
have aroused widespread concern. Is there a Force-A Technical Afemorandum, OTA-TM-SET-35 (\f’ashing-
military or economic requirement that a cer- ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1985), p.
4. Issues concerning the supply of technical personnel are dis-
tain number of American citizens be trained cussed further in the forthcoming OTA assessment, 13ducat-
as scientists and engineers? If so, is it likely ing Scientists and Enp”neers: Grade School to Grad School,
that sufficient numbers of Americans will en- OTA-S13T-377 (in press), anticipated to be released in May 1988.
l~Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Univer-
ter advanced degree programs in technical sity Responsiveness to National Security Requirements, Janu-
fields over the next decade? ary 1982, DTIC ~ADA 112070, pp. 2-3 and 2-4.

vanced from 22 to 56 percent.17 Some observers laboratories and contract industries specifi-
are alarmed at the growth in the percentage cally associated with the Department of De-
of U.S.-trained foreign scientists and engineers, fense. Some analysts suggest that the role for
which has occurred at the same time as a re- foreign scientists may be in the industries
duction in the number of U.S. citizens trained which support both commercial and military
in technical areas. The total number of stu- technologies. They assert that increasing num-
dents in graduate school has increased, while bers of foreign scientists and engineers plan
Ph.D. degrees have remained the same. to live permanently in the United States, and
they urge immigration authorities to facilitate
If present trends continue, the DoD labs and the stateside plans of these valuable persons.
the companies that do business with the mili-
tary will be faced with three choices. They The other side of the coin is that many U. S.-
could elect to employ fewer persons, but hire trained scientists and engineers return to their
only American citizens. They could maintain own countries. Indeed, many Japanese and
the number of American scientists, but pay European nationals have received their train-
more to attract them. And finally, they could ing in the United States, but have gone to work
elect to hire increasingly more foreign nationals for firms at home that are in direct competi-
over time. A principal security consideration tion with companies in the United States.
is that it is difficult to exercise effective na- The policy question centers on what steps,
tional controls over persons whose citizenship if any, should be taken to increase the number
and allegiance is with another country. of projected U.S. scientists and engineers, and
The broader problem, of course, centers on whether it is necessary or wise to take steps
the possible loss of domestic capacity to un- to affect the number of foreign graduate stu-
dertake leading edge scientific research and de- dents in U.S. universities. 18 Is there a need for
velopment. Here, the dual-use technology in- additional scientific manpower to satisfy both
dustries are as much at risk as the government national security and commercial needs? What
roles should foreign scientists play in the de-
fense technology base in the United States?
*’U.S. General Accounting Office, “Plans of Foreign Ph.D.
Candidates: Postgraduate Plans of U.S. Trained Foreign Stu-
dents in Science/Engineering,” GAO/RCED-86-102FS, p. 7, The “See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, J3du-
GAO data is taken from “Foreign Citizens in U.S. Science and cating Scientists and Engineers: Grade School to Grad School,
Engineering: History, Status and Outlook, ” NSF 86-305 (Wash- OTA-SET-377 (in press), ch. 4, anticipated to be released in May
ington, DC, 1985). 1988.
Chapter 4
Managing Department of Defense
Technology Base Programs

The Department of Defense (DoD) appropri- In fiscal year 1988, more than half of the Pen-
ation for its technology base programs 1 ex- tagon’s technology base program was per-
ceeds $8.6 billion in fiscal year 1988, of which formed by industry, another third by DoD’s
almost half (see table 2) is funding for the Stra- own in-house laboratories, and the remainder
tegic Defense Initiative (SD I). This represents by universities. According to DoD, each of
less than 4 percent of the entire DoD budget. these performers plays an important part in
Nevertheless, many inside and outside of the the successful operation of its technology base
Pentagon consider DoD’s technology base pro- program, and extensive cooperative efforts
grams a crucial investment in the Nation’s among the three groups yields a significant re-
overall national security. The military’s tech- turn on DoD’s investment.
nology base programs consist of a broad spec- The universities perform over 50 percent of
trum of ‘front-end” technology development, DoD’s basic research activities. In addition,
beginning with a broad base of basic research DoD contends that its in-house laboratories
support and extending through the demonstra- provide the Armed Services with the ability
tion of technology that may make up future to meet special military needs that cannot be
defense systems. The scope of interests within met by the Nation’s industrial base. These lab-
DoD’s technology base programs ranges oratories focus attention on short- and long-
across diverse technological concerns from term defense needs, and they enable the mili-
meteorology to autonomous guided missiles tary to act as a smart buyer of technology and
capable of differentiating among various equipment. The primary role of private indus-
targets. try is to develop technology and apply it in
new military systems. z
‘For purposes of this study, technology base programs refer
to budget categories 6.1 (basic research), 6.2 (exploratory de- ‘Martin, Dr. Edith W., “The DoD Science and Technology
velopment), and 6.3A (advanced technology development). DoD Base Programs: Some Management Perspectives, ” Army Re-
usually considers 6.1 and 6.2 as its technology base programs, search, Development, and Acquisition Magazine, Sept. -Oct.
with 6.1 through 6.3A normally referred to as its “science and 1983, p. 3. At the time this article was written the author was
technology programs. ” DUSD(R&AT).

Table 2. —Department of Defense Fiscal Year 1988 Funding of Technology Base Programs
(in millions of dollars)

Army Navy Air Force DARPA Total

Research (6.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $169 $342 $198 $83 $ 902’
Exploratory development (6.2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $556 $408 $557 $512 $2,033
Advanced exploratory development . . . . . . . . . $319 $227 $754 $202 $1,502
Total services and DARPA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4,437
Strategic Defense Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,604
Other defense agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 564
Total DoD technology base programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8,605
‘Thl~ ~u~ ,nClud~~ $110 ~llllOn for the URI ~hl~h OSD has not yet allocated ‘fllOflg the three services and DARPA
SOURCE Office of Technology Assessment. 1988, from data supplied by the Off Ice of the Secretary of Defense.


Goals and Objectives development of aircraft technology which

provides substantially improved capabil-
According to DoD, its diverse technology ities in maneuverability, flight, fire con-
base programs attempt to achieve six major trol, and firepower; and
goals:’ development of the carbon-carbon com-
1. Offset Soviet Numerical Superiority. The posite material nosetip for the TRIDENT
U.S. does not attempt to match the So- D-5 re-entry vehicle.
viet Union and the Warsaw bloc on a per-
son-for-person or weapon-for-weapon ba- Funding Categories for DoD’s
sis. It relies instead on technology to RDT&E Activities
achieve the desired military advantage.
2. Keep Ahead of the Growing Soviet Threat. The Department of Defense does not employ
Although this is increasingly more diffi- the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) fa-
cult, the United States must maintain its miliar categories of basic research, applied re-
technological lead in order to offset the search, and development when reporting its
Soviet threat. Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
3. Reduce Complexity and Costs. The tech- (RDT&E) activities.’ Instead the Pentagon
nology that is produced by the military uses a series of six RDT&E functional catego-
must be designed to reduce the cost and ries numbered 6.1 to 6.6. They are defined by
complexity of future weapon systems. DoD as follows:5
4. Improve Productivity of the Industrial ● 6.1 Research. Includes scientific study and
Base. Maintenance of a strong industrial experimentation directed toward increas-
base, vis-a-vis the Soviet Union, is one of ing knowledge and understanding in those
the most important advantages for the fields of the physical, engineering, envi-
United States. ronmental, biological, medical, and behav-
5. Sponsor the Highest Quality of Science ioral-social sciences related to long-term
and Technology (S&T) Work. DoD must national security needs. It provides fun-
make sure that the S&T work performed damental knowledge for the solution of
by industry, universities, and its in-house military problems. It also provides part
labs is of the highest quality and scien- of the base for subsequent exploratory and
tifically sound. advanced development in defense-related
6. Enhance Return on Investment. Finally, technologies and of new or improved mil-
DoD always tries to receive the greateest itary functional capabilities in various sci-
possible return on its S&T investment. entific fields.
The Department of Defense contends that ● 6.2 Exploratory Development. Includes
the military’s science and technology programs all the efforts directed towards the solu-
have played, and will continue to play, a cru- tion of specific military problems, short
cial role in maintaining the military and civil- of major development projects. This type
ian science and technology (S&T) base. Exam- of effort may vary from fairly fundamen-
ples of this include: tal applied research to quite sophisticated
● early development of lasers and incorpo- ‘Accordimz to NSF, when DoD .rxovides NSF with its RDT&E
ration of their unique capabilities into spending levels, DoD breaks it down into NSF’s three cor-
weapon systems; responding categories in the following manner: 6.1 research is
reported as “basic research’ 6.2 exploratory development is
● early development of integrated circuits
reported as “applied research”; and categories 6.3-6.6 are re-
and their application to mission-critical ca- ported as “development.”
pabilities; 5U.S. Department of Defense, INST 7720.16 (OPNAV
3910. 16). enclosure(3), p.2-7 and 2-8. Department of the Navy,
Budget Guidance Manual, 7102.2. Quotations in the following
section are from this source; the remaining material is
‘Ibid., p. 4. paraphrased from this source.

breadboard hardware, study program- proved for production and Service employ-
ming efforts. ment. 6.6 is not an official category as are
. . . The dominant characteristic of this 6.1-6.5, but is a term used for convenience
category of effort is that it be pointed in reference and discussion. Thus, no pro-
toward specific military problem areas gram element will exist numbered 6.6.
with a view toward developing and eval- All items in this area are major line
uating the feasibility and practicability item elements in other programs. Pro-
of proposed solutions and determining gram control will thus be exercised by
their parameters. review of individual research and devel-
6.3 Advanced Development. Includes all opment effort in each Weapon System
projects which have moved into the devel- Element. Activities in categories 6.3-6.6
opment of hardware for experimental or receive the bulk of RDT&E funding (91.5
operational test. It is characterized by line percent in fiscal year 1987 estimated).
item projects, and program control is ex- Funding for DoD’s technology base pro-
ercised on a project basis. The focus of Ad- grams is appropriated to the individual Serv-
vanced Exploratory Development (6.3A) ices, SDIO, and the Defense agencies such as
lies in the design of items being directed the Defense Advanced Research Projects
toward hardware for testing of operational Agency (DARPA) and the Defense Nuclear
feasibility, as opposed to items designed Agency (DNA). As table 2 indicates, in fiscal
and engineered for eventual Service use. year 1988, SDIO supported the largest tech-
6.4 Engineering Development. Includes all nology base program, followed by the Air Force
those development programs being engi- Army, Navy, and DARPA.
neered for Service use but which have not
yet been approved for procurement or
operation. This area is characterized by
major line item projects and program con- An Overview of Defense Research
trol by review of individual projects. Programs (6.1)
6.5 Management Support. Includes re- The Armed Forces have supported research
search and development efforts directed since the early days of the Nation. The 1804
toward support of installations or opera- expedition of Lewis and Clark, for example,
tions required for general research and de- was funded by the Army. With the establish-
velopment use. Included would be: test ment of the Office of Naval Research (ONR)
ranges; military construction; mainte- in 1946, the military became the first Govern-
nance support of laboratories, operations ment organization to support a major program
and maintenance of test aircraft and ships; of university-based basic research. This com-
and studies and analysis in support of the mitment continued with the establishment of
R&D program. Cost of laboratory person- the Army Research Office (ARO) in 1951, and
nel, either in-house or contract-operated, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research in
would be assigned to appropriate projects 1952. The Advanced Research Projects Agency
or as a line item in the Research, Explora- (ARPA, later DARPA) was established in 1958
tory Development, or Advanced Develop- as part of the U.S. response to Sputnik.
ment Program areas, as appropriate. Mil-
itary construction costs directly related DoD funded the bulk of federally sponsored
to a major development program will be research prior to the establishment of such
included in the appropriate element. Federal research agencies as the National Sci-
6.6 Operational Systems Development. ence Foundation and the National Aeronau-
Includes research and development efforts tics and Space Administration. In the 1950s
directed toward development, engineering and early 1960s, DoD sponsored about 80 per-
and test of systems, support programs, cent of all federally funded basic research.
vehicles, and weapons that have been ap- However although DoD funds about 66 per-

cent of all Federal R&D, it is the fourth largest ● aeronautical sciences

supporter of basic research, accounting for ap- ● terrestrial science
proximately 13 percent of all federally spon- ● medical and biological sciences
sored basic research.
Work in these fields is applied to space tech-
In fiscal year 1988 DoD will spend about 2.1 nology, computer science, electronics, surveil-
percent of its RDT&E budget ($902 million) lance, command and control, communications,
on basic research. This is down from an aver- propulsion, aerodynamics, night vision, chem-
age of 4.6 percent in the 1960s and 3.6 percent ical and biological defense, structures, medi-
in the 1970s. During fiscal year 1988, approx- cal and life sciences, and other areas of mili-
imately 50 percent of DoD’s research will be tary importance.6
performed by universities, with another 30 per-
Most successful research programs lead to
cent by DoD’s in-house laboratories, and the
further efforts in exploratory development (cat-
remaining 20 percent by industry and non-
egory 6.2) which focus on more applied con-
profit organizations.
figurations with military relevance. This re-
The Department of the Navy will support search and development process led, for
the largest research program in fiscal year example, to the injection of laser technology
1988, funding 37 percent of all DoD’s research. into military systems. The laser was primar-
The Army and Air Force will support about ily supported by DoD soon after the time of
19 and 23 percent respectively, with DARPA its invention, when its potential military rele-
and the other Defense agencies supporting the vance appeared quite remote.
remaining 21 percent.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)
The Pentagon views its research program as and the Services contend that research accom-
a crucial source of its future technology. How- plishments are transferred or quickly passed
ever, DoD research activities differ from other onto the military R&D community and poten-
technology base activities because research is tial laboratory program managers.
not necessarily expected to result directly in
Extramural contractors, primarily univer-
a military product. The Services support re-
sities and industry, are not expected to justify
search into the nature of basic processes and their (6.1) research proposals in terms of pos-
phenomena, and contend that they select re-
sible DoD applications. However, in-house re-
search projects based on the quality of science
searchers, because of their laboratory associa-
and their potential relationship to the DoD tion, are expected to demonstrate a closer
mission. association to specific military applications.
The three Services and DARPA support re- The most important criterion for funding re-
search activities in such fields of science as: search is the quality of science, followed by its
potential relationship to the DoD mission.
● physics
Other criteria include:
● astronomy
● electronics ● the potential of the proposed research to
● mathematics lead to 6.2 work;
● mechanics ● whether a civilian R&D agency should
● materials support the proposed research;
● oceanography ● the possibility that the research will lead
● atmospheric sciences to radically new scientific discoveries;
● behavioral sciences ● the track record of the researcher(s) sub-
● radiation sciences mitting the proposal; and
● astrophysics
● chemistry 8C01. Donald I. Carter, ‘‘The Department of Defense State-
ment on Science in the Mission Agencies and Federal Labora-
● computer science tories, ” before the Task Force on Science Policy of the House
● energy conversion Committee on Science and Technology, Oct. 2, 1985, p. 7.

● the extent to which a proposal fits into proposals. The Army Research Office subjects
a particular Service’s 6.1 funding pri- proposals to a three-level technical review proc-
orities. ess: a peer review in the external scientific com-
munity for technical excellence, an Army lab-
The basic research programs in the three
oratory review both for excellence and military
Services are comprised of three major program
relevance, and an ARO internal review to make
elements (PE):7 Defense Research Science; the
a final funding decision. The Services en-
In-House Laboratory Independent Research
courage researchers to discuss their proposal
Program (ILIR); and the University Research
ideas with the appropriate DoD technical per-
Initiative (URI). The Defense Research Science
son before submitting a formal proposal. Those
program is the largest of the three programs,
researchers who follow this suggestion have
making up 90 percent of the 6.1 budget. At
an approximate 50-percent success rate, com-
6 percent of the research budget, ILIR is de-
pared to a lo-percent funding rate of proposals
signed to give laboratory directors flexibility
received without prior contact.
in order to take advantage of new technologi-
cal opportunities and to help maintain a re- The Navy’s technical review is completed
search base in the laboratories. (DARPA and primarily in-house by their scientific officers.
the Army do not support ILIR programs.) The Of the three Services’ research programs, the
remaining 4 percent of the research budget is Office of Naval Research has the largest num-
devoted to the URI program. ber of staff scientific officers, about 80. Due
to a smaller professional staff, the Army Re-
Pursuant to the 1984 Competition in Con-
search Office (ARO) and the Air Force Office
tracting Act, all of the Services and DARPA
of Scientific Research (AFOSR) rely primar-
publish an annual broad agency announcement ily on outside review of their research proposals
(BAA). The BAA outlines the specific research
although they also use in-house expertise to
interests of each Service and DARPA, and the
review proposals. (Each has about 40 profes-
procedures for submitting research proposals.
sional people located at its research office.) The
DoD contends that all proposals falling within
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has a con-
the guidelines of each BAA are considered com- tract with the ARO and AFOSR to arrange
petitive and satisfy the Act. formal technical reviews of research proposals.
DoD believes that supporting 6.1 work is im- DARPA relies primarily on the three Services
portant for its in-house laboratories. By sup- and the external scientific community to re-
porting the military’s research program, DoD view its research proposals.
feels laboratory researchers are able to keep
In most cases, the Service laboratories form
abreast of new discoveries and engage in im- technical review panels, made up of the lab-
portant interactions with the scientific com- oratory director and various technical program
munity. According to DoD, laboratory per-
directors, to decide which research proposals
formance of research increases the technical
will be funded within the laboratory. The Na-
abilities of the laboratories and helps to attract
val Research Laboratory, for example, uses a
imaginative scientists and engineers.
Research Advisory Committee, consisting of
the laboratory and program directors, that de-
Technical Review of Research termines which in-house research proposals
Proposals and Programs will be supported.
Each of the Services, and DARPA, conducts An Overview of DoD’s Technology
an extensive technical review of all research Base Activities in the Laboratories
‘The PE is the basic building block in DoD’s program, plan- The Department of Defense laboratories per-
ning, and budgeting system (PPBS). There are approximately form research and development in diverse
180 PE’s in DoD’s entire technology base program, with each
PE consisting of all costs associated with a research activity areas of science and technology in support of
or weapon system. military and civil works programs of DoD.

83-207 - 0 - 88 - 3

There are currently 68 DoD RDT&E labora- 5. provide material acquisition and operat-
tories (31 Army, 23 Navy, and 14 Air Force) ing system support;
that have a combined annual cash flow of 6. stimulate the use of technical demonstra-
nearly $10 billion for technology base and other tions and prototypes to mature and ex-
development activities. The responsibilities ploit U.S. and allied technologies; and
and operations of the various laboratories dif- 7. interface with the worldwide scientific
fer within the three Services in order to meet community; provide support to other gov-
their individual mission requirements. DoD’s ernment agencies.9
laboratories actually perform only about one-
The Pentagon asserts that its technology
third of the technology base activities, while
base capabilities should serve as a strong com-
industry performs over 50 percent and the Na-
plement to the civilian technology base, as em-
tion’s universities and nonprofit organizations phasized in a recent DoD report to the Senate
perform the remainder. Armed Services Committee:
The Pentagon contends that its laboratories A strong free enterprise economy and in-
play a crucial role in solving science and engi- dustrial base–here and abroad–are the es-
neering problems, deficiencies, and needs that sential underpinning of our defense posture.
are unique to the military. DoD states that the Investment in our technology base and main-
primary purpose of its laboratories is to de- tenance of our technology strength are criti-
velop new technologies to support each of the cal to the long term security of the U.S. and
respective Service’s missions. According to our allies.l0
DoD, the role of the laboratories in the devel-
Over the past several years DoD officials
opment and improvement of technology and
have been trying to resolve a number of diffi-
weapons systems is fundamental to improving
cult laboratory issues. The Pentagon has been
national security. DoD believes that the lab-
struggling with such concerns as improving
oratories have a responsibility to maintain a
communications within and among the differ-
strong continuity of scientific activities, free ent laboratories, increasing the management
from commercial pressures, directed toward
flexibility of the individual laboratory direc-
meeting specific military needs. Further,
tors, meeting scientific and technical person-
according to DoD, the laboratories provide a
nel needs, upgrading facilities, developing
fast reaction capability to solve immediate crit-
mechanisms for evaluating the performance
ical problems that may confront the Services. of the laboratories, and improving DoD’s over-
Other responsibilities include the following: all management of its laboratories.
1. ensure the maintenance and improvement
of national competence in technology Special Technology Base Initiatives
areas essential to military needs;
2. avoid technological surprise and ensure DoD has initiated a number of special pro-
technological innovation; grams to help address specific technology base
3. pursue technology initiatives through the problems. Most of these initiatives center
planning, programming, and budgeting around such concerns as communication be-
process; allocate work among private tween DoD and various research performers,
sector organizations and government scientific communications and technology
elements; transfer, and support of the research infra-
4. act as a principal agent in maintaining the structure.
technology base of DoD; In 1982, DoD established the 5-year, $150
million University Research Instrumentation
Where is about an equal number of other centers that do not
perform traditional RDT&E activities, but rather are special ‘U.S. Department of Defense, “Report (for the Committee on
facilities with very specific missions, such as flight testing new Armed Services) on the Technology Base and Support of Univer-
or refurbished aircraft. The R&D activities of DoD’s labora- sity Research, ” Mar. 1, 1985, p. 42.
tories are discussed fin-ther in chapter 5. IOIbid., p. 53.

