“Such information gaps bring into question the benefits DoD has obtained from the tens of billions of dollars it has reimbursed defense contractors over the past decade for expenses incurred for IRAD.” “DoD acknowledged in a 2010 memorandum that it lacked sufficient insight into industry IR&D projects and the extent to which these reimbursements have helped DoD improve its military capabilities,” the GAO authors wrote. GAO found that DoD did not do itself any favors in trying to get insight into companies’ research to Grazier’s point. IRAD, as this report shows, is used to conduct expensive technological fishing expeditions that rarely produce more than marginal improvements to existing products.” Based on that knowledge, service leaders should develop the necessary requirements for a particular weapon or piece of equipment then approach industry to build them the simplest possible tools to carry out their missions.
#Irad defense how to#
In other words, they should know how to fight. “The services should already have a solid operational concept. Grazier also cast doubt on the concept as a whole. “If the contractors can convince someone in the government to sign off on a program, they will get paid again to develop the product further before selling the product through a cost-plus program.” “IRAD has long been a way for the defense industry to get the government to pay them to develop products that aren’t likely needed,” he told Federal News Network. However, according to Dan Grazier, a fellow at the government watchdog group Project on Government Oversight, the IRAD process has been disjointed for years.
Essentially, contractors rely on DoD to communicate its modernization needs as a key input to the IRAD projects they choose to undertake, and DoD relies on contractors to share information about these projects to inform DOD of industry’s progress in advancing technology.” Read more: Defense news “This dynamic contributes to a natural feedback loop that exists between DoD and the defense industry regarding IRAD. “The unique business environment in which many defense contractors operate - DoD is often their primary or only customer - incentivizes them to pursue IRAD projects that they anticipate will be of interest to DoD and offer potential future business opportunities,” according to the report. One of the first big pushes for renewed radical innovation came from the Third Offset Strategy, headed by former Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work, which sought to keep the United States technologically superior to its adversaries. Those longer-term investments are the ones DoD has been telegraphing a need for since the middle of the Obama administration when the Pentagon shifted its focus to near-peer competitors like China and Russia. Only 20% went to long-range research investments meant to disrupt current technologies. In 2018, only 38% of corporations’ IRAD money went to the 10 topics DoD has outlined as its most important modernization priorities like cyber, artificial intelligence, microelectronics and biotechnology.Ĭorporations spent about 80% of their IRAD month on short-term investments intended to maintain near-term profitability, according to the report.
“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 does not know how contractors’ IRAD projects fit into the department’s technology goals,” the authors of the report wrote. The study may be further ammo for DoD’s previous effort to have more control over the way corporations use their independent research and development (IRAD) money something the companies have strongly fought against. READ MORE DoD is not getting what it wants from subsidized industry research The study may be further ammo for DoD’s previous effort to have more control over the way corporations use their independent research and development. Most of the $4 billion to $5 billion the Defense Department gives to corporations each year to subsidize their research is not used in ways that work toward the Pentagon’s goals, a report from the Government Accountability Office found. DoD is not getting what it wants from subsidized industry research
0 kommentar(er)
