Science And Technology: Air Force's Planning Process Meets Statutory Requirement
Published: 2002-02-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Congress and the scientific community are concerned that the Air Force's investment in science and technology may be too low to meet the challenges presented by new and emerging threats. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 requires the Air Force to review its science and technology programs to assess the budgetary resources currently used and those needed to adequately address the challenges and objectives.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO found that the Air Force complied with the requirements of section 252 of the act. The Air Force established an integrated product team to identify long-term science and technology challenges and a task force to identify short-term objectives. For each challenge or objective that was identified, the Air Force established teams to identify technological capabilities needed to achieve these goals. Each team chose research projects that addressed the criteria specified in the act. The Air Force also complied with the act's process provisions. The Deputy Assistant Director for Science, Technology and Engineering is required to review the teams' results and to identify any science and technology research not currently funded.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The successful outcome of military operations often depends on weapons  systems that emerged from research conducted decades earlier.  For  example, the Air Force’s investment in low observable stealth technology  in the 1970s led to the F-117 fighter, which was very effective in Operation  Desert Storm. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the focus of science  and technology has narrowed as a consequence of steady funding declines.  The Air Force has been criticized for focusing its research more on existing  or emerging weapons and less on long-term technology development.  There is a growing concern in the scientific community that the Air Force’s  investment in science and technology may be too low to meet the  challenges presented by new and emerging threats.
The Congress has also been concerned about the Air Force’s declining  investment in science and technology.  The National Defense Authorization  Act for Fiscal Year 2001 requires that the secretary of the Air Force review  the long-term challenges and short-term objectives of the Air Force’s  science and technology programs. The act further requires that the review  assess the budgetary resources currently used and those needed to  adequately address the challenges and objectives. The act also requires that  we assess the extent to which the Air Force has complied with the  provisions of the act and report to the Congress on the results of our  review.  In discussions with your offices, we agreed to focus our review on  whether the Air Force complied with the criteria specified in the act and  the process-related requirements of the act and not on the technical merits  of the research projects identified. This report addresses the three primary  areas specified in the act:  long-term challenge identification and planning,  short-term objective identification and planning,   program and budgetary resource assessment.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Science and technology is traditionally divided into three broad categories:  basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development.   Basic research attempts to produce new knowledge in a scientific or  technological area. This research is not associated with a specific weapon  system.   Applied research supports the development and maturation of  new technologies for a defined military application.  Advanced  development entails large-scale hardware development and technology  integration in more operationally realistic settings.  Research and  development beyond these categories is done in support of a specific  weapon system.
In the Air Force, the focal point for science and technology investments is  the Air Force Research Laboratory. It was created in 1997 to centrally  manage all Air Force science and technology efforts. Previously, the Air  Force operated 13 different laboratories across the country. The present  Air Force Research Laboratory, headquartered at Wright Patterson Air  Force Base, comprises 10 technology directorates. Nine directorates  handle applied and advanced development projects. The 10th directorate,  the Office of Scientific Research, manages the Air Force’s basic research  projects. The Air Force Research Laboratory biennially generates a  comprehensive strategic plan that supports the national military strategy  and the Air Force Strategic Plan.
In the past, the Air Force was a leader in high-technology exploration.  According to a January 2000 Air Force Association study, the Air Force was  the unquestioned leader in science and technology investments at the end  of the Cold War.  In the 1990s, however, it dropped to third place, behind  the Army and Navy.  The Congress has been concerned about the Air  Force’s level of investment in science and technology.  For fiscal year 2000,    the House and Senate Armed Services Committees noted that the Air Force  in particular, had failed to comply with the science and technology funding  objective specified in the prior year’s authorization act, thus jeopardizing  the stability of the technology base and increasing the risk of failure to  maintain technological superiority in future weapons systems.  In 2001, the  Scientific Advisory Board found that the Air Force’s science and  technology program needed to improve its planning process and generate  stronger user support and sponsorship. It also found weaknesses in the  connection between operational requirements and science and technology  programs, which inhibited the prioritization of investments.
section_title: Long-Term Planning Complies with Act
paragraphs: The Air Force complied with the overall requirements of the National  Defense Authorization Act regarding long-term challenges.  (See table 1 for  the checklist of provisions.)
