U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

87–859 2014

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–96] 

HEARING 

ON

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015 

AND

OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 

PROGRAMS 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING 

THREATS AND CAPABILITIES HEARING 

ON

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL 

YEAR 2015 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 

PROGRAMS: PURSUING TECHNOLOGY 

SUPERIORITY IN A CHANGING 

SECURITY ENVIRONMENT 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 26, 2014 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS 

AND CAPABILITIES 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas, Chairman 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., Georgia 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

DANIEL B. MAFFEI, New York 

DEREK KILMER, Washington 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

KEVIN GATES, Professional Staff Member 

MARK LEWIS, Professional Staff Member 

JULIE HERBERT, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2014 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, March 26, 2014, Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2015 Science 

and Technology Programs: Pursuing Technology Superiority in a Changing 

Security Environment .......................................................................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, March 26, 2014 ................................................................................... 27 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2014 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL YEAR 2015 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS: PURSUING TECHNOLOGY SUPERIORITY IN A 

CHANGING SECURITY ENVIRONMENT 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Langevin, Hon. James R., a Representative from Rhode Island, Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities 1 

Thornberry, Hon. Mac, a Representative from Texas, Chairman, Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities ...................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Klunder, RADM Matthew L., USN, Chief of Naval Research, U.S. Navy .......... 5 

Miller, Mary J., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and 

Technology, U.S. Army ........................................................................................ 3 

Prabhakar, Dr. Arati, Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 8 

Shaffer, Alan R., Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering, Department of Defense ................................................................. 2 

Walker, Dr. David E., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, 

Technology and Engineering, U.S. Air Force ..................................................... 7 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Klunder, RADM Matthew L. ........................................................................... 80 

Miller, Mary J. .................................................................................................. 55 

Prabhakar, Dr. Arati ........................................................................................ 128 

Shaffer, Alan R. ................................................................................................ 31 

Walker, Dr. David E. ........................................................................................ 96 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Thornberry ................................................................................................. 151 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Peters ......................................................................................................... 162 

Mr. Thornberry ................................................................................................. 155 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL YEAR 2015 SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS: PURSUING TECHNOLOGY SUPERIORITY IN A CHANGING SECURITY ENVIRONMENT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING

THREATS AND CAPABILITIES, 

Washington, DC, Wednesday, March 26, 2014. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:52 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mac Thornberry (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAC THORNBERRY, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

Mr. THORNBERRY. The hearing will come to order. Thank you all 

for your patience. It is inevitable that whenever this subcommittee 

has a hearing scheduled,that is when votes will be on the floor. It 

happens every single time. But I do appreciate y’all bearing with 

us. We will have votes again in roughly an hour and a half or so, 

so we will need to move as expeditiously as we can. And with that 

in mind, I am going to forego any opening statement. 

Yield to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island for any 

comments he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM RHODE ISLAND, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, EMERGING THREATS AND 

CAPABILITIES 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to welcome our witnesses here today. And given the time concerns, I will 

follow your lead, Mr. Chairman. I will forego my opening statement. 

I will submit it for the record. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman. And without objection, 

all of your written statements will be made part of the record, and 

you will all have a chance to summarize your comments, if you 

don’t mind. 

And, Mr. Shaffer, please lead off. 
2 

STATEMENT OF ALAN R. SHAFFER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Mr. SHAFFER. Well, you know, it is always wonderful being the 

chief technology officer of the Department and not knowing how to 

operate these things. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SHAFFER. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Langevin, 

members of the committee, I am pleased to come before you today 

to testify about the fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense [DOD] 

science and technology [S&T] program. I am also proud to be here 

to represent the 100,000 scientists and engineers in the Department, a workforce that has had remarkable achievements in the 

past, but is now a workforce showing the early stages of stress. 

The collective impact of the 2013 civilian furlough and program 

curtailment, the October 2013 government shutdown, and the indirect impacts of the sequester—such as restrictions on our young 

scientists and engineers attending technical conferences and reductions in hiring new scientists and engineers—has impacted the 

health of our workforce and the programs they execute in ways 

that we are just beginning to understand. 

We have begun to address these challenges and know we will defeat them, but they do remain a concern. The fiscal year 2015 

budget request for science and technology is relatively stable. The 

DOD S&T request is $11.5 billion, compared to a 2014 appropriation of $12 billion. The request represents a 4 percent decrease in 

the Department’s S&T program compared to a flat RDT&E [research, development, test and evaluation] budget request. 

While we continue to execute a balanced program, there are factors that led Secretary Hagel to conclude, in his February 24 fiscal 

year 2015 budget rollout, that the development and proliferation of 

more advanced military technologies by other nations means that 

we are entering an era where American dominance on the seas, in 

the skies, and in space can no longer be taken for granted. The Department is in the third year of a protracted and rapid top-line and 

RDT&E budget drawdown. 

As highlighted by the Secretary, there are three major areas that 

compromise the Department’s budget: force size, readiness, and 

modernization. The current budget is driving a force-size reduction, 

but this reduction will take several years to yield significant savings. In the fiscal year 2015 budget, readiness and/or modernization will pay a larger percentage of this reduction bill. Our technological superiority is challenged by increasingly sophisticated military capabilities rapidly emerging around the globe. 

Within a fiscally constrained environment, our modernization efforts are focused on the enablers that keep our military equipment 

technologically superior to the emerging threat. Accordingly, we developed a strategy for the research and engineering program 

whereby we invest in research and engineering for three reasons. 

The first is to mitigate new and emerging threat capabilities. We 

see significant need in electronic warfare, cyber activities, counterweapons of mass destruction, and preserving space capabilities in 

a contested space environment. 
3 

The second is to affordably enable new or extended capabilities 

in existing and new military platforms. We see significant need for 

systems engineers, modeling and simulation, and an expansion in 

prototyping efforts across the Department. The third reason we invest in research and engineering is to develop technology surprise. 

We see significant opportunities to advance our technologies in autonomy, human systems, quantum sensing, and big data. We have 

a balanced program that is yielding significant innovation across 

the DOD. DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] 

continues to deliver new capabilities that will allow the DOD to 

stay technologically advanced, and Dr. Prabhakar will detail some 

of these programs. 

But we are also seeing groundbreaking capability developments 

in the services and agencies. Whether it is the first operational deployment of a laser system on the USS Ponce or the development 

of the future helicopter in the Army’s joint multi-role helicopter 

demonstration, or the first-ever demonstration of an air-breathing 

hypersonic system such as accomplished by the Air Force’s X–51 

missile last year, the Department’s S&T program continues to deliver. 

The last year has been challenging to the Department’s S&T program. The risk to our force is growing, and the need for the science 

and technology community, and delivery, is likewise increasing. 

While the challenges are increasing, the Department as a whole 

recognizes the need to maintain technological superiority as a cornerstone of the future force. We still have the best military, defense 

industrial base, and laboratory and university research systems. 

However, instability and effects of the Budget Control Act and 

the near-term lack of balance between force structure, readiness, 

and modernization will increase the risk to our future force. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaffer can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

Ms. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF MARY J. MILLER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, 

U.S. ARMY 

Ms. MILLER. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Langevin, 

and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for this 

opportunity to discuss the Army’s science and technology program 

for fiscal year 2015. After 13 years of persistent conflict, the United 

States finds itself in a familiar situation, facing a declining defense 

budget and a strategic landscape that continues to evolve. Given 

the budget downturn within the Department of Defense, the Army 

has been compelled to face some difficult choices. 

As Mr. Shaffer noted, we must balance between force structure, 

operational readiness, and modernization to maintain a capable 

force able to prevent, shape, and win any engagement. The Army 

will adapt, remaining an ever-present land force unparalleled 

throughout the world. As a result of these difficult budget decisions, however, we face a situation where modernization will be 

slowed over the next 5 years. New programs will not be initiated 
4 

as originally envisioned, and the Army’s science and technology enterprise will be challenged to better prepare for the programs and 

capabilities of the future. 

There is an old saying that my boss, Ms. Shyu, the Army acquisition executive, likes to use when explaining the Army’s modernization strategy. ‘‘The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The 

second-best time is today.’’ And as we draw down forces from Afghanistan, today is the best time to plant seeds for the Army of the 

future. This is not a new concept. At the end of all major conflicts, 

we begin to focus on preparing for what is next. 

Perhaps the most successful example of planting future seeds is 

found at the end of the Vietnam conflict, where the Army focused 

on developing the big five—Abrams, Bradley, Black Hawk, Apache, 

and Patriot—platforms that still dominate the fight today. It is this 

mindset that led the Army leadership to protect our S&T investment, their seed corn for the future. Despite these great budget 

challenges, much trust has been placed in our Army S&T community. 

When I testified to this committee last year, I spoke about an initiative to generate a comprehensive modernization strategy that 

would facilitate informed strategic decisions, based on long-term 

objectives, within a resource-constrained environment. I am happy 

to report that this new process has been extremely beneficial for 

the Army, and is a process we have continued. The long-term look 

over the next 30 years was exceptionally powerful in facilitating 

the strategic decisions made within the Army as we built the fiscal 

year 2015 President’s budget. 

It allowed the Army leadership to make tough program decisions 

based on providing the most capability to our soldiers, knowing 

that in some cases that meant delaying desired capabilities. Last 

year, I also discussed the need for flexibility to balance across our 

investment portfolios. For fiscal year 2015, we were allowed to do 

this. It made a critical difference in the Army strategy, allowing us 

to make a deliberate increase in our advance technology demonstration funding—budget activity three—from previous years. 

This is essential as the Army looks to its S&T community to conduct more technology demonstration and prototyping initiatives 

that will focus on maturing technology, reducing program risk, defining realistic requirements, and conducting experimentation with 

soldiers to both refine new capabilities and develop new operational 

concepts. The S&T community will be challenged to bring forward 

not only new capabilities, but capabilities that are affordable for 

the Army of the future. 

You will see that the Army S&T portfolio is increasing emphasis 

on research areas that support the next generation of combat vehicles; A2/AD [anti-access/area denial] technologies, such as Assured 

Position, Navigation, and Timing; soldier selection tools and training technologies; and long-range fires. We are also increasing vulnerability assessment investments, red-teaming our technologies, 

our systems, and systems of systems to identify potential vulnerabilities, including performance degradation in contested environments, interoperability, adaptability, and training in ease of use. 

None of this would be possible without the world-class cadre of 

over 12,000 scientists and engineers that make up the Army 
5 

science and technology enterprise. Despite this current environment of unease within the government civilian workforce—exacerbated over this past year—we continue to have an exceptional 

workforce. They are up to the challenge that the Army has given 

to them. 

This is an interesting, yet challenging, time to be in the Army. 

Despite this, we remain an Army that is looking towards the future 

while taking care of our soldiers today. I hope that we can continue 

to count on your support as we move forward. 

Thank you again for all that you do for our soldiers. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller can be found in the Appendix on page 55.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

Admiral. 

STATEMENT OF RADM MATTHEW L. KLUNDER, USN, CHIEF OF 

NAVAL RESEARCH, U.S. NAVY 

Admiral KLUNDER. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member 

Langevin, subcommittee members, it is an honor to be here today 

to report on science and technology efforts in the Department of the 

Navy and discuss how the President’s 2015 budget request supports the Navy and Marine Corps. 

We use science and technology to enable our Navy and Marine 

Corps team to maintain the technological edge necessary to prevail 

in any environment where we are called to defend U.S. interests. 

We work with the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations [CNO], and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to balance 

the allocation of resources between near-term innovation and longterm leap-ahead research. 

Our goal is to improve our warfighting capability to counter increasingly complex threats in this uncertain environment, while at 

the same time addressing affordability in a serious way with our 

systems. Beginning with the evolution of current systems, through 

incremental, spiral development of current technology, we move toward exploiting yet-to-be-discovered, disruptive, game-changing 

technologies. The Naval S&T Strategic Plan guides our investments and is regularly updated by Navy and Marine Corps leadership to validate alignment of S&T with current and future missions, priorities, and requirements, and ensures that S&T has longterm focus, meets near-term objectives, and makes what we do 

clear to decisionmakers, partners, customers, and performers. 