Program (URIP) to improve the capability of of multidisciplinary research contracts de-

universities to perform research in support of signed to enhance interdisciplinary research
the national defense. This program provides efforts between universities, industry, and
funding for large items of equipment ($50,000 DoD laboratories. Generally, these contracts
to $500,000) that would not be funded in a typi- will receive support for 3 to 5 years, with re-
cal research grant.11 This program was consid- view and evaluation after 3 years. These re-
ered a success by DoD. But judging by the re- search centers will conduct research in a range
sponse, it will not come close to meeting all of disciplines (mathematics, engineering, and
the instrumentation requests; in the first year the physical, biological, and social sciences) im-
alone, it received 2,500 proposals seeking a to- portant to the Pentagon. The centers will in-
tal of 646 million dollars’ worth of equipment. crease overall defense funding for high risk
basic research in support of critical defense
In 1983, at the recommendation of the De-
technologies, as well as continue support (in
fense Science Board, DoD established the DoD
place of URIP) for equipment and instrumen-
University Forum. The Forum consists of an
tation. 13
almost equal number of DoD and university
members and was originally co-chaired by the The second major URI program element is
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and the “Programs to Develop Human Resources
Advanced Technology and the President of in Science and Engineering. ” This program ele-
Stanford University. The Forum has issued ment is designed to increase DoD’s support
reports dealing with such subjects as scientific for fellowships, postdoctoral, young investi-
secrecy and technology export control, engi- gators, and scientific exchange programs, in
neering and science education needs, and order to promote interaction between scientific
DoD’s response to those needs. More recently, and engineering personnel in DoD laboratories
the forum’s working group on engineering and and universities conducting DoD-sponsored re-
science education issued a report which en- search.
dorsed the major components of the Univer- DoD asserts that its laboratories are in the
sity Research Initiative (URI) to foster greater forefront of the effort to transfer technologi-
DoD-University cooperation.
cal expertise from the Federal Government to
According to the Department of Defense, the State and local governments and private in-
URI would “address some of the concerns ex- dustry. The Federal Laboratory Consortium
pressed by Congress regarding DoD support for Technology Transfer was originally estab-
for the infrastructure of science and technol- lished by the Department of Defense in 1972.
ogy in the United States, ” particularly at col- Further, in response to the Stevenson-Wydler
leges and universities.12 DoD proposed to Technology Innovation Act, the Department
spend $25 million in fiscal year 1986 and $50 of Defense established its domestic technol-
million in fiscal year 1987 for the University ogy transfer program under the responsibil-
Research Initiative. Congress responded by ap- ity of the Deputy Under Secretary for Research
propriating $88.5 million in fiscal year 1986, and Advanced Technology. The primary goal
$35 million in fiscal year 1987, and $110 mil- of this effort is to accelerate the domestic trans-
lion in fiscal year 1988. fer of unclassified technical and scientific ex-
pertise to both the university community and
DoD’s URI program consists of two major
the private sector.
program elements. The first element consists
DoD sponsors a number of educational pro-
1‘According to DoD, funding for a typical l-year single inves- grams to help ensure an adequate supply of
tigator research contract would fall in the range of $50,000 to
“CO]. Donald I. Carter., USAF Acting Deputy Under Secre- ‘3U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary
tary of Defense for Research and Advanced Technology, Testi- of Defense for Research and Engineering, fiscal year 1986
mony Before the Subcommi ttee on Research and Development University Research Initiative Program Overview, December
of the House Armed Services Committee, Apr. 2, 1985. 1985, p. 2.

highly trained scientific and engineering per- nology base strategy, such as Army’s Mission
sonnel. All three Services support a large num- Area Material Process, or utilizes special stud-
ber of science and engineering graduate stu- ies—such as the Air Force Forecast II proj-
dents as well. DoD’s direct funding for research ect—which serve as major guides for their
at universities provides the Pentagon with its respective research programs.
largest base of graduate student support. A
The laboratories attached to a particular
1980 study, conducted by the Office of Naval
Armed Service contribute to its technology
Research, estimated that on average a million
base plan. Outside advisory bodies such as the
dollars of university research funding sup-
National Academy of Sciences, the National
ported 10 to 15 full-time or part-time gradu-
Science Foundation, individuals in the scien-
ate students. Based on those figures, the Pen-
tific community, and in-house technical di-
tagon estimated that it supported between
rectors and their respective staffs also make
4,000 and 4,500 graduates students in fiscal
recommendations. The Services also have sci-
year 1987.
entific advisors or science boards that partici-
At the graduate level all three Services spon- pate in planning activities. The individual Serv-
sor activities to increase the supply of scien- ices can also request that their science boards
tific personnel. The fellowship programs of conduct a review of some particular area of the
both the Army and Navy support graduate technology base programs to assure its scien-
students in such fields as computer sciences, tific merit and/or responsiveness to particu-
electrical engineering, and life sciences. The Air lar Service needs. There are inter-Service co-
Force fellowship program is aimed at more operative groups, such as the Joint Logistics
mission-specific activities, sponsoring students Commanders and the Joint Directors of Lab-
in such areas as advanced composite structures oratories, which meet and review past and fu-
and aircraft propulsion technology. According ture laboratory activities to reduce duplication
to DoD, the Services supported about 200 while increasing awareness of existing labora-
graduate fellowships in fiscal year 1987; of this tory activities.
total, the Navy supported about 145. The Serv-
Finally, DoD has an elaborate scientific and
ices also provide opportunities for faculty and
technical advisory mechanism, with ad hoc and
undergraduate and graduate students to con-
permanent scientific advisory committees at
duct research at various DoD laboratories dur-
many levels, to advise individual laboratories,
ing the summer months.
military Service chiefs, and OSD. At the level
Planning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the
Defense Science Board deals with both specific
All of the Services conduct an extensive an- and broad policies that address such issues as
nual top-down, bottom-up planning exercise scientific manpower, defense industrial pre-
in order to develop a 5-year program objective paredness, the quality of the technology base,
memorandum (POM) and annual technology technology transfer, and standardization of
base investment strategy. From the top the weapon systems in NATO. Each branch of the
Services receive the annual Defense Guidance military also has a scientific advisory body
Manual, prepared by the Office of the Secre- analogous to the DSB: the Army Science
tary of Defense, which provides them with Board, the Naval Research Advisory Commit-
guidance on developing their entire RDT&E tee, and the Air Force Scientific Advisory
programs. Planning usually begins with a re- Board.14
view and evaluation of the previous year’s
research activities. When this review is com- “Science Policy Study Background Report No. 8, “Science
pleted, the Services decide which activities to Support by the Department of Defense, ” prepared by the Con-
continue, which to transition (e.g., from 6.1 into gressional Research Service for the Task Force on Science Pol-
icy, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Rep-
6.2 programs), and which activities to stop. resentatives, 99th Congress, p. 405. Hereafter referred to as
Each of the Services develops an annual tech- “Science Support by the Department of Defense. ”
— —


The Office of the Secretary of Defense ex- re-created the Director of Defense Research
erts oversight responsibility for all of DoD and Engineering (DDR&E), who reports to the
technology base programs. Oversight refers USD(A).
to the process of formulating and developing
Until 1986, the Under Secretary of Defense
policy guidance for a particular program, in
for Research and Engineering had responsibil-
this case DoD’s technology base programs. It
includes: developing an investment strategy ity for the research and development activi-
ties of DoD and chaired the Defense System
for a particular program; assigning manage-
Acquisition Review Council (DSARC), which
ment responsibility for the program; coordi-
made decisions about which major weapon sys-
nating research programs; establishing policy;
tems to purchase. In 1985 the functions of the
developing program evaluation procedures;
Office of the Under Secretary were trimmed
and recommending appropriate programm a t i c
when Secretary of Defense Weinberger re-
moved from the office “primary responsibil-
OSD is primarily concerned with making ity y for overall production policy and some key
sure that DoD’s technology base programs are production decisions. ” The effect of the reor-
well balanced and reflect the overall needs of ganization, according to Science magazine, was
DoD. In addition, the Services and DARPA to drive a wedge between those responsible for
each assign specific individuals within their research and development and those respon-
respective organizations oversight responsibil- sible for production, with the hope that fewer
ities for technology base programs. At this faulty weapon systems would get from the lab-
level, individuals responsible for oversight are oratory to the factory.15 The President’s Pri-
primarily concerned with protecting and help- vate Sector Survey on Cost Control (known as
ing to manage and coordinate their organiza- the Grace Report) and the Packard Commis-
tion’s technology base programs. sion had criticized the combination of research
with production. Consequently the Goldwater-
Programmatic management involves the di-
Nichols Act created the Under Secretary for
rect day-to-day management of a certain tech-
Acquisition (USD(A)) and the DDR&E to
nology base activity. Programmatic manage-
maintain a separation between R&D and ac-
ment includes responsibility for the successful
quisition decisions. ’G
completion of an R&D activity, including:
timely completion of R&D tasks; meeting pro- The USD(A) has oversight responsibility for
jected costs; evaluation of R&D activities; and DoD’s technology base program, with the ex-
facilitating the transitioning or phasing out ception of SDIO (see figure 2). The DDR&E
of research activities. The Services, DARPA, has oversight responsibilities for the Services
and SDIO each assign specific individuals, and the DNA’s technology base programs.
within their respective organizations, day-to-
According to the USD(A), the DDR&E has
day management responsibility of various
five primary responsibilities: 1) to oversee de-
technology base activities.
velopment and acquisition of weapon systems
As a result of the Military Reform Act of through full scale engineering development; 2)
1986 (sometimes referred to as the Goldwater- to oversee force modernization; 3) to oversee
Nichols Act), DoD has reorganized the man- design and engineering; 4) to oversee develop-
agement of its RDT&E activities. The Act
abolished the office of Under Secretary of De-
fense for Research and Engineering and ‘5R. Jeffrey Smith, “DoD Reorganizes Management, ” Science,
Feb. 8, 1985, p. 613.
replaced it with the Under Secretary of Defense “For further details see Science Support by the Department
for Acquisition (USD(A)). The legislation also of Defense, ” p. 63.

83-207 - 0 - 88 - 4

Figure 2.-Management of the Department of Defense Technology Base Program

Secretary of

Strategic Defense
Under Secretary
of Defense,
[, ‘

I 1

Director, Defense
Research and Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Engineering Research and Technology
[DDR&E] [ASD (R&T)]; and Director,
Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency

Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense,
Executive Director, Research and Director, Defense
Defense Science Advanced Nuclear Agency
Board Technology

mental test and evaluation; and 5) to oversee Services, DARPA, and DNA are following
basic research, exploratory development, and overall technology base guidance developed by
advanced technology development. As figure the OSD. The DDR&E also acts to ensure that
2 indicates, the Director of the Defense Nu- disagreements pertaining to technology base
clear Agency and the Executive Director of the responsibilities and priorities are settled in a
Defense Science Board, which is the principal way that best represents the science and tech-
advisory body within the OSD, also report to nology interests of the Department of Defense.
the DDR&E. According to DoD, the Assistant Secretary
As a “corporate guardian” of DoD’s entire of Defense for Research and Technology—
technology base program (except for SDIO), ASD(R&T)—will also serve as the Director
the DDR&E is responsible for ensuring that of the Defense Research Projects Agency
the technology base programs of the three (DARPA). The Director of DARPA reports to

the USD(A), but will work closely with the The Research and Advanced Technology of-
DDR&E to coordinate DARPA’s technology fice has itself recently been reorganized into
base programs, which are contracted through five major directorates, as shown in figure 2.
and managed primarily by the three Services. There are approximately 30 professional sci-
Prior to the recent reorganization, the Deputy entists and engineers spread among the five
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and directorates. The Research and Laboratory
Advanced Technology (DUSD(R&AT)) reported Management Directorate is responsible for:
directly to the Under Secretary of Defense oversight of the Service research (6.1) pro-
Acquisition (USD(A)). However, the DUSD grams; oversight of the DoD laboratories; re-
(R&AT) now reports to the USD(A) through lated research and development in the indus-
the DDR&E. The primary responsibility of the trial sector, including Independent Research
DUSD(R&AT) office is to provide oversight and Development (IR&D);17 and the flow of sci-
for the three Services’ technology base pro- entific and technical information. The office
grams, and to serve as their DoD point of con- meets with representatives from the three
tact. The primary functions of R&AT are to: Services, DARPA, and SDIO to: coordinate
structure the technology base program across research-related policymaking; help facilitate
Service lines, in order to eliminate overlaps and inter-Service cooperation; suggest solutions to
gaps; resolve technical differences; and en- managerial problems; and address urgent re-
hance return on investment. search needs. In addition to coordinating re-
search in-house, the Research and Laboratory
The R&AT office also develops the planning,
Management office also works with different
programming, and budgeting system (PPBS),
Federal R&D agencies, such as the National
writes the technology base portion of the De-
Science Foundation (NSF), and with the U.S.
fense Guidance Manual, and if required re-
scientific community. The remaining four di-
sponds to the Services’ Program Objective
rectorates have oversight responsibilities-and
Memoranda. The R&AT office must also re-
in one instance management responsibility—
view the 2-year budget proposals of the Serv-
for exploratory (6.2) and advanced technology
ices and assure that those expenditure plans
development (6.3A) conducted in-house by
have the appropriate balance among the vari-
DoD labs or extramurally by outside con-
ous proposed programs. Finally, the DUSD
(R&AT) is supposed to work continually with
the Services to help them achieve mutual sci- The Electronic Systems Technology Direc-
ence and technology interests. torate is responsible for oversight of programs
in surveillance, communications, electronic
With overall guidance from the Office of the
warfare, optical countermeasures and tactical
Secretary of Defense and the R&AT office (pri-
directed energy weapons. In the area of search
marily through the annual publication of the
and surveillance, concepts are being refined
Defense Guidance Manual), the three Services
to improve day/night/all-weather capabilities.
and DARPA formulate their technology base This particular research complements thrusts
programs. Determining the scope of technol-
in precision-guided weapons and activities to
ogy base work involves an evaluation of the
develop automatic high-resolution target iden-
operational needs of each participant and the
tification, classification, and tracking tech-
technological opportunities for meeting those
needs. The needs are primarily derived through
a comparison of the future projected military The Engineering Technology Directorate is
threat with planned U.S. military capability often referred to as the “firepower and mobil-
and doctrine. Finally, the R&AT office must ity” directorate, with oversight responsibility
be sure the Service technology base programs for four related areas: combat vehicles, propul-
establish new research initiatives in order to
meet the long-term science and technology re-
quirements of the three Services. ‘7 See ch. 3 for a discussion of IR&D.

sion and fuels, conventional weapons, and ma- refers to as a “thrust directorate” because
terials and structures. One of the major goals it manages considerable program funding. In
of the directorate is to facilitate technology addition to oversight responsibilities, its direc-
transition through advanced technology dem- tor has a direct management role in the plan-
onstration to better match the technological ning, execution, and evaluation of various pro-
needs of the various Services. Consequently, grams. The director has direct management
this directorate has oversight responsibilities responsibility for the SEMATECH program,l8
for a large portion of DoD’s advanced technol- the Very High Speed Integrated Circuit (VHSIC)
ogy development activities (6.3A). This direc- program, the Microwave/Millimeter Wave Mon-
torate also has responsibility for spacecraft olithic Integrated Circuit (MIMIC) program, the
propulsion and the National Aerospace Plane, Software Technology for Adaptable Reliable Sys-
for logistics R&D, and for the Army Corps of tems (STARS) program, and several others.
Engineers laboratories.
DoD contends that this directorate’s direct
The Environmental and Life Sciences Direc- management responsibilities address three im-
torate deals with four supporting disciplines: portant management needs: 1) to focus the mili-
training and personnel technology; medicine tary’s needs on computer and electronics-
and life sciences; chemical warfare and chemi- related technology, 2) to ensure that both the
cal/biological defense; and environmental fac- hardware and software receive appropriate at-
tors. In the area of training, work is being con- tention, and 3) to place more emphasis on the
ducted in the area of computer-based training transition of computer and electronics technol-
and performance aids for operations and main- ogy to operational systems.
tenance tasks. In the environmental sciences,
major efforts involve modernizing data acqui-
‘sThe SE MATECH program will attempt to rectify the prob-
sition and processing capabilities and the up- lem of U.S. competitiveness in worldwide semiconductor mar-
grading of DoD’s radar technology, tactical kets by pooling the resources of the semiconductor industry,
sensors, and tactical decision-aid capabilities. with assistance from the Federal Government. These resources
will be used to create a central production facility from which
The Computer and Electronics Technology new manufacturing processes would be made available to the
U.S. semiconductor industry. Congress has agreed to begin fund-
Directorate operates differently than the other ing for this proposal and has provided $100 million in funding
four directorates. This directorate is what DoD (to be managed by DoD) for fiscal year 1988.


The Office of Chief of Naval Research (see Management of the Navy’s Research
figure 3) is responsible for the Department of (6.1) Program
the Navy’s basic research (6.1) and exploratory
development (6.2) programs. The Chief of Na-
val Research reports to the Assistant Secre- The Office of Naval Research (ONR, see fig-
tary of the Navy for Research, Engineering, ure 4) is responsible for the daily activities of
and Systems and to the Chief of Naval Opera- the Navy’s research programs. The director
tions for policy guidance, planning, and exe- of ONR reports to the Chief of Naval Research,
cution of the Navy’s basic research and ex- who is ultimately responsible for planning, re-
ploratory development programs. The Chief view, and approval of the Navy’s various re-
of Naval Research serves as the scientific advi- search activities. ONR was established by Con-
sor to the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and gress in 1946 as the first Federal organization
the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC). to support university-based basic research.
Since 1985 he has also had oversight respon- ONR was responsible for developing a number
sibility for all Navy’s laboratories. of mechanisms which are still in use today to

Figure 3. –Navy Organization for Science and Technology

of the

SOURCE: Office of the Chief of Naval Research

support research at the Nation’s universities. ● funding for special-purpose research at in-
They include: stitutions such as Woods Hole Oceano-
graphic Institute.l9
● funding project grants for individual re-
searchers at colleges and universities; According to ONR, the primary goals of its
● establishing a peer review process to research programs are:
evaluate research proposals; ● to sustain U.S. scientific and technical su-
● purchasing of expensive specialized periority for Naval power and security;
● funding the construction of large facilities, “U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government Research,
operated by a consortium of universities; Federal Research and Development Programs Hearings, Nov.
and 18., 1963, p. 33.

Figure 4. -Office of Naval Research

Office of
Naval Research

Planning and

Institute for
Naval Research

Naval Ocean Naval

Research and Environmental
Development Prediction
Activity Research Facility

SOURCE: Office of Naval Research

● to provide a source of new concepts and the Naval Oceanographic Research and Devel-
technical options; opment Activity, the Institute for Naval
● to support theoretical and experimental Oceanography, and the Navy Environmental
research in each directorate; Prediction Research Facility) will receive 21
● to retain a vigorous scientific manpower percent; other Navy laboratories will get 12
and laboratory base; and percent; and for-profit and nonprofit organi-
● to apply the results of research to Naval zations will receive the remaining 7 percent.
warfare and warfare support areas.
Founded in 1923, the Naval Research Lab-
The research program of ONR supports a oratory (NRL) is the principal laboratory of
broad spectrum of scientific disciplines. ONR ONR. It receives almost 90 percent of the 6.1
plans to fund 342 million dollars’ worth of re- funds that go to the ONR laboratories. This
search in fiscal year 1988. Sixty percent of research funding is about 24 percent of the
those funds will go to universities. ONR’s four laboratory’s total in-house funds, and it plays
laboratories (the Naval Research Laboratory, a major role in NRL's total in-house operation.

