Defense Microelectronics
DOD-Funded Facilities Involved in Research Prototyping or Production Gao ID: GAO-05-278 March 11, 2005The Department of Defense's (DOD) ability to provide superior capabilities to the warfighter is dependent on its ability to incorporate rapidly evolving, cutting-edge microelectronic devices into its defense systems. While many commercial microelectronics advances apply to defense systems, DOD has some unique microelectronics needs not met by industry. Therefore, to maintain military superiority, DOD has the challenge of exploiting state-of-the-art commercial microelectronics technology and focusing its research investments in areas with the highest potential return for defense systems. Given the importance of advanced microelectronics to defense systems and the rapid changes in these technologies, Congress asked GAO to (1) identify and describe DOD and federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) facilities that receive funding from DOD for microelectronics production or research prototyping and (2) describe how DOD coordinates investments in microelectronics research.
At the time of our review, eight DOD and FFRDC facilities that received funding from DOD were involved in microelectronics research prototyping or production. Three of these facilities focused solely on research; three primarily focused on research but had limited production capabilities; and two focused solely on production. The research conducted ranged from exploring potential applications of new materials in microelectronic devices to developing a process to improve the performance and reliability of microwave devices. Production efforts generally focus on devices that are used in defense systems but not readily obtainable on the commercial market, either because DOD's requirements are unique and highly classified or because they are no longer commercially produced. For example, one of the two facilities that focuses solely on production acquires process lines that commercial firms are abandoning and, through reverse-engineering and prototyping, provides DOD with these abandoned devices. During the course of GAO's review, one facility, which produced microelectronic circuits for DOD's Trident program, closed. Officials from the facility told us that without Trident program funds, operating the facility became cost prohibitive. These circuits are now provided by a commercial supplier. Another facility is slated for closure in 2006 due to exorbitant costs for producing the next generation of circuits. The classified integrated circuits produced by this facility will also be supplied by a commercial supplier. DOD has several mechanisms in place aimed at coordinating and planning research conducted by the military services and defense agencies. One key mechanism is identifying defense technology objectives--the specific technology advancements that will be developed or demonstrated across multiple joint capabilities and technology areas. As of February 2004, there were almost 400 defense technology objectives; five of these were identified as microelectronics. DOD also collaborates with industry to review and assess special technology areas and make recommendations about future electronics and microelectronics research.
GAO-05-278, Defense Microelectronics: DOD-Funded Facilities Involved in Research Prototyping or Production
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-278
entitled 'Defense Microelectronics: DOD-Funded Facilities Involved in
Research Prototyping or Production' which was released on March 14,
2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces,
Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
March 2005:
Defense Microelectronics:
DOD-Funded Facilities Involved in Research Prototyping or Production:
GAO-05-278:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-278, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Tactical Air and Land Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of
Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Defense‘s (DOD) ability to provide superior
capabilities to the warfighter is dependent on its ability to
incorporate rapidly evolving, cutting-edge microelectronic devices into
its defense systems. While many commercial microelectronics advances
apply to defense systems, DOD has some unique microelectronics needs
not met by industry. Therefore, to maintain military superiority, DOD
has the challenge of exploiting state-of-the-art commercial
microelectronics technology and focusing its research investments in
areas with the highest potential return for defense systems.
Given the importance of advanced microelectronics to defense systems
and the rapid changes in these technologies, you asked GAO to (1)
identify and describe DOD and federally funded research and development
center (FFRDC) facilities that receive funding from DOD for
microelectronics production or research prototyping and (2) describe
how DOD coordinates investments in microelectronics research.
What GAO Found:
At the time of our review, eight DOD and FFRDC facilities that received
funding from DOD were involved in microelectronics research prototyping
or production. Three of these facilities focused solely on research;
three primarily focused on research but had limited production
capabilities; and two focused solely on production. The research
conducted ranged from exploring potential applications of new materials
in microelectronic devices to developing a process to improve the
performance and reliability of microwave devices. Production efforts
generally focus on devices that are used in defense systems but not
readily obtainable on the commercial market, either because DOD‘s
requirements are unique and highly classified or because they are no
longer commercially produced. For example, one of the two facilities
that focuses solely on production acquires process lines that
commercial firms are abandoning and, through reverse-engineering and
prototyping, provides DOD with these abandoned devices. During the
course of GAO‘s review, one facility, which produced microelectronic
circuits for DOD‘s Trident program, closed. Officials from the facility
told us that without Trident program funds, operating the facility
became cost prohibitive. These circuits are now provided by a
commercial supplier. Another facility is slated for closure in 2006 due
to exorbitant costs for producing the next generation of circuits. The
classified integrated circuits produced by this facility will also be
supplied by a commercial supplier.
