CNSR Online

Changes Afoot at DoD

Defense News is reporting on a slew of changes over at DoD. They're reporting that:

• Ken Krieg, now the director of the Pentagon’s Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) will replace Mike Wynne, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics
  
• Krieg would be succeeded at PA&E by the office’s deputy, Stanley Szemborski, a retired Navy vice admiral.
  
• Navy Secretary Gordon England to move over to Air Force secretary
  
• Air Force Undersecretary Peter Teets, plans to step down
  
• John Young, the Navy’s acquisition chief, to succeed Teets
  
• Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Vern Clark plans to step down in July to be replaced by Adm. Michael Mullen

HASC Names Subcomm. Chair & Assignments

Congressman Hunter has named the Chairs of the six subcommittees on House Armed Services. They are:

Tactical Air and Land Forces-Rep. Curt Weldon (PA)
Readiness-Rep. Joel Hefley (CO)
Terrorism and Unconventional Threats and Capabilities-Rep. Jim Saxton (NJ)
Military Personnel-Rep. John McHugh (NY)
Strategic Forces-Rep. Terry Everett (AL)
Projection Forces-Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (MD)

Lewis Announces Staff at HAC - HAC-D Staff Dir.

From Approps Comm. Press Release:
Taking over as clerk of the Defense Subcommittee is John Shank. Shank has worked for the committee since 1995 including a stint on the Defense Subcommittee and most recently served as the clerk of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. Prior to that Shank spent 12 years on the Senate Appropriations Committee working for Senator Hatfield and serving specifically on the Commerce, Justice State Appropriations Subcommittee.

Full Release after the jump.

CHAIRMAN LEWIS ANNOUNCE STAFF CHANGES

January 27th, 2005 - -

Washington, D.C.-- House Appropriations Committee Chairman Jerry Lewis today announced a number of staff changes on the committee.

Frank Cushing, a 23-year Hill veteran, returns to the Committee as staff director after two years as a partner at Cornerstone Government Affairs. Cushing, 52, served as clerk of the House VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee from 1995-2003, including four years during which Lewis served as subcommittee chairman. Prior to his House service, Cushing held numerous positions in the Senate, including staff director, both majority and minority, of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (1984-1991); and clerk of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.

Also returning to the Hill are two Lewis staff veterans, Jeff Shockey and Dave LesStrang, who will each serve the Committee as deputy staff director.

Shockey spent the last six years as a partner in the Washington, DC based firm, Copeland, Lowery, Jacquez, Denton & Shockey. Shockey served on Lewis' personal office staff as legislative assistant, legislative director and appropriations associate from 1991-1999. He will assist Cushing with the Committee’s day-today operations including maintaining a close working relationship between the Committee, the elected leadership, the Budget Committee, and various authorizing committees.

LesStrang returns to the Hill following three years in the government affairs office of EMC Corporation, a Fortune 500 information technology company. LesStrang served on Lewis’ personal office staff from 1985-2002 in a variety of capacities including press secretary, legislative director, deputy chief of staff, and appropriations associate. He will manage the Committee’s external communications and Member services operation and serve as the Committee liaison to the California congressional delegation and California Governor’s office.

Jennifer Miller, a professional staff member on the Committee since 1996, joins the front office staff as the primary person responsible for Committee and House rules and floor procedure. Miller has served since 2001 on the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee and also spent five years on the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittee. Prior to that Miller spent seven years on the staff of U.S. Rep. Harold Rogers.

Remaining on the front office staff are Dale Oak and John Scofield. Dale Oak will continue his responsibilities overseeing budgetary policy issues. Oak has worked in the front office for 6 years and for the committee for 10 years. Prior to serving on the committee staff, he worked as an analyst at the Office of Management and Budget for. Scofield will continue in his capacity as the Committee’s communication director, a position he has held since 2001. He started on the Committee in 1999 as the deputy communication director and previously worked for U.S. Rep. Frank LoBiondo and U.S. Senator Mark O. Hatfield.

Taking over as clerk of the Defense Subcommittee is John Shank. Shank has worked for the committee since 1995 including a stint on the Defense Subcommittee and most recently served as the clerk of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee. Prior to that Shank spent 12 years on the Senate Appropriations Committee working for Senator Hatfield and serving specifically on the Commerce, Justice State Appropriations Subcommittee.

###

WSPA Event on Nuclear Threat

The AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy in cooperation with WSPA is sponsoring a seminar on nuclear proliferation. The seminar will take place in the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Auditorium, 1200 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC, from 8:15 to about 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 3, 2005. It looks like it should be a good seminar and worth getting up early for.

Full invite after the jump.

Dear Colleague,

You are cordially invited to a breakfast seminar organized by the AAAS
Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy in cooperation with
WSPA. The seminar will take place in the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) Auditorium, 1200 New York Ave., NW,
Washington, DC, from 8:15 to about 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 3,
2003. A complimentary continental breakfast will be served on the
second floor of the AAAS Building beginning at 7:30 a.m.

The speaker will be Dr. Siegfried Hecker, former director of Los Alamos
National Laboratory (1986-1997) and currently a Senior Fellow at LANL.
The title of Dr. Hecker's talk will be "A Personal Perspective on the
Changing Nuclear Threat."

Dr. Hecker has been long been concerned about the proliferation of
nuclear weapons. Recognized as one of the world's experts on plutonium,
he was the last U.S. scientist able to visit North Korea's nuclear
program and was given the opportunity to examine what his hosts claimed
was plutonium metal. In addition to his current research activities in
plutonium science and stockpile stewardship, he works closely with the
Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy on
a variety of cooperative threat reduction programs. An abstract of his
talk appears below.

This seminar is sponsored by the AAAS Center for Science, Technology
and Security Policy (CSTSP) in cooperation with Washington Science
Policy Alliance (WSPA). The goal of the CSTSP is to encourage the
integration of science and public policy for enhanced national and
international security. The Center acts as a two-way portal that
facilitates communication between academic centers, policy institutes,
and policymakers. For more information see
http://www.aaas.org/programs/centers/cstsp/.

WSPA is a coalition of science policy organizations in the Washington,
DC, area. For information about the Alliance and to sign up for the
WSPA mailing list and receive invitations to future seminars, please
visit http://www.aaas.org/spp/wspa/ and complete the form you will find
there.

There is no cost for the seminar or the breakfast. However, attendance
will be limited by the capacity of the auditorium; first-come
first-served. Please reply to rsvp@aaas.org or 202 326 6601 by 5 p.m.
on Tuesday February 1. DO NOT USE YOUR REPLY FUNCTION. If you are
unable to attend, please cancel.

The AAAS Building is located 1200 New York Ave., NW. The main entrance
is at 12th & H Streets. The nearest station is Metro Center (exit 12th
and G Sts.).

For further information, please contact Al Teich in Science & Policy
Programs at AAAS (ateich@aaas.org) or Benn Tannenbaum at the Center for
Science, Technology and Security Policy (btannenb@aaas.org).

ABSTRACT OF DR. HECKER'S TALK

The nuclear threat has changed from the Cold War concern of ending
civilization as we know it to one of securing "loose nukes" in chaotic
Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union following its
collapse. Today's threat is driven by nuclear black marketeering, the
resurgence of religious and ethnic conflicts, and the emergence of
international megaterrorism. Whereas during the Cold War nuclear
deterrence brought an uneasy global peace, the terrorists who unleashed
the havoc of 9/11 will show no restraint should they acquire nuclear
weapons or the materials necessary for their manufacture. During his
directorship of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Dr. Hecker played an
active role in changing the nuclear landscape. During the past seven
years, he has been engaged in threat reduction programs internationally.
He will provide his views on how to cope with the six greatest nuclear
threats we face today: 1) Pakistan, 2) North Korea, 3) inadequately
secured highly enriched uranium worldwide, 4) the Russian nuclear
complex, 5) Kazakhstan, and 6) Iran.

