|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 73
~ -
~2
Principal Findings
.
Two top-level findings emerged in the deliberations of the Committee
for an Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons Science and Technology. The
first observation not to be obscured by discussion in this chapter in which the
committee expresses its concerns is this: The progress of the JNLWD, in light
of its limited resources and authorities as a joint organization, coupled with the
considerable pressure placed on it since its creation in 1996, has been nothing
short of remarkable. The accomplishments of the directorate, highlighted in
Section 2.3, are many, and they have had an impact on U.S. tactical warfighting
capabilities. That said, the committee does have reservations in several areas
about the utility and effectiveness of the directorate continuing in the current
direction, as discussed in Section 3.1.
The second observation concerns a broader institutional issue. The commit-
teefinds a wide gap between the rhetoric on the importance of non-lethal weap-
ons as expounded by senior leadership in the unified commands and the U.S.
Marine Corps, and the limited attention in planning, assessment, R&D, and
acquisition given to NLWs throughout DOD, in general, and the Department of
the Navy, in particular. In spite of the Services' acceptance of responsibility for
R&D and testing and evaluation (T&E) for NLWs to meet their own needs (see
Box 1.2 in Chapter 1), there have been, at best, limited efforts to assess NLWs as
an integral part of the force mix and to plan for their development and acquisi-
tion. While the Marine Corps has been the most committed to NLWs and has
placed this commitment among its top three or four priorities for enabling Marine
Corps warfighting capabilities, even it has been unsuccessful in motivating sig-
nificant naval R&D. The force protection demands emerging in the aftermath of
the attack on the USS Cole may prove to be a vehicle for Navy interest, but the
73
OCR for page 74
74 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE ID TECHNOLOGY
committee finds that it is still too early to tell if that experience will result in a
more visible program in the Department of the Navy. There are many shortcom-
ings and ample opportunities in non-lethal weapons R&D, systems development,
and organizational integration for better-focused and more-robust programs to
address existing and emerging needs for the Navy and Marines. These areas are
elaborated on in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. Summary statements of all of the
committee's findings appear at the end of the chapter in Section 3.5.
3.1 JOINT NON-LETHAL WEAPONS DIRECTORATE
When established in 1996, the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate was
specifically chartered to stimulate and coordinate non-lethal weapons require-
ments. Today, the directorate functions as the DOD focal point for NLWs and is
the organization through which the Services coordinate and integrate the devel-
opment of non-lethal weapons programs.
The directorate has accomplished much since its establishment. With the
Services, it accelerated the delivery of non-lethal weapons capability to opera-
tional units in the field. It initiated a series of activities to stimulate the require-
ments process. It began a technology investment program (TIP) to discover new
ideas for non-lethal weapons capabilities. It also moved to establish a center of
excellence to focus research to characterize the human effects of NLWs. (See
Section 2.3.)
The directorate is now poised to transition to a new mode of operation for the
future at a crossroads. Having responded to immediate pressures for fielding
systems, it has been unable under the current mode of operation to build a robust
program for the future within the constraints of its budget and joint nature. There
are few major non-lethal weapons capabilities in the acquisition pipelines of the
Services; there are few and limited new S&T investments by either the director-
ate or the Services. Furthermore, there is a significant shortfall in the character-
ization of the human effects of NLWs. The committee has identified three major
findings that indicate a need to alter the future course of the JNLWD:
1. The present JNLWD approach for developing and transitioning non-le-
thal weapons capabilities to the field cannot be sustained into the future.
2. The JNLWD efforts to stimulate new ideas for non-lethal weapons must
be substantially augmented cooperatively with the Services S&T programs.
3. The JNLWD plans and program to address the human and materiel effects
of non-lethal weapons through the establishment of a single center of excellence
are insufficient and will not meet the need. Without substantial change, the lack
of effects characterization will be a "show-stopper" for deploying NLWs to the
field.
Each finding is elaborated on in a subsection below.
OCR for page 75
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
75
Transition Challenges
Finding: The present JNLWD approach for developing and transitioning non-
lethal capabilities to the field cannot be sustained into the future.
The committee's view is that the directorate's current approach for developing
and transitioning non-lethal weapons to the field places the directorate in an unnatu-
ral, and potentially unsustainable, position in the normal acquisition process. In that
process the acquisition of new weapons systems proceeds through stages, beginning
with research to establish the necessary S&T, into concept and technology develop-
ment, and then proceeding through system development and demonstration before
approval for procurement is granted. The "color" of the directorate's money, which
is that of exploratory development, places the directorate's role between early S&T
and procurement, both of which remain Service roles. Hence, it is not an acquisition
organization, nor is it chartered or staffed to perform the role of an S&T organization.
To effect any sort of reasonable end-to-end process in its current approach,
the directorate must first rely on the "benevolent" investment of the Service S&T
programs to feed its pipeline with new NEW concepts. As noted throughout this
report, that pipeline has dried up and the Services have directed their own S&T
investments elsewhere. On the other side of the process i.e., to transition
JNLWD development products into acquisition the directorate has to work
through an IPT that first approves a lead Service for execution of the exploratory
development project funded by the directorate and then ensures through over-
sight that at least one Service commits the concept to a properly phased POM
cycle for procurement. The fact that any NLWs have been fielded is a credit to
the directorate's hard work, but the approach, which has been successful in the
past, will become stressed for more capable, more expensive, and more complex
NEW systems. For future more complex NLWs the funding needed to mature it
through exploratory development will likely be far out of scale with the size of
the directorate's total program, much less the size of a single project.