The NRL performs and supports research in Forty percent of ONR’s research program
a broad range of areas including computer sci- consists of Accelerated Research Initiatives
ence and artificial intelligence, directed energy (ARIs) designed to concentrate resources in
weapons, electronic warfare, space science and specific areas of research which offer a particu-
technology, materials, radar, information man- larly attractive scientific or Naval opportunity.
agement, surveillance and sensor technology, ARIs, which are normally funded for 5 years,
environmental effects on Naval systems, and are sprinkled throughout the four research
underwater acoustics. directorates and the laboratories of ONR.
These initiatives represent an accelerated or
ONR relies on four major research direc- enhanced program in a basic scientific area
torates to carry out its contract research pro- which is potentially attractive to future Navy
grams: Mathematics and Physical Sciences, needs.
Environmental Sciences, Engineering, and Life Some of the ARI research areas include: arc-
Sciences. As might be expected, the directorate tic oceanography, composites, interracial sci-
which receives the largest share of research ence, and electrochemical properties of mem-
funds is Environmental Sciences, with its fo- brane proteins as the basis of specialized
cus on oceanography activities. The Navy’s cellular functions. ARIs are selected from re-
Ocean Sciences Division covers the range of search options developed by the scientific com-
disciplines from physical oceanography of both munity and by ONR’s scientific officers, and
the open ocean and coastal zones, through are reviewed and ranked as part of ONR’s an-
ocean biology and ocean chemistry, to marine nual research planning and budgeting process.
meteorology. ARI selection is based on how well the pro-
posed activity meets the goals of the Navy’s
A fifth ONR directorate, the Applied Re- research program and is done through an ex-
search and Technology Directorate, has pri- pert panel-based peer review process.
mary responsibility for adapting and extend-
ing generic basic research toward applied Management of the Navy’s
research, thereby helping to transition research
results into the Navy’s exploratory develop- Exploratory Development and
ment program. This directorate is also respon- Advanced Technology Development
sible for working closely with the Navy’s ex- Programs (6.2 & 6.3A)
ploratory development program in order to
identify and implement high-leverage oppor- The Navy’s entire exploratory development
tunities for joint research and exploratory de- program is managed by the Office of Naval
velopment funding. The Navy is the only Serv- Technology (ONT) within the Office of Chief
ice that operates a research directorate with of Naval Research. ONT (see figure 5) was cre-
this type of responsibility. ated in 1980 by the Secretary of the Navy to
“provide for a more clearly defined process of
The Applied Research and Technology Di- planning, execution and transition of programs
rectorate is also an agent and a project man- within the technology base and into advanced
ager for selected programs sponsored by the technology development . . .“ ONT currently
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Subma- has a professional staff of 55 people to carry
rine Warfare, DARPA, the Strategic Defense out its responsibilities.20
Initiative Organization (SDIO), and other de-
fense organizations and industry. The ONR, ‘°From 1980 through 1985, ONT reported to the Deputy Chief
of Naval Material (Technology) [DCNM(T)]. In May 1985, when
with the assistance of this directorate, man- the Naval Material Command was abolished, the CNR was as-
ages the largest SDIO basic research program signed the additional responsibility of managing those Naval
of the three Services. ONR expects to manage R&D Centers that had reported to the Chief of Naval Material.
In 1986, management of the Navy’s R&D centers were placed
between $80 and $90 million, primarily in the under the newly created Space and Naval Warfare Systems Com-
research category, for SDIO in fiscal year 1988. mand (SPAWAR).

Warfare and Low Observable
Warfare and Undersea
Surface/Aerospace Directorate
Technology Directorate
Technology Directorate

Support Technologies
(see below)

Support Technologies Include:

● Command, Control, and Communications
● Mission Support Technologies
(Personnel and Training; Biomedical; Logistics; Chemical/Biological/Radiological Defense)
● Systems Support Technologies
(Electronic Devices; Materials; Human Factors; Oceanography; Computer Hardware, Software, and Architecture;
Artificial Intelligence)

SOURCE: Office of Naval Technology

ONT is primarily responsible for all program- ment procedures. This includes resolving dis-
matic oversight of the Navy’s exploratory de- putes-between the laboratories involving re-
velopment program, which includes such activ- search emphasis and responsibilities. However,
ities as program planning, approval, funding, the DNL does not have any responsibilities for
review, and evaluation. One of the most im- the development and selection of research
portant activities of the ONT is the develop- projects that are supported by the various
ment of the investment and mission area strat- SPAWAR laboratories.
egies, which are the heart of the 6.2 program
management system. These strategies are de- Through its R&D Centers, the Navy per-
veloped in consultation with OSD, the Office forms much more of its 6.2 and 6.3A program
of the Secretary of the Navy, the CNO, the in-house than do the other Services, for which
Commandant of the Marine Corps, ONR, the 6.3A work is primarily performed by industry.
Director of Navy Laboratories at the Space and Navy R&D Centers have a much stronger em-
Naval Warfare Systems Command phasis on development activities beyond the
(SPAWAR), and the other Naval System tech base than do the laboratories of the other
Commands. Services.
The Director of Navy Laboratories (DNL) In fiscal year 1988, the Navy will support
at SPAWAR, where about half of the ONT’s the smallest exploratory development program
6.2 program is performed, is responsible for of the three Services, conducting 59 percent
establishing laboratory policy and manage- of its 6.2 activities in-house. Industry will con-

duct 31 percent, universities 7 percent, and the Navy has broad mission strategies for anti-
remainder will be conducted by other govern- surface ship warfare, anti-submarine warfare,
ment agencies. Although the Navy has over and mine warfare. Because mission areas do
20 laboratories, the majority of 6.2 and 6.3A not often change, the focus of this activity is
activities are performed by the eight SPAWAR on updating the strategy associated with each
R&D Centers and the three ONR laboratories. mission area.
As figure 5 indicates, ONT consists of six In developing each mission area strategy,
major directorates. Three of them—the Anti- ONT establishes what it calls technology
air/Antisurface Warfare and Surface/Aero- thrusts (see figures 6 and 7). According to ONT
space Technology Directorate, the Support each technology thrust has a single opera-
Technologies Directorate, and the Antisubma- tional/performance objective or several very
rine Warfare and Undersea Technology Direc- closely related ones supporting the warfight-
torate—fund about 80 percent of the Navy’s ing objectives of its mission area. ONT utilizes
6.2 program. The remaining three directorates two definitions of technology to help identify
have specific responsibilities primarily with a particular technological thrust:
oversight and coordination of related explora-
● a science or engineering discipline specific
tory development programs. to an application, such as:
The Industry IR&D Directorate is respon- –laser communication technology,
sible for all oversight of the Navy’s IR&D pro-
grams. The office is responsible for working
with industry insetting IR&D priorities, evalu- Figure 6.–Navy 6.2 Program Structure
ating IR&D activities, and maintaining yearly
records of what type of IR&D activities are
actually conducted.
The entire 6.2 program is built around the
Navy’s 13 mission area strategies. ONT con- ONT
ducts an extensive top-down, bottom-up proc-
ess to define its key mission area strategies. ONT Directorates (3)
Since the six different Navy systems com-
mands (SYSCOMS) are the ultimate users of Program Elements (14)
the technology, they play an important role
in the overall development of the Navy’s ex- Mission Areas (13)
ploratory development investment and mis-
sion area strategies. Besides the SYSCOMS Thrusts (95)
and the laboratory/center technical directors,
other inputs are sought from the Navy Secre-
tariat, from the maritime strategy developed c
by OPNAV, from the CMC, and from internal I
and external scientific advisory groups. a
The Navy develops a strategy for each of its Research m
13 mission areas based on such concerns as Performer a
current mission deficiencies, near-and far-term n
} t
technological opportunities, the needs associ- s
ated with DoD’s overall maritime strategy, and 23)
potential military threats. According to ONT,
a mission area strategy should be described —
where possible in terms of objectives that re-
late to a specific technology. For example, the SOURCE: Office of Naval Technology

Figure 7.–Navy 6.2 Program Strategy often composed of a number of projects, each
of which may address a different technology
thrust and/or mission area. Each project con-
sists of a number of specific tasks performed
by a particular researcher or group of re-
Beginning in the fall of each year, all block
programs are reviewed by ONT and the vari-
Mission ous SYSCOMS. This review is followed by an
Area ● Offensive Antiair Warfare evaluation of the current mission area strate-
● Long-Range Missile gies, which leads to the establishment of new
Technology technological thrusts as well as new block pro-
Thrust ● Wide Area Surveillance grams for the following fiscal year.
Objectives ● Long-Range Target
ONT also sponsors an Independent Explora-
● PropulsionTechnology tory Development program, which provides
Projects ● Guidance and Control
the technical directors of the Navy R&D
Centers with a small amount of funding (usu-
ally about 5 percent of their 6.2 programs) to
support activities aimed at achieving the
centers’ assigned missions. Through this mech-
anism, the technical directors are allowed to
SOURCE: Office of Naval Technology
support innovative programs without the for-
mal approval process which could delay fund-
ing of a new idea. Normally, a specific program
cannot be supported with Independent Ex-
–fiber optic sensor technology, and ploratory Development funding for more than
—optical signal processing; or 3 years.
● a group of technologies applied to the

same or closely related warfare, weapons, The Navy’s advanced technology demon-
or platform objectives, such as: stration (6.3A) program, with a proposed fis-
—ocean surveillance technology, cal year 1988 budget of about $30 million, is
—airborne electronic warfare, the smallest of the Services’. The Navy is the
—air launch weaponry, and only Service that manages its 6.3A program
—torpedo propulsion. separately from its 6.1 and 6.2 activities.
Within the office of the Assistant Secretary of
In fiscal year 1987, the Navy supported its the Navy (Research, Systems, and Engineer-
95 technological thrust areas through the ing), the Director of Research, Development,
establishment of 62 block programs. A block and Requirements (Test and Evaluation)—
program is an integrated group of technology DRD&R(T&E)–has oversight responsibilities
projects with closely related applications for the 6.3A program. The 6.3A program is
and/or technical objectives; each block pro- managed by the Technology Assessment Of-
gram is assigned to a given lead laboratory or fice, which reports to the DRD&R(T&E). The
SYSCOM program manager. For example, the Navy is now in the process of rebuilding its
Naval Air Development Center is responsible Advanced Technology Demonstration (ATD)
for a block program in airborne surveillance, program. In fiscal year 1988, the ATD program
while the SPAWAR SYSCOM is responsible will sponsor three to five advanced technology
for the block program in directed energy tech- demonstrations. The technologies are selected
nology. Usually a block program encompasses by the ATD director with the assistance of
the 6.2 program’s effort (with an average fund- OPNAV, the SYSCOMS, and ONT, and are
ing level of $7 to 8 million) in a warfare tech- performed at the appropriate SYSCOM for up
nology area, as identified above. It is most to 3 years.


The Deputy Chief of Staff for Technology responsible for evaluating and planning new
and Plans- DCS(T&P)-of Air Force Systems weapon systems and the office that is respon-
Command (AFSC) is responsible for the daily sible for conducting the research and advanced
operations and oversight of Air Force technol- technology development for the new systems.
ogy base programs (see figure 8). The DCS
(T&P) reports to the Commander of the Air Within the office of the Secretary of the Air
Force Systems Command, who reports to the Force, the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition
Air Force Chief of Staff. The DCS(T&P) was –ASAF(A)–is responsible for the entire Air
created in October 1987 with the merger of the Force’s RDT&E program. And within the
offices of DCS for Science and Technology with ASAF(A) office, the Director of Science and
the DCS for Plans and Programs. The primary Technology (DS&T) is responsible for over-
purpose of the merger was to enhance commu- sight of the Air Force technology base pro-
nication and coordination between the office grams. The DCS(T&P) (in the headquarters of

Figure 8.–Air Force Systems Command R&D Organization

Deputy Chief of Staff,

Technology and Plans



● Aircraft Programs ● Offensive Systems ● Air Base Operability ● Cooperation

● Defensive Systems ● Human Systems . Disclosure
● Aeromechanics
● Avionics

Command, Control,
Plans and Programs
Intelligence (C31)

● Plans and Programs ● New Concepts and

. C3I Technology
. Technology 3
● C I Programs Initiatives
● Computer Technology ● Program Control
● Investment Planning

SOURCE Air Force Systems Command


AFSC) works with the DS&T (in the Office of opment in London, AFOSR Far East in Tokyo,
the Secretary of the Air Force) in developing and the Frank J. Seiler Research Laboratory
both an annual and a 5-year technology base in Colorado Springs. The London and Tokyo
investment strategy for the Air Force. One of offices gather information about foreign re-
the primary responsibilities of the DS&T is to search and act as liaisons between Air Force
ensure that the DCS(T&P) investment strat- scientists and engineers and their foreign coun-
egy is well balanced and capable of meeting terparts. The Seiler Laboratory performs in-
the short- and long-term needs of the diverse house research in such areas as optical physics,
Air Force technology users. aerospace mechanics, fluid mechanics, and
To help raise the visibility of its science and
technology programs, the Air Force now treats Of the $198 million the Air Force will spend
its entire technology base program asa‘‘corp~ on research in fiscal year 1988, about 60 per-
rate investment. ” Consequently, when budgets cent will be given to colleges and universities.
are being examined by the Air Force, the en- The Air Force in-house laboratories will receive
tire technology base program, rather than the 15 percent, industry and nonprofits 20 percent,
44 individual program elements, is examined and the remaining 5 percent is for overhead.
for proper balance and emphasis. The goal is
As figure 9 indicates, the AFOSR science
to raise technology base funding to 2 percent
programs are divided into six areas: Aerospace
of the Air Force’s total obligational authority.
Sciences, Chemical and Atmospheric Sciences,
The technology base program is now classified
Electronic and Material Sciences, Life Sci-
as 1 of the 35 executive Air Force programs,
ences, Mathematical and Information Sci-
equal in stature to such executive programs
ences, and Physical and Geophysical Sciences.
as the Advanced Tactical Fighter.
Each of the program areas has a scientific di-
rector, who is responsible (along with the Com-
Management of the Air Force’s mander and Technical Director of AFOSR) for
Research (6.1) Program planning, managing, and implementing the
various research programs. As might be ex-
The Air Force Office of Scientific Research
pected, the majority of AFOSR research funds
(AFOSR) is responsible for the planning and
are spent in aerospace sciences, chemical and
management of the Defense Research Science
atmospheric sciences, and electronic and ma-
program and the University Research Initia-
terial sciences.
tive program of the Air Force. The In-House
Laboratory Independent Research Program The AFOSR supports a number of special
(ILIR) is managed directly by each individual research programs to further strengthen the
laboratory director. The Commander of the Air Force technology base program. They in-
AFOSR reports to the Systems Command clude the Air Force Thermionic Engineering
DCS(T&P), who has oversight responsibilities Research Program, the Research in Aircraft
for AFOSR programs and for the integration Propulsion Technology Program, the Univer-
of 6.1 research with 6.2 and 6.3A programs. sity Resident Research Program, the Resident
AFOSR supports research which has a “po- Research Associateship Program, the Labora-
tential relationship to an Air Force function tory Graduate Fellowship Program, the Ad-
or operation. ” It conducts a program of ex- vanced Composite Structures Program, the
tramural research contracts and grants (pri- Graduate Student Summer Support Program,
marily grants); oversees the research programs and the Summer Faculty Research Program.
(in-house and extramural) of the Air Force Lab-
In conjunction with industry, the AFOSR
oratories; and manages three subordinate units.
sponsors university-based manufacturing re-
The three subordinate units are the Euro- search centers at Stanford University and at
pean Office of Aerospace Research and Devel- the University of Michigan. Students perform

Figure 9.-Air Force Office of Scientific Research

Air Force Office
European Office
of Scientific
Contracts of Aerospace Research
Research, Far
a n d East

I staff

Electronic and Physical and
Aerospace Material Life sciences Geophysical
sciences sciences

I Mathematical and

I Reserve I

SOURCE: Air Force Office of Scientific Research

research at the university centers or at par- Management of the Air Force’s

ticipating companies. The Air Force provides Exploratory and Advanced Technology
the assistantship funds for M.S. and Ph.D. can- Development Programs (6.2 and 6.3A)
didates, with Stanford and Michigan respon-
sible for selecting the students. AFOSR fund- The DCS(T&P) serves as the “corporate
ing for the two centers is scheduled to be manager” of the Air Force’s technology base
phased out at the end of fiscal year 1988 as program and is primarily responsible for devel-
industry support increases. oping the overall investment strategy that

guides laboratory operations. The primary ensure their broad technology base investment
responsibility of the DCS(T&P) is to ensure strategy considers both the near- and long-
proper integration and balance of these pro- term technological needs of the various Air
grams, while meeting the needs of the various Force users. The Plans and Programs office
operational commands, in line with OSD and also works with the directorates to ensure that
Air Force Headquarters guidance. While hav- their respective technological thrusts are ca-
ing traditional oversight responsibilities for the pable of meeting current and future needs of
6.1 and 6.2 programs, the DS&T in the Air the Air Force.
Force Secretariat exerts more active influence
and direction on the large advanced technol- Since 1980, the laboratories of the Air Force
ogy development (ATD) program. have been aligned under the parent product
divisions: Electronics System Division (ESD),
The office of the DCS(T&P), with approxi- Armament Division (AD), Human Systems Di-
mately 70 professionals, consists of five ma- vision (HSD), Space Division (SD), and Aero-
jor research directorates: Aircraft; Armament nautical Systems Division (ASD). Each of the
and Weapons; Strategic and Space; C3I; and Divisions has responsibility for one or more
Combat Support. Each of the five Directorates laboratories which perform research, explora-
works primarily with a particular AFSC prod- tory development, and advanced development
uct division and has oversight and coordina- in support of that division’s mission as well
tion responsibilities for that division’s lab(s). as the missions of other divisions. For exam-
The Director of the Aircraft Directorate works ple, the Materials Laboratory, under ASD,
with the four laboratory directors assigned to meets the technology needs of Space Division
the Aeronautical Systems Division. The Ar- as well. Unlike the other two Services, the Air
mament and Weapons Directorate coordinates Force laboratories are not full spectrum R&D
with the Armaments Laboratory of the Arma- laboratories. With the exception of the Rome
ment Division and the Weapons Laboratory Air Development center, which performs some
of the Space Technology Center of Space Di- 6.4 work, the remaining laboratories primar-
vision. The Strategic and Space Directorate ily conduct 6.1-6.3A activities. The Air Force
oversees the activities of the other two Space supports the smallest in-house technology base
Division laboratories. The Director of C 3I is program, actually conducting only 20 percent
responsible for the research activities of the of its activities in its 14 laboratories. In con-
one laboratory assigned to Electronic Systems trast, the Air Force supports the largest 6.3A
Division. Finally, the Combat Support Direc- program, reflecting its interest in technology
torate works with the three laboratory direc- transition.
tors of the Human Systems Division and the The directors of the laboratories have a dual
Air Force Engineering and Services Center. reporting responsibility. The directors report
However, this laboratory oversight arrange- their laboratory activities and accomplish-
ment does not mean that the director of a par- ments to both the DCS(T&P) as well as to the
ticular laboratory conducts research for only commander of their respective product divi-
one of the five directorates. Obviously, the in- sions. (The four laboratory directors at Wright-
terdisciplinary nature of research requires the Patterson Air Force Base report through the
various laboratory directors to manage 6.2 and Commander of the Wright Aeronautical Lab-
6.3A activities for a number of product divi- oratories to the Commander of ASD.) As with
sions and applications that cut across the ma- the other Services, each of the laboratory di-
jor air commands. rectors is ultimately responsible for the ac-
tivities in his laboratory. This includes deter-
Within the office of the DCS(T&P), the di- mining research priorities, developing new
rector of Plans and Programs works with the initiatives, determining who will be responsi-
directors of the five research directorates to ble for managing various research projects,

whether to use in-house or outside expertise, ning for the next 5 years. The results of this
and when to transition or stop a research investment strategy, along with other guid-
activity. ance from DS&T, OSD, and inside and outside
scientific advisory groups, are used to refine
The Air Force contends that placing its lab-
short-term plans and develop long-term plans
oratories within the product divisions increases
by the laboratories. As part of their overall
the linkages between the developers and ulti-
planning responsibilities, the product divisions
mate users of the various weapon systems. The
identify a number of potential next generation
Air Force asserts that closer interaction be-
system concepts to meet future warfighting
tween the product divisions and their respec-
needs. These warfighting requirements, in
tive laboratories will strengthen long-term
turn, are defined by the users.
technology base planning capabilities and the
transition of mature technologies into systems The Air Force’s Project Forecast II is
applications. Further, the Air Force believes another key consideration for developing an
that this closer coupling will reduce the time overall technology base strategy in the labora-
it takes to develop and deploy more reliable tories. Completed in 1986, the primary goal of
and less expensive weapon systems. Forecast II was to identify potential techno-
logical opportunities that could change the
The Air Force’s advanced technology devel-
nature and design of future systems, while con-
opment (ATD) program has grown from $159
comitantly improving the Air Force’s warfight-
million in fiscal year 1975 to almost $754 mil-
ing capabilities. The Project was chartered by
lion in fiscal year 1988 (see table 2). The ATD
the Secretary of the Air Force and directed by
program represents 50 percent of the entire
the Commander of Air Force Systems Com-
Air Force technology base program. Almost
mand (AFSC). It was supported by a team of
all of the ATD program is conducted by de- 175 military and civilian experts drawn from
fense industries under contract to the differ-
within AFSC, the operational commands, and
ent product division laboratories. The Air
various outside advisory panels. From the
Force believes that its contractors will incor-
ideas generated by the Air Force laboratories,
porate new technological advances more rap-
industry, universities, and technology panels,
idly if they actually participate in the suc-
40 technological initiatives were identified for
cessful development and testing of a new
funding within the technology base. Research
progress in these technological initiatives is
Like the other Services, the Air Force con- monitored, and appropriate changes of empha-
ducts an annual iterative planning activity. sis are made as the technology matures. The
Much of the planning and programming a c t i v - purpose of this planning activity is to ensure
ities at the Air Force laboratories are primar- that the Air Force technology base program
ily driven by the future needs of the combat is sufficiently broad to prevent technological
commands. This process begins in the second surprise by potential adversaries, while at the
quarter of each fiscal year, when the DCS(T&P) same time is in position to take advantage of
develops an investment strategy to guide plan- new technological opportunities.