The S&T plan that I just referred to is currently under review 

and will be updated in the very near future. We fully understand 

that anti-access/area denial threats continue to increase. Cyberwar 

challenges will also increase and become more complex. These 

problems are not easy to solve, but we are making progress. And 

as I said last year, we want to get away from using $3 million 

weapons to defeat $50,000 threats. 

We have weapons in development and being fielded here currently that will allow us to reverse that asymmetrical cost advantage currently held by some of our adversaries. These are not piein-the-sky science projects. These are being tested, they work. I invite you and your staffs to get hands-on experience and see them 

for yourselves. I know some of you have been down there already, 
6 

but certainly at the Naval Surface Warfare Center at Dahlgren, the 

Naval Research Laboratory [NRL] here in Anacostia, where our 

world-class scientists and civilian employees are making those 

things happen. 

The bottom line is, we are constantly transitioning the results of 

Discovery and Invention applied research into fielding prototype 

weapons, and acquisition programs of record. We were commended 

for the way we do it by the 2013 Government Accountability Office 

report cited in my testimony. But it is not enough to build and 

transition effective systems. We need to be extremely affordable. 

An ongoing example of our success is the Laser Weapon System, 

part of our solid state laser maturation effort. We feel energy weapons, specifically directed energy weapons, offer the Navy and the 

Marine Corps game-changing capabilities in speed-of-light engagement, deep magazines, multi-mission functionality, and affordable 

solutions. Laser weapons are very low engagement costs—right 

now, we are literally under a U.S. dollar per pulsed energy round— 

which is critical in our current fiscal environment. 

They are capable in defeating adversarial threats, including fast 

boats, UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] and other low-cost, widely 

available weapons. Now, our Laser Weapon System—again, referred to as LaWS—leverages advances in commercial technology 

for use in a rugged, robust prototype weapon capable of identifying, 

illuminating, tracking, and lasing enemy surface and air threats. 

The Navy is installing this LaWS system on board the USS Ponce 

in the Arabian Gulf this year; this summer, to be exact. 

That harsh and operationally important environment will provide an ideal opportunity to evaluate long-term system performance. We believe that LaWS has every potential for extraordinary 

success in field—terms of fielding an effective, affordable weapon 

for our sailors and Marines. 

An electromagnetic railgun is also similarly poised to provide 

game-changing disruptive capability for our long-range attack ballistic missile, cruise missile defense in anti-surface warfare against 

ships and small boats. 

Fired by electric pulse, railgun has the potential to launch projectiles over 110 nautical miles. With this projectile development underway, and barrel life on a path to 1,000 shots, we feel very strong 

about this capability. Current research is focused on a rep rate, 

repetition rate, capability of multiple rounds per minute, which entails development of a tactical prototype barrel and pulse power 

system incorporating advanced cooling techniques. Developmental 

tests right now are ongoing at Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren and at NRL, along with evaluation and integration of new and 

existing naval platforms. 

And this might be new news, but the railgun testing, we are 

going to do that on board a JHSV, Joint High Speed Vessel, in 

2016. We will continue to duplicate these kinds of successes in 

other S&T areas with our innovative research and disruptive 

thinking, always trying to make our existing systems more effective 

and more affordable while improving transition to acquisition programs. 

Our research is exhilarating and unpredictable. We balance a 

range of complementary but competing research initiatives by sup-
7 

porting advances in established operational areas, while sustaining 

far-reaching long-term efforts to provide disruptive operational concepts. 

Thank you again for your support, and I look forward to answering any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Klunder can be found in the 

Appendix on page 80.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

Dr. Walker. 

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID E. WALKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING, U.S. AIR FORCE 

Dr. WALKER. Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Langevin, 

members of the subcommittee and staff, I am pleased to have the 

opportunity to provide the testimony on the fiscal year 2015 Air 

Force Science and Technology Program. 

Globalization and the proliferation of technology mean we face 

threats across a wide spectrum and competition across all domains. 

As stated by our chief of staff, in the Global Vigilance, Global 

Reach, Global Power Vision, quote: ‘‘Despite the best analysis and 

projections by the national security experts, the time and the place 

of the next crisis are never certain and are rarely what we expect,’’ 

unquote. 

Success and a guarantee of security in this dynamic environment 

require that we take lessons learned from the last decade of conflict, and creatively visualize future strategic landscape. In this 

space between the learning from the past and keeping an eye open 

on the future is where we find opportunity in the S&T environment. Air Force scientists and engineers continue to evolve and advance game-changing and enabling technologies which will transform the landscape of how we fly, fight, and win against high-end 

threats in the contested environments. 

In close coordination with the requirements, intelligence, and acquisition communities, we have structured the Air Force 2015 

Science and Technology Program to address the highest priority 

needs of the Air Force across the near-, mid-, and far-term, execute 

a balanced and integrated program that is responsive to the Air 

Force core missions, and to advance technical competencies needed 

to address future research thrusts. 

Our forthcoming update for the Air Force S&T strategy focuses 

on investing in S&T for the future, as well as leveraging our organic capacity, the capacity of our partners both domestic and 

international, integrating existing capabilities, and to mature technologies into innovative, affordable, and sustained solutions. This 

flexible strategy provides us the technological agility to adapt our 

S&T program to the dynamic, strategic, budgetary, and technology 

environments that will shape prioritized, actionable S&T plans of 

the future. 

It also guides our development of a strong STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] workforce and investment 

in our laboratory infrastructure to support the future research. The 

Air Force as a whole had to make difficult trades between force 

structure, readiness, and modernization in the service’s fiscal year 
8 

2015 President’s budget submission to recover from the budget uncertainties that we have had over the past few years. The Air Force 

fiscal year 2015 budget request for S&T is approximately $2.1 billion. 

This year’s S&T budget request represents a 6.2 percent decrease 

from our fiscal year 2014 President’s budget request. However, 

when you compare this to the overall RDT&E decrease the Air 

Force had to take in the balance, which was about 9 percent, the 

Air Force S&T actually fared very well in the Air Force planning 

and programming process. Our budget request rebalances basic research spending as part of the overall portfolio to increase emphasis on conducting technology demonstrations. 

It also emphasizes our efforts in game-changing technologies of 

hypersonics, autonomy, directed energy, and fuel-efficient propulsion technologies, which can affordably provide us necessary range, 

speed, and lethality for operations in highly contested environments, as outlined in the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review. More 

information about these efforts and our investments in enabling 

technologies is described in my written statement, provided for the 

record. 

In closing, I firmly believe that maintaining and even expanding 

our technological advantage is vital to ensuring the assured access 

and freedom of action in the air, space, and cyberspace. The focused and balanced investment in the Air Force fiscal year 2015 

S&T program are hedges against an unpredictable future, and provide pathways to a flexible, precise, and lethal force at a relatively 

low cost in relation to the return on the investment. 

On behalf of the dedicated scientists and engineers of the Air 

Force Science and Technology enterprise, I want to thank you 

again for the opportunity to testify today. And thank you for your 

continued support of the Air Force S&T program. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Walker can be found in the Appendix on page 96.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

Dr. Prabhakar. 

STATEMENT OF DR. ARATI PRABHAKAR, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE 

ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY, DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE 

Dr. PRABHAKAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Langevin. And 

thanks to all of you for the chance to be here along with my colleagues today. 

DARPA is part of this DOD S&T community. We are also part 

of the larger national R&D [research and development] ecosystem. 

Within those communities, DARPA has a particular role. And that 

role is to make the pivotal early investments that change what is 

possible so that we can take big steps forward in our national security capabilities. And that mission has not changed over our five 

and a half decade history as an agency. 

But, of course, the world that we are living in has changed, and 

changed in that period. So what is going on today, as you well 

know, today we face a very wide variety of national security 

threats. We are dealing with challenges from nation-states, but 
9 

also networked terrorism. All of those actors today have access to 

very powerful technologies around the world. 

And then here at home, we are watching the growing cost of our 

operational military systems. And that, too, poses a threat to our 

future security. So there is quite a lot on our plates. I would like 

to just briefly mention work across three different areas in our 

portfolio to give you a sense for some of the things we are doing 

about these challenges. 

First, today we see that the classic approach to these complex 

military systems leads us to a place where these systems are so 

costly and inflexible that they are really not going to serve our 

needs for the next generation. So in the DARPA portfolio today you 

will find work that we are doing to come up with new techniques 

that are scalable approaches, for example, to dynamically controlling the electromagnetic spectrum. And you will see work in new 

distributed cooperative effects that we think can be a powerful part 

of the next generation of air dominance. Just two examples across 

a broad set of things that we are doing in this big bin of rethinking 

complex military systems. 

In a second area, we can see the information revolution unfolding 

across every aspect of military operations. And today at DARPA, 

we are creating a new set of cyber security capabilities that will 

allow us to trust the information that we use. We are also inventing the new tools that let us get a handle on this explosion that 

is happening with data so that instead of drowning in the data we 

can actually get deep insights out of all of that information out 

there. 

And then in a third area, we look at what is bubbling in research. And we see biology today starting to intersect with engineering. And in that research, we are seeing the seeds of technological surprise. So part of our work at DARPA today is making the 

investments to create new capabilities in areas like synthetic biology and neurotechnology. So just a few examples of the things that 

we are doing today. 

I also just want to take a minute to talk with you about what 

it takes for us to do that work and to deliver on our mission. Your 

support across the board here has been critical. First, with respect 

to our people, we continue to use the 1101 flexible hiring authority 

that this committee has helped with the legislation on that, starting a number of years ago. It has actually become critically important to our ability today to recruit the next set of people that have 

the potential to become great DARPA program managers. 

Secondly, let me turn to the budget. The President’s budget request for DARPA in fiscal 2015 is $2.9 billion. The backdrop for 

that number is that our budget declined about 20 percent on real 

terms between 2009 and 2013. That includes the 8 percent sequestration hit in fiscal 2013. That downward slide stopped in fiscal 

2014 and we had a slight restoration. About half the sequestration 

cut was restored in the 2014 appropriations. 

I greatly appreciate the support from this committee that was 

part of making that possible. It is making a real difference this fiscal year. The President’s budget continues that very slight restoration process, bringing us almost back to where we were before the 

sequestration. So, again, I will ask for your support of that request. 
10 

Let me just end by saying that when I talk to our senior leaders 

in the Pentagon and here on Capitol Hill, I can see the weight of 

our national security challenges on them. I see that on you, and we 

all feel it ourselves. 

We do live in a volatile world. We all see the growth and the proliferation of threats. We are dealing with constrained resources. 

But I also know that American innovation has turned the tide time 

and again. And I am confident that our efforts today can do that 

for the years to come, as well. So thank you again for your support. 

We can’t do that work without it. 

And I am very happy to answer questions, along with my colleagues. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Prabhakar can be found in the 

Appendix on page 128.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. Innovation can turn the tide if we 

let it. On the other hand, sometimes we have a way of getting in 

the way of things. 

Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of 

our witnesses for your testimony today, and the just extraordinary 

and very important work that you all are doing. I have had the opportunity to meet with most of you pretty regularly, and I always 

appreciate the updates and the progress that you are making. 

So let me start with this. It is my understanding that the High 

Energy Laser-Joint Technology Office budget was supposed to be 

restored in fiscal year 2015, after a 2-year reduction directed to assist the Air Force hypersonics program. The fiscal year 2015 budget 

does not reflect the restoration to approximately $68 million. Can 

you explain the rationale for this decision? 

Mr. SHAFFER. Yes, sir. I will start, and I will let Dr. Walker finish. A lot of it got caught up in the overall budget reductions in 

2015 that we had to deal with. But I don’t look at the funding for 

high energy lasers in a vacuum of one particular program at the 

Joint Technology Office, but rather in the totality. And we have 

had remarkable progress, led not by the Joint Technology Office’s 

money, but by their leadership in bringing together and knitting 

together the science and technology high energy laser programs of 

the Department. 

