Defense Research Office to Receive $80M in ‘07 for Urgent Equipment Buys

By Sandra I. Erwin

The Defense Department’s office of research and engineering is scouting the commercial marketplace for slick technologies sought by troops in combat.

In fiscal year 2007, the office plans to spend nearly $80 million on equipment ranging from aerostats to gun sights.

Director of Defense Research and Engineering John J. Young Jr. says he expects Congress will continue to support this program. “We use commercial technology to help the war fighter, very quickly take it and give them a chance to use it.”

The funds include $28.8 million for “quick reaction” projects and $50.3 million for a “counter-terrorism task force” that procures off-the-shelf and develops new technology.

These organizations are among several others throughout the Defense Department and the services that procure equipment outside the traditional acquisition bureaucracy. “I see this as a continuing need for the department, and different people have taken different steps to address it,” Young says.

The DDR&E teams have purchased a wide array of hardware. Among the latest acquisitions is a biometric tool to secure facilities in Iraq, bomb jammers, an aerostat loaded with cameras that can detect mortar attacks, a device that translates Arabic-language TV broadcasts into English, sights for .50 caliber machine guns in Marine Corps Abrams tanks, and a gun coating that creates a dry surface but still provides lubrication, which keeps guns from collecting dust.

While Young appreciates the congressional backing for this program, he is not too pleased by the onslaught of “add-ons” that lawmakers pour into the Defense Department’s annual research and development budget, generally for pet projects in the legislators’ districts that the Pentagon did not request.

In 2006, for example, the Pentagon sought $10.5 billion for R&D, and ended up with an appropriation of $13.6 billion. “Most of that additional money is for very specific projects … directed to specific companies. It doesn’t take advantage of what’s made America great, like competition.”

Email your comments to SErwin@ndia.org