SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC98058
[H.A.S.C. No. 10824]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005H.R. 4200
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TITLE IIRESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
TITLE IIIOPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
MARCH 4, 11, 25, 31, APRIL 1, 2004
TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey, Chairman
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
JEFF MILLER, Florida
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCJO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
JIM TURNER, Texas
ADAM SMITH, Washington
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
RICK LARSEN, Washington
JIM COOPER, Tennessee
Thomas Hawley, Professional Staff Member
Jean Reed, Professional Staff Member
Uyen Dinh, Professional Staff Member
William Natter, Professional Staff Member
Curtis Flood, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC2004
Thursday, March 25, 2004, Fiscal Year 2005 National Defense Authorization ActDepartment of Defense Science and Technology Policy Programs
Thursday, March 25, 2004
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2004
FISCAL YEAR 2005 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACTDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY PROGRAMS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Meehan, Hon. Martin T., a Representative from Massachusetts, Ranking Member, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee
Saxton, Hon. Jim, a Representative from New Jersey, Chairman, Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Cohen, Rear Adm. Jay M., Chief of Naval Research
Engle, James B., Deputy Assistant Secretary, Air Force Science and Technology and Engineering
Kamp, Capt. John, Assistant Chief of Naval Research
Killion, Dr. Thomas, Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA
Sega, Hon. Ronald, Director, Defense Research and Engineering
Tether, Dr. Anthony, Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA
[The Prepared Statements can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Cohen, Rear Adm. Jay M.
Engle, James B.
Killion, Dr. Thomas
Meehan, Hon. Martin T.
Saxton, Hon. Jim
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sega, Hon. Ronald
Tether, Dr. Anthony
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD:
[The Questions and Answers can be viewed in the hard copy.]
FISCAL YEAR 2004 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACTDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY PROGRAMS
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Thursday, March 25, 2004.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 p.m. in room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Saxton (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY, CHAIRMAN, TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. SAXTON. Today the subcommittee on terrorism unconventional threats and capabilities will hear testimony on the fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Department of Defense's (DOD) Science and Technology Program and plans and priorities for the future. We will discuss with the director of Defense Research and Engineering, Ronald Sega, the Military Department's science and technology chiefs, and the director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), how the program supports the global war on terrorism, and what needs to be done to accelerate the identification, development and transition of advanced technologies that are critical to the defense transformation.
In 1983, then Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger said: ''we face the danger of losing our edge because we have not adequately replenished the reservoir of scientific concepts and knowledge to nourish future technologies. We must systematically replenish the science reservoir using the unique and diverse strength of the United States scientific community. Given the relatively long lead time between the fundamental discovery and applying such knowledge to defense systems, the true measures of our success may not be apparent for several decades. When the moment of truth, he said, arrives, we cannot afford to be found waiting.''
President Harry Truman summarized the issue more succinctly in 1945 when he said: ''no aspect of military preparedness is more important than scientific research.''
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC President Truman and Secretary Weinberger's statements are no less true today. Technological superiority over our adversaries is the cornerstone of U.S. national military strategy. Historically, a robust defense science and technology program has been key to meeting the known needs of major capabilities providing the technological bridge to new weapons systems during periods of reduced funding for development and acquisition and enabling the development of totally new operational concepts and capabilities that are as yet unforeseen.
For the past two decades, previous administrations and the Congress have faced the issues raised by President Truman and Secretary Weinberger. These issues confront the Bush administration and the Congress today: What should be the role of the Federal Government and the Department of Defense in supporting the science and technological research and development? On what technologies should the defense S&T program focus? What is the appropriate level of funding for the program? How are we changing the program to support the global war on terrorism and defense transformation? How do we accelerate the transition of technology from the laboratory to the military user in the field? What is the importance of our DOD laboratories to the program? And perhaps among the most important, what is needed to ensure the development of the ''best and brightest'' young scientists and engineers who will provide our country and its Armed Forces the advances in science technology and advanced systems and capabilities that will ensure our national security?
To address these issues, we have a distinguished panel of witnesses from the Department of Defense. The Honorable Ron Sega, Director of Defense Research and Engineering; Dr. Anthony Tether, Director of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA; Dr. Thomas Killion, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology; Rear Admiral Jay M. Cohen, Chief of Naval Research; Mr. James B Engle, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Air Force Science and Technology and Engineering.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Gentlemen, we look forward to hearing your testimony. Dr. Sega, before you begin, I would like to yield to the ranking member for any statement he may have. My friend, Marty Meehan.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton can be viewed in the hard copy.]
STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN T. MEEHAN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM MASSACHUSETTS, RANKING MEMBER, TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming our panelist and it is also great to see the Department of Defense's talented S&T team led by Dr. Sega. I would like to associate myself with the chairman's opening remarks and offer a few of my own.
I strongly support this panel's across-the-board efforts to promote S&T investment, especially in the fields that offer the promise of major advancements in the near or not too distant future. For example, chemical and biological research, nano technology, innovative propulsion, and various information technologies can give us the critical advances particularly in the area of surveillance, battle management and intelligence (Intel) collection. As we learned last year in testimony from General Brown, commander of the Special Operations Command, the fight against terrorism is, at its core, an intelligence-based problem.
I certainly agree that accurate intelligence and actionable intelligence are essential and I am interested in learning what we can do to help make sure that we have the technological tools we need to gather this intelligence against terrorism. I would also be curious to know how our panelists think about which areas are more promising than others. Which areas are more important than others.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In fact, I think it would be useful for them to rank order each area so that we can get a better sense of the priorities of the department and learn why such priorities are or are not emphasized.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and join you in welcoming each of the members of the panel and look forward to hearing their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Meehan can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. We are going to recognize Dr. Sega to begin. I would just like to remark, yesterday I had an opportunity to address a group at lunchtime on the challenges of facing terrorism. During the question and answer period one gentleman said, as Marty just did, how important intelligence is. And he said in fact, in the war on terror, there are three main aspects that are the most important: Intelligence, intelligence, intelligence. And then someone else remarked: Well, that is almost true. It certainly is intelligence, intelligence, and then the willingness to take action.
So I think that we are learning all about this war as we go along here. And it certainly is different than anything we have ever done before and that is why we depend on you.
Dr. Sega, and your colleagues to help us through these many issues. Thank you. Sir, the floor is yours.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOCSTATEMENT OF HON. RONALD SEGA, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING
Dr. SEGA. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and talk about the science and technology (S&T) program of the Department of Defense. I request that my written testimony be submitted for the record.
Mr. SAXTON. Without objection.
Dr. SEGA. S&T remains postured to support both the near term global war on terrorism and the transformation of DOD. We are excited about the capabilities and possibilities that continue to be opened by S&T throughout the Department.
Secretary Rumsfeld stated in last month's fiscal year 05 budget testimony that the Department and Congress have a common challenge: To support the troops and to make sure they have what they need to defend the Nation in the years ahead. The Department's S&T program is vital to the support of our troops and simultaneously developing the capabilities for our future forces.
While there are still many challenges, I believe the S&T program has been productive over the past year and the increasing emphasis on accelerating transition of technology is showing positive results.
The President's fiscal year 05 budget request for DOD S&T is up approximately 1.5 percent in real growth from the fiscal year 04 President's budget request.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As the director of Defense Research and Engineering, serving the role of the Department's chief technology officer, I established five priorities. These priorities facilitate the Secretary of Defense's goals. Our research and engineering goals are as follows:
Number one, to integrate DOD S&T and focus on transformation. Here we have looked at three crosscutting initiatives and there are several service based initiatives that are also supporting transformation and the global war on terrorism and you will hear from the services shortly on those.
One of the crosscutting issues is the national aerospace initiative. Here we look at advancing high speed and hypersonic capabilities, space access, and space technology.
A second crosscutting area is energy and power technologies. Here the outcome is enabling a more electric force, improving the generation of power, the storage of energy, and the conversion of it to practical applications.
Third is surveillance and knowledge systems. Here we are providing the underpinning technology to enable an integrated C4ISR for the Department of Defense: Command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance. Certainly as we go forward in the network centric approach to warfare we need information assurance and we will be talking about that more as we go along.
Number two, is to address the national security science engineering workforce. To begin to address these issues, within the past year the Department has increased the individual stipend and total number of national defense graduate fellowships. We are continuing to examine our future workforce needs to make sure that we will have the best talent available for national security research and development (R&D).
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Number three, to expand the outreach to the combatant commands and the intelligence communities. Our joint warfighting science and technology plan has been changed and it now aligns with joint functional concepts. The connection between the joint staff, combatant commands and the research and engineering community has been strengthened. We have increased the number of advanced concept technology demonstrations and they need a combatant commander for a sponsor. We have also increased the technology and Intel communities collaboration which helps in S&T planning.
Number four, is the enhancement of technology transitioning. The relevance of research and engineering efforts hinges on the rapid transition of technology to fielded military forces. In partnership with Congress we established the quick reaction special projects program, QRSP. It is a flexible continuum of technology transition projects that moves products from R&D to the warfighter quickly. And we have the flexibility within the execution year to act on new ideas and to respond to new needs of the warfighter.
QRSP is an important valued and important mechanism for technology transition. It includes three technology transition projects. One is a quick reaction fund. Those that have had the opportunity or will have the opportunity to look in the various displays here will see Dragon Eye. In this case this is a man portable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that we brought the UAV community and the sensor community together and integrated a small package that does a chemical analysis function, a collection of bioagents as well as a collection for radiological elements, if there are any, and a small camera all integrated in the same package. This was done in a matter of weeks to look at integrating these activities.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC As we looked at addressing the issue of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), we went from basic chemistry and the thermobaric explosive to a fielded system in roughly 90 days. The work was being done at Indian Head one month after the laboratory work was basically brought to a point where we could decide on a candidate. Static testing was performed in Nevada and a flight test the following month. This was October to December of 2001, and fielded.
Second is technology transition initiative. One is a water purification pen developed with DARPA technology and we fielded 200 residual items in Afghanistan and OEF. Accelerated the production to about 2,500 units in fiscal year 03, and around 4,000 units in fiscal year 04. That is going from early discovery, residuals, to a transition program.