The newly created office of the Deputy for ASA(RD&A)–who replaced the Deputy Chief
Technology and Assessment (DT&A) is re- of Staff for Research, Development, and Acqui-
sponsible for the Department of Army’s en- sition—DCS(RD&A) —(see figure 10). The
tire technology base program. The DT&A Army has combined both military and civil-
reports to the Assistant Secretary of the Army ian oversight responsibilities for its RDT&E
for Research, Development, and Acquisition— program in one office.

Figure 10. -Army Research and tional Cooperation, the Director of Program
Development Organization and Technology Assessment, and the Direc-
tor of Space and Strategic Systems, work with
Secretary of the Army the DR&T on various special aspects of the
technology base program. Since this is a com-
pletely new organization, the exact responsi-

bilities of these offices have yet to be de-
I I termined.
Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Research, Development, and The Army operates its technology base pro-
grams differently from the other Services and
tends to have a more complicated organiza-
tional structure. The Army divides its tech-
nology base programs among four major com-
ponents: the Army Materiel Command (AMC),
the Surgeon General of the Army (TSG), the
Corps of Engineers (COE), and the Deputy
Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER). For
oversight purposes, the directors of all four of
these organizations report to the Deputy for
1 Technology and Assessment at Army head-
Director, quarters.
Program and
AMC is responsible for the development and
Cooperation acquisition of all the Army’s combat and com-
bat support systems (see figure 11). AMC re-

ceives 75 percent of the Army’s technology
Director, base funding and is programmatically r e s p o n -
Space and
Research and
sible for eight research, development, and engi-
Systems neering (RDE) centers, seven army labora-
tories, the technology base work of the project
SOURCE: Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research , Development, and Acquisition).

Figure 11.-Army Materiel Command

As a result of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, R&D Organization
the Army has also designated the DT&A as
its Program Executive Officer (PEO) for the Army Materiel Command
technology base programs. The DT&A pro-
vides programmatic planning guidance to the I
Army’s 31 Research and Development orga-
nizations. DOD’s planning guidance is used
by the Army to help develop its annual and 9 other Army Laboratory
Commands Command
5-year technology base Program Objective
Memorandum (POM).

Subordinate to the DT&A is the office of the
Director of Research and Technology (DR&T, 8 Research, Development 7 Labs and the
see figure 10), which is responsible for plan- and Engineering Centers Army Research Office
ning and coordinating the Army’s entire tech-
nology base program. The remaining three
offices under DT&A, the Director of Interna- SOURCE: Army Materiel Command

manager for training devices, and the Army and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and its
Research Office. The Surgeon General man- schools to assist in shaping ARO’s research
ages 14 percent of the technology base pro- program according to Army mission area
grams and is responsible for medical R&D needs. TRADOC, along with AMC, is respon-
activities at the Army’s nine medical labora- sible for evaluating the current and future tech-
tories. The Corps of Engineers operates four nological needs of the Army.
laboratories and utilizes 6 percent of the tech-
nology base funding to support research in The ARO provides the major interface be-
such areas as construction engineering, cold tween the Army and the university commu-
weather combat, and hydrology. The Army Re- nity. The university community receives 83
search Institute for Behavioral and Social Sci- percent of ARO’s 6.1 budget; industry gets 10
ences (ARI), which reports to the DCSPER, percent and nonprofit organizations receive the
receives about 1 percent of the technology base remaining 7 percent. The ARO research pro-
funding for research in personnel-related areas. gram consists of seven divisions: Electronics,
The remaining 4 percent is for overhead and Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Engineering,
the ILIR program. However, due to budget- Material Science, Mathematics, and Geo-
ary constraints the Army did not propose any sciences.
funding for ILIR in fiscal year 1988.
The laboratories’ in-house research programs
are organized along the lines of the labora-
Management of the Army’s Research tories’ mission responsibilities. For example,
each laboratory research effort is supported
(6.1) Program
by a single project fund (SPF) more closely tied
The Army is the only Service that manages to its mission, rather than to some specific sci-
its basic research program through more than entific discipline. The content of each SPF is
one office. The majority of the 6.1 program is determined by each laboratory’s technical di-
managed by the Army Research Office (ARO), rector and his staff. Research in the laboratory
located at Research Triangle Park in North is really designed to be the first step in the de-
Carolina. ARO is under the Army’s Labora- velopment chain. ARO contends that research
tory Command (LABCOM) structure, with the tasks within an SPF are intended to lead even-
Director of ARO reporting to the DT&A tually into development programs. The tech-
through LABCOM and AMC. Compared to nical content of each SPF is reviewed annually
equivalent organizations in the other Services’ by each Command headquarters and by the Dep-
research offices, ARO is lower in the chain of uty for Technology and Assessment (DT&A).
command and appears to have less visibility.
In fiscal year 1988, AMC will receive a little Since 1982, ARO has sponsored a “centers
over two-thirds of the Army’s 6.1 budget. Half of excellence” program, supporting selected
colleges and universities. ARO operates
of AMC’s 6.1 funding will go to the ARO and
the other half will go to the AMC laboratories centers in five research areas: electronics,
mathematics, rotary wing aircraft technology,
and RDE centers. Although ARO does not
manage the portion that goes to the Army lab- artificial intelligence, and optics. These centers
are usually funded from 5 to 10 years. Each
oratories and centers, it does make recommen-
dations to the Director for Research and Tech- center has a program advisory panel with mem-
bers from the different universities, ARO, the
nology, Army Headquarters, regarding the
appropriate laboratory within AMC, and in-
in-house research program content and size.
dustry. For example, the Army Aviation Sys-
The ARO program is a mix of short- and tems Command Research Development and
long-term programs that are responsive to the Engineering Center works with three univer-
needs of the Army laboratories. Recently, ARO sities that are the Army’s rotocraft centers of
has worked closely with the Army Training excellence.

Army’s Management of Exploratory In 1986 LABCOM published its first com-

and Advanced Technology prehensive technology base investment strat-
Development Programs (6.2 and 6.3A) egy. According to the Army, the purpose of
the investment strategy is to meet future user
The Director for Research and Technology battlefield requirements while preserving the
(DR&T) is also responsible for the exploratory Army’s ability to exploit technological oppor-
and advanced technology development pro- tunities. The investment strategy is also used
grams of the Army. There are four Deputy As- to determine resource allocation for technol-
sistant Directors that have specific responsi- ogy base activities, and it provides a strate-
bilities for various aspects of the Army’s gic vehicle for articulating the direction of the
science and technology programs. These four AMC technology base activities. The AMC
areas are: 1) aviation—unmanned air vehicles breaks its strategy into four basic elements
and missiles, etc.; 2) ballistics-sighting mech- (see figure 12): next generation and notional
anisms, armaments, munitions, chemical war- systems (NGNS); emerging technologies (ET);
fare, etc.; 3) electronics-artificial intelligence, chronic problems; and supporting analytical
command, control, communications, and intel- capabilities.
ligence, robotics, etc.; and 4) soldier support–
ground combat, troop support, and ground ve- Nearly half of the AMC’s technology base
hicles. resources are planned for next generation/no-
tional systems. Next generation systems are
Within the office of the DR&T there are five usually defined as those beyond the systems
science and technology professionals (the Di- currently in engineering development; they
rector and the four Deputy Assistant Direc- represent relatively well-defined solutions to
tors) responsible for planning, budgeting, and battlefield problems of the next 5 years. No-
setting priorities for the Army’s technology tional systems, on the other hand, are more
base programs. Consequently, the Army uti- conceptual solutions to problems anticipated
lizes a much more decentralized management 10 to 15 years down the line. This distinction
approach in operating its laboratories than do provides a range of targets for technology base
the other Services. Although the DT&A has efforts, from mid-range to long term.
primary oversight for planning , budgeting, and
setting priorities, many of these activities are As figure 12 indicates, emerging technol-
directed and performed by the Army Material ogies support 25 percent of the technology base
Command (AMC) office and the newly created strategy. These are technologies such as ro-
Laboratory Command (LABCOM) (see figure botics, artificial intelligence, and biotechnol-
11). ogy which may not yet have coalesced into spe
cific systems applications. The Army admits
The Army’s LABCOM has only been in ex- that the difference between ETs and NGNS
istence for a little over 2 years. According to is “fuzzy;” nevertheless, ETs are judged to be
Army officials, the long-term goal of AMC is so important that they deserve special empha-
to have ARO and the seven laboratories un- sis through visibility and funding emphasis.
der LABCOM primarily responsible for generic Most of the ET activities are focused on ex-
technology base work, while the eight Re- ploring new technological concepts that could
search, Development, and Engineering Centers be used by the Army 15 to 30 years in the
would be primarily responsible for engineer- future.
ing and development activities that are more
systems related. The goal is to have the lab- Certain chronic problems, such as corrosion
oratories “hand-off” certain technology base prevention and manufacturing problems, are
programs to the RD&E centers to initiate endemic to the ability of the Army to perform
appropriate systems engineering and develop- its mission but often do not receive technol-
ment activities. ogy base support. Although these may be less

Figure 12.-Army Technology Base Investment Strategy

Artificial Intelligence ● L
Robotics Reduction

Directed Energy Weapons C


Acoustic Devices
● Physical/Functional
Advanced Materials/ ● Lightening the Force
Material Processing
● Manufacturing Technology
● Advanced Signal Processing
and Computing ● Manprint/Human Factors
● Biotechnology
● Training
● Power Generation/

Space Technology
Low Observables
System Science
● Hardware in the Loop
● Modeling/Simulation

● Assesment Technology
● Test and Evaluation
● Special Purpose Equipment/

SOURCE: Army Materiel Command/Laboratory Command

glamorous than developing new weapon sys- required to formulate their technology base
tems, 15 percent of the technology base sup- strategies within this investment strategy
port is now devoted to these concerns. framework. However, this does not necessarily
mean that every lab or center must be work-
Supporting analytical capabilities include ing on every element of the strategy, or that
modeling, simulation, advanced demonstration its budget must reflect the exact percentage
projects (ADP), and other infrastructure activ- allocation for each element. Nevertheless it
ities aimed at increasing the Army’s ability does mean that:
to perform quality R&D and improve its ac-
quisition across the entire spectrum of the ma- ... each organization should plan their tech-
nology base work to address (within their mis-
terial life-cycle. This category, representing the
remaining 10 percent of technology base fund- sion area) the technological barriers repre-
ing, is devoted to future operational capabil- sented by the specific set of NGNS, and that
they should give emphasis to the other ele-
ities and improving the research infra- ments of the strategy before pursuing other
structure. work, which may nevertheless be important
in its own right. 2 1
The Army asserts that the AMC laboratories
and the RD&E centers, ARO, and to a lesser “A LAl?COM White Paper “The AMC Technology Base In-
extent the Corps of Engineers’ laboratories are vestment Strategy, ” June 7, 1987, p. 43.

The technology base investment strategy is Since the next generation and notional sys-
developed through an annual analysis of the tems are intended to focus on near- and long-
Army’s 13 major mission areas (e.g., close com- term technological barriers, a large percent-
bat (light), close combat (heavy), air defense, age of the 6.2 and 6.3A budget is spent in this
mine/counter-mine, etc.). The mission area anal- area. For example, almost all of the 6.3A bud-
yses, which are conducted by TRADOC with get is spent on approximately 60 specific tech-
support from AMC, COE, TSG, and ARI, re- nology demonstrations. Each year the Army
sult in the publication of a Battlefield Devel- publishes a document that describes the “Top-
opment Plan that outlines both near- and mid- 20’ demonstrations and identifies the labora-
term battlefield deficiencies and opportunities. tory responsible for managing the demonstra-
Directed by AMC, the Army then conducts tion. Each demonstration can last from 3 to
what is called a mission area materials proc- 5 years.
ess (MAMP) to address the various deficien-
cies and opportunities in the context of the four Like the other Services, the Army performs
elements of the mission area strategy.
an annual top-down, bottom-up guidance and
The technology base investment strategy direction exercise. This evaluation begins
and the MAMP drive the technology base in the fall when each lab and center presents
activities in several ways. They are used as a review of its accomplishments, along with
strategic planning tools, laying out the pro- plans for meeting next year’s technology base
jected development time schedules of the sys- strategy. The Army utilizes a Technology Base
tems planned for the future. Further, both Advisory Group to set project priorities. This
TRADOC and AMC review the 13 mission area group works with representatives from
strategies for duplication and opportunities for TRADOC and the Department of the Army
collaborative efforts among the labs and headquarters in establishing the overall project
centers to help meet deadlines and reduce tech- priorities for the technology base investment
nology base costs. strategy.


At just under $800 million in fiscal year 1988, ting edge” of technology. DARPA’s organiza-
the technology base program of the Defense tion allows it to explore innovative applications
Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) of new technologies where the risk and pay-
is larger than those of the other defense agen- off are both high, but where success may pro-
cies combined. The other agencies are: the De- vide new military options or applications—or
fense Nuclear Agency (DNA); the Defense revise traditional roles and missions. In the-
Communications Agency (DCA); the National ory, since DARPA has no operational military
Security Agency (NSA); and the Defense Map- missions, it should be able to maintain objec-
ping Agency (DMA). DARPA was established tivity in pursuit of research ideas which prom-
in 1958 partly due to the pressures forced by ise quantum technology advancement.
the launching of the Sputnik satellites. The
President and Congress also recognized that DARPA executes its programs mainly
DoD needed an organization which could take through contracts with industry, universities,
the “long view” regarding the development of nonprofit organizations, and government lab-
high-risk technology. DARPA was thus setup oratories. DARPA now has a limited in-
to be DoD’s “corporate” research organization, house contracting capability. This means that
reporting to the highest level (currently the DARPA can contract directly with defense
USD(A)) and capable of working at the “cut- contractors, rather than going through the

Services. However, the Services and other gov- nology investigations begin to show promise,
ernment agencies usually provide this function. feasibility demonstrations are conducted, often
In these cases, technical monitoring and sup- in cooperation with the military Services, in
port are often provided as well, thus establish- an attempt to transfer the technology as rap-
ing a “joint program atmosphere. According idly as possible into system development—
to DARPA, close relationships with the Serv- thus matching technology with requirements.
ices facilitate subsequent technology transfer
The Prototyping Office was established this
when research projects reach a mature stage
and are linked to operational requirements. past year in response to a recommendation of
the Packard Commission on Defense Acquisi-
tion. Prototype projects will consist of “brass-
Organization board” models, feasibility demonstrations, and
The DARPA organization is tailored for the experimental vehicles. Some concerns have
agency’s role and is often “adjusted” to ac- been expressed that this new responsibility,
commodate priorities. DARPA consists of the if improperly managed, could jeopardize
Director’s office (including the new Prototype DARPA’s basic charter-that of examining
Office and two Special Assistants-one for high-risk technologies, proving feasibility, and
Strategic Computing and one for the National quantifying risk without the pressures for dem-
Aerospace Plane), two administrative support onstrating military applications. It is too early
offices, and the following eight technical to tell if this concern is justified.
1. Tactical Technology Office, Programs and Priorities
2. Strategic Technology Office,
DARPA’s scope of programs and responsi-
3. Defense Sciences Office,
4. Information Science and Technology bilities is broad and appears to be growing as
more joint programs are being added to
DARPA’s overall responsibilities. Among the
5. Aerospace Technology Office,
key projects underway are the X-29 Advanced
6. Naval Technology Office,
Technology Demonstrator, being conducted in
7. Directed Energy Office; and
conjunction with NASA Ames Research Cen-
8. Technical Assessment and Long-Range
— ter; the X-Wing Demonstrator; Advanced
Planning Office.
Cruise Missile Technology; Particle Beam
DARPA’s programs are divided into two Technology; Strategic Computing; and a high-
broad categories: Basic Technology Projects priority effort to examine technology for ar-
and Major Demonstration Projects. The Basic mor/anti-armor. DARPA also has a growing
Technology Projects focus on long-term re- materials program investigating advanced
search in the areas that are related to a spe- composites, other complex materials, and elec-
cific technical office. As some of these tech- tronic materials including gallium arsenide.


Headed by a Director who reports directly veillance, Acquisition, Tracking, and Kill
to the Secretary of Defense, the Strategic De- Assessment; Directed Energy Weapons; Ki-
fense Initiative Organization (SDIO) is a cen- netic Energy Weapons; Systems Analysis and
trally managed defense agency with both tech- Battle Management; and Survivability, Le-
nical and administrative offices. The offices thality and Key Technologies) and a program
address ongoing scientific research, broad pol- manager for Innovative Science and Technol-
icy issues, and overall funding issues. There ogy. Although the entire SDI program is
are five technical program directorates (Sur- funded under the Advanced Technology De-

velopment category (6.3A), much of the work through the Services (Army, Navy, and Air
supported by the Innovative Science and Tech- Force), with some additional efforts through
nology office could be classed as generic re- other executive agents including DARPA,
search or exploratory in nature. DNA, the Department of Energy, and the Na-
As with the “traditional” S&T program, spe tional Aeronautics and Space Administration.
cific SDI projects are executed primarily

The Department of Defense will invest R&AT must also be sure that the Services’ pro-
almost $9 billion in technology base activities grams are well balanced, do not duplicate ef-
in fiscal year 1988. DOD’s complex technol- fort, and attempt to meet the current and fu-
ogy base program is planned, organized, and ture technological needs of DOD.
implemented by DARPA, SDIO, and the three
Each of the three Services operates and man-
Services, with oversight and guidance provided
ages its technology base activities differently.
by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).
The Army uses a more decentralized approach
The majority of the technology base program
in managing its technology base programs; it
is conducted by industry (50 percent), with
relies its major field commands-AMC head-
universities performing 20 percent and the
quarters, the Corps of Engineers, the Surgeon
DOD in-house laboratories conducting the re-
General, and the DCS for Personnel–to help
maining 30 percent. The primary goal of the
develop and implement its technology base in-
technology base program is to counter Soviet
vestment strategy. This is primarily due to the
numerical manpower and weapons superiority
small size of the Army’s technology base head-
through the development of superior technol-
quarters staff. The Deputy for Technology and
ogy for future weapons systems. Thus, DOD
Assessment (DT&A) is considered to be the
contends a growing technology base program
Army’s Program Executive Officer (PEO) for
is critical to the successful execution of the Na-
the technology base programs. The DT&A is
tion’s defense policies.
responsible for coordinating technology base
Within the last 3 years, each of the three programs of AMC, the Surgeon General, the
Services and the OSD have reorganized their Corps of Engineers, and the DCS for Person-
technology base programs. As a result of the nel. AMC headquarters is responsible for over-
Goldwater-Nichols Act, the USD(A) was estab- sight and management of the Army’s eight lab-
lished and given responsibility for all RDT&E oratories, seven RD&E Centers, the project
activities except for those of the Director of management training device, and the Army
SDIO, who reports directly to the Secretary of Research Office.
Defense. The Goldwater-Nichols Act also rees-
Unlike the other Services, the Navy, which
tablished the Director of Defense Research and
recently reorganized its laboratory organiza-
Engineering (DDR&E) as the primary spokes-
tion, performs the majority (60 percent) of its
man for DOD’s technology base activities.
technology base programs in-house. Many of
Within OSD, the DDR&E is primarily re- the Navy laboratories are considered to be full
sponsible for providing an overall corporate spectrum labs, capable of performing the en-
emphasis and balance for DOD’s entire tech- tire range of RDT&E activities. The Navy’s
nology base program, except for SDI. Once the basic research program is the oldest and
Services have formulated their technology base largest of the Services, whereas its advanced
programs, the primary role of the DUSD technology demonstration program is the
(R&AT) is to ensure that their proposals have smallest. The Navy contends it is in the proc-
responded to OSD guidance. The Deputy for ess of rebuilding its advanced technology de-

velopment program, which, unlike the other ing Office. There is some concern that this
Services, is not managed in the same office as might compromise DARPA’s support of high-
its 6.1 and 6.2 programs. risk technologies (only 11 percent of DARPA’s
budget is for research), as well as its role of
As of November 1, 1987, the Deputy Chief
proving feasibility and quantifying risk with-
of Staff for Technology and Plans was estab-
out the pressure for demonstrating military
lished to oversee the Air Force technology base
application. The majority of DARPA’s bud-
programs. The DCS(T&P) is also the PEO for,
get is contracted through the three Services
and the single manager of, the Air Force tech-
to industry (75 to 80 percent) and universities
nology base program. The Air Force Chief of
(20 percent), with only a small fraction of
Staff has recently designated the technology
DARPA’s technology base activities actually
base program as a “corporate investment” to
conducted by the military.
help raise its visibility and to provide a long-
term stable funding base. The Air Force oper-
The SD I program is centrally managed with
ates the largest extramural technology base
its director reporting to the Secretary of De-
program. Its technology base activities are
fense. Less than 5 percent of the SDI budget
more centralized than those of the other Serv-
is spent on basic research, with the remainder
ices. The Air Force laboratories are more
divided between exploratory development and
closely linked to product divisions than are
advanced technology development. The major-
those of the other Services, and this linkage
ity of SDI projects are executed through the
influences the types of 6.2 and 6.3A activities
Services, with some additional efforts through
each laboratory performs.
other executive agents including DARPA,
The role of DARPA appears to be changing DNA, the Department of Energy, and the Na-
with the recent establishment of the Prototyp- tional Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Chapter 5

Research Institutions and Organizations

The Department of Defense technology base and it also discusses how civilian government
program has been described in chapter 4 of this agencies foster the technology base that is
special report, and the contribution of private drawn on by the Department of Defense. In
industry is addressed in chapter 3. This chap- addition, various types of nongovernment,
ter describes the contributions made to the de- nonprofit laboratories are discussed at the end
fense technology base by government-funded of the chapter.
laboratories—both defense and non-defense—


Defense Department laboratories are owned Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory (ASL),
and operated—under a variety of different White Sands Missile Range, NM (390).1–The
philosophies-by the military services. Their Atmospheric Sciences Laboratory is AMC’s
activities are coordinated, to some degree, by principal laboratory for atmospheric and
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and they meteorological technology and equipment de-
are staffed mostly by Civil Servants and some velopment. Basic investigations into atmos-
military officers rotating through on short pheric sensing technologies and applications
tours of duty. are conducted to assess the potential impact
of atmospheric conditions on advanced Army
Army Laboratories weapons and systems.

