[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 111-66]
======================================================================
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING
ON
BUDGET REQUEST FOR DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
__________
HEARING HELD
MAY 20, 2009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-053 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina JEFF MILLER, Florida
ROBERT ANDREWS, New Jersey FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island JOHN KLINE, Minnesota
JIM COOPER, Tennessee BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida
PATRICK J. MURPHY, Pennsylvania MAC THORNBERRY, Texas
BOBBY BRIGHT, Alabama
SCOTT MURPHY, New York
Tim McClees, Professional Staff Member
Alex Kugajevsky, Professional Staff Member
Andrew Tabler, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2009
Page
Hearing:
Wednesday, May 20, 2009, Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense
Authorization Act--Budget Request for Department of Defense
Science and Technology Programs................................ 1
Appendix:
Wednesday, May 20, 2009.......................................... 29
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 2009
FISCAL YEAR 2010 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST FOR
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Miller, Hon. Jeff, a Representative from Florida, Ranking Member,
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee 2
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Chairman,
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee 1
WITNESSES
Carr, Rear Adm. Nevin, Jr., USN, Chief of Naval Research,
Director, Test and Evaluation and Technology Requirements, U.S.
Navy........................................................... 6
Jaggers, Terry, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Science, Technology and Engineering, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Acquisition, U.S. Air Force...................... 8
Killion, Dr. Thomas, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Research and Technology, U.S. Army............................. 5
Leheny, Dr. Robert, Acting Director, Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, Office of the Secretary of Defense............ 10
Shaffer, Alan, Principal Deputy Director, Defense Research and
Engineering, Office of the Secretary of Defense................ 3
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Carr, Rear Adm. Nevin, Jr.................................... 78
Jaggers, Terry............................................... 94
Killion, Dr. Thomas.......................................... 69
Leheny, Dr. Robert........................................... 105
Miller, Hon. Jeff............................................ 34
Shaffer, Alan................................................ 35
Smith, Hon. Adam............................................. 33
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
[There were no Questions submitted post hearing.]
FISCAL YEAR 2010 NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT--BUDGET REQUEST FOR
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities
Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, May 20, 2009.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, 10:33 a.m., in room
2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN, TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND
CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Smith. Call the meeting to order. Thank you all very
much for being here this morning. This morning we are going to
talk about the Department of Defense Science and Technology
(DOD)(S&T) programs and the administration's priorities for the
S&T budget as reflected in their request this year. I will have
a brief opening statement and we will also have a statement
that, without objection, I will submit for the record.
I just want to welcome all of our witnesses here today to
talk about this very important subject. This is going to be a
very interesting budget year for the DOD on a wide variety of
programs. Certainly we have heard about some of the big ticket
items. But this has implications throughout the budget in terms
of how we set our priorities and science and technology will be
no exception. As we figure out where to do our research, what
our priorities should be on how to spend the money, our overall
priorities within the DOD budget are going to be critical to
assessing that. And all of the gentlemen here today are going
to be critical players in making those decisions and moving
forward.
In general, I want to say that I feel our research and
development in science and technology areas has done quite
well. The best thing they have done in the last couple of years
has been responsive to the battlefield needs. We would all like
to have long-term planning and we are still doing that. There
has been I believe a perfectly logical and reasonable shift in
focus since 9/11 to what we need in Iraq and Afghanistan. And
that help, I think, has been critical to the warfighters in
term of meeting their challenges by providing them with the
technological advances they need.
In many, many areas of particular note is the significant
improvement in the quality of medical care. You know both in
terms of battlefield survivability, the various treatments that
are now available and those seriously wounded, some of the
advances in prosthetics and other care that has really improved
the quality of life for our men and women who have been injured
out there. And a lot of that has to do with the investments
made within Research and Development (R&D) and science and
technology. Certainly there are many other areas where we have
made those improvements.
In the balance that we try to strike going forward, just to
make sure that we meet those battlefield needs and also look
down the road, which was one of the main purposes of research
and development off the bat and to see what our challenges are
going to be in the future and to improve technology in those
areas and to put us in the best position to meet them, to make
those investments early on.
So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. And with
that, I turn it over to the ranking member. Mr. Miller for any
opening comments he might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith can be found in the
Appendix on page 33.]
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA,
RANKING MEMBER, TERRORISM, UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS AND
CAPABILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an opening
statement that I would like to submit for the record but I have
a couple of comments I would like to make as well.
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today. It
was April 6th that Secretary Gates had a press conference where
he gave us our first and really only glimpse at this time into
the significant investments that he was proposing to the
President that would later be reflected in the fiscal year 2010
budget request. We have got a lot of questions for the
Secretary and the Department that will be coming out over the
next couple of weeks. I feel our job is complicated by the fact
that we only have fiscal year 2010 figures to work with, and we
have been told that future programmatic decisions will be based
on the outcome of the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
with some significant budgetary moves found in the fiscal 2010
budget.
I think everybody agrees that we have to get this right,
you know. This year's budget shows an overall decrease in the
research and development testing, engineering accounts from a
previous year. I think it was back in 2009 there was a four
percent increase. As I was going to say, if we don't get it
right or we don't provide sufficient funding for research and
development our forces could find themselves without much
needed capabilities.
I look forward to you gentlemen addressing these issues and
answering the questions we have for you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller can be found in the
Appendix on page 34.]
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. I will
introduce all of the witnesses and we will take you from left
to right. We always strive for between 5- and 10-minute opening
statements. There are five of you, but I want to make sure that
you get plenty of time to say what you have come to say. So
please feel free to use that time.
We are joined first of all by Mr. Alan Shaffer who is the
Principal Deputy Director for Defense Research and Engineering
(DRE) at the Department of Defense; Dr. Thomas Killion, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Army for Research and Technology, good
to see you again; Rear Admiral Nevin Carr, Chief of Naval
Research. I thank you in particular for being here this
morning, I know you had very significant family health care
problem this past week and I appreciate you being with us here.
We also have Mr. Terry Jaggers, who is the Deputy
Assistant--you get the prize for the longest title, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology &
Engineering at the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Acquisition for the Air Force, good to see you. And Dr. Robert
Leheny, acting director for the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, better known as DARPA. Welcome, and I should
make a note that we miss Mr. Tether, appreciate his long
service.
Dr. Leheny. Not as much as I do.
Mr. Smith. I know, it doesn't seem right doing this without
him, but I am sure you will fill in ably.
Mr. Shaffer.
STATEMENT OF ALAN SHAFFER, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DEFENSE
RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Mr. Shaffer. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Miller, I ask that my written testimony be entered into the
record. I am pleased to be here today on behalf of the nearly
100,000 Department of Defense science and technology men and
women who strive to discover, develop, mature and field the
best possible technologies at an affordable price for the
soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilians deployed in
defense of our Nation.
To meet this challenge requires us to develop the best we
can from our DOD laboratories and to partner with all elements
of the national science and technology infrastructure:
Academia, industry, small business and other federal agencies.
Delivering the best possible technology is a complex and
multifaceted effort. It is my honor today to show that we are
making progress toward this challenge. This is an exciting time
to be in the Department of Defense S&T. For the third straight
year we submitted a President's budget request that conveys
substantial change driven by the shift in national security
priorities in response to our current irregular warfare
engagement.
Counterinsurgency warfare requires us to expand our
capabilities in diverse areas such as persistent surveillance,
protection technologies, cultural and social modeling and other
non-kinetic capabilities, while maintaining adequate
conventional operational capabilities at the same time. We have
realigned well over 10 percent of the science and technology
investment over the last three budget requests.
This year's budget submission was guided by four strategic
principles. The first basic research was articulated by
Secretary Gates in his fiscal year 2009 budget posture hearing.
The other three were highlighted by the Secretary in his April
6th speech which laid out the budget priorities for the
Department of Defense. They are: Taking care of our people,
developing the capabilities to fight the current and future
wars, and improving our acquisition capabilities and
accountability.
The S&T budget submission we are discussing today addresses
all of these priorities and more. Building upon our budget
request for the past several years and aligns our investment to
irregular warfare challenges.
The S&T Fiscal Year 2010 President's budget request of
$11.6 billion represents a strong continued commitment to S&T.
Specifically this year's request came within one half of a
percent of maintaining real growth compared to 2009, and the
combined real growth of the S&T budget request from fiscal year
2008 to 2010 is about 4 percent growth.