The third area is the defense acquisition challenge program. Out of the 300 roughly submissions, we selected 23 of those. One example is the restore effective survival in shock called RESUS, a polymerized hemoglobin which is able to help us in our battle casualty application.
We also have leveraged the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) program to get the best technology to the joint war fighter in the shortest period of time. Other applications for technology and transition include man tech in Title III of the Defense Production Act.
Number five, in the priorities is the acceleration of technical support to the war on terrorism. We formed a combating terrorism technology task force in September of 2001. Working with the leadership of the technical community, the services and agencies have brought together items that could be fielded quickly. The thermobaric weapon was one example that was brought forward in rapid time. A nuclear quadripole resonance system is another for the Navy during 2001. We continued that forum that now includes other agencies besides the Department of Defense, to look at technologies that could be accelerated. These are prioritized with the combatant commands.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today we are in Phase III of that activity focused on force protection. We look at areas of improving ISR, improving electronic countermeasures, language translation aids. Another example of going from the technology in OEF of a phrasolator developed with DARPA technology now expands to not only a one-way translation into four languages to now many more languages. A two-way capability is on its way as well as automated translation from text in a local language into English, as well as biometrics to quickly help with the characterization in terms of facial, iris and fingerprint characteristics.
So in conclusion, the technology development results are largely achieved through long-term stable investment in science and technology. Although the fiscal year 05 President's budget request does focus on transformational technology its also contains the flexibility to respond to near term requirements in technology opportunities. This balance has been and remains important.
I believe that DOD's successes in technology and transformation are significant. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to tell you about them. We appreciate the support the House Armed Services Committee has provided for the Department's S&T program. Thank you.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much Dr. Sega.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sega can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. SAXTON. We will move now to Dr. Tether.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF DR. ANTHONY J. TETHER, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY, DARPA
Dr. TETHER. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on DARPA's efforts to develop advanced military capabilities.
I would like to request that my written testimony be put into the record.
Mr. SAXTON. Without objection.
Dr. TETHER. We have accomplished a lot over the past year. My written testimony details much of what we have done at the unclassified level. However, I would like to say that none of DARPA's accomplishments would have been possible without the outstanding support that we have received from this committee, in particular, and Congress in general. So I would like to take the opportunity on behalf of DARPA and industry and universities to thank you for this support.
I am not going to repeat my written testimony, but I do want to highlight a few topics.
One is transitioning technology. Transitioning technology is best described as a contact sport. You cannot do it effectively without getting intimately involved with the people you are trying to help. It does not work any other way. My priority has been to create a close working relationship with the services, the operators who are actually going to use this technology.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For example, we have a permanent representative down at Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, and this has been a great way to get our technology into SOCOM and find out what SOCOM really needs in a rapid way and it has worked well over the past year. This is not unprecedented. DARPA did this once before in the early 1980's when we were building many satellites and we put somebody in the space division in Los Angeles. But we haven't done it for 25 years.
I also have a special assistant for space to coordinate all of our activities with Strategic Command (STRATCOM) and Air Force space command. The DARPA space program is well integrated with the rest of DOD's space efforts. Meetings are held regularly with Mr. Teets, General Lord, and Admiral Ellis, who is, for the most part, the real customer of our space efforts. I also have service liaisons from each of the services at DARPA. These are very senior officers, both in tenure and age at the 06 level who have a great Rolodex. These are people who know who the operators are. Their major role is to take the DARPA program managers to meet with the operators so that the operators can find out what is possible or is going to be possible and more importantly so our program managers can find out really what the operators really think they need.
And it is working great. We have had several transition opportunities over the last year that would not have occurred without this program.
We are also working with the Army's rapid equipping force and the Marine Corps war fighting lab to quickly deliver needed capability to the theater in Iraq and Afghanistan. We talked about several of these yesterday, so I am not going to go over them again. But I do want to mention two that have been extremely effective and in a surprising way.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DARPA has a language translation program, which is operating in Iraq, and basically, we create an early bird in Iraq each morning. I gave, Gene, some copies of today's early bird. These are given out every morning in Iraq to the commanders and it enables them to read what is going on in the local newspapers and on local radio to find out what is going on in the country. You can imagine being in a country where you can't read the newspaper or understand the language and you are told to keep control of it, how valuable this input is.
In fact, what happened is that when we first got there, our forces were finding out about civilian casualties through this medium, and were able to get to other cities in Iraq and save quite a few children who were wounded in the skirmishes that were still ongoing.
Another technology that is being used in Iraq right now is DARPA has been developing a technology called command post of the future. This is basically an idea where each commander has a small little laptop and everybody is wired together to collaborate. Think of a John Madden type of thing. The commander says: My troops are here, I want to go here. Everybody see it at once. They can all chime in and they are distributed. This is being used in Iraq right now and being used, I am told, very effectively. They are not having to gather for meetings. They are able to make decisions fast and effectively. There are more efforts underway, but some of them are described in the testimony. Most of them we heard yesterday anyway.
Finally, I want to talk about one thing, the DARPA Grand Challenge, which some of you may have heard about occurred on 13 March. This again is the result of this committee. A few years ago you authorized DARPA to award prizes for major technical accomplishments. The DARPA criteria for the grand challenge was a simple one. That it had to be important to the national defense, it had to never have been done before, it had to be a tough problem that was not easily or cheaply solved with a work order or a contract. And more importantly we wanted to have something that anyone could participate from all walks of life. We were trying to reach out and find those people who would not ordinarily work on an important DOD problem and give them the motivation to do so.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Given congressional and department interests in unmanned systems, we decided to focus on autonomous ground vehicles and the challenge in this case was to build an autonomous vehicle that could travel from roughly Barstow, California, to Primm, Nevada, in under 10 hours with only two commands: ''start'' and ''stop.''
This challenge fit the criteria and when we solve this, we will save American lives. Never again will we have a soldier like private Jessica Lynch have to risk her life driving a truck. It could be done totally autonomously. We have received a tremendous response from all across America. Over 100 teams applied, a rich diversity of talents. High schoolers, college grads, technicians and backyard mechanics, all throughout CONUS and even one from Alaska. All sizes and shapes of vehicles from a motorcycle to a 16-ton truck. And in the display out here we have some of those shown.
Even though no one won the prizeso we did not even have to give out the moneysomething really priceless happened. All across the country, thousands of people worked on and continue to work on an important DOD research problem and they are committed to solving a tough technical problem. For the most part these are people who would have never thought of working on a DOD problem, that it could be exciting. Their talent is something that we can tap into for years to come. And I know that this is an issue that both Dr. Sega and I are really concerned about, about the pipeline of talent to work on DOD problems.
We plan to run this grand challenge again in the fall of 2005 or the spring of 2006. Right now everyone is too tired to get serious about planning the next one. And the only thing I can say, the high school team from Palos Verdes, California, said: Look out because next time they are going to have seniors on their team.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With that, I will be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much Dr. Tether.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Tether can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. SAXTON. Dr. Killion.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS H. KILLION, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ARMY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. KILLION. Thank you, Chairman Saxton and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2005 Army Science and Technology Program and the significant role that S&T is playing in supporting the warfighter today and achieving the army's transformation. I previously submitted a written statement and request it be accepted for the record.
I want to thank the members of this committee for your important role in supporting our soldiers who are now at war and for your support of the Army's S&T investments that will sustain the preeminence of our future soldiers. Your continued support is vital to our success.
We are a Nation at war. Army S&T is charged to provide America's Army with sustained overmatch in land combat. To do so, the Army S&T program retains a dynamic portfolio of technology investments that is responsive to the warfighters's needs both today and for the future.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Army's S&T program is balanced to provide high payoff capabilities for the future force while seeking rapid transitions of critical technologies into the current force.
Army S&T is fully committed to providing our soldiers with the tools they need to survive and prevail in current operations. This is truly a joint activity and all of the S&T executives at this table have demonstrated their commitment to protecting our soldiers's lives with whatever technology we can each bring to the fight.
Based on sustained S&T investments over the past decade, there are numerous examples of technologies that we and our partners have introduced into the global war on terror. In the displays downstairs you may have seen or you can see some examples of technology that have come out of S&T in support of current operations. Such as interceptor body armor, the Humvee expedient armor kits, the Chitosin bandage and the omni-directional inspection system.
With regard to future force technologies, the Future Combat System (FCS) remains the highest priority for army S&T. We have about one-third of our budget invested in technologies that will help make FCS a reality. Although the FCS program has passed acquisition milestone B, transitioning from S&T into system development and demonstration, army S&T continues to play an important role in the FCS program by providing specific critical technology solutions for increment 1 and beyond.
As part of the milestone B decision, the Project Managers (PMs) for FCS identified 31 critical technology areas that need to be addressed. The technology solutions to address most of these areas come from the army's S&T community and through our collaboration with DARPA.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are committed to the continued maturation and demonstration of these technologies for delivery to the Lead Service Indicator (LSI) prior to the FCS preliminary design review in 2005. To illustrate our progress, I would like you to take a look at the chart on the displays on the left and in the back. Several years ago, I put together a chart of this type with a lot of cartoons representing potential technologies for FCS. What this chart demonstrates is the progress that we have made in maturing and demonstrating these key technologies. They are not just cartoons anymore. They are real technologies that we are demonstrating at various levels of maturity that will help to enable the FCS capability by the end of this decade.
Let me highlight several specific examples. The lightweight cannon in the upper right. This is a video of a firing of a 120-millimeter cannon using a design that will be employed with lighter weight steel and demonstrated later this year.
The next video, the leader-follower convoy. This video illustrates potential contribution of ground robotics with a leading vehicle teleoperated from the middle manned vehicle in the convoy, and a third vehicle operating in a follower mode behind it. The benefits in terms of reduced manpower for logistics resupply are significant, though the challenges of unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) remain, as experienced by Tony and his folk in the recent DARPA challenge. It was a nice setup, Tony.
