Footnotes


  1. Note that the armed forces make a clear distinction between S&T, which involves basic research through to technology demonstration, and R&D, which goes all the way to preparation for operational service.

  2. Committee for National Security of the National Science and Technology Council, National Security Science and Technology Strategy, Washington DC, 1995, p.ii.

  3. Daniel Goure (ed), Air and Space Power in the New Millennium, CSIS, Washington DC,1997.

  4. Committee for National Security, op. cit., p.26.

  5. William S. Cohen, Annual Report to the President and the Congress, Washington DC, 1999, p. 136.

  6. Philip A. Odeen, chairman, Transforming Defense: National Security in the 21st Century, Report of the National Defense Panel, Arlington VA, December 1997, p.iii.

  7. William S. Cohen, Annual Report to the President and the Congress, DoD, Washington DC, 1998, p.117.

  8. ibid, p.142; Joint Vision 2010, published in 1997, is a pivotal document describing the future concepts and capabilities required for U.S. military forces.

  9. Odeen, op. cit., p.iii.

  10. DTOs identify specific technological areas to be developed or demonstrated. They are listed and defined in the Defense Technology Area Plan.

  11. Cohen, 1998 Annual Report, op cit., p. 118, p. 140; DarkStar was subsequently canceled.

  12. 2025 Support Office, 2025:Executive Summary, Air University Press, Maxwell AFB, August 1996, p. 34. Also see Appendix A of this report for a list of AFOSR technology objectives.

  13. Dr. Hans Mark, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, recently questioned whether there is in fact a military requirement for SBL.

  14. The labs were: Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories (comprising four labs), Air Force Armament Laboratory, Rome Air Development Center, Air Force Geophysics Laboratory, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Air Force Astronautics Laboratory, Human Resources Laboratory, Harry G. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, and Air Forces Engineering and Services Laboratory. Included was Phillips Lab, which was from Oct 1982-Dec 1990 subordinate to the Air Force Space Technology Center/Kirtland AFB, reporting to ASC's Space Systems Division.

  15. Rebecca Grant, Materiel World: Developing and Sustaining the 21st Century Air Force, Air Force Association Acquisition, R&D and Logistics Symposium, July 17-18, 1997, Aerospace Education Foundation Forum, Arlington VA, p 4. Grant was president, IRIS Independent Research; In an earlier effort to increase operator say in systems development, Gen. Bernard P. Randolph, commander, Air Force Systems Command, served notice that Systems Command would no longer act as an advocate for systems. AFSC would develop systems and manage acquisitions programs, but wouldn't be "going over to the Hill to sell anything," General Randolph said at the Air Force Association January 1989 Symposium on Tactical Warfare. "Advocacy of systems will be the job of using commands—TAC in the case of the tactical air forces—and the Pentagon," he continued. See John T. Correll, "Back Through the Wringer," AIR FORCE, April 1989, p. 39.

  16. AFRL estimates, using new activity-based costing, that overhead is now 22% of the total budget of $2.39 billion , with the other 78% centered on research. Overhead or "product support" comprised civilian (43%) and military (10%) labor, non-R&D contract supervision (15%), depreciation (14%), training (12%), and "other."

  17. Grant, ibid, p. 4.

  18. This is a common shorthand reference to the National Defense Authorization Act funding program elements, 0601xxxx(basic research), 0602xxxx (applied research) and 0603xxxx (technology demonstration). "6.2" is exploratory development of the practical applications of basic research—bench testing or "brassboard" testing; "6.3" stands for technology demonstration—building prototypes to determine the feasibility of a particular application, or advanced development based on system application, testing actual hardware in a more operational environment. As an example, the two-dimensional jet engine nozzle used on the F-22 began as a 6.1 paper study, then 6.2 boilerplate, and finally 6.3 flight test hardware.

  19. Also called Integrated Project or Product Teams, IPTs bring together in one funded, decision-making body representatives of all organizations—government and industry—involved in development and manufacture of a system or major subsystem.

  20. 7 May 1999 briefing by Bert Cream, AFRL/XP/Human Systems and Logistics Sector.

  21. The eight Air Force major commands: Air Combat Command, Air Force Materiel Command, Air Force Special Operations Command, Air Education and Training Command, Air Force Space Command, Air Mobility Command, Pacific Air Forces and U.S. Air Forces in Europe.

  22. 7 May 1999 briefing by David Selegan, AFRL/XP/Aeronautics Sector.

  23. Maj. Gen. Richard R. Paul, September 12, 1998, briefing to the S&T Committee of the Air Force Association.

  24. The seminal forecast of Air Force S&T needs, Toward New Horizons was published in December 1945, in a series of 13 authoritative reports authorized by Gen. Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, commander, Army Air Forces.

