Welcome and Overview Welcome to DARPATech ’99! I am Frank Fernandez, Director of DARPA. I have been at DARPA now for just over one year. In that time, I have come to realize that DARPA is absolutely unique and that a good part of what makes us special are the skills and creativity of the people and places in which we invest. We have three days planned that I hope you find exciting and thought-provoking. DARPATech is our opportunity to present you with information about our new programs. These efforts are important to the future of the U.S. military – the work that we sponsor, and that you carry out, will truly allow today’s military to make the necessary paradigm shift to be ready for the 21st Century. Each technical office will present first an overview of efforts ongoing in that office, followed by detailed presentations on specific programs. In addition, we have invited some very distinguished and interesting guest speakers to provide you with their unique perspectives on the U.S. military. Today, Admiral Gehman, Commander-in Chief for the Atlantic Command will talk to you about some of ACOM’s priorities. Tomorrow, Dr. Dolores Etter, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology will talk about DoD research priorities and issues. On Thursday morning, Lieutenant General Randall L. Rigby, Deputy Commanding General (Futures), US Army Training and Doctrine Command, will discuss TRADOC Futures. Finally, at 1PM on Thursday, Dr. Hans Mark, the DDR&E and my boss, will give you some of his observations on some critical technical areas. I hope that you all can stay for the complete meeting. I will, and I will be taking attendance. Since DARPA was created in 1958, many changes have taken place in our world that affect the DoD. Two major changes – the changing and poorly understood threat and the influence of the outside world – have triggered a great amount of debate in the defense establishment concerning the business model defense should follow. In addition, the fact that our policymakers and our citizens do not want to spend as much on defense as in the past has made affordability a major consideration as compared to performance. As it turns out, in an article in Forbes Magazine, Peter Drucker reviewed the non-DoD world and concluded that, just as in the DoD case, the general business world is at the stage where major, previously held "truths of management" need to be abandoned if institutions are to survive and grow in the future. Drucker argues that, in the future, institutions are going to have to realize that most of what affects them will be externally generated, not the result of their own knowledge base. He argues that in order to survive, institutions must realize that entrepreneurism and management are only two different parts of the same task. The entrepreneur who cannot manage will not last long and, the manager who cannot innovate will also not last very long. In order to accomplish this, Drucker argues that managers must first organize for systematic, continuing improvement – what the Japanese call “kaizen.” Secondly, he says, managers must organize for systematic, continuing exploitation, of successful endeavors – they must organize to build a different tomorrow on a proven today. And, finally, managers must organize for systematic, radical innovation with a goal to create the different tomorrow that makes obsolete and, to a large extent, replaces even the most successful, current products. I believe that these three management thrusts – organizational improvement, exploitation of current success, and radical innovation --are directly applicable to our defense needs. The warfighter’s emphasis on training and experimentation, such as that taking place through Service and Joint Battle Labs, is the method whereby we get Drucker’s systematic, continued improvement. The requirements-based research and development performed by the Military Services is the analogue to Drucker's call for managers to build tomorrow's systems based on our proven capabilities and processes. Finally, I believe that DARPA's mission, restated for the 21st century, is precisely to be the technical enabler for the innovation whose goal is to make obsolete, and to a large extent replace, even the most successful current capabilities. . . . . . . . . . Let me talk to you a little bit about the characteristics of innovation. First of all, let me be clear. Innovation is much more than invention! Innovation is the process of using inventions, whether technical or operational or financial, to change the way we do business! Innovation can generally be classified into two categories. Sustaining innovation, which refers to predictable, dependable advances in capability, is what is normally part of a long- term plan. On the other hand, revolutionary, radical innovation uses an enabler (technical or otherwise) and a new paradigm (business model) to achieve a level of performance that eventually far exceeds the limits of current, evolutionary advances. Innovation takes a long time for large institutions. It requires iteration between new operational concepts and new technical ideas. Radical innovation, in particular, is very risky. The new paradigm may not be obvious and almost always initially under-performs the current established business model. Radical innovation depends strongly on creative people and is therefore subject to their vulnerabilities and weaknesses. Radical innovation almost always displaces or disrupts some well-established, current operation in the business. It is therefore a threat. As such, radical innovation must be protected since the operation it displaces will almost certainly attack and attempt to destroy it. . . . . . . .Example: . . . Naval aviation, invented by the British, but not exploited by battleship-oriented admiralty. Finally, radical innovation requires leadership, dedication and high-level protection. In almost every case study, successful radical innovation has involved both high-level champions to support and protect it and, "green-eyed zealots" who, for their own reasons, choose to make this paradigm change