Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content

What is New?

Event9/14/2020 11:47 AM
News9/14/2020 9:50 AM
News8/20/2020 5:23 PM
AFSCI 61-101 Technology Sustainment Enterprise Process.aspx
Reference9/11/2020 2:42 PM
DoDD 5134.01 Under SecDef for ATL Ch1 20080401.pdf
Reference9/11/2020 2:23 PM
GAO-20-578 Independent Research and Development 20200903.pdf
Report9/3/2020 3:17 PM
Risk Management 2017 Risks Issues and Opportunities RIO.pptx
Learning Material8/31/2020 11:53 PM
RIO Guide January2017.pdf
Reference8/31/2020 11:50 PM
DoDI 1025.11 DoD STEM Education Programs Activities 20200821.pdf
Reference8/27/2020 2:46 PM
Recommendations For Strengthening Leadership In The Industries Of The Future June2020.pdf
Report8/26/2020 5:01 PM
FY22 National RD Budget Priorities Memo.pdf
Reference8/21/2020 9:13 AM
DoDI 5000.83 Technology and Program Protection 20200720.pdf
Reference7/24/2020 5:33 PM
DoDI 6440.02 Clinical Laboratory Improvement Program (CLIP) 20140529 incorp Ch1 20200507.pdf
Reference5/13/2020 2:39 PM
09/24/2020 4:22 PM

[View this post in HTML for embedded URLs to Inside Defense article and CSIS report]

​Inside Defense article on 23 Sep 20 discusses an August 2020 report (70 pages) by the Center for Security and International Studies (CSIS) that looks at Procurement vs. RDT&E budgets over the past 40 years.

The article is titled "CSIS report finds decline in ration of procurement spending to R&D spending" and was written by Marjorie Censer.

The 70-page CSIS report itself is titled "Is the Ratio of Investment between Research and Development to Production in Major Defense Acquisition Programs Experiencing Fundamental Change?" There are two sections of S&T analysis (4.2.1 & 4.2.2) in the report from pp. 14-17 that discuss S&T as a portion of RDT&E and the trends of 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 to each other over time.

The report seems to say that acquisitions are no more broken now than they have been in the past, though the systems it is developing and procurement are orders of magnitude more complex and dependent on software.

9/24/2020 4:22 PMNo
09/18/2020 12:46 PM

Subject issuance incorporates Change 1 dated 17 Sep 20 to the previous issuance dated 21 Dec 10.

 This doc is a good overview of basic DoD organizational relationships, especially for those new to the DoD, and to cover the new organizations and revised relationships directed over the past few years, summarized below.


Purpose: "Establishes the functions of the Department of Defense and its major Components, supporting the core mission areas of the Armed Forces, which are broad DoD military operations and activities required to achieve the strategic objectives of the National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, and National Military Strategy (References (b), (c), and (d)), in accordance with title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) (Reference (e))."


SUMMARY OF CHANGE 1 [Quite lengthy]:

The changes to this issuance are administrative and:

a. Update references and organizational symbols to reflect the reorganization of:

(1) The Office of the Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense, in accordance with the July 11, 2014 Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum (Reference (be)), section 132a of Reference (e), and February 1, 2018 Secretary of Defense Memorandum (Reference (bf)), including merger of:

(a) The Office of the Director of Administration and Management.

(b) The Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight.

(2) The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics into the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in accordance with DoDDs 5137.02 and 5135.02 (References (k) and (bp)).

(3) The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration/DoD Chief Information Officer to the Office of the DoD Chief Information Officer, pursuant to DoDD 5144.02 (Reference (s)).


b. Update the organizational composition of the DoD, to reflect the establishment and disestablishment of the following:

(1) Establishment of the USCYBERCOM, pursuant to section 167b of Reference (e), in accordance with section 164 of Reference (e).

(2) Establishment of the U.S. Space Force, pursuant to section 952 of Public Law 116-92 (Reference (bg)).

(3) Establishment of the Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA), pursuant to section 932 of Public Law 113-66 (Reference (bh)) and in accordance with section 167b of Reference (e).

(4) Disestablishment of the Defense Business Transformation Agency, in accordance with the August 16, 2010 Secretary of Defense Memorandum (Reference (bi)).

(5) Establishment of the Defense Health Agency (DHA) and disestablishment of the TRICARE Management Activity, in accordance with DoDD 5136.13 (Reference (bc)).