  25. 2025, Air University, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, August 1996.

  26. New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for the 21st Century, USAF Scientific Advisory Board, Washington D.C., 1995. Consists of 15 volumes covering aircraft & propulsion, attack, directed energy, human systems/biotechnology, information applications, information technology, materials, mobility, munitions, sensors, space applications, space technology, a summary and a classified volume.

  27. Available at the Office of Science and Technology's website, http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/nssts/html/nssts.html.

  28. This is the Joint Chiefs of Staff vision statement on future warfare. Available at http://www.dtic.mil/jv2010/jvpub.htm.

  29. This is the Air Force's vision statement responding to Joint Vision 2010. It is available at http://www.xp.hq.af.mil/xpx/21/nuvis.htm.

  30. Available at http://extra.afrl.af.mil/info/techneeds97/.

  31. Interview with Dr. Joseph F. Janni, March 18, 1999, at AFOSR Headquarters, Arlington, VA. Janni is the director of AFOSR. The quotations that follow are from that interview.

  32. Figures on the latest funding breakdown were not available as of this writing.

  33. See Appendix A.

  34. ATDs should not be confused with Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrators (ACTDs). ACTDs, funded through 6.4 engineering development and 6.5 management and support monies, are operational demonstrators of more mature systems closer to procurement. This funding is provided by DARPA and the user commands.

  35. See Rebecca Grant, Materiel World, op cit., p. 6.

  36. Cohen 1998, op cit., p 145.

  37. Cohen 1999, op cit. pp. 140-141.

  38. Grant, Materiel World, op.cit. p 4.

  39. All figures in these paragraphs are derived from the table in Appendix B. They are expressed in then-year dollars, which represent the actual unadjusted funding level in any given year.

  40. Jacob Neufeld (ed), Research and Development in the United States Air Force, Center for Air Force History, Washington D.C., 1993.

  41. Canan, op. cit., p.92.

  42. Goure, op. cit., p.43.

  43. Gen. Robert T. Marsh, USAF (Ret.), "Ripe Technologies," AIR FORCE Magazine, June 1989, p. 85. Marsh also served as the chairman of the Air Force Association's Science & Technology Committee.

  44. A separate, informal circuit exists by which program advocates routinely state their cases directly to the Air Force Group, Board and Council members. These evaluating bodies are thus kept informed of program issues and may use this information to question or overturn recommendations from lower-level entities.

  45. Canan, op. cit., p. 93.

  46. The quotations that follow come from an interview with Dr. Dolores M. Etter, deputy under secretary of defense for science and technology, April 23, 1999.

  47. Marsh, op. cit., p 84.

  48. Janni interview, op. cit.

  49. This point was stressed by the Office of Technology Assessment a decade ago. It was also reiterated as recently as 1997 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which noted that "industry is not making up for reduced DoD R&D funding" in critical air- and space-related technologies. See Air and Space Power in the New Millennium, op. cit.

  50. James W. Canan, "Backlash for the R&D SuperStandard," AIR FORCE Magazine, March 1988, p. 94.

  51. Canan, op. cit., p. 95.

  52. New World Vistas, op. cit., "Aircraft and Propulsion Volume," p. 56.

  53. CSIS, op. cit., p. 145.

  54. Gen. Lawrence A. Skantze, "The Legacy Systems Challenge," ARMED FORCES JOURNAL, December 1998, p. 38.

  55. Etter interview, op. cit.

  56. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Defense Technology Base: Introduction & Overview, GPO, Washington, D.C., March 1988, p. 5.

  57. Interview with John W. Douglass, president, Aerospace Industries Association, April 28, 1999.

  58. "Spin-off" involves civilian products resulting from defense research; "spin-on," by contrast, involves products or processes of use to the defense industry resulting from civilian research.

  59. Douglass interview, op. cit.

  60. Committee for National Security, op. cit., p. 63.

  61. Interview with Richard R. Ramseyer, director, business development, Honeywell Technology Center, April 28, 1999.

  62. Defense Science Board, The Defense Industrial and Technology Base, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Washington D.C., October 1988.

  63. Ramseyer interview, op. cit.

  64. Committee for National Security, op. cit., p. 63.

  65. Douglass interview, op. cit.

  66. Douglass interview, op. cit.

  67. Both of these quotations are from the Committee for National Security, op. cit., p. ii.

  68. Skantze, op. cit., pp 39.

  69. Briefing by Richard Flake, AFRL/XPTT dual use S&T program manager, May 6, 1999.

  70. Interview with Robert Haffa, Northrop-Grumman Analysis Center, April 9, 1999.

  71. Douglass interview, op. cit.