QDR Panel at Heritage

FYI - Next week the Heritage Foundation will be holding a panel discussion titled "The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review - The View from the Pentagon." Speaking will be Hon. Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense, James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow, Defense and Homeland Security at Heritage, and Jack Spencer Senior Policy Analyst, Defense and National Security also at Heritage. Click above for the link to the invite. Thanks to Kate Bannan for passing it along.

QDR Panel at Heritage

FYI - Next week the Heritage Foundation will be holding a panel discussion titled "The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review - The View from the Pentagon." Speaking will be Hon. Ryan Henry, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense, James Jay Carafano, Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow, Defense and Homeland Security at Heritage, and Jack Spencer Senior Policy Analyst, Defense and National Security also at Heritage. Click above for the link to the invite. Thanks to Kate Bannan for passing it along.

S&E Degrees Up

The National Science Foundation recently reported that in 2003 the United States turned out roughly 3% more S&E PhDs. This is obviously a good sign considering the increasing need in the Defense community for scientifically and technically trained personnel. In the spirit of finding a dark cloud for every silver lining, a significant portion of that growth is due to the issuance of PhDs to foreign nationals. Within the population identifing nationality (95% of total respondents), there were 861 more PhDs. this year than last. Of this increase, 700 of them hold foreign citizenship. As many have noted there are significant concerns regarding the ability and propriety of foreign nationals participating in certain S&T activities. Its doubly frustrating that the U.S. education system cannot turn out enough qualified men and women to pursue PhDs.

Regardless, its good to hear that U.S. universities minted more PhDs this year than last. Hopefully their talents will be put to work supporting the military S&T effort.

NSF Press Release text after the jump.

More Science and Engineering Doctoral Degrees Awarded in 2003

Arlington, Va.—After a 1998 high, the number of science and engineering (S&E) doctorates awarded by U.S. institutions has been declining. Now, according to new data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the 25,258 S&E doctorates awarded during the 2002-2003 academic year represent a 2.8 percent upward tick. But despite that increase, the number of S&E doctorates awarded remains 7.4 percent below the 1998 peak.

The NSF report, Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 2003, also indicates the newly graduated cohort of all doctorates represents the diverse heritage of the U.S. population. Members of racial or ethnic minority groups earned 4,528 doctorates, representing 17 percent of the U.S. citizens earning research doctorates in 2003 – the highest percentage yet the survey has recorded. Minorities represent 24 percent of the general U.S. population. The number of S&E doctorates awarded to members of underrepresented minority groups only slightly decreased from 1354 to 1337.

United States citizens received 68 percent of all doctorates earned in 2003 for which citizenship was identified (95 percent of doctorate recipients identify their citizenship). The number of U.S. citizens and permanent residents earning S&E doctorates increased from 15,508 in 2002 to 15,669 in 2003, while S&E doctorates awarded to people with temporary visas increased from 7,688 to 8,388.

"People who are concerned about U.S. science and engineering education may be encouraged by these numbers," said Joan Burrelli, an NSF senior analyst. "However, beneath the totals, we should note that the number of doctorates in some engineering fields (e.g., chemical engineering) did not increase, and decreases occurred in some of the biological sciences, physics, earth sciences, and some of the social sciences."

Some things, however, stayed the same. For instance, women received 45 percent of all doctorates granted in 2003 and 51 percent of the doctorates awarded to U.S. citizens—the same as in 2002.

And, as in previous surveys, newly enrolled graduate students took about 7.5 years to receive their doctorates, according to Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2003, released by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), which conducts the survey for NSF.

The survey also collects information about how doctorate recipients financed their doctoral education and what their employment plans are. Most (66 percent) of the 2003 doctorate recipients received most of their financial support from university fellowships, teaching or research assistantships, and other program or institutional sources. Exactly half reported no educational indebtedness when they received their degrees; 17 percent reported debt levels of more than $35,000.

The 2003 analysis includes a special section about where doctorate recipients received their undergraduate degrees. Over a five-year period (1999-2003), about 73 percent of the 186,868 doctorate holders earned their undergraduate degrees from U.S. institutions, while the rest earned those degrees from institutions abroad prior to coming to the United State to pursue graduate study. For S&E fields, doctorate recipients are more likely to have earned their undergraduate degrees outside the United States (33 percent of S&E versus 16 percent of non-S&E). The largest foreign contributors of students with undergraduate degrees to U.S. doctoral programs were Seoul National University (1,655), National Taiwan University (1,190) and Beijing University (1,153).

"These data give us new insights into the links within the worldwide university community," said Tom Hoffer, director of the NORC survey project at the University of Chicago. "We can see how the patterns of education differ by field and nationality as well as examining the major institutions, both in the United States and abroad."

The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) is an annual census of research doctorate recipients conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago under a contract with NSF’s Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS). The full report is available at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm. Complete data about S&E doctorate awards are published in NSF’s Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 2003 (http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf05300/htmstart.htm).

NSF is an independent federal agency that supports science and engineering research, and education programs, as well as the reporting of statistical information on broad areas of national interest. NSF funds the nationwide, all-fields doctorate survey and the detailed science and engineering data tables. The National Institutes of Health and the Department of Education are also major funders. Additional support comes from NASA, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Department of Agriculture.

-NSF-

S&E Degrees Up

The National Science Foundation recently reported that in 2003 the United States turned out roughly 3% more S&E PhDs. This is obviously a good sign considering the increasing need in the Defense community for scientifically and technically trained personnel. In the spirit of finding a dark cloud for every silver lining, a significant portion of that growth is due to the issuance of PhDs to foreign nationals. Within the population identifing nationality (95% of total respondents), there were 861 more PhDs. this year than last. Of this increase, 700 of them hold foreign citizenship. As many have noted there are significant concerns regarding the ability and propriety of foreign nationals participating in certain S&T activities. Its doubly frustrating that the U.S. education system cannot turn out enough qualified men and women to pursue PhDs.

Regardless, its good to hear that U.S. universities minted more PhDs this year than last. Hopefully their talents will be put to work supporting the military S&T effort.

NSF Press Release text after the jump.

More Science and Engineering Doctoral Degrees Awarded in 2003

Arlington, Va.—After a 1998 high, the number of science and engineering (S&E) doctorates awarded by U.S. institutions has been declining. Now, according to new data from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the 25,258 S&E doctorates awarded during the 2002-2003 academic year represent a 2.8 percent upward tick. But despite that increase, the number of S&E doctorates awarded remains 7.4 percent below the 1998 peak.

The NSF report, Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 2003, also indicates the newly graduated cohort of all doctorates represents the diverse heritage of the U.S. population. Members of racial or ethnic minority groups earned 4,528 doctorates, representing 17 percent of the U.S. citizens earning research doctorates in 2003 – the highest percentage yet the survey has recorded. Minorities represent 24 percent of the general U.S. population. The number of S&E doctorates awarded to members of underrepresented minority groups only slightly decreased from 1354 to 1337.

United States citizens received 68 percent of all doctorates earned in 2003 for which citizenship was identified (95 percent of doctorate recipients identify their citizenship). The number of U.S. citizens and permanent residents earning S&E doctorates increased from 15,508 in 2002 to 15,669 in 2003, while S&E doctorates awarded to people with temporary visas increased from 7,688 to 8,388.

"People who are concerned about U.S. science and engineering education may be encouraged by these numbers," said Joan Burrelli, an NSF senior analyst. "However, beneath the totals, we should note that the number of doctorates in some engineering fields (e.g., chemical engineering) did not increase, and decreases occurred in some of the biological sciences, physics, earth sciences, and some of the social sciences."

