How U.S. Air Force Research and Development is Done Today

In December 1990, Air Force Systems Command merged AFSC's thirteen Air Force laboratories¹⁴ to form four "super laboratories." The merger emanated from a 1989 Defense Management Review by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. With an eye on reduced defense budgets, it aimed at improved efficiency and reduced duplication. It was also intended to apply economies of scale and to focus research on the operator of systems.¹⁵ The new laboratories were:

• Phillips, at Kirtland Air Force Base (AFB) (incorporating Weapons, Geophysics and Astronautics Labs)

• Wright at Wright-Patterson AFB (incorporating Avionics, Electronics Technology, Flight Dynamics, Materials, Aero Propulsion and Power, and Armament Labs)

• Armstrong/Brooks AFB (absorbing Harry G. Armstong Aerospace Medical Research, Air Force Human Resources, Air Force Drug Testing, and Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Labs)

• Rome/Griffiss AFB (with Rome Air Development Center)

In July 1992, at the initiative of Air Force headquarters, AFSC was merged with Air Force Logistics Command, creating Air Force Materiel Command with four directly subordinate technology centers, each responsible for one laboratory:

• Human Systems Center/Brooks AFB (medical, human resources, drugs, ergonomics)

• Space and Missile Systems Center/Los Angeles AFB (space vehicles, directed energy, geophysics)

• Electronic Systems Center/Hanscom AFB (information, sensors)

• Aeronautical Systems Center/Wright-Patterson AFB (aeronautics, information, weapons, materials, sensors)

The creation of AFMC so soon after the AFSC reorganization came in response to: 1) the fact that there were fewer programs to manage (procurement and RDT&E [research, development, test and evaluation] dropped 72% over the decade of the 1980s); 2) concern with the need to control weapons system life cycle costs (a single organization now had control of specifications, system performance, acquisition costs, and service maintainability and reliability goals); 3) an interest in improved organizational efficiency (more than 20,000 positions were cut)¹⁶; 4) an interest in pushing responsibilities downward; and 5) an emphasis on warfighter needs.

Critics at the time worried that integration would "unravel a perfectly good logistics system or ruin the systems development process," while others asserted that "boutique fleets, especially advanced systems, have the potential for extremely high comparative flying hour costs," but "an integrated AFMC, putting its logistics and product center resources at the disposition of program managers and PEOs [program executive officers], offers the best chance for new economies in existing systems."¹⁷

In 1997, the four laboratories were consolidated under Air Force Materiel Command as the single Air Force Research Laboratory. AFRL comprises 10 technology directorates:

• air vehicles
• space vehicles
• information
• munitions
• directed energy
• Air Force Office of Scientific Research
• materials and manufacturing
• sensors
• propulsion
• human effectiveness

Nearly all of the technology directorates are involved with 6.2 and 6.3¹⁸ activities focused on the six Air Force integrating technology thrusts (space superiority, precision strike, information dominance, aircraft sustainment, training for warfighting and agile combat support). These integrated technology thrusts focus on near-term (1-5 years, the period covered by the annual "POM," or "program objective memorandum," cycle proposing service needs for inclusion in the president's budget submission), mid-term (5-10 years) and long-term (10-25 years). For the near term, in FY 2000 AFRL announced that its budget emphasis will be controlling cost and developing technologies related to space superiority and aerospace expeditionary forces. Of the total obligational authority designated for R&D in FY 2000, 43% is for enabling technologies (primarily 6.2) and 38% is for the integrating technologies (mainly 6.3). Programs under each category typically have 5-6 year lifetimes before being replaced by other programs. The technology thrusts under which each program is fitted have a longer duration and are to be reviewed periodically for relevance by the Air Force's Scientific Advisory Board.

AFRL RESEARCH SITES

In October 1997, six product sectors (Aeronautics, Space and Missiles, Command and Control, Human Systems and Logistics, Weapons Systems, and Modeling and Simulation) were added within AFRL as single focal points for customers and vendors dealing with nine of the technology directorates (the Air Force Office of Scientific Research operates more independently). This one-stop shopping has been very effective, according to AFRL officers. The product sectors are cross-directorate coordinating bodies, with emphasis on the customer and on recommending changes in AFRL investment. User requirements are received via multiple routes, including Integrated Process Teams (IPTs)¹⁹ looking at technologies. Sectors interact with industry, academia and the international community and have representatives within the AFRL technology directorates. Interaction occurs throughout the year at the user level and AFMC "product center" level—occasionally with representatives acting as operating officers. According to AFRL, sectors provide a "better focus" for customers, who now "have more confidence" that they are getting complete answers.²⁰ "One of the better benefits" of the sector concept is that "we are now developing social relationships with the majcoms²¹ that we didn't have before," one AFRL official noted. AFRL supports every evaluation of requirements by the major commands, and AFRL representatives are permanently stationed in Air Combat Command and Air Mobility Command. "Our job is not at our desk," another AFRL official added. Each sector deals with "about 90%" of AFRL, acting as a customer for technologies and an advocate for the major commands "and the product centers."²²