And I think it is significant that this office, working with each 

of our S&T execs and with DARPA, have knitted together an integrated science and technology program that has led to—as you 

heard from Admiral Klunder—the deployment of a 30 kilowatt 

laser on the USS Ponce this summer. It has led to the development 

of what will eventually be a 100 kilowatt—currently, I think it is 

10 kilowatt, Mary?—high energy laser mobile demonstrator for the 

Army that had a very, very successful demonstration at White 

Sands last December. I think it acquired somewhere around 88 out 

of 92 targets, something along that lines. 

The Air Force is working on developing packaging and sizing of 

high energy lasers to go on their future fighter force to defend 

against incoming missiles. All of that was enabled by the Joint 

Technology Office. Not the money that they had, but rather the 

leadership that they showed. And I am very familiar with the people in that office. 
11 

Whether it is $68 million or $50 million, they are going to continue to show the leadership. And our overall investment in science 

and technology and high energy lasers across the Department is 

relatively stable. We can get the numbers for you and provide those 

to you. But high energy laser research is funded out of a number 

of programs in the Army, in the Navy, in the Air Force, and in 

DARPA. DARPA is doing remarkable things to drive up the efficiency of the electric lasers. 

Dave, do you want to add anything else to that? 

Dr. WALKER. No, what Mr. Shaffer says is exactly right. The program was funded to the level that we felt was necessary to continue the technology and support the joint services in developing 

lasers. However, the Air Force had budgetary pressures on it that 

didn’t allow us to bring it back up to the full level that we wanted 

to. So everything took about a 6 percent reduction as we went 

through this fiscal year 2015, with things returning as we move 

into 2016 and beyond. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Well, let me ask the question a different way. 

Then are we right-sized with our budget with respect to directed 

energy right now? Or are we experiencing shortfalls that are hindering progress going forward on directed energy development 

weapons? 

Dr. WALKER. Given the funding available, I believe the program 

is right-size given the year that we are in right now. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Well, let me turn to, so, another area then. And 

I am going to obviously follow this very closely. But I note that 

there were many mentions made in today’s testimony on the need 

about—for robust STEM pipeline and the need to ensure that today’s youth bring their talents to the national security arena. I find 

this hard to square with the proposed reduction in the National 

Defense Education Program [NDEP] to roughly half of its fiscal 

year 2014 level. 

Can you elaborate on this decision, and can you provide an update on other relevant programs within the Department’s purview, 

particularly those that reach K through 12 students? 

Mr. SHAFFER. Yes, sir. Regrettably, that program is mine. So let 

me first address your first question in the reduction in the National Defense Education Program. First, that program previously 

had been made up of three separate projects, the first funding K 

through 12 education across the Department. And that was, order 

of magnitude, $12 million to $15 million. It floated up and down. 

The second part of that program was a project called the National Science and Engineering Security Fellows Program. I made 

the decision to move that project from the office that it had been 

operated out of to our basic sciences office. The funding is still 

there, the project is still there, it is still doing the very same 

things. I just moved it from one program to another. 

The third part of NDEP is the Science, Mathematics and Research for Transformation, or SMART, program. That is our program for service for scholarship. Effectively, we pay for undergraduate and graduate degrees, and then hire those people into our laboratories on a one year for one year scholarship-paid basis. In fiscal 

year 2015, we expect to have the same number of SMART scholars 

as we have in previous years. 
12 

So we have had no reduction in that part of the program. I 

moved another part of the program to another program element. 

And now you asked about the K through 12. The administration 

made the decision to streamline Federal education in certain areas. 

And part of that decision and part of that action was to move K 

through 12 funded efforts, with very few minor exceptions, to Department of Education. 

So the funding that had been allocated for the K through 12 part 

in the National Defense Education Program was reallocated in the 

fiscal year 2014—or 2015 budget to Department of Education. And 

that is the simple part of the story. We are still trying to go out 

and use our scientists and engineers to stay contacted to K through 

12. We are supporting the America First science event at the 

Washington Convention Center in April. So we are still outreached 

on K through 12, but the bulk of the funding was moved to Department of Education, sir. 

And now I will turn it over to my colleagues to talk about their 

parts. 

Ms. MILLER. So the Army was one of the exceptions. We did not 

lose our K through 12 Army Educational Outreach Program when 

they collected up the STEM programs and moved them out of the 

Department of Defense. And we find that it has been a very great 

value to the Army. It is doing outreach, and preparing children to 

understand the needs and importance of STEM. We interact with 

our laboratories, give them mentors and help bring them through 

that pipeline. 

We bring them into the laboratories, where we can, to give them 

opportunities to understand technology as it applies to the Army. 

But we know that even if they don’t choose to ever work for the 

Army, they certainly are informed and help the Army when they 

go to industry itself. One of the things that we have done in our 

program—and, we believe, helped to forestall it being taken away 

from the Department of Defense, too—is, we put in a process to 

have the quality of our program be assessed independently. 

And we do have a contract in place with Virginia Tech that does 

look at our program and establishes how well we are effectively 

reaching these younger students. So we are certainly a proponent 

of this. We believe it is important for the workforce of the future. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Well, why was it okay for the Army to keep its 

program, but other areas of DOD you have moved it out and—to 

the Department of Education? My concern is that—and I am way 

over my time, and I will yield back after this. But my concern is 

that DOD loses its focus on preparing the next generation. And 

also leveraging the scientists and the capabilities that we have to 

really encourage our young people to go in this field and see that 

they are properly getting exposed to, and educated in the sciences. 

I do think that DOD has a role to play. I guess, you know, this 

is certainly a policy decision. But I am concerned by the move the 

Department has made. 

And I will stop there now. 

Mr. SHAFFER. Sir, I would just like to say that it was an administration decision. It came down to us, we saluted, we executed. But 

I believe the Nation is well served by a Department of Defense that 

is in contact with our K through 12 students. 
13 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Dr. Shaffer. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Nugent. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I really want to 

echo some of the statements that Mr. Langevin made, particular in 

regards to—and I wasn’t to go in this area, but on the STEM issue, 

I really do believe that we are better served. Not that Department 

of Education, I think it gets diluted. I think it is much more focused and much more directed in regards to what we are looking 

for for the future, whether it is DARPA or any of the services as 

it relates to innovation. 

And I worry about innovation. I have three sons that serve this 

country. So our sons and daughters need you, need all the things 

that you can design, develop to make it—the battlefield safer for 

them, give them the opportunity to come home. And, Admiral, I am 

really interested in—and I am interested in all of you as it relates 

to directed energy. Mr. Langevin and I, I think, are pretty big proponents of directed energy because of what you mentioned in regards to—on the Ponce, in regards to actually testing, and the ability to test and what it costs to test versus shooting a missile off 

at a million dollars a copy versus a dollar. 

Can you—we see programs in development stage. But then they 

tend to never make it to production, never make it to, you know, 

deployment. Where do we stand as it relates to that system on the 

Ponce in regards to the future? 

Admiral KLUNDER. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. And I 

will offer that there is—it is really a conviction by our senior leadership in the Department of the Navy. And what I mean by that 

is that we want those new innovative systems to be in the hands 

of sailors and Marines. We want them to tell us did we develop it 

right, did we develop and it needs to be tweaked a little bit? Or 

did we develop and we just didn’t do it right? And we will bring 

it back. 

But the point there is, you need to get a sailor or a Marine’s 

hands on that thing, and tell them is it going to be effective in warfighting environment, and will it be affordable. So the point I 

would like to make, and thank you for your comments about innovation, we truly think that is the way this Nation was built and 

is the way we get in front of our adversaries. We don’t want to run 

with them. I don’t want a sailor or a Marine to ever go into a fair 

fight. I want them to always have the technological advantage so 

we always win and defend our Nation. 

What we have done this time on the Ponce, I think is very credible, is I don’t have a bunch of—my scientists and my colleagues, 

we developed it. But I have got real sailors right down there at 

Dahlgren, right now, on the system. And it is not a singular laptop 

over in the corner somewhere. It is a fully integrated console with 

our fully integrated combat information system on that ship. 

So those young men and women on that—detachment of sailors 

are going to go out there. They are going to test it. And, indeed, 

we feel very comfortable because we have never missed so far. And 

that is one of the reasons why CNO Greenert said, ‘‘Matt, get it 

out there.’’ We have never missed. We feel confident, though, that 

we would like to test it in that tough environment and see where 

it goes. 
14 

And the follow-on to the last bit of your question, I think regardless of the High Energy Laser-Joint Technology Office, I can assure 

you that we have got all the resources positioned in the Navy and 

Marine Corps to put us in a good place when this test is done. And 

I am not sure if you are familiar, but we also have a solid state 

laser technology maturation program that takes it to a much higher power level, and that is in 2016. 

So when we finish this test on Ponce, this demo with real sailors, 

and we finish up the prototyping in 2016, we think we will be very 

well positioned for follow-on, long-term, enduring efforts. 

Mr. NUGENT. And I just don’t want us to—we can be in a testing 

mode forever. 

Admiral KLUNDER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NUGENT. I mean, I think you might agree with that. And I 

would like to see us have at least a timeline as to when we want 

to have it operational. It goes back to CHAMP [Counter-Electronics 

High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project]. Mr. Langevin 

and I have talked about that. It goes back to programs as it relates 

to the Army, and I know there is some collaboration between the 

Army and the Navy on those issues. And from my standpoint, I 

think that is great when you can get bright minds across the lines, 

across those services, to utilize that same information and make us 

all safer. 

So my question back to you then is, if, after this test on the 

Ponce, if it meets the expectations, what would stand in your way 

of, if it is successful, in deploying that on other ships? 

Admiral KLUNDER. I would say, nothing. Right now, we have already started the AOA [analysis of alternatives] on that process, 

that we are very familiar with the acquisition programs. We have 

already done all the blueprinting for the different classes of ships. 

So in many cases, if we are successful we see this as a possible 

weapons system for a number of classes of our ships. And I think 

it is important, too, if I could just give my colleagues to my right 

here a great shout out. Because we are doing a test down in your 

great State here in just a few months here to do some joint ArmyNavy testing down at Eglin. And so I think that, again, shows the 

collaborative effort we do on directed energy. 

Mr. NUGENT. And I think that is commendable, and it saves the 

taxpayers money, and it makes all of us safer in the long run. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. And thank you so very much for 

all of your help. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 

being here. 

I wonder—and certainly, Director Prabhakar, if you could perhaps address this. What other governmental institutions of science, 

technology really support your efforts? And you talked about the 

intersection of biology and science. I am thinking of the NIH [National Institutes of Health], but I am wondering, as well, of what 

else does that, or to what extent does the NIH? 

Dr. PRABHAKAR. I am very happy to try to answer that question 

because there is an answer for every aspect of our work. And let 

me start a little bit closer to home with much of what we do that 

goes directly into military systems. The folks at this table are the 
15 

people that we work directly with. Our people are working together 

on a daily basis. Because for a lot of those advanced technologies 

we need to understand operational needs, we need to understand 

what is going on with R&D and S&T activities across the services. 

And then we—these are the people we end up working with to 

execute our programs and then to transition them. So that is one 

set of extremely important relationships. 

But you are absolutely right that all of us rely on this larger national ecosystem. In the biology area, which, to me, that is much 

more of a research field, where we are just starting to find these 

new opportunities to build the kinds of technology capabilities that 

we need for national security. So we are—you know, it is a very 

different stage of maturity. 

But absolutely, there, over and over again—whether it is work 

that we are doing on brain function research or on infectious disease—we find that we are building on top of the basic research that 

is almost always funded by the National Institutes of Health, sometimes by the National Science Foundation. You know, there are 

many billions of research dollars that have laid that foundation. 