Some things, however, stayed the same. For instance, women received 45 percent of all doctorates granted in 2003 and 51 percent of the doctorates awarded to U.S. citizens—the same as in 2002.

And, as in previous surveys, newly enrolled graduate students took about 7.5 years to receive their doctorates, according to Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2003, released by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC), which conducts the survey for NSF.

The survey also collects information about how doctorate recipients financed their doctoral education and what their employment plans are. Most (66 percent) of the 2003 doctorate recipients received most of their financial support from university fellowships, teaching or research assistantships, and other program or institutional sources. Exactly half reported no educational indebtedness when they received their degrees; 17 percent reported debt levels of more than $35,000.

The 2003 analysis includes a special section about where doctorate recipients received their undergraduate degrees. Over a five-year period (1999-2003), about 73 percent of the 186,868 doctorate holders earned their undergraduate degrees from U.S. institutions, while the rest earned those degrees from institutions abroad prior to coming to the United State to pursue graduate study. For S&E fields, doctorate recipients are more likely to have earned their undergraduate degrees outside the United States (33 percent of S&E versus 16 percent of non-S&E). The largest foreign contributors of students with undergraduate degrees to U.S. doctoral programs were Seoul National University (1,655), National Taiwan University (1,190) and Beijing University (1,153).

"These data give us new insights into the links within the worldwide university community," said Tom Hoffer, director of the NORC survey project at the University of Chicago. "We can see how the patterns of education differ by field and nationality as well as examining the major institutions, both in the United States and abroad."

The Survey of Earned Doctorates (SED) is an annual census of research doctorate recipients conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago under a contract with NSF’s Division of Science Resources Statistics (SRS). The full report is available at: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm. Complete data about S&E doctorate awards are published in NSF’s Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 2003 (http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/nsf05300/htmstart.htm).

NSF is an independent federal agency that supports science and engineering research, and education programs, as well as the reporting of statistical information on broad areas of national interest. NSF funds the nationwide, all-fields doctorate survey and the detailed science and engineering data tables. The National Institutes of Health and the Department of Education are also major funders. Additional support comes from NASA, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Department of Agriculture.

-NSF-

Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems

Following onto the previous post on robotic EOD AP recent filed a story on SWORDS, the Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, a derivative of the EOD robot will allow soldiers and marines to remotely deliver fire without placing themselves in harms way.
DARPA and Army research are mentioned.
Full article after the jump.

Army Prepares 'Robo-Soldier' for Iraq

Sat Jan 22, 8:51 PM ET

By MICHAEL P. REGAN, AP Business Writer

ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, N.J. - The rain is turning to snow on a blustery January morning, and all the men gathered in a parking lot here surely would prefer to be inside. But the weather couldn't matter less to the robotic sharpshooter they are here to watch as it splashes through puddles, the barrel of its machine gun pointing the way like Pinocchio's nose. The Army is preparing to send 18 of these remote-controlled robotic warriors to fight in Iraq (news - web sites) beginning in March or April.

Made by a small Massachusetts company, the SWORDS, short for Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, will be the first armed robotic vehicles to see combat, years ahead of the larger Future Combat System vehicles currently under development by big defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Corp.

It's easy to humanize the SWORDS (a tendency robotics researchers say is only human) as it moves out of the flashy lobby of an office building and into the cold with nary a shiver.

Military officials like to compare the roughly three-foot-high robots favorably to human soldiers: They don't need to be trained, fed or clothed. They can be boxed up and warehoused between wars. They never complain. And there are no letters to write home if they meet their demise in battle.

But officials are quick to point out that these are not the autonomous killer robots of science fiction. A SWORDS robot shoots only when its human operator presses a button after identifying a target on video shot by the robot's cameras.

"The only difference is that his weapon is not at his shoulder, it's up to half a mile a way," said Bob Quinn, general manager of Talon robots for Foster-Miller Inc., the Waltham, Mass., company that makes the SWORDS. As one Marine fresh out of boot camp told Quinn upon seeing the robot: "This is my invisibility cloak."

Quinn said it was a "bootstrap development process" to convert a Talon robot, which has been in military service since 2000, from its main mission — defusing roadside bombs in Iraq_ into the gunslinging SWORDS.

It was a joint development process between the Army and Foster-Miller, a robotics firm bought in November by QinetiQ Group PLC, which is a partnership between the British Ministry of Defence and the Washington holding company The Carlyle Group.

Army officials and employees of the robotics firm heard from soldiers "who said 'My brothers are being killed out here. We love the EOD (explosive ordnance disposal), but let's put some weapons on it,'" said Quinn.

Working with soldiers and engineers at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, it took just six months and only about $2 million in development money to outfit a Talon with weapons, according to Quinn and Anthony Sebasto, a technology manager at Picatinny.

The Talon had already proven itself to be pretty rugged. One was blown off the roof of a Humvee and into a nearby river by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Soldiers simply opened its shrapnel-pocked control unit and drove the robot out of the river, according to Quinn.

The $200,000, armed version will carry standard-issue Squad Automatic Weapons, either the M249, which fires 5.56-millimeter rounds at a rate of 750 per minute, or the M240, which can fire about 700 to 1,000 7.62-millimeter rounds per minute. The SWORDS can fire about 300 rounds using the M240 and about 350 rounds using the M249 before needing to reload.

All its optics equipment — the four cameras, night vision and zoom lenses — were already in the Army's inventory.

"It's important to stress that not everything has to be super high tech," said Sebasto. "You can integrate existing componentry and create a revolutionary capability."

The SWORDS in the parking lot at the headquarters of the cable news station CNBC had just finished showing off for the cameras, climbing stairs, scooting between cubicles, even broadcasting some of its video on the air.

Its developers say its tracks, like those on a tank, can overcome rock piles and barbed wire, though it needs a ride to travel faster than 4 mph.

Running on lithium ion batteries, it can operate for 1 to 4 hours at a time, depending on the mission. Operators work the robot using a 30-pound control unit which has two joysticks, a handful of buttons and a video screen. Quinn says that may eventually be replaced by a "Gameboy" type of controller hooked up to virtual reality goggles.

The Army has been testing it over the past year at Picatinny and the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland to ensure it won't malfunction and can stand up to radio jammers and other countermeasures. (Sebasto wouldn't comment on what happens if the robot and its controller fall into enemy hands.)

Its developers say the SWORDS not only allows its operators to fire at enemies without exposing themselves to return fire, but also can make them more accurate.

A typical soldier who could hit a target the size of a basketball from 300 meters away could hit a target the size of a nickel with the SWORDS, according Quinn.

The better accuracy stems largely from the fact that its gun is mounted on a stable platform and fired electronically, rather than by a soldier's hands, according to Staff Sgt. Santiago Tordillos of the EOD Technology Directorate at Picatinny. Gone are such issues as trigger recoil, anticipation problems, and pausing the breathing cycle while aiming a weapon.

"It eliminates the majority of shooting errors you would have," said Tordillos.

Chances are good the SWORDS will get even more deadly in the future. It has been tested with the larger .50 caliber machine guns as well as rocket and grenade launchers — even an experimental weapon made by the Australian company Metal Storm LLC that packs multiple rocket rounds into a single barrel, allowing for much more rapid firing.

"We've fired 70 shots at Picatinny and we were 70 for 70 hitting the bull's-eye," said Sebasto, boasting of the arsenal's success with a Vietnam-era rocket launcher mounted on a SWORDS.

There are bound to be many eyes watching SWORDS as it heads to battle. Its tracks will one day be followed by the larger vehicles of the Future Combat System, such as six-wheel-drive MULE under development by Lockheed Martin, a 2.5-ton vehicle with motors in each wheel hub to make it more likely to survive.