Fiscal year 2010 continues the trend of moving investment
from kinetic to non-kinetic capabilities. It includes a number
of areas of increased emphasis. Medical research and
development which increases nearly $500 million for combat
casualty care and mitigation rehabilitation of traumatic brain
injury, post-traumatic stress disorder and other combat related
injuries.
Expanded cyber protection, which increases the DOD in
investment by about $50 million a year to fund information
assurance science and technology for intrusion prevention and
detection. Expanded antitamper technology, which increases
efforts and vulnerability assessments of our platforms and
development of new technologies to improve antitamper
capabilities.
Stand-off detection of fissile materials which increases
our investment to improve remote detection capabilities of
weapons of mass destruction. Large data handling capabilities
starts a new science and technology program to improve our
capacity to handle large and increasing amounts of information
supporting current and emerging warfighter requirements.
In his April 6th speech, Secretary Gates cited his first
priority as taking care of people. The most significant way the
S&T community is addressing his charge to take care of our
people is medical research and development. About 18 months
ago, in recognition of the exceptional importance and urgency
and improvements in combat casualty care, the department
conducted an extensive review of medical R&D. The assessment
resulted in the justification for substantial budget increase
which was directed to the services and defense health program.
Secretary Gates's second priority is institutionalizing and
enhance our capabilities to fight current and future wars,
which means we need to continue the shift of investment from
kinetic to non-kinetic capabilities to meet the unique
challenges of irregular warfare. We have emphasized development
of new capabilities in several high-priority areas to include
intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), large data
processing, command and control of network sciences, cyber
protection, social modeling, irregular warfare modeling and
simulation, and energy efficiency for forward deployed forces.
I would be happy to discuss any of these areas in detail during
the question and answer period.
The final priority highlighted by Secretary Gates is
improving acquisition process and accountability. There have
been numerous blue ribbon panels or blue ribbon studies
pointing to the challenges facing our acquisition program. The
S&T team can play a key role in several areas, including
technology maturity assessments, rapid acquisition, agile
information tools and high performance computing. Again, I
would be happy to discuss any of these in further detail during
question and answer.
In conclusion, the DOD S&T community has adapted and will
continue to adapt to the needs of the warfighter, as guided by
Secretary Gates's core strategic principles. The basic research
program is stronger. We are expanding our S&T program to take
better care of our people. We are developing capabilities both
for the current and future conflicts and we are improving our
department's acquisition posture.
In short, the S&T community stands ready to provide
combatant commanders the tools necessary to carry out their
missions around the world. Our measure of success will always
be the ability for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to
maintain a technological advantage on the battlefield. We
appreciate the opportunity to provide the update on the status
of the DOD enterprise. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shaffer can be found in the
Appendix on page 35.]
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. Dr. Killion.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS KILLION, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
THE ARMY FOR RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. ARMY
Dr. Killion. Thank you, Chairman Smith and the
distinguished members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the fiscal year 2010 Army science and
technology program and the significant role that S&T is playing
in supporting our warfighters both tomorrow and today. And I
have submitted a written statement and request that it be
accepted for the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection.
Dr. Killion. I want to thank the members of this committee
for your critical role in supporting our soldiers who are at
war and for your advocacy of Army S&T investments. They will
help to sustain technological preeminence for our soldiers.
Your continued support is absolutely vital to our success. The
Army's S&T investment strategy is shaped to foster innovation
and mature technology to enable future force capabilities,
while exploiting opportunities to rapidly transition technology
to the current force.
The S&T program retains flexibility to be responsive to
unforeseen needs identified through current operations. We have
rapidly responded to a broad range of these needs. Our Army
scientists and engineers have made significant contributions to
the war fighting systems being used to buy today's soldiers.
Recent Army S&T transitions to Operation Iraqi Freedom and
Operation Enduring Freedom have significantly reduced soldier
and vehicle weight burdens while increasing protection
capability. Additionally, because of the Army's S&T's position
early in the acquisition process, our work in armor, networks,
power and energy and other areas are well positioned to support
Army brigade combat team modernization.
Army S&T is seeking to optimize our future investments to
mature both vehicle and soldier protection and efficiently
reduce weight burdens as collective systems. S&T investments
contributing to soldier weight reduction are approached in a
holistic fashion to address personnel load issues. Exploitation
of advanced materials and manufacturing processes allow for
weight reduction of individual components while increasing the
capability of soldier equipment.
Our investment in medical S&T provides the basis for
maintaining both the physical and psychological health of our
soldiers as well as enhancing their performance. Battle Mind,
which is the Army's psychological resiliency building program,
prepares soldiers for both the mental and emotional rigors
faced during deployment and improves their ability to
transition home.
We have also recently initiated a program to develop
detection and prevention methods that combat the incidents of
suicide in our soldiers.
While much of the focus of our S&T investments is
necessarily on near and midterm futures, we have also sustained
our commitment to basic research that seeks to enable the next
generation of soldiers with paradigm-shifting capabilities to
dominate in the full spectrum of battle space environments.
In closing, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee and for your
support to Army, science and technology investments. I am proud
to represent the efforts of thousands of Army scientists and
engineers dedicating to providing our soldiers with the best
possible technology in the shortest possible time. I will be
pleased to answer your questions and those of the subcommittee.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Killion can be found in the
Appendix on page 69.]
Mr. Smith. Admiral Carr.
STATEMENT OF REAR ADM. NEVIN CARR, JR., USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL
RESEARCH, DIRECTOR, TEST AND EVALUATION AND TECHNOLOGY
REQUIREMENTS, U.S. NAVY
Admiral Carr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
committee. It is an honor to appear before you to report on
science and technology efforts within the Department of the
Navy and how the President's fiscal year 2010 budget request
supports the Navy and Marine Corps.
Accompanying me is the Vice Chief of Naval Research
Brigadier General Thomas Murray who also serves as Commanding
General of the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory. The naval
S&T challenge is to support a Navy and Marine Corps capable of
prevailing in any threat environment. In order to address
critical Navy and Marine Corps challenges today and tomorrow,
the Office of Naval Research (ONR) must focus on S&T areas that
provide the biggest payoff for our future, be innovative in our
thinking and business processes and continuously improve our
ability to transition that S&T into acquisition programs.
The President's fiscal year 2010 budget requests 1.8
billion for Naval S&T to accomplish these goals. As you know,
it is not just about high tech weapons. Please let me share an
example of S&T efforts to protect sailors and Marines in the
operational environment by reducing hearing damage to personnel
exposed to high noise. We are working on multiple approaches to
reduce, monitor and assess exposure, develop advanced personal
protective equipment, and develop enhanced warnings and
procedures to insure exposure does not become damaging.
ONR developed technologies are now transitioning to the
warfighter as part of the acquisition's sponsors flight deck
cranial program. We are also working on treatment, including
groundbreaking pharmaceutical inventions for situations where
potentially damaging exposure does occur.
In another area of interest to Congress, ONR is working
with DOD and Navy task force energy to reduce the amount of
fossil fuels used by our forces. We continue to invest in Navy
future fuel's efforts to investigate the impact of new fuel
formulations on naval machinery. In fiscal year 2009, Congress
added 20 million for alternative energy research. We are using
the funds to evaluate energy positive structures, advanced
solar, wind and ocean thermal technologies. And to address
system integration impacts and intermittent time renewable
energy sources on power grids.
Finally, ONR continues to support research in fuel cells,
methane hydrates and other sources of energy. Significant S&T
efforts are dedicated to responsible stewardship of the marine
environment. This includes impact of national security
requirements on marine mammals. The Navy is the world leader on
marine mammal research, with ONR spending approximately 14
million annually to understand how marine mammals may be
affected by sound.
Navy investments represent a majority of funding spent on
this research in the U.S. and nearly half of that spent
worldwide. Congress has been generous in support of these
programs, and I look forward to continued partnership in
achieving the goal of better protecting the marine environment.
Prevailing in today's threat environment and building a strong
flexible force in the future requires careful S&T investment to
protect the Nation and our warfighters. To achieve that goal we
continue moving forward toward a greater integration of
capabilities, more effective partnership between research and
acquisition and a clearer vision of how to achieve shared goals
among DARPA, Army, Air Force and other DOD research
organizations. We must monitor and leverage S&T in a global
environment, worldwide movement of technology and innovation
demands that we be able to take advantage of emerging ideas
wherever they originate.
