Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

2 Analysis of Army S&T Authorities and Funding
Pages 31-60

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 31...
... Organizations such as the Army Research ­Laboratory and the research centers are now under AFC direct control and others, such as Engineer Research and Development Center, while not under its direct control, are still influenced by it through the S&T work that AFC funds. The element of speed is vital.
From page 32...
... It is the basic science and early development of new technologies or capabilities before they are transitioned to the acquisition community. 6.1 is Basic Research, 6.2 is Applied Research, 6.3 is Advanced Technology Demonstration, and 6.4 is Advanced Component Development and Prototypes.
From page 33...
... With the establishment of AFC, RDECOM, now renamed the Combat Capabilities Development Command (CCDC, more commonly called DEVCOM) was reorganized under AFC, with AFC replacing ASA (ALT)
From page 34...
... Army doctrine remains unchanged, creating confusion as to who is responsible for what.6 Per Army Directive 2020-15, the Army designated the commanding general (CG) of AFC as the Chief Futures Modernization Investment Officer in coordination with the ASA (ALT)
From page 35...
... It should also be noted that not all S&T efforts lead directly to an acquisition program. Discussions with AFC representatives indicated that the eight CFTs were now, in essence, leading both processes -- capability requirements generation and S&T budget allocation -- as each CFT seeks to execute its responsibilities in accordance with the modernization priorities.
From page 36...
... In contrast, early S&T priorities look beyond modernization to capabilities development for mid- and long-term systems that would support future moderni­zation campaigns. The committee debated the abilities of individual CFTs -- each laser-focused on a near-term modernization priority -- to ­differentiate between S&T priorities and the current modernization priorities.
From page 37...
... /AAE. Finally, as defined by DoD budget policy, modernization budgeting needs to occur via spiraling in new technologies when possible in established acquisition programs.10 Despite the confusion and growing pains associated with CFTs, capability requirements development, and S&T resource allocation, the committee learned during its data gathering that putting all the modernization under AFC was "a very good thing" from the perspective of many in the community.
From page 38...
... Finding: As defined by DoD budget policy, modernization budgeting needs to occur via spiraling in new technologies when possible in established acquisition programs. Conclusion: The CFTs have significant influence in both capa bility requirements generation and resource allocation (funding levels and performer selection)
From page 39...
... Army Futures Command Relationship with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)
From page 40...
... , but the committee did not find evidence of the required revision. Finding: Many AFC organizational elements and senior Army offi cials perform a variety of S&T-related tasks across the Army, but their functions, ties, and relative positions of authority and responsibility regarding both the near-term modernization efforts and maintaining a vigorous long-term S&T program is not clear.
From page 41...
... Of these, the committee defines 6.1 and 6.2 together as the Tech Base.25 The committee learned that there is considerable S&T research ongoing in AFC, especially within DEVCOM. Figure 2.1 shows two 5-year snapshots of requested funding for S&T work within AFC units (the Army programming notation "PB20" covers FY 2020-2024; "PB21" covers FY 2021-2025)
From page 42...
... Army Futures Command, 2021, "Resource Prioritization to Support Strategic Directions," presentation to the committee.
From page 43...
... 61 in National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2021, U.S. Department of Defense, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/FY21_Green_Book.pdf.
From page 44...
... SOURCE: U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command HQ G8 Office, 2021, funding figures provided to committee members from the U.S.
From page 45...
... RDECOM worked with the S&T portfolio managers in the Office of the DASA (R&T) , the Army's principal official overseeing S&T, to ensure key programs were supported and appropriate balances of innova tion versus modernization work and intramural versus extramural work were maintained.26,27 RDECOM would subsequently direct funding to ARL and the applied RDECs to support intramural work.
From page 46...
... SOURCE: U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command HQ G8 Office, 2016, funding figures provided to committee members by the U.S.
From page 47...
... 29 U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command HQ G8 Office, 2021, remarks delivered to the committee.
From page 48...
... A viable S&T base needs a commensurate increase in funding to prevent a widening disparity between modern ization and innovation and to keep pace with future needs. Impacts of Funding Trends on Army S&T Impacts on DEVCOM Centers and the Army Research Laboratory Maintaining the viability of the DEVCOM's centers is critical.