The Pentagon (news - web sites)'s research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, also recently awarded contracts to aid research of robots that one day could be dropped into combat from airplanes and others meant to scale walls using electrostatic energy — also known as "static cling."

Many of the vehicles being developed for the FCS will have some autonomy, meaning they'll navigate rough terrain, avoid obstacles and make decisions about certain tasks on their own.

They may be able to offer cues to their operators when potential foes are near, but it's doubtful any of them will ever be allowed to make the decision to pull the trigger, according to Jim Lowrie, president of Perceptek Inc., a Littleton, Colo., firm that is developing robotics systems for the military.

"For the foreseeable future, there always will be a person in the loop who makes the decision on friend or foe. That's a hard problem to determine autonomously," said Lowrie.

Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems

Following onto the previous post on robotic EOD AP recent filed a story on SWORDS, the Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, a derivative of the EOD robot will allow soldiers and marines to remotely deliver fire without placing themselves in harms way.
DARPA and Army research are mentioned.
Full article after the jump.

Army Prepares 'Robo-Soldier' for Iraq

Sat Jan 22, 8:51 PM ET

By MICHAEL P. REGAN, AP Business Writer

ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS, N.J. - The rain is turning to snow on a blustery January morning, and all the men gathered in a parking lot here surely would prefer to be inside. But the weather couldn't matter less to the robotic sharpshooter they are here to watch as it splashes through puddles, the barrel of its machine gun pointing the way like Pinocchio's nose. The Army is preparing to send 18 of these remote-controlled robotic warriors to fight in Iraq (news - web sites) beginning in March or April.

Made by a small Massachusetts company, the SWORDS, short for Special Weapons Observation Reconnaissance Detection Systems, will be the first armed robotic vehicles to see combat, years ahead of the larger Future Combat System vehicles currently under development by big defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Corp.

It's easy to humanize the SWORDS (a tendency robotics researchers say is only human) as it moves out of the flashy lobby of an office building and into the cold with nary a shiver.

Military officials like to compare the roughly three-foot-high robots favorably to human soldiers: They don't need to be trained, fed or clothed. They can be boxed up and warehoused between wars. They never complain. And there are no letters to write home if they meet their demise in battle.

But officials are quick to point out that these are not the autonomous killer robots of science fiction. A SWORDS robot shoots only when its human operator presses a button after identifying a target on video shot by the robot's cameras.

"The only difference is that his weapon is not at his shoulder, it's up to half a mile a way," said Bob Quinn, general manager of Talon robots for Foster-Miller Inc., the Waltham, Mass., company that makes the SWORDS. As one Marine fresh out of boot camp told Quinn upon seeing the robot: "This is my invisibility cloak."

Quinn said it was a "bootstrap development process" to convert a Talon robot, which has been in military service since 2000, from its main mission — defusing roadside bombs in Iraq_ into the gunslinging SWORDS.

It was a joint development process between the Army and Foster-Miller, a robotics firm bought in November by QinetiQ Group PLC, which is a partnership between the British Ministry of Defence and the Washington holding company The Carlyle Group.

Army officials and employees of the robotics firm heard from soldiers "who said 'My brothers are being killed out here. We love the EOD (explosive ordnance disposal), but let's put some weapons on it,'" said Quinn.

Working with soldiers and engineers at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, it took just six months and only about $2 million in development money to outfit a Talon with weapons, according to Quinn and Anthony Sebasto, a technology manager at Picatinny.

The Talon had already proven itself to be pretty rugged. One was blown off the roof of a Humvee and into a nearby river by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Soldiers simply opened its shrapnel-pocked control unit and drove the robot out of the river, according to Quinn.

The $200,000, armed version will carry standard-issue Squad Automatic Weapons, either the M249, which fires 5.56-millimeter rounds at a rate of 750 per minute, or the M240, which can fire about 700 to 1,000 7.62-millimeter rounds per minute. The SWORDS can fire about 300 rounds using the M240 and about 350 rounds using the M249 before needing to reload.

All its optics equipment — the four cameras, night vision and zoom lenses — were already in the Army's inventory.

"It's important to stress that not everything has to be super high tech," said Sebasto. "You can integrate existing componentry and create a revolutionary capability."

The SWORDS in the parking lot at the headquarters of the cable news station CNBC had just finished showing off for the cameras, climbing stairs, scooting between cubicles, even broadcasting some of its video on the air.

Its developers say its tracks, like those on a tank, can overcome rock piles and barbed wire, though it needs a ride to travel faster than 4 mph.

Running on lithium ion batteries, it can operate for 1 to 4 hours at a time, depending on the mission. Operators work the robot using a 30-pound control unit which has two joysticks, a handful of buttons and a video screen. Quinn says that may eventually be replaced by a "Gameboy" type of controller hooked up to virtual reality goggles.

The Army has been testing it over the past year at Picatinny and the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland to ensure it won't malfunction and can stand up to radio jammers and other countermeasures. (Sebasto wouldn't comment on what happens if the robot and its controller fall into enemy hands.)

Its developers say the SWORDS not only allows its operators to fire at enemies without exposing themselves to return fire, but also can make them more accurate.

A typical soldier who could hit a target the size of a basketball from 300 meters away could hit a target the size of a nickel with the SWORDS, according Quinn.

The better accuracy stems largely from the fact that its gun is mounted on a stable platform and fired electronically, rather than by a soldier's hands, according to Staff Sgt. Santiago Tordillos of the EOD Technology Directorate at Picatinny. Gone are such issues as trigger recoil, anticipation problems, and pausing the breathing cycle while aiming a weapon.

"It eliminates the majority of shooting errors you would have," said Tordillos.

Chances are good the SWORDS will get even more deadly in the future. It has been tested with the larger .50 caliber machine guns as well as rocket and grenade launchers — even an experimental weapon made by the Australian company Metal Storm LLC that packs multiple rocket rounds into a single barrel, allowing for much more rapid firing.

"We've fired 70 shots at Picatinny and we were 70 for 70 hitting the bull's-eye," said Sebasto, boasting of the arsenal's success with a Vietnam-era rocket launcher mounted on a SWORDS.

There are bound to be many eyes watching SWORDS as it heads to battle. Its tracks will one day be followed by the larger vehicles of the Future Combat System, such as six-wheel-drive MULE under development by Lockheed Martin, a 2.5-ton vehicle with motors in each wheel hub to make it more likely to survive.

The Pentagon (news - web sites)'s research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, also recently awarded contracts to aid research of robots that one day could be dropped into combat from airplanes and others meant to scale walls using electrostatic energy — also known as "static cling."

Many of the vehicles being developed for the FCS will have some autonomy, meaning they'll navigate rough terrain, avoid obstacles and make decisions about certain tasks on their own.

They may be able to offer cues to their operators when potential foes are near, but it's doubtful any of them will ever be allowed to make the decision to pull the trigger, according to Jim Lowrie, president of Perceptek Inc., a Littleton, Colo., firm that is developing robotics systems for the military.

"For the foreseeable future, there always will be a person in the loop who makes the decision on friend or foe. That's a hard problem to determine autonomously," said Lowrie.

NPS looking to decloak terrorists

A recent article in Government Computer News discusses how terrorists are using the technologies that the United States has created against us. The most obvious example being airliners, but other technologies such as chat rooms, GPS and the internet are cited. The article goes on to discuss how the Naval Postgraduate School is working with DHS and ONR on "precipitating technologies" to decloak the terrorists.

Pierce cited technological innovations such as unmanned aerial vehicles and microsatellites as “potentially very disruptive,” he said it is equally important to develop social science constructs by studying how terrorists form worldwide networks.

This brings to mind the recent discussion on the MOU between the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Science Foundation to mine chat rooms for terrorist activities. Properly constructed these initiatives could represent a constructive multi-agency cooperative effort to address the threat posed by international terrorism.