(6) Establishment of the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, and disestablishment of the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office, in accordance with DoDD 5110.10 (Reference (av)).

(7) Retitling of the Defense Security Service as the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, in accordance with the June 20, 2019 Secretary of Defense Memorandum (Reference (bj)).

(8) Establishment of the Space Development Agency, in accordance with the March 12, 2019 Acting Secretary of Defense Memorandum (Reference (bk)).


c. Reflect the following functions and responsibilities, authorities, and relationships changes:

(1) Updated the Deputy Secretary of Defense functions pursuant to DoDD 5105.02 (Reference (br)).

(2) Addition of the Chief, NGB to membership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pursuant to section 151 of Reference (e) and the Chief of Space Operations, pursuant to section 9082 of Reference (e).

(3) Removal of references to the Quadrennial Defense Review, pursuant to section 941 of Public Law 114-328 (Reference (bl)), and the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review, pursuant to section 1072 of Public Law 113-291 (Reference (bm)).

(4) Renaming of the Deputy's Advisory Working Group as the Deputy's Management Action Group, in accordance with the October 6, 2011 Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum (Reference (bn)).

(5) Updating the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff functions to include providing advice on global military strategic and operational integration, in accordance with section 153 of Reference (e).

(6) Updating the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict functions to include coordinating on Military Department and Military Service personnel management policy and plans, in accordance with section 138 of Reference (e).

9/18/2020 12:46 PMNo
09/14/2020 8:44 AM

On 11 Sep 20, USD(A&S) and USD(I&S) (Intelligence & Security) jointly issued DoDI 5000.86, Acquisition Intelligence. Its purpose: "In accordance with the authority in DoD Directive (DoDD) 5135.02 and DoDD 5143.01, this issuance establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides direction for the integration of intelligence in the acquisition life cycle in accordance with DoDD 5000.01." The instruction doesn't state that it replaces or incorporates existing policy from the previous DoDI 5000.02T or any other instructions so it appears to be brand new. However, as discussed below, aspects of the policy were already in effect for all acquisition programs.


The 16-page instruction directs defense acquisition personnel to "...manage all potential threats to an acquisition effort and focus on the critical intelligence parameters (CIPs). It calls for collaboration between the requirements, acquisition, R&D, and intelligence communities to ensure awareness of adversary capabilities and intentions."


This instruction connects the intelligence community to an acquisition program through three previously-identified intelligence products: Threat modules; validated on-line life-cycle threat (VOLT) reports; and technology targeting risk assessments (TTRAs). The VOLT report and the TTRA were already identified in the DAU Milestone Document Identification (MDID) tool as regulatory requirements. Quotes from the MDID follow below.


The VOLT report is required for all ACAT programs. "MDAPs require a unique system-specific VOLT report to support capability development and PM assessments of mission needs and capability gaps against likely threat capabilities at IOC.  The VOLT report uses the bi-annual Defense Intelligence Threat Library Threat Modules as its analytic foundation.  The threat modules provide the PM projections of technology and adversary capability trends for the next 20 years.  VOLT reports are required for all other programs unless waived by the MDA.  In conjunction with the VOLT, the requirements sponsor and Component capability developer will collaboratively develop critical intelligence parameters in accordance with the JCIDS.  Programs on the DOT&E Oversight List require a unique, system-specific VOLT, unless waived by both the MDA and the DOT&E.  DoD Components produce a VOLT.  DIA validates the VOLT for ACAT ID programs; the DoD Component validates the VOLT for ACAT IB and IC programs and below."


The TTRA is also required for all ACAT programs. It is "Prepared by the DoD Component and coordinated with the DoD Component intelligence analytical centers per DoDI O-5240.24.  Forms the analytic foundation for counterintelligence assessments in the associated PPP.  DIA will validate the report for ACAT ID; the DoD Component will be the validation authority for ACAT IB and IC and below."


Section 3 of the instruction, "Intelligence in Key Acquisition Documents and Functions," discusses intelligence support to a program's acquisition strategy, analysis of alternatives, capability requirements documents, request for proposal and other transaction authority, systems engineering plan, test and evaluation master plan, program protection plan, concept of operations, and life-cycle mission data plan.