From page 49...
... , 2021, "Table 5-5: Department of Defense Deflators -- TOA by Category," p. 61 in National Defense Budget Estimates for FY 2021, U.S.
From page 50...
... An interesting note found throughout the FY 2021 R2 exhibits (exhibits that explain the Defense RDT&E by budget activity and line item) that justify the S&T budget states that "adjustments align program financial structure to Army Modernization Priorities"31 [emphasis added]
From page 51...
... To AFC's credit, the committee learned that its programming guidance for FY 2022-2026 did mention inherent Army technology capabilities, although not specifically Army-center viability, as follows: "build and maintain a core competency that is inherent to the Army that industry or universities cannot/will not do."33 Conclusion: There appears to be a desire to maintain core compe tency in AFC's technology centers -- that is, DEVCOM, but AFC real locations of S&T funds to new AFC extramural partners raise con cerns about DEVCOM's long-term viability. Trends in Funding and Intramural versus Extramural Work AFC has other subordinate units that receive S&T funding, but they are generally not bench performers or technology program managers like those in the DEVCOM organizations.
From page 52...
... , AAL, AI2C, the Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences, Project Convergence, etc. are no longer made by technology program managers in the centers, but rather by AFC and some of its other subordinate units.
From page 53...
... The committee was very attentive to the funding level of the Tech Base because that is the prime source of innovations for the mid- and long-term which is well past the current 2035 modernization objectives. Overall, the Tech Base has been exceeding 6.3 and exhibiting some growth during the FY 2017-FY 2021 period.
From page 54...
... Army's six Modernization Priorities to deliver concepts and capabilities at the Speed of Innovation."38 As the Army's corporate research laboratory, the increasing alignment of ARL's 6.1 and 6.2 funded programs with the established modernization priorities could pose a potential risk to discover, innovate, and transition new and unanticipated technologies that could be powerful and even disruptive beyond the immediate planning horizon -- for example, human, informational, and computational sciences to sciences for materials, lethality, protection and maneuver, assessment and analysis, and extramural basic research. The central issue for ARL is the alignment of its 38P.
From page 55...
... In light of planned modernization-oriented percentages like 74 percent, statements made to the committee by a retired senior Army officer and a former DASA (R&T) indicate that Army S&T funding would be moving toward a goal of 60 percent of S&T funding aimed at modernization priorities and 40 percent focused on 6.1 and 6.2 funding.
From page 56...
... Whether the 60/40 outcome or the 74/26 outcome cited in the quote above will happen is unknown; neither is it known what the final composition of the innovation component will be nor whether innovation funding will be aimed at the DEVCOM centers or elsewhere. As important as the split of S&T funding between innovation and modernization efforts is the absolute funding level applied to S&T.
From page 57...
... This could create a situation where the S&T bud get is consumed in supporting the modernization priorities, giv ing short shrift to future-looking innovations and developing revolutionary capabilities. • If the Army is staking its future on modernization fueled by S&T funds, then it needs to advocate for S&T resources greater that 2 percent of the Army budget and also clearly invest in longer term technology development in order to ensure the Army does not sacrifice long-term capability development for short-term operational needs.
From page 58...
... ; trends in Army S&T funding; a shift from more far-term exploratory S&T in favor of the nearerterm Army modernization priorities; and the balance between intramural and extramural S&T funding and the related impacts on the Army's corporate laboratories. In the course of drafting the report, the committee initially took the more conventional approach of placing findings where they naturally occurred in the text.
From page 59...
... to support Army modernization priorities, dem onstrate leadership support for future Army capabilities, support a robust Army innovation and technology discovery effort, and guarantee a viable intramural RDT&E capability where it is most critical, the Army should program for and request S&T (6.1, 6.2, and 6.3) budget levels that are increased by at least as much as Congress annually increases Army S&T and reflect real growth throughout the Army Modernization period.
From page 60...
... ARMY FUTURES COMMAND RESEARCH PROGRAM REALIGNMENT of AFC and ASA (ALT) to define and codify the executive's authori ties and responsibilities.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.