The committee believes that the directorate's current approach will likely be
unsustainable for achieving transition of future NLWs into the Services' warfighting
capabilities. End-to-end management of development and procurement activities
within the Services is the normal process and should be adopted by the DOD for
NLWs. The directorate would then be free to invest its full resources in other sorely
needed areas such as effects and effectiveness characterization, which are critical for
policy, acquisition, and operational decisions and cut across all Service interests and
needs.
Stimulating New Ideas for NLWs
Finding: The JNLWD efforts to stimulate new ideas for non-lethal weapons must
be substantially augmented cooperatively with the Services S&T programs.
OCR for page 76
76 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE ID TECHNOLOGY
.
There is a lack of new ideas for NLWs. For all the right reasons, the JNLWD
focused in its first few years on mature technologies in order to move non-lethal
weapons capabilities into the field quickly. There were two notable exceptions:
VMADS and PEP (although VMADS had enjoyed Air Force funding for some
years prior to JNLWD investment). Because of very limited funding, there has
been little exploration of advanced technologies that come with higher risk and
longer time lines for development, but also with potentially higher returns.
The current situation reflects the truism "You get what you pay for" with
respect to the non-lethal weapons programs that are now in the pipeline. Few are
technologically challenging or militarily exciting. On the other hand, the amount
of money invested in non-lethal weapons R&D is currently too small to attract
major S&T providers, such as defense contractors, national laboratories, and
federally funded research and development centers. Without the probability of
substantial sales of successful systems, defense contractors are unwilling or un-
likely to use their own internal R&D funds to develop the innovative technolo-
gies that can prime the pipeline. If smaller contractors with innovative ideas are
identified, substantial financial support will be required at levels not available
from currently projected budgets of the JNLWD and the Services to bring them
along.
Recognizing the issue, the JNLWD has already engaged in a series of activi-
ties to stimulate new ideas and requirements for NLWs. Its technology invest-
ment program was specifically initiated to generate new technology concepts
through government laboratories, industry, and academia. However, there is still
a minimal budget of $500,000 allocated for this program, a sum that is inadequate
to attract the interest of the principal R&D institutions referred to here. The
committee sees the need for an order-of-magnitude increase in these resources
and an expanded and aggressive outreach to find new sources of ideas. Partner-
ships should be explored cooperatively with government S&T. The Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the government laboratories
are prime candidates.
The directorate has also undertaken studies and analyses; initiated concept
exploration programs; and used war games, modeling and simulation, and experi-
ments to stimulate the requirements process. These activities have been produc-
tive. Other, more immediate needs in the non-lethal weapons program have
limited the number of such activities, however.
While the JNLWD has mechanisms and programs in place to enable expan-
sion, more are needed. Two CEPs are being used to address high-priority needs,
one specifically focused on clearing facilities and the other on incapacitating
personnel. More are in order, given the findings of the JMAA. Other examples
are experiments and demonstrations, such as advanced concept technology dem-
onstrations. Many opportunities in experiments and demonstrations are focused
on operations and missions in which non-lethal weapons applications can play a
role for example, in MOUT and in force protection. The directorate needs to
OCR for page 77
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
77
partner in many (not few) joint and Service experiments and in many (not few)
ACTDs to evolve concept developments for non-lethal weapons applications.
Substantial enhancement of the pace and scope of such activities is essential to
move non-lethal weapons capabilities forward.
Programs for Characterization of Effects
Finding: The JNLWD plans and program to address the human and materiel
effects of non-lethal weapons through the establishment of a single center of
excellence are insufficient and will not meet the need. Without substantial change,
the lack of elects characterization will be a "show-stopper" for deploying non-
lethal weapons to the field.
The JNLWD is using a variety of mechanisms to address the difficult issues
relating to human effects of non-lethal weapons, as described in Section 2.3.
Even so, the committee believes that the directorate's approach is unlikely to
yield the knowledge base with respect to human effects that is required to support
making non-lethal weapons options a pervasive operational reality. Based on the
information presented to the committee, it appeared that the JNLWD was mostly
leaving characterization of materiel effects to system developers.
The JNLWD has made good use of the Human Effects Advisory Panel (HEAP)
since its formation in 1998. The HEAP is an independent panel of experts formed by
Pennsylvania State University, under contract with the JNLWD, to provide advice
on human effects issues. The committee applauds this move and acknowledges the
long-term usefulness of such an expert panel.
The Human Effects Process Action Team was formed in 1999 at the request
of the chair of the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons IPT. HEPAT is a group of DOD
medical research and acquisition experts assembled to review the characteriza-
tion process of non-lethal weapons human effects and to recommend changes to
ensure full characterization of non-lethal weapons effects. HEPAT made three
broad recommendations, which are in various stages of implementation:
Establish a Human Effects Review Board; HERB was established on
October 5, 2000.
· Establish a non-lethal weapons Human Effects Center of Excellence; the
HECOE was established in the summer of 2000.
· Adopt a non-lethal weapons risk assessment methodology; the HECOE
held a workshop in May 2001 to begin developing a risk assessment framework.
The committee endorses these recommendations, but views them as highly
interdependent. Success in the acceptance and use of NLWs hinges on robust
effects characterization. HERB is chartered to provide advice and recommenda-
tions to program managers on human effects analysis and to provide the mile-
stone decision authority with a judgment on the measure of risk in each program;
OCR for page 78
78 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE ID TECHNOLOGY
both require solid understanding of the effects. In turn, a risk assessment meth-
odology must consider risk to targets, as well as uncertainties based on limita-
tions of human effects models, again requiring understanding of effects. HECOE
was envisioned by HEPAT as the centralized resource for conducting health
effects analysis. As defined by HEPAT, HECOE would do the following:
.
