Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps,
2000-2035
Becoming a 21st-Century Force
Volume 5: Weapons
Panel on Weapons
Committee on Technology for Future Naval Forces
Naval Studies Board
Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and
Applications
National Research Council
Notice
Panel on Weapons
Preface
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
This work was performed under Department of the Navy Contract N00014-96-D-0169/0001 issued by the Office of Naval Research under contract authority NR 201-124. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the Department of the Navy or the government, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
The United States Government has at least a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license throughout the world for government purposes to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, and dispose of all or any of this work, and to authorize others so to do.
Copyright 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Copies available from:
Naval Studies Board
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418
Printed in the United States of America
ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, Chair
GEORGE S. SEBESTYEN, McLean, Virginia, Vice Chair
VICTOR C.D. DAWSON, Poolesville, Maryland
NORMAN E. EHLERT, Gig Harbor, Washington
MAURICE EISENSTEIN, Rand Corporation
MILTON FINGER, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
RAY "M" FRANKLIN, Port Angeles, Washington
JACK E. GOELLER, Advanced Technology Research Corporation
ALFRED B. GSCHWENDTNER, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
FRANK KENDALL, Lexington, Massachusetts
IRA F. KUHN, Directed Technologies, Inc.
DIANA F. McCAMMON, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University
CHARLES F. SHARN, McLean, Virginia
WALTER SOOY, Pleasanton, California
VERENA S. VOMASTIC, Institute for Defense Analyses
Navy Liaison Representatives
CDR THOMAS COSGROVE, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N858D
CAPT JOHN McGILLVRAY, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N863J
CDR DENNIS MURPHY, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N87C1
LCDR PETE McSHEA, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N88W3
Consultants
LEE M. HUNT
SIDNEY G. REED, JR.
JAMES G. WILSON
Staff
RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director, Naval Studies Board
PETER W. ROONEY, Program Officer
SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant
MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer
CHRISTOPHER A. HANNA, Project Assistant
COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY FOR FUTURE NAVAL FORCES
DAVID R. HEEBNER, Science Applications International Corporation (retired), Study Director
ALBERT J. BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc.
ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University
NORMAN E. BETAQUE, Logistics Management Institute
GERALD A. CANN, Raytheon Company
GEORGE F. CARRIER, Harvard University
SEYMOUR J. DEITCHMAN, Institute for Defense Analyses (retired)
ALEXANDER FLAX, Potomac, Maryland
WILLIAM J. MORAN, Redwood City, California
ROBERT J. MURRAY, Center for Naval Analyses
ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University
JOSEPH B. REAGAN, Saratoga, California
VINCENT VITTO, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Navy Liaison Representatives
RADM JOHN W. CRAINE, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of July 4, 1996)
VADM THOMAS B. FARGO, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81
(through July 3, 1996)
RADM RICHARD A. RIDDELL, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91
CDR DOUGLASS BIESEL, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N812C1
PAUL G. BLATCH, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N9111E
Marine Corps Liaison Representative
LtGen PAUL K. VAN RIPER, USMC, Marine Corps Combat Development Command
Consultants
LEE M. HUNT
SIDNEY G. REED, JR.
JAMES G. WILSON
Staff
RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director, Naval Studies Board
PETER W. ROONEY, Program Officer
SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant
MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer
CHRISTOPHER A. HANNA, Project Assistant
DAVID R. HEEBNER, Science Applications International Corporation (retired),
Chair
GEORGE M. WHITESIDES, Harvard University, Vice Chair
ALBERT J. BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc.
ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University
NORMAN E. BETAQUE, Logistics Management Institute
NORVAL L. BROOME, Mitre Corporation
GERALD A. CANN, Raytheon Company
SEYMOUR J. DEITCHMAN, Institute for Defense Analyses (retired), Special Advisor
ANTHONY J. DeMARIA, DeMaria ElectroOptics Systems, Inc.
JOHN F. EGAN, Lockheed Martin Corporation
ROBERT HUMMEL, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University
DAVID W. McCALL, Far Hills, New Jersey
ROBERT J. MURRAY, Center for Naval Analyses
ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University
WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, Northstar Associates, Inc.