We want to come along and find the places where we can build national security capabilities on top of it. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Are there real differences about the way the labs 

produce in terms of the quality, the quantity of the research, as 

well? How do the defense labs compare to other industrial—other 

labs that we have? 

Dr. PRABHAKAR. Yes. You know, to me, the starting point is to 

recognize that it is an ecosystem. And all these different entities— 

the performers of the research, and then the funders of the research—each have their own role. So, you know, just a simple example. I was visiting AFRL [Air Force Research Laboratory] last 

September and, you know, our folks have been working together on 

a couple of hypersonics programs. But I got to see, first-hand, some 

of the unique capabilities in that laboratory. 

And that is exactly what you would expect, right? Where else 

would you expect to see fantastic hypersonics, leading edge understanding of this incredibly important, but very specialized technology? It should be at AFRL, and that is where you find it. But, 

you know, our work sometimes puts us in places where we want 

to be working directly with people in universities that are thinking 

about new ways to think about big data or some of these biology 

areas. 

Frequently, we need to tap into the small entrepreneurial community. For example, in cyber it is pretty hard to think you are 

going to make—turn the corner on cyber issues without tapping 

into what is happening in this vibrant ecosystem of entrepreneurship. Some of—you know, a lot of those people don’t even think 

they are in the national security business, but they are important 

to us. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Absolutely. I am going to—— 

Dr. PRABHAKAR. We try to tap all of those. 

Mrs. DAVIS [continuing]. Just shut you up a little bit because I 

don’t have very much time. 

Dr. PRABHAKAR. All right. 
16 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I appreciate your response. But I think, 

you know, it is true. I mean, there is all this interaction. And I 

guess sometimes we tend to be less than supportive of some of 

those other efforts. And when it comes to the NIH, I think, again, 

as we are facing decisions, budget decisions, we know that there is 

a tremendous—I think there is a tremendous interaction. And you 

have spoken to that. 

Even in San Diego, they just formed the Cyber Center of Excellence. And I think that—I would hope that we could look to those 

innovative—the energies, really, in communities that are doing 

great work. I want to mention just very briefly—because I think we 

talked a little bit about innovation. And the importance of that, obviously, is very critical. And the shift to the Department of Education. 

I guess our job here, too—there is the America Competes Act. 

Something that should be reauthorized. It is sitting in the Science 

Committee and not going anywhere. So I think—I mean, Mr. 

Chairman, I would—I think this is a committee that really could 

have an opportunity to have a sense of what role can we play, how 

can we have some input into that so that perhaps we can take a 

look and get something in that area moving that really does exactly 

what we are trying to do here. 

And I hear, I think, from the response that nobody was probably, 

you know, jumping for joy that some of that came out of the military. And yet, on the other hand, I think we have to make it, I 

guess, understandable and usable, as well, throughout the school 

districts of our country. And how we can create that intersection, 

I think, is going to be important. And the America Competes Act 

is certainly one way to do that, where we improve and really do 

the best practices in terms of STEM education. 

So thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

Mr. Shaffer, let me ask you. David Berteau with CSIS [Center 

for Strategic and International Studies] has made a point, and I 

want to see if you agree with it. His point is that in previous—all 

previous military buildups the R&D funding has gone up at least 

at the rate of the buildup, if not faster. So that when there is the 

inevitable decline after that, you have got this reservoir of R&D 

projects to draw upon. But he says since 9/11 we really didn’t do 

that. 

The buildup went for intelligence and in operational things. We 

didn’t have the big S&T, R&D buildup. And so this drawdown is 

even tougher because we don’t have a reservoir from which to 

draw. Do you think that is true? 

Mr. SHAFFER. To a partial extent, yes. I would have to go back 

and check the numbers. I think historically, when we have been a 

nation at war, actually the operations and maintenance accounts 

have risen faster than R&D. But S&T has come up a little bit. This 

last war we came up a little bit, and then went flat. I think there 

is a more important point, and we are trying to make this across 

the Department. And I think actually the best person who speaks 

about it is my boss, Under Secretary Kendall. And that is, R&D is 

not a variable cost. 
17 

So you—it takes the same amount of money to develop a new capability or a new weapons system irregardless of the force size. So 

we have to start thinking, as a Department, that stability in the 

long-term and funding for S&T is more important than the wild 

fluctuations. 

And the 4 percent decline we had in fiscal year 2015, I can’t tell 

you I like it. But I understand why we got there. Our job now is 

to protect against the out-years, and how do we make sure that 

there is enough money to maintain a viable S&T program that delivers new capabilities for the future force. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Well, I think that is true. I just think it is interesting that, you know, I guess we are all glad that these accounts are not cut more than they are. But we shouldn’t overestimate, at the same time, what comes of that. 

Let me back up kind of to what Mrs. Davis was talking about, 

and ask you all to respond briefly to this. As we have been talking 

about acquisition reform, obviously the swift pace of technology 

change is an enormous challenge. And actually, Dr. Prabhakar, you 

mentioned it earlier, too, how quickly things change. 

I guess one of the things I would like to know, just—and within 

our limited time, just briefly, how do you—and I will start with you 

and go backwards. How do you and your organization keep track 

of the technology change in research universities and in the private 

sector? Y’all were talking about cyber for example. To make sure 

that it is—that you are aware of those broader technology changes, 

and then can pick and choose where DOD interests may benefit? 

Dr. PRABHAKAR. I don’t have a magic answer for you on that, except to say that I view that as integral to the job of each of our 

technical program managers. And, you know, when they come on 

board, as you know, they only are with us for typically about 3– 

5 years. My deputy, Steve Walker, and I have a custom of doing 

a brown bag lunch with the newest batch of program managers. 

And sit down and we talk with them, and one of the things we almost always talk about is how important it is to get out of your 

office in Arlington, Virginia, and go find what is happening in the 

technical arena. 

Because there are people that know about us and they will bring 

us their ideas, but that is not enough for us. We have to be getting 

out and seeing what else is happening. And it is usually either in 

universities, sometimes it is in the startup community. Sometimes 

there will be a ‘‘skunkworks’’ tucked in the corner of a big established company. But you have to get out and visit people and see 

what they are thinking about in their labs and in their offices. 

And I don’t really know how to do it other than retail, but I find 

it essential to what we do. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

Dr. Walker. 

Dr. WALKER. The AFOSR [Air Force Office of Scientific Research] 

really has a mission in the Air Force of trying to reach out and find 

the best new ideas not only in the U.S., but internationally, as 

well. So having our offices spread across South America, Europe, 

and Asia allows us to reach out and find what are those good ideas 

and bring them into the U.S. to—for applications in the Air Force. 

In addition, within the U.S., the OSR program managers use their 
18 

6.1 dollars to go out and try to find innovative technologies and 

new basic research that they are able to apply, then, to Air Force 

problems. 

So to use that as a seedling to move technology along. And as 

Dr. Prabhakar says, it has got to be an engagement. It is not a sit 

at home and hope people come to you. It is you have got to be out 

there visiting the people, seeing what the new ideas are, and bringing those forward. In addition, as we move into the more traditional directorates, they all maintain a basic research and early applied research capability, where they are reaching out to academia 

and industry trying to identify where are the best new ideas. 

In addition to that, looking at the small business and where— 

through Small Business Innovative Research [SBIR] and other 

small business interactions that we have in the laboratory, really 

looking for those fresh new ideas. Putting out the calls. You know, 

a good example of this in our—both in our SBIR calls and in our 

RIF [Rapid Innovation Fund] calls. We have had 700, 800 people 

responding to these calls with new ideas that we are able to then 

pick the best of them and try to bring them forward for technologies for the Air Force. 

So we have had great success, and we are trying to continue to 

keep that aperture open as possible to find the new innovative research that is going on out there. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Okay. 

Admiral, do you all ever, as an addendum, do you all ever go out 

to venture capital community and see that they are investing? 

Admiral KLUNDER. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I like to call 

myself the venture capitalist of the Navy and Marine Corps. But 

to that point, Mr. Chairman, I won’t repeat what Dave said, my 

colleague Arati, about the global look to—our eyes and ears are always open around America. That is academia, that is industry, 

that is laboratories. We are always looking. As a matter of fact, I 

will offer to you, the small grants, lots of seed corn, lots of petri 

dishes. 

The kind of things a young man or woman in academia can do 

for literally soda pop and pizza is unbelievable. Specifically in the 

cyber domain that I know you are concerned about. Very small 

grants can be very, very beneficial for the team. 

And I also offer—so America, we look globally, and we collaborate across all streams on these different offices. But something we 

have a distinct advantage, too, and it is specifically on cyber. Because I know, sir, you know. You wait a year or two, you have 

missed it. 

They are already—they have already flipped that technology on 

you, and you are beat. So our point is that in the world that we 

can live in for Mr. Kendall—even in the 5,000 series acquisition 

document, we know it is pretty thick—we have the advantage that 

we can do user operational evaluation systems. What does that 

really mean? It means prototypes, specifically in cyber, on a defensive or offensive side if it is in an operational context. 

But specifically defense and can we, indeed, bring that tool 

quickly, develop it quickly, get it out in prototype and see if it is 

going to be worthwhile. And then, if we have to, we go back and 

buy a number of them through Mr. Kendall in that acquisition 
19 

process. The point I am trying to make is, we can’t wait that traditional timeline to do cyber work. We need to be able to get that 

technology developed, out there, in a year or two. 

And that is something, I think, we have been able to do in my 

world, specifically, when I am able to control my 6.1, .2, and .3 dollars, sir. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. How often do you do that? 

Admiral KLUNDER. I do that a lot. And I do it for the Navy and 

Marine Corps. And we also work across agencies and other ones involved, sir. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Thank you. 

Ms. MILLER. Sir, like my colleagues we have the Army Research 

Office that does our outreach to academia. They are always looking 

for those bright ideas that they can fund through our grants to our 

Single Investigator Program. We also have the Army Research Lab, 

which has a considerable amount of basic research. They are people 

that work within the Army, understand how to leverage that technology that we find in academia, and make it work on behalf of the 

Army. 

As my colleagues, we also have our international technology centers. Most of the time we are colocated. And we do that global outreach to watch what is out there. The Army has established a capability that—they call it global tips online, where we see things that 

are international, good ideas from a technology perspective, and we 

put it on our Web site so that our Army researchers and our program managers can have access to that and figure out how to leverage it in the program. 

And I can’t underestimate the value of our subject matter experts 

being able to go to scientific conferences to exchange and—good 

ideas, and talk about where we are going in research. And incite 

people to want to do that research on behalf of the military needs. 

And finally, I would say—and Mr. Shaffer may choose to talk about 

this—we also have the Defense [Innovation] Marketplace, which is 

a Web site that we allow industry to identify IRAD opportunities, 

individual—or independent research and development activities 

that they have ongoing that we can then leverage. 

And, in fact, from a service perspective we put out, for industry, 

what we are looking for, what capabilities we want for the future. 

All of this helps us to be able to leverage and find that research 

out there that we believe will be essentially important to the Army. 

Mr. SHAFFER. Sir, my colleagues have all, I think, covered most 

of the points. We do have the Defense Marketplace. Seventeen percent of our budget actually goes out to universities, and we are in 

contact with universities. But I am not going to sit here and tell 

you that the picture is all rosy. As we went through the last year’s 

budget, and we had travel restrictions placed upon our people and 

we did not allow our people, because of funding limitations, to go 

to technical conferences, we lost some contact. 

And we are just starting to understand the impact of that. We 

have to watch that. I have to watch that very closely, and work 

every day to tell the story of why our people have to go out and 

be engaged because that is a good business decision. But I will tell 

you, as we go through a budget drawdown things like travel are 

always watched very closely, and my colleagues have to go ahead 
20 

and justify virtually every trip our young people want to make. 

That limits us. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. Langevin, you had a question? 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So to our witnesses, 

I just want to just circle back to something I was going to raise in 

my opening statement, which I will now submit for the record. But 

there has been a steady crescendo of speculation about the coming 

wave of industry mergers and acquisitions. Are you confident in the 

Department’s ability to maintain a competitive R&D environment, 

even through a potential contraction? And how would R&D concerns be addressed with any—within any larger oversight process? 