the hallmark of their careers. Defense innovation requires both radical innovation, and sustaining, requirements-based R&D in order to provide our Nation with the defense capability needed for the 21st century. . . . . . . . . . Given that DARPA’s mission is to enable radical innovation in support of National Security, we are pursuing three main mission areas. Our first concern is to find technical solutions to national-level problems. Our priority is on problems that may impact our national survival. At present, protection from biological attack and protection from information attack are such problems. Our second mission is to be the technical enabler for the innovation required to achieve dominance across the range of military operations – “operational dominance.” In our third mission area, we continue to develop and exploit high-risk core technologies reflecting DARPA’s traditional strengths. In this way, we can fulfill DARPA’s charter of “avoiding technological surprise.” . . . . . . . . . DARPA's strategy is simple and brutal. We must be flexible and able to quickly exploit emerging situations. This is a reflection of our view that in this changing world, events taking place outside of the customary DoD establishment may very well have the greatest effect on national security. We emphasize problems that are both difficult technically, and that are focused on a desired outcome. As an example, President Kennedy’s charge in 1960 to put a man on the moon before the end of the decade was technically difficult but highly focused. DARPA emphasizes competition at all levels, believing that in the quest for innovative solutions, outside stimulation is essential. . . . . . . . . DARPA has a much broader research horizon than a commercial venture capital firm. DARPA can fund an idea or build a full-scale prototype of a system. It can focus its work into outcomes when needed without using the peer review process prevalent in university research. Finally, DARPA can work on national security needs, without there being well- established military requirements. Since DARPA performs its job in a manner more like an investment house than the traditional government R&D institution, DARPA’s organizational structure is flat, and it uses contracts with industry, labs, and universities to get work done. We own no facilities or institutions and we have a very lean staff. DARPA stresses constant examination as we review programs and rotate our people to ensure that resources are available for new. Finally, DARPA has use of highly flexible contracting and hiring authorities to allow us to exploit new opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . Now, I would like to discuss my priorities at DARPA: people, competition, outreach and experimentation. My top priority is to attract excellent people to DARPA. We are small, and the work we do is people-intensive. I intend to foster an environment at DARPA that will allow our researchers to compete fairly with each other to determine the best ideas, and to be rewarded accordingly. If all levels of management encourage and reward professional respect and scrupulous ethics, DARPA will continue to attract the best people. DARPA must avoid technological surprise by adversaries who also take advantage of today’s global technology. Thus, another priority is to establish a methodical process at DARPA to fully realize the importance of externally generated events and to take timely action in response. To this end, I am starting an effort to establish an on-going dialogue with the Chief Technology Officers of commercial companies in sectors affecting DoD. Finally, accomplishing the shift in paradigm required for the vision of "Operational Dominance” requires continuing iteration between operational concepts and technology at a systems level. Neither technology push nor military pull are sufficient. This iteration is the key to revolutionary warfare innovation, in my opinion. Used correctly, the experimentation and analysis process – directly involving the warfighter – is the best way to accomplish this iteration. Our military needs to be encouraged to leap ahead, without formal requirements, and to perform experiments and interpret data from these experiments in equal collaboration with knowledgeable technologists. To this end, I am initiating partnerships with the military to help implement the process of experimentation and analysis, to enable the iteration between new warfare concepts and DARPA technologies in these revolutionary areas to provide operational dominance in selected missions. . . . . . I think that ADM Gehman’s presentation talked to this issue, directly. . . . . . . . Now, to the meat of DARPA, our technical focus areas – In the area of national level problems, we are focusing on protection from biological attack and protection of information attack. You will hear more about our work in these two areas from a number of our speakers. In biological warfare defense, let me just note that I plan to expand DARPA’s work in biological warfare defense to include better modeling and networking of our sensors to provide surveillance capabilities and, if possible, methods of determining who is responsible for attacks and responding accordingly. In particular, we will see if DARPA investments can have a substantial impact on characterizing deeply buried underground biological warfare and chemical warfare production facilities. For protection from information attack, our work is focused on mechanisms to harden the DoD’s Internet-based networks, and secure our information systems even though they are based on unreliable components. You will hear more detail on this on Thursday. . . . . . . In the area of enabling operational dominance, I am emphasizing outcome based planning and battlespace preparation; affordable, mobile, precision target kill; mobile, distributed communications; and future warfare concepts. I want to go beyond battlespace awareness and use advanced technology to emphasize adapting to changing situations in battlespace preparation, battle planning and execution and in affordably and