MARA G. PRENTISS, Jefferson Laboratory, Harvard University
HERBERT RABIN, University of Maryland
JULIE JCH RYAN, Booz, Allen and Hamilton
HARRISON SHULL, Monterey, California
KEITH A. SMITH, Vienna, Virginia
ROBERT C. SPINDEL, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington
DAVID L. STANFORD, Science Applications International Corporation
H. GREGORY TORNATORE, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University
J. PACE VanDEVENDER, Prosperity Institute
VINCENT VITTO, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
BRUCE WALD, Arlington Education Consultants
Navy Liaison Representatives
RADM JOHN W. CRAINE, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81
(as of July 4, 1996)
VADM THOMAS B. FARGO, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through
July 3, 1996)
RADM RICHARD A. RIDDELL, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91
RONALD N. KOSTOFF, Office of Naval Research
Marine Corps Liaison Representative
LtGen PAUL K. VAN RIPER, USMC, Marine Corps Combat Development Command
RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director
PETER W. ROONEY, Program Officer
SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant
MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer
CHRISTOPHER A. HANNA, Project Assistant
COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND APPLICATIONS
ROBERT J. HERMANN, United Technologies Corporation, Co-Chair
W. CARL LINEBERGER, University of Colorado, Co-Chair
PETER M. BANKS, Environmental Research Institute of Michigan
LAWRENCE D. BROWN, University of Pennsylvania
RONALD G. DOUGLAS, Texas A&M University
JOHN E. ESTES, University of California at Santa Barbara
L. LOUIS HEGEDUS, Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
JOHN E. HOPCROFT, Cornell University
RHONDA J. HUGHES, Bryn Mawr College
SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
KENNETH H. KELLER, University of Minnesota
KENNETH I. KELLERMANN, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
MARGARET G. KIVELSON, University of California at Los Angeles
DANIEL KLEPPNER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JOHN KREICK, Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company
MARSHA I. LESTER, University of Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. PRINCE, California Institute of Technology
NICHOLAS P. SAMIOS, Brookhaven National Laboratory
L.E. SCRIVEN, University of Minnesota
SHMUEL WINOGRAD, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
CHARLES A. ZRAKET, Mitre Corporation (retired)
NORMAN METZGER, Executive Director
This report is part of the nine-volume series entitled Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps: Becoming a 21st-Century Force. The series is the product of an 18-month study requested by the Chief of Naval Operations. To carry out this study, eight technical panels were organized under the Committee on Technology for Future Naval Forces to examine all of the specific technical areas called out in the terms of reference.
On November 28, 1995, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) requested that the National Research Council initiate, through its Naval Studies Board, a thorough examination of the impact of advancing technology on the form and capability of the naval forces to the year 2035. The terms of reference of the study specifically asked for an identification of "present and emerging technologies that relate to the full breadth of Navy and Marine Corps mission capabilities," with specific attention to "(1) information warfare, electronic warfare, and the use of surveillance assets; (2) mine warfare and submarine warfare; (3) Navy and Marine Corps weaponry in the context of effectiveness on target; [and] (4) issues in caring for and maximizing effectiveness of Navy and Marine Corps human resources." Ten specific technical areas were identified to which attention should be broadly directed. The CNO's letter of request with the full terms of reference is given in Appendix A of this report.
The Panel on Weapons was assigned the responsibility of considering the evolution of naval weapons over the next 25 to 35 years. As part of its effort particular attention was directed to item 4: "Technologies that may advance cruise and tactical ballistic missile defense and offensive capabilities beyond current system approaches should be examined. Counters to conventional, bacteriological, chemical and nuclear warheads should receive special attention." Attention also was directed to item 5: "The full range of Navy and Marine Corps weaponry should be reviewed in the light of new technologies to generate new and improved capabilities (for example, improved targeting and target recognition)."
Panel membership included broad expertise in research and development associated with weapons systems and expertise in acquiring, fielding, and using such systems. Areas of expertise included naval guns, torpedo systems, chemical and biological defenses, arms control issues, mines, explosives, warhead development, sensors, guidance, surveillance, lasers, ballistic missile defense, directed-energy weapons, pulsed-power systems, undersea systems, nuclear weapons, and data-link requirements.
To carry out its task, the panel met 10 times to receive briefings from Service and industry representatives, visit facilities, deliberate, and draft its report. In addition, the panel participated in the three plenary meetings for the overall study. The first, in March 1996, was addressed by the Chief of Naval Operations and many high-level officials of the Navy Department, the other Services, the Department of Defense (DOD), and industry. This organizational meeting conveyed a common, starting information base to the entire study membership. At the second plenary session, in October 1996, all the members of the study had their first opportunity to review each other's work, to see how the results of all the panels' work were coming together into an integrated message, and to feed the results back into their own efforts. The third plenary session, in March 1997, served as a coordination and writing session in which all of the panels' reports and the overview report were completed for final review. The panel chair and vice chair also participated in bimonthly meetings of the Committee on Technology for Future Naval Forces. These meetings served to inform the panel chairs and study leadership of progress in the individual panels' efforts and to resolve issues that cut across the responsibilities of more than one panel. The meetings also helped to ensure that common attention was paid to the interrelationships among the diverse panel outputs and the significance of those outputs for the naval forces.