Finally, a third video in the lower left is active protection against chemical energy weapons systems. You will see a couple of different rockets fired at this vehicle on the move. One is driven into the ground by electronic warfare, the other is intercepted by an active protection device that causes physical destruction. A new way to protect our soldiers and their vehicles without the need for having as much heavy armor.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bottom line is we are delivering on the technologies that we have promised for FCS helping to make it a reality by the end of this decade. We have also maintained our commitment to basic research which produces new knowledge to fuel revolutionary advances and leap-ahead technology for the future. Technologies in the field today such as night vision devices, precision munitions, and body armor owe their existence to fundamental research that we conducted in the past. Research that we are conducting today in areas such as nano science, biotechnology, quantum computing and immersive environments will enable unique and in some cases unforeseeable capabilities for the future army.
I believe that innovation and invention are at least as often the parents of necessity as they are its progeny. No one really needed an automatic dishwasher a hair dryer or Lexis until somebody created them. Our job in part is to foster technological innovations that enable the warfighter to envision and leverage new technologies and new capabilities today, tomorrow, and in the distant future.
Finally, I mentioned earlier the support we are providing to current operations. That support certainly depends on the technological innovations we are able to provide to the warfighter. More importantly, however, I believe it depends on the expertise and commitment of our scientists and engineers. Perhaps the most important contribution that the S&T community continues to make is sending its scientists and engineers into the theater to see the real life conditions, assess the problems, and develop rapidly deployable solutions for the warfighter.
Their understanding of the Army's needs, knowledge of the threat, and recognition of technical opportunities makes them uniquely qualified to bring relevant technical solutions to the battlefield. Innovations such as expedient armor and bar armor for our Humvees, Strykers, and the Abrams tank were developed and tested very rapidly due to close collaboration between the scientists and engineers in our Army Research Laboratory, the Tank Automotive Research Development and Engineering Center, the Army Test and Evaluation Command and the program manager and our industry partners.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Individuals such as these supporting our soldiers really enable us to maintain and enhance our land combat advantage for today and tomorrow.
In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee and I would be happy to answer any questions you or the members may have.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much, Dr. Killion.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Killion can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. SAXTON. Admiral Cohen, please.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. JAY M. COHEN, CHIEF OF NAVAL RESEARCH
Admiral COHEN. Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and distinguished Congressmen. It is a great personal honor for me to be here representing the Department of Navy Science and Technology portfolio, and I wanted to also thank you and the Congress for the incredible support that you have given over the years. The results speak for themselves.
I have a written statement which I would ask could be made part of the record.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Mr. SAXTON. Without objection.
Admiral COHEN. And I just have a few verbal comments. Three years ago after the tragic events on the USS Cole, I testified and read a short e-mail that I received from a young man at Camp Lejeune, a young man named Jake who shared with me that his father was a Marine and went to sea on Navy ships and that Jake had an idea for how we might prevent future Cole casualties. And it was very touching and we responded to Jake.
And we went ahead at the time and took the work that the defense threat reduction agency, working in conjunction with the Air Force had done following the Khobar Tower bombing and applied it in what is no called explosive resistant coating to the plating on a ship like the Cole and found out that we could prevent penetration of a blast of that nature. It might have gross deformation, but no penetration. And the kids on board, the sailors would remain alive. We didn't realize that that work would then be leveraged now to help protect our soldiers and Marines who are doing patrols and transporting goods in country Iraq in Humvees and four by fours; and again, that has been in cooperation with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, working over the holidays up at Aberdeen. And I know, Mr. Chairman, you and several of the other members had a chance to see that in the Rayburn foyer.
So last week, I received another e-mail and this is from a sergeant, Marine Corps sergeant in Iraq. And I thought that I might share that with you so that you could feel the same sense of pride that I felt in the investment that we have made in science and technology that is being used by our soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen today.
If I might, he said we arrived at the objective yesterday. It took us a week to get here. The trip was uneventful until the 11th of March, when we spent the entire day running through a gauntlet of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). These were big rounds, not soda cans. They were mortar rain and 155-millimeter artillery rounds, big explosions. I was inside the blast radius on the first one but no scratches. By the grace of God, we had no casualties. We put armored doors on all of our vehicles and the reinforced glass on the windshield worked. I pulled golf ball sized piece of shrapnel out of the door that day. But we denied the enemy access.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
All of you need to be aware that the first Marine expeditionary force has up-armored all of his vehicles and it works. Myself and several other Marines are alive and uninjured because the Marine Corps saw fit to protect our marines. I am grateful to you for all of the spending of the money. One of these IEDs was covered by small armsand it gets Randy here describing what Marines do to people who shoot at them, and I will leave that out of the reading.
In late November of last year, Secretary England came to me and he said that he had agreed to the deployment order for our Marines going to Iraq in March. It is now March. Our Marines are now on the ground and in combat in Iraq. And he said he wanted to go and throw a very broad net, not just in naval research, not just in the Department of Navy, not just with the other services, not just in the Department of Defense, but all government agencies, industry, academia, national, international, to better enable our Marines to perform their mission, and to better protect them from the threats that he was hearing about every night on the news.
And so on the 12th of December, we had what we called the County Fair at the Naval Research Lab. We invited Jean Reed to come. Regrettably what was going on at that time, he was not able to come. We also invited Bill Natter to come and he was unable to come. But we had representatives from everyone at this table. And the Secretary of the Navy, the CNO and the commandant in execution resourced the millions of dollars to our Marines to make the events of this e-mail a reality. And I am so proud to be on that team. And we thank you for making that possible.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Cohen can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SAXTON. Admiral, you should know that among the first Marines are two people who are very close to us. One is the son of the chairman of the full committee, and the other is my nephew. So we have a personal feeling when we hear those kinds of messages on our committee. And so we are proud that you have been able to do that as well. As a matter of fact, the chairman and I and some other members, Mr. Kline in particular, ventured out to Iraq recently and through the chairman's great efforts, resources and armor, and I think that the team that is led by yourself and by the chairman of the full committee have made it a whole lot safer for our soldiers and marines and other military personnel in Iraq.
While we were there we were in Tikrit, and the 3rd ID leadership showed us how they were manufacturing their own doors for Humvees. And they look a little crude. And we wondered how they would work. So on the way home, we stopped at Ramstein Air Force base, went to visit the hospital, found a soldier who had been in a Humvee when an IED exploded alongside it. And he had shrapnel in his lower leg and in his shoulder. And I told him, of course, how sorry we were that he had gotten hurt. And he said don't be sorry. If I hadn't hung that homemade door on the side of my Humvee the day before, I wouldn't be here now.
So the armor is working. We have got a long way to go to solve this IED problem and armor is a partial answer, but not the full answer. So we thank you for your efforts on behalf of the soldiers and Marines and other military personnel in Iraq.
STATEMENT OF JAMES B. ENGLE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, AIR FORCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. ENGLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee and staff. Like my colleagues, I also very much appreciate the opportunity provide some testimony on the 2005 Air Force Science and Technology program.
The United States Air Force is continuing to transform to a capability-focused expeditionary air and space force. We are doing this through the development of our concepts of operations commonly referred to as CONOPs, for each of the seven major tasks the air force must be capable of accomplishing to support our combatant commanders. Our goal is to make the warfighting effects and capabilities we need to achieve them the drivers for everything we do.
This is especially true for our S&T program. We have taken the effects and capabilities required by our seven CONOPs and transformational goals and mapped them to our long-term challenges and short term objectives identified in the congressionally directed S&T planning review completed in February 2002.
Knowing that this committee is focused on terrorism and unconventional threats, let me highlight some of our most exciting work in this area. One that could very well be used to address some of the IED issues, Mr. Chairman, that you just mentioned and is of significant interest is a system we call Ping. Ping is a stand-off microwave based interrogation unit that has reliably identified an AK47, rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and suicide bomber apparatus in field demonstrations. Ping operated by illuminating potential threats and then categorizing the return reflected off the metallic object found in a crowd of people by using a laptop computer and specialized software to determine specific weapon type.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Metallic substructures on the weapon resonate at unique natural frequencies that can permit automatic identification of concealed weapons. The Ping demonstration unit is a vehicle mounted system that could be positioned up to 100 meters away to monitor persons or groups of people entering check points for concealed weapons. The unit can also be remotely operated. The Air Force S&T has been briefed to my colleague, Dr. Killion, and we are optimistic that Ping can be rapidly transitioned into operation use.
We are also working hard for our special operations forces in all of the services to reduce weight and integrate the ground targeting kit they use. We call this equipment the battlefield air operation or BAO kit. And improvements are being realized using very rapid spirals to speed development prototyping, testing, production, and fielding and some of this capability can be seen down to our demonstration room today.
As a result, our special tactics warriors will soon have a digital machine-to-machine capability. This helps to quickly connect the right aircraft with the right munition guided precisely to the right target at just the right time to achieve the desired effect. This new automated process helps to reduce the time it takes to target terrorist threats, while at the same time reducing human error in the targeting process.
We are very proud of our work at Tyndall Air Force base and their development of the substances that Admiral Cohen has mentioned to you, the elastrometric coating polymers which is capable of protecting not only ships, but key buildings and installations from close proximity explosion, such as air-dropped weapons or truck bombs.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC As the Admiral pointed out, it is easy to apply. It is a spray coating and provides greater structural integrity of exterior walls and prevents dispersion of debris as well as separation of wall elements. In addition to protecting lightweight shelters this polymeric coating is currently being applied to the interior and outer walls of the Pentagon.
Another exciting effort that can be seen is the use of a vehicle mounted active denial system, VMADS. This is a jointly developed system with the Marine Corps and is a defensive millimeter wave system used for perimeter defense applications. It is a directed energy weapon that emits a nonlethal nondamaging beam and heats up the skin and potentially causes extreme pain in the enemy, forcing the person to flee. We have demonstrated this technology at full weapon parameters on volunteers at range beyond that of small arms. We are also working hard to defend again man portable air defense systems, MANPADS, and some of this work can be seen downstairs as well.
We of course are engaged in many other exciting advances and I have included those in the written statement, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to leave for the record as well if that is allowed. And some of those that are on the top of my list that have the greatest possibilities for changing the way we operate are the directed energy transformational command system and directed energy command systems and space technologies. It is a joint program. We are sponsoring a competition to demonstrate a 25-kilowatt solid state laser by the end of the year.