DOD has several mechanisms in place aimed at coordinating and planning
research conducted by the military services and defense agencies. One
key mechanism is identifying defense technology objectives”the specific
technology advancements that will be developed or demonstrated across
multiple joint capabilities and technology areas. As of February 2004,
there were almost 400 defense technology objectives; five of these were
identified as microelectronics. DOD also collaborates with industry to
review and assess special technology areas and make recommendations
about future electronics and microelectronics research.
Microelectronics Worker in Clean Room Processing Area:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-278.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Ann Calvaresi-Barr at
(202) 512-4841 or calvaresibarra@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DOD and FFRDC Facilities Receiving DOD Funding Have Varying
Microelectronics Research and Production Focuses:
DOD Has Several Mechanisms for Coordinating Research:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Summary of DOD and FFRDC Facilities Receiving Funding from DOD
with Research Prototyping or Production Capability through Fiscal Year
2004:
Table 2: Defense Reliance Process Planning Documents:
Figures:
Figure 1: DOD Budget Authority in Billions, by Major Category for
Fiscal Year 2005:
Figure 2: Recipients of DOD Research and Advanced Technology
Development Funds for Fiscal Year 2003:
Figure 3: Microelectronics Worker in Clean Room Processing Area:
Figure 4: DOD and FFRDC Facilities with Microelectronics Research
Prototyping and/or Production Capabilities That Receive Funding From
DOD:
Figure 5: Defense Reliance Process:
Figure 6: Defense Technology Objectives by Technology Area:
Abbreviations:
DMEA: Defense Microelectronics Activity:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FFRDC: federally funded research and development center:
NSA: National Security Agency:
SPAWAR: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command:
S&T: science and technology:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 11, 2005:
The Honorable Curt Weldon:
Chairman, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Advanced microelectronics are an enabling technology for many U.S.
defense systems. Satellites and communications equipment, for example,
are reliant on advanced microelectronics that must meet stringent
military requirements such as withstanding radiation and extreme-
temperature environments, operating for longer periods of time, and
performing at higher power levels. The Department of Defense's (DOD)
ability to provide superior capabilities to the warfighter is dependent
on its ability to incorporate rapidly evolving, cutting-edge
microelectronic devices into its defense systems. While many commercial
advances are applicable to defense systems, DOD has some unique
microelectronics research and production needs not met by industry.
Therefore, to maintain military superiority, DOD faces the challenge of
exploiting state-of-the-art commercial microelectronics technology
while focusing DOD research investments in areas with the highest
potential return for defense systems.
Given the importance of advanced microelectronics to DOD's defense
systems and the rapid changes in these technologies, you asked us to
(1) identify and describe DOD and federally funded research and
development center (FFRDC)[Footnote 1] facilities that receive funding
from DOD for microelectronics production or research prototyping and
(2) describe how DOD coordinates investments in microelectronics
research.
We visited and toured all DOD and FFRDC facilities identified by DOD as
having capability to produce or prototype microelectronics, interviewed
facility officials, and obtained documentation to describe each
facility. We interviewed the Executive Staff of the Defense Science and
Technology Reliance process and other DOD officials and obtained and
reviewed applicable documentation to determine how DOD coordinates
investments in microelectronics research. Because microelectronics is a
part of a much broader area of research, we looked at DOD's overall
research coordination in addition to microelectronics-specific areas.
We performed our review from November 2003 to January 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
At the time of our review, eight DOD or FFRDC facilities that received
funding from DOD were involved in microelectronics research prototyping
or production--three focused solely on research, three primarily
focused on research but had limited production capabilities, and two
focused solely on production. The research conducted ranged from
exploring potential applications of nonsilicon materials in
microelectronic devices to developing a process to improve the
performance and reliability of microwave devices. Production efforts
generally focused on devices that are used in defense systems but not
readily obtainable on the commercial market, either because their
requirements are unique and highly classified or because they are no
longer commercially produced. One facility that focused primarily on
research but which produced microelectronic circuits for DOD's Trident
program closed on October 31, 2004. Officials from the facility told us
that without the funds from the Trident program, operating the facility
became cost prohibitive. These circuits are now provided by a
commercial supplier. Another facility--which produces classified
integrated circuits--is slated for closure in 2006 because it would
cost an estimated $1.7 billion to produce the next generation of
integrated circuits. These circuits will also be supplied by a
commercial supplier. Additional changes to other facilities could occur
pending the review of DOD's Base Realignment and Closure Commission.
