« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
Chairman ELLENDER. Senator Allott, did you have some questions?
Senator ALLOTT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have two or three lines of questions. Doctor, it is good to see you again.
First of all, looking at the 4.1 percent you have in the upper righthand chart, how much of that is actually basic research?
Dr. Foster. That is a very tough question, Senator. A professor in a university faced with that question might say, "a small fraction of it." Still other professors in the university might well agree that it is three-quarters basic research. It is a matter of judgment. Very little of that work is totally pioneering into the unknown. Much of it is exploring the basic aspects of a field of particular interest to the Department of Defense. So, it is a judgmental thing. I can't give you a precise answer.
Senator ALLOTT, I know you can't draw a specific line, but, in your opinion, how much of that 4.1 percent, or $322 million, would you, yourself, classify as basic research?
Dr. FOSTER. In my present position, interested in the problems of military research and development, I would call all of this relatively basic research.
Senator Allott. But not basic in the pure sense?
Dr. Foster. No, sir. In my prior experience working at the University of California, I would have called 30 or 40 percent of it basic research.
Senator Allott. Now, Mr. Chairman, since the previous remarks were off the record, I would like to go off the record, too, for it relates to Senator Young's question.
(Discussion off the record.)
Dr. Foster. No, sir, not as I think of research.
EXPENDITURES FOR RESEARCH
Senator Allott. So that out of this whole thing we are actually, by your definition-and I understand what you mean-only devoting 4 percent of the $8 billion to research?
Dr. Foster. Yes, sir, that is correct. I believe you are making & point which I had not realized in the past—that, when we talk about research and development for the Department of Defense and ask for an amount like $7.9 billion, there is the feeling that a large fraction of that is tied up with research. And that raises questions about our efforts in research compared with those of the Atomic Energy Commission, NASA, the National Science Foundation and other places.
As you have indicated, it is only 4 percent. Perhaps this is really a matter of definition and scope that must be carefully described.
PERFORMER DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM DECISIONS
Senator Allott. Along another line, before we get too far away from it, in referring to your third chart called "Performer Distribution,” I want to discuss the point that was bothering the chairman. You said perhaps half of that goes back again into industry. I think the point that he was interested in, and the point I want to pin down, is, who makes the decisions as to the basic areas of research which will be explored? Will this be made by you and the Secretary or persons he designates? In other words, let us determine the organization of the decisionmaking process.
Dr. Foster. The decision-making process for the whole program, or just for the in-house laboratory portion?
Senator Allott. Let us talk about the performer distribution chart in its entirety.
Dr. FOSTER. First of all, it is my responsibility to formulate a research and development program for the Department of Defense, present it to the Secretary of Defense, get his approval or modifications, and then present it to the Congress and defend it. But in order to formulate that program, I must first get submissions from the services on what they would like to do. The services in turn go to the in-house laboratories and to industry for ideas. They pool those along with their own and formulate a program. I then meet during the summer and fall of each year with the Assistant Secretaries for research and development of each of the services, and their service chiefs of research and development, and we discuss each program.
Thus each fall we review hundreds of programs and come to an agreement, if we can, on what ought to be done in each area. The service by and large makes the decision whether it will use one of its own laboratories to perform the development or whether it will go to industry. If it goes to a service laboratory, then that laboratory determines the balance between the work that it will have done on the outside--that is generally by industry, or in some cases by universities--and the effort it wants to do within its own organization.
You see, generally the laboratory is limited by both money and manpower; therefore it has to be very careful that it gets the most product for the resources available. So if it is a matter of turning out a number of test items and they find they can get it built commercially cheaper than by using their own resources, their machine shops and so on, they might make the decision to go commercial.
I was saying that, of the $2 billion that goes to in-house facilities, roughly one-half is really going to the outside, and that means that industry gets about three-quarters of the dollars in the end. Chairman ELLENDER. Is that development or research? Dr. Foster. This is mainly development.
ASW DEMONSTRATION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Senator Allott. Let us go back to a figure that bothers me very much. Actually, out of all of this, you have only 4 percent going into research, as you would classify it.
Dr. Foster. That is correct.
Senator Allott. Because you have eliminated exploratory development as an item of research. Now, let us be specific so as to bring this into focus. Let us use an example of ASW. We all know that we are trying to break new barriers in this field. Some of what you found in ASW research would necessarily go over immediately into exploratory development, perhaps?
Dr. Foster. Yes. Let me try to pick an example.
Senator Allott. If you want to use an example other than ASW that is satisfactory to me.
Dr. Foster. It doesn't matter. Let us pick an ASW example,
First of all, in ASW one of the important questions is, "How does the sound come from an enemy submarine to our receiver, [deleted]? How does the sound propagate through the oceans, and in different oceans?" So we would have under the research category moneys for the Navy to operate small ships that go to sea and record the nature of the sound wave as it goes to various places in the Pacific, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and so on. That would be in the research fund. You could say that is really not fundamental researchwe know how sound goes through water.
On the other hand, the effect of temperature as a function of depth, salinity of the water, time of the year, nature of traffic in the areaall affect the nature of the signal that comes at the other end, and it is to some extent a research question. So that would be funded in this 4-percent area.
ExploRATORY AND ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT However, one could then ask the question, "What kind of receiver can we build that is better than the one we have now?'' For instance, one might say, "Is it possible for us to filter out most of this other noise? Is there some logic by which we can get rid of most of the background?”
We might pay in exploratory development moneys for someone to make up a prototype of this equipment, put it on one of those ships, and see whether or not it gets rid of the background noise and still brings through the signal we are looking for. If that works, we might then fund out of advanced development a unit to see whether, when we plug it into the [deleted] complete system, it actually makes the whole system work better, (deleted). If that turns out to be true, we might spend money in engineering development to develop that black box to make the currently deployed weapon system more effective.
RESEARCH ADEQUACY Senator Allott. I suppose that you have divined the point of my questioning, which is that I am concerned as to whether or not we are actually spending enough in research in the light of our present world situation, or whether the actual research is being squeezed down to that little 4 percent by the necessities in other areas.
Dr. Foster. Senator, that is a very, very difficult judgment. I would like to delay that question because it is out of the context of this general discussion that I would like to complete first.
Senator ALLOTT. All right.
INDUSTRY'S RESEARCH EXPENDITURES
Chairman ELLENDER. You are requesting $7,888 million for Department of Defense research efforts. Do you have any figures on what defense industries spend on research?
Dr. Foster. The industry independently does some research and development. Now the Department of Defense contributes some money to them as an incentive for them to do it.
Specifically, the total cost of this independent research and development by industry for 1970—I don't have the most recent numbers for 1971 because it is not completed-was $714 million. Of that, the Government contributed $347 million. So, roughly speaking, the Government paid half and the industry contributed from its profits an equal amount.
Chairman ELLENDER. So that you can conclude that the bulk of the expense for research is Government?
Dr. Foster. Yes, sir; that is certainly correct.
TERMINATED R. & D. PROJECTS
Chairman ELLENDER. Dr. Foster, before you continue with your statement I want to have included in the record an up-to-date list of major R. & D. projects terminated during the past 10 years. In looking over this list I note that during 1970 the following projects were terminated: the RF-111 aircraft, the MOL program, the chemical warhead for the Army's Lance missile, an Army generator system, two Army communications efforts one of which was the Mallard system, and the Navy's DSSV deep search vehicle. The full list will be included in the record.
(The information follows:)