Mr. SHAFFER. I guess I will start. But I will look for help from 

anybody at the table. I am actually fairly comfortable that even if 

we have some contractions and mergers that there will be industry 

to take up the effort. Now, I think that we may see a change. We 

may have to go more of a mix of big company and small companies. 

But, you know, one thing that is wonderful about America—and we 

are all sitting here bemoaning the fact that budgets are tight—at 

the end of the day we are spending $11.5 billion in science and 

technology, and $63 billion in research and development to develop 

new systems. 

That is a lot of money, and that will create a lot of inducement 

for companies to stay in the game. And if there are mergers, for 

someone else to come in from outside. You know, the Federal statutes are very, very clear that we have to compete whenever possible. We encourage competition: $63 billion will buy a lot of competition. So I am not terribly worried yet. I haven’t seen us get to 

the point, with very, very limited exceptions, of places where there 

isn’t sufficient competition. 

We monitor it. One of my colleagues, Elana Broitman, who is the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Manufacturing and Industrial Base 

Policy, monitors that on a daily basis. Concerned, but I don’t see 

anything breaking yet. Would anybody like to add something? 

Ms. MILLER. So I will just jump in there real briefly because I 

saw everybody put their hand up. But what I was going to say is, 

one of the things that we are looking at, trying to implement, is 

more of an open architecture design on most of our new systems 

coming up. That open architecture itself allows for more competition. So instead of having a one industry taking—or one industrial 

contract taking place, with one person being the primary performer, we now have competition at the subsystem levels and we 

maintain that competition. And that is something that we believe 

will help us in the future. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. I am going to stop there and go to my next question, if I could. Thank you for those answers. But in a recent Defense Science Board [DSB] report from October of last year, titled 

‘‘Technology and Innovation Enablers for Superiority in 2030,’’ the 

board concluded that the opportunity for technological surprise is 

greatest for WMDs [weapons of mass destruction], and expressed 

concern about the ability to detect signatures associated with weapons of mass destruction, given the advancement of technologies 

that would reduce or even eliminate some of the signatures that we 

depend on today. 
21 

The impacts of such a technological shift would be extremely 

grave in many regards. And the board proposed a particular course 

of action, focusing on so-called ‘‘big data techniques,’’ expressing 

the need for the Department to both work with, and head, commercial capabilities, but acknowledges the legal and privacy concerns 

associated with such an approach. Can you respond to that suggestion, as well as the underlying concern? 

Dr. PRABHAKAR. Thank you. I think that DSB report put its finger on something that is, in fact, an important concern: the access 

that terrorist organizations, for example, have to all kinds of globally available technology; certainly including weapons of mass destruction, or the tools to create weapons of mass destruction. We 

recently started a program at DARPA that is specifically aiming to 

see what we can do with new technologies to try to counter those 

kinds of threats. I think they are very, very challenging threats. 

And I agree with the DSB’s report that—their comment about 

big data. I think that is a piece of the solution. The program that 

we have just launched is called SIGMA, and it is attempting to 

change the detector technology, but also figure out the networking 

and the big data approaches that it is going to take to really put 

a complete solution together to try to get us to a somewhat more 

safe environment. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, that is something we could follow 

up on a briefing that—if we could. 

Thank you for that answer. Does anybody else have anything on 

that? Okay, then I will—let me move to Dr. Walker and Dr. 

Shaffer. Last year, the Department of Defense completed a successful joint concept technology demonstration for the Counter-Electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project, or 

CHAMP. What plans are underway to continue this effort? What 

are the limitations of the current technology? And what issues 

might prevent wider fielding of these sorts of high powered microwave weapons? 

Dr. WALKER. So the demonstration was really the first opportunity to go out and use a high powered microwave from a cruise 

missile-size vehicle and to show that it actually worked. However, 

it is still a large form factor for an aircraft. Really like to get down 

to a smaller missile size. So the S&T side of the world is continuing 

to fund work on reducing the size of the device, as well as to increase the power to the device to give you better penetration, 

longer distance to standoff, as well as multiple shots out of a single 

cruise missile. 

Really trying to get it down to a tactical missile form factor. In 

the meantime, in this year’s budget request, the Air Force is requesting $5 million to initiate the analysis of alternatives on a nonkinetic weapon which would be—look at the CHAMP technology. 

The high powered microwave technology is one of the alternatives 

for how we go forward with a non-kinetic weapon in the future. 

The Air Force has got, you know, severe constrictions on its modernization dollars, given all the things we have in our bucket right 

now. However, this is important enough that they were going to 

continue to moving forward, looking somewhere in the early 2020s 

as an opportunity to transition this type technology. The lab will 

continue developing the technology to ensure that when the Air 
22 

Force is ready to move forward with the program that we have the 

smaller size system ready to go forward and the technology up to 

a level that it is really ready to enter an acquisition program. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Some of this, though, is policy-related, as I understand it. Because some of the high powered microwave technology 

is deployable right now, as I understand it. And there has been 

some resistance, particularly in the Army as I understand it, to deploying some of that technology. 

Dr. WALKER. I can just say from the Air Force side, since we developed the antipersonnel high powered microwave technology that 

has been developed, it is available to go. It has been a policy decision not to deploy it so far. 

And I will hand that over to my colleagues. 

Mr. SHAFFER. So I will start, and then let Ms. Miller talk. But 

I think it is very important to recognize that not all pulsed microwave or high powered microwave are the same types of systems. 

CHAMP was an incredible success. The program that the Army is 

looking at was a tremendous success, but they are totally different 

technologies. One is very, very short pulse, the other is continuous 

wave. There are policy implications about the deploying the 

ground-based high powered microwave and we are working 

through those. 

The CHAMP, I think, or the pulse microwave, we will have a 

weapons system sometime in the 2020s that will be exquisite. And 

no one else in the world will have it. But we do have to work the 

size and the thermal management of that system. 

But I think the really—and, you know, this—I shouldn’t sound— 

I am going to sound like a geek. I think it is really cool that we 

finally got to the point where we demonstrated a capability and are 

on the pathway to deliver what we all grew up with as kids watching Buck Rogers employ. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. I just hope—and I will yield back, Mr. 

Chairman, in just a second. But I just want to say I hope that the 

policy decisions will be worked through aggressively so that it is 

not the policy that is holding back the deployment of the technology. Especially when it comes to keeping our troops safe, helping them be more effective. And, again, keeping the—ultimately, 

our country safer. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Well, I agree completely. And let me follow up. 

Who makes the policy decisions in this case? Is it the Department’s 

policy shop, or someplace else? I mean, we have a technology, it is 

ready to be deployed. Policy decision says no, don’t deployment— 

don’t deploy it. Who makes that decision? Where do these issues 

get worked out? 

Mr. SHAFFER. Sir, most of the time these things are led by our 

under secretary in policy, and we negotiate. We have a number of 

types of technology areas where we have to think about the policy 

implications. Autonomous platforms. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Yes. I am just focused on this one, as an example. 

Mr. SHAFFER. You know, can I take it for the record and get back 

to you? 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Yes. 
23 

Mr. SHAFFER. Because I don’t have the exact—— 

Mr. THORNBERRY. If you don’t mind. 

Mr. SHAFFER. Absolutely. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 151.] 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Because I would—it is an issue in and of itself. 

If we have a technology that there is a decision not to deploy it, 

it is—kind of hard to get our arms around exactly who—how that 

decision was made. But then, it is also an example of some others 

that we may want to pursue. 

Let me see if I can get in two more things right quick before we 

go vote, and y’all get to leave. All of this is about how much direct 

money investment we put into S&T. Obviously, we want the private sector to invest some of their own money in S&T along the 

way. Recently, the point was made to me that as long as we rely 

on lowest-cost technically acceptable contracts there is zero incentive for the private sector to put any of their own research into it. 

They don’t want to have any discriminators. All you want to do 

is be good enough, and then just cut, cut, cut, cut on the cost so 

that you win the contract. And so what that does, in effect, is discourage innovation and discourage the private sector from using 

their money to make improvements. Do you think that is true? 

Mr. SHAFFER. Sir, not only do I think it is true, it is one of the 

key principles and tenets under Mr. Kendall’s Better Buying Power 

2.0. And that is, to better define the use of LPTA, low price technically accepted—or technically acceptable contracts. He believes it 

is okay to let those types of contracts for activities like mowing the 

base grass. It is not okay when you are going out and trying to 

compete a technically acceptable—or a technology contract. 

He is aware of that. We are driving that out to the services. It 

will take time for people to recognize that. But I believe we have 

already made the change to move away from LPTA for technology—high-technology programs. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Anybody else have a brief comment on—— 

Admiral KLUNDER. I will just quickly say, Mr. Chairman, that if 

we are going to stay innovative, if we are truly going to leap ahead 

of our threats and our adversaries, you have got to get the performance. So I don’t—we look for, obviously, game-changing affordability pieces when we bring that technology in. But I absolutely 

will not corrupt a contract to go low cost if I can’t achieve the performance you and I need to defend this country. 

So at the end of the day, that is what we got to have, and we 

do. So I promise you that, our contracts, we look for the performance of the system first. Then we will look at how the affordability 

can come out and play in terms of our—I am not talking about contracts. I am talking about the cost-effect of the system, sir. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. I hear you. Okay. 

Dr. WALKER. Yes. In the Air Force, one of the things we really 

focus on is that T-A-P, so that ‘‘technically acceptable’’ is a critical 

portion of that contracting mechanism. We have been working hard 

on trying to reenergize our engineering enterprise so we bring that 

technical confidence back so we can make that judgment. So that 

we really make the right decision and get the technology that we 

want, not just the lowest cost. So it is—the two pieces have to go 
24 

together, but it is not necessarily the best contracting vehicle for 

technology. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Yes, that word ‘‘acceptable’’ means you just 

kind of get good enough. I mean, that is what I hear. Rather than, 

oh, maybe with a little bit more you can—but something we may 

want to pursue. All right. 

Let me ask this. If you could invest in only one technology program, one area of technology, one issue area, and—within your 

service, or y’all have broader leeway, obviously, what would it be? 

You have to narrow it down, and right now you can only invest in 

one. Ma’am? 

Ms. MILLER. I would invest in materials. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Really? 

Ms. MILLER. I would. I would tell you that the need to have new 

lightweight materials, affordable materials that can help us both in 

getting our power and energy uses down, getting our armor 

weights down, bringing down the soldier load, I mean it is kind of 

full spectrum. It covers, and is the underpinning of a lot of what 

we do. So I would say, for me, that is a big investment area. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. That is interesting. Thank you. 

Admiral KLUNDER. Well, Mr. Chairman, since I have already invested heavily in directed energy and railgun and undersea domain, I will tell you that the electromagnetic spectrum is the new 

one that we are working very hard on, sir, to make sure we understand, with my colleagues at DARPA, on how—and my other colleagues, how we can absolutely optimize that. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Okay. 

Dr. WALKER. Since the Army is investing in materials, and we 

have got the electromagnetic spectrum covered—— 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. WALKER. I would keep the investment in hypersonics as a 

key game-changer technology that we really need to move forward. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Really? Some people think that is not going to 

go anywhere. But you—if you had—the Air Force had one area of— 

to invest in for S&T, that is what it would be. 

Dr. WALKER. For given, right now, where we are, we are on the 

cusp of a breakthrough. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Okay. 

Dr. WALKER. Following X–51, I think there is a real opportunity 

to change warfighting with hypersonic capabilities. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Interesting. 

Dr. Prabhakar. 

Dr. PRABHAKAR. Mr. Chairman, I am going to give you a DARPA 

answer. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Ahh. 

