Sections

Introduction

Military Supremacy through Technological Superiority

Defence R&D Establishments

DARPA

R&D Organisations of the Military Departments

FFRDCs and UARCs

Defence Innovation Agencies

Noteworthy Features of the US Defence R&D Enterprise

References

Introduction

Over the decades, India’s defense science, technology and industrial (DSTI) sector, with the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) in the lead, has by and large failed to deliver on the ground, barring a few notable successes. This is despite the fact that this sector comprises of 52 scientific laboratories, 15 national S&T agencies, 50 public sector units that include eight defense public sector undertakings, 40 ordnance factories, 250 plus private-sector industries, and partnerships with a number of academic institutions. Many of DRDO’s strategic programs, including technologies which have matured, have endured lengthy delays leading to technological obsolescence [1]. The uninspiring performance by India so far in indigenising defence technology is only expected to worsen in the coming years. This is because, with the advent of highly sophisticated and disruptive military technologies such as AI & robotics, quantum, nano and hypersonic technologies, the challenges of keeping pace with the demands of 21st century battlespace will increase enormously.

Much has been written over the years on bringing about transformative changes to India’s military industrial complex. The current series of articles is yet another effort in the same direction, but with a difference: this work adopts an introspective approach from the standpoint of the Defence Services, based on the conviction that the main impediments to bringing about the desired transformative change are to be found within the Services.

In this first article of the series, the R&D ecosystem of the US is reviewed, with the aim of identifying features which may be adapted usefully in the Indian context. Subsequent write-ups will carry out a similar analysis for other countries which lead the race in military technologies, notably China. The series will culminate by suggesting structural changes to the Indian defence R&D set-up, with focus on initiatives to be taken by the Defence Services.

Military Supremacy through Technological Superiority

Ever since the termination of World War II, the US Department of Defense (DOD), through what are termed as offset strategies involving huge investments in R&D, has driven the global technology landscape with the objective of maintaining military supremacy over its potential adversaries. The First Offset Strategy dates back to the 1950s, in which the US countered the Soviet Union’s conventional numerical superiority through the build-up of America’s nuclear deterrent, while the Second Offset Strategy was put in motion in the 1970s, shepherding the development of precision-guided munitions, stealth, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems to counter the numerical superiority and improving technical capability of Warsaw Pact forces. In November 2014, a new Defense Innovation Initiative, also termed as the Third Offset Strategy, was announced, which focused on cutting edge technologies such as robotics, autonomous systems, miniaturization, big data, advanced manufacturing, and 3D printing [2].

Despite maintaining technological superiority at the global level, the overall US share in global R&D has nevertheless dwindled over the years. In 1960, the US accounted for 69% of global R&D, with US defense-related R&D accounting for more than one-third of global R&D (36%). However, from 1960 to 2016, the US share of global R&D fell to 28%, and federal defense R&D’s share of total global R&D fell to 3.7%. This decline resulted primarily from more rapid increases in the R&D of other nations, and partially from increases in US business R&D and federal non-defense R&D [3].

Among the challenges DOD faces in acquiring new, innovative technologies and maintaining US military technical superiority are restructuring organizations and business models to access this technology; adapting the DOD business culture to seek and embrace technologies developed outside of DOD and its traditional contractor base; and finding ways to adapt and leverage commercial technologies for defense applications.

A number of actions have been taken by the US Congress and the DOD to address the perceived decline in technical superiority, including establishing the position of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD R&E) to create a more agile and innovative department, and increasing DOD collaboration with industry and academia. Some of the measures put in place to give a boost to defence innovation are discussed in subsequent sections.