Coordinate human effects modeling and research efforts,
Ensure that models are peer reviewed and appropriately applied,
· Help weapon designers optimize designs for effects,
· Consult with weapon developers on technological issues,
· Provide input to the concept exploration phase to ensure that human ef-
fects are considered.
· Analyze human effects for program managers, and
· Assist in preparation of data packages for use by HERB.
Under its charter, HECOE is not funded to perform fundamental research on
human effects. In fact, there is no place in the human effects characterization
process, as established, where that research is supported. The committee believes
that while the scope of HECOE responsibilities defined by HEPAT is largely
appropriate, the implementation falls short in failing to provide a research base
and in providing insufficient resources for the program overall.
The JNLWD established HECOE within the Air Force Research Laboratory's
Human Effectiveness Directorate at Brooks Air Force Base. The current annual
funding for HECOE is less than $1 million, and the JNLWD expects that within
2 years, HECOE will be largely funded by the program managers who require its
services. The core technical expertise of HECOE is contributed by the Directed
Energy Bioeffects Division of the Human Effectiveness Directorate.
The committee found that HECOE is neither sized nor staffed to cover the
diverse range of scientific disciplines required to accomplish its mission as de-
fined by HEPAT. Furthermore, the committee believes that a true center of
excellence demands a depth of scientific talent that can be sustained only through
active engagement in research. ~ The committee also found insufficient resources
dedicated to the creation of knowledge bases and models to capture research
1 The scope of research is both broad and diverse A non-lethal weapon is designed to deliver a
"dose" (blunt trauma, dazzling light, microwave energy, and so on) at a level below that which
would lead to permanent harm to an individual. The threshold at which permanent harm is imparted
changes with the individual's age, weight, and so on. An active program to understand thresholds for
the "dose" considered for any NEW is essential. Human susceptibility to various forms of directed
energy and kinetic energy is largely unknown except for information leading to the definition of
occupational exposure and public exposure limits. Without knowledge about mechanisms of addi-
tional interaction, it is unlikely that advanced technologies will ever be developed. There is a need to
address psychological effects as well as physiological effects. Modeling and simulation represent an
interface between the basic science and applications. Contemporary modeling techniques have yet to
be developed.
OCR for page 79
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
79
results and lessons learned. While the committee agrees that program managers
should be expected to fund system-specific activities, it also believes that sub-
stantial shortfalls exist in the basic understanding of human effects and that these
shortfalls will not be addressed by the current funding model.
3.2 ADVANCED NON-LETHAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGIES
FOR NAVAL EXPEDITIONARY FORCES
There has been little independent investment in non-lethal weapons S&T by
the Department of the Navy since the formation of the JNLWD. In spite of that,
a number of areas are well suited to meeting the needs of naval expeditionary
forces and to contributing to future naval capabilities. As screened by the com-
mittee, the highest-priority S&T elements for naval expeditionary forces are as
follows:
· Calmatives and malodorants for controlling crowds and clearing facili-
ties, developed and applied in accordance with U.S. treaty obligations in the
Chemical Weapons Convention;
· Directed-energy systems beyond VMADS: HPM for stopping vehicles
and enabling distance communications, and solid-state lasers for advanced non-
lethal weapons applications;
· Novel and rapidly deployable marine barrier systems; and
· Adaptation of unmanned or remotely piloted platfo~s and targeting/
BDA sensors to non-lethal weapons applications.
6
A description of the process and criteria for screening, followed by discus-
sion of earlier screened technology areas, is presented below.
Process and Criteria for Screening
A principal outcome of this study is the identification of S&T investment
opportunities most applicable to naval expeditionary forces and appropriate for
investment by the Office of Naval Research. Attention has also been given to the
needs of the U.S. Coast Guard for non-lethal weapons technology, since these can
overlap those of the U.S. Navy in selected mission capabilities required.
The wide range of technologies and phenomena that have been proposed for
use as NLWs exceeds by far the spectrum of phenomena in use by lethal systems
today. This vast array of choices represents a challenge for a rational selection
when resource limitations demand that only a few select efforts be chosen for
emphasis and funding. The JNLWD has undertaken a complex process to priori-
tize these choices and to give priority to an appropriate selection of systems that
will be funded for development. This committee's focus was on the most prom-
ising opportunities for naval S&T programs. Technologies were reviewed indi-
vidually. In some cases, they were also considered in combination to determine
OCR for page 80
80 ~ ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE ID TECHNOLOGY
.
.~
if complementary technologies could provide a broader spectrum of capabilities
or synergistic effects. The process steps were as follows:
· There was a review of all material presented to the committee augmented
by documents, visits, and information gathered throughout the period of this
study. This review allowed the committee to understand mission needs of naval
expeditionary forces and to align those with the technologies under consider-
ation. Technologies were screened and entered into the technologies table (Ap-
pendix B).
· Each technology, along with associated enabling systems, was discussed,
related to mission needs, and grouped by common themes.
· The selection criteria listed in Boxes 1.2 and 1.3 were then applied. This
became the basis for selection of the technologies as potential S&T candidates.
Further discussion among the committee distilled the potential candidates to the
most promising ones highlighted in its findings.
Most important, and emphasized in the committee's review, was the first
technical characteristic in Box 1.1—the effectiveness of the technology against
the intended target. Effectiveness is a broad criterion; attributes such as predict-
ability, repeatability, and significant effect are incorporated into it. Other factors
on the list were used to judge the efficacy of non-lethal weapons technologies,
but with no particular priority. These include applicability to one or more of the
mission areas of the naval expeditionary forces that could benefit from NLWs.