precisely classifying and attacking non-stationary and buried targets. I want to develop the technologies to allow our rapid-reaction, small units to have the mobile, distributed communications needed to optimize their effectiveness, including the transition from sea to land in the littorals. Furthermore, DARPA is focusing on technologies to enable new future air, land and maritime warfare concepts such as combined manned and unmanned warfare and advanced submarine payloads. . . . . . . . . . . Our core technology investments will be highlighted during talks in the next three days. This includes presentations from the Information Technology Office on Thursday, and the Defense Sciences Office and Microsystems Technology Office later today. One interesting area that I call your attention to is the intersection between biology, information and microsystems technologies. We believe that some of the most revolutionary future advances will come from this intersection of microinstrumentation, models for complex systems and data management. We envision advances in information security, prevention of disease and computing capabilities. Interdisciplinary education and research combining these disciplines and experts may provide synergies to help solve national level problems. Such interdisciplinary research and education centers were formed in the past in the Material Science and Aeronautics areas, for example. Both of these interdisciplinary ventures resulted in revolutionary capabilities. Perhaps the union of disciplines can provide a new generation of researchers who will produce the next wave of revolutionary innovations. My Deputy, Dr. Jane Alexander, as well as Dr. Steve Squires on Thursday, will talk more about this exciting new possibility. . . . . . . . . We recently reorganized the technical offices at DARPA. My main motivation for this reorganization was to re-emphasize the bottoms-up, opportunity-driven nature of this organization. I also wanted to de-emphasize the distinction in some people’s minds that some offices only did “technology” and other offices only did “systems development.” In reality, our offices have a balanced mix of investments. Lastly, and probably most importantly, I wanted there to be a clear, senior point of contact for my key focus areas. . . . . . . . . . You will hear from each office during DARPATech, as office directors explain their offices’ key thrusts and programs, so at this time, I will just give you highlights from each office. The Advanced Technology Office is focused on technologies and systems for early entry, rapid reaction forces and Special Forces, communications systems and technologies, and maritime technologies and systems. The Defense Sciences Office emphasizes biological warfare defense technologies, biological programs, materials efforts, and mathematics. The Information Systems Office manages information assurance and security, command and control systems, planning and logistics systems, and systems and technologies to counter the asymmetric threat. The Information Technology Office continues to manage networking, embeddable systems, human computer interface, translingual and software composition technologies. The Microsystems Technology Office manages electronics, photonics, MEMS, and the integration into microsystems. The Special Projects Office manages efforts to develop chemical and biological defense systems, networking of airborne systems for affordable precision attack of mobile targets, and systems to counter underground facilities. The Tactical Technology Office develops advanced air and space platforms, future Army combat systems, and space-based systems for precision attack of mobile targets. I hope that you enjoy the rest of the presentations, and find them useful. I also encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity to meet with program managers during sidebars. Additionally, I and my senior staff are available to talk with you during breaks. . . . . . . . . . And now for my commercial – I have mentioned a number of times that we are a small organization, that we are people-intensive in the way we do business, and that we rotate our staff to obtain a continuous infusion of good ideas. Fundamentally, we are only as good as our people. This means that we are always on the lookout for excellent program managers! To those of you in the audience who are recognized management leaders in industry, academia, government, laboratories, and preferred federal contractors, I am asking for help. You know, maybe better than I do, how important and unique DARPA is to innovation in matters of national security. You have the power to influence and lead the best qualified young people to DARPA for a tour as a program manager. You are also part of the community from whom we will hire our Office Directors. You must help DARPA maintain a technical staff capable of inventing and managing programs critical to our national security. Only with this help can DARPA continue to protect and provide the resources for the high- risk endeavors necessary to produce revolutionary innovation. We recently received authority from Congress for an experimental personnel program that allows us to hire applicants without the usual civil servant restrictions. We have the flexibility to offer salaries and benefits that are different than what you may be used to for the government. I can also make a job offer much more quickly than usually possible. And, we believe that today’s conflict of interest rules are manageable, and allow experienced technical people to move into DARPA from industry (and back again) without significant restrictions. If you are among the best, please, consider joining the DARPA team! Talk to my current program managers -- I believe you will hear from them that their position is a very rewarding one. My Human Resources Director, Nic Lanzetta, is here for the full three days. He is sitting in Governor’s Square, room 17, and would be very happy to answer any of your questions. Once again, welcome! I’d be happy to answer a few questions before we move on to hear from my Deputy.