Defence R&D Establishments

The primary DOD R&D establishments are the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which functions directly under one Office of the Secretary of Defence (OSD), and the defence laboratories which are organic to the four Defence Departments, namely, Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. The principle defence R&D establishments are as under:-

While the DARPA does not have any captive laboratories, and coordinates research through the industry, academic institutions and other external R&D establishments, each of the four DOD Departments have substantial R&D resources under their command. The most extensive resources are with the Army under the Army Futures Command, which was created in 2018 and enjoys the same status as its other three apex level commands, namely, the US Army Forces Command (FORCECOM), the US Army Training & Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and the US Army Materiel Command (AMC). R&D establishments of the Navy, Marine Corps and the Air Force are under the Office of Naval Research, the Marine Combat Development Command and the Air Force Materiel Command respectively [4, 5, 6, 7].

The following sections discuss in some detail how R&D activities are carried out by DARPA and the Military Departments.

DARPA

Background

The DOD created the DARPA in 1958, partly in response to the launch of the first Sputnik satellite by the former Soviet Union. DARPA is focused on research that is intended to achieve transformative change, or “high-risk, high-reward” R&D, rather than incremental advances. DARPA investments have resulted in a number of significant breakthroughs in military technology, including precision guided munitions, stealth technology, unmanned aerial vehicles, and infrared night vision technology. DARPA-sponsored R&D has also led to the development of notable commercial products and technologies such as the Internet, global positioning system (GPS), automated voice recognition, and personal electronics.

The nature of the high-risk, high-reward approach to funding taken by DARPA also results in a number of failed or less successful projects. For example, in 2011, the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 failed to meet expectations, exploding nine minutes into a 30-minute planned test flight. More recently in 2020, DARPA ended its Launch Challenge without awarding a winner [8].

Organisational Structure

DARPA is an independent agency of the DOD, explicitly separate from the R&D organizations of the military departments, thus ensuring that its R&D efforts are not tied to specific roles or missions of the military services. The Director of DARPA reports to the USD R&E.

DARPA comprises of approximately 220 government employees, including nearly 100 program managers, who together oversee about 250 research and development programs.

DARPA does not directly perform research or operate any research laboratories, but rather executes its R&D programs mainly through contracts with industry, universities, non-profit organizations, and federal R&D laboratories.

DARPA is a relatively flat organization consisting of the Director’s Office and six technical program offices, as depicted below:-

The DARPA Model

DARPA’s organizational structure allows it to operate in a fashion that is unique within the federal government, and its history of successful innovation is often attributed to the following four factors:-

• Trust and Autonomy. A very high level of trust and autonomy is provided to DARPA program managers, who are charged with selection of programs and projects, quickly funding innovative ideas and, if necessary, termination of the project.
• Limited Tenure. Program managers are hired for a limited tenure, generally three to five years. DARPA believes that the continued influx of new program managers infuses the agency with new ideas and personnel who have a passion for turning those ideas into reality as quickly as possible. Limited tenure and urgency is also reflected in how DARPA funds its projects, typically three to five years. If a program manager believes a new idea is not working out, he can terminate the project and redirect the funds to other projects.
• Sense of Mission. DARPA asserts that its mission “to prevent and create technological surprise” is an important factor in reinforcing and driving the innovative culture of the agency. The importance and ambition of the mission help fuel the drive toward innovation.
• Risk-Taking and Tolerance for Failure. DARPA asserts that its program managers often reject projects for not being sufficiently ambitious and view failure as the cost of supporting potentially transformative or revolutionary R&D.

DARPA’s Role in DOD R&D Initiatives

DARPA’s R&D efforts are generally long-term in character and often in areas where the national security need is initially unclear. As such, DARPA-supported research does not generally produce immediate, tangible results.

DARPA’s role in the DOD R&D enterprise is to explore new and unconventional concepts that have the possibility of leading to revolutionary advances in the technological capabilities of the military, potentially revising the traditional roles and missions of the military services.

The agency’s program managers are university faculty, entrepreneurs, and industry leaders, and are seen as the individuals closest to the technical challenges and potential solutions in a given field, and their connection to the R&D and entrepreneurial community is seen as critical to driving innovation. Additionally, DARPA often holds conferences, sponsors workshops, and supports travel by its program managers and its leadership to ensure the agency is fully informed of current and cutting-edge technologies and research. Ideas for R&D areas also come from DARPA leadership and from the military services. Ultimately, DARPA leadership is responsible for setting agency-wide priorities and ensuring a balanced investment portfolio.