If this is successful it will open up possibilities for defense against many types of airborne objects. This technology could provide new capabilities for operations in urban environments. Next transformational command system will give us the bandwidth that will truly enable the global information grid we have envisioned for our warfighter. Of course this technology will make important contributions to our commercial communications industry as well.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, I am excited about several new initiatives in the area of space technology. For many years, we have relied on large launch vehicles and satellites to give our space capability that we demand, but at considerable cost. Within our initiative with small launch vehicle and small responsive satellites, we are on the verge of changing this equation and driving access to and use of space down while greatly increasing responsiveness.
In conclusion, the Air Force is fully committed to providing this Nation with advanced air and space technologies required to meet America's national security interests around the world and to ensure we remain on the cutting edge of systems performance, flexibility and affordability. The technical advantages we enjoy today is a legacy of decades of investment in S&T, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman.
Likewise, our future warfighting capability will be substantially determined by today's investment in S&T. To meet all of the demands of our laboratory, the Air Force is working to increase our S&T funding. The Air Force fiscal year 2005 President's budget request is for $1.9 billion.
This includes 1.4 billion in core S&T, which represents an increase of over $80 million, or almost 5 percent of real growth compared to the President's budget request for a similar core S&T effort in 2004.
As we face the new millennium, our challenge is to advance new technologies for an expeditionary aerospace force as we continue to move aggressively into the realm of space activities. The Air Force programs provides for the discovery development, and timely transformational technologies that keep our Air Force the best in the world. As an integral part of the Department of Defense S&T team we look forward to working with Congress to ensure a strong S&T program tailored to achieve our vision of the superior air and space force.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present testimony. And thank you for your continuing support of the Air Force S&T program.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Engle can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you for bringing the displays that you did. When I was talking about my nephew and the Chairman's son, I overlookedI knew this already, I don't know why I did not think about it, but Mr. Wilson's son is in an artillery unit in Iraq also. And Mr. Reed's son is training units at Fort Leavenworth to go to Iraq. So we are covered. Marty, do you have some questions?
Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Sega, Admiral Cohen, really all of you, if you could explain the importance of innovative propulsion efforts, what might this do for the Department's concept of operations in the future? What new innovations and enablers would result in such efforts? Particularly in the Navy from the instruction of electric drive? I am wonder if you could comment.
Dr. SEGA. I would be glad to. One of the areas is in the area of National Aerospace Initiative. In this case, the propulsion looks at air breathing as well as rocket propulsion. In addition to that, the energy and power initiative has propulsion efforts such as electromagnetic gun. In the propulsive area in the aerodynamics area, the air breathing side is advanced turbine technology. We have had an integrated high performance turbine technology program running for roughly 15 years with contributions with the services, NASA, and industry with a significant match from industry. And they have met performance goals all along the way so that sustained investment has been important. It has resulted in engines in military aircraft as well as in commercial aircraft.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have extended that in this budget to a higher mach number, revolution turbine accelerator that moves toward the mach 3, 3.5 range, as well as two programs one in the Navy, one in the Air Force, to work toward flight test and demonstration of hypersonic engine, scramjets. The program on the Navy side is cosponsored with DARPA called ''high fly,'' and I think Admiral Cohen will go into that further, and on the Air Force side, a single engine demonstrator which is also with DARPA sponsorship. That will allow us the ability of aggressing time critical targets in a different way.
We are currently able to bring the time of decision down with better sensing technologies better ways of making decisions quickly. So time critical target requires one to act faster than the time a target is available, if it is a fleeting target, so you have the time of making the decision which we are compressing and now we have to work on the time of flight. And so speed is important. And so that is an application for it.
We may have innovative ways of taking that same technology for interceptors as well as for access to space.
In the area of electromagnetic propulsion, we have initiative power supplies that gets away from gunpowder, if you will, with accelerating munition, and I will let Admiral Cohen expand on those.
Admiral COHEN. Thank you very much, Dr. Sega. I will focus on where the Navy is going. And the Navy is going electric. And this is a really exciting time. The DDX, which is now under contract, is our first modern all electric ship: CVN 21, which will be the next class of carrier. While it is nuclear steam turbine direct drive for propulsion, it will have an enormous electric plant because we are doing away with air hydraulic and steam auxiliaries throughout the ship. We are testing electromagnetic air launch from both General Atomics and Northrop Grumman at Lakehurst, New Jersey. A full scale but half length test to do away with the steam catapults. We are looking to going to electric arresting gear.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Advanced planar arrays that the electric ship will enable us to have as the next step beyond Aegis and we will do away with a hundred different communications and director kinds of antennas as all of that functionality is embedded in these planar rays.
Admiral COHEN. But the key to all of this is the ability to efficiently and effectively generate electric power, use it, condition it, store it on board our ships. And we are doing that. The S&T side of this is looking at the competing technologies for our electric generation and utilization. Those are permanent magnet motors; they are high temperature, superconducting motors. They are low temperature homopolar motors. And there is always the fallback of the 100-year-old technology, and those are the conventional induction motors.
What I have here is a poster showing a 36 megawatt, that is 50,000 shaft horsepower motor. In greenand this is to scaleyou can see an induction motor. In blue is the American superconducting high-temperature superconductor motor that we have under contract. It is 120 rpm direct drive, so no reduction gear, that we will have either on our risk reduction ship the Radford, or one of the two shafts of the first DDX within 4 years. This work is going on at Fort Devens right now. You can see it is the height of a man.
Once we are able to do this, the electric power for electromagnetic rail gun, which we believe in conjunction with DARPA and the Army, we will be able to project the significant inert projectiles 200 to 300 miles inland, electromagnetic air launch, which you already talked about, high-power microwave, or the active denial system that Mr. Engle just talked about, and they are working in conjunction with them, as well as shipboard lasers changes the whole equation of warfare at sea as we know it.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SAXTON. We are going to go ahead and vote, and when we come back, Mr. Meehan will continue his questions.
Mr. SAXTON. Okay. Well, while we are waiting for other members to come back, let me jump in here a little bit.
Ron, can you help me out with explaining to me from a management point of view how projects are identified and how you decide where to put your priorities in terms of, let us say you call up Tony Tether and say we have got this need for IED identification, and somebody else has got another problem with we need a new capability on a UAV. And you have got to get a lot of ideas about what our needs are. How do you determine where to make your investments?
Dr. SEGA. Sir, that is a great question. And the inputs come in from many different areas. Current operations worldwide, we get nearly daily inputs from those at CENTCOM in terms of what needs are. And in that case, our point of contact is through this Combating Terrorism Technology Task Force looks at what part of the Department of Defense is most apt to be able to address that need; and we try to attack it, and then bring it together in with the solution and a test with the operator, somebody from CENTCOM, and then bring it back to the field.
As we go into more of mid-term and longer-term applications, we have advisory boards from the various services in DARPA, as well as Defense Science Board looks at technical opportunities that would be looking at us in the future that we should address.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As was mentioned earlier, biology is clearly one of those. And DARPA has established an emphasis in the strategy and biologyand we have biology efforts in the other services. And so, and nanotechnology would be another area that is highlighted, and those areas that would be important for the Department of Defense to invest money in is identified not only within the services and agencies, but also through advisory boards. And that is sometimes called sort of a technology push, if you will.
We want to look at our investments that are smart. We look at some of the areas, such as information technology that has an enormous amount of money being spent in research development in the commercial sector, recognizing what part of that will be covered by that sector and what part of that we can purchase.
Other aspects of technology going forward, we may need to invest to adapt to what is going on in the commercial community. Other needs that we have, we need to initiate the work and lead it.
Now, our combatant commanders also have an integrated priorities list, and so they look at their future needs. And we roll that through the joint staff in this Joint War Fighting Science and Technology Plan (JWSTP). So we are getting inputs from war fighters in terms of needs to the joint staff and integrating that into a JWSTP, historic war fighting science and technology plan. We get inputs from advisory boards and services inside in terms of what the technical big directions are going and what would be supporting visions of the services in the war fighting community.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC And then we need to have, and I believe we are doing this more and more, an open door for new ideas that come from all over the place. We have a tough time solving some tough problems. Remote detection of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive kinds of things is a tough problem, and we are out there all the time looking for new ideas.
Mr. SAXTON. Why don't you take, if you can think of two or three examples of an idea or a need that was expressed by someone in a service, and walk us through how, what is the process, from somebody comes up with a need, and then think of something that has actually occurred, a success story, if you will.
Dr. SEGA. Okay. A longer-term activity, for example, is in the area of batteries. That is a key need, and it happens to be across all the services. You need batteries for satellites, you need those in aircraft, you need those in naval systems, you need them for the soldier.
So in that area, we did that in a couple different ways as well. We have an area process called reliance where the services come together, and we look at different ways of looking at small power sources. We currently have an Air Force and Marine a DARPA in the Air Force combined project in terms of solving the battery problems. Sometimes in terms of fuel cell approaches, some in terms of more traditional higher efficiency battery technology.
So one of the forums is in terms of bringing the defense technology area plan and addressing the issue of batteries. Then the S&T execs get together and look at which part of it they would lead. And so there is occasionally a lead for certain technology area service, and they take that.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For example, in the joint nonlethal area, you saw the display downstairs; that happens to be the Marine Corps. And so there are certain areas we identify and a service takes the lead for that. Others, it is a coordinated process. So in this area of batteries, that only got addressed through a reliance DTAP (Defense Technology Area Plan) kind of process, but we also, because we thought it was an important cross-cutting area we had a task force set up that looked at energy and power technologies across the board.
So we end up approaching some of these things in many different ways. And if someone comes in with new ideas, and DARPA, for the most part, will take on a higher risk approach to solving this problem of batteries.
Does anyone want to pick that up?
Dr. KILLION. Ron makes a good point that theythe process really varies depending upon the application that you are talking about. For some of the nearer term work, for example, the work that we did providing bar armor or slap armor for some of our vehicles in Iraq, that work was done very rapidly. We got feedback from the field about the threat of RPGs and other devices against our vehicles.
Mr. SAXTON. You are talking about Stryker. Right?