We have an aggressive worldwide presence, with S&T
partnerships in 70 countries, 50 states, 900 companies, 3,300
principal investigators, 3,000 graduate students, and 1,000
academic and nonprofit entities. Own our global offices London,
Tokyo, Singapore and Santiago, Chile, help us stay abreast of
emerging S&T trends around the world and avoid technological
surprise.
In order to tap the full spectrum of innovative thinking
and discovery, we continue to focus the majority of our
investments on performers outside the naval R&D system.
Nevertheless, in a ceaseless effort to attract world-class
scientists to become part of our organization, we continue to
mature world-class skills and innovation within our lab systems
and especially a naval research laboratory. For these reasons,
I believe our S&T investments are sound and represent careful
stewardship of tax dollars that will significantly enhance the
safety and performance of our warfighters.
Thank you for your support, I will do my best to answer
your questions.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Admiral.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Carr can be found in the
Appendix on page 78.]
Mr. Smith. Mr. Jaggers.
STATEMENT OF TERRY JAGGERS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE
AIR FORCE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING, OFFICE OF
THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ACQUISITION, U.S. AIR FORCE
Mr. Jaggers. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee and
staff. Thank you, I am pleased to have this opportunity to
provide testimony on the fiscal year 2010 Air Force Science and
Technology Program. The Air Force S&T program is a vital
element of the Air Force's larger research and development
strategy. At approximately $2.2 billion, the fiscal year 2010
President's budget request for S&T includes an increase of $98
million or almost 4 percent real growth over the fiscal year
2009 core S&T request.
For the past 2 years, I have spoken extensively about
adapting Air Force S&T to the security environment identified
in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and shifting investment
emphasis from traditional conventional threats to new
unconventional threats such as terrorism. The Air Force S&T
program continues to address this challenge by focusing
investments on near-term contingency support and far-term
capability needs to maintain technological superiority for our
Nation.
The five guiding principles I established back in 2005 for
S&T now provide a comprehensive framework for our larger Air
Force R&D strategy. My number one priority still remains the
valuation and protection of our greatest R&D asset, people. To
complement our recently approved human capital strategic plan
for the acquisition workforce we have created a major
initiative to recruit, develop, mentor and retain the Nation's
best and brightest scientists, technologists, engineers and
mathematicians, otherwise known as STEM.
The National Research Council study we commissioned over a
year ago to define Air Force STEM and lay out a road map to
manage it effectively is scheduled for completion this summer.
We look forward to the NRC recommendations and plan on
incorporating them into our new Air Force STEM strategic plan.
This STEM strategic plan will address the hundreds of thousands
of critical STEM across the Air Force and better integrate the
approximately 3,000 STEM at our Air Force research laboratory.
Our hopes are to better synergize the many STEM workforce
improvement initiatives across non-S&T, with those targeted for
S&T, such as section 1108 and section 219 from the fiscal year
2009 National Defense Authorization Act. We are maximizing the
use of these authorities in the laboratory and hope to engage
Congress on the larger STEM workforce issues in the future.
My second priority is to maintain stability and balance in
the S&T portfolio. An appropriate balance is not only required
between the three budget activities of S&T, but also between
S&T and the follow on prototyping budget activity four. This is
critical to successful technology transition while ensuring our
future acquisition programs are structured for success with
disciplined, up-front system engineering.
Closely coupled with this is our third S&T guiding
principle, to focus technology development on Air Force
strategic priorities. Again, our S&T program focuses technology
investments on the five priorities of the Air Force:
Revitalizing the nuclear enterprise, winning today's fight,
developing and caring for airmen, modernizing our air space and
cyber inventories, and recapturing acquisition excellence.
Our fourth guiding principle, transition technology to
warfighters and system developers, is one that has gained even
greater importance during this time of acquisition improvement.
Finding new and improved ways of transitioning technologies
directly to the warfighter and into our weapon systems
acquisitions is an area that has received special attention
since we stood up our technology transition office within the
headquarters Air Force last year. Already it has been directly
responsible for crafting minimum criteria needed for successful
transitions, as well as leading the theory and thought across
the Department for early-phase systems engineering and pre-
acquisition technology insertion planning.
Last, but certainly not least, is our fundamental principle
of honoring commitments we have made with our partners. Whether
they are with others across the Air Force, our sister services,
Defense agencies, the Office of Secretary of Defense, industry
academia, our allies or with you the Congress, Air Force S&T
stands by our commitments. Guided by these principles, this
budget request focuses investments on Air Force and joint
warfighting needs. We continue to shift S&T investments from
traditional areas to support unconventional warfare. A specific
goal of the 2008 Air Force strategic plan is to bolster the Air
Force core function of Intelligence, Surveillance and
Reconnaissance, or ISR, support to the joint warfighter,
emphasizing irregular warfare scenarios. The S&T program is
developing unprecedented, proactive ISR technologies to create
a universal situational awareness through a layered and
flexible sensing architecture for use not only in traditional
air warfare but in unconventional cyberspace warfare as well.
Other focused investments include energy-efficient
technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
Sustainment technologies to assist in prolonging the life
expectancy of our legacy aircraft, and, of course, game-
changing technologies such as directed energy, hypersonics,
cyberspace and highly accurate low collateral damage
conventional munitions.
Related to S&T and technology development, I know there is
a subcommittee interest in leveraging S&T competencies for
acquisition improvement. As both the Air Force S&T executive
and the Air Force chief engineer, I personally conduct all
independent technology readiness assessments on the Air Force
major defense acquisition programs. To date, I have led
approximately 30 technology readiness assessments, 2
manufacturing readiness assessments, 1 overall program
assessment and multiple independent reviews. Obviously, these
reviews inspect in quality after the fact and require
integration to maximize their utility. In fact, we have a major
initiative ongoing with the Office of the Secretary of Defense
(OSD) right now to combine these specialty reviews into a
single standardized process.
However, to structure programs for success before these
inspections begin, the Air Force is proud to have initiated two
new programs. First, to address the NRC recommendation for
early-phase systems engineering during pre-acquisition concept
development. And the second, to reduce integration risks
through pre-program of record competitive prototyping.
The Air Force has already developed the policy framework to
implement these two programs and are emboldened by the fact
that both the Department of Defense instruction 5000.2 and
recent House and Senate acquisition legislation reflect these
very same NRC recommendations or any adopted by the Air Force.
Guided by Air Force strategic priorities, the Air Force S&T
program is rebuilding and reshaping the workforce balancing and
focusing investments to modernize our inventories for a wide
range of contingencies. Shrinking the technology transition
gap, and honoring commitments with joint and coalition teams to
win the fight today and tomorrow.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to
present testimony, and I thank you for your continued support
of the Air Force S&T program. I look forward to your questions.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jaggers can be found in the
Appendix on page 94.]
Mr. Smith. Dr. Leheny.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT LEHENY, ACTING DIRECTOR, DEFENSE
ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE
Dr. Leheny. Good morning. I would like to thank Chairman
Smith and distinguished members of the subcommittee for this
opportunity to briefly describe DARPA's programs and
accomplishments which are discussed in much greater detail in
my written testimony, which I would like to submit for the
record.
My remarks this morning I would like to focus on a few
examples of how DARPA's work aligns with Secretary Gate's
priorities for the department's 2010 budget. As we have already
heard this morning, his first priority is to maintain our
commitment to the care of all-volunteer forces. For several
years, DARPA's bio-revolution programs have supported this
commitment with innovative medical research programs. And our
flagship program in this area is our revolutionizing
prosthetics effort which was recently showcased here on the
Hill as part of the Veteran Administration's research week and
which was featured a few weeks ago on CBS television's 60
Minutes program.
The big news is that over the next 18 months in final test
with the VA, approximately 30 combat veterans will participate
in clinical trials of the prosthetic arm that is being
developed in this program. And of this group, eight will test
the arm at home in their normal day-to-day activities. In fact,
one of these veterans is scheduled to take his arm home this
week.
In another of our medical programs, we are investigating
the cause and treatment of traumatic brain injury, TBI. While
the program is still in its early phases, it is already
providing insights into the potential budget of TBI, insights
that we believe will lead to new treatments, therapies to
minimize the long-term effects of this devastating injury.