9/14/2020 8:44 AMNo
Picture Placeholder: LISA BURNS
19/10/2020 1:12 PM

Sharing with the community the DoD Joint Artificial Intelligence Center website and references link.  Contained within is an excellent primer on AI written by ​Greg Allen, Chief of Strategy and Communication/JAIC.

DARREN RHYNE9/10/2020 6:54 PMNo
09/10/2020 1:42 PM

​An Inside Defense article by Tony Bertuca published on 3 Sep 20 states that in response to a recommendation from the recent GAO report GAO-20-578 on DoD management of industry's Independent Research and Development (IR&D), the DoD intends to "begin annual reviews of [IR&D] projects so they can be better integrated into the U.S. military's technology plans." The OUSD(R&E) will also "investigate and revise its IR&D instruction [DoDI 3204.01, CH2, 9 Jul 20] to require annual review of defense industry IR&D investments."

The DoD used to hold annual reviews of industry IR&D to help shape industry investments until congressional action in 1992 put a halt to that. How these new annual reviews will actually be implemented is unknown at this point but I will try to schedule a DAU Webcast on the revised instruction, policy, and processes whenever the instruction is published, likely a year or so down the road.

What are your thoughts? Please share them here in a respose to this discussion topic.

9/10/2020 1:42 PMNo
09/10/2020 10:26 AM

On 1 Sep 20, DAU's new Learning Director for Other Transactions, Ms. Hallie Tremaine Balkin, and DAU IP expert, Professor Howard Harris, authored an article called "A Marriage Made in Heaven?" that discusses the basics of Other Transactions and associated risks and opportunities for technical data rights in those agreements. You can find the medium-length article at:


DAU recently established communities of practice (CoP) for Other Transactions and IP & Data Rights. Those CoPs can be found in the DAU Communities and in the direct links below.



IP/Data Rights:

If you have any lessons learned or questions about OTs and/or IP & Data Rights, share them here or on the above CoPs.

9/10/2020 10:26 AMNo
09/8/2020 1:09 PM

​On 4 Sep 20, President Trump issued Space Policy Directive 5 (SPD-5), "Cybersecurity Principles for Space Systems." It states that the same cybersecurity protections incorporated into terrestrial systems should be applied to space systems. The Department of Commerce is publishing SPD-5 in the Federal Register for wide dissemination. The White House memo accompanying SPD-5 is published at:

Jeff Foust of Space News posted an article about the release of SPD-5 on Friday at its website:

9/8/2020 1:09 PMNo
09/8/2020 12:05 PM

​On 2 Sep 20, the Honorable Ellen Lord, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (USD(A&S)), issued a memo titled "'Back-to-Basics' for the Defense Acquisition Workforce." In the memo she reorganizes the current 14 acquisition workforce functional areas into six: Program Management, Engineering, Test and Evaluation, Contracting, Life Cycle Logistics, and Business Financial Management/Cost Estimating. The reason stated for doing this is, "To support the NDS, it is imperative that we pivot from the past broad workforce focus and get "Back-to-Basics" (BtB) by streamlining our functional area framework and prioritizing limited training resources for the Defense Acquisition Workforce (AWF) who develop, acquire, and sustain operational capability." Furthermore, "Back-to-Basics outcomes for each Functional Area includes achieving streamlined and restructured certification requirements, identifying prioritized credentials, and providing for continuous learning." Two bodies that manage the acquisition workforce under DoDI 5000.66 were renamed: The Senior Steering Board (SSB) is renamed the Senior Workforce Group (SWG) and the Defense AWF Workforce Management Group (WMG) is renamed the Workforce Leadership Team (WLT). DoDI 5000.66 will be updated to incorporate these changes.

As far as is known now, the STM functional area will cease to exist as a separate entity and will be included under the Engineering functional area. Revised certification requirements are being assessed by the Engineering task force and will be released in FY21. Until then, DAWIA certification requirements remain in effect.

Ms. Lord's memo is not yet published on a public site that I can find so I am not including it here.

9/8/2020 12:05 PMNo
09/3/2020 2:52 PM

On 3 Sep 20, the GAO issued a new report on Independent Research and Development (IR&D) titled "Opportunities to Better Integrate Industry Independent Research and Development into DOD Planning" (GAO-20-578). The reports webpage contains fast facts, a highlights page, a 6:22 podcast interview, and link to the full 58-page report.