The panel found its charge to be somewhat daunting in that weapons cannot be considered in isolation. Projections about the future weapon set of naval forces are dependent on assumptions concerning many intrinsically unknowable factors such as the evolution of relevant technology, the projected capabilities of future weapon transport and launch platforms, weapon costs, defense budgets, weapon choices by other Services, expectations with regard to future threats, military doctrine, and presumptions related to the modes, types, and national objectives of future conflicts.
The panel could not pretend to be expert in all of these areas and was forced to make estimates that may or may not prove to be an accurate representation of future reality. Although the panel views these as reasonable estimates, they should not be interpreted as precise forecasts of the future.
At the onset of this study, the panel was forced to wrestle with the question of what a weapon is. In the past, weapons were generally understood to be devices that were delivered by naval forces to persuade or deter current or potential adversaries from continued resistance and further pursuit of actions that the United States found to be inimicable to its national interests. Modern weapons are only one component of a complex system that involves sensors, data links, target selection, fuse technology, techniques for the negation of enemy countermeasures, and the release of either explosive or electromagnetic energy in a form that will limit an adversary's further ability to continue a conflict.
This extended definition of weapons caused the panel to consider the possible future evolution of areas of technology such as sensors, guidance, communications, target selection, and nontraditional approaches to naval conflict. Although these considerations caused a degree of overlap with the work of some of the other panels, liaison was maintained to ensure consistency of approach and results.
The panel encountered other limitations in its efforts. Naval weapons vary from nuclear weapons to less-than-lethal weapons. The panel devoted significant time and effort to the problems associated with nuclear weapons, particularly those associated with the Navy's current inventory of aging strategic missiles, and the utility of earth-penetrating weapons with nuclear warheads designed to attack repositories of deeply buried weapons of mass destruction. Ultimately, however, the panel elected not to make any recommendations with regard to these problems because any weapon decision in these areas must of necessity be a national decision based on national policy with respect to the further development and conditions of use of such weapons. In this area many serious long-term issues exist that call for an extended national debate whose outcome will have a profound impact on future national policy and on the future composition, structure, and missions of the naval forces.
At the other extreme are many techniques, such as offensive information warfare and less-than-lethal weapons, that proved to be relatively difficult for the panel to consider. The panel was limited not only by the fact that detailed descriptions of effective techniques are generally classified, but also by the fact that the technology, the concepts of ownership of cyberspace, and the applicable laws and international treaties are all evolving rapidly. The panel believes that conclusions and recommendations formed today with regard to possible naval approaches to information warfare and other less-than-lethal techniques may have little relevance for naval forces of the year 2035. Nevertheless, the panel recognizes the extreme importance of nonconventional weapons and techniques in future naval operations, and it suggests directions and impacts that currently evolving technology may have on future conflicts.
A large fraction of all naval weapons are defensive in nature in the sense that they are designed to protect U.S. platforms and deployed ground forces from the effects of enemy weapons. Here again, weapons are only a relatively modest part of the overall problem of developing a competent defense. Issues such as the reduction of the signatures of our own platforms, the performance of our own sensors, and the negation of an adversary's guidance and targeting capabilities are all components of the problem of developing more robust defensive systems. Since many of these areas were within the assigned purviews of other panels of this study, careful liaison was maintained to ensure consistency of results and conclusions.
In order to undertake this study, the Panel on Weapons needed to hear and review many presentations from representatives of the Navy, the Marine Corps, other Services and DOD agencies, national laboratories, federal contract research centers, academia, and industry. The complexity of arranging for these briefings was formidable. The panel is deeply grateful to Mr. James G. Wilson for his skill and patience in arranging for and scheduling these briefs. Without his efforts the panel's work would have been limited and incomplete.
The panel gratefully acknowledges contributions on explosives science and technology from Mr. Les Roslund and Mr. Robert Kavetsky of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division (NSWC/IHD). Mr. Frank Tse (NSWC/IHD); Mr. Thomas Boggs and staff at the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC), including Ms. Alice Atwood, Mr. Stuart Blashill, Dr. Craig Porter, Mr. Scott Fuller, and Mr. John Robbins; and Mr. Robert Kavetsky (NSWC/IHD) and Mr. Stephen E. Mitchell (NSWC/IHD) contributed to the panel's thinking on propulsion science and technology. Dr. Klaus Schadow (NAWC) was helpful with contributions on air-breathing missile propulsion.
The panel also owes a debt of gratitude to members of the staff of the Naval Studies Board, particularly Ms. Mary G. (Dixie) Gordon, Ms. Susan Campbell, and Mr. Christopher A. Hanna, for their hard work, support, and unfailing good spirits during meetings and in the preparation of the final report.
The panel also wishes to acknowledge the many valuable comments and discussions it had with Mr. David Heebner, chair of the Naval Studies Board; Mr. Seymour Deitchman, study coordinator and integrator; the chairs of the other panels; and members of the study's Advisory Council.
 |
||
 |
 |
 |