NPS looking to decloak terrorists

A recent article in Government Computer News discusses how terrorists are using the technologies that the United States has created against us. The most obvious example being airliners, but other technologies such as chat rooms, GPS and the internet are cited. The article goes on to discuss how the Naval Postgraduate School is working with DHS and ONR on "precipitating technologies" to decloak the terrorists.

Pierce cited technological innovations such as unmanned aerial vehicles and microsatellites as “potentially very disruptive,” he said it is equally important to develop social science constructs by studying how terrorists form worldwide networks.

This brings to mind the recent discussion on the MOU between the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Science Foundation to mine chat rooms for terrorist activities. Properly constructed these initiatives could represent a constructive multi-agency cooperative effort to address the threat posed by international terrorism.

AEI Roundtable on Defense Budget

Last week the American Enterprise Institutre held an free-wheeling discussion on the future of the Defenese budget. The panel included a number of interesting commentators, particularly Dov Zakheim, former Comptroller of DoD. While the discussion did not speak to S&T issues specifically, it provided a helpful perspective in which S&T issues could be placed. If you have 2 hours available I would strongly encourage you to listen to it. I caught most of it in the car this morning, but I will hopefully listen to it again and provide some comments when inaugural events slow down.

Click on this link to CSPAN and you fill find the event archived halfway down the page.

AEI abstract on the event after the jump.

The Pentagon Budget Cuts
Start: Thursday, January 13, 2005 2:00 PM
End: Thursday, January 13, 2005 4:00 PM
Location: Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Directions to AEI

Faced with mounting costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention a growing federal deficit, the Pentagon is bracing for billions of dollars in budget cuts for the first time since 9/11. Although the Defense Department's 2006 budget will not be formally released until February, some of the military's largest weapons systems—including the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor and the Navy's shipbuilding program—are reportedly in jeopardy.

How should the Pentagon adjust its acquisition strategy in a time of both war and fiscal austerity? Who will be biggest winners and losers in this process? What will be the impact of the Bush administration's belt-tightening on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's vision for military transformation? How will the budget cuts affect the defense industry?

These and other questions will be the subject of an AEI panel discussion. Participants include Dov Zakheim, former under secretary of defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Pentagon (2001–2004); Steven Kosiak, director of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; Michael O'Hanlon, Sydney Stein Jr. Chair in Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution; and Loren B. Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute. Thomas Donnelly, AEI resident fellow in defense and security policy, will moderate.
1:45 p.m.

Registration

2:00 Discussants: Steven Kosiak, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings Institution
Loren B. Thompson, Lexington Institute
Dov Zakheim, Booz Allen & Hamilton
Moderator: Thomas Donnelly, AEI

4:00

Adjournment
Available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format.

More Information
Vance Serchuk
American Enterprise Institute
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-862-5845
Fax: 202-862-5867
E-mail: vserchuk@aei.org
Media Inquiries
Veronique Rodman
American Enterprise Institute
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-862-4871
Fax: 202-862-7171
E-mail: VRodman@aei.org

You can find this online at: http://www.aei.org/event985

Robots save lives in Iraq

Profiled on the front of army.mil today is a story on the use of Explosive Ordinance Robots in Iraq. The article clearly points out the important, although always not always self-evident, impact that science and technology is having on the brave men and woman at the pointy end of the spear in the GWOT. The article quotes Sgt. 1st Class Gregory Carroll, the noncommissioned officer in charge of the 184th Ordnance Battalion, stating:

“We wouldn’t have EOD guys if we didn’t have robots to take the hit,” he explained about the constant number of IED casualties along main supply routes and in close-quarter urban areas. “These robots are a human cost–saving mechanism.”

I'm confident that there is a researcher at a CNSR member who had an hand in the science and technology that made these robots possible. Job well done!

Full article after the jump.

EOD robots performing tech wonders in Iraq
By Spc. Jonathan Montgomery
January 10, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Army News Service, Jan. 10, 2004) – Whenever an Explosive Ordnance Disposal technician heads downrange, one thing is certain: the robot goes first.

“The cost of losing a robot is not nearly as close as losing a trained EOD person,” said Sgt. 1st Class Gregory Carroll, noncommissioned officer in charge of the 184th Ordnance Battalion, an EOD Robotics team from Fort Gillem, Ga., deployed to Baghdad. “Time on target is our biggest danger, and these robots eliminate us from having to go downrange if we don’t have to.”

Since their EOD inception, robotic systems have saved numerous lives by helping to wipe away the threat of improvised explosive devices and vehicle- orne IEDs encountered daily throughout the Iraqi theater of operations.

Not surprisingly, 95 percent of all EOD robots are used for reconnaissance missions and delivering explosives to the hazard for detonation, said Carroll.

“We wouldn’t have EOD guys if we didn’t have robots to take the hit,” he explained about the constant number of IED casualties along main supply routes and in close-quarter urban areas. “These robots are a human cost–saving mechanism.”

In addition to taking an IED blast, EOD robots also get shot at by small arms fire, added Carroll.

These “man-portable” robots, initially employed by infantry units for advance scouting purposes, dually serve as multi-versatile, lightweight machines supplementing EOD teams on the roads of Iraq.

“The IED threat is so critical,” said Cpt. Jason Souza, officer in charge of the 184th EOD Robotics team. He added that the EOD missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan have exceeded the demand for robots.

The robots, able to be thrown in the back of a chopper or tactical vehicle with ease, each consist of thousands of interlocking parts. They are primarily designed as a track vehicle with a retractable arm claw and camera, and are also capable of being armed with a grenade launcher or other infantry arsenals.

“You put this [robot] on the ground, and people know who you are,” said Carroll about EOD. “[Iraqi] kids go ‘Boom! Boom!’ when they see us because they know an explosion is going to happen. People start to scatter.”

Common city obstacles such as getting over a curb or wading through a foot of sewer water are often overcome with the remote control expertise of a skilled EOD technician, but sometimes a bomb blast can get the best of the robot’s size, strength and dexterity.

“One lady came back (to the robot repair depot) with only two tracks in her hands,” said Marine Master Sgt. Thomas Bogosh, senior noncommissioned officer of the Joint Robotic System Repair Station in Iraq. “They weren’t even whole tracks, only parts of them.”

His repair station workers, many of whom are former Army and Air Force, work to salvage destroyed robot parts, some still covered in white phosphorous and oil.

But whatever the hurdles, the EOD teams who are out making a safer Iraq are doing so by learning from each other.

“(EOD) is a joint service environment, but we’re definitely one team, one fight,” said Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Jennifer Smith, EOD information technician. “We’re a tight community which shares a lot of information with each other. Whoever needs equipment, gets equipment in EOD.”

EOD technicians are schooled on many different types of robots in case the one they prefer is in the repair shop.

A well-working, repairable robot completes more than 1,000 missions during its theater tenure.

The missions wear and tear these battle droids more than in the United States, said Bogosh.

“A year’s worth of work back home is equal to one day in Iraq for these robots,” he said.

(Editor’s note: Spc. Jonathan Montgomery serves with the Multinational Corps – Iraq Public Affairs Office.)

Robots save lives in Iraq

Profiled on the front of army.mil today is a story on the use of Explosive Ordinance Robots in Iraq. The article clearly points out the important, although always not always self-evident, impact that science and technology is having on the brave men and woman at the pointy end of the spear in the GWOT. The article quotes Sgt. 1st Class Gregory Carroll, the noncommissioned officer in charge of the 184th Ordnance Battalion, stating:

“We wouldn’t have EOD guys if we didn’t have robots to take the hit,” he explained about the constant number of IED casualties along main supply routes and in close-quarter urban areas. “These robots are a human cost–saving mechanism.”