DOD has several mechanisms in place aimed at coordinating and planning
research conducted by the Air Force, Army, Navy and defense agencies.
One key mechanism is annually identifying defense technology
objectives--the specific technology advancements that will be developed
or demonstrated across multiple joint capabilities and technology
areas. As of February 2004, there were almost 400 defense technology
objectives; five of these were identified as microelectronics. DOD also
periodically collaborates with industry to review and assess special
technology areas and make recommendations about future electronics and
microelectronics research.
Background:
Microelectronics focuses on the study and manufacture of micro devices,
such as silicon integrated circuits, which are fabricated in submicron
dimensions and form the basis of all electronic products. In DOD
research, microelectronics extends beyond silicon integrated circuits
and cuts across scientific disciplines such as biological sciences,
materials sciences, quantum physics, and photonics. DOD research also
covers many different types of materials, devices, and processes. For
example, DOD service laboratories conduct research in materials other
than silicon, such as gallium nitride, indium arsenide, and silicon
carbide--materials that could provide higher performing or more
reliable devices to meet DOD needs.
DOD's overall budget authority for fiscal year 2005 was approximately
$400 billion. About $69 billion, or 17 percent of the overall budget,
was directed toward research and development activities.[Footnote 2]
The vast majority of this funding goes to development programs for
major systems such as the Joint Strike Fighter and the Space Based
Infrared System High. About $5.2 billion, or about 1.3 percent of the
overall budget, was directed toward research (see fig. 1). Because DOD
tracks funding by funding category, not by specific technology area,
the microelectronics portion of this funding category cannot be broken
out.
Figure 1: DOD Budget Authority in Billions, by Major Category for
Fiscal Year 2005:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
DOD research and technology development is conducted by universities,
DOD laboratories, industry, and other organizations.[Footnote 3]
Universities and DOD laboratories are primarily involved in research.
Once a new device is proven and has potential application for DOD, the
technology is transferred to industry to further develop and ultimately
produce and integrate into defense systems. These organizations may
collaborate on microelectronics projects through various arrangements,
such as cooperative research and development agreements and
collaborative technology alliances. Figure 2 shows the distribution of
DOD research and advanced technology development funding by performing
organizations.[Footnote 4]
Figure 2: Recipients of DOD Research and Advanced Technology
Development Funds for Fiscal Year 2003:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Data from National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research
and Development, Volume 51 (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).
[A] Basic research is directed towards greater understanding of
fundamental aspects of phenomena related to long-term national security
needs without specific applications to processes or products.
[B] Applied research translates promising basic research into solutions
for broadly defined military needs that are short of system
development.
[C] Advanced technology development involves development of subsystems
and components and efforts to integrate subsystems and components into
system prototypes for field experiments and/or tests in a simulated
environment.
[End of figure]
Microelectronics production and research prototyping require
specialized equipment and facilities. To prevent flaws in production,
microelectronic devices are produced in clean rooms where the air is
constantly filtered, and temperature, humidity, and pressure may be
regulated. Clean rooms are rated according to a federal standard. For
example, a class 1000 clean room has no more than 1000 particles larger
than 0.5 microns in a cubic foot of air, while a class 100 clean room
has no more than 100 particles. The people who work in clean rooms wear
special protective clothing that prevents workers from contaminating
the room (see fig. 3).
Figure 3: Microelectronics Worker in Clean Room Processing Area:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The equipment found at research facilities and at production facilities
are similar but are used for different purposes. Because research
facilities focus on developing new device concepts, materials, and
processes, the equipment is set up for flexibility because it is used
for different experiments to prove concepts and validate theories. Once
a technology is sufficiently developed, a small quantity is prototyped
in a production environment to prove the design. Production facilities
are set up to produce higher volumes of microelectronics and have more
automation and multiple sets of equipment to increase productivity.
