FEATURE ARTICLE

November 2006

Military R&D could see decline in coming years

By Harold Kennedy

Defense Department research and development spending is expected to level off and, then, gradually decrease through the balance of this decade.

Faced with a growing need to replenish war-ravaged equipment, “the Pentagon is looking to reduce its R&D investments, especially in applied research,” said Kei Koizumi, director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s R&D budget and policy program.

According to projections in its 2007 budget proposal, the Pentagon plans to reduce its spending for R&D from $72.5 billion this year to $71.2 billion in 2011. At first glance, that appears to be only a slight 1.7 percent reduction, but after inflation is taken into account, it is a cut of 11.6 percent from 2006, Koizumi said.

Projections call for R&D spending to continue to increase, climbing to $74.1 billion in 2007 and $75.1 billion in 2008, before topping out at $75.8 billion in 2009, he noted. However, virtually all of the new money –- if it materializes — would go to develop weapons systems already in the pipeline, such as the F-35 joint strike fighter, the DDG- Zumwalt-class destroyer and the future combat system.

Only a small portion of the R&D money –- less than $6 billion proposed in 2007 –- would go either to basic or applied research, and plans are to reduce that amount even further in coming years, Koizumi explained.

Basic research is experimental and theoretical work conducted to acquire new knowledge for its own sake. Applied research is an effort to find specific uses for that information.

For 2007, the Pentagon requested $1.4 billion for basic research, a 3.3 percent decrease from this year, and $4.5 billion for applied research, a 15 percent drop from 2006.

The decline in spending will continue beyond 2011, Koizumi said. The Pentagon’s budget for basic research for that year currently is projected at $1.5 billion, a 5.6 percent decrease when inflation is considered. For applied research, funding is expected to amount to $4.5 billion. That’s virtually the same figure requested for 2007, but a 22.6 percent decrease after inflation.

The result: “It’s going to become much more difficult for the Defense Department to invest in new ideas for our war fighters,” Koizumi said. “The technologies they will need to fight future wars -– say in the 2020 to 2025 timeframe -– may not be there.”

After all, he said, such important innovations as the Internet, the global positioning system and precision-guided weapons all were developed as part of previous long-term military research projects.

In the future, such breakthroughs may not be possible “since we won’t have done the basic and applied research necessary,” Koizumi said.

The planned cutbacks “are understandable,” he said. “The Pentagon is very much focused on the short term right now — and with good reason. It’s fighting two very complicated wars with no end in sight.”

The wars are extracting a heavy toll, with more than 3,000 U.S. troops killed in combat worldwide, thousands more seriously wounded and equipment costs soaring.

Senior Army and Marine commanders testified in congressional hearings in recent weeks that they need about $30 billion in 2007 alone just to restore their ground, air and communications gear to pre-war levels. “Right now, those things have a much higher priority than long-term research,” Koizumi said.

And that may not change any time soon. Recent studies by two Washington, D.C.-based think tanks, the Center for American Progress and the Lexington Institute, have suggested that the two services may require similar amounts of supplemental funding for each additional year they are at war.

In order to pay for war expenses, Congress has mandated cutbacks not only in research, but also in major weapons programs already under development, such as the Army’s future combat system, the presidential helicopter program and the joint strike fighter, a combined Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and multinational program.

In September, Congress approved legislation providing $437.6 billion in defense appropriations for 2007. The measure included $381.7 billion for ongoing programs — $4 billion less than the Bush administration requested — plus $70 billion in supplemental funds to pay for previously unbudgeted war costs.

The bill includes $3 billion for the future combat system of 18 networked manned and unmanned vehicles, which the Army considers the centerpiece of its plan to transform itself into a more modular, versatile force. That’s $326 million below the administration’s 2007 request.

The measure also provides $76.8 billion for research, development and evaluation in 2007, which is slightly more than the administration’s request.

Basic research increased to $1.5 billion, a 4.8 percent increase over 2006, while applied research went up .8 percent to 5.2 billion. That’s a much better outcome than the cuts recommended by the administration, Koizumi said.

“It’s a repeat of a now-familiar pattern of the Pentagon requesting cuts and Congress putting it back in. The end result is great.”

The Pentagon proposed to reduce funding for defense medical research from $537 million in 2006 to $131 million in 2007 and to keep it at that level at least through 2011. That would amount to a cut of 78.1 percent after inflation, Koizumi noted.

Congress, however, refused to accept such severe reductions, which members argued would harm military research to fight breast, ovarian and prostate cancer. They voted to provide nearly four times the Pentagon request.

The relatively new National Defense Education Program, founded last year to encourage U.S. students to pursue science and engineering degrees, will see its budget rise from $2 million in 2005, to $10 million this year and up to $20 million in 2007.

Many of the increases come from congressional add-ons, known as “earmarks,” to applied research that the Pentagon proposed to eliminate.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, for example, is to receive $3.1 billion, about a 10 percent increase, and the chemical and biological defense program will get $1.5 billion, a jump of $84 million above the request. The Israeli Arrow theater missile defense program is funded at $136 million, which is $58 million above the administration request.

The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization will receive $1.9 billion to test and field new jammers to counter roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The big gains in 2007 defense R&D plans, however, are in the non-research portion, weapons development, which are to grow by 5.2 percent to $62 billion.

The Air Force and the Missile Defense Agency receive the largest increases, with $24.5 billion going to the Air Force, more than10 percent over 2006. That compares to $11 billion for the Army, a 6 percent increase, and $18.7 billion for the Navy and Marines, a 6 percent decrease.

The Missile Defense Agency, struggling to develop a system to protect the nation against ballistic missile attack, is to get $9.4 billion, an increase of $1.6 billion and $110 million above the administration’s request.

The single largest development project in the Defense Department –- and the entire federal government –- is the joint strike fighter, a Navy-Air Force program, which the administration proposed to fund at $4.2 billion in 2007.

Congress, however, trimmed 2007 purchases of joint strike fighters from five to two, saving $389 million and delaying production of the aircraft to permit additional testing and design improvements. Legislators sweetened that cut by adding $340 million to continue developing a second source for JSF aircraft engines and directing the Pentagon to include funding for that program in 2008.

As long as immediate combat needs have to be funded, research and development is going to be lower on the priority list, Koizumi said. The R&D community, however, is seeking a way, over the long haul, to increase its portion of the budget.

“One idea that is gaining support is for the Pentagon to set aside 3 percent of its annual budget for science and technology,” he noted. “It was endorsed in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, but it wasn’t mentioned in the most recent one.”

The Pentagon’s budget requests have never met the 3 percent level, he said. “It’s been up to Congress to meet that target with add-ons each year.”

Concern, however, is growing about reliance on earmarks in the wake of several scandals involving members of Congress caught taking bribes for doling them out, Koizumi said. “Reform proposals so far have focused on bringing greater transparency to the process,” he noted, “but that seems unlikely to have much impact in an environment where members of Congress are mostly eager to take credit for earmarks they have steered to their districts or states.”

Meanwhile, universities, localities and research institutions are scrambling to lobby on Capitol Hill for their shares of increasingly scarce funds. “In such an environment, the recent trend of ever-increasing R&D earmarks within flat R&D budgets is likely to continue,” Koizumi said.

Please email your comments to HKennedy@ndia.org

Back To Top