Part of that process is supporting new generations of scientists and engineers who can ensure the Navy’s technology edge over future adversaries, according to a briefing on NRAC’s just-released “Advanced Component Development and Prototypes,” a follow-up to Budget Activity 4 and the 2010 NRDE report.

Among NRAC’s findings:

• there is dissatisfaction among the warfighters with the pace of innovation;
• the cadre of uniformed Navy who intimately understand technology development is dwindling;
• the ability to specify, develop, test, and insert new technologies into programs has atrophied;
• there is insufficient emphasis on technology push;
• in R&D investment, the Navy needs to place a higher premium on technology readiness for the future to prevent atrophy of technical capability;
• the CNO should create a three-star counterpart to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (DASN-RDT&E); and
• talent trumps process.

Top R&D officials from the Navy, Air Force, and Army say their funding, as a percentage of each service’s budget, has remained relatively constant for more than four decades, reflecting a government commitment to military technology regardless of the ebb and flow of the economy and annual budgets.

“One of our goals was to transition technology to the warfighter. But we’ve also had a longer-term view in science and technology, really looking out 30 years, so as we move out of current ops, our programs will move from focusing on trying to get technology out quickly to maintaining that long-term view, to develop the Air Force of the future,” David E. Walker, Ph.D., deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for Science, Technology, and Engineering, told Defense.

“Our priorities within the program remain the same. We still have a strong S&T plan in place, we vested our plan with the new defense strategy last year and as the new Secretary of Defense makes his choices with the new Strategic Choices Management Review, we will take that into account and adjust our S&T plan based on that. But the core S&T work we do for the Air Force will continue with that long-term view, trying to transition capability to the warfighter when needed and available.”

But as advanced technologies become increasingly available to any nation and many – friend and foe alike – are growing their own high-tech workforces, both native and imported, that is not enough. For several decades, the United States has seen a decline in elementary and secondary teachers and courses that prepare students for college majors in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This has meant an accompanying decline in undergraduate and graduate STEM degrees, especially Ph.D.s awarded to U.S. citizens, a requirement for the “Secret” and “Top Secret” clearances required to work on the most advanced military programs.

At the same time, industry has been forced into what might be seen as a “chicken or egg” situation, needing to advance its technology to remain competitive, but allocating scarce R&D funds only where it expects to have a large enough market to justify it, according to Dale A. Ormond, director of the Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM). And that has added to the dilemma facing the military.

“With the current chaotic state of the world and the level of investment around the world in science and engineering, if we don’t continue to make those investments and continue to leverage technologies and discoveries and innovations worldwide, we will not keep up. So it is important to continue to make that investment, as much as possible, to ensure our soldiers have an overmatch when they go into the fight,” Ormond said.

“In my conversations with industry, there is a consensus they are focusing on very, very specific areas because, otherwise, there is no real return on investment for them. They would prefer to take technologies we [military labs] have matured through TRL-6 [Technology Readiness Level 6 – prototype demonstration in a relevant environment], integrate those into a new capability, or upgrade capabilities we have now to give the warfighter something better.

But as advanced technologies become increasingly available to any nation and many – friend and foe alike – are growing their own high-tech workforces, both native and imported, that is not enough. For several decades, the United States has seen a decline in elementary and secondary teachers and courses that prepare students for college majors in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). This has meant an accompanying decline in undergraduate and graduate STEM degrees, especially Ph.D.s awarded to U.S. citizens, a requirement for the “Secret” and “Top Secret” clearances required to work on the most advanced military programs.

“Consequently, the technologies that come out of our R&D efforts are transferred to industry through cooperative agreements, become specifications for RFPs [requests for proposals], or add to our intellectual capital so we become better buyers when proposals come in from industry. Then we can really assess what is possible, what is not possible, what is affordable or not affordable, so the program managers have strong technology input to make decisions on proposals and where to move forward,” Ormond said.

R&D stakeholders also agree something must be done to get America’s youth interested in science and engineering, enough so to take some of the hardest courses at all levels of schooling. But just getting students back into STEM courses and majors is only part of the solution – they also must see there will be enough well-paying and intriguing jobs available when they graduate.

“Research shows – and everyone who has been a student knows – that teacher quality makes a big difference in student achievement,” said John P. Holdren, Ph.D., director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). “That’s why the president made his all-hands-on-deck call to train 100,000 excellent STEM teachers in the next decade.”