The GAO reviewed IR&D projects in the DoD IR&D database hosted in the Defense Innovation Marketplace website ( over 2014-2018 and interviewed representatives from 10 companies.

The report's key takeaways listed on the Highlights page:

DOD does not know how contractors’ independent R&D projects fit into the department’s technology goals. As a result, DOD risks making decisions about its multi-billion dollar science and tech investments that could duplicate work or miss opportunities to fill in gaps that the contributions of private industry do not cover.

DOD has a database of independent R&D projects, but it is not very useful for informing investment decisions because DOD does not obtain information in these and other areas:

  • Priority. Contractors do not identify whether a project aligns with any of 10 modernization priorities. The department uses those priorities to make decisions about R&D investments.
  • Cost. The database does not capture a project’s complete cost, which could help DOD understand cost implications of future related work.
  • Innovation. The database does not include whether a project is a lower-risk, incremental development or a more innovative “disruptive” technology. Disruptive projects carry higher risk of failure but offer possible significant rewards in the long term.

While DOD is not required to review independent R&D projects to understand how they support DOD’s priorities, GAO analysis showed 38 percent of industry projects aligned with DOD’s priorities.

The GAO made two recommendations in one statement: "To help DOD better understand the scope and nature of independent projects, we recommend DOD determine whether to require additional information in the project database and review projects annually as part of its strategic planning process. DOD agreed with both recommendations."

9/3/2020 2:52 PMNo
09/2/2020 4:33 PM

​New Air Force Chief of Staff, General Charles Brown, recently published an eight-page document called "Accelerate Change or Lose" laying out his vision for leading the service. Several defense news outlets have published articles about this so I'll just include one of those here. The article also includes a link to the CSAF's vision document.

9/2/2020 4:33 PMNo
09/2/2020 4:13 PM

​Inside Defense published an article on 2 Sep 20 about DTM 20-002 signed by the DepSecDef on 13 Mar 20 that changes missile defense policy and governance. The opening paragraph of the article states, "The Pentagon's No. 2 official has overhauled missile defense policies and governance in a surprise move that will subject the Missile Defense Agency to increased oversight by other arms of the Defense Department, establishing new rules for the $202 billion portfolio of missile defense weapon system projects and setting the stage for the first major revision of the agency's charter in over a decade."

The full article, which also contains a link to the original 13 Mar 20 memo, is at:

9/2/2020 4:13 PMNo
09/2/2020 4:07 PM

​Inside Defense obtained an ASN(RDA) memo dated 18 Aug 20 that removes the N94 responsibilities from the Navy's Chief of Naval Research (CNR). The article can be found at

The article contains a link to the memo itself.

9/2/2020 4:07 PMNo
09/1/2020 1:00 PM

​Space News article published on 1 Sep 20 announces new Director of DARPA, Ms. Victoria Coleman. She will begin the position later in the month.

Article link:

9/1/2020 1:00 PMNo
08/27/2020 3:51 PM

On 21 Aug 20, OUSD(R&E) issued DoDI 1025.11 "DoD Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education Programs and Activities." This 14-page instruction incorporates and cancels Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Memorandum, "Science, Technology, Mathematics, and Engineering Education Delegation of Authority to Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DD&RE)," October 12, 2010.


This new instruction does the following:

• Establishes and implements policy, assigns responsibilities, prescribes procedures for DoD STEM education programs and activities, and encourages STEM engagement throughout the DoD.

• Authorizes coordinating and collecting data on STEM education programs in accordance with Public Law (P.L.) 111-358.

• Establishes the DoD STEM Advisory Council (SAC) and the SAC Working Group (SACWG).


The instruction assigns responsibilities to USD(R&E), DDR&E(Research & Technology), USD(Personnel & Readiness), and DoD Component Heads. In its Procedures section it describes DDR&E(RT) Laboratories and Personnel Office (L&PO) Activities plus Program Evaluations. That section cites GAO Report GAO-12-208G as the reference in this matter. GAO-12-208G is titled "Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision" that was published on 31 Jan 12 ( Section 4 of the new STEM instruction describes the DoD STEM Advisory Council's (SAC's) functions and membership, and the SAC Working Group's functions and representatives.


Government STEM efforts are codified in law in 10 U.S.C. 2192-2197. Each is briefly described below from Section 3.1 of the instruction.

Section 2192 covers programs to carry out such actions as internships and apprenticeship programs.