Strategic Priorities

In 2019, DARPA released a document outlining the agency’s current areas of focus. Specifically, the agency is presently focusing its investments on four strategic initiatives [9]:-

• Defend the Homeland. This involves autonomous cybersecurity, strategic cyber deterrence, weapons of mass destruction sensing and defense, active bio-surveillance and bio threat countermeasures and defenses against hypersonic weapons.
• Deter and Prevail against High-end Adversaries. Aimed at Russia and China, this involves realizing new capabilities across the land, sea, and air domains, as well as in the newer space, cyber and electromagnetic domains. These capabilities must be developed and deployed with speed to stay ahead of increasingly capable adversaries.
• Prosecute Stabilization Efforts. This implies rapidly adapting to unconventional grey-zone conflicts and city-scale warfare, along with rigorous and reliable models to better understand and predict adversaries’ moves prior to engagement.
• Advance Foundational Research in Science and Technology. The best way to prevent technological surprise is to create it. Highest priority is assigned to investments that enable the US to maintain a technological advantage over adversaries while ensuring maximum deterrence.

DARPA Appropriations and Funding Trends

Nearly all of DARPA’s funding falls under the categories of basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development. Funding for these three categories is referred to by DOD as the science and technology (S&T) budget. DARPA’s remaining funding is for management support, which includes personnel salaries, travel, etc [10].

As stated previously, DARPA does not directly perform R&D, but supports R&D through contracts with industry, universities and other R&D agencies. As illustrated below, in FY2019 more than 65.5% ($2.3 billion) of DARPA’s R&D was performed by industry; universities and colleges performed 17.4% ($615.6 million) and intramural (external to DOD) R&D agencies (eg, federal laboratories) at 9.5% ($334.6 million).

The figure below depicts DARPA funding trends from FY1996 to FY2020 by character of work (ie, basic research, applied research, advanced technology development, and management support) in millions of dollars (not adjusted for inflation). Overall funding for DARPA increased by 52.4% from $2.27 billion in FY1996 to $3.46 billion in FY2020.

R&D Organisations of the Military Departments

The US Army: The Army Futures Command (AFC)

The establishment of AFC in Jul 2018 marked one of the most significant Army reorganization efforts since 1973, when the US Army Forces Command and US Army Training & Doctrine Command were created. AFC was raised with the aim of providing future warfighters with the concepts, capabilities and organizational structures needed to dominate a future battlefield.

The AFC has under it the Combat Capabilities Development Command, Cross Functional Teams and the Futures and Concept Centre, with the following roles [11]:-

• Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC). The CCDC was established as a major sub-command of AFC in Feb 2019. It was formerly known as the US Army Research, Development and Engineering Command, which was founded in 2002. It provides the Army with an organic R&D capability, spread across eight R&D establishments. More than 13,700 soldiers, civilian employees and direct contractors form this world-class team, which includes more than 10,000 engineers and scientists, many of whom are the Army’s leading experts in their fields.
• Futures and Concept Centre (FCC). The FCC assesses the threat and future operational environment, develops future concepts, requirements and an integrated modernization pathway to deploy, fight and win future wars.
• Cross Functional Teams. The CCDC supports the Army’s following eight modernization priorities through cross-functional teams: Air & Missile Defense; Assured Positioning, Navigation and Timing; Long-Range Precision Fires; Future Vertical Lift; Network; Next-Generation Combat Vehicle; Soldier Lethality and Synthetic Training Environment.

The US Air Force: Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)

The AFRL is a global technical enterprise under the Air Force Materiel Command, carrying out R&D for providing warfighting technologies for the air, space, and cyberspace forces. With a workforce of more than 10,000 across nine technical directorates and 40 other establishments across the globe, the AFRL provides a diverse portfolio of S&T programs that range from fundamental to advanced research and technology development [12].