Department of the Army technology base Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL), Aber-
work is performed by 31 research and devel- deen Proving Ground, MD (730). –This labora-
opment organizations attached to the Army tory conducts research into the vulnerability
Materiel Command (7 laboratories, 8 research, and lethality of Army weapons (e.g., guns, can-
development, and engineering centers, the nons, missiles). It addresses weapons systems
Army Research Office, and the Project Man- from the drawing board to the field and from
ager Training Device), the Office of the Sur- small arms and ammunition to large missiles
geon General of the Army (9 laboratories), the and their warheads.
Army Corps of Engineers (4 laboratories), and Electronics Technology and Devices Labora-
the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Per- tory (ETDL), Ft. Monmouth NJ (310).–This
sonnel ( 1 laboratory). The major Army labora- is the primary Army laboratory for electronics,
tories are described below. electron devices, and tactical power supplies.
This laboratory is the lead laboratory for the
Army Materiel Command (AMC) Army for the Very High Speed Integrated Cir-
Laboratory Command (LABCOM).–Lab- cuit (VHSIC) and Microwave/Millimeter Wave
oratory Command, within the Army Materiel Monolithic Integrated Circuit (MIMIC) pro-
Command, operates seven facilities that are grams.
responsible primarily for 6.2 and 6.3 research
in specialized areas of technology relevant to ‘The numbers in parentheses give the total work force (scien-
Army requirements. These are: tists, engineers, managers, support staff, administration, etc.).


83-207 - 0 - 88 - 5

Harry Diamond Laboratories (HDL), Adel- Armament RDE Center (ARDEC), Pica-
phi, MD (730).—Harry Diamond Laboratories tinny Arsenal, NJ (4,150).—ARDEC concen-
is involved in exploratory and advanced de- trates its efforts on two main areas-weapons
velopment of a variety of technologies includ- and munitions. ARDEC is managed by the
ing fuzing, target detection and analysis, ord- Armaments, Munitions, and Chemical Com-
nance electronics, electromagnetic effects, mand (AMCCOM), centered at Rock Island,
materials, and industrial and maintenance IL.
engineering. This laboratory is AMC’s lead lab
oratory for fluidics and nuclear weapons Chemical RDE Center (CRDEC), Aberdeen
effects. Proving Ground, MD (1,400).–CRDEC is the
Defense Department’s lead laboratory for
Human Engineering Laboratory (HEL), chemical and biological defense-related mat-
Aberdeen, MD (220).–This laboratory is re- ters. Like ARDEC, CRDEC is an RDE center
sponsible for the “man-machine’ interface for for the Armaments, Munitions, and Chemical
advanced Army systems. It has assumed the Command.
role of lead Army laboratory for robotics re-
search and human factors engineering. Aviation RDE Center, St. Louis, MO (1,430).
–This center, operated by the Aviation Sys-
Materials Technology Laboratory (MTL), tems Command (AVSCOM), is responsible for
Watertown, MA (660).–The Materials Tech- Army aviation research and development in-
nology Laboratory is responsible for manag- cluding airframes, propulsion systems, and
ing and conducting research and exploratory avionics. Two major activities are operated in
development programs in materials and solid support of Army aviation R&D efforts. First
mechanics, including basic research in ad- is the Aviation Research and Technology Ac-
vanced metals, composites, and ceramics. tivity, co-located with NASA’s Ames Research
Vulnerability Assessment Laboratory Center, Moffett Field, CA. This Activity has
(VAL), White Sands Missile Range, NM(260). subordinate offices at (or near) two other
–This laboratory provides an independent NASA centers: Lewis Research Center and
assessment of the vulnerability of Army weap- Langley Research Center. These locations re-
ons and communications electronics systems flect the close relationship between Army avia-
to hostile electronic warfare (e.g. jamming). tion and NASA’s research into advanced short
takeoff and landing (STOL) flight concepts and
Research, Development, and Engineering propulsion systems. The second Activity sup-
(RDE) Centers.– The six Systems Commands porting the Aviation RDE Center is the Avi-
of the Army Materiel Command each operate onics Research and Development Activity, Ft.
one or more research, development and engi- Monmouth, NJ, which is co-located with the
neering centers which conduct exploratory and Army’s electronics and communications ex-
advanced technology development in support perts—the Communications-Electronics Com-
of the specific commands’ mission responsi- mand and the Laboratory Command’s Elec-
bilities. These centers are organizational enti- tronic Technology and Device Laboratory.
ties and are not necessarily physically located
at a single site. (If there is no single primary Communications-Electronics Command
site, the location given below is that of the par- (CECOM) RDE Center, Ft. Monmouth, NJ
ent Systems Command.) Although the RDE (1,930).–The CECOM RDE center is respon-
Centers conduct some in-house research and sible for research in the areas of command, con-
development, the bulk of their work is con- trol, communications, intelligence, and electronic
tracted out to industry (the largest contribu- warfare. In addition to the Ft. Monmouth ef-
tor), nonprofit organizations, and some univer- fort, a number of subordinate facilities and
sities. The centers are oriented toward the centers focus on specialized electronics and sen-
development end of the technology program, sor research and development. The Night Vi-
leading to components, products, and systems. sion and Electro-Optical Laboratory, Ft. Bel-

voir, VA, is a recognized leader in infrared and of the individual soldier in all combat envi-
other night vision devices for all three Serv- ronments.
ices. The Signals Warfare Laboratory, Vint
Hills Farms Station, VA, conducts programs Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG)
related to surveillance, reconnaissance, and
The Army Medical Research and Develop-
electronic warfare (including signals intelli-
ment Command, under the authority of the
gence, communications intelligence, electronic
Surgeon General of the Army, operates nine
countermeasures and electronic counter-coun- laboratories that investigate medical areas of
termeasures). Other activities under the
interest to the Army. These laboratories em-
CECOM RDE Center include: the Electronic ploy a total of 2,710 personnel. The largest is
Warfare and Special Sensors group; the Air-
the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research
borne Electronics Research Activity, Lake-
(1,000 personnel), which performs research in
hurst, NJ; the Center for C3 Systems; and the
the areas of military disease hazards, combat
Life-Cycle Software Engineering Center.
casualty care, Army systems hazards, and
Missile Command (MICOM) RDE Center, medical defenses against and treatments for
Redstone Arsenal, AL (1 ,470).—This center is chemical weapons. Other facilities also exam-
responsible for the development, acquisition, ine these topics and others such as crew work-
and production of all Army missile systems. load and stress; treatment of dental injuries;
It is the Army’s lead organization for guidance investigation of the problems, complications,
and control, terminal homing, and high power/ and treatment of mechanical and burn injury;
high energy laser technology. With the capa- the biomedical effects of military lasers; the
bility to carry a concept through to prototype effects of temperature, altitude, work, and nu-
almost without outside help, it is very influen- trition on the health and performance of sold-
tial in the overall direction and progress of iers or crews; acoustics; and vision.
Army guided weapons programs.
Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) RDE Corps of Engineers (COE)
Center, Warren, MI (810).–This center is re- The Corps of Engineers operates four lab-
sponsible for technologies and systems asso- oratories.
ciated with vehicular propulsion, structure,
Cold Regions Research and Engineering
and advanced armor. As exemplified by its
location, it has a close relationship with the Laboratory (CRREL), Hanover, NH (300).–
This facility investigates problems faced by
U.S. automotive industry. Substantial explora-
the Corps of Engineers in cold areas of the
tory work is also underway on robotics, vetron-
ics (integrated vehicle electronics), propulsion,
and vehicle survivability. Construction Engineering Research Labora-
tory (CERL), Champaign, IL (260).–This lab-
Belvoir RDE Center, Fort Belvoir, VA
oratory conducts research and development in
(1,080).–The Belvoir RDE Center is respon-
facility construction, operations, and main-
sible for combat engineering, logistics support,
materials, fuels, and lubricants. It falls under
the Troop Support Command (TROSCOM), Engineer Topographic Laboratories (ETL),
headquartered in St. Louis, MO, which is re- Fort Belvoir, VA (300).–This laboratory pro-
sponsible for developing systems and equip- vides the military community with research
ment to support the soldier. and development in topographic sciences and
terrain analysis.
Natick RDE Center, Natick, MA (l,090).–
The Natick RDE Center, also falling under the Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
Troop Support Command, is dedicated to en- (WES), Vicksburg, MS (1,660).–The five tech-
suring the maximum survivability, supporta- nical laboratories at this facility-the Hy-
bility, sustainability, and combat effectiveness draulics, Geotechnical, Structures, and En-

vironmental Laboratories and the Coastal weapons, surveillance and sensor technology,
Engineering Research Center–support the and undersea technology. In addition, a ma-
military and civilian missions of the Army, jor space systems technology effort has re-
other federal agencies, and allied nations. cently been undertaken by the Laboratory.
Roughly one-fourth of NRL’s activity is funded
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnell/Army by the Navy’s research budget. The balance
Research Institute for Behavioral of the activity is funded as a result of proposals
and Social Sciences by NRL personnel to conduct R&D for Navy
The Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel development work, other DoD/Service labora-
(DCSPER) operates one laboratory, the Army tories, and other U.S. Government depart-
Research Institute for Behavioral and Social ments. The “contracts” won by NRL involve
Sciences (ARI). This lab, employing 400 per- 6.1, 6.2, 6.3A/B, and 6.4 activities. NRL also
sonnel, is the Army’s lead lab for soldier- maintains an active exchange program with
oriented research. other laboratories, both in the United States
and internationally, and with universities.
Navy Laboratories Other ONR Laboratories (490/250).-In addi-
tion to the Naval Research Laboratory, the Of-
The Navy’s research and development sys-
fice of Naval Research operates smaller lab-
tem, as described in chapter 4, incorporates
oratories conducting research in specialized
a greater in-house research and development
subject areas. The Naval Oceanographic Re-
capability than that of the Army or the Air
search and Development Activity (NORDA)
Force. Many Navy laboratories and develop- and the Institute for Naval Oceanography
ment centers not only have the capability to
(INO), in Bay St. Louis, MS, conduct research,
conduct in-house research and exploratory de- development, test, and evaluation programs
velopment (6.1 and 6.2), but also can carry a in ocean science and technology and in ocean
design almost to the production level through forecasting, respectively. The two labs employ
the more “mature” stages of advanced sys- 424 people, 215 of whom are scientists or engi-
tems development (6.3B) and engineering de- neers. The Navy Environmental Prediction Re-
velopment (6.4). The various Navy laboratories search Facility (NEPRF) in Monterey, CA, con-
are described below.
ducts research and development in various
areas of atmospheric science.
Office of Naval Research (ONR)
The Office of Naval Research operates four Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command
laboratories. (SPAWAR)
Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Washing- Prior to the 1985 reorganization of the Navy
ton, DC (3,540/l,550).2 -Founded in 1923, NRL science and technology program, each of the
is the Navy’s principal “in-house” research lab- major Naval Systems Commands (e.g., Naval
oratory. Indeed, in some areas of technology, Air Systems Command) had responsibility for
it is DoD’s principal laboratory. NRL conducts the operation of mission-specific development
a vigorous research program in the fields of activities and centers. This concept has been
computer science, artificial intelligence and in- replaced by one wherein the Space and Naval
formation management, device technology, Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR)
electronic warfare, materials, directed energy serves as the focal point for most exploratory
(6.2) and advanced technology (6.3A) develop-
ment activities. The other Systems Commands
*The first number in parentheses gives the total number of (e.g., the Naval Air Systems Command, the
employees at the lab and the second gives the number of scien- Naval Sea Systems Command, and the Naval
tists and engineers. Note that the definitions of scientist and
engineer may vary from facility to facility, and therefore these Space Command) have primary responsibility
numbers may not be directly comparable. for developing “platforms” (e.g., aircraft,

ships, space systems). Basic “safety-of-flight’ missile are still state-of-the-art as a result of
or “sea-keeping” equipment remain their re- the Center’s continuing efforts. The develop-
sponsibilities as well, but mission payloads and ment of anti-radiation missile technology and
other specialized equipment are increasingly weapons has been carried to a mature state
becoming the responsibility of SPAWAR. In by China Lake. Additionally, China Lake engi-
line with this philosophy, all Naval Develop- neers and scientists are considered leaders in
ment Centers and activities have been assigned sensor technologies (infrared, electro-optic) and
to that Command. This gives SPAWAR a missile engineering.
“high-leverage’ role in the Navy’s overall
China Lake is of particular interest in that
strategy for systems development.
it is one of the sites where the Navy is ex-
In addition to their responsibility to SPAWAR perimenting with a more flexible salary struc-
for carrying out the science and technology pro- ture for scientific and technical personnel. Gov-
gram, the Centers retain a role in providing ernment laboratory managers have stated that
technical management for major systems pro- Civil Service pay scales for technical person-
grams. In this capacity, the Centers are respon- nel, lagging behind industry and even acade-
sible to their pre-1985 “masters”; i.e., the Sys- mia, have hampered efforts to maintain high-
tems Commands charged with developing the quality technical staffs.
respective air, sea, and space systems. Seven
David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and De-
major development centers are now the respon-
velopment Center (NSRDC), Carderock, MD and
sibility of SPAWAR.
Annapolis, MD (1,130/580).—This Center is re-
Naval Air Development Center (NADC), War- sponsible primarily for hull designs and ad-
minster, PA (2,310/1,510).—This Center is re- vanced ship protection systems (e.g., demag-
sponsible for the development of aircraft and netizing systems, etc.). It maintains major
aircraft systems, including electronic warfare modeling and test facilities and provides tech-
and anti-submarine warfare systems. In addi- nical management for surface and submarine
tion to weapons system development, science propulsion systems. Its S&T activities include
and technology programs there involve electro- ship acoustics, magnetics, materials and struc-
optic, acoustic, and microwave technologies. tures, hydrodynamics, advanced propulsion,
and ship survivability.
Naval Ocean Systems Center (NOSC), San
Diego, CA (2,970/l,540).--The Naval Ocean Sys- Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), White
tems Center is the Navy’s lead Center for sur- Oak, MD (4,870/2,430).—This Center, with its
face command and control and for combat di- major subordinate facility for weapon systems
rection systems. It has been a continuing at Dalghren, VA, serves to develop Naval sur-
leader in ocean surveillance systems (e.g., face warfare systems, including weapons and
acoustic, electromagnetic, etc.), and is emerg- systems for the detection and attack of sur-
ing as a leader in artificial intelligence and face and subsurface targets. In addition to
knowledge-based systems to support the weapons system development, NSWC also has
Navy’s combat-decision-aid programs. The a strategic role, serving as the Program Of-
Center is also the Navy’s development orga- fice for the submarine-launched ballistic mis-
nization for undersea weapon systems. S&T sile. A broad range of S&T activities are sup-
activities include ocean science, bioscience, ported at the Center, including energetic
electronics, and electronic materials research. materials, charged-particle beams, and sensors.
Naval Weapon Center (NWC), China Lake, CA Naval Undersea Systems Center (NUSC), New-
(4,970/1,820).-China” Lake is responsible for the port, RI (3,490/1,930).—AS the Navy’s primary
development of air-to-air weapons and Naval organization for anti-submarine warfare, the
air-delivered ordnance. The AI M-9 Sidewinder Naval Undersea Systems Center is responsi-
missile was developed initially by China Lake ble for advanced developments in sonar and
more than 20 years ago, and versions of the other undersea detection technologies. The
Center also provides technical direction for Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories
submarine combat systems. (AFWAL), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
OH (see staff breakdown below) .–Under the
Naval Coastal Systems Center (NCSC), Aeronautical Systems Division (ASD) is a
Panama City, FL (1,130/580).-This Center is re-
“cluster” of laboratories which comprise the
sponsible for mine countermeasures and shal- Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories—
low water undersea weapons. Significant test
four laboratories, a staff and a Signature Tech-
and evaluation facilities are maintained and
nology Office.
operated there.
The Aeropropulsion Laboratory (490) is re-
Summary sponsible for exploring and developing tech-
The Navy’s laboratories and Development nologies associated with aircraft and aerospace
Centers have historically been influential vehicle power, including turbine engines, ram-
throughout the acquisition cycle, up to–and jets, aerospace power components, fuels, and
including-production phases. The manage- lubricants.
ment reorganization in 1985 that eliminated The Avionics Laboratory (870) is the lead
the Chief of Naval Material-the Navy ana- Air Force laboratory for the development of
logue of the Army Materiel Command and the avionics systems and technologies. Major ef-
Air Force Systems Command-consolidated forts are underway in microelectronics, micro-
all Naval Development Center activity under wave devices, advanced electro-optics, target
SPAWAR. Nevertheless, the job functions, recognition technologies, radar systems, and
reporting responsibilities, and priorities of electronic warfare.
many of the scientists and engineers in the field
did not change substantially. The Flight Dynamics Laboratory (1,000) is
responsible for aerodynamics, aircraft design,
aerospace structures (including research into
Air Force Laboratories applications of complex composites), and
flight-control systems such as fly-by-light sys-
Air Force Systems Command (AFSC) tems. Basic investigations are being conducted
The exploratory (6.2) and advanced technol- into advanced flight mechanisms including
ogy (6.3A) development elements of the Air hypersonic flight, short take-off and landing,
Force S&T program are conducted under the and advanced maneuvering technologies. The
five Systems Divisions which report directly Forward Swept Wing (X-29) Program has been
to AFSC: Aeronautical Systems Division, Ar- a major effort in conjunction with DARPA and
maments Division, Electronic Systems Divi- the NASA Ames Research Center.
sion, Human Systems Division, and Space Di- The Materials Laboratory (420) is responsi-
vision. Each Division provides oversight for
ble for materials research and development,
one or more laboratories, through which re-
including electronic and electromagnetic ma-
search, exploratory development, and ad-
terials, metals, composites, and the recently
vanced technology development are conducted
discovered high-temperature superconductors.
in support of Air Force-wide requirements. The
The Materials Laboratory conducts compre-
laboratories in the AFSC organization are de-
hensive nondestructive testing and nonde-
scribed below, with staffing levels given in
structive evaluation programs as part of its
parentheses for each laboratory. Not explicitly
ongoing effort to develop advanced, high-
described here is the Air Force Office of Sci-
strength, low-weight structures for aircraft and
entific Research, also part of Air Force Sys-
aerospace vehicles.
tems Command. This Office is responsible for
the Air Force basic research (6.1) program, Air Force Armament Laboratory (AFATL),
which is conducted primarily outside the Air Eglin Air Force Base, FL (530).—This labora-
Force laboratories. The AFSC laboratories are: tory reports directly to, and is co-located with,

the Armaments Division. It is charged by the physics Laboratory, reports to Space Division
Armaments Division to explore technologies through the Space Technology Center. It is the
applicable to Air Force non-nuclear weapons, lead laboratory involved in the development
both offensive and defensive. Thus substan- of technologies related to nuclear weapons ef-
tial efforts are underway in munitions, seekers fects, directed energy weapons, and radiation
(electro-optical, radiofrequency, etc.), struc- hardening. A close association has therefore
tures, and advanced guidance systems for air- developed between the Air Force Weapons
to-surface and air-to-air weapons. Although Laboratory and the two Department of Energy
much of the effort involves technology devel- laboratories in New Mexico that are involved
opment, a substantial analytical capability can in nuclear weapons–Sandia National Labora-
be found there, particularly in the areas of vul- tories and the Los Alamos National Labora-
nerability, weapons effectiveness, and simu- tory. The Air Force Weapons Laboratory has
lators. assumed an increasingly important role in the
SDI program, especially with regard to the
Rome Air Development Center (RADC),
weapons development efforts. The Labora-
Griffiss Air Force Base, NY (1,210).–Rome Air
tory’s experience and ongoing activities in ad-
Development Center is the only laboratory vanced radiation technology and high-power
operated by the Electronics Systems Division.
laser technology have placed it as a leader in
Among its main activities are investigations
directed energy weapon research.
into advanced C3 concepts, information proc-
essing, and ground-based and strategic surveil-
lance systems. It is conducting a vigorous pro Air Force Astronautics Laboratory (AFAL),
gram in support of SDIO’s battle management/ Edwards Air Force Base, CA (400).-The Astro-
C3 effort. RADC maintains two directorates nautics Laboratory, formerly the Rocket Pro-
at Hanscom Air Force Base, MA—Electro- pulsion Laboratory, is the third laboratory
magnetics and Solid-State Sciences. The first reporting through the Space Technology Cen-
is involved in basic investigations into an- ter to Space Division. It plans and executes
tennas and electromagnetic phenomena, and research, exploratory development, and ad-
the second focuses on solid-state electronics, vanced development programs for interdis-
devices, materials, and systems. An effort ciplinary space technology and rocket pro-
underway at the latter facility is focused on pulsion.
radiation-hardened electronic technologies— Human Resources Laboratory (AFHRL),
of interest to both SDIO and the Air Force’s Brooks Air Force Base, TX (410).—The Human
strategic C3 missions.
Resources Laboratory manages and conducts
Air Force Geophysics Laboratory (AFGL), research, exploratory development, and ad-
Hanscom Air Force Base, MA (560).-This lab- vanced development programs for manpower
oratory reports to the Air Force Space Divi- and personnel, operational and technical train-
sion through the Air Force Space Technology ing, simulation, and logistics systems.
Center, a management headquarters at Kirt- Harry G. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Re-
land Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM. It sup- search Laboratory (AAMRL), Wright-Patterson
ports the Air Force’s mission in developing and Air Force Base, OH (980).—The three divisions
deploying space, airborne, and ground-based of AAMRL seek to protect Air Force person-
systems. Research is conducted into atmos- nel against environmental injury and provide
pheric science, Earth sciences, infrared tech- protective equipment; study human physical
nology, and other disciplines related to the and mental performance so that human capa-
space and terrestrial environment. bilities can be integrated into systems with
Air Force Weapons Laboratory (AFWL), Kirt- maximum effectiveness; and identify and
land Air Force Base, NM (1,110).—The Air Force quantify toxic chemical hazards created by Air
Weapons Laboratory, like the Air Force Geo- Force systems and operations.