Dr. KILLION. Stryker was one of the applications. An early application was bar armor on the engine compartment on the M1, from the Abrams. Feedback came to our people in the laboratories who said, you know, actually, bar armor has been around for a long time as a concept; it was around 50 years ago. But there were people who understood that that might be an opportunity, and they developed the application, did the testing, and were able to field something in less than a month that was at least an interim solution to the problem. And if you have seen pictures of the Strykers in theater, they have the bar armor on them. And it does work. We have gotten feedback on it, that it does work. So in that case, it is a very rapid turnaround.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SAXTON. We are going to come back to this subject in a minute.
But while we were waiting, for you Marty, we talked about some other things. Why don't you continue.
Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being a little slow in getting off the floor.
Admiral Cohen, I was very pleased to hear that you were able to armor the Humvees for the Marines so quickly and effectively, and I think the Marines have really set an example. In fact, recently the Marines purchased about $9 million worth of add-on armor kits from a Massachusetts company, Foster Miller, which is in Waltham, Massachusetts. But I applaud you for getting this done before the Marines are redeployed.
Dr. Killion, recently I have received several calls from companies that have submitted prototypes of add-on armor kits to takethat have been successfully tested, as I understand it, at Aberdeen, but the Army has not purchased the kits. Can you elaborate on what the process is for testing these products? And I am just a little concerned that there are vendors out there with proven products that have been tested, and that perhaps the Army is not reaching out to some of these companies.
Dr. KILLION. I believe the Army is reaching out to the companies in terms of trying to look at whatever expedient solutions are available. What we have developed is a fairly consistent standardized testing process to make sure that any of the solutions we are offered meet muster with regard to providing the level of protection we really need for our systems so that, as you talk about, we take the system to Aberdeen, put it under standardized testing procedures that we have there, and look to see what level of protection it actually does provide.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, I am not familiar with the specific incidents that you are talking about where they might have brought something and tested it and it worked, but we are not producing it. I am simply not aware of specific incidents. And if you could provide them to me, I can try to get feedback as to what is happening with that. Once the testing has happened, of course, then we have to look at the Army has to find money to go and produce those items and get them into theater. And that, of course, is a challenge in terms of having the resources available to produce these kits and get them in theater. And it takes time and money to get them in place.
Mr. MEEHAN. I guess my concern is that my understanding is that there have been a number of companies where up-armored kits have been approved, but there are only one or two companies that are actually the Army is purchasing from. It just seems to me where I sit that the Marines have been much more effective in terms of turnaround in terms of before they redeploy making sure that they go out and purchase these kits. And I can do, I can provide you information that I have, and I have been working with the family of a soldier who was lost in a vehicle that wasn't up-armored. So I can get you some of the information and you can look at it and see what you think.
Dr. KILLION. The best I can do is if you can let me know specific incidents. I know the process by which they bring things in, do the evaluation, things that don't pass muster are obviously things that we don't want to pass along to the troops. And the other side is, how do we then get into the process of procuring them and fielding them?
Mr. MEEHAN. Dr. Tether, can you please share with us your views on nanotechnology and the possible breakthrough applications that we might see if we continue to invest in this area? Nanotechnology is of particular interest to me, because one of the premier institutions in the field, the University of Massachusetts at Lowell, which is an institution you have been up to visit, is really leading the way with a company in my district, Triton Biosystems. And they are using nanotechnology to develop a low side effect treatment for the late stages of breast and prostate cancer through the Army.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I have seen firsthand the importance of the medical applications of nanotechnology, and I was wondering, in your estimation, are there any potential downsides, technological, ethical, moral, associates with investments in nanotechnologies? And, if so, what might they be?
Admiral COHEN. Well, gee, I can't think of any downsides. First, there is a definitional problem of, what do you mean by nanotechnology? I guess we will assume it means things that are small and will take it from there.
Mr. MEEHAN. I would say very small.
Admiral COHEN. Very small. But the opportunities are tremendous. We really are just scratching the surface. And what we are really just starting to develop are the tools. We are at the stage almost where we were in the beginning when we started building the oscilloscopes and voltmeters and things like that. And from that we were able to develop electronics that were incredibly powerful. With nanotechnology, we are still in that tool development stage, but the promise is really there. Imagine making a material that does what you want it to do, you know, where you can literally take atoms and push them together and put them together and be able to predict what the properties of that material would be. It may be possible to make really truly amorphous steel that is transparent. You know, the things that we will be able to do with it are just limited currently by our own imagination.
So what we at DARPA are doing right now is we are spending a lot of money in the development of tools. And one example of a thing we are doing is trying to develop a magnetic dipole that is on the nanosize. Now, if we can do that, you know, a magnet, a nanomagnet, if you will. If we can do that, we can put an antibody on that magnet so that you put it into your body and it will go and attack a certain cancer cell. Now, what we have now is we have a cell that we don't want in the body but it has a magnet on it, which means we have a new way of doing dialysis. I mean, we could literally clean the body of cells very quickly because we have a magnet and we just run it through.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the guys who is really a far-out person says what you do is you just put a magnet by the person's skin, all the bad cells stay there, and then you just take them out with an IV. That is just an example. But what you really need to be able to do that is, first of all, you have got to be able to make that nanomagnet. But then you have got to have the tools to be able to push it around and actuallyand that is where the technology is, Marty. I don't see any downsides. I mean, I suppose that somebody will find some nefarious things to do with it. But, geez, the benefits I think are going to far outweigh, you know, new materials, new electronics, newthe medical field is going to be tremendous. I just don't see any downsides. I don't know. Anybody else? Any downsides? Nobody sees any downsides.
Mr. MEEHAN. Thanks.
Mr. SAXTON. Okay. We are going to go to Colonel Kline. Before we do, Admiral Cohen is going to have to leave us in just a few minutes, and when he does, he is going to be replaced by Captain John Kamp, Assistant Chief of Naval Research. So, sir, when you are ready, just give a wave and we will thank you for being here at this point.
Admiral COHEN. You are very kind. And it is a little bit of a follow-up to the question you asked Dr. Sega how do we decide where we invest. And I have to leave to meet with Navy leadership about the Secretariat in Uniformed and Marine Corps side for exactly that reason. So.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Admiral COHEN. Thank you, sir.
Mr. KLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you gentlemen all for being here today. And there are some many exiting things going on out there, and we have heard interest expressed already today in what is being done for IEDs and how fast and what is the process for getting things from an idea into something that might save some lives in Iraq.
But I want to shift to something else. One of the staff put a little note here and it reminded me of some truly just miraculous things that are going on with our soldiers and Marines that are coming back as amputees. One young soldier in my district I visited in Walter Reed, and he had lost a leg, and when last seen, there was a picture of him preparing to go snowboarding. We can still do that in Minnesota, even at the end of March, by the way.
And then I listened to the comment on the Marine Corps this morning talking about a Marine corporal who lost his leg in a minefield, and was pulled out of the mine field by a staff sergeant. The young corporal was sent back here to Bethesda, was given an artificial leg, reenlisted, became a sergeant, went to jump school, completed jump school appropriately in the top of his class, and is now back in Iraq. And it is just amazing stuff.
And so my question to you is, I am not sure where thatif that is in DARPA's area, maybe Dr. Tether you could talk about that, what you are doing in that area, and just comment about the just amazing things that are going on there.
Dr. TETHER. We have a program which is called HAND, Human Assisted Neural Devices. This is a program that was started a few years ago at Duke University and at MIT, and basically it is athe program was, we took a monkey and we put implants in the monkey's brain. All under the right protocols and all of that. Okay? And what made that possible, by the way, of being able to put these implants is nanotechnology again. We were able to make probes that were so small that we were able to do a lot of them in the brain and not do any damage to the brain.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So what we did with the monkey was she had to take a test. When a light came on, she had to move a joy stick and then she got a treat. The joy stick was to move a ball on the screen to another place. And meanwhile, we took the codes out of her brain and sent it to a mechanical arm. So the light would come on, she would move the joy stick to make the ball move; the codes would go to this mechanical arm, and the mechanical arm was taught just to move like she was moving her arm.
Now, that sounds really great. But what we did is we took the joy stick away from the monkey, but the light comes on. The monkey knows that it has to move this ball in order to get this treat. So we don't really know what she thought, but she didn't do anything, but the mechanical arm moved just like it was supposed to in order to move that ball.
So where we are today is that we have tests today where this monkey has learned that it doesn't have to move its arms. We thought we were tapping into the motor function, you know, the function that actually moves, but what we had tapped into was the thought, the thought of moving it.
Now, imagine this. And by the way, we are talking with the VA hospital and the people there who get involved in this. Imagine this, where you have an arm, a mechanical arm. Maybe it looks like a flesh and blood arm but it is really not, where you think: Pick up that glass. And you pick up that glass. That is going to happen. This project that we are on is going to allow that to happen. You know paraplegics, a person with a healthy brain, could now have a body that all he has to do is think about doing things and it does it. Now, there isit is not going to happen tomorrow, okay, but there is a lot of technology that has still to be developed. We have learned how to go the one way, but what we have to do now is to learn how to give the brain feedback, the touch, the feel of touch that I have this cup. But that is part of the program.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we have got a great program. Again, it is HAND, H-A-N-D, and we are quite active again with the VA hospital in order to basically solve that problem.
We have come soour problem today is that our armor, body armor is really good. So soldiers that would have died in other wars aren't dying because they are not getting chest wounds, but they are getting wounds in their extremities.
Mr. KLINE. Admiral.
Admiral COHEN. Congressman, I would like to follow up. I certainly salute what Dr. Tether is doing, and would like to reiterate that we don'tdo not want to raise, you know, false hopes that these are right around the corner, although I think we can see some clear paths. The Navy and Marine Corps working with the Army, because of what Dr. Tether, said the ceramic body armor is so good that we are seeing a reduced number of fatalities, but the number of amputees is significant. We are looking, using foreign technologies, using work that has gone on at the Navy labs, looking at material, sciences that we have under the rubric ofwhen a jet pilot gets ready to get in a plane, he or she puts on a G-suit. They dress for the mission. Now, they don't walk around all day in that G-suit; it is cumbersome, uncomfortable, hot, et cetera.