The Secretary is also emphasizing the need to rebalance the
Department's investments to enhance our ability to fight the
kind of wars we are fighting today. At DARPA, we began this
process more than a decade ago. And in direct response to
challenges our troops are encountering in Iraq and Afghanistan,
we identified urban area operations as a specific agency
strategic thrust.
One success within this program is our hard wire vehicle
armor program which has demonstrated advanced composite armor
system that is being used to protect troops on thousands of
Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles today. At the
same time, we began investigating new modes of ISR capabilities
with a goal of creating a decisive edge for our forces:
Capabilities for sharing information among small ground units;
for better management of manned and unmanned ISR assets; for
increasing predator effectiveness by providing video feeds to
more than 50 users from a single predator platform; for
providing new UAV-based radar capabilities; for finding and
tracking ground vehicles and dismounts in cities and under
forest canopies.
And in a very ambitious program, we are jointly working
with, and recently undertaken, with the Air Force, we will
demonstrate a radar-equipped airship that can provide
unprecedented wide-area surveillance capabilities, and which,
when fully developed, will be capable of operating continuously
for up to 10 years.
The current conflict has also highlighted the importance of
prompt language translation. DARPA is meeting this need with
technology for near-real-time translations of Arabic TV
broadcasts, translations that are providing our forces better
situational awareness. Our long-term goal is to dramatically
reduce the need for human language translators.
And in further keeping with the Secretary's objectives, we
continue to invest in conventional force-on-force capabilities
by supporting research on space technologies, unmanned systems,
novel weapons and technologies for netcentric warfare and
information assurance.
Of particular interest are our investments in
cybersecurity. These include investigating ways to find
malicious elements inserted during manufacture into the
microchips that are the brains in so many of our advanced
systems. In an effort that we expect will be the foundation for
future cybersecurity research, we are creating a national cyber
range. This range, by providing tools for establishing and
making precision measurements on a large scale, using realistic
cyber networks, the test bed will impact--major principal
impact--will be to spur further development in cybersecurity.
Finally, in the belief that the best way to prepare for the
future is by creating it, we continue to maintain a robust
portfolio program focused on our core technologies. These
programs extend from quantum physics and theoretical
mathematics, to material and information science to advanced
micro systems. The fruits of these investments will create
future capabilities and provide us our longest term guard
against conventional or asymmetric surprises. And in an
initiative that grew out of our robotic vehicle grand challenge
experience, we have begun a program targeted at high school
students interested in computer science.
These are just a few examples of what we are doing at
DARPA. There are many more in the written testimony. Thank you,
and I would be pleased to take your questions at this time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Leheny can be found in the
Appendix on page 105.]
Mr. Smith. Thank you all. We will do questions under the
five-minute rule for everybody, including me. First, I want to
ask about the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat
Organization (JIEDDO) program and how much progress we are
making in terms of dealing with improvised explosive devices,
and what your research is focusing on to try to solve that
problem. I understand some progress has been made, a vexing,
vexing issue, but what S&T approaches are we employing at this
point to try to address that?
I guess, Mr. Shaffer, I will start with you, and if anyone
else wants to chime in, they may.
Mr. Shaffer. Yes, sir, thank you sir, that is a tough
question and especially to answer in this particular forum.
Mr. Smith. Yes, I was looking through my series of
questions here and a whole bunch of them seem to be generated
in areas that we can't answer in this forum. But some broad
outlines.
Mr. Shaffer. I will turn to my compatriots who are in the
services, actually doing the work. But what I will tell you
this year and really at the insistence and hard dedication of
Dr. Andre van Tilborg, who is sitting behind me, the Under
Secretary for science and technology, we conducted an end-to-
end review, really a focus-deep dive of what JIEDDO is doing in
their science and technology program and aligning those efforts
with our service programs. And really the JIEDDO program
stretches across an entire spectrum of technologies, everything
from neutralizing detonation devices, but now starting to work
our way back up the chain to understand the network that leads
to some of these terrorist bombers. Can we go ahead and get to
the network and prevent the IED before the IED is built?
So when you take a look at the JIEDDO program, it is more
from just protecting against the specific device to protecting
against the event. And I think I would like to turn to my
compatriots and my colleagues for specific activities in their
areas.
Mr. Smith. Certainly. Dr. Killion.
Dr. Killion. Sure, of course is there a broad range of
technologies that apply in this case----
Mr. Smith. I guess when I am trying to get at, sir, what is
the most promising? I guess the answer to that is nothing is
most promising it is a series of approaches and you have to try
all of them.
Dr. Killion. You have to try a range of them, certainly,
and we have applied a number of them what JIEDDO helped to do
is aid to provide resources and focus, to actually take the
technologies we are working in the labs and quickly bring them
to the fore to get them to the field. We actually continue to
work the underlying technologies, JIEDDO helps to mature them
and get them out.
Mr. Smith. Right.
Dr. Killion. That is a good partnership. We are doing that
in a number of areas. Armor is clearly an important area in
terms of the protection of vehicles, not only for combat
vehicles, tactical vehicles. We have done work in the MRAP
program in terms of enhancing protection on some of those
vehicles where we've added lightweight armor to them that
wasn't there to begin with. The electronic warfare domain,
which we can't say a whole lot about in this forum, that is an
area where in terms of exploiting devices and also coming up
with methodologies to feed, control and initiation of those
devices, there are tools that have been developed across the
service laboratories.
And in the ISR domain, as Al mentioned, in terms of looking
at the network, it is a matter of being able to monitor who is
doing what, detect the presence of explosives, detect the
presence of activities by certain individuals. There is a full
range of technologies that do apply to try and disrupt a
network of activities and also defeat the device when the time
comes to do so.
I think we have been pretty effective in bringing to the
fore as many of those as feasible. And that is always the
challenge is the balance of what can you actually do and apply
it to a vehicle and have it still be able to do its job, for
example.
Mr. Smith. Anybody else have comments?
Admiral Carr. I guess I just would echo the kill chain
approach and the good work across the kill chain from
understanding the social networks, and who is doing what, and
trying to interrupt things before they get to that point of
explosion which is not where you want to defeat an IED. I would
say there is no single ah-hah technology that will be our
panacea, but across that whole chain, lots of work to
interrupting that moment of detonation, protecting against it
when it does occur and obviously protecting the warfighters
that have suffered those detonations, no single-point solution.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
Dr. Leheny. I would like to mention DARPA is working
closely with JIEDDO. We have created a village in the National
Training Center where we are undergoing a number of tests. We
are looking at, because the materials themselves are so
difficult to detect, the chemical detection systems are not
very effective. We are looking at, by having persons in that
village, actually assembling the bombs, we are able to
determine using the techniques that we know the terrorists use
to readily detect the chemicals associated with the fabrication
of the bombs.
Mr. Smith. Learn what you should be looking for in advance.
Understood.
Dr. Leheny. Absolutely.
Mr. Smith. I am out of time. Mr. Jaggers, really quick.
Okay, I yield to Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Leheny, how is
DARPA coordinating its cyber research activities with other
relevant federal agencies, including agencies that fund
unclassified research in studies the National Science
Foundation? And will these agencies and other civilian research
agencies have access to the National Cyber Range or other
support infrastructure?
Dr. Leheny. Yes, DARPA is participating with a number of
other agencies of the government in an Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP)-led effort to coordinate our reaction,
the national reaction, if you like, to the cyber threat. It is
certainly our intent that the National Cyber Range, once it is
established, will be available for both government and
nongovernment researchers, and other interested parties to take
advantage of the capabilities cyber range will provide.
As one aspect of the range is we believe it would be
possible to conduct both classified and unclassified research
activities on the range at the same time that the range itself
will be capable of separating, if you like, the various
activities that are taking place so as to protect the
classified nature of that network which has to be classified.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, sir. A little more broader question,
anybody can jump on this one if they want. We all know that
rapid fielding has emerged as the way to get things out to the
warfighter, but there are challenges that are still out there
confronting the process. And what I would like to know is what
the is impact that rapid fielding has on traditional or
standard testing processes or procedures? Anybody can take that
one.
Mr. Shaffer. Sir, I will try this one, I am not sure I will
be able to answer the question. I will speak from the
experience of two particular vantage points. One, I am the
executive director of the MRAP task force and two, the joint
rapid acquisition cell falls under my responsibility. While we
strive to push things out just as fast as possible, we always
do test things. So, for instance, the MRAP vehicles, the
largest amount of time that it takes from the time that we put
a contract out, to getting those into the hands of the soldiers
and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan is in testing, so we
understand what is going on.