Air Force Engineering and Services Laboratory tively contract with industry, rather than per-
(AFESL), Tyndall Air Force Base, FL (100) forming substantial research and development
Not formally part of Air Force Systems Com- in-house. This philosophy brings programs out
mand, the Engineering and Services Labora- into private industry earlier, introducing com-
tory is the lead agency for basic research, petition at an earlier stage. Therefore, Air
exploratory development, advanced develop- Force labs are not generally viewed as being
ment, and selected engineering development in competition with the private sector; in fact,
programs for civil engineering and environ- Air Force exploratory development programs
mental quality technology. It is part of the Air are viewed by industry as important “seed”
Force Engineering and Services Center, which programs that will serve to build a company’s
has responsibility for developing and provid- future business base.
ing the technology base for the tools and train-
ing of the military engineer.

Unlike the Navy, the Air Force philosophy
emphasizes developing the expertise to effec-


Background reactors for the Navy’s submarine fleet. Re-
search and development, production and main-
The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Na- tenance, and nuclear materials production for
tional Laboratory structure is comprised of nuclear weapons and other defense activities
about 60 facilities, including the nuclear weap- are each funded at a level of about $2 billion
ons production facilities, that are involved in annually.
a broad range of research, advanced develop-
ment, and production. With activities located
The research functions and capabilities of
in almost every State, the fiscal year 1986 bud-
the Department of Energy have also broadened
get for this complex was over $10 billion (ex-
beyond their original concentration on nuclear
cluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and
physics to encompass a wide spectrum of re-
the Power Marketing Administrations). Ap-
proximately 135,000 people are now employed search into fundamental sciences. The present
within this Laboratory system. Only about 5 scientific and technological capabilities of the
DOE National Laboratories make possible in-
percent of these are Federal employees; there-
vestigations including the study of chemical
mainder are employed by the industries and
reactions, cosmology, the operation of biologi-
universities which operate most of the facil-
ities. The replacement cost of all field facilities cal cells, the process of genetic information cod-
ing, the ecosystem, the geosphere, mathe-
is estimated to total well over $50 billion.
matics and computing, and medicine. There are
Stemming from the Manhattan Project of nine “multiprogram” laboratories and some
World War II, the DOE National Laboratory 30 specialized laboratories involved in these
system has now evolved in several major direc- fundamental science and technology activities,
tions. One major responsibility is the design accounting for slightly more than 40 percent
and production of all U.S. nuclear weapons, of the total field budget and employing more
including uranium enrichment and special nu- than 60,000 people—more than half of whom
clear materials (e.g., enriched uranium and are scientists, engineers, and technicians.
plutonium) production. DOE is also responsi- DOE research and technology areas of inter-
ble for development and production of nuclear est, and its major test and evaluation facilities,

make possible significant contributions in Organization and Management

areas of direct relevance to the defense tech-
nology base. The complexity of DOE’s mission and the
diversity of its laboratory complex have re-
sulted in an equally complex management
The DOE laboratories interact with private organization. Figure 13 outlines the manage-
industry and with the academic community ment structure emanating from the Washing-
through mechanisms such as cooperative pro- ton, D.C. headquarters. Of particular concern
grams, visiting staff appointments, patent to the defense technology base are the activities
licensing, subcontracting, and use of DOE fa- and responsibilities of the Energy Research,
cilities. Major, capital-intensive, and often Defense, and Nuclear Energy programs. The
unique experimental facilities located at the key functions of the DOE headquarters man-
DOE laboratories are made available to aca- agement offices are summarized below.
demic researchers for fundamental scientific
experiments without cost, provided that the
research results are published. Cooperation ex- Energy Research
tends to major U.S. universities, industrial re- The Office of the Director of Energy Re-
searchers, and international scientists. search (figure 13) manages the bulk of DOE

Figure 13.– Management Structure for DOE Field Facilities

Secretary of

Assistant Assistant Assistant Director, Assistant Secretary,

Secretary, Secretary, Secretary, E n e r g y Defense
Conservation Fossil Nuclear Research Programs
and Renewable Energy Energy

Laboratories Energy Tech Laboratories Multiprogram Multiprogram

Centers Naval Reactors Labs: Labs:
Power Marketing Reserves Gaseous Idaho
and Transmission Other Special Diffusion Lawrence
-- Brookhaven
Projects Plants Lawrence Livermore
Berkeley Los Alamos
Oak Ridge Sandia
-- Pacific Other Labs
Northwest Production
Other Labs Weapons

SOURCE: Department of Energy


fundamental scientific research programs, in- Much of the Nuclear Energy effort is di-
cluding: high-energy physics; nuclear physics; rected toward technology and engineering de-
the physical, biological and mathematical sci- velopment programs.
ences; magnetic fusion energy; and environ-
mental and health effects. It also supports Conservation and Renewable Energy
university research and university-based edu-
cation and training activities. Moreover, the The Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Director of Energy Research serves as scien- Conservation and Renewable Energy (figure
tific advisor to the Secretary of Energy for all 13) manages a series of programs focused on
DOE energy research and development activ- developing technologies to increase usage of
ities. The Office also maintains oversight of renewable energy sources (including solar heat
the multiprogram and other laboratories un- and photovoltaic energy, geothermal energy,
der the jurisdiction of the Department, with biofuels energy, and municipal waste energy)
the exception of the nuclear weapons labora- and to improve energy efficiency (e.g., trans-
tories. Five multiprogram laboratories and 14 portation, buildings, industrial, and commu-
program-dedicated facilities are administra- nity systems, etc.). These programs involve the
tively assigned to the Office of Energy Re- support of high-risk, high-payoff research and
search. development that would not otherwise be car-
ried out by the private sector; results of this
Defense Programs research are disseminated to private and pub-
lic sector interests.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for De-
fense Programs (figure 13) manages DOE’s Fossil Energy
programs for:
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for
. nuclear weapons research, development, Fossil Energy (figure 13) has the responsibil-
testing, production, and maintenance; ity to develop technologies that will increase
● laser and particle-beam fusion;
domestic production of fossil fuels. Specifi-
● safeguards and security programs;
cally, this office supports long-term research
● international safeguards programs; and
toward an improved capability to convert coal
● information classification. and oil shale to liquid and gaseous fuels, and
In addition, this Office is responsible for the to increase domestic production and use of coal.
nuclear materials production program, the de-
fense nuclear waste programs, and oversight Laboratory Management
of the DOE nuclear weapons production Eight major operations offices and a series
complex. of specialized field offices provide administra-
tive services and day-to-day oversight of the
Nuclear Energy management and operation of DOE’s field
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Nu- complex. Much of DOE contracting for R&D
clear Energy (figure 13) manages DOE pro- and other services is done by these operations
grams for: and field offices. With the exception of its na-
tional security activities, DOE uses its bud-
● nuclear fission power generation and fuel
get more as a catalyst for the development of
generic technologies than for acquiring goods
● the evaluation of alternative reactor fuel-
and services for its own use. This process in-
cycle concepts, including nonproliferation
volves a significant Federal assistance effort
with universities, non-profit organizations, and
● development of space nuclear power gen-
state and local governments.
eration systems;
● Navy nuclear propulsion plants and re- A unique feature of DOE laboratory man-
actor cores; and agement philosophy is the “Government
● nuclear waste technology. Owned–Contractor Operated” (GOCO) con-

cept in extensive use throughout the labora- 60 percent of Sandia’s work is dedicated to nu-
tory system. This concept, which was initiated clear weapon development and production, and
during the Manhattan Project, permits DOE 17 percent represents more broadly based re-
to provide the massive capital investment nec- search and advanced development for DoD.
essary to create and maintain field facilities Much of this research is related to SDI.
and, at the same time, obtain experienced man-
agement under contract with industry and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL),
universities. Los Alamos, NM (8,010)
The Los Alamos National Laboratory was
Multiprogram Laboratories established in 1943, as part of the World War
II “Manhattan Engineer District,” to develop
DOE nuclear weapons R&D and nuclear ma- the world’s first nuclear weapons. Operated by
terials production are of obvious interest to the University of California, Los Alamos’ pri-
DoD, but the DOE multiprogram laboratories mary mission today is the application of sci-
also make extensive contributions to the de- ence and technology to problems of nuclear
fense technology base in general. These lab- weapons and related national security issues.
oratories all conduct defense-related research Nuclear weapon R&D thus remains a primary
and development not directly associated with responsibility, including the design and test
nuclear weapons. Some of them–notably of advanced concepts. A broad spectrum of
Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia energy-related research in nuclear fission and
National Laboratories–have DoD as a signif- nuclear fusion technologies is also conducted
icant “customer,” with an average of 15 per- at Los Alamos, with additional programs in
cent of these laboratories’ work done under life sciences, health, environmental sciences,
contract to DoD. However, DOE restricts the and basic energy sciences. The latter involve
amount of “work-for-others” that its labora- materials; chemical, nuclear, and engineering
tories can perform to keep them from becom- sciences; and geoscience.
ing too dependent on funding not under DOE
control. The missions and program priorities Nuclear weapons research and development
for the nine multiprogram laboratories are de- accounts for nearly one-half of Los Alamos’
scribed below. DOE-supported activity; an additional 15 per-
cent is in support of DoD programs including
Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), SDI, non-nuclear weapons research, conven-
Albuquerque, NM; Livermore, CA; tional ordnance, and materials technology. An
Tonopah, NE (8,250 total employees) emerging role for Los Alamos, in conjunction
The principal mission of Sandia National with the Air Force Weapons Laboratory and
Laboratories is to conduct research, develop- Sandia National Laboratories, is support of the
ment, and engineering for DoD’s nuclear SDI program. The Laboratory has also been
weapon systems —except for the nuclear ex- conducting research into the manufacture of
plosive itself. Operated by AT&T Technol- high-temperature superconductors and is seek-
ogies, Inc., Sandia also conducts energy re- ing a major national role in this area.
search programs in fossil, solar, and fission
energy and in basic energy sciences. In these Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
and other fields, Sandia has the capability to (LLNL), Livermore, CA (8,060)
conduct large, interdisciplinary engineering The University of California operates the
projects that are sophisticated, but are con- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as
sidered technologically risky. Sandia’s man- a scientific and technical resource for the Na-
agement seeks to combine fundamental under- tion’s nuclear weapons programs. While Liver-
standing with technological development— more is involved in other programs of national
thus generating new products and processes interest, the Laboratory’s primary role—like
that are unlikely to be produced as readily in that of Los Alamos–is to perform research,
universities or industrial laboratories. Nearly development, and testing related to design

aspects of nuclear weapons at all phases in a analysis, steam supply, and the exploration of
weapon’s life cycle. Other important programs new design concepts for reactor facilities using
underway at Livermore involve inertial fusion, “inherently safe” features and cost-competi-
magnetic fusion, biomedical and environ- tive design. In the field of fossil fuel energy,
mental research, isotope separation, and ap- ANL concentrates on advanced conversion
plied energy technology. systems, including instrumentation and con-
trol and related technologies. Argonne also has
Nuclear weapons-related programs at Liver- applied research programs in nuclear applica-
more account for nearly 50 percent of the
tions, materials, and solar conversion systems.
Laboratory’s DOE-funded activities. Another
12 percent of the lab’s activity is “on-contract”
work for DoD. Argonne conducts a variety of basic research
projects in areas such as chemistry, atomic and
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), nuclear physics, materials science, and biologi-
Oak Ridge, TN (4,960) cal and environmental sciences concerning nu-
clear and non-nuclear effects on organisms. The
This Laboratory is primarily involved in all laboratory is operated under contract by the
aspects of the nuclear fission fuel cycle, with University of Chicago and performs nearly 90
a secondary but growing involvement in the percent of its work for DOE; 2 percent of the
development of nuclear fusion energy technol- laboratory’s work is “on-contract” for DoD.
ogy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory also con-
ducts generic research into problems related
to energy technologies such as materials, sep- Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL),
aration techniques, chemical processes, and Upton, NY (3,220)
biotechnology. Energy technology develop- The Brookhaven National Laboratory, oper-
ment includes residential and commercial ated by Associated Universities, Inc., designs,
energy conservation, renewable energy develops, constructs, and operates research fa-
sources, and coal conversion and utilization. cilities - for studying the “-fundamental prop-
The Laboratory is also the major national erties” of matter. Brookhaven also conducts
source of stable as well as radioactive isotopes. basic and applied research in related technol-
Oak Ridge is operated by Martin Marietta ogy areas, including high energy, nuclear, and
Energy Systems, Inc. solid-state physics; chemistry; and biology.
The physical, chemical, and biological effects
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), of radiation, and chemical substances involved
Argonne, IL (3,900) in the production and use of energy, are also
Established by the Atomic Energy Act of studied. Other research programs are directed
1946, Argonne National Laboratory conducts toward combustion research (processes and
applied research and engineering development emissions, physical and chemical cleanup of
in nuclear fission and other energy technol- combustion gas, meteorological dispersion,
ogies. A primary Argonne role is to develop etc.), atmospheric chemistry, structural biol-
and operate research facilities for members of ogy, the development of radiopharmaceuticals,
the scientific community. In doing so, it main- and nuclear medicine applications. The re-
tains a close relationship with universities and search facilities at Brookhaven include: the 33
industry and aids in the education of future GeV Alternating Gradient Synchrotrons; the
scientists and engineers. To fulfill this role, Ar- High-Flux Beam Reactor; the Tandem van de
gonne directs scientific and technical efforts Graaf Facility; and the National Synchrotrons
in several related areas. Nuclear fission pro- Light Source. In addition, there are several
grams focus mainly on breeder and other ad- smaller accelerators, a medical research re-
vanced reactor systems. These programs em- actor, and two scanning transmission electron
phasize fast-reactor physics, reactor safety and microscopes. DoD work, such as evaluating the

effects of radiation on microcircuits, consti- ices and training, and test support. Other
tutes 1 percent of Brookhaven’s budget. INEL activities include:

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL),

● serving as the lead laboratory for the
Berkeley, CA (2,520) multi-megawatt space reactor program
and fusion reactor safety research;
Operated by the University of California, the ● supporting DOE non-nuclear energy re-
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory was founded search (e.g., research and development in
in 1931 to advance the development of the cy- geothermal and industrial conservation);
clotron invented by Ernest Lawrence. Today, ● supporting R&D by other laboratories (at
LBL’s primary endeavors include conducting INEL) on defense and civilian nuclear
multidisciplinary research in energy sciences, power; and
developing and operating national energy ex- ● directing the Three Mile Island “Techni-
perimental facilities, educating and training cal Information and Examination Pro-
future scientists and engineers, and linking gram. ”
LBL’s research programs to industrial appli-
cations. The Centers for Advanced Materials With the exception of nuclear waste transpor-
and X-Ray Optics have been created to en- tation and management, INEL conducts vir-
hance interaction with industry. tually no work for DoD—basic research or
In addition to LBL’s experimental pro-
grams, major research efforts are underway Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL),
in nuclear and high-energy physics, materials Richland, WA (2,570)
science and chemistry, medical and biological The Pacific Northwest Laboratory has two
science, energy conservation and storage, envi- principal missions: first, to develop and apply
ronmental dynamics, instrumentation, and ad- technologies for energy security; and second,
vanced accelerator designs. Advanced electron to provide technical support and environ-
microscopes and heavy-ion accelerators are mental surveillance for operations at the co-
operated at LBL and are available for use by located Hanford weapons material production
industrial and other researchers. DoD-spon- reactors. Current applied research programs
sored research constitutes a very small frac- include advanced nuclear reactor systems, nu-
tion of LBL activities. clear waste management, dense materials pro-
duction, energy conservation, and renewable
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory energy systems. PNL also studies the environ-
(INEL), Idaho Falls, ID (5,750) mental and health effects of radionuclides, in-
This Laboratory was established in 1949 pri- organic chemicals, and complex organic mix-
marily to build and test nuclear reactors and tures encountered in energy production.
support equipment. The Idaho National Engi- PNL maintains a staff of scientists and engi-
neering Laboratory now focuses on nuclear neers skilled in the relevant disciplines. These
waste management. Among its tasks are re- disciplines are grouped to form technical “cen-
processing and recovering of spent nuclear fuel ters-of-excellence” in life sciences, materials
from selected test reactors, the Navy’s nuclear sciences and technology, earth sciences, chem-
fleet, and other nuclear noncommercial re- ical technology, engineering development, and
actors, and the processing of liquid waste into the information sciences. Operated by Battelle
calcine form for intermediate storage. To ac- Memorial Institute, PNL works closely with
complish these tasks the laboratory operates the private sector and also maintains strong
a radioactive waste management complex for ties with university research teams. PNL’s
storage and disposal of low-level waste, and activities include a substantial percentage ( 10
it conducts associated programs in materials percent) dedicated to DoD research and devel-
testing, isotope production, irradiation serv- opment.