DOD and FFRDC Facilities Receiving DOD Funding Have Varying
Microelectronics Research and Production Focuses:
At the time of our review, eight DOD and FFRDC facilities that received
funding from DOD were involved in microelectronics research prototyping
or production. Three military facilities focused solely on research;
three primarily focused on research but had limited production
capabilities; and two focused solely on production (see fig. 4).
Figure 4: DOD and FFRDC Facilities with Microelectronics Research
Prototyping and/or Production Capabilities That Receive Funding From
DOD:
[See PDF for image]
Note: MIT Lincoln Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories are
FFRDCs.
[End of figure]
The three military facilities provide basic and applied research
covering a wide spectrum of microelectronic devices and materials. For
example, the Naval Research Laboratory facility is conducting basic
research on the potential application of nonsilicon materials in
microelectronic devices. Through its applied research, the Air Force
Research Laboratory facility developed a process to improve the
performance and reliability of microwave devices needed for military
radar and communications systems. This technology was ultimately
transferred from the Air Force to various contractors and used in a
number of systems, including the Joint Strike Fighter. The Army
Research Laboratory facility conducts both basic and applied research,
primarily on multifunction radiofrequency, optoelectronics, and power
conversion.
Three other facilities also conduct research but can produce prototypes
or limited numbers of devices if commercial sources are not available.
For example, the Lincoln Laboratory's facility--which primarily focuses
on applied research in sensing and signal processing technologies--has
developed components for the space-based visible sensor because no
commercial source was available to meet this DOD need.[Footnote 5]
Sandia's facility primarily focuses on research and design of radiation
hardened microelectronics.[Footnote 6] However, because the number of
commercial producers able to meet the radiation requirements of the
Department of Energy and DOD has dwindled to two suppliers, Sandia
maintains limited in-house production capability to fill near-term
critical needs. According to Sandia officials, they have not been
called upon to produce microelectronics for DOD in recent years. The
SPAWAR facility, which recently closed, primarily conducted research on
radiation-hardened microelectronics, but at one time produced these
devices for the Navy's Trident missile system. When production of these
devices was transferred to a commercial supplier, the facility
maintained capability to produce microelectronics as a back-up to the
commercial supplier.
Two facilities focused only on production--one on leading edge
technology and one on lagging edge technology.[Footnote 7] NSA's
microelectronics facility focuses on producing cryptographic
microelectronics--devices not readily obtainable on the commercial
market because of their unique and highly classified requirements. DMEA
fills a unique role within DOD by providing solutions to
microelectronics that are no longer commercially available.[Footnote 8]
DMEA acquires process lines that commercial firms are abandoning and,
through reverse-engineering and prototyping, provides DOD with these
abandoned devices. In some cases, DMEA may produce the device.
The type and complexity of research conducted or device produced
largely determines a facility's clean room class and size and its
equipment replacement costs.[Footnote 9] For example, to produce
cryptographic electronics, NSA has a 20,000 square foot class 10 clean
room facility. In contrast, the Naval Research Laboratory conducts
research in a 5,000 square foot class 100 clean room facility, with
some class 10 modules where greater cleanliness is required. In
general, research does not require state-of-the-art equipment to prove
concepts, and tools can be purchased one at a time and are often second-
hand or donated.
Table 1 summarizes the eight facilities' microelectronics focus, clean
room class and size, and equipment replacement costs.
Table 1: Summary of DOD and FFRDC Facilities Receiving Funding from DOD
with Research Prototyping or Production Capability through Fiscal Year
2004:
Research only:
Facility: Air Force Research Laboratory, Sensors Directorate Dayton,
Ohio;
Microelectronics focus: Applied research: sensors (radiofrequency,
electro-optical); automatic target recognition and sensor fusion;
Processing clean room (class: size): 100: 6,000 sq. ft; 10: modules;
Equipment replacement cost[A]: $13 million.
Facility: Army Research Laboratory, Sensors and Electron Devices
Directorate Adelphi, Md;
Microelectronics focus: Basic and applied research: multifunction
radiofrequency electronics, optoelectronics, power conversion;
Processing clean room (class: size): 100: 10,000 sq. ft; 10: 4,800 sq.
ft;
Equipment replacement cost[A]: $42 million; (includes $9 million for
materials growth equipment).