So we are seeing that most of these casualties are occurring in the Humvees as they are being targeted making patrols or in the convoys as they are going, trying to resupply. And so we are looking at taking, in addition to the ceramic body armor, sleeves, stockings, booties, et cetera that would, although you might have a terrible shrapnel wound, it might be bleeding, we know how to stop the bleeding. You may have compound fractures. The limb itself is held intact so that during that golden hour, with our wonderful field hospitals and the great medical care that we have in theater, we can get those injured soldiers and Marines and others to the hospital where we can save their limb. I have classmates and friends from Vietnam, we all do, you don't want to see them in a T-shirt because they have leg tendons in their forearm and they are not very good at playing basketball. But you know what? It is their arm.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I think we are looking at these parallel approaches, saving the limb, and then enhancing the functionality that Dr. Tether talked about. We don't want to hold out false hope here, but we are fast tracking this with the Army and we are excited.
Mr. KLINE. Well, I appreciate the answer from both of you. And I, too, am always leery about false hope, but the examples that I gave were real examples, real soldiers, and real Marines who have lost their limbs that are now not only functioning, but the Marine going to jump school and finishing at the top of his class and being back in Iraq, that is something that we wouldn't have considered not that long ago. So I am heartened by the fact that there is real progress, and really excited that you are working on some things that are truly miraculous.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Larsen.
Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The first question I have is for Dr. Sega and perhaps Dr. Tether. But it has to do with the President's speech on February 11th at National Defense University on proliferation and nonproliferation, where he outlined six or seven or eight separate activities or goals he wanted to reach. And my question is whether or not you, Dr. Sega or Dr. Tether, are involved into the extent you can talk about it here, involved in any research to support enforcement for standoff detection of either weapons of mass destruction or just the transportation of materials that could be used to develop weapons that can do us harm. What kind of role are you playing or what kind of role do you see in the future to support the goals of that particular set of policy initiatives?
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. SEGA. I will answer the question in very general terms. Wethis is one of those initiatives in surveillance and knowledge I mentioned before, are building a technology base support the integration of C4 ISR, the community control communications intelligence surveillance reconnaissance across the Department's need. And so advances in sensor technology, advances in communications technology, advances in fusion of data, and understandingand understanding environment is important. And the ability to do that is something that we are trying to push forward. Now, the exact application and the systems is something and the details of which we won't be able to discuss here.
Mr. LARSEN. Okay.
Dr. TETHER. Well, it is the standoff that is the problem. We fund every good idea that comes in the door. And we are really more idea starved than we are money starved. Any idea that you hear, please send them to us. But, again, it is standoff. If you are willing to be able to touch the article or something like that, there are techniques that allow us to do that. But being able to reach out and say that that is a biological cloud a kilometer away, and it is this type of bio, or that is a nuclear, we don't know how to do that. But we are still trying. I mean, it doesn't mean that something doesn't exist, but the current physics of approaching it is obviously the wrong way because we don't know how to do it.
Mr. LARSEN. Did you want to follow up anymore? If there is additional information on that, perhaps if we could just ask the staff maybe we can set something up to discuss that. I would like to follow up.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Dr. Sega, I think it was in your testimony. I don't think you mentioned it verbally, but in writing, you talked about the need for scientists and engineers andbecause of the lack thereof. So you increased stipends for fellowships and so on. And that, I think, is a good approach, but you are sort of going out there and competing for the relatively per capita, the shrinking pool that is out there already. What efforts are there through your agency to help expand the pool? You know, we are falling behind many other countries in per capita production of engineers and computer scientists and so on. So what kind of efforts are you putting forth to increase that pool available in the U.S. as opposed to competing for the current pool?
Dr. SEGA. If I could just outline some of the work in progress. The only office that I established in the Office of the Directorate Defense Research Engineering since being here since August of 2001 was that of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Labs, which is laboratories and basic sciences, also responsible for looking at university programs and workforce. And we have gone at it in several small ways, and including tapping into some programs that tie our laboratory system with programs in the high schools and mostly in-kind contributions through scientists and engineers through a program called Material World. The teachers have kits, if you will, to work with students and increase their interest in science and math, and they have a reach-back to the laboratory on folks. And our first kickoff is at Picatinni Arsenal.
We also are extending a freshman experience, where we find that students that are qualified for continuing in a technical major, that was their intent when they entered as freshman, for a variety of reasons, is not continuing after their freshman year. And it seems to be not correlated with talent. And so we are looking atand we have piloted some programs in that freshman experience area.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC We are at the current time looking at a study to make sure that we can quantify this demand and supply. But where do we see the demand in the future? Because as we map the needs of where we are going in the Department of Defense and what critical disciplines we will need, what is the supply as we see coming from universities, and here in certain areas we need U.S. citizens. And so that is a concern of ours, and we are addressing it. And I don't have that final data for you at this time.
Mr. LARSEN. Do you anticipate in the future having that reflected in a budget request, perhaps not in 2005, but in 2006?
Dr. SEGA. Yes. We are building that study to inform an action staff. Yes.
Mr. LARSEN. Okay. A question for each of the services andthen. You have the explanation here of the propulsion. I was wondering if each of the services could pick one project you have been working on in terms of research, and not focus on say thehow cool it is, if you will, but the strategic importance of that particular project. How does it fit into where we want our military to be and want our militarywhat we want our military to do in the future? Could you help us out? And maybe start with Captain Kamp, and then go to Dr. Killion. You want to start on the other end?
Captain KAMP. Sure, we will get started on the other side.
Mr. ENGLE. Sure. I did in my oral remarks highlight three I thought were particularly important. I would pick out of those three probably transformational com system or TSAT, which is well underway now. The technologies, I think, are maturing on the schedules that we believe they should. There doesn't appear to be any miracles that we need to get by in order to build really the bandwidth, that will give us the true Force Net, as my Naval partner would suggest, or global information grid, as the Air Force terminology tends to use.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What that will allow us, I think, from the standpoint of how we operate is an unparalleled ability to be aware of our environment across the board. Imagine virtually every entity in a battle space having an IP address, using IP protocol 6, being given information with metadata wrapped around information packets, that machine-to-machine command activities independent of human interaction go to this place, be prepared for additional signals, on command attack such and such. That can all be done if you have that kind of bandwidth.
And I think that that is coming. That laser communication coupled with the continued advances that we are making in radio frequency communications I think will give us that global IP backbone in the sky that we sort of always have dreamt about. And that is probably within reach by the end of the decade.
Mr. LARSEN. Next.
Dr. KILLION. I will cheat because it is really a constellation of technologies that is the future combat systems (FCS), the capability that will enable the Army to be more deployable, both strategically and tactically. It employs the kinds of networks that Jim is talking about. It depends upon the network to be effective. It allows us to operate in full spectrum environments to get there, to be more self-sustaining to demand less logistic support and therefore less logistics tail associated with it. It employs robotics on a large scale, something that I think is important in terms of reducing the number of personthe personnel footprint associated with the systems, but also putting fewer of our soldiers at risk in the combat environment. So it is really FCS, which is that system of systems that is strategically important for the Army, and is our largest S&T investment along with our partner in DARPA.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. TETHER. Actually, this also will answer part of your question earlier on how do you pick ideas. Wefirst, let me tell you the cool thing. I don't know if you have ever seen an atomic clock, but it is big. And what we are developing today is an atomic clock on a chip, that we will literally be able to go on a chip which could go on your wrist watch, for example.
Now, that is really cool, but why on earth are we doing that? Well, our military forces are quickly becoming netcentric forces in that they are all going to be networked together. Now, these are special networks. These are not networks where when we go into an area we can wait for somebody to go put up towers and stuff like that. I mean, when our forces go in, the network has to instantly form. And when a new node comes in, it has to instantly join the network and so forth and so on.
We know how to do that now. We know how to make these robust cell-forming networks. But the one thing that they have to have in orderone thing all of these nodes have to have is they have to know the time. They have to all have the same time path. Currently, we get that time by Global Positioning System (GPS). GPS is actually used more for the time signal than it is for geo-location. So currently, the way we establish the time among all the nodes is to listen to GPS, and that establishes the time. Well, we have got a tremendous vulnerability, because we are all now going to be network-centric.
And if the enemy can take down the network, we have no force. So jamming GPS not for the geo-location, but jamming GPS so we can't get the time will completely take this network apart.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, now, having that atomic clock on the chip allows us to put in each node the time so that we are no longer dependent upon GPS. And that isby the way, that is why we picked that idea, for that reason. It is not a current need. I mean, you wouldn't find it as a validated requirement. But if you think about it, you know, we are going to have to be able to do that, and that is why we are doing that, as an example.
Now, I guess, John, it is up to you. John used to be with me at DARPA, so I know he can give you some DARPA stories. He has only been up at Navy for a very short time.
STATEMENT OF CAPT. JOHN KAMP, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF NAVAL RESEARCH
Captain KAMP. Well, thank you. I have been at the Office of Naval Research (ONR) about 4 months; I can almost spell it now.
I think there are really two answers to your question. One is, I think I would like to take it back and talk it over with the Admiral and such, because I think it is a good question that may haveso I would take that one for the record and say, gee, Admiral, let us really talk about it.
But since you asked, it is kind ofthere is a lot of things we do at O&R that I have been exposed to that kind of all pull together. And I will tell a story how they all kind of pull together.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC An electric ship, I think is an exemplar. I was sitting there, and all these people are, yeah, think about this, think about this. But as an example, I mean, if I can get to an electric ship, it enables new weapons, it enables the electromagnetic (EM) gun that we were talking about dealing with at DARPA and with the Army. It enables a new class ofa new capability we can't think about today. There are new whole structure options that come from an all electric ship when we start talking about different propulsion systems or we start talking about different ways of putting together ships, how we weaponize the ships, I think that changes, how we start being able to have our sensors differently with high-power radar and being able to distribute things differently, and giving us tactical options that don't really exist today.
But they all kind of pull together, and there is a lot of technology developments, a lot of S&T coming from across a number of disciplines that are pulling together to give us this new capability.
That is kind of an example. And every time I go and talk to Dr. Lubar, who is our technical director, and I see some of the stuff they are doing, I find, you know, cool technology to go look at. And I go out and visit the industry and the universities, and I find good people working on great things. And, you know, I am still in the ''wow it is really cool'' mode.
And so, but to answer the question about what is the single most strategic investment, the stuff we are going in Force Net is important, it is part of the story. I think there is a lot of it there, and I think I would like to go say, okay, what does the whole story look like?