Doing Basic Research (6.1 Funds). The AFRL requirements and budget (or "investment") cycle works as follows²³:

• Guidance is received from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Air Force Acquisition Executive (AFAE), and the Air Force Modernization Planning Process (AFMPP), which convey user needs. Guidance is also derived from S&T forecasts: Toward New Horizons,²⁴ 2025,²⁵ and the Scientific Advisory Board's New World Vistas.²⁶ Also used are the more specific planning guidance documents: National Security Science and Technology Strategy,²⁷ Defense S&T Strategy, Joint Vision 2010,²⁸ DoD Basic Research Plan, Global Engagement: A Vision for the 21^st Century Air Force,²⁹ and the Air Force Infrastructure Technology Needs.³⁰ AFRL decides which technology areas are to receive attention. The AFRL strategic plan must reflect a balance of major command interests, of promising exploratory technology and of significant advanced technology demonstrations not directly tied to current weapons systems. The strategic plan also interacts with foreign technology activities, particularly with NATO. Additionally, participation of the Air Force in other service S&T programs, as well as DARPA and NASA programs, is vital to the overall health of the national aerospace technology base, and support for investment by NASA and others is essential.

• Plans for R&D are approved and executed by the Air Force Acquisition Executive.

• Plans are also reviewed by the Scientific Advisory Board for quality and long-term relevance, and by the anticipated user for relevance. For example, in its annual evaluation of the Air Force S&T program, the Scientific Advisory Board this year has questioned the short-term nature of basic research.³¹

• Reactions are provided via the Air Force Technology Executive Officer (the AFRL commander) or directly to the Air Force Acquisition Executive for possible modification of plans.

The Air Force Office of Scientific Research "orchestrates" the national Air Force basic research effort, engaging in only "higher risk, longer term, but very high payoff" research. AFOSR is a "science manager," not a research organization. This means that it handles all the 6.1 funding for research in basic and applied sciences. But AFOSR-funded projects are overseen by individual scientists within the other AFRL technology directorates. Some research is short-term, directed at immediate weapons applications, but most is longer term. AFOSR is headed by a director who leads a staff of 144 scientists, engineers and administrative personnel. Directorates are responsible for chemistry and life sciences, aerospace and materials sciences, physics and electronics, mathematics and geosciences, external programs and resources interface, and international affairs. In FY 1997, with a $219.5 million appropriation, AFOSR provided $205 million in funding to 513 academic institutions and industries to support 1,500 grants and contracts. Over 350 programs were then in progress in Air Force laboratories, industry and academia. In the same year, 382 programs transitioned from basic research (6.1 funding) to applied research (6.2 or 6.3 funding). Likewise, 352 basic research projects reached the application stage as new or improved products or processes. By contrast, in FY 1998, the appropriation shrank 5.6% to $207.2 million, and only 380 institutions were funded (a 26% reduction) with 1,220 grants and contracts (down 18.7%). In FY 1999, the appropriation was increased to $210.4 million³², but it still fell short of the FY 1997 level.

Grant proposals are submitted by academia and industry in response to broad requirements advertised by AFOSR.³³ Proposed projects are evaluated through peer merit review by the AFOSR staff. Potential projects need military relevance, a selection criterion which is a "very difficult, tough call" and a risky business itself. It is important that this emphasis on military relevance be balanced against long-term technological goals. The review process is not tied to the budget, but takes place as a continual cycle, frontloaded to the first half of the fiscal year. For grants and contracts, AFOSR has a team of key researchers who work with academia and industry. This process helps with project communications, with the transition of this basic research to applied research or application, and with continuity. Some funding is also provided by DoD, DARPA and BMDO.

Application of basic research, which is "inherently high risk," sometimes takes 10-15 years, but "usually" does not. "Surprisingly often," basic research results are applied directly to military systems. However, the continuing emphasis on military relevance "to some extent cools the risk-taking" and "makes you look a little nearer-term." Duration of research tends to be 5-10 years now, where once it was 15-20 years. AFOSR fosters the transition of research results to industry and government for further study, testing, logistics or systems applications. This transition is handled through the creation of partnerships associated with each research project, incorporating academia, government and industry. Ideas, information and proposals are exchanged through periodic seminars, so that research results are acted on when achieved.