Background, Organization, grams. Included in these programs is the Na-
and Management tional Space Transportation System, of which
the Space Shuttle is a key element. The Office
The National Aeronautics and Space Admin- of Space Flight also develops and implements
istration (NASA) was established in 1958 as policy for all shuttle users and promotes im-
a successor to the National Advisory Commit- provements in safety, reliability, and effective-
tee for Aeronautics (NACA) to oversee the Na- ness. Further responsibilities of the Office of
tion’s efforts in the research and exploration Space Flight include the use of expendable
of technologies related to aeronautics and launch systems for NASA and other civil gov-
space flight. The program has grown into a ernment programs and other developmental
multidisciplinary effort which involves the space-based transportation systems. The Of-
management of a diverse complex of labora- fice of Space Flight has institutional respon-
tory activities and flight test centers. For fis- sibility for the Johnson Space Center, Hous-
cal year 1988 the NASA budget is $9.0 billion. ton, TX; the Kennedy Space Flight Center, FL;
NASA Headquarters in Washington, DC, the National Space Technologies Laboratory,
exercises management over the space-flight Bay St. Louis, MS; and other facilities such
centers, research centers, and other installa- as the White Sands Test Facility in New Mex-
tions through six program offices. These offices ico and the Slidell Computer Complex in
formulate programs and projects; establish Louisiana.
management policies, procedures, and perform- The Office of Space Station is responsible
ance criteria; and evaluate progress at all for overall policy and management aspects of
stages of major programs. Because of the the Space Station program. This has become
highly public nature of NASA’s work and the a highly visible office in light of the “political
resulting political sensitivity, there appears to and fiscal heat” the program is taking-heat
be a stronger “top-down” management empha- that is likely to continue. The goals of the
sis than in DOE—or even DoD. program include developing a permanently
The Office of Aeronautics and Space Tech- manned Space Station by the early 1990s, en-
nology is responsible for planning, executing, couraging other countries to participate in the
and evaluating all of NASA’s research and program, and promoting private sector invest-
technology programs. These are programs con- ment in space through enhanced space-based
ducted primarily to provide a broad fundamen- operational capabilities. NASA centers respon-
tal technology base and to evaluate the feasi- sible for the Segments, or principal portions,
bility of a concept, structure, component, or of the Space Station are the Johnson Space
system which may have general application to Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, God-
the Nation’s aeronautical and space objectives. dard Space Flight Center, and Lewis Research
This office is responsible for Ames Research Center.
Center, Mountain View, CA; Langley Research
The Office of Space Science and Applications
Center, Hampton, VA; and Lewis Research
is responsible for NASA’s unmanned space-
Center, Cleveland, OH.
flight program. Directed toward scientific in-
The Office of Space Flight is responsible for vestigations of the solar system, the program
developing concepts and systems for manned utilizes ground-based, airborne, and space tech-
space flight and other space transportation niques, including sounding rockets, Earth sat-
systems. The Office plans, directs, executes, ellites, and deep-space probes. This has histori-
and evaluates the research, development, ac- cally been one of the most successful and
quisition, and operation of space flight pro- cost-effective U.S. space programs, and its sci-

entific contributions have been continuous and Ames/Moffett specializes in scientific and ex-
substantial. ploratory research and applications for space
and aeronautics in a wide and growing num-
This Office is responsible for research and
ber of fields. Today, the Center’s program
development leading to the application of space
interests include computer science and appli-
systems, space environment, and space-related
cations, computational and experimented aero-
or space-derived technology. These activities
dynamics, flight simulation, flight research,
involve engineering and scientific disciplines
hypersonic aircraft, rotorcraft and powered-
such as weather and climate, pollution moni-
lift technology, aeronautical and space human
toring, Earth resources survey techniques, and
factors, space sciences, solar system explora-
Earth and ocean physics; active programs are
tion, airborne science and applications, and in-
also underway in life sciences and microgravity
frared astronomy. As the lead NASA center
sciences and applications. The Office is respon-
for research in the life sciences, continuing pro-
sible for the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasa-
grams relate to medical problems of manned
dena, CA, and Goddard Space Flight Center,
flight, both space and atmospheric.
Greenbelt, MD.
The Center also provides technical support
The Office of Space Tracking and Data Sys-
to DoD programs, the Space Shuttle, and civil
tems is responsible for activities related to the
aviation projects. Recent NASA/DoD efforts
tracking of launch vehicles and spacecraft–
include providing design leadership for the air-
and for the acquisition and distribution of tech-
frame studies for an advanced, supersonic
nical and scientific data obtained from them.
short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) air-
This Office is also responsible for managing
craft, a joint U.S./U.K. study effort. These “ex-
NASA’s communications systems and for
tramural” projects and responsibilities will
operational data systems and services.
evolve as NASA’s internal needs (and budgets)
The Office of Commercial Programs is re- change.
sponsible for encouraging the commercial use
Roughly 60 percent of the personnel at the
of space. The Office is responsible for the
two Ames facilities are Federal employees,
“Technology Utilization Transfer” program,
with the balance being contractor personnel.
the Small Business Innovative Research pro-
Ames maintains a close link with universities
gram, new commercial applications of exist-
through cooperative projects; a significant
ing space technology, “unsubsidized” initia-
number of university students and university
tives for transferring existing space programs
faculty members work at the center.
to the private sector, and establishing Centers
for the Commercial Development of Space. Ames Research Center/Hugh L. Dryden
Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
(staff included in Ames/Moffett total)
Field Centers Ames/Dryden provides NASA with a highly
Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA specialized capability for conducting flight re-
(3,500 employees at Moffett and search programs. The facility’s location, at Ed-
Dryden facilities) wards Air Force Base in California’s Mojave
Desert, is at the southern end of a 500-mile
Founded in 1940 by the National Advisory
high-speed flight corridor and is adjacent to
Committee for Aeronautics as an aircraft re-
a 65-square-mile natural surface for landing.
search laboratory, the Ames Research Center
The site provides almost ideal weather for
became part of the new NASA organization
flight testing.
in 1958. In 1981, the Dryden Flight Research
Center (see below) was merged with Ames, and Primary research tools include a B-52 “car-
the two installations are now referred to as rier” aircraft, several high-performance jet
“Ames/Dryden” and “Ames/Moffett.” fighters, and the X-29 Forward Swept Wing

aircraft. Ground-based facilities include a high- Lewis has recently assumed the responsibil-
temperature, loads-calibration laboratory for ity for developing the space power system for
ground-based testing of complete aircraft and the Space Station, the largest ever designed.
structural components under the combined ef- In addition, the center will support the Sta-
fects of loads and heat, an aircraft flight in- tion in other areas, such as auxiliary propul-
strumentation facility, a flight-systems labora- sion systems and communications. In support
tory (capable of avionics system fabrication, of the Department of Energy’s Solar Energy
development, and operations), a flow visuali- programs, Lewis is working on wind energy
zation facility, a data-analysis facility for proc- systems. Initial testing is on a 100-kilowatt
essing flight research data, a remotely piloted wind turbine—with larger sizes to follow. So-
research vehicles facility, and extensive test lar photovoltaic arrays are also being tested
range communications and data transmission and demonstrated under this effort.
capabilities. The Facility participated in the
approach and landing tests for the Space Shut-
Major facilities include a zero-gravity drop
tle Orbiter Enterprise and will continue to sup-
tower, wind tunnels, space environment tanks,
port Shuttle orbiter landings and ferry flights.
chemical rocket-thrust stands, and chambers
for testing jet-engine efficiency and noise.
A close association has naturally evolved be- Lewis also operates NASA’s Microgravity Ma-
tween Ames/Dry den and DoD S&T programs terials Science Laboratory, a unique facility
—especially with Dryden’s “collocation” at Ed-
to qualify potential space experiments. The
wards AFB with the Air Force Flight Test Cen-
Center is staffed by 2,690 Federal employees
ter. One of Ames/Dryden’s major DoD coop- and approximately 1,000 onsite contractors.
erative projects is the X-29, in which NASA
and DARPA are exploring a variety of ad-
vanced technologies. Another joint NASA/ Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD
DoD program is the Advanced Fighter Tech- (3,680 Civil Service personnel)
nology Integration F-1 11, conducted in con-
junction with the Air Force Flight Dynamics This Center has one of NASA’s most com-
Laboratory. prehensive programs of basic and applied re-
search directed toward expanding NASA’s
knowledge of the solar system, the universe,
Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH and the Earth. It is responsible for the devel-
(3,690 total staff) opment and operation of several near-Earth
NASA’s Lewis Research Center was estab- space systems, including the Cosmic Back-
lished in 1941 by the National Advisory Com- ground Explorer, which will measure radiation
mittee for Aeronautics, and developed an early generated early in the universe’s history when
reputation for its research on early jet propul- the universe was much hotter and denser than
sion systems. Today Lewis is NASA’s lead cen- it is today; the Gamma Ray Observatory,
ter for research, technology, and development which will gather data on the processes that
in aircraft propulsion, space propulsion, space propel energy-emitting objects of deep space
power, and satellite communications. In this (e.g., exploding galaxies, black holes, and qua-
role, numerous joint programs have been con- sars); and the Upper Atmosphere Research
ducted with DoD components, with one of the Satellite, which will look back at the Earth’s
most recent being the development of engines upper atmosphere to gather data on its com-
to power advanced supersonic STOVL aircraft. position and dynamics. Goddard also has re-
Lewis also had managed two launch-vehicle sponsibility for the development of science in-
programs, the Atlas-Centaur and the Shuttle- struments and the operations, maintenance,
Centaur; however, the Shuttle-Centaur pro- and refurbishment of the Hubble Space Tele-
gram was terminated after the explosion of the scope—a large, space-based optical telescope
Space Shuttle Challenger. to be deployed by the Space Shuttle.
Goddard is also the responsible Center for the Mars Observer, and major instruments for
NASA’s worldwide ground and spaceborne other NASA missions. Non-NASA work at
communications network, one of the key ele- JPL currently includes tasks for DoD, DOE,
ments of which is the Tracking and Data Re- and the Federal Aviation Administration. JPL
lay Satellite System with its orbiting Track- has been supporting DoD programs in many
ing and Data Relay Satellite and associated areas, including artificial intelligence, tactical-
ground tracking stations. One of the prime mis- data fusion, and specialized training systems
sions for this system will be to relay commu- based on “Expert System” technology.
nications to and from the Space Station.
Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA
For the Space Station, Goddard is responsi- (2,910 Civil Service personnel)
ble for Segment III, an external, free-flying Langley’s primary mission involves applied
platform to be placed in polar orbit. The Cen- research and development in the fields of aer-
ter is also responsible for developing instru- onautics, space technology, electronics and
ments attached to the outside of the Station structures. The Center also conducts programs
and the orbiting platform. for environmental monitoring, having devel-
A portion of the Center’s theoretical research oped a range of instruments for atmospheric
is conducted at the Goddard Institute for measurements.
Space Studies in New York City. Operated in In aeronautical technologies, programs have
close association with universities in that area, been directed primarily toward improving the
the Institute provides supporting research in efficiency of transport aircraft and high per-
geophysics, astronomy, and meteorology. God- formance supersonic military aircraft. The Cen-
dard’s Wallops Island Facility, located off ter is also developing technology for future
the coast of Virginia, prepares, assembles, transonic transport aircraft and has been ac-
launches, and tracks space vehicles, and ac- tive in studies of hypersonic powerplants. A
quires and processes the resulting scientific variety of wind tunnels are available to sup-
data. Its facilities are utilized by NASA’s sci- port basic and applied aeronautical research.
entists and engineers, other governmental
agencies, and universities. Research interests at Langley include ma-
terials, flutter, aeroelasticity, dynamic loads
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), and structural response, fatigue fracture, elec-
Pasadena, CA (4,110 total staff) tronic and mechanical instrumentation, com-
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a federally puter technology, flight dynamics, and control
funded research and development center man- and communications technology. Langley is
aged by the California Institute of Technology, now assuming a role in developing technologies
is engaged in activities associated with auto- for the National Aerospace Plane, and has con-
mated planetary and other deep-space mis- tinuing work on the Space Shuttle and Space
sions. These activities include subsystem and Station (e.g., experiments, sensors, communi-
instrument development, data reduction, and cations equipment, and data handling sys-
data analysis. JPL also has the capability to tems). Other research programs include inves-
design and test flight systems, including com- tigations of effects such as heat, vacuum, noise,
plete spacecraft, and to provide technical direc- and meteoroids on space vehicles; the use of
tion to contractor organizations. In addition advanced composite and polymeric materials
to the Pasadena site, JPL operates the Deep for structures and thermal control systems;
Space Communications Complex, one station and electronics technology.
of the worldwide Deep Space Network located Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL
at Goldstone, CA. (3,450 Civil Service personnel)
Current JPL projects include the planetary/ Marshall serves as one of NASA’s primary
solar probes Voyager, Galileo, Magellan, and centers for the design and development of

space transportation systems, elements of the space flight missions. Its principal roles include
Space Station, scientific and application pay- Space Shuttle production and operations, pro-
loads, and other systems for present and fu- duction of the replacement Orbiter, and sup-
ture space exploration. It has the principal role port to NASA Headquarters management for
for large rocket propulsion systems, Spacelab the Shuttle system. It also has responsibility
mission management, the design and develop- for the development of new manned space ve-
ment of large, complex, and specialized auto- hicles and supporting technology.
mated spacecraft, solar and magnetospheric
Johnson is a major development center for
physics, and astrophysics. Using the gravity- specific Space Station elements, including the
free environment of space, Marshall seeks to truss structure, airlocks and nodes, and addi-
develop materials processing techniques to en- tional subsystems. It has principal program
hance Earth-based processes and to fabricate activity in the field of life sciences and medi-
space-unique materials.
cal research to solve space medical problems,
Marshall has responsibilities for manned and it has supporting roles in lunar and plane-
space vehicle development such as the Space- tary geosciences, technology experiments in
lab and has sustaining engineering duties in space, and remote sensing. It is also responsi-
support of the Space Shuttle. Advanced pro- ble for directing the operations of the White
gram efforts focus on the analysis and defini- Sands Test Facility, located on the western
tion of propulsion/transportation systems to edge of the U.S. Army White Sands Missile
meet the nation’s needs over the next 25 years. Range in New Mexico.
Marshall is currently leading the planning for Kennedy Space Center, FL
an unmanned cargo version of the Space Shut- (2,200 Civil Service personnel)
tle called Shuttle-C; efforts for an Advanced
Launch System are also underway. Kennedy Space Center, located east of
Orlando on the Atlantic Ocean, serves as the
Marshall also plays a principal role in pay- primary NASA center for the test, checkout,
load development, instrument development, and launch of space vehicles. This responsibil-
and mission management for space science and ity includes ground operations for Space Shut-
applications missions as assigned. Responsi- tle preparation, launch, and landing and re-
bilities include the Hubble Space Telescope, furbishment. Other responsibilities include
the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility, Expendable Launch Vehicle operations. The
and automated servicing/resupply/retrieval Space Station effort at Kennedy Space Flight
kits. Its Space Station responsibilities include Center includes system integration and engi-
the development of pressurized structures, neering, operational readiness, and delegated
crew and laboratory modules, logistics, envi- ground support equipment program man-
ronmental control, and life support. agement.
Two other sites are managed by Marshall: National Space Technology Laboratories,
the Michoud Assembly Facility, New Orleans, Bay St. Louis, MS (150 Civil Service personnel)
LA, where the Space Shuttle external tanks
The National Space Technology Labora-
are manufactured, and the Slidell Computer
tories provide NASA’s prime test facility for
Complex, Slidell, LA, which provides computer
large liquid propellant rocket engines and
services support to Michoud and Marshall.
propulsion systems such as the Space Shuttle
main engines. It also conducts applied research
Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, and development in the fields of remote sens-
Houston, TX (3,440 Civil Service personnel) ing, environmental sciences, and other selected
Johnson Space Center manages the design, applications. The Laboratory provides facil-
development, and manufacture of manned ities and support through interagency agree-
spacecraft; the selection and training of as- ments to other Federal government agencies
tronaut crews; and the conduct of manned and the States of Mississippi and Louisiana.


By far, the majority of Federal Science and it typically contract for research. It provides
Technology activities with potential defense most of its support in the form of grants in
applications are conducted within DoD, DOE, response to unsolicited research proposals.
and NASA. There are “pockets” of S&T activ- Proposals are evaluated through a review proc-
it y within other government departments and ess that selects primarily on the basis of sci-
agencies which contribute to the defense tech- entific or technical merit. Most NSF grants
nology base. However, because of the magni- result from proposals submitted by academic
tude of investment in military technology by institutions. Small businesses also submit
DoD, one often finds the reverse is the case; unsolicited research proposals and receive
for example, U.S. Coast Guard technologies awards; however, most NSF awards to small
and systems often result from U.S. Navy re- businesses are grants made in response to
search and technology programs. proposals under the Small Business Innova-
tive Research program.
A major exception in which non-DoD fund-
ing dominates research in a field of relevance NSF supports basic research projects in
to the defense technology base is medical tech- nearly every conceivable area of science and
nologies. The National Institutes of Health technology, including physics, chemistry,
(NIH) of the Department of Health and Hu- mathematical sciences, computer research, ma-
man Services will finance more in health re- terials research, electrical, computer, and sys-
search in its fiscal year 1988 budget than DoD tems engineering, chemical and processing
will spend in its entire research and explora- engineering, civil and environmental engineer-
tory development (6.1 and 6.2) program. NIH’s ing, mechanical engineering and applied me-
fiscal year 1987 research budget was near $6.0 chanics, physiology, cellular and molecular bi-
billion, $3.6 billion of which supports univer- ology, biotic systems and resources, behavioral
sity research. For reference, the entire Federal and neural sciences, social and economic sci-
FY87 budget for basic research was $9 billion, ences, information science and technology, as-
of which the DoD 6.1 program constituted less tronomical sciences, atmospheric sciences,
than $1 billion. Less than $0.5 billion of those earth sciences, ocean sciences, and interdis-
DoD 6.1 funds supported university research. ciplinary combinations of these. NSF also sup-
ports science resources studies, policy research
In the past, biological sciences have not been
and analysis, and studies in industrial science,
as important to the defense technology base technological innovation, and other scientific
as physical sciences and engineering. In the and technical areas.
future, however, biotechnology will likely be-
come increasingly important to the defense For fiscal year 1987, NSF-sponsored univer-
technology base, and more of the government sity basic research totaled about $1 billion, ap-
investment in life sciences may have direct rele proximately twice that of DoD. The total NSF
vance to DoD needs. R&D budget that year was $1.5 billion.

National Science Foundation

Department of Commerce
The National Science Foundation (NSF) was
National Bureau of Standards
established in 1950 to advance scientific
progress in the United States. NSF supports The National Bureau of Standards (NBS) is
scientific and engineering research and related the Nation’s central reference laboratory for
activities, and under congressional pressure physical, chemical, and engineering measure-
has more recently devoted some attention to ments. The measurement and data services
improving science and engineering education. that NBS provided in 1987 included calibra-
NSF does not conduct research itself nor does tions, production and distribution of standard

reference materials and data, and laboratory into four laboratories and institutes (figure 14):
accreditation. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and the National Measurement Laboratory, the
Defense Agencies (including their contractors) National Engineering Laboratory, the Insti-
make extensive use of these services. tute for Materials Science and Engineering,
and the Institute for Computer Sciences and
While the Federal Government has a sub- Technology.
stantial capital investment in instrumentation
and facilities at NBS, the actual research bud- The National Measurement Laboratory
get is modest and is augmented by coopera- (NML) conducts research in physics, radiation
tive research projects conducted jointly be- chemistry, analytical chemistry, and chemical
tween NBS and other organizations. NBS properties and processes. NML produces fun-
conducts specialized research programs for the damental measurements and data that under-
Department of Defense on a contractual ba- lie national measurement standards. It also
sis. These programs draw on NBS’s unique ca- furnishes advisory and research services to
pabilities, and range from fundamental physics other government agencies and provides stand-
and chemistry studies to more applied work, ard reference data and calibration services.
such as developing calibration techniques for
a particular piece of defense hardware. Re- The National Engineering Laboratory (NEL)
search topics encompass fields such as electro- conducts research in electronics and electrical
optics, microwave and millimeter wave meas- engineering, chemical engineering, manufac-
urements, electronics, physical measurements turing engineering, mathematical sciences, and
(e.g., temperature, pressure, shock, and vibra- the construction and performance of buildings
tion), automated metrology, materials charac- and fire protection. This laboratory produces
terization, and applications of computer sys- new engineering knowledge, techniques, and
tems. NBS also hosts technical conferences databases for the design, development, predic-
and workshops for DoD and consults on a va- tion, and control of industrial processes. Im-
riety of subjects, particularly those relating proved quality assurance and reduced costs
to instrumentation and measurement. of manufacturing are two principal goals of the
NBS is the only Federal laboratory with a
primary mission of supporting U.S. industry. The Institute for Materials Science and
To accomplish this mission, NBS is organized Engineering (IMSE) performs research in ma-