Facility: Naval Research Laboratory, Electronics Science and Technology
Division Washington, D.C;
Microelectronics focus: Basic research: wide bandgap, narrow bandgap,
group IV materials;
Processing clean room (class: size): 100: 5,000 sq. ft; 10: modules;
Equipment replacement cost[A]: $20-$30 million.
Research with limited production capability:
Facility: MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Solid State Division Lexington, Mass;
Microelectronics focus: Applied research: sensors, signal processing;
Production: experimental sensors and imagers not commercially
available;
Processing clean room (class: size): 100: 10,000 sq. ft; 10: 8,100 sq.
ft;
Equipment replacement cost[A]: $40 million.
Facility: Sandia National Laboratories (Department of Energy),
Microelectronics Development Laboratory Albuquerque, N.M;
Microelectronics focus: Basic and applied research: microscale and
acoustic sensors, radiation-hardened applications; Production: backup
radiation-hardened producer to BAE Systems and Honeywell[C];
Processing clean room (class: size): 1: 12,500 sq. ft;
Equipment replacement cost[A]: $250 million[B].
Facility: SPAWAR, Integrated Circuit Fabrication Facility (closed
October 31, 2004) San Diego, Calif;
Microelectronics focus: Applied research: radiation-hardened circuits,
radiofrequency/ analog mixed signal; Production: backup radiation-
hardened producer to Honeywell due to similar processes;
Processing clean room (class: size): 100: 7,900 sq. ft; 10: modules;
Equipment replacement cost[A]: $30 million.
Production only:
Facility: National Security Agency (NSA), Special Processing Laboratory
Fort Meade, Md;
Microelectronics focus: Production: cryptographic electronics;
Processing clean room (class: size): 10: 20,000 sq. ft;
Equipment replacement cost[A]: $1.7 billion[D] (phasing out the Special
Processing Laboratory in 2006).
Facility: Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) Sacramento, Calif;
Microelectronics focus: Sustainment prototyping and production:
Provides DOD-wide microelectronics solutions for sustainment issues
(when parts are no longer commercially available);
Processing clean room (class: size): 100: 5,500 sq. ft; 5-10: modules;
Equipment replacement cost[A]: $12 million[E].
Source: GAO based on information provided by each facility.
[A] These are self-reported data from each facility.
[B] Higher equipment replacement cost is due to a requirement to
maintain production capability.
[C] BAE Systems and Honeywell recently received capital funding under
the Defense Production Act, Title III Program to assist in technology
upgrades for their fabrication facilities that produce radiation-
hardened devices.
[D] This figure includes facility and equipment upgrade costs.
[E] DMEA has lower equipment costs because it uses older technologies
and buys used, less expensive equipment.
[End of table]
Since we began our review, the SPAWAR facility closed on October 31,
2004, making Sandia the only backup to the two remaining commercial
radiation-hardened suppliers to DOD. Officials from the facility told
us that without funds from the Trident program, operating the facility
became cost prohibitive. Further, NSA's microelectronics facility is
slated for closure in 2006. NSA estimated that it would cost $1.7
billion to upgrade its equipment and facility to produce the next
generation of integrated circuits. NSA is contracting with IBM to take
over production of the microelectronic devices produced at its
facility. Part of the contract costs includes security requirements for
IBM to produce classified circuits. There may be changes to other
facilities pending the review of the Base Realignment and Closure
Commission for 2005.[Footnote 10] As a result of prior commission
recommendations, the Army constructed a new facility to consolidate
Army specialized electronics research into one location.
DOD Has Several Mechanisms for Coordinating Research:
DOD has several mechanisms in place aimed at coordinating and planning
research conducted by the Air Force, Army, Navy, and defense agencies.
In electronics and microelectronics research, DOD works with industry
to review special technology areas and make recommendations about
future research.
Defense Reliance Process is the Central Mechanism for Coordinating
Research across DOD Organizations:
DOD's Defense Reliance process provides the Department with a framework
to look across science and technology (S&T)[Footnote 11] efforts of the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Defense Threat Reduction
Agency, and the Missile Defense Agency as well as the Army, Navy, and
Air Force. Each service and defense agency updates its own S&T plans
with the needs of each organization in mind. The Defense Reliance
process is intended to improve coordination and determine if the
overall DOD S&T vision and strategy are being met. The Defense Science
and Technology Strategy document is updated periodically to provide a
high-level description of what the science and technology programs aim
to accomplish. The Defense Reliance process includes the development of
three planning documents, which taken together provide a near-, mid-,
and long-term look at DOD specific research needs (see table 2).