Dr. PRABHAKAR. Which is that if we only invest in one we are 

just not going to get there. Because the problems that we are dealing with are actually too complex for any one silver bullet. And I 

think rethinking the entire systems approach is actually going to 

be central to this next generation of advanced military capabilities. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Which may be an area in and of itself in which 

to invest. I mean, I—you know, we talk about—for example, with 

terrorism we talk about a—fighting a network with a network. We 

have to understand networks better in order to do that, and that— 
25 

it—you know, it is not what we traditionally think of as investment 

in S&T. But maybe that is, you know, one—— 

Dr. PRABHAKAR. You are completely right. And you are going to 

need all of these other pieces so that you got the pieces—— 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Yes. No. I know you are right about that. But 

it is interesting. 

So, Mr. Shaffer, you got one? 

Mr. SHAFFER. I actually do. I agree with Arati, I agree with all 

my colleagues. But I am a simple guy. At the end of the day our 

business is in defense of the homeland. I am more concerned about 

what can happen to the homeland through a cyber attack launched 

against the U.S. I would defend—or invest in cyber above all else 

just because of the potential gravity of that attack. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Yes, yes. Fair point. All good answers. 

Thank you all very much for being here, for what you and your 

folks do for the country. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

MARCH 26, 2014 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

MARCH 26, 2014 

(31) 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

MARCH 26, 2014 

(151) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. THORNBERRY 

Mr. SHAFFER. In response to a December 2010 request by then-Vice Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Cartwright for a comprehensive review of directed 

energy (DE) policy, then-Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, James Miller, issued 

an interim policy memorandum on February 14, 2012. That memorandum recognized the operational benefits associated with currently fielded DE technologies and 

expressed support for continued development in accordance with our laws, treaty 

commitments, and policies. The policy requires OSD-level review and approval prior 

to the operational use of new directed energy weapons. The review and approval 

process (RAP) is now detailed in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual 

(CJCSM) 3230.01, ‘‘Directed Energy Weapon Initial Operational Employment Review and Approval Process.’’ The DE RAP requires and takes into account legal reviews, concepts of employment, rules of engagement, tactics, potential collateral 

damage and human effects, proposed public affairs guidance, and other relevant information. DE RAP requests are submitted by the combatant command; RAP-endorsed requests are to be forwarded to the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) for consideration and SecDef approval or forwarding to the President for approval as appropriate. [See page 23.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

MARCH 26, 2014 

(155) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. THORNBERRY 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Recent media reports suggest we may lose more domestic 

microelectronics foundries. How will the Department ensure we have access to an 

assured trusted foundry? 

Mr. SHAFFER. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) relies upon microelectronics 

for enabling components in our military systems. The Department depends upon access to a vibrant and innovative semiconductor industry and an assured supply of 

legacy components through a trusted supply chain. The Department is actively engaged in working with industry on initiatives that include the Trusted Supplier Accreditation Program and the Trusted Foundry Program, which combined are commonly labeled the Trusted Supply Program. 

The Trusted Supply Program, administered by the Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA), is a process of accreditation that ensures that developers of defense systems have access to trusted microelectronics components across a wide range of 

technologies, from state-of-the-art to state-of-the-practice to legacy. To satisfy the 

state-of-the-art semiconductor requirements, DOD worked with NSA’s Trusted Access Program Office, in funding a contract with IBM to provide leading edge access 

to IBM’s foundries. Trusted state-of-the-practice (SOTP) technology suppliers are accredited for Trust by DMEA, according to established Trust criteria. 

Legacy components are transitioned out of production when the commercial market declines. DMEA has put in place a process to acquire intellectual property for 

technologies and processes when their commercial markets drop off. This allows the 

Department to provide a source of last resort capability at DMEA to produce small 

quantities of microelectronics parts when no commercial source is available. 

The DOD has a strategy to provide trusted and assured microelectronic parts 

throughout the chain of supply. Using the commercial industrial base, the DOD has 

in place the ability to access SOTA parts from the Trusted Foundry Program, SOTP 

parts from the trusted suppliers program, and legacy parts from DMEA when no 

longer available from industry. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. In your testimony, you mention an effort through the Defense 

Technical Information Center to improve our understanding of global technology development. Could you please describe that effort in a bit more detail? 

Mr. SHAFFER. We are developing semi-automated Technology Watch and Horizon 

Scanning (TW/HS) capabilities to forecast the evolution of known science and technologies and their applications as well as the emergence of new concepts and technologies with disruptive potential. Thousands of companies are using business analytics methods to forecast events in their domains, including science and technology 

(S&T). Forecasting S&T is also of interest to many groups within the USG. In the 

TW/HS program, we are evaluating and leveraging existing approaches, tools, and 

data to detect the initiation of disruptive S&T advances as early as possible. Many 

existing approaches use only one type of data or use a purely data-driven approach 

and big data analytics to detect predictive trends. We are working to find, test, and 

implement theory-based models that use data in a meaningful way to forecast S&T 

trends and disruptions. We are working with the Defense Technical Information 

Center (DTIC) to deploy and test a system that provides an automated capability 

to identify signals that may be associated with disruptive S&T advances that have 

potential defense implications. The system can be used to monitor the evolution of 

known technologies, including the maturation of emerging technologies and new applications of existing technologies (technology watch), and the emergence of new scientific concepts and technologies with disruptive potential (horizon scanning). The 

TW/HS prototype comprises a computing architecture that supports multiple algorithmic analyses of varied types of input data, an illustrative end-user interface, and 

an initial method for system test and evaluation. The system analyzes indicators 

and predictors of technology breakthroughs and allows for the sharing of analysis 

results between multiple users. Feedback from users of the system may guide the 

development of a next-generation system. The current system is a prototype, whose 

development, test, and evaluation are expected to inform the development of a nextgeneration approach that will incorporate additional analytics methods and will be 

informed by a theory-based approach to technology forecasting. 
156 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Part of our Defense Reform Initiative is to look at acquisition 

reform, and as part of that, we are interested in understanding how S&T supports 

the Department’s goal of improving acquisition outcomes and meeting the guidance 

of the Better Buying Power 2.0 initiatives. Could each of you give us an example 

in each of your organizations of how you are applying S&T to these problems? 

Mr. SHAFFER. Acquiring the weapon systems we need to outpace our adversaries 

requires not only a highly competent Science and Technology (S&T) community, but 

methods to effectively tap the community. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research & Engineering) (ASD (R&E)) has many programs and initiatives that reach 

out to the R&E enterprise and beyond to find and develop affordable weapon systems. These programs align well with several tenants of Better Buying Power (BBP) 

2.0. BBP 2.0 stresses the importance of seeking cost reductions throughout a product’s lifecycle. ASD (R&E)’s Foreign Comparative Test (FCT) program searches the 

globe to find suitable and cost-effective solutions to warfighter needs. A primary 

focus of that search is for replacements to legacy systems and components that can 

no longer be affordably manufactured in the United States. For example, the FCT 

program uncovered an H–53 helicopter generator control unit used on a German 

version of the H–53 that was less expensive and more reliable than the legacy 

version. During the FCT’s 33 year history, the DOD’s $1.23 billion investment has 

resulted in $10.9 billion in weapons systems procurements and an estimated cost 

avoidance of $7.6 billion. Several ASD (R&E) programs achieve affordability aims 

by reducing barriers to entry for innovative companies. The Innovation Outreach 

initiative provides a vehicle to identify sources of novel solutions. One such solution 

is the iTClamp, which provides medical first responders with an alternative to the 

tourniquet. iTClamp is a low cost (less than a $100) medical device able to constrain 

blood flow to the wound while rerouting blood to the far end of the wounded extremity, increasing the chance of saving the limb. Instant Eye is another solution uncovered by an ASD (R&E) program. Instant Eye is a small quad-copter, unmanned system that costs less than a $1,000, is field repairable, and can deliver real-time surveillance video to a tactical unit. BBP 2.0’s emphasis on eliminating redundancy 

within warfighter portfolios inspired the CLOUDBREAK initiative. 

CLOUDBREAK’s vision is to provide an easily accessible ‘‘app store’’ the combatant 

commands (CCMD) can use to acquire Command and Control (C2) solutions. Rather 

than each CCMD purchasing a custom solution, CLOUDBREAK provides a suite of 

solutions that can be inexpensively tailored to meet the needs of each user. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Do the provisions contained within the SBIR Reauthorization 

Act contained within the FY 12 NDAA give you sufficient authority to ensure that 

SBIR funded technologies have an opportunity to transition to acquisition programs 

of record? Describe the DOD’s plan to implement those provisions. 

Mr. SHAFFER. Yes. As one initiative, we have added to DODI 5000.02, page 57, 

Table 2. Milestone and Phase Information Requirements the following: ‘‘Program 

managers will establish goals for applying SBIR and STTR technologies in programs 

of record. For contracts with a value at or above $100 million, program managers 

will establish a goal for the transition of Phase III technologies in subcontracting 

plans, and report the number and dollar amount of contracts entered into for Phase 

III SBIR or STTR projects.’’ 

In addition, each major DOD acquisition program designates an individual who 

is (a) knowledgeable about the technology needs of the acquisition program and (b) 

responsible for technology infusion into the program, to serve as the program’s SBIR 

Liaison. These Liaisons undertake to ensure that appropriate SBIR technologies are 

considered for acquisition programs. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Each of the Services has described prototyping and requirements maturation processes to help support future acquisition programs. Why are 

those tools important? How do ensure technology transition for successful S&T initiatives to get them to acquisition program managers and program executive offices? 

Ms. MILLER. Targeted technology maturation and prototyping has emerged as an 

overall area of emphasis within the Army’s laboratories and research, development 

and engineering centers (RDECs). These activities help to better inform requirements for new systems, as well as drive down the risk of integrating new technologies, by demonstrating mature solutions that are technically achievable and affordable. In conducting maturation and prototyping earlier in the acquisition 

lifecycle, we can identify and address areas of risk before the government commits 

more significant levels of funding to a Program of Record (PoR). Ultimately, it is 

much more cost-effective to prove out innovative concepts and capabilities in Science 

and Technology (S&T) than it is under formal program acquisition. 

One example is the Army’s Technology Maturation Initiative (TMI) (Program Element 0604115A) which aligns S&T and acquisition partners under a coordinated effort to prove out emerging, but needed, technology components and facilitate their 
157 

transition to PoRs. It matures high-payoff S&T products beyond traditional S&T 

technology readiness levels in order to drive down acquisition costs and risks, and 

increase transition success. 

These efforts have become especially important as the Army heads into a funding 

downturn. We are planning to invest in technology maturation and prototyping efforts to prepare the Army to capitalize on S&T investments as we come out of the 

acquisition funding ‘‘bathtub’’ near the end of the decade. For Budget Activity 4 authorities, we are using these resources to target areas where acquisition programs 

intended to provide necessary capabilities have been delayed, such as assured Position, Navigation and Timing, the Future Infantry Fighting Vehicle, and Active Protection Systems. 

By engaging key stakeholders from the requirements, technology, acquisition and 

resourcing communities to select and oversee the Technology Maturation Initiative 

and other prototyping efforts, we are able to prioritize and coordinate efforts that 

will best enable the integration of innovative capabilities in to planned acquisition 

programs. In this way, these efforts directly support and apply the Army’s 30-year 

acquisition planning construct. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Part of our Defense Reform Initiative is to look at acquisition 

reform, and as part of that, we are interested in understanding how S&T supports 

the Department’s goal of improving acquisition outcomes and meeting the guidance 

of the Better Buying Power 2.0 initiatives. Could each of you give us an example 

in each of your organizations of how you are applying S&T to these problems? 

Ms. MILLER. One example is Army S&T’s Technology Maturation Initiative (TMI) 

(Program Element 0604115A). Created in FY12, TMI developed a strategic partnership between S&T and the acquisition community to facilitate the transition of key 

technologies to Programs of Record and enables the Army to fulfill the risk-reduction goals laid out by the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act (WSARA) and 

DODI 5000.02. By engaging program managers early in the technology development 

process and collaboratively defining technology, performance goals and acceptance 

testing, we facilitate a more successful insertion of mature technology for emerging 

capabilities. Reaching technical maturity prior to integration reduces program risk 

and eliminates excess costs. 