The act defined a long-term challenge as a high-risk, high-payoff effort that  will provide a focus for research in the next 20 to 50 years. To identify  potential long-term challenges, an Air Force review team obtained over 140  ideas from a variety of sources in the scientific community.  Ideas ranged  from cloaking technologies (the deceptive masking of assets) and holodeck  command capabilities (virtual reality battlespace control) to micro  weapons like ubiquitous “battle bees” (miniaturized unmanned air  vehicles) and cyber warfare technologies.
The team evaluated these ideas to ensure that they complied with the three  primary criteria specified in the act.  The potential long-term challenges  had to involve (1) compelling Air Force requirements; (2) high-risk, high- payoff areas of exploration; and (3) very difficult but achievable results.   Yet another provision in the act required that the team should avoid  selecting projects that are linear extensions of ongoing science and  technology projects.  This provision was more difficult to assess, but after  additional deliberations, the team determined that the following six  challenges satisfied the criteria in the act:  Finding and Tracking.  To provide the decision maker with target  quality information from anywhere in near real-time.
Command and Control.  To assess, plan, and direct aerospace  operations from anywhere or from multiple locations in near real-time.
Controlled Effects.  To create precise effects rapidly, with the ability to  retarget quickly against complex target sets anywhere, anytime, for as  long as required.
Sanctuary.  To protect our total force from natural and man-made  hazards or threats, allowing us to operate anywhere with the lowest risk  possible.
Rapid Aerospace Response. To respond as quickly as necessary to  support peacetime operations or crises and move this response to  another location very rapidly if needed.
Effective Aerospace Persistence. To sustain the flow of equipment and  supplies as well as the application of force for as long as required.
Once the long-term challenges were identified, the Air Force followed the  planning process specified in the act.  For example, it established six work  groups tasked with identifying possible approaches to address these  challenges. The groups had about 9 weeks to complete their work.  As  required, a technical coordinator, assisted by a management coordinator,  headed each group.  Each group also complied with the requirement to  hold a workshop within the science and technology community to obtain  suggestions on possible approaches and promising areas of research. The  workshop participants satisfied the requirement to identify current work  that addresses the challenge, deficiencies in current work, and promising  areas of research.
Finally, the groups were also expected to select projects that were not  linear extensions of current science and technology work. This particular  provision was not easy for some groups to define. Some pondered the  relative nature of the term.  For example, a user would perceive  “nonlinearity” differently than a scientist. Another group characterized it as  a quantum leap in capability.  Another definition associated nonlinear  projects with multiple-capability dimensions.  For example, if doubling the  payload capacity of a weapon is a linear extension, then doubling the  payload, speed, and range of the weapon would also be a nonlinear  extension.  Regardless of the definition selected, each group addressed the  issue in its planning process.
Each group summarized the results of its workshop in a briefing that  contained enabling capabilities, research areas, technology roadmaps, and  associated funding requirements.  In many cases, the level of funding  projections was double or triple the level of the planned budget. For  example, the level of funding projections for basic research in physics,  materials, mathematics, and computer science was more than triple the  planned investment levels.
section_title: Short-Term Planning Satisfies Requirements
paragraphs: The Air Force complied with the overall provisions of the National Defense  Authorization Act regarding short-term objectives.  (See table 2 for the  checklist of provisions.) As required, the Air Force established a task force  consisting of representatives from the Air Force Chief of Staff and  combatant commands to identify short-term objectives. The task force  obtained about 58 ideas from the requirements, user, and acquisition  communities as specified in the act. Because of the mandated short-term  focus, most of the input involved enhancing or accelerating ongoing  research efforts—not initiating entirely new areas of research.  These ideas  included maintaining aging aircraft, combat identification, and time-critical  targeting.  While these are not new concepts, they still present significant  technological challenges.  We have recently reported on weaknesses in  each of these areas.