The US Navy: Office of Naval Research (ONR)

The ONR coordinates, executes, and promotes the S&T programs of the US Navy and Marine Corps. It is organised into six departments: Information, Cyber and Spectrum Superiority; Ocean Battlespace and Expeditionary Access; Mission Capable, Persistent and Survivable Naval Platforms; Warfighter Performance; and Aviation, Force Projection and Integrated Defense. These fund basic research programs, primarily through universities; technology research programs, primarily through government and non-government laboratories; and advanced technology demonstration programs, primarily through industry and companies. Its primary organic research facility is the Naval Research laboratory (NRL) [13].

The NRL, established in 1923 at the instigation of Thomas Edison, is the research laboratory for the US Navy and the US Marine Corps. It employs approximately 2500 civilian scientists and engineers, and about 100 officers/ enlisted military personnel. It conducts basic scientific research, applied research, technological development and prototyping. The laboratory’s specialties include plasma physics, space physics, materials science, and tactical electronic warfare. NRL’s research expenditures are approximately $1 billion per year [14].

FFRDCs and UARCs

FFRDCs

A special class of research institutions, referred to as Federally Funded Research and Development Centres (FFRDCs), are owned by the federal government, but operated by contractors, universities, other non-profit organizations, and industrial firms. FFRDCs are intended to provide federal agencies with R&D capabilities that cannot be effectively met by the federal government or the private sector alone. FFRDCs are required to have a long-term strategic relationship with the federal agency that supports them. This relationship is presumed to convey a number of benefits, including having access to sensitive information; an in-depth knowledge of, and the capability to rapidly respond to, the R&D needs of the federal agency; and the capacity to offer independent and objective scientific and technical advice. Currently, the DOD sponsors 11 out of a total of 42 FFRDCs which are in existence today, as tabulated below [15]:-

UARCs

Currently, there are 14 University Affiliated Research Centres (UARCs), all sponsored by a DOD military service, agency, or component. UARCs provide an engineering, research, or development capability to the DOD. These are located within a university or college and typically receive funding of several million dollars per year.

The characteristics of UARCs are very similar to the FFRDCs. The defining feature of UARCs, like FFRDCs, is the long-term strategic relationship they have with their sponsoring federal agency. The primary differences between UARCs and FFRDCs are that UARCs must be affiliated with a university, must have education as part of their overall mission, and have greater flexibility to compete for public and private R&D contracts. Also, policy and contract oversight for a UARC is conducted by the military service or agency which is its primary sponsor, whereas in the case of FFRDCs, such oversight is at the level of the DOD [16,17].

Defence Innovation Agencies

As stated above, a number of agencies have been set up by the Congress and the DOD over the last decade to boost defence innovation in order to maintain its supremacy in military technologies. A brief overview of the primary agencies is given out in succeeding paragraphs [18].

Defence Innovation Unit (DIU)

The DIU was created in 2015 to complement the Pentagon’s existing defence S&T system of agencies with a new focus on ‘innovation for the warfighter’. The DIU’s critical areas of interest range from autonomy and AI to human systems, wider IT and space.

The DIU works with companies which might not usually work with the military by contracting swiftly for solutions that can be effectively adapted to military needs in a range of areas. It facilitates pilot contracts, not bound by the usual Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), between companies and DOD entities.

The DIU is comprised of 50 military and civilian personnel led by two partners, the Managing Partner and Chief Technology Officer. It solicits private-sector developers, receives their proposals, and sends them to a DIU Technology Review Group. This governance council, led by the Deputy Defense Secretary, is charged with reviewing project proposals in a merit-based approach to address particular problems facing DOD. The process is similar to the mechanism that DARPA and other agencies use widely.

The DIU makes use of the Other Transactional Authority (OTA), a long-standing contract that can be used to design prototype projects without the onerous rules and regulations of the traditional defense acquisition process. Congress created this authority in the 1950s for NASA, and a key innovation was for the DIU was to use this existing authority to engage companies more swiftly.