The same thing will happen with the joint rapid
acquisitions bill and anything we are pushing out we accelerate
testing. I had hoped that Dr. John Foulkes from the Test
Research Management Center (TRMC) was going to be here today.
He apparently was detained. But we work very closely with TRMC
and all of these rapid fielding and Operational Test and
Evaluation (OT&E) and Developmental Test and Evaluation (DT&E)
in fielding, and with the services to make sure that what we
send out we at least understand and test.
Mr. Jaggers. Sir, I will just add the two things that
probably suffer in the test world from rapid fielding, are
obviously you are doing developmental test work, piece of
developmental test, certainly operational test in theater when
that piece is deployed. Things that suffer are things like
reliability, maintainability and sustainability, things that
you want to define into the system and test those before they
go over there before it is a surprise to maintainers and avoid
suspicions you have to operate in theater.
The other thing that tends to suffer is interoperability.
There are a lot of legacy systems out there that have to
interface. And to flesh those things out ahead of time in an
operationally relevant environment before you deploy to the
operational environment to understand where those interfaces
are and interoperability issues obviously would be something of
value. I guess my thoughts are as long as the commander in
theater knows those risks and limitations and is willing to
take the benefits that outweigh those risks and limitations,
then it's something that needs to go to the field rapidly.
Mr. Miller. If I could follow Mr. Jaggers. The Government
Accountability Office (GAO) has criticized repeatedly the F-35
program for reducing its Test and Evaluation (T&E) activities
and assuming, saying it was assuming too much risk. And the
President's budget is accelerating procurement of the Joint
Strike Fighter (JSF) and stopping production of the F-22 or
procurement of the F-22. Can you expand on what you may see as
the current risk to the JSF program due to reduced T&E activity
or do you see any?
Mr. Jaggers. Sir, that is a better question for the service
acquisition executive, my boss, the Secretary of the Air
Force--Acquisition (SAF AQ). I will take that for the record.
In general any time there are two items that tend to get
reduced in acquisition programs as a matter of record when they
extend out their acquisition life cycle and that is test, and
the other one is system engineering. Those tend to be tradeable
things, an acquisition program at the expense of cost and
schedule.
In general that is a bad practice as a matter of process.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, my time has expired.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Ellsworth.
Mr. Ellsworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question
probably is best for Mr. Shaffer and Dr. Leheny. Can you
discuss, I represent the 8th district of Indiana. Crane Naval
Warfare Center is in my district, and I know they do great work
there. Can you talk about the workforce development issues that
you might face in research and development in DARPA, difficulty
in finding the folks, it is a very rural area of my state, but
maybe some of the challenges you are facing finding a workforce
and finding the folks to do the Research and Development (R&D)
that you find necessary.
Mr. Smith. That is not just because they do not want to
live in Indiana. I have been to Crane, it is a lovely place to
work. I am just giving you a bad time, go ahead.
Mr. Shaffer. Anybody who likes basketball likes to go to
Indiana, so I don't understand the problem with Crane.
Science and engineering workforce is a concern of everybody
at this table because it is a competitive world. And there are
numerous recent reports. We need to do everything we can to
grow the entire science and engineering base of America and
then be agile and effective in getting workers and researchers
into our DOD laboratories. There are a number of recent
initiatives and then I will turn it over to Dr. Leheny and
others that are allowing us better authorities for hiring
people rapidly.
The Department is beginning to use those. And actually the
first one out of the shoot is Navy Research Laboratory and the
Navy Surface Warfare Centers. I got a report, and I should
probably let Admiral Carr talk about this, but I got a report
from Dr. John Montgomery of Navy Research Laboratory who loves
the rapid hiring authorities. Since they were approved and
delegated to him in March, he has been able to fill nearly his
entire quota of 30 people with high-quality people. What you
find you have very good problems and can hire people on the
spot and give them a future we can get people in science and
engineering. That doesn't address the overall issue of the
number of scientists and engineers available, we have to work
that, and in fact, there is legislation out to take a look at
that as a whole of government approach, but it really is a very
complex problem. Create the scientists and engineers and then
let us hire them quickly.
Bob.
Dr. Leheny. What I would add is that DARPA, of course, has
a rather small workforce of its own. We do most of our research
through contracting.
And to specifically answer your question about your part of
the country, we recently visited the University of Indiana at
Indianapolis and spent half a day meeting with some of the
senior faculty there who described to us the kinds of research
that are being done on the campus there. We were very impressed
by the facilities that we saw and the quality of the research
described to us. And we left them with information about how to
access us, there are already people in the university being
supported by DARPA in some of our programs. We encourage them
to make further use of the availability of our research funds
and further their programs.
All our programs are competitively solicited so anyone in
your district who has an interest in receiving support from
DARPA for technical research that they want to engage in, we
welcome them to contact us with their ideas and we will
certainly take them under consideration.
Mr. Jaggers. Sir, I would add the authorities given to the
lab, lab demo, section 219, 1108, those kind of things
definitely make it easier to hire and better situation for the
laboratory of science and technology community, in the Air
Force that is 3,000 scientists and engineers in laboratory.
What concerns me, is that we have hundreds of thousands of
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
scientists and engineers outside of the laboratory too. We have
weather officers, half of our pilots have STEM background,
without those authorities. And beyond the laboratory
environment makes it difficult. My concern is some day in the
future we might not be able to get those manned as we would
like with STEM personnel.
Mr. Ellsworth. That would be my concern too. Thank you all
very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Conaway. Well thanks, sir, I appreciate you being here.
This is a 50,000-foot question, but maybe start with Dr.
Shaffer, how does the system prioritize between immediate needs
like the hearing loss program and the prosthetic program and
the arms versus the 20-year out, pie in the sky, what-if kind
of needs? Who sets those priorities, how do you allocate the
resources against that? And how do you split that up between
the various services and their cadre of great scientists?
Mr. Shaffer. Sir, that is a tough question, I wish there
was a magic formula, there is not. All of us wrestle with the
priorities between the near and the far term. Right now
Secretary Gates will go around the third floor and he wants to
make sure that we understand and we all understand we are a
nation at war. Anything that we can do to push technologies
from our laboratories, out to hands of the warfighters, that
technology makes a difference is our number one priority.
Beyond that, and this is where the difficulty comes in, while
Secretary Gates's clearing has given us that mandate, Secretary
Gates also gave us the mandate to increase basic research to
keep the overall knowledge base going.
So at the end of the day, it is through the very hard work
of going through the priorities, the alternatives of everybody
at this table working with program analysis and evaluation,
working with the requirers, working with the combatant
commanders, we do our very best to hit that balance, but there
is no magic formula. Everybody works as hard as they can to
optimize payoff for the research that we have.
Dr. Killion. And to follow up to what Mr. Shaffer says, I
think it is important to recognize you don't make that
distinction in my investment in 61, 62 and 63 between what is
invested necessarily in near term versus far term other than
basic research farther away in terms of maturity than advanced
technology. It is really about the fact that we maintain a
workforce of skilled individuals who understand technology and
understand the Army and its needs, that is both in its labs and
with our partners and universities in the industry. It is
because you have those people who have that understanding and
knowledge about the technology that they can then take that
knowledge and use it to solve problems, they can come up with a
solution.
You can go back to the gentleman in the laboratory who is
working on materials and say, we just discovered a problem with
this particular type of armor, why is it failing the way it is,
what can I do to fix that problem? And because they have that
knowledge and the methodology that they can use to bring to
bear to the problem, they can come up with the solution and
answer to the question and come up with an alternative.
Mr. Conaway. Let me ask this then, the weight of body armor
bothers all of us, soldiers wear it, Marines wear it, airmen
wear it. I guess Navy guys, who decides that we are going to
take on the task of providing effective equipment, but lowering
the weight? How do you decide where that project goes? How do
you focus it?
Dr. Killion. We have a systematic program within the Army,
it is a partnership between the Army Research Laboratory that
does fundamental research in that area, materials research,
Natick, and the Program Executive Office (PEO), which was
actually managing the soldier program in terms of looking at
okay, what do I do to redesign, to incorporate new materials
into such a system to provide better protection. It is driven
by the threat that you have to compete up there.
Mr. Shaffer. But I would like to amplify a little bit, sir.