The task force reviewed each idea to ensure that it complied with the  criteria in the act: (1) to involve compelling Air Force requirements, (2) to  have support within the user community, and (3) to likely attain the desired  benefits within 5 years. To ensure that each idea represented a compelling  Air Force requirement, the task force evaluated each idea against the Air  Force’s core competencies and critical future capabilities. To meet the user  support requirement, the task force linked each potential short-term  objective to specific mission needs and requirements documents. The  objectives were reviewed and approved by the Air Force’s corporate  structure. To ensure that the projects selected would achieve results in 5  years, the task force decided to use the technology maturity levels  highlighted in a recent GAO report. The following is a list of the eight  short-term objectives.
Target Location, Identification, and Track.  To detect, locate, track,  and identify air/ground targets anytime in countermeasure  environments in near real time.
Command, Control, Communication, Computers, and Intelligence.  To  dynamically assess, plan, and execute global missions.
Precision Attack.  To engage air and ground targets from manned and  unmanned vehicles with the precision and speed necessary to bring  about decisive results.
Space Control. To increase the survivability of critical space assets.
Access to Space.  To improve access to space through responsive, cost- effective launch systems.
Aircraft Survivability and Countermeasures.  To improve the ability to  survive and operate against airborne and ground threats in all  environments.
Sustaining Aging Systems.  To extend the service life of aging aircraft  and space launch systems with reduced manpower, reduced total  ownership costs, and enhanced reliability.
Air Expeditionary Forces Support. To provide air expeditionary forces  with the ability to operate with highly responsive and agile combat  support forces.
After the objectives were identified, the Air Force complied with the  planning process specified in the act.  As required, it established an  integrated product team to address each short-term objective.  Each team  was composed of a cross-cutting mix of officials from the requirements,  user, and science and technology communities, as the act specified.   According to many of the short-term objective team leaders, the cross- cutting nature of the teams was very productive. Not only did they believe  that their planning was enhanced by the direct input from users and  requirements officials, they also believed that the expertise and assistance  from scientists in other laboratory directorates improved the process.
Each team satisfied the requirement to identify, define, and prioritize the  enabling capabilities necessary to meet the objectives.  As required, each  team identified the deficiencies in the enabling capabilities and projects  necessary to eliminate the deficiencies.  The teams summarized their work  in briefings that contained prioritized lists of enabling capabilities, a  definition of the objectives, technology roadmaps, and budget  spreadsheets. The spreadsheets detailed the current and additional funding  required to achieve the objectives.  Obtaining the additional funding was a  concern to many teams. Many teams identified funding requirements that  greatly exceeded current funding levels; it was not uncommon for  proposed annual funding levels to double or triple the level currently  projected. For example, the Command, Control, Communication,  Computer, and Intelligence team proposed programs that would require  from 2.6 to over 4 times the planned annual investment.
Another concern was the 15-year gap between the short-term objective and  long-term challenge planning.  According to the act’s provisions, the short- term teams were required to focus on technologies that would be mature in  5 years; the long-term teams focused on technologies needed 20 to 50 years  in the future.  According to laboratory officials, this mid-term gap  constitutes much of the normal science and technology planning effort and  represents a critical point in science and technology project development.  This time frame is where science and technology can have a significant  impact. The Air Force currently addresses this time frame in its normal  planning process.  In addition, this period is covered in the long-term  challenge technology roadmaps, at least for the research efforts associated  with those six challenges.
section_title: Program and Resource Assessment Complies with Act
paragraphs: The Air Force satisfied the top-level review requirements in the act. (See  table 3 for the checklist of provisions.)   The act required the secretary of  the Air Force to conduct a timely review of the science and technology  programs and to assess the budgetary resources needed to address the  long- and short-term needs. The secretary delegated this responsibility to  the deputy assistant secretary for Science, Technology and Engineering.
The deputy complied with the requirement to conduct a review of the long- and short-term science and technology programs within the 1 year time  limit specified in the act.  On October 25, 2001, the deputy briefed the  secretary on the final results and received his approval.