The Defence Innovation Board (DIB)

The DIB was established in 2016 by the DOD as an independent federal advisory committee. DIB members are appointed by the Secretary of Defense. Among its members are senior representatives from leading US technology companies, venture capital firms, research institutes, and universities. Its mission is to provide the Secretary and other senior leaders across the DOD with independent advice and recommendations on innovative means to address future challenges through the prism of three focus areas: people and culture, technology and capabilities, and practices and operations.

The DIB is part of the larger, emerging innovation ecosystem at the DOD. It works closely with the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and with service members and civilians across DOD, looking to bring innovation and entrepreneurship to the DOD. Some of the foremost topics include AI and machine learning; software workforce capacity building; hiring and retention of innovation, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (I+STEM) talent; acquisition reform; communication networks; information technology infrastructure; and working with the technology industry.

National Security Innovation Network (NSIN)

The NSIN (erstwhile MD5, which was launched in 2016 and renamed to NSIN in 2019) provides the tools, training, and access to DOD assets (eg infrastructure and intellectual property) that empower entrepreneurs to build businesses that serve critical security needs. By creating high-impact ventures based on non-sensitive defence technology, or based on key military challenges, the programme links the military and entrepreneurial worlds.

Rather than making investments in specific technologies, government R&D programs, or individual startups, critical areas of interest for NSIN focus on building human capital to create awareness of and interest in solving national security problems. NSIN promotes civil-military technology collaboration between the DOD and a large network of top US research universities.

NSIN consists of a small team (less than 50) of experienced entrepreneurs and long-time national security professionals, working under the DOD.

Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO)

The SCO was established in 2012 and works with DOD, services, laboratories and agencies to find new, innovative ways of using existing technologies and weapon systems.

The SCO develops new tactical uses for existing military technologies having scientists and engineers take military systems that do one thing and make them do something completely different. For instance, the SCO led a project to give a Navy anti-aircraft weapon the ability to target ships at long range. Similarly, the SCO has led development of the arsenal plane, a new anti-ship capability for the SM-6 missile and swarming drones on the sea and in the air.

Other Agencies

Other defence innovation initiatives of note include SOFWERX created by the United States Special Operations Command (US SOCOM) to address special requirements for their Command, and the Open Campus Initiative of the ARL, described as “an effort to create strong, enduring S&T partnerships” through the co-location of Army R&D personnel in S&T hubs.

Noteworthy Features of the US Defence R&D Enterprise

As stated at the outset, the motivation for this work is to explore ideas on how to carry out transformative restructuring of India’s Defence R&D enterprise and processes by studying the approaches of world leaders in defence technology. In this context, the following features of the US Defence R&D ecosystem are noteworthy:-

• Captive R&D Resources with Military Departments. One of the most striking features of the US Defence R&D enterprise is the vast organic R&D resources available to the Army, Air Force and Navy. For instance, the Army CCDC employs 10,000 scientists and engineers across its multiple R&D establishments. Similarly, the AFRL has a total workforce of 10,000 personnel, while the NRL employs approximately 2500 scientists and engineers. The large number of captive laboratories controlled the three military departments through specialist directorates and cross-functional teams undoubtedly ensure a high level of commitment and accountability, in turn resulting in successful R&D.
• The DARPA Model: Lean, Flat, Specialist and Extramural. DARPA may be characterised as a lean, flat and specialist organisation, with time-bound projects. Its many notable features include: taking on R&D for only potentially transformative technologies; highly specialist profiles of its leaders and managers; and the fact that its R&D is carried out entirely by external agencies, primarily the industry and academic institutions.
• Direct Engagement with Academic Institutions. Academic institutions play a direct and substantial role in executing defence R&D projects and do not merely support the Industry, as is evident from the following: a significant number of DARPA projects are allocated to academic institutions; there are 14 UARCs which are sponsored by the DOD; and defence laboratories too have project partnerships with various universities.
• Innovation and Agility. Despite being the world leader in defence technology, when faced with the growing technological prowess of its competitors, primarily China and Russia, the US was agile enough to take several steps for giving a boost to defence innovation, especially in the disruptive technologies of 21st Century battlespace (AI, quantum, cyber, hypersonic). These include the creation of the DIB, the DIU, the NSIN, the SCO, amongst others, all within the last 5-8 years.
• FFRDCs. The FFRDCs, best characterised by their long-term strategic relationship with the DOD as well as access to sensitive information, is also a concept which may be worth emulating.