Also required are significant potential bioeffects with the expectation of a broad
separation between effectiveness and irreversible injury thresholds. Robustness
to countermeasures is considered as well. Rheostatic capability, that is, the
ability to "dial an effect" from non-lethal to lethal, for a weapon or system of
weapons is desirable, as is selective targeting. Standoff is an important criterion,
with desirable delivery ranges of hundreds of meters or more. Delivery systems
for non-lethal weapons technologies are considered to achieve these extended
deployment ranges. Antimateriel applications also should have the potential to
implement repeatable, effective capability to disable vehicles, ships, or other
materiel. Finally, the logistical, training, and maintenance support required to
field the technology should ideally present little to no added burden to the naval
forces using it.
Antipersonnel and Antimateriel Chemicals
Finding: Development of chemicals for non-lethal weapons applications has re-
ceived little attention since the adoption of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
There are, however, riot control, arealfacility clearing, and vehicle-stopping situa-
tions, as experienced in force protection, peacekeeping, and humanitarian assis-
tance, for which non-lethal weapons chemical options other considerable advan-
tages over alternatives.
OCR for page 81
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
81
According to U.S. Marine Corps legal interpretation of purposes not prohib-
ited by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) that were presented to the
committee, the use of chemical NLWs appears to be allowable for riot control
situations and antimateriel applications in certain circumstances. Moreover,
chemicals that do not have an inherent toxic effect are apparently allowable. On
the requirements side, the committee heard from the U.S. Marine Corps and the
JNLWD about the pervasive need in order to avoid introducing panic in
crowds for crowd control options more benign than those of firing rubber bullets
or using OC. The need for and limitations of current vehicle-stopping systems
were also evident. In that context, the committee found that calmatives and
malodorants for antipersonnel applications and antimateriel vehicle stoppers have
high potential as important future NLWs when tested against the criteria listed in
Box 1.2. Some of the potential advantages of chemical NLWs are as follows:
Chemicals offer the theoretical possibility of peacefully incapacitating
combatants/agitators, reducing the need for the violence that is frequently associ-
ated with many of the current methods. Chemical NLWs could effectively allow
a commander to "cool off" a situation, separate the combatants from non-combat-
ants, and then deal with the former appropriately. This may also be true for
antimateriel compounds. Many current approaches to stopping a speeding ve-
hicle involve abrupt and often violent actions, with undesired consequences.
· Because chemicals can be tailored to elicit specific human effects through
molecular design, they have potential for more precise bioeffects than do cur-
rently used NLWs such as blunt munitions.
~ .
· Chemicals may be easily dispersed to deliver effects to groups as well as
to individuals. For example, a chemical crowd system could be deployed early in
tactics, before the crowd has formed a closely packed array, to allow freedom of
mobility and harmless escape.
Research in the field of calmatives as NLWs has not advanced for a decade.
Previous research had focused on understanding the margin of safety between
effective incapacitation and death.
Malodorants, which are not considered toxic chemicals, have a strong potential
for controlling crowds, clearing facilities, and area denial. Issues in their effective
use include delivery, persistence, and cleanup or neutralization. There has been
recent, limited work characterizing the effectiveness of various malodorants. There
also appears to be the possibility of combinations of malodorants to address cross-
cultural differences in effectiveness.
Almost as important as the nature of the chemicals themselves are the fea-
tures that "weaponize" them in a manner that maintains both treaty compliance
and effectiveness. Little has been done to meet the requirements for more accu-
rate and precise delivery on target with enhanced levels of dispersion. Specific
and special methods of delivery are required in a number of naval mission appli-
cations. For example, the capability of injecting agents into the air intake of a
OCR for page 82
82 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE ID TECHNOLOGY
moving vehicle or boat is an unsolved problem that prevents several promising
chemical agents from being considered.
Directed Energy
Finding: Some concepts for radio frequency and laser non-lethal weapons to
meet force protection and area denial needs hold considerable promise; others
raise serious issues that must be resolved before further significant investment is
warranted.
High-Power Microwave and Millimeter-Wave Systems
High-power microwave and millimeter-wave systems offer several promis-
ing non-lethal weapons capabilities. The most prominent is the VMADS, for
area denial and possibly for crowd control. The VMADs effect near instanta-
neous heating of an individual by the RF energy is well understood empirically,
but much remains to be learned about the biological implications of such heating.
A major investment will be needed to move beyond the current demonstration
stage. Suggestions for shipboard deployment of VMADS to aid in port protec-
tion have been made within OPNAV, but such applications will require careful
assessment to establish their cost-effectiveness.
The more traditional antimateriel applications for HPM have been sporadi-
cally considered for non-lethal weapons applications. Most interesting are appli-
cations for stopping engines and disabling electronic equipment. In general,
however, the committee reconfirmed a long-standing concern about HPM re-
search that although HPM has been studied and advocated for a quarter of a
century, nearly all of the work consists of demonstrations of an effect, with little
to no scientific work to determine the entry models) of the RF energy and the
mechanisms of disruption or damage. One notable exception was found. A
carefully structured scientific program is underway for some relevant targets.
The program is classified and high risk, but if successful, it could substantially
increase the efficiency and effectiveness of HPM weapons.
Marx generator technologies represent an area of opportunity that could
reduce the size of microwave power generators and make them more practical for
expeditionary force operations.
Lasers
The promise of adjustable power levels (i.e., rheostatic capability) makes
laser-based NLWs attractive. Current concepts rely on chemical lasers such as
DF or COIL, but the disadvantages for expeditionary force applications are many.