Controlling costs throughout the product lifecycle is another area Army S&T is 

placing additional focus. By designing technologies with reliability and 

manufacturability in mind, we can reduce the cost and time associated with redesign when these technologies transition from the S&T domain into formal Programs 

of Record, resulting in lower developmental costs and potentially faster acquisition. 

The Army ManTech (Program Element 0708045A) investment develops and demonstrates manufacturing processes to enable producibility and affordability for 

emerging technologies and subsystems. For example, the Manufacturing of Flexible 

Electronics for Large Area Sensors project will develop the U.S. manufacturing base 

for large area flexible electronic sensor technology fabricated on plastic substrates. 

This will provide capability through the integration of light weight, rugged sensors 

into digital radiography panels for Soldier portable Explosive Ordinance Disposal inspection and forensics applications. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Do the provisions contained within the SBIR Reauthorization 

Act contained within the FY 12 NDAA give you sufficient authority to ensure that 

SBIR funded technologies have an opportunity to transition to acquisition programs 

of record? Describe the DOD’s plan to implement those provisions. 

Ms. MILLER. The SBIR Reauthorization Act gives the Army sufficient authority 

to ensure that our SBIR funded technologies have the opportunity to transition. 

There are over 20 changes resulting from reauthorization. The key statutory language relevant to this discussion are: 

1) All acquisition programs must report where they are incorporating SBIR technologies as part of their subcontracting plan, 

2) DOD must set goals for SBIR inclusion in acquisition programs, 

3) DOD is authorized to incentivize Program Executive Offices and prime contractors for all awards greater than $100M to include SBIR technologies. 

While none of these changes have been fully implemented yet, the Army is participating in a SBIR Commercialization Working Group with the Department, and all 

DOD SBIR program managers create a model that sets the standard for 

transitioning SBIR developed technology. The reporting in item 1) above should be 

relatively straight-forward once incorporated into contract requirements. Setting 

goals is more challenging because in partnership with our sister Services we must 

first establish a baseline and then determine reasonable and meaningful metrics to 

measure transition performance for evaluation of effectiveness of the incentives. 

Item 3) is currently being evaluated by the Department for feasibility and approach. 
158 

Mr. THORNBERRY. The Army recently completed successful testing of a High Energy Laser Mobile Demonstrator (HEL–MD). What is the Army’s plan for developing 

and fielding directed energy weapons? What additional testing do you have planned 

for the HEL–MD system, and how will all of that testing fit into the Army’s plans 

for a directed energy program of record? 

Ms. MILLER. The recent demonstration was an interim demonstration of a High 

Energy Laser mobile platform capability against light mortars and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs). Additional development of the laser, beam control, power, thermal management, and fire control subsystems is planned along with additional incremental demonstrations using the laser-integrated mobile platform through FY22. 

The incremental demonstrations will validate 50kW Counter-Rockets Artillery and 

Mortars (C–RAM) and Counter-UAS (C–UAS) performance in FY17, 100kW C– 

RAM, C–UAS and Cruise Missile Defense performance in FY20, and a culminating 

demonstration of Integrated Force Protection Capability—Increment 2 Intercept 

(IFPC–2I) level performance in FY22. These demonstrations will validate required 

performance and facilitate transition to a future increment of IFPC–2I with a 

planned technology insertion in the 2028–2032 timeframe. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Each of the Services has described prototyping and requirements maturation processes to help support future acquisition programs. Why are 

those tools important? How do ensure technology transition for successful S&T initiatives to get them to acquisition program managers and program executive offices? 

Admiral KLUNDER. The Department of Navy (DoN) has a well-defined process for 

developing and transitioning new capabilities to future acquisition program called 

the Future Naval Capabilities (FNC) program. This process, initiated by the Navy 

and Marine Corps in 2002, continues to be refined in order to maintain alignment 

with DoN guidance and priorities. The FNC program uses a number of management 

tools and best practices that have a demonstrated record of success as confirmed by 

a recent GAO report (GAO–13–286, March 2013). These tools are important because 

they ensure DoN financial resources being expended on the development of demonstration prototypes and new innovative warfighting capabilities are fully aligned 

with senior Navy and Marine Corps leadership priorities. The selection of specific 

FNC S&T initiatives (Enabling Capabilities) follows a formal requirements-driven 

process that is governed by a set of signed business rules which are reviewed an 

updated roughly every two years to maintain currency. This documented process ensures that Navy & Marine Corps leadership are directly involved in the oversight, 

management and execution of the program during all phases of development. All 

funded S&T initiatives are competitively selected by a 3-star Technology Oversight 

Group (TOG), chartered by a (4-star level) DoN RDT&TE Corporate Board. TOG 

members represent the Requirements, Acquisition, S&T and Fleet/Forces communities of the Navy and Marine Corps. Each year the TOG releases an updated set 

of Technology Gaps that establish mission capability shortfall areas that can be 

traced back to the warfighting needs that have been independently assessed by the 

appropriate CNO and CMC assessment organizations. All FNC S&T initiatives link 

to an appropriate TOG Technology Gap and are managed by 1 of 9 Integrated Product Teams (IPTs). These IPTs are 2-star oversight boards that consist of Flag Officers/Senior Executive Service members representing the S&T, Acquisition, Navy and 

Marine Corps Resource/Requirements and Fleet Force Communities. The roles and 

responsibilities for each IPT member are defined in the FNC Business Rules, which 

are promulgated by the TOG. IPT Resource Sponsors, for example, have the responsibility to ensure that RDT&E resources are programmed to receive and integrate 

the FNC technology Products approved by the TOG. The IPT Acquisition Sponsor 

is responsible to ensure that Program of Record technology insertion windows are 

tracked and that S&T technology deliverables can be incorporated into their acquisition PORs as planned. By design, the process strengthens transition coordination 

between the fleet/force, S&T, acquisition and resources/requirements communities. 

The DoN process ensures successful FNC S&T initiatives transition to program executive offices and acquisition program mangers by focusing on the use of negotiated 

Technology Transition Agreements (TTAs). Each funded FNC S&T initiative is 

backed by a TTA that has been negotiated, agreed upon, and signed by appropriate 

managers within the Resources and Requirements community, establishing the requirements and providing funds for the acquisition PORs), the S&T community, (developing the technology solution and demonstration prototypes) and Acquisition 

community (transitioning the capability into an existing or emerging Program of 

Record). A critical aspect of this process is that DoN S&T funding is not released 

without an approved, signed TTA for each of these initiatives. Each of the TTAs are 

reviewed, updated and reaffirmed annually. This process ensures all parties involved in establishing the requirements, developing the solution, and transitioning 
159 

that capability to the warfighter remain engaged throughout the development cycle. 

This process has proven to be highly successful. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Part of our Defense Reform Initiative is to look at acquisition 

reform, and as part of that, we are interested in understanding how S&T supports 

the Department’s goal of improving acquisition outcomes and meeting the guidance 

of the Better Buying Power 2.0 initiatives. Could each of you give us an example 

in each of your organizations of how you are applying S&T to these problems? 

Admiral KLUNDER. The Department of Navy (DoN) has a well-defined process 

which supports Better Buying Power 2.0 initiative. It is the Department’s Manufacturing Technology (MANTECH) program which aggressively targets cost savings efforts in several major acquisition programs. 

One success story is the VIRGINIA Class Submarine (VCS) Affordability Initiative. Initiated in FY06 with a focus on acquisition cost savings, ManTech was a key 

contributor to the VIRGINIA Class cost reduction effort. ManTech, to date, has facilitated $27.75M per hull of realized cost savings. 

Navy ManTech is also making a significant impact on the F–35 Joint Strike 

Fighter (JSF) acquisition. Program Executive Office for JSF has credited Navy 

ManTech with over $700 million in savings for the Department of Defense purchase 

of F–35 aircraft for the current project portfolio. Example projects contributing to 

this savings include automated fiber placement for advanced F–35 materials projected to save $100 million and JSF canopy thermoforming automation projected to 

save between $75 and $125M depending on the number of spares produced over the 

life cycle. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Do the provisions contained within the SBIR Reauthorization 

Act contained within the FY 12 NDAA give you sufficient authority to ensure that 

SBIR funded technologies have an opportunity to transition to acquisition programs 

of record? Describe the DOD’s plan to implement those provisions. 

Admiral KLUNDER. Yes. Two sections in the Reauthorization Act increase our 

Small Business Innovation Research/Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR/ 

STTR) programs’ authority regarding technology transition. Section 5121 increases 

the technical assistance we can provide to small businesses through commercialization experts in Phases I and II for both SBIR and STTR. Section 5141 dedicates an 

administrative funding pool to increased transition management support by government sources—in Department of the Navy’s case, SBIR/STTR transition managers 

at program executive offices and acquisition program offices. A third provision—Section 5122—which mandates reporting on SBIR/STTR transition goals and performance metrics, is expected to further enhance our technology transition authority. 

Execution of Section 5122 awaits action by the Secretary of Defense’s Office of Small 

Business Programs. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. What is the Air Force’s plan for developing and fielding directed 

energy weapons? Is there currently a marquee Air Force directed energy program? 

Dr. WALKER. The Air Force Science and Technology (S&T) Program has a welldefined plan for developing and demonstrating a wide range of technologies necessary to transition DEWs to the warfighter. The DEW technologies are expected 

to support various Air Force missions, such as counter electronics, aircraft self-protection, and air-to-air and air-to-ground engagements. 

For example, the Air Force is collaborating with DARPA and the Missile Defense 

Agency to develop laser and beam control technologies for a potential aircraft selfprotection laser pod demonstration in the FY19 timeframe and an air-to-air defensive pod demonstration in the FY21 time frame. The Air Force is also working with 

the High Energy Laser Joint Technology Office and others to address the needs for 

a future air dominance demonstration. Key to this effort is our major activity addressing the aero-effects issues that have hampered previous airborne laser demonstrations. 

In the area of high power microwaves, the Air Force marquee S&T program, 

Counter-electronics High Power Microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP), was 

a very successful Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD). Within S&T, 

the Air Force is addressing technologies for a more advanced version that will fit 

in smaller platforms. 

The Air Force is using results from this successful JCTD to inform an effort 

known as Non-Kinetic Counter Electronics (NKCE), which is currently in pre-Materiel Development Decision phase, and seeks to have a procured and operational 

weapon system to support requirements of Combatant Commanders in the mid-2020 

time frame. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Each of the Services has described prototyping and requirements maturation processes to help support future acquisition programs. Why are 

those tools important? How do ensure technology transition for successful S&T initiatives to get them to acquisition program managers and program executive offices? 
160 

Dr. WALKER. The Air Force’s S&T investments develop technology-based options 

and reduce the technical risks of current and future acquisition programs. To efficiently and effectively accomplish this, it is essential the requirements and acquisition communities collaboratively develop potential solutions to operational capability 

needs, and ensure that objective technical assessments of the viability and risks associated with these concepts are made available to inform requirements and acquisition decision points and milestones. 

An example of an initiative the Air Force is undertaking to achieve greater levels 

of early interaction between the operational users, acquisition centers, and technologists are Capability Collaboration Teams (CCT). CCTs are established by the 

Air Force Major Commands (MAJCOM) that have responsibility to organize, train, 

and equip the current and future Air Force. CCTs provide a method for the 

MAJCOMs [warfighters], the acquisition centers [acquirers], and the Air Force Research Laboratory [technologists] to integrate operational capability needs and requirements with acquisition priorities and technology options. CCTs work collaboratively to understand MAJCOM-documented capability needs that may require a 

materiel solution and determine if S&T is required for associated technology needs 

and then formulate potential S&T solutions (e.g., technology development, risk reduction, demonstration, or maturation projects) to address the identified S&T needs. 