I'm confident that there is a researcher at a CNSR member who had an hand in the science and technology that made these robots possible. Job well done!

Full article after the jump.

EOD robots performing tech wonders in Iraq
By Spc. Jonathan Montgomery
January 10, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Army News Service, Jan. 10, 2004) – Whenever an Explosive Ordnance Disposal technician heads downrange, one thing is certain: the robot goes first.

“The cost of losing a robot is not nearly as close as losing a trained EOD person,” said Sgt. 1st Class Gregory Carroll, noncommissioned officer in charge of the 184th Ordnance Battalion, an EOD Robotics team from Fort Gillem, Ga., deployed to Baghdad. “Time on target is our biggest danger, and these robots eliminate us from having to go downrange if we don’t have to.”

Since their EOD inception, robotic systems have saved numerous lives by helping to wipe away the threat of improvised explosive devices and vehicle- orne IEDs encountered daily throughout the Iraqi theater of operations.

Not surprisingly, 95 percent of all EOD robots are used for reconnaissance missions and delivering explosives to the hazard for detonation, said Carroll.

“We wouldn’t have EOD guys if we didn’t have robots to take the hit,” he explained about the constant number of IED casualties along main supply routes and in close-quarter urban areas. “These robots are a human cost–saving mechanism.”

In addition to taking an IED blast, EOD robots also get shot at by small arms fire, added Carroll.

These “man-portable” robots, initially employed by infantry units for advance scouting purposes, dually serve as multi-versatile, lightweight machines supplementing EOD teams on the roads of Iraq.

“The IED threat is so critical,” said Cpt. Jason Souza, officer in charge of the 184th EOD Robotics team. He added that the EOD missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan have exceeded the demand for robots.

The robots, able to be thrown in the back of a chopper or tactical vehicle with ease, each consist of thousands of interlocking parts. They are primarily designed as a track vehicle with a retractable arm claw and camera, and are also capable of being armed with a grenade launcher or other infantry arsenals.

“You put this [robot] on the ground, and people know who you are,” said Carroll about EOD. “[Iraqi] kids go ‘Boom! Boom!’ when they see us because they know an explosion is going to happen. People start to scatter.”

Common city obstacles such as getting over a curb or wading through a foot of sewer water are often overcome with the remote control expertise of a skilled EOD technician, but sometimes a bomb blast can get the best of the robot’s size, strength and dexterity.

“One lady came back (to the robot repair depot) with only two tracks in her hands,” said Marine Master Sgt. Thomas Bogosh, senior noncommissioned officer of the Joint Robotic System Repair Station in Iraq. “They weren’t even whole tracks, only parts of them.”

His repair station workers, many of whom are former Army and Air Force, work to salvage destroyed robot parts, some still covered in white phosphorous and oil.

But whatever the hurdles, the EOD teams who are out making a safer Iraq are doing so by learning from each other.

“(EOD) is a joint service environment, but we’re definitely one team, one fight,” said Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Jennifer Smith, EOD information technician. “We’re a tight community which shares a lot of information with each other. Whoever needs equipment, gets equipment in EOD.”

EOD technicians are schooled on many different types of robots in case the one they prefer is in the repair shop.

A well-working, repairable robot completes more than 1,000 missions during its theater tenure.

The missions wear and tear these battle droids more than in the United States, said Bogosh.

“A year’s worth of work back home is equal to one day in Iraq for these robots,” he said.

(Editor’s note: Spc. Jonathan Montgomery serves with the Multinational Corps – Iraq Public Affairs Office.)

Next CNSR Meeting -- CHANGE IN DATE

The next CNSR meeting will be Friday January 28th at 10:00 AM at the American Chemical Society Othmer Bldg, 1550 M Street, NW. (Metro stations nearby include Farragut North on the red line and Farragut West & McPherson Square on the blue line.)

For those out-of-towners who wish to phone in, please dial 412-380-2000. The passcode is 0459000#.

Next CNSR Meeting -- CHANGE IN DATE

The next CNSR meeting will be Friday January 28th at 10:00 AM at the American Chemical Society Othmer Bldg, 1550 M Street, NW. (Metro stations nearby include Farragut North on the red line and Farragut West & McPherson Square on the blue line.)

For those out-of-towners who wish to phone in, please dial 412-380-2000. The passcode is 0459000#.

Battelle Releases Report on R&D

Battelle & R&D Magazine will be releasing their annual report on R&D in the coming month. A recent press release on the report outlined some important findings on probable uptics in R&D next year. (*Note, this is R&D, not just the S&T that we care about. Its a much broader portfolio.)

The report stated that they expect to see a 3.6% increase in U.S. R&D. In the federal outlook which most of us care about the report predicted that

Overall, the federal government is expected to increase its total R&D spending by a considerable amount in 2005 and it will continue to provide a strong level of support for the near future.

This isn't bad news per se, but doesn't speak specifically to what they think will happen in the basic and applied areas. In fact the report finds:

the character and direction of this support will cause temporary shortfalls in some of the basic R&D needed to sustain or advance the platforms from which applied research, technical development, and eventual market development can grow.

Sounds vaguely familar somehow. The full report will be forthcoming soon and you can expect blogging on it when I have a chance to give it a fuller look. Full press release after the jump.

Press Release Source: Battelle

Vital Signs of R&D Financial Support Show Defense Spending Will Dominate Research and Development Funding in 2005
Monday January 10, 9:30 am ET

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Jan. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Total research and development funding in the United States will increase this year by approximately 3.6 percent to $312 billion in 2005 over the $301 billion estimated for 2004, according to the Battelle-R&D Magazine annual funding forecast.

The principal driving force will be the expenditures by the federal government, estimated to increase by almost 6 percent to $98 billion over the $92 billion in 2004. This increase is primarily influenced by increases in spending by the Department of Defense (DOD). Although other federal sectors show greater percentages in increased funding, the sheer magnitude of the DOD budget will dominate the 2004-2005 shift.

Private industry will continue to be the principal funder of R&D, as it has been for the past 25 years, but the increase for 2005 is expected to be a little less than 2 percent, representing basically no change in real dollar outlay. Private industry is expected to fund $191 billion in R&D over the $187 billion estimated for 2004, continuing a trend of flat funding that has been in effect for about the past four years.

The academic and other non-profit sectors taken together will see increases of approximately 8.6 percent in total funding from the $21 billion funded in 2004 to the nearly $23 billion expected for 2005.

The forecast is based on historic patterns of the past, analyses of the planned budget of the U.S. Federal Government, other organizations' member or subscriber surveys, published literature, and wide-ranging discussions with industry and government experts.

The 2005 forecast marks the 42nd year Battelle has issued it and the 26th year it has been co-authored by Dr. Jules Duga, a senior research scientist.

"As we look toward the anticipated levels of R&D support and performance for 2005, it is important to consider some of the major factors that are either active at the present or which will surely be the precursors of megatrends in the near future," Duga said. "Perhaps more importantly, this forecast articulates the factors that influence the trends in R&D investment."

Federal Outlook

* Overall, the federal government is expected to increase its total R&D
spending by a considerable amount in 2005 and it will continue to
provide a strong level of support for the near future.

* However, the character and direction of this support will cause
temporary shortfalls in some of the basic R&D needed to sustain or
advance the platforms from which applied research, technical
development, and eventual market development can grow.

* In no small part, any perceived curtailment of basic research funds
that results from a shifting of priorities is expected to be relatively
temporary. Analysis of government-supported R&D in the past has shown
that there have been periods of special concentration -- such as in
space and energy -- that have influenced the priorities in support.

* R&D in support of national defense accounts for the major portion of
the total increase in federal expenditures, with much of this being
divided between DOD and defense-related work conducted through the
Department of Energy (DOE). The basic science programs of DOD received
an increase of about 8 percent, while basic research work with DOE,
such as in the Office of Science, has been similarly increased.