Chemical lasers require a significant and bulky chemical plant as a part of the
system, which also results in a limited "magazine" because of the ability to carry
OCR for page 83
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
83
only a fixed quantity of chemicals. Complex logistics and handling, high cost,
and unconvincing demonstrations to date further contribute to the unattractive-
ness of chemical laser systems for non-lethal weapons applications.
PEP and PIKL are cases in point. The DF laser fuel for these concepts is
highly caustic and requires special storage and handling. Another concern is the
lack of understanding of the physiological effect. As currently envisioned, both
systems would deliver enough energy to the target surface (skin) to produce
ionized plasma. In laboratory tests using a biosimulant gelatin for skin, the
output of PEP was directed toward the target so that the plasma-induced pressure
wave could be characterized. In some tests it appeared that the penetration depth
was greater than expected. In other experiments dealing with the influence of
clothing, it was found that clothing could be burned away by PEP radiation or by
the plasma it produced. It was also determined that wet clothing could increase
the pressure of the ultrasonic pulse delivered into the body. All of these observa-
tions indicate a potential safety hazard and suggest that much more needs to be
learned about the physiological effects of these lasers.
Solid-state lasers, however, may offer significant advantages over chemical
lasers with respect to environment, safety, logistics, and cost. Unburdened by the
chemical storage and handling overhead of a chemical laser, a solid-state laser
has the potential to be mounted on a reasonably sized vehicle such as a highly
mobile multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV) and the engine of the vehicle
can be its power source, provided the requirements for beam quality, power, and
control can be met for non-lethal weapons applications.
Achieving adequate power levels for both tactical and operational applica-
tions is the major research challenge. In addition, very short pulse lasers, com-
monly called femtosecond lasers, have intriguing potential in the materials area.
For example, they might be able to cut materials precisely with minimum blowoff
and no heating, making this type of laser viable for cutting explosives and toxic
materials. Little is know about the human effects from femtosecond exposure to
lasers, but experience with longer-pulsed systems suggests that useful but benign
effects, such as psychological operations, might be realized.
The committee reviewed some classified ongoing work involving lasers.
The committee believes that this work, although highly speculative at the present
time, holds considerable promise should it be reliably demonstrated.
Barriers and Entanglements
Finding: Marine entanglement systems have been successfully demonstrated in U.S.
Coast Guard programs. Robust systems to meet naval needs, such as stopping go-
fast boats or providing perimeter protection in port, needfurther development.
On the basis of initial successful results with systems such as RGES by the
Coast Guard, the committee recognized the usefulness of barriers and entangle-
OCR for page 87
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
87
cepts of operations. The JNLWD has taken impressive first steps in stimulating
experimentation in NLWs with the Marine Corps and joint community and in
obtaining lessons learned from related experiments. Many of these activities are
discussed in Chapter 2.
The committee believes, however, that these experiments are only the be-
ginning of what must become a more robust experimentation program. To date,
many of the experiments have focused heavily on the current generation of
tactical NLWs in the capability sets, or more recently, on a VMADS-like sys-
tem. Over the long run, experiments integrating or geared specifically toward
NLWs must be more frequent and pervasive with all the Services and the Joint
Forces Command (JFCOM). Experiments should also include a broader and
more comprehensive array of scenarios and non-lethal weapons systems, such as
antivehicular and antipersonnel non-lethal effects; human response; three-di-
mensional geographical and structural items such as in urban warfare; robotic
systems to detect, target, and engage; tactical advantages such as ballistic pro-
tection, speed, and surprise; and systems that support the restoration of infra-
structure (such as water, power, and transportation), and provide for the basic
needs of a population (food, shelter, and medical aid).
Training
The introduction of new NLWs, such as VMADS, that are considerably
more complex than the tactical NLWs in the capability sets requires a substantial
increase in the level and sophistication of training. The committee did not see
evidence that this level of training was being planned. While specific training
needs will vary for each non-lethal weapon system, training will need to address
a wide variety of issues, such as the following:
· Effects. Users must know the specific effects that they can expect from a
weapon. They must understand how the effects can differ with increasing or
decreasing distance to the target. They must know if the weapon affects individu-
als of varying sizes (children, adults), ages (young adults, the elderly) and health
or medical conditions differently. They must understand the circumstances under
which the system will produce unintended consequences. Because many NLWs
are designed to affect human behavior or motivation, users must understand how
cultural differences might influence weapon effects.
· Targeting and battle damage assessment. Users must understand how to
identify, track, and engage targets. They must learn how to assess, with high
reliability, whether a system has worked as expected.
· Tactics. Users must know when a weapon works best. They should know
if its effectiveness can be enhanced or diminished when it is used in combination
with other weapons. They must know the importance of surprise, offensive
action to achieve decisive results, maneuver, and economy of force. They must
OCR for page 88
88
cn
As
V)
C)
ca
In ~
I be
Ct
O EN
Cq
I::
o
o
4 -
o
~ V
¢ At
Em v'
L. ~ ~ ~ ~ 1,1~ i&~ ' ,
3
. 2 ° O ° u ~ ^
e ~ ~ ma ~ v u 2 b y ,' c y
~ ~ ~ P ~ R ~ ~ _ T ~ , A='- ~
~:5
u,
.= To
0 ~
~ ::
._ ._
=:
~ as
ct
~ u,
P
`= -
~ ·=
_ P
0 ~
cat ~
ct ._
c' ~
~ .o
cat
_
. ~ _
_ cat . _
I ~ ~ 7 'if. 1 rid
~ : -
OCR for page 89
89
~ e ~ o E ° ' ° Y ' o
.j'~ j~ .~
I
o
U3 ~
~ ~ .' no ~ ~ o
E ~ ~ ~— ~ 3 E ~
o D 5 3 C U o c
D ~ ~ ~ E .~ to ., ~ C o c o
~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C 3 ~ ~ - °
E `, o ~ == s ~ C ~ C`. , ~ C ~ c C
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
E E ° C to _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ -o ~ ~ C
Cat
04 3
o 3 ~ o c'
~ ~ Ha- ~ ~ ~ ~
l ~ ~ ~
C O C — D _
,C ~ _ 3 Cat ~ _ V' ~ ~ ~ — S —
~ ~ ¢ ~
OCR for page 90
6
90 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
understand how frequently the weapon can be fired and how many engagements
are possible before reloading or its equivalent, such as recharging is needed.