In some cases, prototyping is useful to demonstrate potential capabilities in an operationally relevant environment to the warfighter. Prototyping supports risk reduction and maturation of technology by minimizing programmatic risks and reducing 

development cycle time. The result is that our S&T efforts will be scoped and structured to prove out high risk technologies necessary for a follow-on acquisition program thereby reducing cost, schedule, and performance risks. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Part of our Defense Reform Initiative is to look at acquisition 

reform, and as part of that, we are interested in understanding how S&T supports 

the Department’s goal of improving acquisition outcomes and meeting the guidance 

of the Better Buying Power 2.0 initiatives. Could each of you give us an example 

in each of your organizations of how you are applying S&T to these problems? 

Dr. WALKER. The Air Force’s S&T investments develop technology-based options 

and reduce the technical risks of current and future acquisition programs. As identified in the Better Buying Power 2.0 initiative to control costs throughout the product lifecycle, it is essential the requirements and acquisition communities collaboratively develop potential solutions to operational capability needs, and ensure that 

objective technical assessments of the viability and risks associated with these concepts are made available to inform requirements and acquisition decision points and 

milestones. The Air Force continues to improve its S&T planning processes to build 

and solidify these effective and efficient relationships between our requirements and 

acquisition communities. 

An example of an initiative the Air Force is undertaking to achieve greater levels 

of early interaction between the operational users, acquisition centers, and technologists are Capability Collaboration Teams (CCT). CCTs are established by the 

Air Force Major Commands (MAJCOM) that have responsibility to organize, train, 

and equip the current and future Air Force. CCTs provide a method for the 

MAJCOMs [warfighters], the acquisition centers [acquirers], and the Air Force Research Laboratory [technologists] to integrate operational capability needs and requirements with acquisition priorities and technology options. CCTs work collaboratively to understand MAJCOM-documented capability needs that may require a 

materiel solution. CCTs determine if S&T is required and then formulate potential 

S&T solutions (e.g., technology development, risk reduction, demonstration, or maturation projects) to address the identified needs. Air Force S&T efforts are scoped 

and structured to prove out high risk technologies, which reduce the cost, schedule, 

and performance risks associated with follow-on acquisition programs. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Do the provisions contained within the SBIR Reauthorization 

Act contained within the FY 12 NDAA give you sufficient authority to ensure that 

SBIR funded technologies have an opportunity to transition to acquisition programs 

of record? Describe the DOD’s plan to implement those provisions. 

Dr. WALKER. Yes. The provisions contained within the SBIR Reauthorization Act 

in the FY 12 NDAA give sufficient authority to transition SBIR funded technologies 

into acquisition programs of record. However, the availability of funds within most 

programs to support SBIR transitions are generally non-existent. A separate Program Element to focus exclusively on SBIR transition efforts would be difficult to 

justify, since efforts are often not selected until the year-of-execution. Obtaining authorities to use a portion of existing SBIR funds as a set-aside to support SBIR transitions would ensure the availability of monies to help the Air Force transition SBIR 

developed technologies into programs of record. The Air Force recommends obtaining the authority to use all or a portion of the increase in RDT&E SBIR assess-
161 

ments (2.5%–3.2%) on ‘‘Phase III’’ transition contracts. Current constraints only 

allow the use of SBIR funds to mature technology; this leaves the full burden of 

transition on the budgets of programs of record. Using a portion of the increased 

RDT&E SBIR expenditure assessment on Phase III contracts would enable a costsharing environment and open the door for a dramatic increase in the transition of 

SBIR developed technologies. 

The Air Force continues to work with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and 

the other Services to implement the provisions of the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization. 

For example, the Air Force has been updating and institutionalizing internal training programs to better educate existing and new small business contractors in order 

to increase their awareness and to solicit their early involvement. The Air Force has 

also been working with Defense Acquisition University to update defense-wide certifications and continuous learning opportunities. Both of these support an education goal to help change the culture by showing the added value of small business 

participation. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Part of our Defense Reform Initiative is to look at acquisition 

reform, and as part of that, we are interested in understanding how S&T supports 

the Department’s goal of improving acquisition outcomes and meeting the guidance 

of the Better Buying Power 2.0 initiatives. Could each of you give us an example 

in each of your organizations of how you are applying S&T to these problems? 

Dr. PRABHAKAR. Our role at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA) is to make the pivotal early investments that change what is possible for 

breakthrough national security capabilities. Two examples include the Long Range 

Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) and the Systems of Systems Integration Technology and 

Experimentation (SoSITE) programs. 

Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM): 

The LRASM program began in response to an urgent capability need identified 

by the Navy in 2008. The program objectives were to demonstrate a fully integrated 

tactically representative weapon system to address this capability gap as early as 

possible. Decomposing the urgent need in to technologies objectives, the LRASM 

program focused on reducing the dependence on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, network links, and Global Positioning System (GPS) 

navigation in electronic warfare environments. Autonomous guidance algorithms 

will allow the LRASM to use less-precise target cueing data to pinpoint specific targets in the contested domain. The program also focuses on innovative terminal survivability approaches and precision lethality in the face of advanced counter measures. To accomplish this, the program office created a small, dedicated team that maintained a single focus of program execution comprised of government, Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) contractors, Federally Funded Research 

and Development Centers, and Industry. A ‘‘skunkworks’’ mentality was adopted by 

all parties in order to maintain cost and schedule while attacking many high risk 

items. The program office met the rapid development objectives by conducting two 

flight demonstrations, each with resounding success. The LRASM successfully separated from the aircraft, navigated through a series of preplanned waypoints, and 

then transitioned to an autonomous mode while seeking the target it had been instructed to attack. The missile detected, identified, and tracked the mobile ship target at extended range; transitioned to guidance on the terminal sensor; and impacted the target with a miss distance well within acceptable error probabilities. 

With an empowered and unencumbered program manager and support staff, the 

DARPA team was able to streamline the decision making process by including the 

appropriate stakeholders as part of the effort rather than as external ‘‘decision 

boards.’’ By eliminating redundant processes and reviews, the Agency was able to 

reach out to the Services and inject synergy at the technical base level: LRASM was 

able to leverage the essential capabilities inherent in each Service to effect a dynamic demonstration. As a forcing element, the LRASM program was able to build 

a strong and lasting partnership with the Service requirements community, as well 

as the warfighting organizations at the initiation of the program. This provided a 

base capability that seamlessly flowed into the working requirements for the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare mission area. By providing a full-time requirements/concept of operations SETA to work closely with the warfighter and the requirements 

community, there was a consolidated perspective during the definition and generation of requirements. This interaction at the initiating stages of the program (during 

the true Science and Technology phase) allowed early flow down of warfighter needs 

and system designs at inception and refinement of technological applicability. This 

allowed the LRASM program to better balance user needs within technology and 

cost constraints, as well as informing the warfighter of future capability and 

timeline availability. 
162 

In light of the successful demonstrations and technical maturity of the system, the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense issued a Resource Management Directive to fully 

fund a rapid acquisition effort to field the LRASM on the B–1B in fiscal year 2018 

and on the F/A–18 Hornet in fiscal year 2019. DARPA’s early investment in requisite technologies enabled the Department of Defense to rapidly field a next generation capability to support the warfighter. In addition, these investments have significantly increased the state of the art, better positioning the accelerated acquisition effort to deliver on cost and schedule. 

System of Systems Integration Technology and Experimentation (SoSITE): 

DARPA has initiated the SoSITE program to develop the capability to operate 

low-cost, simpler platforms in cooperation with more capable platforms as integrated 

force structures. This approach enables the U.S. military to acquire the capabilities 

to maintain dominance over potential peer adversaries, who are investing in technologies to produce high-end systems in large quantities. 

DARPA is also developing supporting mission system technologies to make distributed architectures possible. These technologies include investments in adaptive 

communications and networking, autonomy, and command and control that contribute to interoperability. They promote rapid fielding of new systems and integration into the force structure, and control operational cost and complexity. 

DARPA is partnering closely with Service and Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(OSD) open architecture initiatives. Integration tools developed by SoSITE and 

other programs will facilitate streamlined application of open architectures to future 

acquisition programs and enable the expansion and adaptation of open architecture 

standards with a minimum of additional bureaucratic burden. 

The DARPA System of Systems strategy contributes directly to the goals of the 

Better Buying Power 2.0 initiative by: 

• Enabling highly affordable weapon systems to achieve military effectiveness as 

part of an integrated architecture 

• Providing the means to manage requirements across an architecture to help 

control costs of more capable platforms 

• Providing tools to deploy complex architectures more efficiently, helping to control life-cycle operational costs 

• Creating opportunities and competition at all tiers of the industrial base to encourage productivity and innovation 

• Promoting wider adoption of open architecture standards and practices while 

minimizing bureaucratic burden. 

Mr. THORNBERRY. Do the provisions contained within the SBIR Reauthorization 

Act contained within the FY 12 NDAA give you sufficient authority to ensure that 

SBIR funded technologies have an opportunity to transition to acquisition programs 

of record? Describe the DOD’s plan to implement those provisions. 

Dr. PRABHAKAR. DARPA defers to ASD(R&E), which is the lead for SBIR implementation. 

The ASD(R&E), Mr. Shaffer, states: Yes. As one initiative, we have added to 

DODI 5000.02, page 57, Table 2. Milestone and Phase Information Requirements 

the following: ‘‘Program managers will establish goals for applying SBIR and STTR 

technologies in programs of record. For contracts with a value at or above $100 million, program managers will establish a goal for the transition of Phase III technologies in subcontracting plans, and report the number and dollar amount of contracts entered into for Phase III SBIR or STTR projects.’’ 

In addition, each major DOD acquisition program designates an individual who 

is (a) knowledgeable about the technology needs of the acquisition program and (b) 

responsible for technology infusion into the program, to serve as the program’s SBIR 

Liaison. These Liaisons undertake to ensure that appropriate SBIR technologies are 

considered for acquisition programs. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. PETERS 

Mr. PETERS. Earlier this year, a number of leading research universities, including UC San Diego, UCLA, Stanford, and Cal Tech sent a letter to Secretary James 

and Under Secretary Kendall, expressing several significant concerns regarding the 

potential move of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) from its current headquarters in Arlington, VA to the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. [Letter 

available upon request.] 

I am concerned that a move to Wright-Patterson could lead to a change in the 

thrust of AFOSR’s funding from basic research at universities to applied research 

at Air Force laboratories. This would jeopardize the many opportunities for innovation that are unique to the AFOSR-university partnership. 
163 

Has the Air Force studied other circumstances where basic research program 

managers and operational personnel are located in the same facility? If so, what are 

the lessons from those experiences? If not, does the Air Force intend to undertake 

such studies prior to a final decision? Has the Air Force conducted an analysis to 

determine what, if any, safeguards should be put in place to ensure that AFOSR 

program managers will continue to address long-range, basic research and not be 

influenced by the immediate needs of lab personnel? Has the Air Force analyzed the 

benefits of having AFOSR in close proximity to the Pentagon, DARPA, the DNI, 

NSF and other research agencies, and how those benefits would be impacted by separating AFOSR geographically from these other agencies? 

Dr. WALKER. The Air Force has decided not to relocate AFOSR to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB). This decision was reached after a deliberative process 

that included assessments of the cost of operation, risks to the basic research mission, and benefits to the basic research mission based on two potential courses of 

action (1. AFOSR remains in Ballston, VA and 2. AFOSR moves to WPAFB). 

The Commander of Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) directed headquarters 

AFMC staff to complete a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) prior to taking any action. 

The Air Force determined the majority of savings identified in the CBA were the 

result of reduced support manpower and that some of these savings may be obtained 

in place. Additionally, preliminary findings identified risk to personnel skills and access to collaborators, such as NSF, DARPA, the Office of Naval Research, Department of Energy, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and NASA. 

The Air Force also developed a public Request for Information (RFI) to assess the 

impact of the location of AFOSR as perceived by the wider academic community. 

Based on these assessments, the Air Force decided to maintain AFOSR in its current Ballston, VA location. 

Æ