We have a process and the representatives of the group called
the Defense Science & Technology Advisory Group (DSTAG) are
sitting at this table, along with Dr. van Tilborg, we go out
and scan the horizon and look for hard problems.
This morning, our council of colonels at our direction came
in and said we are going to take on in a very deep dive look at
the weight restrictions on dismounted infantry. So all of us
are going to go out to our programs, focus the technology that
we can to reduce the weight of dismounted infantry men, and we
will do that over about a two- to three-month period to affect
the program budget review.
Mr. Conaway. Let me ask this: You have the Army guys doing
it, and some Navy scientists doing it for the Marine Corps, and
some Air Force scientists doing it for the Air Force.
Mr. Shaffer. And DARPA.
Mr. Conaway. And DARPA. Of course. Why have they not all
duplicative doing the same thing? How do you focus it so that
you have the right synergy of enough minds going that you get
the weird idea that really works and you don't have everybody
doing the exact the same thing over and over.
Mr. Shaffer. That is exactly why we bring together the
technology focus teams under the DSTAG. That technology focus
team to reduce the weight on the soldier will actually be
reduce the weight on everybody. There are airmen out there
walking around, Marines and Navy people, that will have
representatives from all of us and our laboratories coming
together and showing each other and comparing technologies and
looking for those most promising option. So that team, the
technology focus team, will represent the entire department.
And internally deconflict, because everybody we have in those
teams wants to do what is right for the deployed forces. And
they will share and trade information. You know, it is
remarkable what happens when bureaucracy gets out of the way
and people who want to make a difference get together and start
working.
Mr. Jaggers. For instance, sir, Air Force is not in the
body armor business, that is an Army shop. However when you
come up with a hard problem like that, the Air Force is into
lightweight composite materials for aircraft. And we can bring
skills and competencies to bear on that Army or bigger larger
warfighter challenge. And we get the right people hooked up
with the Army to provide support in that regard. It is that--
the particular materials inside the body armor vests.
Admiral Carr. In the interest of the Marine Corps, we are
certainly working closely with the Army. I would say the cross
talk is very good.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you very much.
Admiral Carr. That is a problem we all face. The magnetic
attraction is pull investment forward so you can help out
programs. And we need to keep fertilizing those distant fields
not just for the technology but as Dr. Killion said, scientists
that are out there.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. McIntyre.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can't let the
comment go without Indiana basketball without recognizing our
North Carolina basketball. The Tar Heels were at the White
House last week.
And speaking of that, Dr. Joe DeSimone from the University
of North Carolina, I know, has worked with DARPA on nanoscience
and nanotechnology, and that was recognized as the Tar Heel of
the year in North Carolina, the citizen of the year for his
work in this area being so involved with DARPA.
I notice on page 45 of the report that you have given us
that you state DARPA is also exploiting advances in nanoscience
and nanotechnology or matter manipulated at the atomic scale.
Can you tell us which one may be more comfortable describing
exactly how this nanotechnology is making a difference at the
atomic scale with what you are doing in DARPA?
Dr. Leheny. Let me try. When we talk about nano scale, what
we are talking about are dimensions, the typical atom is on the
order of a nanometer. So we are talking from the size of an
atom to a few hundred atoms. What we know is those size scales,
nature allows us to manipulate forces, like electromagnetic
forces light, in ways that are difficult to do that--in much
larger scales.
For example, by capturing light more efficiently, we can
make a more effective photodetector. And it is possible to do
that using nanoscale structures. Because what the nanoscale
structure does is it essentially takes the photon, which has a
dimension on the order of a micron, which is many hundreds of
nanometers, and channels it into the material that is actually
going to convert the photon into an electron or a whole, which
can then be measured electrically. Very much the way that an
antenna; for example, if you think of the old television
antennas that we had on the roofs of our house, that guides the
electromagnetic energy down into your TV set, where it is
detected. The elements in your TV set detecting that
electromagnetic energy are much smaller than the wavelength of
the radio frequency (RF) signal that you are detecting, and it
is the guiding properties of the antenna structure that brings
the energy into your TV set, where it can be detected. At the
nanoscale we can make objects that will guide light in the same
way that your antenna guides an RF signal into your receiver,
and therefore more efficiently detect the light. And the kinds
of light that we want to detect are infrared light, short
wavelength light, visible light, through all kinds of sensing
applications.
Mr. McIntyre. The research is fascinating, and I am glad
that DARPA is once again at the forefront of using
nanotechnology to our advantage. Can you also tell me how DARPA
is coordinating its cybersecurity research and planning
activities with other relevant federal agencies, agencies like
the National Science Foundation (NSF) that fund unclassified
research?
Dr. Leheny. Coordination is a difficult concept, because
both the NSF and DARPA have very different missions. The NSF of
course, its primary mission is to educate and advance our
understanding of the world that we live in, whereas DARPA's
mission is a mission to advance the utility of that
understanding. So in some respects we are orthogonal in our
approach to how we deal with advancing the science and
technology. And in cyber technology it is just another example
of that. We coordinate, to the extent that we do, largely at
the present time through the OSTP National Cyber Initiative
activities. And as we go forward with this cyber range
activity, we will be of course creating a test facility that
will be open to researchers who are supported by the NSF, as
well as other researchers.
Mr. McIntyre. That is good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, you have anything?
Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. Great. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, thanks so much for your testimony today and your
service to our country.
There was an article in the Los Angeles Times on April 26th
which cited that the Department of Defense is the single
largest energy consumer in the United States. Last year it
bought 4 billion gallons of jet fuel, 220 million gallons of
diesel and 73 million gallons of gasoline. And when gas prices
skyrocketed last summer, the Department of Defense energy tab
increased from about 13 billion per year in 2007 to 20 billion
in 2008. The Army alone had to make up a half a billion dollar
shortfall in its energy budget. You know, we often get our oil
from countries that obviously don't have America's best
interests at heart. And when a $10 rise in the price of a
barrel means $1.3 billion increase in the Pentagon's energy
costs, this is more than an environmental issue, it is a
national security issue.
What is there in the fiscal year 2010 budget to increase
research and development of alternative fuels so that our
vehicles of war are not dependent upon traditional logistic
fuels?
Mr. Shaffer. Sir, I will go ahead and start that, but each
of the groups here are doing some things in alternative
energies or fuels. I have been very fortunate, because I have
had the chance to lead the Department's Energy Security Task
Force. In the last 3 years, our investment in research and
development, not just science and technology, but research and
development in energy security, has risen from $400 million to
about $1.2 billion. You have to take a look at energy as a very
holistic thing. And we have a number of efforts, from improving
our efficiency of turbine engines for our aircraft, to making
lighter weight vehicles for our Army for the next generation of
vehicles, to using fuel cells, to trying to get to a deployable
system that will generate nearly as much energy as it takes in
from outside sources, alternative sources, solar, wind, and
that type of thing.
Specifically on alternative fuels, our single largest
contribution in the past year has been a DARPA effort that went
on contract--Bob, I should let you do this--but in December or
January to turn algae and other biomasses into jet fuel. But
Dr. Killion has some small efforts around and in some of his
laboratories. Admiral Carr has efforts primarily out at China
Lake. And the Air Force has done a tremendous amount for
synthetic fuels using Fischer-Tropsch.
So the Department as a whole is looking at alternative
forms of fuel. And that is coordinated through the Energy
Security Task Force, which has representatives from S&T,
logistics, fuel distributors, et cetera. Other guys?
Dr. Leheny. If I could just inject something, at DARPA the
approach we are taking, and we are spending this year over $55
million and about the same budgeted for next year, the approach
that we are taking is a broad one. In the area of alternative
fuels based upon crop oils and plant-derived oils, the problem
is, and to make it as simple as possible, if you have ever
taken a bottle of olive oil and put it in your refrigerator,
you know that it turns to sludge because of the way that the
oil condenses at low temperature. So one of the challenges for
taking vegetable-derived oils and using them for jet fuel, for
example, is to ensure that those oils remain--the viscosity of
the oil is adequate at the low temperatures that they have to
operate. And so what we are doing is we are investing in
research to crack the molecules of the oil to create molecules
that are more like the jet fuel molecules, that therefore in
effect convert these plant-derived oils into oils that can be
used as a fuel.
Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. How many years do you think we
are away from seeing that technology put to use?