They must understand how to respond to anticipated countermeasures. They
must understand the circumstances under which the weapon will not produce the
desired effects. Perhaps most importantly, they must understand what to do if the
NLW fails to achieve its intended purpose in the expected time frame.
· Deployment scenarios. Commanders must understand how to use a
weapon in different scenarios. For example, systems that are effective against
lightly armed drug smugglers might not work well against heavily armed, well-
trained, highly motivated guerilla forces. Effectiveness may vary in urban con-
flict, peacekeeping, peace enforcement, truce monitoring, disaster relief, hu-
manitarian aid, drug interdiction, and so on.
· Logistics. Users need to know what is required to reload and how long a
system will be out of operation while reloading is underway. They must know
how to maintain and repair the system, how to assess its readiness, how it will be
transported, and what is required of the logistics chain to keep it operational.
· ROE and legal constraints. Although ROE will vary for each military
operation, users must be trained in how a non-lethal weapon system fits into the
ROE for their particular situation, including limitations imposed by treaty con-
straints.
This list of training needs is illustrative, not comprehensive. The introduc-
tion of NLWs may create training requirements beyond those for immediate
users. For example, the introduction of NLWs that can be fired or launched from
a common weapon platform, such as an aircraft, ship, tank, or artillery system,
could generate training needs for every organization with responsibility for oper-
ating or supporting the platform.
In summary, more complex NLWs will create more complex training re-
quirements. These requirements are likely to be quite challenging for new NLWs.
Early, continuing, and creative thinking about training needs is essential for the
long-term success of NLW efforts.
Logistics and Maintenance
The logistics and maintenance considerations of most tactical NLWs found
in the capability sets have been simple and readily accommodated within existing
practices and capabilities. Complex operational-level systems, such as VMADS
or some of the laser concepts under development, introduce logistics and mainte-
nance issues that are both unique and possibly burdensome; they must be consid-
ered integrally with system development to avoid a "show-stopper" downstream.
The current mindset of the NLW community is still at the level of the individual
tactical capability set and is not yet acculturated to the perspective that these
complex systems demand.
OCR for page 91
i.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
91
In general, it is important to consider logistics issues during every stage in
the weapon development process. Weapon developers can increase operational
effectiveness and reduce life-cycle costs by accommodating the varied needs of
the logistics community while a system is being developed, rather than afterward.
Table 3.2 illustrates logistics questions that should be addressed in the develop-
ment process.
Vulnerabilities
t
Because of its charge to study NLWs for U.S. naval expeditionary forces, the
committee devoted little attention to NLWs developed or deployed by other
nations. The committee's limited exposure to two activities, however, raised
concern.
Awareness of foreign NLWs is important for understanding the vulnerabili-
ties of U.S. forces and key infrastructure assets, such as electrical grids, financial
networks, and the air traffic control system. Other nations are investigating,
developing, fielding, and/or selling NLWs. The committee was briefed on one
effort to defeat NLWs and one experiment that highlighted the vulnerability of an
important infrastructure asset in the United States. Both of these activities pointed
to the current lack of well-thought-out responses to use of NLWs against U.S.
forces, and the serious consequences that could result. Proliferation is also a
concern. U.S. forces could be vulnerable to NLWs that have proliferated from
the United States or foreign nations to enemy nations or non-state actors. More-
over, smart adversaries will develop and exploit non-lethal weapons technologies
with or without U.S. efforts in the same technologies if they see an advantage in
doing so. In general, NLWs could represent an asymmetric threat to the United
States and its allies.
Countermeasures
DOD Directive 3000.3 states that NLWs "must not be easily defeated by
enemy countermeasures once known, or if they could, the benefits of a single
opportunity to use the weapon in a given context would be so great as to outweigh
that disadvantage."
It should be made clear that countermeasures are of two types. The first type,
discussed in the directive, includes those countermeasures employed by adver-
saries to counter U.S. forces' use of NLWs. For these, counter-countermeasures,
technical and/or tactical, are needed. The second type includes the countermea-
sures that could be used by U.S. forces to protect against adversary uses of
NLWs. In this latter case, U.S. forces need reaction time for retaliation to the
foes' attack and for mitigating options of NEW effects.
Military experience has been that countermeasures, technical and/or opera-
tional, appear sooner or later after any system has been put to use. As the
OCR for page 92
s
92
..
V)
A:
o
3
Ct
TIC
o
o
:d
En
Cal
C)
,
Cal
._
Ct
Cal
. - o
U)
Lo
¢
Cal
Cal
so
o
o
CAL
An
U.