The act also required the secretary to assess the fiscal year 2001 budget  resources used and needed to adequately address science and technology  needs.  After consultation with representatives from the House and Senate  Armed Services Committees, however, the deputy changed the budget  baseline to fiscal year 2002.  This was done to reflect the science and  technology budget realignment occurring in fiscal year 2002. The deputy  assessed the 2002 budget resources planned for science and technology  programs and determined that they were adequately funded.  The deputy  noted, however, that the current level of funding would enable the  programs to pursue the minimum level of scientific research.  Additional  funding would be required to pursue other projects. The deputy also  complied with the provision to evaluate whether the ongoing and projected  science and technology programs addressed the long- and short-term  science and technology needs. He determined that the programs did  address these needs, thus obviating the requirement to develop a course of  action for science and technology programs that do not address the long- term challenges or short-term objectives.
Finally, the act required the secretary to review the long-term challenges  and short-term objectives and to identify additional work that should be  undertaken to meet the challenges and objectives.  The deputy complied  with both provisions.  Not only did he review the results of the long- and  short-term planning efforts and identify additional work, but he also  directed that the additional work be incorporated into the laboratory’s  future planning, programming, and budget decisions. The deputy was in a  unique position to address these requirements. He served not only as the  overall review director for the science and technology planning process,  but also as the chairman of the short-term objective task force.  As a result,  the deputy had many opportunities to review the work of both the long- term challenge and particularly the short-term objective planning teams.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: Because the Air Force complied with the provisions of the act, we are not  making any recommendations in this report.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: The Department of Defense has reviewed this report and concurs with its  contents.
We conducted our work from May 2001 to January 2002 in compliance with  generally accepted auditing standards. Additional information on our scope  and methodology is located in appendix I. If you have any questions about  the information contained in this letter, please call me at (202) 512-4530.  Major contributors to this work included Robert Murphy, Rae Ann Sapp,  and Kristin Pamperin.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To document the extent to which the Air Force complied with the long- term planning process specified in the National Defense Authorization Act  for Fiscal Year 2001, we obtained appointment letters, membership rosters,  initial guidance and work plans, meeting schedules, biographies of each  technical coordinator, and a comprehensive listing of the initial long-term  challenge ideas. We also obtained minutes from team meetings, weekly  activity reports, E-mail communications, interim and final briefing reports,  associated studies, workshop agendas and results, current and projected  budget spreadsheets, capability lists, and promising research areas. To  discuss how each team addressed the act’s provisions, we met with each  long-term challenge technical coordinator and management coordinator.  We also met with officials from the Air Force Research Laboratory’s  headquarters and the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science,  Technology, and Engineering.  Finally, we physically observed the  proceedings of one long-term challenge workshop over the course of 2  days. To determine whether each provision was addressed, we prepared  summary checklists for each long-term challenge and keyed the data back  to a specific provision of the act.
To document the extent to which the Air Force complied with the short- term objective planning process specified in the act, we obtained  appointment letters, membership rosters, initial guidance and work plans,  meeting schedules, and a comprehensive listing of the initial short-term  objective ideas. We also obtained weekly activity reports, short-term  objective descriptive summaries, meeting minutes, E-mail  communications, interim and final briefing reports, current and projected  budget spreadsheets, and prioritized listings of enabling capabilities. To  discuss how each team addressed the act’s provisions, we met with each  short-term objective director. We also met with officials from the Air Force  Research Laboratory’s headquarters and the Office of the Deputy Assistant  Secretary for Science, Technology, and Engineering.  Finally, we physically  observed the proceedings of one short-term objective workshop. To  evaluate whether each provision was addressed, we prepared summary  checklists for each short-term objective and keyed the data back to a  specific provision of the act.
To document the extent to which the Air Force complied with the program  and budgetary resource assessment process specified in the act, we  obtained the final weekly activity reports, internal correspondence, review  schedule, and overview briefing. To evaluate whether each provision was  addressed, we prepared a summary checklist and obtained a written  summary of the Air Force’s actions to comply with the provisions. Finally,  we discussed the Air Force’s actions with representatives from the Office  of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Technology, and  Engineering.
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to  support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve  the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American  people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and  policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help  Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s  commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,  integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents is through the  Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full-text files of  current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The  Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key words  and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and  other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO E-mail  this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily e-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: Visit GAO’s Document Distribution Center
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
paragraphs: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm, E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov, or 1-800-424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 (automated answering system).
section_title: Public Affairs