* As expected, the Department of Homeland Security will see a substantial
increase in R&D support, while increases in other high-visibility and
high-impact programs such as the National Institutes of Health and the
National Science Foundation will not enjoy as great a boost in funding.

* Of note in the area of federal and industry cooperation is the
continuing support of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), conducted
under the aegis of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The ATP again has survived various attempts at termination, but is
slated to continue with a reduction in funding.

Industrial Outlook

* Industrial support of R&D, which has been essentially flat due to the
mild recession that has been in force, has not been growing
consistently at even the rate of inflation.

* Outsourcing has emerged as a complicating factor that feeds into the
analysis of past trends and will impact future activity.

* Specifically, what started as a movement toward utilizing captive
facilities located primarily in Japan and Western Europe has blossomed
into a significant increase in the support of R&D in non-captive,
independent performing institutions in developing or re-developing
countries.

* The most visible examples of this are the major increases in outsourced
R&D in China and India and the growing efforts in other parts of the
world. Such outsourcing has grown from exploratory adventures or
lower-end research to a mechanism that includes the construction and
operation of major branch offices and institutions. These offices are
in the process of performing research and development programs that are
integrated into the worldwide operations of the parent company.

Major R&D opportunities on the horizon

* Materials technologies: The development of new classes of materials
that can survive in hostile environments (such as medical implants;
deep sea; and ultra-high temperature, high radiation or highly
corrosive situations) as well as being higher strength-to-weight
replacements, as in energy saving applications.

* Medical diagnostic imaging: The expansion of techniques for rapid and
less expensive, non-invasive medical diagnostics methods, with emphasis
on obtaining and interpreting images.

* Information mining and assessment: The development and expansion of
techniques for the gathering and mining of information in a wide range
of topics, and the capacity to rapidly analyze content.

* Environment: The management of the environment including, but not
limited to, the reduction of factors that contribute to global warming.

* Energy production and distribution: Renewable and/or low-waste
production, including nuclear options, bioenergy, hydrogen, and fuel
cells.

* Medical technology: Emphasis on the development and deployment of
methods for diagnostics and therapeutics and including devices,
feedback systems, early-warning systems, and emergency response
equipment.

* Anti-terrorism technologies: Identification, isolation and
deactivation of materials, systems, devices and the like that can
produce physical, economic and psychological disruption. Also, the
development and deployment of a wider array of hardening devices or
approaches so as to minimize the impact of adverse activities.

The full report of the 2005 R&D Funding Forecast will be printed in the January issue of R&D Magazine in late January. Reprints will be available then by contacting Battelle's Jean Hayward at (614) 424-7039 or at haywardj@battelle.org.

Battelle is a global leader in science and technology. Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, it develops and commercializes technology and manages laboratories for customers. Battelle, with the national labs that it manages or co-manages, oversees 16,000 staff members and conducts $3 billion in annual research and development. Battelle innovations include the development of the office copier machine (Xerox), pioneering work on compact disc technology, and medical technology advancements.

Source: Battelle

Battelle Releases Report on R&D

Battelle & R&D Magazine will be releasing their annual report on R&D in the coming month. A recent press release on the report outlined some important findings on probable uptics in R&D next year. (*Note, this is R&D, not just the S&T that we care about. Its a much broader portfolio.)

The report stated that they expect to see a 3.6% increase in U.S. R&D. In the federal outlook which most of us care about the report predicted that

Overall, the federal government is expected to increase its total R&D spending by a considerable amount in 2005 and it will continue to provide a strong level of support for the near future.

This isn't bad news per se, but doesn't speak specifically to what they think will happen in the basic and applied areas. In fact the report finds:

the character and direction of this support will cause temporary shortfalls in some of the basic R&D needed to sustain or advance the platforms from which applied research, technical development, and eventual market development can grow.

Sounds vaguely familar somehow. The full report will be forthcoming soon and you can expect blogging on it when I have a chance to give it a fuller look. Full press release after the jump.

Press Release Source: Battelle

Vital Signs of R&D Financial Support Show Defense Spending Will Dominate Research and Development Funding in 2005
Monday January 10, 9:30 am ET

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Jan. 10 /PRNewswire/ -- Total research and development funding in the United States will increase this year by approximately 3.6 percent to $312 billion in 2005 over the $301 billion estimated for 2004, according to the Battelle-R&D Magazine annual funding forecast.

The principal driving force will be the expenditures by the federal government, estimated to increase by almost 6 percent to $98 billion over the $92 billion in 2004. This increase is primarily influenced by increases in spending by the Department of Defense (DOD). Although other federal sectors show greater percentages in increased funding, the sheer magnitude of the DOD budget will dominate the 2004-2005 shift.

Private industry will continue to be the principal funder of R&D, as it has been for the past 25 years, but the increase for 2005 is expected to be a little less than 2 percent, representing basically no change in real dollar outlay. Private industry is expected to fund $191 billion in R&D over the $187 billion estimated for 2004, continuing a trend of flat funding that has been in effect for about the past four years.

The academic and other non-profit sectors taken together will see increases of approximately 8.6 percent in total funding from the $21 billion funded in 2004 to the nearly $23 billion expected for 2005.

The forecast is based on historic patterns of the past, analyses of the planned budget of the U.S. Federal Government, other organizations' member or subscriber surveys, published literature, and wide-ranging discussions with industry and government experts.

The 2005 forecast marks the 42nd year Battelle has issued it and the 26th year it has been co-authored by Dr. Jules Duga, a senior research scientist.

"As we look toward the anticipated levels of R&D support and performance for 2005, it is important to consider some of the major factors that are either active at the present or which will surely be the precursors of megatrends in the near future," Duga said. "Perhaps more importantly, this forecast articulates the factors that influence the trends in R&D investment."

Federal Outlook

* Overall, the federal government is expected to increase its total R&D
spending by a considerable amount in 2005 and it will continue to
provide a strong level of support for the near future.

* However, the character and direction of this support will cause
temporary shortfalls in some of the basic R&D needed to sustain or
advance the platforms from which applied research, technical
development, and eventual market development can grow.

* In no small part, any perceived curtailment of basic research funds
that results from a shifting of priorities is expected to be relatively
temporary. Analysis of government-supported R&D in the past has shown
that there have been periods of special concentration -- such as in
space and energy -- that have influenced the priorities in support.

* R&D in support of national defense accounts for the major portion of
the total increase in federal expenditures, with much of this being
divided between DOD and defense-related work conducted through the
Department of Energy (DOE). The basic science programs of DOD received
an increase of about 8 percent, while basic research work with DOE,
such as in the Office of Science, has been similarly increased.

* As expected, the Department of Homeland Security will see a substantial
increase in R&D support, while increases in other high-visibility and
high-impact programs such as the National Institutes of Health and the
National Science Foundation will not enjoy as great a boost in funding.

* Of note in the area of federal and industry cooperation is the
continuing support of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), conducted
under the aegis of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
The ATP again has survived various attempts at termination, but is
slated to continue with a reduction in funding.

Industrial Outlook

* Industrial support of R&D, which has been essentially flat due to the
mild recession that has been in force, has not been growing
consistently at even the rate of inflation.

* Outsourcing has emerged as a complicating factor that feeds into the
analysis of past trends and will impact future activity.

* Specifically, what started as a movement toward utilizing captive
facilities located primarily in Japan and Western Europe has blossomed
into a significant increase in the support of R&D in non-captive,
independent performing institutions in developing or re-developing
countries.

* The most visible examples of this are the major increases in outsourced
R&D in China and India and the growing efforts in other parts of the
world. Such outsourcing has grown from exploratory adventures or
lower-end research to a mechanism that includes the construction and
operation of major branch offices and institutions. These offices are
in the process of performing research and development programs that are
integrated into the worldwide operations of the parent company.