Dr. Leheny. I would hesitate to put an exact number on
that, but I would think that we are between three and five
years of being able to deliver an efficient process for being
able to convert these plant-derived oils into usable jet fuel.
Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. I don't know if this--if I
could have a quick follow-up?
Mr. Smith. Sure.
Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. Mr. Killion with the Army, I
know that article in the Los Angeles Times that talked about
Fort Irwin and how they utilize--and they call it, instead of
the footprint they usually call it the boot print--those solar
panels that we utilize for vehicles transporting troops at Fort
Irwin, and give energy and obviously down to control the
environment, air, is that ready to go out into the field in
places?
Dr. Killion. Well, it depends upon what you mean by out in
the field. We tend to use these like electric vehicles as
something that would be used domestically on a base to
substitute for gasoline-powered vehicles or driving materials
around, delivering materiel, doing work at a base. It isn't
something that we are prepared to deploy in a combat
environment as such. But as Al says, we are also looking at
ways of reducing the demand that is associated with those
tactical and combat vehicles that are deployed, as well as the
energy footprint of our installations. There are a lot of
initiatives that the Army and I know the Navy are pursuing in
terms of demonstrating capabilities at those installations, be
they solar, be they geothermal, wind power, to substitute for
demand that is on the grid that is using hydrocarbon-based
fuels really as an energy source today.
Admiral Carr. It is not just a fuel question.
Mr. Smith. If the two of you could do it fairly quickly, we
are a bit over time here. We want to give other members a
chance. Go ahead and do it, just quickly if you could.
Admiral Carr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to say
it is not just a fuel question of course. I am an operator, I
come from the fleet, so I think in terms of my beloved kill
chain. But it is that whole chain, from generating to storing
to distributing and how you use them. And to just pluck one
ship application, we have developed with the Naval Sea Systems
Command a device to recover energy from the reduction gears in
DDG-51 class ships. And what this allows you to do is to store
a little bit of energy so you don't have to run the same number
of generators all the time to get you through those spike
voltage demand periods. And by turning off a generator, now you
have just reduced your fuel consumption. So there are many
things across that whole chain that we are looking at. And I
work closely with Rear Admiral Phil Cullom, who chairs the
Chief of Naval Operations' (CNO's) Task Force Energy for the
Navy. And we work very closely together with him.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Jaggers.
Mr. Jaggers. In 20 second or less, at the Air Force we have
three major things going on. One is $75 million of the economic
stimulus that is devoted towards energy and energy projects. We
have hundreds of millions in the core S&T budget. And we also
have a 6.4 effort to certify synthetic fuels in our fleet, in
all engines in our entire fleet. We have two main strategic
goals. One is to increase the supply of alternative sources of
fuel, synthetic fuels being one, but also batteries and power
storage devices and that sort of thing. And the other piece of
that strategy is to reduce demand, making our engines more
efficient, making our aircraft drag ratio higher, and
improving--and lighter aircraft, making those more energy
efficient as they fly.
Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much. We will go back through. I
had one general question. You know, much has been made of the
transition towards counterinsurgency, irregular warfare, away
from the traditional big conventional fights. I am a big
believer in that. I think that is where we are headed. It has
many implications certainly, some of them which were mentioned
in your opening testimony in terms of Intelligence,
Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), cybersecurity,
different issues.
Can you give us an example as you have been putting
together your budgets over the course of the last two or three
years and you looked at this issue, we need to do more on
unconventional threats, what you have plussed up and what you
have plussed down, stuff you have started doing, stuff you said
you know what, we are going to move off of this and we are
going to move in direction? Can you give us some concrete
examples of how that shift has affected all of your budgets and
your approach?
Mr. Shaffer. I will start, but again I am going to turn to
my colleagues, because they also have the day-to-day tactical
view. About two years ago then-Director, Defense Research and
Engineering (DDR&E) John Young called the S&T execs and myself
and Dr. van Tilborg together, and we sat down and looked at,
given the new realities of the QDR, irregular warfare, where do
we want to invest more? As I said, that has led to about a 10
percent shift in our investment over the last three budget
cycles.
Where we have given things up are first off, any inflation
adjustments went to the irregular warfare. But we have
decreased some of our research into platforms in the
conventional weapons systems. In fact, I worry from time to
time that we may have gone too far with conventional weapons
systems, so we have stood up another deep dive team just to
make sure we have that right. But in effect we are trading in
some of the larger conventional type things for nonkinetic
effects across the board.
And I would turn it over to the gentleman on my left to
give specific examples.
Mr. Smith. Sure.
Dr. Killion. Well, your comment about conventional is an
interesting one, because in speaking to the Vice Chief of Staff
of the Army, General Chiarelli, he will tell you that there is
nothing like an M-1 to provide a sense of peace on a street in
Baghdad. And so it certainly has an influence----
Mr. Smith. If I might say about that, just quickly, you
know, there are a lot of, you know, old traditional
technologies that could in fact be absolutely critical to a
counterinsurgency approach. So I understand that. It is not so
much about is it snazzy and new versus old and tired. It is a
matter of where do you need to spend the money to actually
fulfill this mission.
Dr. Killion. And actually, if you look at how our budget
has shifted over the last decade, I would tell you
significantly more in force protection, which is critical in
those environments, particularly for tactical vehicles. Things
like the MRAP and so on, where we have invested to provide
better protection to our troops than we traditionally have. And
in Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence,
Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR), so we are monitoring
what is going on in those environments. New investments in
areas like network science and neuroscience, where we are
really developing basic research that enables us to do better
understanding what is going on in the environment,
understanding the social and cultural behavior in the
environment, preparing our troops more effectively through
training mechanisms and through mission rehearsal capabilities
that we didn't have before. Providing the kind of language
translation capabilities that Dr. Leheny was talking about.
Those are all investments that I have seen rise over the last
decade that are really supportive of operating in those
environments.
Mr. Smith. Admiral.
Admiral Carr. We already have, one of the 13 Navy focus
areas has been irregular warfare for about 2 years. So we are
looking very closely at that. And one of my five departments is
dedicated to this particular area as well. So already had
significant focus there because of our linkage with the Marine
Corps and support of them. We had been thinking in many ways in
this direction.
Mr. Smith. And you within your department, do you do stuff
to support SOCOM as well? Because certainly the Navy, both in
terms of the SEALs and the Special Boat Teams, they do a lot of
work in this area.
Admiral Carr. We do. It is not dedicated support. We all
support SOCOM in our different ways, sir. Social networking is
an important element that has increased recently. We are
looking very closely at understanding the mechanisms there.
Autonomy and trying to get unmanned autonomous systems forward
that can provide that persistent surveillance and push
decisions forward is sort of irregular warfare in reverse. And
we have the infantry immersive trainer that helps train Marines
for combat in Iraq and in those unusual scenarios, which has
been very successful. In fact, we are looking to expand another
one of those.
Mr. Smith. The danger of the five-minute question period
when you have five witnesses is that it always takes more than
five minutes. We have votes come up here quickly. I want to
make sure that I give others a chance here. So I will let Mr.
Miller take another round.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Three votes coming up.
I have some more questions I would like submitted for the
record, and I will yield my time to Mr. Conaway.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you. Playing back on the energy theme,
Dr. Killion, you mentioned, and maybe the Admiral did as well,
that you are working to reduce the footprint on the bases and
in forts and other places. It seems to me that commercial
research is being done around the world to try to actively get
that done. So to the extent that we are spending money on that,
we are telling the rest of the world that we have got every
other research program fully funded, that we don't need to
spend those dollars there?
Dr. Killion. Let me be clear about that when I talked about
that. A lot of the work at the bases is actually not funded in
S&T per se. It is taking advantage of that commercial
technology and applying it in an installation environment and
looking at how that can benefit us.
Mr. Conaway. That is fine. Okay. One of the strategic risks
of energy is supply. And while crude oil is a nasty word in
some parts of the world, in Texas it is not. Reservoirs
typically have, after the initial production, secondary sweeps,
tertiary productions with carbon dioxide. It is about 50
percent of the reserves left in place. We have got extensive
oil shale reserves in this country and extensive oil sands in
Canada, as well as coal. Are you guys doing any research that
would say how do we exploit those given resources that are
under our control to be able to use them while we develop
whatever that algae-based jet fuel that is going to fly our
jets in the 23rd century will do? Are you guys doing any basic
research on how do you get additional oil out of that rock in
Pennsylvania and in Texas, where half of it is still in place?