Section 2193 deals with grants awarded to students accepted or enrolled in undergraduate and graduate programs in scientific and engineering disciplines critical to DoD's national security functions.

Section 2193a covers efforts to improve science and mathematics knowledge and skills of elementary and secondary school students and faculty members.

Section 2193b deals with the DoD STARBASE Program for primary and secondary schooling in science, mathematics, adn technology education.

Section 2194 authorizes the director of each defense laboratory to enter in one or more education partnership agreements with local U.S. education institutions to encourage and enhance study in scientific disciplines at all levels of education.

Section 2195 supports establishing cooperative work-education programs for undergraduate and graduate students as desired by the director of each defense laboratory in associate with one or more public or private colleges or universities in the U.S. or one or more consortia of colleges in the U.S.

Section 2196 establishes a program to make grants to institutions of higher education, or to consortiums of such institutions, to establish new programs or improve existing programs in manufacturing engineering education.

Section 2197 covers conduct of a merit competition program to support the activities of one or more manufacturing experts at institutions of higher education.

Find out who your local organization's STEM education program coordinator is and volunteer to help conduct STEM activities in your area.

8/27/2020 3:51 PMNo
08/21/2020 8:44 AM

The Director, Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP), and the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), issued their annual joint memo on budget priorities on 14 Aug 20. This one is for the FY22 budget. The original 10-page memo is available at:


A Space News article by Jeff Foust posted on 17 Aug 20 gives an overview of the space-related section, for which there was little change from last year's memo.


Unsurprisingly, of the five priorities listed, American Public Health Security and Innovation is the top priority. It includes sub-areas of Diagnostic, Vaccine, and Therapeutic R&D; Infectious Disease Modeling, Prediction, and Forecasting; Biomedicine and Biotechnology; and Bioeconomy.

The other four priority areas, with sub-areas, listed in numerical order are:


2. American Leadership in the Industries of the Future and Related Technologies

- Artificial Intelligence

- Quantum Information Science

- Advanced Communications Networks

- Advanced Manufacturing

- IotF-related Technology - Future Computing Ecosystem

- IotF-related Technology - Autonomous and Remotely Piloted Vehicles


3. American Security

- Resilience

- Advanced Military Capabilities

- Semiconductors


4. American Energy and Environmental Leadership

- Energy

- Earth System Predictability and Meteorological Services

- Oceans

- Arctic


5. American Space Leadership

- No sub-areas listed



1. Build the S&T Workforce of the Future

2. Optimize Research Environments and Results

3. Facilitate Multisector Partnerships and Technology Transfer

4. Leverage the Power of Data

8/21/2020 8:44 AMNo
07/24/2020 5:23 PM

On 20 July 2020, ​OUSD(R&E) issued a new instruction governing technology and program protection. DoDI 5000.83, "Technology and Program Protection to Maintain Technological Advantage," is another in a series of functional area instructions that incorporates and replaces parts of DoDI 5000.02T.

This new instruction does the following:

  • "Establishes policy, assigns responsibilities, and provides procedures for science and technology (S&T) managers and engineers to manage system security and cybersecurity technical risks from foreign intelligence collection; hardware, software, cyber, and cyberspace vulnerabilities; supply chain exploitation; and reverse engineering to:
o DoD-sponsored research and technology that is in the interest of national security.
o DoD warfighting capabilities.
  • Assigns responsibilities and provides procedures for S&T managers and lead systems engineers for technology area protection plans (TAPPs), S&T protection, program protection plans (PPPs), and engineering cybersecurity activities."
This policy applies to both in-house S&T/R&D efforts and those out-sourced to government-affiliated organizations such as FFRDCs, industry, and academia.

The policy incorporates and cancels parts of DoDI 5000.02T Enclosures 3 and 13 governing program protection and cybersecurity. Tables 1 & 2 in the new instruction state specific sections of those enclosures that transferred over.

Training on this new policy will likely be incorporated into an existing or a new DAU Rapid Deployment Training package that will be given at a future DAU Webcast as part of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework series.

7/24/2020 5:23 PMNo
06/2/2020 9:43 PM

​I'm posting this announcement from DTIC as we all cope with working remotely and virtually collaborating with colleagues and stakeholders.

The coronavirus pandemic has made normal life and work routines anything but normal. As we continue to adjust to new ways of working, a secure knowledge management tool is even more important to help us stay connected and work more effectively. DTIC enables those capabilities for you through its *DoDTechipedia [ ]* tool.