Applied Research (6.2 Funds). Applied research is exploratory development, enabling technology—work which doesn't have a direct set of users, but has a broad base of potential customers. This research is repeatedly described by observers inside and outside the R&D community as the "seed corn" for future work. It is 70% performed by industry, managed through AFRL. The funding largely pays for S&T contracts, but 30% is devoted to sustaining in-house knowledge for proper management of future S&T. AFRL needs to retain expertise in technologies so that the Air Force and the international marketplace are not equal in technologies. The Air Force must maintain the edge. "I don't want every cellular phone to have the same capability I have in my airplane," says one program manager. It is the technology directors' interaction with their customers that helps them anticipate future technology needs. Stealth is one example where this ability to predict uses for future technologies, even without a specific customer, was a precursor to the incorporation of application concepts into the Air Force Strategic Plan. "That's a difficult issue, because it's hard sometimes to get sustained support for those types of things," one AFRL briefer noted in discussing new exotic technologies. One example of a program in 6.2 development in 1999 is Lockheed-Martin's Moving/Stationary Targeting and Recognition (MSTAR) program, funded jointly with DARPA, which involves the prediction of image configurations under a variety of variables. It has potential application to automatic target recognition in intelligent target seekers but as yet has no sponsor. To gain customers for such 6.2 projects, AFRL interacts with potential users, works to understand their requirements, and demonstrates potential technology—both in the 6.2 and the 6.3 process.

Advanced Development (6.3 Funds). Advanced development expenditures are AFRL-administered and are largely for industry contracts devoted to transitioning technologies into weapons. The transition of a project from 6.2 to 6.3 is not well defined but depends on the project's state of development. Having a future customer and a capability ready to be turned into a "product" are necessary before AFRL will undertake a 6.3 program. A 6.3 project is very focused on Air Force core competencies, it has a specific customer, and it has definite beginning and ending dates. This research involves feasibility studies, prototype and advanced development, and the integration of technologies into systems. Part of AFRL's declared current strategy is to prepare for the future aerospace force by sustaining investment in both air and space research while protecting and focusing the "most critical" part of the air investment. "We are not getting out of air": 45% of the AFRL budget is still uniquely air.

The normal implementation of a 6.3 project is as an Advanced Technology Demonstrator. ATDs³⁴ are paid for by AFRL but focused on at least a single operator. ATDs are approved and prioritized by the major commands. These technology initiatives address major customer needs and can lead to engineering development products in 3-6 years under what is known as 6.4 funding. Although funding continues to be an AFRL responsibility, a technology transition plan is required, which constitutes a formal agreement between AFRL and the potential customer. This plan provides an exit strategy and prevents self-perpetuating programs. The agreement is necessary because there is some difficulty getting 6.3 products moved across the seam into 6.4 engineering development, at which point the using command assumes funding responsibility for the technology. One current example of a system waiting for funding is the Small Smart Bomb, now ready to move into engineering development, which would allow one F-16 to carry the weapons load of eight aircraft, easing support requirements.

A New Element: The Battlelabs. "Perhaps one area where major concerns about an integrated command [AFMC] linger is in science and technology management," one former defense official has said, noting that the Air Force's transition to an air and space force depends on continued exploitation of a range of advanced technologies. Although the AFMC's incorporation of the labs and product centers was "key to linking systems development to operator needs," she said, success in bringing research to fruition "depends on a command structure that stays close to the operator's `requirements pull.'"³⁵

The Air Force vision statement, Global Engagement: A Vision of the 21^st Century Air Force, released in November 1996, provides one response to such concerns:

"The Air Force is committed to a vigorous program of experimenting, testing, exercising and evaluating new operational concepts and systems for air and space power. It will provide additional emphasis in six areas of ongoing activity in Air Force centers of excellence. That will be accomplished with a series of focused battle laboratories for space, air expeditionary forces, battle management, force protection, information warfare and unmanned aerial vehicles."

The six Air Force battle labs have the mission of "identifying innovative ideas, assessing their merit, and validating innovative operational concepts."³⁶ The service battle labs "enable warfighters, developers, and industry to work together to exploit technological advancements and synchronize advanced warfighting concepts," according to Secretary Cohen. The six Air Force battle labs' mission is "rapidly identifying and proving the worth of innovative and revolutionary operations and logistics concepts with near- and mid-term applications," providing opportunities "to reach investment decisions more quickly."³⁷

As one knowledgeable observer pointed out, "The Air Force's six new battle labs will soon generate demand for modifications, acquisition, and integration of systems to provide enhanced capability."³⁸

AFRL is establishing formal and informal contacts with "most" of the battlelabs, but assignments are voluntary, so these connections are not yet made easily. The battlelabs are not R&D groups but are interested in ideas near implementation. These links can be expected to be more active in the future. However, initial reaction has been mixed: some links to the battle labs seem to be working well; others not so well. Some AFRL-initiated technologies are receiving more rapid demonstration, but the record is spotty. The battle labs' continued search for innovative technologies may force AFRL into an even more customer-oriented outlook. The battle labs do, in most cases, seem more closely linked to the warfighter than AFRL is.