Major R&D opportunities on the horizon

* Materials technologies: The development of new classes of materials
that can survive in hostile environments (such as medical implants;
deep sea; and ultra-high temperature, high radiation or highly
corrosive situations) as well as being higher strength-to-weight
replacements, as in energy saving applications.

* Medical diagnostic imaging: The expansion of techniques for rapid and
less expensive, non-invasive medical diagnostics methods, with emphasis
on obtaining and interpreting images.

* Information mining and assessment: The development and expansion of
techniques for the gathering and mining of information in a wide range
of topics, and the capacity to rapidly analyze content.

* Environment: The management of the environment including, but not
limited to, the reduction of factors that contribute to global warming.

* Energy production and distribution: Renewable and/or low-waste
production, including nuclear options, bioenergy, hydrogen, and fuel
cells.

* Medical technology: Emphasis on the development and deployment of
methods for diagnostics and therapeutics and including devices,
feedback systems, early-warning systems, and emergency response
equipment.

* Anti-terrorism technologies: Identification, isolation and
deactivation of materials, systems, devices and the like that can
produce physical, economic and psychological disruption. Also, the
development and deployment of a wider array of hardening devices or
approaches so as to minimize the impact of adverse activities.

The full report of the 2005 R&D Funding Forecast will be printed in the January issue of R&D Magazine in late January. Reprints will be available then by contacting Battelle's Jean Hayward at (614) 424-7039 or at haywardj@battelle.org.

Battelle is a global leader in science and technology. Headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, it develops and commercializes technology and manages laboratories for customers. Battelle, with the national labs that it manages or co-manages, oversees 16,000 staff members and conducts $3 billion in annual research and development. Battelle innovations include the development of the office copier machine (Xerox), pioneering work on compact disc technology, and medical technology advancements.

Source: Battelle

CNO Issues 2005 Guidance

For those of you who have an interest in Naval Research, the Chief of Naval Operations has issued his 2005 Guidance to the Fleet. The Guidance states:

Bringing the fight to our enemies is our mission.
Transforming ourselves and our great institution for the dangerous decades ahead is our imperative.
Our task: Prevail today while bridging to a successful future.

Outlined below are some of the points in the Guidance that are of particular interest to the S&T Community.

Under Future Readiness/Sea Shield:

Accelerate delivery of new ASW technologies to the Fleet for at-sea experimentation and deployment. Include experimentation with "thinking" sensor fields. (Fleet ASW Command lead, NWDC, TF ASW by July 05)

Under Future Readiness/Sea Trial

Develop a fiscally-informed process that assures a coherent S&T to R&D to procurement continuum that is disciplined and has termination options for
non-promising/non-capability contributing programs and activities. (OPNAV
N6/N7 with CFFC, NWDC, ONR)

--
Accelerate the rate at which R&D and experimentation reaches the Fleet.
Review NWDC manning and funding to adequately support a robust doctrine
and CONOPs development/adjustment/lessons learned program. Report
status and options that include the following subjects at a minimum: (CFFC,
by March 05)

- Alignment with S&T efforts
- Speed of technology insertion
- R&D Business plan
- Experimentation with pilot programs for rapid technology insertion

Under Alignment:

Aligned Installations and Research Offices in Support of Sea Power 21. CNI
developed a 25-year installation master plan, Navy Ashore Vision 2030, that supports Sea Enterprise, Sea Swap, the Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy, and the Fleet Response Plan. We also aligned ONR's Future Naval Capabilities/Enabling Capabilities research to fully support priorities in expeditionary logistics, and to prioritize Science and Technology investments to provide enabling and long-term capabilities for the joint sea base.

CNO Issues 2005 Guidance

For those of you who have an interest in Naval Research, the Chief of Naval Operations has issued his 2005 Guidance to the Fleet. The Guidance states:

Bringing the fight to our enemies is our mission.
Transforming ourselves and our great institution for the dangerous decades ahead is our imperative.
Our task: Prevail today while bridging to a successful future.

Outlined below are some of the points in the Guidance that are of particular interest to the S&T Community.

Under Future Readiness/Sea Shield:

Accelerate delivery of new ASW technologies to the Fleet for at-sea experimentation and deployment. Include experimentation with "thinking" sensor fields. (Fleet ASW Command lead, NWDC, TF ASW by July 05)

Under Future Readiness/Sea Trial

Develop a fiscally-informed process that assures a coherent S&T to R&D to procurement continuum that is disciplined and has termination options for
non-promising/non-capability contributing programs and activities. (OPNAV
N6/N7 with CFFC, NWDC, ONR)

--
Accelerate the rate at which R&D and experimentation reaches the Fleet.
Review NWDC manning and funding to adequately support a robust doctrine
and CONOPs development/adjustment/lessons learned program. Report
status and options that include the following subjects at a minimum: (CFFC,
by March 05)

- Alignment with S&T efforts
- Speed of technology insertion
- R&D Business plan
- Experimentation with pilot programs for rapid technology insertion

Under Alignment:

Aligned Installations and Research Offices in Support of Sea Power 21. CNI
developed a 25-year installation master plan, Navy Ashore Vision 2030, that supports Sea Enterprise, Sea Swap, the Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy, and the Fleet Response Plan. We also aligned ONR's Future Naval Capabilities/Enabling Capabilities research to fully support priorities in expeditionary logistics, and to prioritize Science and Technology investments to provide enabling and long-term capabilities for the joint sea base.

NAS Study

As you may be aware the National Academies released its "Assessment of Department of Defense Basic Research." Undertaken at the behest of Congress this report had some interesting conclusions. First among them was Finding 1:

Department of Defense basic research funds under 6.1 have not been directed in significant amounts to support projects typical of 6.2 or 6.3 funding.

This finding comes in contrast to comments many CNSR members have been recieving from scientists and engineers at their universities and within their associations.

Also of interest was Finding 8:

A recent trend in basic research emphasis within the Department of Defense has led to a reduced effort in unfettered exploration, which historically has been a critical enabler of the most important reakthroughs in military capabilities.

NAS Study

As you may be aware the National Academies released its "Assessment of Department of Defense Basic Research." Undertaken at the behest of Congress this report had some interesting conclusions. First among them was Finding 1:

Department of Defense basic research funds under 6.1 have not been directed in significant amounts to support projects typical of 6.2 or 6.3 funding.

This finding comes in contrast to comments many CNSR members have been recieving from scientists and engineers at their universities and within their associations.

Also of interest was Finding 8:

A recent trend in basic research emphasis within the Department of Defense has led to a reduced effort in unfettered exploration, which historically has been a critical enabler of the most important reakthroughs in military capabilities.

Back in Business

CNSR Members,

As you can see CNSR again has a webpage/blog. I want to say a huge thank you to Peter Harsha for putting together the page. If the CNSR Blog is half as good as the CRA Blog I think we'll all be very pleased.

We'll be using the blog to regularly post items of interests to the DoD S&T community and to post CNSR documents and announcements. Regular emails will still go out, but the CNSRBlog will be updated on a more regular basis.

If you have items that you think should appear in the blog, please email them to me and we'll attempt to get them up here.

Thank you ,
Tom/Bill

Back in Business

CNSR Members,

As you can see CNSR again has a webpage/blog. I want to say a huge thank you to Peter Harsha for putting together the page. If the CNSR Blog is half as good as the CRA Blog I think we'll all be very pleased.

We'll be using the blog to regularly post items of interests to the DoD S&T community and to post CNSR documents and announcements. Regular emails will still go out, but the CNSRBlog will be updated on a more regular basis.

If you have items that you think should appear in the blog, please email them to me and we'll attempt to get them up here.

Thank you ,
Tom/Bill