Mr. Shaffer. Sir, we are not doing any research into how to
get more of the oil out, but we are working with the Department
of Energy to understand where they are going and how they are
making progress. The more important question for the Department
of Defense is what the Air Force has done, is certifying our
engines with alternative fuels, fuels derived from other
sources, because each fuel has a slightly different makeup. And
you have to make sure that all the seals and the pistons and
the rings and the moving parts work okay. So what the Air Force
has done to me that is quite remarkable is certify their jet
engines and their aircraft using synthetic fuels.
Mr. Conaway. Synthetic based from what, coal?
Mr. Jaggers. In a number of areas coal. This actually is
what Mr. Shaffer is talking about is the Fischer-Tropsch
process. And it is really----
Mr. Conaway. Still fossil fuel-based.
Mr. Jaggers. It is a blend, a 50-50 blend of----
Mr. Conaway. And the section 526 restrictions don't allow
you to purchase that fuel once your--the oil sand fuel that
would come from Canada, you can't buy it, can you?
Mr. Jaggers. And we are trying to characterize that right
now. We know we have the fleet certified on the 50-50 blend
Fischer-Tropsch. The environmental footprint sources for this
particular 50-50 blend is all being evaluated at this time.
Mr. Conaway. But you couldn't buy it if it was done, could
you?
Mr. Jaggers. We could buy it overseas, but you can't buy it
in the Continental United States (CONUS), yes.
Mr. Shaffer. Section 526 does present some restrictions on
what we can do.
Mr. Conaway. Okay. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Conaway. Does anybody else have
any follow-up? Gentlemen?
Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. I have a quick one.
Mr. Smith. We have a few minutes. It is all yours. Mr.
Murphy.
Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. Gentleman, in my district I
represent the Eighth District of Pennsylvania, which is Bucks
County, northeast Philadelphia, and a small slice of Montgomery
County. We have several large landfills. And we are already
seeing great success in our waste-to-energy conversion
projects, producing enough energy to power 70,000 homes in my
region. Waste-to-energy conversion could be particularly
important for military bases, especially in deployed settings
and war zones. And not only is waste disposal a logistical
hurdle at many of these locations, but the use of generators
and supply lines for the fuels they require is one more target
for the enemy to attack.
Does the Department of Defense have any waste-to-energy
research and development funding in the fiscal year 2010
budget? And you know, if any of you or all are interested, I
would love to bring you up to Bucks County and give you a tour
of it, because we are very proud of what we do.
Mr. Shaffer. Sir, we will send one of my team up to Bucks
County and take a look at your company's capabilities. I don't
know if there is any specific money within the fiscal year 2010
budget for waste-to-energy. I do know that in the American
Reinvestment and Recovery Act, the Energy Security Task Force
coordinated the $300 million worth of R&D across the
Department. Embedded in that is I want to say it was 7.5
million, and if that is not right we will get back to you, but
$7.5 million to advance--it is called tactical waste or
garbage-to-oil or something like that--advance that capability.
That investment is through Defense Logistics Agency. But it
follows an investment that we made last year through the Power
Surety Task Force, which operates out of Fort Belvoir and the
Army, where we actually deployed two of these tactical systems
forward to Iraq. They are not robust enough yet. They didn't
have the waste stream that we want, the efficiency, but yet we
do have research. And if your folks have something to bring to
the table, that would be huge.
Mr. Jaggers. Sir, and I don't know what the total amount
is, and I think Mr. Shaffer is going to get that for you, but
$6 million for sure is in the Air Force portion of the
stimulus. And that is going to an anaerobic bioreactor that
basically does that, converts the landfill into energy sources.
And the broad area announcement, the solicitation for ideas and
proposals is going out very soon, it hasn't gone out already.
So we will be looking for some proposals from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania. Great. Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Smith. I just have one more area before we adjourn. You
have done some work, as was mentioned, on human terrain teams,
cultural development, sort of understanding the enemy, if you
will, or actually that is not so true, understanding the areas
where we are working counterinsurgency. And then there are also
communications issues around that, sort of develop the message
and then deliver it.
This is a major issue in Afghanistan and in Pakistan right
now, that we are losing the Public Relations (PR) war. I know
some efforts have been implemented here recently. I know
Ambassador Holbrooke is very focused on this issue. But can you
sort of pull this together for me in terms of how closely you
work with the various different other agencies and different
groups, whether it is, you know, United States Central Command
(CENTCOM), Ambassador Holbrooke's people in terms of how you
are providing, first of all, the cultural training and
development in that area, and then on the messaging piece,
looking at technologies. I know there has been a lot of
technology to help us better use bandwidth, which has a lot of
different implications, but in particular making sure that our
troops have the communications equipment.
For instance, in Afghanistan, frankly, that is shortwave
radios, as I understand it. Most folks there can't read. And
that is where they get most of their information. And that is
where the Taliban, you know, they are on the radio even before
the incident happens putting out a line of propaganda.
How have you pulled all of those things together and who
are you coordinating with on that?
Mr. Shaffer. Yes, sir, I will start this, but again I know
that all of my colleagues have some work in the area. I don't
think that you have seen, so we will make sure, I hope--well, I
wish you would have seen, but in April we sent up a very
detailed report on the Department of Defense efforts in
strategic communications.
Mr. Smith. I have not seen that. I will track that down.
Mr. Shaffer. We will get that to the staff and get that to
you.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
Mr. Shaffer. But that effort was pulled together by an
organization in DDR&E called Rapid Reaction Technology Office.
RRTO works with all the services, but more importantly works
with the intelligence agencies, works with the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID), works with
Department of State, works with the combatant commanders to
focus our S&T efforts to see how we can best make a difference
in strategic communication. And it really was a whole,
basically a beginning-to-end look of how do we shape the
message, how do we get the message out there, how do we measure
the impact? And it is an S&T focus area, and an area of
incredible importance to CENTCOM.
Mr. Smith. Were you satisfied that that work is being
implemented, that the people in the field who are going to use
it are following up and making the best use of what you have
developed?
Mr. Shaffer. I can't look you in the eye and tell you that
the answer to that is yes, sir. What I know is there is a huge
demand signal from CENTCOM and the commanders in the field. I
can't tell you they are all using it correctly. But part of the
package and part of the S&T effort is training and making sure
that our troops understand how to use strategic communication.
We are all growing in this together.
Mr. Smith. Okay. Anybody else have a comment on this area?
Mr. McIntyre. If I can just ask a quick question?
Mr. Smith. Sure.
Mr. McIntyre. Just a clarification, pages one and two of
the report, thank you, Mr. Chairman, next to the last paragraph
it says on page one, another unique feature of DARPA is that
the agency has very limited overhead and no laboratories or
facilities. Yet on page two it then talks about, in addition to
the technical offices, DARPA has staff offices, which includes
facilities, information resources and security. So I would like
someone to clarify whether you have offices and facilities or
not, since we have two contradictory statements. And if so,
where they are located?
Dr. Leheny. It would be helpful, which report are you
reading from, sir?
Mr. McIntyre. The strategic plan.
Mr. Jaggers. The one that DARPA passed out.
Mr. McIntyre. It is your publication, sir.
Dr. Leheny. Let me just find the language so that I don't
answer the wrong question. On page two you say--I think what we
are trying to do is point out the fact that we don't have
laboratories or facilities associated with actually conducting
research. Obviously, we do have a building in which our program
managers reside. And within that building we have space set
aside that is secure.
Mr. Smith. But you contract out the research.
Dr. Leheny. We contract out--about 97 percent of our budget
is contracted out. And I believe that you may find described in
this report.
Mr. McIntyre. Are you permitted to say where your office
is?
Dr. Leheny. Oh, sure. We are over in Arlington, just across
from the Virginia Square Metro Center.
Mr. McIntyre. Okay. So your reference to having no
facilities, you are talking about facilities of your own to do
the research.
Dr. Leheny. We may need to correct the way we describe what
we do.
Mr. McIntyre. Okay.
Mr. Smith. They don't just meet at Starbucks every morning.
Who knows? We will take that contracting out to its logical
extension.
Mr. McIntyre. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you all very much. Thank you for your
work. Look forward to working with you on the markup this year,
and as we go forward. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
May 20, 2009
=======================================================================
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
May 20, 2009
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 57053.112
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
