The risk-averted nature of the defense acquisition system is making it harder for the military to adopt innovative technologies such as additive manufacturing, adaptive software and advanced propulsion systems, a panel of industry officials said Friday.
Revolutionary advancement of defense technology is within reach, but the weapons buying process is ill-suited to develop the tools necessary to grapple with the complexities of today’s threat environment, said James Kenyon, director of advanced programs and technology for Pratt & Whitney [UTX].
“We have no tolerance for failure. We have a system that is more willing to tolerate a budget increase than a performance shortfall,” he said at a Brookings Institute panel on advancements in defense technology. “Instead of getting the revolutionary things out there more quickly, we take more risk-adverse approaches, we go for more off-the-shelf type technologies because they are theoretically less risky, and we take more incremental approaches.”
But even then, programs cost more and take longer to come to fruition than expected, he added.
Over the last year, Defense Department and lawmakers have stepped up efforts to cut bureaucratic red tape and to invest in groundbreaking technologies that will help ensure the military retains its advantage. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s top acquisition official, have sought to increase innovation by bumping up Silicon Valley companies’ involvement in the defense sector.
The Senate’s defense authorization bill contains $400 million for “offset” technologies such as autonomy, data analytics and cyber weapons, although whether this will end up in the final bill is uncertain. Additionally, both the House and Senate have offered acquisition reform proposals, but as Congress adjourns for its August recess,a reconciled proposal has not yet materialized.
However, panelists said they were worried that the acquisition reform proposals could include additional regulations that could stifle innovation. They asked lawmakers to have more trust in the private sector.
“If you fail and at least fail forward and learn from those mistakes, it is an accurate and efficient investment in the technology,” Brennan Hogan, manager of LMI Research Institute. “It’s all worth it.”
Currently, the procurement system is centered on programs, said Jim Joyce, Deloitte’s manufacturing strategy and operations specialist. For Congress and the Pentagon, that means allocating the budget, and for defense contractors, the goal is to win large capital expenditures.
But the way adversaries are spending their money is changing. China, for example, is better at militarizing new technology, he said. The United States also needs to change its acquisition process so that driving the development of innovative and adaptable weapons is its primary pursuit.
“How do we widen the base of the sources and the resources being used for developing and delivering these systems?” he asked.
Panelists Hogan, Joyce, Kenyon and Dave Logan, BAE Systems’ vice president and general manager for technology solutions in electronic systems, acknowledged that the adoption of 3D printing, new engines and adaptive software also has been slowed by technical challenges, not just government bureaucracy.
Hogan and Joyce said the military is slowly and incrementally embracing additive manufacturing more commonly called 3D printing because of the way the machine “prints” layers of materials like metal or plastic that gradually form an object.
The services are already using additive manufacturing for prototyping and for medical technology such as prosthetics. Another near term possibility is decreasing the logistics tail by fielding 3D printers with troops, allowing them to make certain parts when they need them, Hogan said.
“The potential there is great and significant in condensing the whole supply chain and all of the logistics that support it,” she said. “It has to be a thoughtful process. Which of those parts is there a business case to truncate that logistics and supply chain?”
One issue holding up more widespread use is certifying the structural integrity of parts made by additive manufacturing, Joyce said.
“If I make a part on my machine, can I replicate that process in all its detail and result on another machine?” he asked. “Once you crack that code—and it has been cracked for some materials but not a lot of other ones—you really unleash this technology.”
Kenyon said the Air Force recognizes the need to advance propulsion systems through its Adaptive Engine Technology Development (AETD) and Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP), a $200 million investment that will continue the efforts of AETD.
In the AETD program, Pratt & Whitney is developing an engine that incorporates a third stream of air that can be modulated to optimize the performance of the engine, giving it greater mission flexibility, he said. The company is meeting cost and performance goals, but there are technical issues, including meeting size requirements, developing complex software and manufacturing components with materials and coatings that can stand up to the engine’s high temperatures.
Tight budgets and potential changes to acquisition policies and procedures are other challenges, he said.
Kenyon pointed out one way he believes the Defense Department has improved innovation: its expansion of experimentation initiatives, Kenyon said.
“There’s a renewed sort of enthusiasm around taking emerging technology and the warfighters … and doing some experimentation,” he said. “In many ways, a technologist like myself can’t anticipate how the operators, how the warfighters want to use it. They have far better ways of employing it than I could ever conceive of.”