Table 2: Defense Reliance Process Planning Documents:
Plan: Basic Research; (Updated biennially);
Description: Presents DOD's objectives and investment strategy for DOD-
sponsored basic research performed by universities, industry, and
service laboratories.
Plan: Joint Warfighting Science and Technology; (Updated annually);
Description: Looks at the applied research, advanced technology
development, and advanced concept technology demonstration portions of
the services' and defense agencies' science and technology plans to
ensure that the S&T program supports priority future joint warfighting
capabilities.
Plan: Defense Technology Area; (Updated biennially);
Description: Presents DOD's objectives and the applied research and
advanced technology development investment strategy for technologies
critical to DOD acquisition plans, service warfighter capabilities, and
the Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan. It also takes a
horizontal perspective across service and defense agency efforts,
thereby charting the total DOD investment for a given technology.
Source: DOD Defense Reliance Executive Staff.
[End of table]
The planning documents present the DOD S&T vision, strategy, plan, and
objectives for the planners, programmers, and performers of defense S&T
and guide the annual preparation of the defense program and budget.
Figure 5 illustrates the relationship between the planning documents
and overall reliance process.
Figure 5: Defense Reliance Process:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Defense technology objectives identify a specific technology
advancement that will be developed or demonstrated.
[End of figure]
Science and technology efforts are planned and funded through service
and defense agency plans. To obtain a perspective across DOD, a portion
of the service and agency efforts are represented in the various
Defense Reliance planning documents. DOD's goal is to have about half
of the investment in service and agency efforts[Footnote 12]
represented in defense technology objectives.[Footnote 13] According to
DOD officials, this goal is aimed at balancing flexibility--which
services and defense agencies need to pursue research that is important
to their organizations--with oversight and coordination. DOD officials
stated that looking at a portion of the efforts provide an adequate
perspective of the S&T research across the services and defense
agencies to help ensure the goals of DOD's S&T strategy are being met.
These projects are generally considered high priority, joint efforts,
or both.
Defense Technology Objectives and Technology Area Review and
Assessments:
Two key components in the Defense Reliance process are the defense
technology objectives and technology area review and assessments.
Defense technology objectives are intended to guide the focus of DOD's
science and technology investments by identifying the following:
* objectives, the specific technology advancements that will be
developed or demonstrated;
* payoffs, the specific benefits to the warfighter resulting from the
technology advancement;
* challenges, the technical barriers to be overcome;
* milestones, planned dates for technical accomplishments, including
the anticipated date of technology availability;
* metrics, a measurement of anticipated results;
* customers sponsoring the research; and:
* funding that DOD estimates is needed to achieve the technology
advancements.
Both the Joint Warfighting and Defense Technology Area plans are
comprised of defense technology objectives that are updated annually.
In its 2004 update, DOD identified 392 defense technology objectives -
-130 in the Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan across five
joint capabilities, and 262 in the Defense Technology Area Plan across
12 technology areas. Microelectronics falls within the sensors,
electronics, and electronic warfare area. There are 40 defense
technology objectives in this area; five were identified as
microelectronics (see fig. 6). However, according to DOD officials,
research relating to microelectronics is not limited to these five
defense technology objectives because microelectronics is an enabling
technology found in many other research areas. For example, research in
electronic warfare is highly dependent on microelectronics.
Figure 6: Defense Technology Objectives by Technology Area:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
To provide an independent assessment of the planned research, DOD uses
Technology Area Review and Assessment panels. DOD strives to have a
majority of the Technology Area Review and Assessment team members from
outside DOD, including other government agencies, FFRDCs, universities,
and industry. Most team members are recognized experts in their
respective research fields. The Technology Area Review and Assessment
panels assess DOD programs against S&T planning guidance, defense
technology objectives, affordability, service-unique needs, and
technology opportunities; and provide their assessments and
recommendations to the Defense Science and Technology Advisory Group.
Other Coordination Mechanisms for Electronics Research:
For the electronics research area, additional industry and university
insight is obtained through the Advisory Group on Electron Devices. DOD
established this advisory group to help formulate a research investment
strategy by providing ongoing reviews and assessments of government-
sponsored programs in electronics, including microelectronics. The
advisory group is comprised of experts representing the government,
industry, and universities, who provide DOD with current knowledge on
the content and objectives of various programs under way at industry,
university, and government laboratories.