** Use *DoDTechipedia* today at bookmarkhttps://www.dodtechipedia.milto secure, manage, and sync your remote teams knowledge assets and workload, now and after their transition back to the office.


** Need a collaboration tool with restricted access forDoD only (active military and civilian personnel) or DoD and contractors? Start using *DefenseCommunities*at bookmark to enable working group members to exchange ideas and information and collaborate in real-time.


Learn more about *DoDTechipedia* [ ] at bookmark While youre there, check out DTICs other tools to help you improve productivity and manage this time of uncertainty at bookmark


Thank you for reading and from all of us at DTIC, we wish you and your colleagues safety and good health.




Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) is the central scientific, research, and engineering information support activity for the Department of Defense (DoD). DTIC facilitates execution of responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Research and Engineering in accordance with DoDD 5134.3 and in executing the programs and functions of the DoD Scientific and Technical Information Program (STIP), as specified in DoDI 3200.12 and DoD Manual (DoDM) 3200.14. Read DTIC's missionhere [ ].


R&E Gateway [ ]is DTIC's flagship knowledge management hub and is the DoD's one-stop resource for unclassified (public), controlled unclassified (NIPRNet) and classified (SIPRNet) science and technology information. For more information about the R&E Gateway and access to DTIC's collections, visit:

6/2/2020 9:43 PMNo
05/13/2020 2:33 PM

​On 7 May 2020, USD(P&R) issued Change 1 to DoDI 6440.02, "Clinical Laboratory Improvement Program (CLIP)" that does the following:

"The change to this issuance updates references and removes expiration language in accordance with current Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense direction."

The updated instruction is available at:

5/13/2020 2:33 PMNo
05/6/2020 1:33 PM

Marty Falk put me onto the article "Bring Back the Rapid Innovation Fund" by Chip Laingen, Executive Director of Defense Alliance (see link below). Yesterday's DAU Situational Awareness Newsletter included the article, sourced from NDIA's National Defense site. I didn't realize the Rapid Innovation Fund is no longer funded by Congress.


The Rapid Innovation Fund (RIF), started by Congress in FY2011 and funded by congressional adds through FY19, was not funded by the DoD or Congress in the FY20 budget and not funded by DoD in its FY21 PB (PE 0604775D8Z, Defense Rapid Innovation Program). The program, primarily focused on helping develop a small business efforts, is administered by OUSD(R&E)/DDR&E for Advanced Capabilities (AC). In early 2020 the office began awarding contracts using the FY19 funds.


More info about administration of the effort is located on Defense Innovation Marketplace at:


National Defense article:

If anyone has experience with the Rapid Innovation Fund, please contribute to the discussion here in this forum.

5/6/2020 1:33 PMNo
05/1/2020 10:14 AM

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) released some summaries of varies topics for congressional members yesterday. One of these is a two-page primer on RDT&E funding as of the FY20 budget with some look ahead to FY21 (page three of the file is just their standard disclaimer statement).


It notes the creation of a 6.8 Budget Authority (BA) for FY21 but says it is yet undefined as of publication time. I have seen in other sources that BA 6.8 will be to fund efforts in the Software Acquisition Pathway.


Figure 2 in the file shows a pie chart of FY20 RDT&E funding for the Services and Defense-wide, including Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), which was also eye-opening in that the Air Force totals more than Army and Navy combined, and almost doubles Defense-wide. It notes that Space Force funding is not included in FY20 totals.


On page two there is an interesting nugget about basic research funding at universities that somewhat surprised me:

"Within the S&T program, basic research (6.1) receives special attention, particularly by the nation's universities. DOD spends nearly half of its basic research budget at universities. DOD is a substantial source of funds for university R&D in certain fields, such as aerospace, aeronautical, and astronautical engineering (40%); electrical, electronic, and communications engineering (40%); industrial and manufacturing engineering (29%); mechanical engineering (28%); and metallurgical and materials engineering (24%); and computer and information sciences (30%)."

5/1/2020 10:14 AMNo
1 - 20Next

 Featured Multi-Media


 Frequently Needed

18th NDIA S&E Technology Conference Proceedings 2017 site
What is AFRL Inspire? introductory video
GAO Report Web Site
Defense Innovation Marketplace
Defense TechLink