Figure 14. –National Bureau of Standards

Programs, Administration
Budget and and Staff
Personnel Functions

Institute for
Materials Science
and Engineering

SOURCE: National Bureau of Standards


terials characterization, nondestructive evalu- ronment and warns against impending hazards
ation, metallurgy, polymers, and ceramics; it such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, seismic
produces measurement methods, standards, sea waves, and other destructive natural
data, and other technical information on proc- events. NOAA monitors the gradual changes
essing, structure, properties, and performance of climate and environment and predicts the
of materials. The goal of these activities is to impact of such changes on food production, re-
support generic materials technologies to per- source management, and energy utilization.
mit manufacture of advanced materials with
NOAA provides a focus within the Federal
increased reliability and quality and reduced
Government for the objective scientific assess-
ment of the ecological consequences of specific
The Institute for Computer Sciences and Tech- actions, such as petroleum exploration, devel-
nology (ICST) performs research in computer opment, and shipment, and marine mineral ex-
sciences and engineering. This research is de- traction. The major operating elements of
signed to establish Government-wide stand- NOAA are:
ards and guidelines for automated data proc- ● the National Weather Service,
essing systems. The Institute also provides ● the National Ocean Service,
technical support for the development of na- ● the National Marine Fisheries Service,
tional and international voluntary standards. ● the National Environmental Satellite,
Under Public Law 100-202, the Final Omni- Data, and Information Service,
bus Appropriation Bill for fiscal year 1988, ● the Environmental Research Laboratory,
NBS is to establish “Regional Centers for the and
Transfer of Manufacturing Technology. ” ● the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Re-
These centers will be designed to accelerate search.
technology transfer to organizations that need
to implement new automated manufacturing Department of Transportation
techniques. Such techniques are being devel-
oped for the Navy in NBS’s Automated Man- The Federal Aviation Administration and
ufacturing Research Facility. This facility is the U.S. Coast Guard-components of the De-
developing applications of automated manu- partment of Transportation (DOT) –develop
facturing technology in piece-part manufactur- and acquire hardware and systems. However,
ing at shipyards and depots. the bulk of DOT’s research is analytical in na-
ture and is directed toward setting and enforc-
NBS fiscal year 1988 appropriations are ing regulations and toward investigating devi-
$145 million. Total resources for the same year, ations (e.g., accidents). DOT’s research branch
totaling $314 million, include $95 million in is the Research and Special Programs Admin-
work for other Federal agencies, $22 million istration, which has the responsibility for plan-
from the sale of calibrations, testing services, ning and management of programs in all fields
and standard reference materials, and $52 mil- of transportation research and development.
lion in private sector contributions of staff and
equipment. Total full-time equivalent NBS Research and Special Programs Administration
staff for fiscal year 1988 is 3,090.
The Research and Special Programs Admin-
istration (RSPA) maintains the capability to
National Oceanic and Atmospheric perform program management, “in-house” re-
Administration search and development, analysis in transpor-
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric tation planning and socioeconomic effects, and
Administration (NOAA) explores, maps, and technological support in response to DOT
charts the global oceans and their mineral and policies. Particular efforts are made on trans-
living resources. The agency monitors and pre- portation systems problems, advanced trans-
dicts the characteristics of the physical envi- portation concepts, and on “multi-modal”

transportation. RSPA also develops and main- with the Air Force. Because of the size of the
tains vital statistics and a related transporta- Air Force budget in these areas, the “technol-
tion information database. ogy transfer” from the Air Force to the FAA
may be substantially greater than vice versa.
RSPA is composed of the following func- However, the joint USAF/FAA responsibili-
tional groups: ties and interests remain, with attendant con-
The Transportation System Center pro- tributions to defense technology.
vides support to DOT and other Federal
agencies in the fields of technology assess- U.S. Coast Guard
ment, industry analysis, strategic plan- The U.S. Coast Guard is involved in the de-
ning support, and research management velopment and acquisition of the communica-
for transportation systems. tions systems and facilities, aircraft, and ves-
The Materials Transportation Bureau is sels which are required to accomplish its
responsible for the safe transportation of coastal monitoring mission. A close associa-
all hazardous materials. As part of this tion naturally exists between the Navy and the
mission, it establishes and enforces haz- Coast Guard in this regard and a significant
ardous materials and pipeline safety reg- technology transfer process exists. The Coast
ulations. Guard simply does not have a budget of suffi-
The Office of Program Management and cient size to conduct a broad and independent
Administration coordinates the university R&D program; it must rely on the Navy re-
research program, which focuses on high- search budget. However, Coast Guard require-
priority transportation problems (e.g., ments and deployment concepts contribute to
issues pertaining to transportation sys- the formulation and execution of Naval and
tems engineering, advanced transporta- other DoD research science and technology
tion planning, and telecommunications). projects. Thus there is, as with the FAA/Air
Its Transportation Safety Institute, lo- Force relationship, a synergistic effect–albeit
cated at the Mike Monroney Aeronauti- not substantial in financial terms.
cal Center in Oklahoma City, OK, develops
and conducts training programs.
Other Federal Agencies
The Office of Emergency Transportation
coordinates the development and review There are scores of other Federal agencies,
of emergency preparedness policies, plans, departments and special groups involved in
and related programs. some way in science and technology which
would have applications to and could contrib-
Federal Aviation Administration
ute to the defense technology base. The De-
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) partment of Agriculture and the Department
has a research and development program that of the Interior/U.S. Geological Survey conduct
is largely oriented toward establishing stand- modest research programs which can have de-
ards for the design and performance of aircraft fense technology base fallout.3 Examples are
monitoring, communications, and navigation the remote sensing programs which are spon-
equipment and toward the acquisition and sored in these departments. Utilization of data
management of air traffic control systems. In from LANDSAT, defining collection require-
this regard, there is a substantial convergence ments, and supporting spacecraft and sensor
of interest and activities with DoD—especially development programs can complement DoD’s
the Air Force. For example, the structure and
management of the Nation’s air traffic control
system and planned conversion to the micro- me Department of Agriculture supports a university research
wave landing system require close cooperation program which amounts to roughly $200 million per year.

image processing and remote sensing require- ● NASA,

ments. Although the magnitude of funding National Science Foundation, and
available on the defense side may “overpower’ Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
these programs, the expertise growing in ap-
plications and the cost-effective utilization of
The program consists of three phases of con-
remote sensing systems could have beneficial
returns to defense programs. tracting and is designed to encourage small
business to overcome their “angst” when deal-
The Federal Communications Commission ing with the Federal Government (e.g., too
exerts influence over telecommunications pol- much paperwork, complete auditing proce-
icies, which can affect DoD programs. Thus, dures, etc.). Phase I contracts are focused on
the Commission’s activities are closely coordi- evaluating the scientific and technical merit
nated with DoD, and its actions impact on re- and/or feasibility of an idea. Awards are nor-
quirements (if not on actual programs them- mally up to $50,000, with an average period
selves). of performance of 6 months. Under Phase II
Small Business Innovative Research the results of Phase I feasibility studies are
expanded to pursue further any development
(SBIR) Program opportunities. Only those small businesses
An interesting government program offer- which have conducted Phase I contracts are
ing incentives to the private sector that can eligible for Phase II. The size of the contracts
stimulate contributions to the defense technol- are normally $500,000 or less and the period
ogy base is the Small Business Innovative Re- of performance roughly 2 years. Under Phase
search program.4 The SBIR program was es- III, the government seeks to commercialize the
tablished with the enactment of the Small results of Phase II through the use of private,
Business Innovation Development Act in or non-SBIR Federal, funding (e.g., DoD
1982. In 1986, the program was reauthorized RDT&E funds).
through fiscal year 1993. Under SBIR, Fed-
eral agencies with research and development The participating agencies and departments
budgets which exceed $100 million must estab- publish their lists of SBIR solicitation topics
lish an SBIR program, with the funding con- on a quarterly basis. DoD—the Departments
tribution derived from fixed percentages estab- of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the Defense
lished for each participating agency. Eleven Advanced Research Projects Agency; the De-
Federal agencies now participate in SBIR: fense Nuclear Agency; and the Strategic De-
Department of Agriculture, fense Initiative Organization-lists hundreds
Department of Commerce, of topics. Most of these topics would be classed
Department of Defense, in the research and exploratory development
Department of Education, categories of DoD’s S&T program. Since the
Department of Energy, program’s inception in fiscal year 1983, more
Department of Health and Human than 5,000 Phase I and 1,000 Phase II con-
Services, tracts have been awarded and the total dollar
Department of Transportation, amount is in excess of $655 million. In fiscal
Environmental Protection Agency, year 1986,$98 million in Phase I and $200 mil-
lion in Phase 11 programs were awarded and
‘For additional information on this program, see the Science
roughly $400 million will be awarded for both
Policy Study Background Report No. 8, “Science Support by phases in fiscal year 1987. A quick review of
the Department of Defense, ” prepared by the Congressional the DoD topic list reveals that the return in
Research Service for the Task Force on Science Policy, Com-
mittee on Science Policy, U.S. House of Representatives, 99th
defense-related technology development could
Cong., pp. 310-314. be substantial.


A considerable amount of DoD technology technologies. Its services are provided prin-
base work is performed by federally funded re- cipally for for the Space Division of the Air
search and development centers (FFRDCs) and Force Systems Command, although it also
other nonprofit laboratories that, in many works for other agencies. Aerospace Corp. pro-
ways, have organizational characteristics be- vides general systems engineering and inte-
tween those of government laboratories and gration services, which involve formulating
those of private corporations. Like government requirements, designing specifications, moni-
laboratories, these facilities need not consider toring technical progress, resolving problems,
potential profitability in their choice of re- certifying completion, and assistance during
search activities. However, they have more operation. Its single largest responsibility in-
flexibility in their operating procedures—and volves certifying spacecraft and launch vehi-
particularly in their personnel policies—than cles for launch.
do government laboratories.
FFRDCs serve various branches of the Fed- The MITRE Corp., C3I Division, Bedford, MA
and Washington, DC (4,000/2,140)
eral Government. Ten are sponsored by De-
partment of Defense. Six of these–the Cen- The C3I division of MITRE Corp. performs
ter for Naval Analyses, the Institute for systems engineering and integration services
Defense Analyses, three divisions of the Rand in the field of command, control, communica-
Corp. (Project Air Force, Rand National De- tions, and intelligence (C3I) under Air Force
fense Research Institute, and the Arroyo Cen- sponsorship. Its primary sponsor is the Elec-
ter), and the Logistics Management Institute tronic Systems Division of the Air Force Sys-
—primarily conduct studies and analyses for tems Command. (Metrek Division, another di-
the Services and the Office of the Secretary vision of MITRE Corp., serves as a nonprofit
of Defense and do not perform much technical contractor for civil agencies of the gov-
research or development. The other four—The ernment. )
Aerospace Corp., the MITRE Corp. C3I Divi-
sion, the Software Engineering Institute, and Software Engineering Institute,
Lincoln Laboratory–have a significant tech- Pittsburgh, PA (14O/1OO)
nical role and are described below. The Software Engineering Institute is oper-
Other nonprofit institutions, organized ated by Carnegie Mellon University under con-
differently than FFRDCs, also perform signif- tract to the Electronic Systems Division of the
icant technical work for the Defense Depart- Air Force Systems Command. However, it
ment and other federal agencies. Their man- works for all the Services to promote use of
agement structures range from university the most effective technology to improve the
affiliates to independent, nonprofit organiza- quality of operational software in mission-
tions. Selected examples of these institutions critical computer systems.
are also presented below.
Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, MA (2,100/760)
Federally Funded Research Lincoln Laboratory’s particular emphasis is
and Development Centers on electronics. It is operated by the Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology under prime con-
The Aerospace Corp., El Segundo, CA tract with the Electronic Systems Division of
(3,800/2,100)5 the Air Force Systems Command. Established
The Aerospace Corp. performs technical in 1951 to assist the Air Force with the then-
work on military space systems and related emerging technology of digital computers, it
continues as a pioneering technical center in
‘(Total Staff/Scientists and Engineers). the areas of radar, communications, and com-

puters. Programs range from fundamental neering, scientific, and economic research in
solid state science to the design, development, electronics, electromagnetic, energy, materi-
and demonstration of prototype systems. It als sciences, and a number of other areas. Vari-
works for all the Services and for several DoD ous defense and non-defense government agen-
agencies. The Air Force limits the degree of cies are the principal clients, but up to 20
participation of other clients to less than 50 percent of the work is done for private in-
percent. dustry.

University Affiliates IIT Research Institute, Chicago, IL

Many federally funded laboratories are man- The I IT Research Institute is a nonprofit re-
aged by universities under a variety of differ- search organization affiliated with the Illinois
ent structures such as FFRDC (e.g., Lincoln Institute of Technology. It works for both gov-
Laboratory, managed by MIT for the Air ernment and private clients, with the number
Force) and management contract (e.g. Los of projects about evenly split between the two,
Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Lawrence but with Federal contracts representing about
Berkeley National Laboratories, managed by 80 percent of its funding. Research topics in-
the University of California for the Depart- clude electronics, communications, toxicology,
ment of Energy). Yet another management ap- chemical defense, environmental science, pe-
proach is as an independent university divi- troleum research, ordnance, and advanced
sion, such as the Johns Hopkins Applied manufacturing technology.
Physics Laboratory. This laboratory, and other
examples of university-affiliated research
centers, are described below.
Independent Nonprofit Laboratories
Battelle Memorial Institute,
Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, Columbus, OH (7,800)
Howard County, MD (2,800/1,600)
Battelle is an independent, nonprofit, inter-
The Applied Physics Laboratory is a divi-
national organization providing research and
sion of the Johns Hopkins University, operat-
ing in parallel with the university’s academic development, technical management (primar-
ily management of the Department of Energy’s
divisions. The lab is run primarily under a sin-
Pacific Northwest Laboratory), and technol-
gle contract with the Navy’s Space and Naval
ogy commercialization services. Battelle’s re-
Warfare Systems Command, but it performs
search and development is now being concen-
work for all DoD-sponsored activities and most
trated primarily in the areas of advanced
other Federal activities. With a history of work
materials, biological and chemical sciences,
in proximity fuzes, guided missiles, and sys-
biotechnology, electronics, engineering and
tems engineering, the lab currently works in manufacturing technologies, and information
the areas of Navy ship systems, submarine sys-
tems, strategic systems, naval warfare analy-
sis, space research and development, aeronau-
tics, and biomedical research. Basic and Charles Stark Draper Laboratory,
applied research are also conducted in a num- Cambridge, MA (2,000/1,000)
ber of areas that underlie current and future Draper Labs, at one time affiliated with the
laboratory interests. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is now
an independent nonprofit research institution.
Georgia Tech Research Institute, Its major business activities are avionics, stra-
Atlanta, GA (1,360/580) tegic systems, undersea vehicle systems, pre-
The Georgia Tech Research Institute is a cision pointing and tracking, and advanced
nonprofit organization affiliated with the Geor- space systems. Draper has had major respon-
gia Institute of Technology. It performs engi- sibility for guidance, navigation, and control

systems for strategic ballistic missiles, NASA ness and Consulting; Sciences (Physical and
spacecraft, and a variety of Air Force systems. Life); and the David Sarnoff Research Center.
The Sarnoff research center, originally the
SRI International, Menlo Park, CA (3,600) RCA corporate research laboratory, was sold
SRI International is an independent non- to SRI when RCA was acquired by General
profit research institute once affiliated with Electric. About 60 percent of SRI’s work is
Stanford University. It is organized into four for the Federal Government, with the re-
divisions–Engineering; International Busi- mainder for private clients.
Glossary of Acronyms

AD –Armaments Division (Air ATD –Advanced Technology

Force Systems Command) Demonstration
ADP —Advanced Demonstration AVSCOM –Aviation Systems Command
Project (Army Materiel Command)
AFAL —Air Force Astronautics B&P –Bid and Proposal
Laboratory (Air Force Systems BRL —Ballistics Research Laboratory
Command) (Army Materiel Command)
AFATL —Air Force Armament C 3I –Command, Control,
Laboratory (Air Force Systems Communications, and
Command) Intelligence
AFESL –Air Force Engineering and CECOM –Communications-Electronics
Services Laboratory Command (Army Materiel
AFGL —Air Force Geophysics Command)
Laboratory (Air Force Systems CMC –Commandant of the Marine
Command) Corps
AFOSR –Air Force Office of Scientific CNO –Chief of Naval Operations
Research CNR –Chief of Naval Research
AFSC –Air Force Systems Command COE –Corps of Engineers (U.S.
AFWAL –Air Force Wright Aeronautical Army)
Laboratories (Air Force CRDEC –Chemical RDE Center (Army
Systems Command) Materiel Command)
AFWL –Air Force Weapons Laboratory CREL –Construction Engineering
(Air Force Systems Command) Research Laboratory (Army
AMC –Army Materiel Command Corps of Engineers)
AMCCOM —Armaments, Munitions, and CRREL –Cold Regions Research and
Chemical Command (Army Engineering Laboratory (Army
Materiel Command) Corps of Engineers)
ARDEC –Armament RDE Center (Army CRS –Congressional Research Service
Materiel Command) DARPA –Defense Advanced Research
ARI –Accelerated Research Initiative Projects Agency (formerly
(U.S. Navy) ARPA)
ARI –Army Research Institute DCA —Defense Communications
(Army Deputy Chief of Staff Agency
for Personnel) DCS(T&P) –Deputy Chief of Staff for
ARO —Army Research Office Technology and Plans (U.S.
ARPA –Advanced Research Projects Air Force)
Agency (now DARPA) DCSPER –Deputy Chief of Staff for
ASA(RD&A) –Assistant Secretary of the Personnel (U.S. Army)
Army for Research, DDR&E –Director of Defense Research
Development, and Acquisition and Engineering
ASAF(A) –Assistant Secretary of the Air DMA –Defense Mapping Agency
Force for Acquisition DNA –Defense Nuclear Agency
ASD —Aeronautical Systems Division DNL —Director of Navy Laboratories
(Air Force Systems Command) DoD —Department of Defense
ASD(R&T) —Assistant Secretary of Defense DOE –Department of Energy
for Research and Technology DOT —Department of Transportation
ASL —Atmospheric Sciences DR&T –Director of Research and
Laboratory (Army Materiel Technology (U.S. Army)
Command) DRD&R(T&E)–Director of Research,
ASN(RE&S) –Assistant Secretary of the Development and
Navy for Research, Requirements, Test and
Engineering, and Systems Evaluation


DSARC —Defense System Acquisition ManTech –Manufacturing Technology

Review Council (Program)
DSB –Defense Science Board MICOM –Missile Command (Army
DT&A –Deputy for Technology and Materiel Command)
Assessment (U.S. Army) MILSPEC –Military Specifications
DUSD(R&AT)–Deputy Under Secretary of MIMIC –Microwave/Millimeter Wave
Defense for Research and Monolithic Integrated Circuit
Advanced Technology MTL –Materials Technology
ESD —Electronic Systems Division Laboratory (Army Materiel
(Air Force Systems Command) Command)
ET –Emerging Technologies NADC –Naval Air Development Center
ETDL –Electronics Technology and (Space and Naval Warfare
Devices Laboratory (Army Systems Command)
Materiel Command) NAS —National Academy of Sciences
ETL —Engineer Topographic NASA –National Aeronautics and
Laboratory (Army Corps of Space Administration
Engineers) NATO –North Atlantic Treaty
FAA –Federal Aviation Organization
Administration (U.S. NBS –National Bureau of Standards
Department of Transportation) (U.S. Department of Commerce)
FFRDC –Federally Funded Research NCSC –Naval Coastal Systems Center
and Development Center (Space and Naval Warfare
FSED —Full-Scale Engineering Systems Command)
Development NEPRF —Navy Environmental Prediction
GaAs —Gallium Arsenide Research Facility (Office of
GOCO –Government Owned/Contractor Naval Research)
Operated NGNS –Next Generation and Notional
HDL –Harry Diamond Laboratories Systems
(Army Materiel Command) NIH –National Institutes of Health
HEL –Human Engineering NOAA –National Oceanic and
Laboratory (Army Materiel Atmospheric Administration
Command) (U.S. Departmemt of
HSD —Human Systems Division (Air Commerce)
Force Systems Command) NORDA –Naval Oceanographic Research
ILIR —In-House Laboratory and Development Activity
Independent Research (Office of Naval Research)
Program NOSC –Naval Ocean Systems Center
IMIP —Industrial Modernization (Space and Naval Warfare
Incentives Program Systems Command)
INEL –Idaho National Engineering NRL –Naval Research Laboratory
Laboratory (U.S. Department (Office of Naval Research)
of Energy) NSA –National Security Agency
INO –Institute for Naval NSF —National Science Foundation
Oceanography (Office of Naval NSRDC –Naval Ship Research and
Research) Development Center (Space and
IR&D –Independent Research and Naval Warfare Systems
Development Command)
JPL –Jet Propulsion Laboratory NSWC –Naval Surface Warfare Center
(National Aeronautics and (Space and Naval Warfare
Space Administration) Systems Command)
LABCOM –Laboratory Command (Army NUSC –Naval Undersea Systems
Materiel Command) Center (Space and Naval
LBL –Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Warfare Systems Command)
(U.S. Department of Energy) NWC –Naval Weapons Center (Space

and Naval Warfare Systems Space Administration)

Command) SD —Space Division (Air Force
ONR –Office of Naval Research Systems Command)
ONT –Office of Naval Technology SDI –Strategic Defense Initiative
OPNAV –Office of the Chief of Naval SDIO —Strategic Defense Initiative
Operations Organization
OSD –Office of the Secretary of SEMATECH –Semiconductor Manufacturing
Defense Technology Institute “
OTA –Office of Technology SPA WAR –Space and Naval Warfare
Assessment Systems Command (U.S. Navy)
OTSG –Office of the Surgeon General SPF –Single Project Fund (U.S.
(U.S. Army) Army)
PEO –Program Executive Officer STARS –Software Technology for
PMR —Potential Military Relevance Adaptable Reliable Systems
PNL –Pacific Northwest Laboratory STOVL —short take-off/vertical landing
(U.S. Department of Energy) SYSCOM –Systems Command
POM —Program Objective TACOM —Tank Automotive Command
Memorandum (Army Materiel Command)
PPBS –Planning, Programming, and TBAG –Technology Base Advisory
Budgeting System Group (U.S. Army)
R&AT —see DUSD(R&AT) TRADOC —Training and Doctrine
R&D –Research and Development Command (U.S. Army)
RADC –Rome Air Development Center TROSCOM –Troop Support Command (U.S.
(Air Force Systems Command) Army)
RD&A –Research, Development, and TSG –Surgeon General of the Army
Acquisition URI –University Research Initiative
RDE –Research, Development, and URIP –University Research
Engineering Instrumentation Program
RDT&E –Research, Development, Test, USD(A) –Under Secretary of Defense for
and Evaluation Acquisition
RFP –Request for Proposal VAL –Vulnerability Assessment
RSPA —Research and Special Programs Laboratory (Army Materiel
Administration (U.S. Command)
Department of Transportation) VHSIC –Very High Speed Integrated
S&T –Science and Technology Circuit
SBIR —Small Business Innovative VLSI —Very Large Scale Integration
Research WES —Waterways Experiment Station
SCC –Slidell Computer Complex (Army Corps of Engineers)
(National Aeronautics and

83-207 ( 124 )