Cat
_
D
Ct
.o
Cal
.o
a'
Ct
CQ
~ ~ O ~
| ~ i ~ O ~ ~ C
~ ~ X ~ ~
c) ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ O .Q .~ ~ ~
~ ~ c ~ 0, ~ 'A ~ 3 3 ~ c 0, e-
_ . is' , ' ~ - ~ it. ~ ~S I
Cal ~ ~ ~ ~
C~ * - , ~
~ ~ C,.4 ° o
~ ~5.= ~,~o ~ t~
3 3 ~ :5 c ~ C '' ce ~ ~ c c c
o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C) C) ~
~ X ~ ~ ~
OCR for page 93
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
93
directive indicates, by itself the identification of countermeasures should not stop
the development or even the considered use, of NLWs. Rather, a thorough
evaluation of NLW countermeasures is needed to help weapons designers, high-
light needs for more experimentation, and improve tactics and training. Another
lesson from experience is that S&T has an important role to play in the develop-
ment of countermeasures and counter-countermeasures. In the case of NLWs
this S&T will involve challenges in both the "hard" and "soft" sciences.
As a simple example, a new system enabling use of different types of NLW
at once or in a controlled sequence, governed by an assessment of effectiveness
by sensors, knowledge of effects, and psychological and cultural criteria, could
provide a degree of counter-countermeasures capability.
3.4 DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY ORGANIZATIONAL
INTEREST IN NON-LETHAL WEAPONS
6
Finding: U.S. Marine Corps interest and priority regarding non-lethal weapons
have been growing since the early l990s. Navy interest was largely dormant
until the USS Cole incident, but it has been evident since then, growing notice-
ably throughout the course of this study. Investments in people, dollars, and
concept development have not yet caught up with that interest.
AS discussed in Section 2.6, the Marine Corps has had a visible and growing
interest in NLWs since the early 1990s. That interest has been reinforced with
commitments to development, experimentation, and procurement of NLWs to
support tactical mission needs. Needs for more sophisticated operational NLW
systems are emerging, but supporting R&D and acquisition are not yet in place.
The Navy's interest, however, has lagged behind that of the Marines.
OPNAV Response Prior to Attack on USS Cole
The command capability issues provided by the fleet/force to the Chief of
Naval Operations, Director, Test and Evaluation and Technology Requirements
(CNO N091) in August 2000 reported that non-lethal weapons technologies
ranked 19th in the composite roll-up of each command's "Top 10" issues. Box 3.1
lists the needs identified. As noted in Section 2.4, the command capability issues
drive the future naval capabilities and accompanying enabling capabilities and
supporting technologies.
OPNAV designated an individual to act as the Navy central action officer,
Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Programs. The billet currently resides in OPNAV
N757, Explosive Ordnance Disposal and Coastal Warfare Branch, Expeditionary
Warfare Division. This individual is the focal point for the JNLWD on the
breadth of U.S. Navy activities regarding the generation and coordination of non-
lethal weapons requirements, the identification of needed technology develop-
OCR for page 94
94 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Face ~No~n-~hal Weapons Needs I~dentified~fo;r
~~:~-~-~:~nmand~il:y~ss~es,~ust Anon
go. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ; . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .~ :~ .. :~ ~ :~ ~ ~ ~~ .
: : :~::: : I: :: ~ ~ : : ~ :~
- Counte~rperson-ne~l~:~ ~ ~ :
—~clearfacilit'~and~;~-~ucturesof~nne~i ~~ ~:
—Derby ares personnel; r~al~fome~ protection~(U.S~K Naval-~F~-~£~-~Centra~
~:~ i:: Com~m=~USI1~-~:~ - -::- ~~:~::~::~:~:~:~:: ~ ~ ~~
·- ;; Protect against swimfner/intrudef ~(Commander, Submarine Far£e,~:~1:antic
~ Nonstop an individual (combat logistics forces OFF
.
meet, the use and creation of modeling and simulation capabilities, and participa-
tion in experiments as well as ongoing and planned acquisitions.
The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division (NSWCDD) accepted
the role as the lead laboratory area in the non-lethal weapons area. ONR pro-
vided support to the Joint Mission Area Analysis Conference. The Joint Program
Office for Special Technology Countermeasures at NSWCDD accepted the char-
ter for the development of non-lethal weapons countermeasures.
Although the Navy had not formally procured any non-lethal weapons systems
prior to the attack on the USS Cole, it had undertaken some initial efforts in the
acquisition process. It had completed a capstone requirements document on stop-
ping vessels. It had accepted the role as Service lead on the following Joint Non-
Lethal Weapons Program efforts: one Pre-Milestone A program for the develop-
ment of a running gear entanglement system, one CEP to disable vessels, and studies
and analysis efforts toward options for underwater and maritime intercept.
OCR for page 95
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
.,
95
OPNAV Response After Attack on USS Cole
In response to the attack on the USS Cole on October 12, 2000, the Depart-
ment of the Navy established the Antiterrorism/Force Protection Task Force on
October 27, 2000; its activities and recommendations are discussed in Section 2.5.
As a part of the ATOP Task Force effort, technology transition for improved
force protection was organized into three efforts: the Immediate Response
Program, the Bridge Program, and the Coordinated Acquisition Program. While
the latter two are longer term and ongoing, the Immediate Response Program, as
its name implies, was given a short time line. On November 9, 2000, the CNO
assigned the Office for Naval Operations Other Than War-Technical Center
(NOOTW-TC) at NSWCDD to lead the Immediate Response Program. This
office undertook an analysis to characterize known and potential asymmetric
surface, subsurface, air, and onshore threats to surface vessels in ports and
harbors and while transiting restricted waterways to or from ports and harbor
areas, to key shore installations (including command centers, aircraft storage,
and so on), and to aircraft during approach, takeoff, and landing (outside the
continental United States). The office then identified potential technologies,
techniques, and/or procedures that might enhance current naval capabilities in
the areas of situational awareness (threat detection and classification), defense
in depth (threat deterrence and neutralization), and operational risk manage-
ment, emphasizing commercial off-the-shelf and government off-the-shelf sys-
tems. Directions were to include NLWs in the assessment.