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Mr. LARSEN. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SAXTON. Thank you very much. Good questions.
I would like to return to the question that I asked earlier. And let me, without being contrary, let me say why. From my perspective, I believe that we are about identifying near-term solutions and maybe some far-term solutions that have to do with our ability to do force protection, to identify threats, to communicate, to do all the things that we have to do to provide national security for our country. I have seen a couple of things, particularly some of Tony's projects that I am not sure about. I certainly see the scientific value, for example, of the research with the monkey and the brain and the arm.
I, frankly, have a question about how that relates. I know how it relates to health, I know how it might relate to some future procedure at Walter Reed or Bethesda. I understand that. But I have a tough time relating that to why we are doing it with national security dollars.
I alsoTony and I have had this discussion before. I also watched with some surprise at the project that we did recently with the ability to do robotic vehicles. And I know that it would be nice to have trucks that can go across the desert from point A to point B, and then on to point C and on to point D. That is neat. But I have a tough time relating to how that is going to help us any time soon with either our military capability or our manpower issue, particularly given the results that I saw on television the other night.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, I guess my question is this: At each of the service agencies and at DARPA, Dr. Sega, can youmaybe if you just talk about those two projects, maybe you can help me out with those two projects. But I personally have a little difficulty with both of them.
Dr. SEGA. Okay. In fiscal year 2002 we did an S&T linkage to transformation study. So we are looking at the aggravated investments and the expected outcomes of what the services and agencies were doing against the goals of the Department of Defense as outlined in the Quadrennial Defense Review, the operational capabilities. And there were some gaps in what we were doing, and so we needed to do some adjustment in the investment portfolio.
In the case of DARPA, and in review, the work in the services and agencies, as we go forward with the budgetary process and it goes through my office as a review in part of our normal building the budget for the following year, for the alignment in the programs, and there is a risk portfolio, if you will, inside of DARPA's programs. Now, Tony may indicate that we have, all of DARPA is high risk. I would suggest it is not. And that we have a certain part of it that is an important part of the budget thatof the DARPA budget that is in alignment and we are counting on it working. Tom and the Department of the Army is counting on future combat systems to work. And there is a significant investment of DARPA in the Army and in enabling future combat systems to work.
Recently, the collaborative arrangement established by Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (JUCAS) between the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy and DARPA. In terms of the two hypersonics programs that I mentioned, there is a DARPA piece that is collaborating with the Air Force and with the Navy, and both of them in this is Mach 6 range. And in terms of energy and power, there is an adjustment in the submission in the fiscal year 2005 budget in DARPA in energy and power needs that, in our view, wasn't being addressed in the services, and DARPA picked that up.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, in terms of some of the higher risk things, we have to push some of those frontiers. And the nature of discovery as you push frontiers of knowledge is sometimes not what you fully expect it to be. The lasers in the 1950's ended upno one would have perceived that that research would end up in the grocery stores, if you will, for identification. Now we are using that laser technology for lots and lots of things now in terms of looking at communications in space.
So I don't think we can always look at what the final result is going to be from our research, as particularly true of the fundamental work in 61 and a portion of the 62 DARPA budget I would put in that category as well.
Other pieces of it in terms of the force protection issue, when we identify workand it has been done by the services and the agencies here, especially in the last year and a half or so, the expectation is that the results will happen normally within 6 months, probably not more than a year in terms of taking technology to a state that we can field it. And so, you know, several examples of that in terms of force protection. And in that case, it isa clear operational and technical outcome has been identified, and we focus on drilling to that in a cooperative way. And I think there has been a collaboration that has been spawned by necessity to bring technical solutions along with operational solutions to our folks that are in the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR) in particular.
Dr. TETHER. Let me try to answer the two project questions that you brought up. One is easy to answer, and that is the autonomous vehicle.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC Mr. SAXTON. I am sorry. I didn't hear you.
Dr. TETHER. The robotic vehicle, the autonomous vehicle. There is an easier one to answer. If you look at what we have in Iraq today, I think we heard yesterday we have 12,000 Humvees, God knows how many trucks, and all they are doing isI mean, they are transporting. So if you look at the number of people that are involved in driving those trucks, in driving those Humvees, it is a significant number.
Now, that is not the significant number because those people have to be fed and taken care of, so each person by themselves causes probably another four or five other people inadvertent on the logistics chain. If we could do nothing more than to have convoys of trucks drive themselves from point A to point B, that would be a tremendous decrease in the number of people that we have to bring into the theater, which would be an enormous decrease in the number of injuries, and so forth and so on, and also a tremendous increase in our strategic mobility. That is why the autonomous vehicles, in our mind, was a good application.
FCS in fact quite frankly counts on the number of people going to a theater to befor those logistical purposes to be greatly minimized.
On the other one, it is really just our imagination. If you could think for something to be done and have your thoughts acted at a distance, gee, I don't know, I could control a robot, and basically have a robot go up to something that I want to check out, and I could be just literally my thoughts of move left, turn right, and so forth and so on, as I watch it as opposed to being wireless, just have it happen. That is what at DARPA wouldthat is in our 6.1 budget. That is our very fundamental research. The application to prosthetics is clear. Applications to a real military warfighting use of that type of technology is not so clear.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The only thing I can tell you is if you remember the movie Foxfire, Clint Eastwood, he took a Russian airplane and he had to think. The Russian airplane was set up so that in order to control it he had to think, you know, turn left. His thoughts were controlling the airplane. That is a possible application of this type of technology.
But the only current one that we really have I think that stands up to any realyou know, is the fact of being able to possibly get people back their ability to move limbs.
Mr. SAXTON. I guess I would ask a follow-on question, and that is that I guess it would bewell, let's put it this way. When I was a kid I used to read the newspaper and used to read about Dick Tracy and he had a little watch that was a telephone and I thought that was really neat and I thought, well, we will never have that. But you know we are not far off. So I get your concept.
Now, can you tell me how longI mean, this evolution took 50 years from the time that this was an idea that would be nice to have until a point where we have almost achieved wristwatch-sized telephones. That is 50 years. Now, how long do you supposeof course this is a question that you can't answer, but is there a need to identify some period of time when you get a payback on the investment that you are making in this kind of science?
Dr. TETHER. In the autonomous vehicle case, we believe that within 5 years, 5 to 10 years, we will have the capability to have vehicles drive themselves, not go in combat, not with weapons, not being a scout or something like that but just the logistic vehicles, and this grand challenge that we had was kind of a first step. The distance from Barstow to Frin is 142 miles through the desert. That was picked a little bit because the distance from Baghdad to Tikrit is about 142 miles.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, you know, if we could just get those vehicles and go that distance through the desert, we really are on the vernal of having convoys, logistics vehicles taking fuel, food, so forth and so on.
Mr. SAXTON. You use the example of Iraq. Is that a realistic objective? Is that a realistic objective? Given what you know about Iraq, is that a realistic objective?
Dr. TETHER. To have autonomous vehicles?
Mr. SAXTON. In Iraq today or in that kind of an environment.
Dr. TETHER. Well, I think we would use them.
Dr. KILLION. I think there have been payoffs already in the robotic vehicle arena. I mean, we saw it in Afghanistan, investment that Tonythat DARPA made back in the 1990's in the tactical mobile robots program, produced robots that allowed our soldiers to send a robot into a cave instead of having to go into a cave themselves potentially to face an enemy.
Mr. SAXTON. And the soldiers sit there and control the robot now.
Let me go back to my question. Is it a realistic objective? Tony said he has got a program that is going to develop robotic trucks that can form a convoy and carry goods from point A to point B to point C and finally to where the goods are going to be used by our military people. Is that a realistic objective in Iraq today if we had the technology? Could we send a convoy out with no people and expect it to get where it is going to go?
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. TETHER. I think we would still have the two Humvees that are armed behind it and in front of them, along with that convoy. We wouldn't get rid of all the people, but, again, I really do believe that we will be able to have that capability.
Now, what is the savings of a convoy of 10 vehicles with not having drivers in it? First of all, they don't make a very good IED target any longer, other than getting the convoy, but the number of people that are required to support the people driving those vehicles is substantial, but, yeah, I do believe that.
I would be less optimistic that we will have an autonomous vehicle that will go sneak in behind the enemy lines and get information and take it back or have one that is armed to go in, but to do the simple job of going from point A to point B, yeah.
Mr. SAXTON. You are more optimistic than I am, and I say this in a friendly way.
What about the monkey's arm?
Dr. TETHER. The monkey's arm, our projection is that this is a project that probably is 20 to 25 years out. You know, it is a long haul. It is going to happen. By us being involved with it at Duke University, there is universities all over the country now that are doing this, because we showed it could be done. One of the things that stops progress is having people not believe that they can do it. The 4-minute mile, for examplerememberbecause I think we both remember back in those days it was proven that a human could not run faster than 4 minutes. The instant that one person did it, three others ran less than 4 minutes right after that. It is showing that it can be done. That is sometimes what DARPA does and DARPA does the best.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SAXTON. When somebody shows you that something can be done and it is something that is a needed idea or a technique, we said that anybody that comes in with a good idea, you go ahead and fund it.
Dr. TETHER. That is correct.
Mr. SAXTON. I brought you an idea a while back and first you told me it couldn't be done, and then you told me theyou know what I am talking about.
Dr. TETHER. Yes.
Mr. SAXTON. I am talking about Al Beck. And then you told me that you didn't fund it because it couldn't be approved by the FDA. And Al Beck now infected mice with both anthrax and smallpox, or some form of smallpox, and you have got 100 percent survivability in both cases.
Dr. TETHER. I know.
Mr. SAXTON. And then you told them you said it couldn't be approved by the FDA, and now he has shown me that it can. And as a matter of fact, he has sold the program to George Mason, who has now bought out the private contractor that was running the program, and they still need funding now. Can we talk about this in a serious way this time?
Dr. TETHER. His technique is a very hard technique to get through the FDA process. The reason is, is that he takes a combination of drugs and mixes them into a cocktail. There is no reason to believe that it doesn't work, but to get that through the FDA, you have totheir techniques will force you to show each one of those separate ingredients in the cocktail works before you mix them together. So he has picked
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SAXTON. But he is taking off-the-shelf prescriptions and mixing them together, and you can treat smallpox after the attack has occurred.