Conclusion

In this article, the defence R&D establishments and innovation agencies of the US have been reviewed. The aspects which stand out the most are the immense R&D resources directly under the command of the military departments, the unique organizational model of DARPA, and the transformative steps which have been taken by the US Government in recent years to encourage innovation in defence technologies.

The next article in this series will carry out a similar review of the Chinese defence R&D ecosystem.

 

References

(1)     D R Mohanty, A Dismal Show Amid Pockets of Excellence: The State of Defense Innovation in India, IGCC Defence Innovation Briefs, Jan 2014, Accessed 22 Jul 20, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/5g13p8b6.

(2)     Lt Gen (Dr) R S Panwar, Artificial Intelligence in Military Operations; An Overview – Part II, 29 Sep 2017, Accessed 23 Jul 2020, https://futurewars.rspanwar.net/artificial-intelligence-in-military-operations-an-overview-part-ii/.

(3)     The Global Research and Development Landscape and Implications for the Department of Defense, CRS Report, 08 Nov 2018, Accessed 23 Jul 2020, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R45403.pdf, pp. 4-6.

(4)     Army Futures Command, AFC Website, Accessed 23 Jul 2020, https://armyfuturescommand.com/.

(5)     Office of Naval Research, ONR Website, Accessed 23 Jul 2020, https://www.onr.navy.mil/Science-Technology.

(6)     Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory, US Marine Corps Website, Accessed 23 Jul 2020, https://www.mcwl.marines.mil/.

(7)     Air Force Research Laboratory, AFRL Website, Accessed 26 Jul 2020, https://www.wpafb.af.mil/afrl/.

(8)     Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: Overview and Issues for Congress, 17 Mar 2020, CRS Report, Accessed 23 Jul 2020, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R45088.pdf, pp. 1-2.

(9)     Stephen H Walker, DARPA Strategic Framework 2019, Aug 2019, DARPA, Accessed 23 Jul 2020, https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/DARPA-2019-framework.pdf, pp. 9.

(10)   Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: Overview and Issues for Congress, 17 Mar 2020, CRS Report, Accessed 23 Jul 2020, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R45088.pdf, pp. 9-12.

(11)   Army Futures Command, AFC Website ….

(12)   Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Fact Sheet, WPAFB Webpage, 08 Nov 2019, Accessed 23 Jul 2019, https://www.wpafb.af.mil/Welcome/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1146061/wright-patterson-air-force-base/.

(13)   Office of Naval Research, ONR Website ….

(14)   United States Naval Research Laboratory, Wikipedia, Updated 05 Jul 2020, Accessed 23 Jul 2020, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Naval_Research_Laboratory.

(15)   Marcy E Gallo, Federally Funded Research and Development Centres (FFRDCs): Background and Issues for Congress, 03 Apr 2020, CRS Report, Accessed 23 Jul 2020, https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/ 20200403_R44629_500a36b7ca2f02bad751f25374ef6468b8c11c83.pdf.

(16)   Ibid., pp. 5.

(17)   University-Affiliated Research Centre Laboratories (UARCs), Defence Innovation Marketplace Website, Business Page/ FFRDCs and UARCs, Accessed 23 Jul 2020, https://defenseinnovationmarketplace.dtic.mil/ ffrdcs-uarcs/.

(18)   Dr Phil Budden and Prof Fiona Murray, Defense Innovation Report: Applying MIT’s Innovation Ecosystem & Stakeholder Approach to Innovation in Defense on a Country-by-Country Basis, May 2019, MIT lab for Innovation Science and Policy, Accessed 23 Jul 2020, https://innovation.mit.edu/assets/Defense-Innovation-Report.pdf.