Periodically, the advisory group conducts special technology area
reviews to evaluate the status of an electronics technology for defense
applications. The advisory group also serves as a bridge between
electronic system and component developers within DOD by establishing
regular, periodic interactions with system program offices, industry
system developers, and government and industry components developers.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review. In its response,
DOD did not provide specific written or technical comments (see app.
II).
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; and the Director, Office of
Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me at (202) 512-4841 if you or your staff has any
questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Ann Calvaresi-Barr:
Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To identify and describe DOD and FFRDC facilities that receive funding
from DOD for microelectronics production or research prototyping, we
visited all eight facilities identified by DOD as having capability to
produce or prototype microelectronics. Using a set of structured
questions, we interviewed officials at each facility to determine their
microelectronics focus, clean-room and equipment characteristics, and
types of research, production and/or research prototyping the facility
provides. We also obtained and analyzed supporting documents and toured
the facilities. We did not include in our scope universities or
commercial firms that also conduct DOD research and have
microelectronics facilities.
Because microelectronics is a part of a much broader area of research,
we looked at DOD's overall research coordination in addition to
microelectronics-specific areas. To determine how DOD coordinates its
research investments, we interviewed officials from the Executive Staff
of the Defense Science and Technology Reliance process; the Office of
the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Science and Technology (Space
and Sensor Technology); and the Advisory Group on Electron Devices. We
also obtained and reviewed DOD's defense research planning-documents--
including the Basic Research Plan, the Defense Technology Area Plan,
Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan, and the Defense
Technology Objectives document. We also met with Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency officials to discuss their role in sponsoring
DOD research and development activities. In addition, at the DOD
service laboratories that we visited, we obtained information on
microelectronics related research projects.
We performed our review from November 2003 to January 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING:
3040 DEFENSE PENTAGON:
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3040:
2 March 2005:
Ms. Ann Calvaresi-Barr:
Acting Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, N.W.:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Calvaresi-Barr,
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report, GAO-05-278 "Defense Microelectronics: DoD Funded Facilities
Involved in the Research Prototyping or Production," dated February,
2005 (GAO Code 120300).
The GAO offered no recommendations. The Department appreciates the
opportunity to review and comment on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Charles J. Holland:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science & Technology):
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Anne-Marie Lasowski, (202) 512-4146:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Bradley Terry, Lisa Gardner,
Karen Sloan, Hai Tran, Brian Eddington, and Steven Pedigo made key
contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] FFRDCs meet some special long-term research or development needs of
the government and are operated, managed, and/or administered by either
a university or consortium of universities, other not-for-profit or
nonprofit organization, or an industrial firm, as an autonomous
organization or as an identifiable separate operating unit of a parent
organization.
[2] Research is the systematic study directed toward fuller scientific
knowledge. Development is the systematic application of knowledge
directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, and
systems. Development categories range from advanced technology
development, including prototypes and scaled models, to operational
systems development.
[3] Other organizations include nonprofit institutions, international
organizations, and FFRDCs.
[4] Fiscal year 2003 is the most recent data available on the
distribution of funds by organization.
[5] The prototypes were demonstrated on the Midcourse Space Experiment
satellite.
[6] Sandia primarily operates for the Department of Energy; in fiscal
year 2003, only about 1 percent of Sandia's microelectronics research
funding came from DOD.
[7] According to DOD officials, "lagging edge" technology generally
refers to unprofitable process lines for fabricating technologies that
are abandoned by commercial firms.
[8] While DOD typically supports defense systems for many years or
decades, microelectronics have limited product life cycles.
[9] Replacement costs generally include the equipment for clean room
processing, testing, characterization, and materials growth used
primarily for microelectronics.
[10] The Base Realignment and Closure Commission is periodically
established to review DOD facilities, including laboratories, for
potential closure or realignment. The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-107 § 3001 (2001))
established the commission for 2005.
[11] S&T includes basic and applied research and advanced technology
development.
[12] Efforts pertain to applied research and advanced technology
development projects.
[13] The actual percentage fluctuates from year to year as defense
technology objectives are completed and new ones are added. DOD
officials estimate that approximately 36 percent of its funded projects
in 2004 were represented in defense technology objectives.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