Dr. TETHER. We are working with him.
Mr. SAXTON. No. What does that mean?
Dr. TETHER. We are working hard with him in order to help him. We have got our guys working with him to help him, and he, by the way, is very puzzled by the U.S. process,you know. I mean, he is really.
Mr. SAXTON. And I am equally puzzled by yours.
Dr. TETHER. But he is really puzzled by the U.S. process of getting drugs through. He doesn't quite understand why this just doesn't happen, and quite frankly, I am a little bit on his side, but the process is the process.
Mr. SAXTON. You need to be more on his side. You know, when you think outside the box, I would put it to you this way, and I am not going to give up on this, because I think he is on to something. Five years ago when I started to help him I was a voice in the wilderness, and I must admit that it was uncomfortable at times being a voice in the wilderness, but now he has demonstrated that he can infect mice with both anthrax and smallpox, treat them after they are infected and save 100 percent of them, and I find it hard to believe that I have to fight as hard as I can to get a few measly bucks to keep him going, when you said there a few minutes ago that somebody comes in with a good idea, you will fund it because you can't find enough good ideas.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Dr. TETHER. Right. That is true. I did say that.
Mr. SAXTON. I have got a partner up here who is going to help me earmark the money. How about that?
Okay. Mr. Langevin, I am sorry. I got carried away.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, thanks for the work that you are doing. It is always a pleasure to have you here, and I am a big supporter of the various agencies. So thank you.
Just to follow up on the discussion on the human computer interface work and also nanotechnology, I know that Brown University is doing extensive research in this area, because I have been briefed on it, oh, probably a little less than a year ago, but I want to know to what degree you have interaction with Brown University in this research, both in nanotechnology and also the computer human interface work.
Dr. TETHER. Our research with Brown, I believe that we are involved withwe have funded the researchers somewhat in that area, and we are well aware of his work. In fact, his work really started as a consequence of when we were first showing thatthe first results that were coming out of Duke.
Mr. LANGEVIN. I just want to make sure you are aware of what they are doing at Brown University and get that on the record. So thank you.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have got a question for Office of Naval Research. I want to know the status of oceans research being done through the Office of Naval Research. I understand that ONR is in numerous projects transferring to and from OSD that hasn't had a budget increase accordingly, so could you tell me the future of ocean systems in climate research with the Navy, how that work is going on right now, the University of Rhode Island?
Captain KAMP. Yes, sir. I would like to take that one for the record, because there is a lot of detail on that one.
[The information referred to can be viewed in the hard copy.]
Mr. LANGEVIN. That is good. We can follow up on the record on that.
Also onby the way, you know, in the chairman's discussion in the interaction in terms of these vehicles that could drive themselves, I personally can see a tremendous amount of benefit to that. You know, we have unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs, that are going to be driven by a person at another location, at a stationary location, and they do drive these things and fly these things into hostile territory. There is no reason we can't do the same thing with vehicles, and I can see the benefit of being a decoy convoy going down a road to ensurein addition to the countermeasures that were used, but to actually use a convoy as a decoy to see if there is actually any of these explosive devices along the road that are going to be detonated as the vehicle is driving by. So I think that is a tremendous benefit, in addition to just moving a convoy and moving goods from one area to another within a combat zone. So keep going on that. I think it is great research.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, I am deeply concerned about the threat of bioterrorism, directed both against our troops and our civilians, and I know that DARPA has been doing some impressive research in this field, and I was hoping that, Dr. Tether, you might be able to describe some of the programs both in the realm of preventative vaccine research and bioagent sensors.
Dr. TETHER. Well, some of the work is Dr. Al Beck's work that Chairman Saxton was talking about, but with DARPA what we did, which was a little bit different than what anybody else did in our vaccine work, was we looked at the difference betweenwe went to the DNA and we asked the question, what is the difference betweenwhat is in the DNA of a bug that is not in the human DNA? And we found certain sequences called CPG. If there is a lot of CFG sequences in bacteria, that you could then attack. So what we did was we developed vaccines that would do two things, vaccines that would go after that part of the DNA. If that was in your blood, it was a foreign object, and it wouldn't hurt the human.
On the other hand, we also found that if you just took segments of CPG and in a vaccine like an anthrax vaccine you put in CPG, you could increase the efficacy of the vaccine very fast. So perhaps while not needing six shots to get the full efficacy, you might be able to get the same benefit with only two shots.
We did prove this with hepatitis, by the way. It is hard to go and experiment with the other drugs, but with hepatitis you usually need two shots in order toof a vaccine, and we were able to show that if you mixed in the CPG with the first shot that most people did not need the second shot. And that is basically what our research has been, and in a lot more detail I will be happy to send you that, but that is sort of the fundamental part of it.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. LANGEVIN. That is all the questions I had, Mr. Chairman. I will yield back, unless you wanted to follow up on the UUV and UAV
Dr. TETHER. I think you are absolutely right. Today we have UAVs, Predator and Global Hawk and other vehicles flying in, because we don't need people to do that job. It is almost like the truck. You know, a Predator and a Global Hawk is something that goes and just circles around and takes data, and so that was really equivalent to, if you will, this convoy of trucks.
It is one thing, however, to fly from point A to point B when you are above all the mountaintops than to try to drive aroundwell, you couldn't drive around this building anyways, but to have an autonomous vehicle do it would be totally impossible.
What happened at that grand challenge was quite interesting. And I had someone with me. The first vehicle goes out and makes the turn and roars out and makes the turn and is actually driving somewhat lifelike. So he leaned to me and he said, now, you are sure no one is inside there. Right? Because it really did move out as if it wasit not only got 8 miles through a little bit of bad luck because we hadreally the hardest part of the challenge was in the first 15 miles. We probably were dumb doing that, but that is the way God made the desert. But we are going to get there.
In fact, the Department of Commerce for years has had the Intelligent Highway Program, and that is coming. It is the same problem. You will some day take your car, drive it to a through-way, program where you want to go, and the car will take over driving you the rest of the way. And one of the reasons for wanting to do that in the commercial sense is that way we can pack cars really close together, and it becomes a throughput problem on our highways where we have congestion. So it will be useful even in a commercial world.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SAXTON. You are making me feel bad now, because you are making me think of my dad. He passed away in 2001, and he had Parkinson's disease for a long time before that. So it got to the point where the only thing he could do for enjoyment is I would go home and take him for a ride in my vehicle. So I bought a new Blazer and it had a lot of automatic stuff inside. It was the top-of-the-line Blazer, and we started out in the winter and he said, well, why don't you turn on the heat, son? He was grumpy. He said why don't you turn on the heat, son? I said, well, dad, when the engine warms up, it will turn it on. He said, pretty soon they will be doing all our thinking for us.
Well, listenJim, are you finished, or do you have more questions?
Mr. LANGEVIN. Just for Dr. Sega if I could. We had a great briefing a while back on hypersonic propulsion and that was impressive research, and I am curious as to the limits you see on it. You know, where are we going to be 25 years from now? You seem to be pushing the research. It is almost growing exponentially. Where are we going to be 20 to 25 years from now?
Dr. SEGA. The crystal ball gets a little fuzzy as you go out further and further. It goes back to the chairman's question a little bit. We look at putting investments in generations, and so we have a near-term generation that will replace what we are doing now. Generally it has more money in it than the one generation behind that, the generation behind that and the generation behind that. But as we laid out the technology roadmap in hypersonics and in other technologies, we are moving toward test flights, building off of a couple decades of ground-based testing and theoretical work. So the first flight test, I believe, at around the MACH 6 range is high fly, the DARPA Navy program; and in that same range, the MACH 6 to 7, is around 2008 for the Air Force program.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have a Rascal program from DARPA that has a turbine engine vehicle that goes to roughly MACH 3.5, to roughly 150,000 feet, and releases two stages of rockets, and you havea small payload then is sent into space.
Behind that then you start to build up the capacity of having reusable features, bringing the turbine up to a velocity in which case the scram jet in hypersonics takes over. And so you then have a buildingblock approach and you have more confidence in your work from your expendable flight experience in the off-ramp that goes into operational systems, and with more confidence it starts to give you the reliability that you need and durability for usable systems.
And so it is a stepping-stone approach that allows you then I believe to go out into those years of reusable flight regimes, into high MACH numbers, and potentially allowing ourselves another approach to access the space in highspeed flight that is reusable when you go out into those years. So I think that is a reasonable outcome as we evaluate each step of the way.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, gentlemen. I yield back, Chairman.
Mr. SAXTON. Well, I want to thank you for being here today. The stuff that you have over in the foyer is very impressive. It is certainly useful. Here is what I would like to suggest to you. I would like, Ron, to get together with you at some point for 2, 3 hours and talk about how we make these kinds of decisions where we invest our money based on the needs that are expressed by the services and based on some ideas that maybe some of us have trouble relating to, but I would like to look at the criteria that you use and the process that you use. And that will either make me feel better, or you and I can talk about how we might want to do it maybe in a little different way. So if we could do that, I would appreciate it.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And Tony, I am going to be knocking on your door, because I am not giving up on Al Beck.
Dr. TETHER. I am writing a note down here right now.
Mr. SAXTON. Yes, sir. And if this can in these two cases on mice, then I suspect it can work on monkeys, and that is where we need to go next. We need to test it on some number of monkeys. I think it is a hundred. And if it works on smallpox and if it works on anthrax, it probably works on a whole series of other diseases, weaponized or otherwise, and as I said before, 5 or 6 years ago when I started this thing, I thought there wouldn'tAl Beck convinced me to help him. I felt pretty funny at times because there were a lot of people in the scientific community that wereI felt like they were going out the door and smiling prettyhad a big old smile on their face because they didn't think it would work, but it is working. And I think it is at least revolutionary, and I think that DARPA ought to step in with George Mason University as a partner, not Al Beck anymore, although he is the scientist, with George Mason University as a partner and see if we can't get this to work, because it would not only be a great thing for our military people, it would be a great advancement in medicine.
So with that having been said, unless there are other peoplesome of my other colleagues that have questions or statements they want to make, I will thank you for being here and I will look forward to getting together with you to talk about this selection issue again. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]