On December 13, 2000, NOOTW-TC delivered a "Quicklook" report to the
CNO, in which it recognized current force protection capabilities and identified
systemic shortfalls. The report recommended near-term enhancements that em-
phasized the application of technology instead of the increased use of manpower;
overt, passive systems for deterrence; active defense systems; non-lethal weapons
capabilities forfirst response; and lethal weapons capabilities as a last resort. All
candidate technologies could be fielded in 3 to 9 months.
On December 15, 2000, the CNO (N3/N5) organizations directed NOOTW-
TC to facilitate an NEW concept demonstration within 60 days. On December
21, 2000, the Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet, was briefed on the concept
demonstration about to get underway. On December 28, 2000, the Commander,
Naval Sea Systems Command, was briefed. On January 2, 2001, the 60-day
clock started, with an expected completion date of March 1, 2001. Phase I
component demonstrations (AN/APQ-2, water cannon, ROES, detector experi-
ments, live fire gunshoot) were conducted on February 15-23, 2001, at NSWC
Dahlgren. On March 1, Phase II, an exercise already underway (DDG-58) was
used to demonstrate baseline and enhanced capabilities across three basic sce-
narios with multiple vignettes. The demonstration results are providing baseline
direction for part of the CAPS ACTD (the principal element of the Bridge Pro-
gram), information for near-term fleet/force decisions, and prioritization of future
force protection R&D efforts.
OCR for page 96
~ -
96 AN ASSESSMENT OF NON-LETHAL WEAPONS SCIENCE ID TECHNOLOGY
As a result of the success of this demonstration, efforts are underway by
OPNAV to establish a more permanent "council" of expertise to address force
protection issues and efforts throughout the fleet. Oversight of these efforts will
be provided by the COO AT/FP Council with ad hoc working groups in the areas
of personnel, doctrine, training and policy, expeditionary antiterrorism, installa-
tions, resources (fragmented and difficult to apply), technology, and intelligence
information. Findings and recommendations will be reported periodically to the
CNO and fleet staffs.
While aspects of improved naval AT/FP postures include more than NLWs,
the value of NLWs beyond their use for tactical self-defense is being recognized
more widely in the Navy. It remains for OPNAV to inject NLWs more perva-
sively into institutional planning, assessments, R&D, and acquisition and to con-
sider offensive roles for NLWs, as recommended in the Sea Strike concept de-
scribed earlier.
3.5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
For ease of reference, the findings presented throughout this chapter are
compiled in the following subsections.
On the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate
The progress of the JNLWD, in light of its limited resources and authority as
a joint organization, coupled with the considerable pressure placed on it since its
creation in 1996, has been nothing short of remarkable. Looking to the future,
however, and assuming that NLWs are to play an integral role in both warfighting
and operations other than warfare, the committee believes the following:
· The present JNLWD approach for developing and transitioning non-le-
thal weapons capabilities to the field cannot be sustained into the future.
.
The JNLWD efforts to stimulate new ideas for non-lethal weapons must
be substantially augmented cooperatively with the Services S&T programs.
· The JNLWD plans and program to address the human and materiel effects
of non-lethal weapons through the establishment of a single center of excellence
are insufficient and will not meet the need. Without substantial change, the lack
of effects characterization will be a "show-stopper" for non-lethal weapons in the
field.
On Commitment
A wide gap exists between the rhetoric on the importance of non-lethal
weapons as expounded by senior leadership in the unified commands, fleet com-
mands, and the U.S. Marine Corps, and the limited attention in planning, assess-
OCR for page 97
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
97
meet, R&D, and acquisition given to NLWs throughout DOD, in general, and the
Department of the Navy, in particular.
On Shortfalls and Opportunities
R&D
As screened by the committee, the highest-priority S&T elements for naval
expeditionary forces are as follows:
· Calmatives and malodorants for controlling crowds and clearing facili-
ties, developed and applied in accordance with U.S. treaty obligations in the
Chemical Weapons Convention;
· Directed-energy systems beyond VMADS: HPM for stopping vehicles
and enabling distance communications, and solid-state lasers for advanced non-
lethal weapons applications;
· Novel and rapidly deployable marine barrier systems; and
· Adaptation of unmanned or remotely piloted platforms and targeting/
battle damage assessment sensors to non-lethal weapons applications.
Systems Development
.,
The effectiveness of non-lethal weapons is poorly understood in almost ev-
ery dimension a fact that will impede the development of more capable non-
lethal weapons systems in the future if not addressed.
Experimentation and training have been limited in scope; logistics and main-
tenance concepts are immature; and vulnerabilities and countermeasures are not
integrally assessed for non-lethal weapons. Each of these areas is important, if
not critical. for non-lethal weapons systems development and for acceptance by
commanders.
Department of the Navy Organizational Interest
U.S. Marine Corps interest and priority regarding non-lethal weapons have
been growing since the early 1990s, although the Marine Corps and the JNLWD
have not been successful in motivating naval-unique R&D investments in non-
lethal weapons. Navy interest was largely dormant until the USS Cole incident,
but it has been evident since then, growing noticeably throughout the course of
this study. Investments in people, dollars, and concept development have not yet
caught up with that interest.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
principal findings
