Defense Innovation to Create the Future Military Force
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
i [H.A.S.C. No. 114–95] HEARING ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 AND OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES HEARING ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL YEAR 2017 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS: DEFENSE INNOVATION TO CREATE THE FUTURE MILITARY FORCE HEARING HELD FEBRUARY 24, 2016 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 99–626 WASHINGTON : 2016 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing 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 SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JIM COOPER, Tennessee DUNCAN HUNTER, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana MARC A. VEASEY, Texas TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Vice Chair DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska MO BROOKS, Alabama PETE AGUILAR, California BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York KEVIN GATES, Professional Staff Member LINDSAY KAVANAUGH, Professional Staff Member NEVE SCHADLER, Clerk (II) C O N T E N T S Page STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Langevin, Hon. James R., a Representative from Rhode Island, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities ..................... 2 Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcom- mittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities ................................................... 1 WITNESSES Miller, Mary J., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology ..................................................................................... 6 Prabhakar, Dr. Arati, Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) ................................................................................................................ 12 Walker, Dr. David E., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology and Engineering, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition ............................................................................................ 10 Welby, Stephen, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineer- ing, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics ......................................................................................................... 3 Winter, RADM Mathias W., USN, Chief of Naval Research and Director, Innovation Technology Requirements, and Test and Evaluation (N84) .......... 8 APPENDIX PREPARED STATEMENTS: Miller, Mary J. .................................................................................................. 46 Prabhakar, Dr. Arati ........................................................................................ 126 Walker, Dr. David E. ........................................................................................ 86 Welby, Stephen ................................................................................................. 32 Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 31 Winter, RADM Mathias W. ............................................................................. 66 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: Mr. Castro ......................................................................................................... 158 Mr. Langevin ..................................................................................................... 155 Mr. Nugent ........................................................................................................ 157 Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 153 (III) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FISCAL YEAR 2017 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS: DEFENSE INNOVA- TION TO CREATE THE FUTURE MILITARY FORCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES, Washington, DC, Wednesday, February 24, 2016. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:09 p.m., in room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTA- TIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentleman, I would like to call this hearing of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee to order. I am pleased to welcome everyone here today for this hearing on fiscal year 2017 budget requests for science and technology [S&T] programs within the Department of Defense. In a recent speech, Secretary of De- fense Ash Carter spoke about the return of great power competition and the need to deter our most advanced competitors. We can only deter these competitors and adversaries when the Department of Defense [DOD] harnesses innovation and creates new capabilities for the military that will maintain and expand our technical supe- riority, now and into the future to achieve peace through strength. The budget request is a good step in tackling the modernization challenges of the Department. Activities like the third offset strat- egy and the long-range research and development plan are impor- tant to charting a course that takes a strategic view of the security environment. However, I remain concerned that it is too little too late. As I see it, starting major initiatives at the end of an adminis- tration makes it difficult to ensure that these programs will survive the new budgetary and policy priorities that will naturally arise with a new President. I hope I am wrong, since I support many of the things being proposed in this budget request, but only time will tell. I would like to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses, and appreciate their perspectives on all of these issues. This panel in- cludes Mr. Stephen Welby, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Re- search and Engineering; Ms. Mary Miller, Deputy Assistant Sec- retary of the Army for Research and Technology; Rear Admiral Matt Winter, U.S. Navy, Chief of Naval Research; Dr. David Walk- er, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science, Tech- (1) 2 nology, and Engineering; and Dr. Arati Prabhakar, the Director of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA]. I would like now to turn to my friend and ranking member, Mr. Jim Langevin, of Rhode Island for any comments he would like to make. [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Ap- pendix on page 31.] STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTA- TIVE FROM RHODE ISLAND, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOM- MITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES Mr. LANGEVIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you too—thanks to our distinguished witnesses for appear- ing before the subcommittee to address the Department of Defense science and technology policy and programs hearing for fiscal year 2017. Our S&T investments have been instrumental in delivering the capabilities necessary to address the threats that we have faced for more than a decade and a half from our enemies, like Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that seek to do us harm. Invest- ments in S&T have also resulted in the very best protection for our troops from improvised explosive devices and other combat casual- ties. As long as our forces are still facing these adversaries, we must continue to invest in tools that could rapidly deliver the edge required for today’s combat, while working to decrease techno- logical surprise and maintain our edge against those threats on the horizon and beyond. Maintaining our technological edge is a pri- ority for the House Armed Services Committee, and especially for this subcommittee. As state actors continue to develop capabilities and leverage the latest technology, and non-state actors like ISIL [Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] present new challenges to our information op- erations, it is imperative that the Department of Defense capitalize on the most cutting-edge technology and spur innovation for re- quired capabilities. Doing so, however, requires more than just money. It requires the DOD to build lasting dynamic relationships with industry and academia while utilizing its in-house capability to the maximum extent possible. The Department must also foster new relationships with non- traditional DOD partners. In the last 2 years, the Department has initiated two programs, DIUx [Defense Innovation Unit Experi- mental] and In-Q-Tel, intended to strengthen its collaboration with tech firms, entrepreneurs, and start-ups. In-Q-Tel has a proven track record with the intelligence commu- nity and has the potential to bring the same success to DOD. DIUx seems to be a mechanism for relationship building, but it remains unclear to me exactly what their role is, and how they are inter- facing with transition offices, program managers, and others