In a tight economy, R&D sometimes feels a heavier ax than other areas, such as maintenance; what priority do you believe military R&D should have when cost-cutting dominates budget considerations?

Like many people in this part of the business, I worry that we don’t get so focused on the here-and-now that we lose sight of the future. Reconstituting in the future can take decades; if we walk away from things because of budget constraints, we may lose them and not get them back for decades – or not at all.

Historically, some of the greatest revolutions in military capability have occurred during periods of dramatic drawdowns, because we have taken the time to pull those things forward we had been looking at but had not yet incorporated.

Historically, some of the greatest revolutions in military capability have occurred during periods of dramatic drawdowns, because we have taken the time to pull those things forward we had been looking at but had not yet incorporated. For example, between World War I and World War II, we really institutionalized flight as a weapon of war, a valid military approach.

We have done that in the past with a variety of technologies – and now is a great time to experiment with new technologies and new opportunities. For example, we have been doing a lot of work in the last few decades with lasers and electromagnetic guns; now we are in a position to put working prototypes in fleet-representative forms and install them on our ships to understand how to operate with those.

 

How important is R&D funding to maintaining America’s position as a technology leader?

I think we need to be involved, not driving everything, but there are some things we really ought to drive because they are so important to the military. And if we don’t drive them globally, we should at least make sure we are in the right place in terms of global availability.

For example, using a dated example, we will be using energetic explosives and propellants for decades to come and it is important for the U.S. to be able to produce those without relying on someone outside the U.S. Do we need to be better than someone else? I don’t know; in that arena, others may not share what they have with us. So we need to understand how much capacity we must have to meet the military need, then make sure that capacity is maintained.

There are other areas where the military-unique application won’t be so narrow. A lot of what is going on in IT is so pervasive that we don’t need to drive all of that. But we do need to take advantage of the breakthroughs that occur, no matter where they occur.

 

Other than money, what are the most important factors in maintaining America’s technology base and R&D capability?

It’s the people. At the end of the day, it’s the people who produce the breakthroughs and products and have the knowledge that creates opportunities for mature technologies to drive the economy.

STEM education is part of that, but so is giving those people opportunities to work in those fields. When I was in college, the professors in the engineering school used to say less than half of us would have careers in engineering. So it’s not just a matter of getting the education, you have to create the job opportunities for folks to stay in those career fields.

 I never want our military to walk into a fair fight. I want them to have the ability to win, every time, to exert the will of the country.

Are you concerned about losing Americans with those skills and education to other countries because they can’t find work here?

I’m not now and I don’t think we’re anywhere close to that point. Where there may be jobs available elsewhere, the economic challenges of working in other countries are pretty high.

 

Is there anything else you would like to add?

One thing we’re focusing on in the Navy is making sure we have the right capacity – people and knowledge and the facilities and equipment they have to do the tasks the Navy needs them to do. We have what we have and now we are taking a hard look at whether we have what we need to do the government’s role – enough of it and are we paying enough attention to making sure they keep up or increase their skills where needed. And trying to do a better job with our investment – be that in money or management.

 

In summation, what do you consider to be most important to maintaining U.S. technology leadership, especially in the military?

I’m not sure I’ve ever thought of it in those terms because I don’t believe the end objective is for us to necessarily be a world leader in all these things, but to ensure we have what we need to ensure the country has the ability to do what it chooses to do, from a military point of view, and bringing technology to our military.

I never want our military to walk into a fair fight. I want them to have the ability to win, every time, to exert the will of the country. In order to do that, we need to have an edge of some sort – either as a result of technology itself or how we use that technology with out TTPs. Not every problem is a technical issue, but where technology is required for us to enable the military to do what the president asks it to do, I want us to be number one. I want our operators to have that.