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 R1
Environmental Information for Naval Warfare Committee on Environmental Information for Naval Use NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Ocean Studies Board Division on Earth and Life Studies NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES The National Academies Press Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 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 and the committee were supported by a grant from the Office of Naval Research and the Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 0-309-08860-7 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and 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 M. 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. Wm. 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. Harvey V. Fineberg 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 M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org
OCR for page R4
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FOR NAVAL USE PAUL E. TOBIN (Chair), Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, Fairfax,Virginia THOMAS P. ACKERMAN, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington ARTHUR B. BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge E. ANN BERMAN, Tri-Space, Inc., McLean, Virginia STEPHEN K. BOSS, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville TONY F. CLARK, North Carolina State University, Raleigh PETER C. CORNILLON, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett CARL A. FRIEHE, University of California, Irvine EILEEN E. HOFMANN, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia ROBERT A. HOLMAN, Oregon State University, Corvallis GAIL C. KINEKE, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts JOHN M. RUDDY, Missile Defense Agency, Washington, DC Staff DAN WALKER, Study Director JOHN DANDELSKI, Research Assistant DENISE GREENE, Senior Project Assistant
OCR for page R5
OCEAN STUDIES BOARD NANCY RABALAIS (Chair), Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, Chauvin ARTHUR BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge JAMES COLEMAN, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge LARRY CROWDER, Duke University, Beaufort, North Carolina RICHARD B. DERISO, Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, La Jolla, California ROBERT DITTON, Texas A&M University EARL DOYLE, Shell Oil (ret.), Sugar Land, Texas ROBERT DUCE, Texas A&M University, College Station WAYNE R. GEYER, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts STANLEY R. HART, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts MIRIAM KASTNER, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California RALPH S. LEWIS, Connecticut Geological Survey, Hartford WILLIAM MARCUSON, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (Ret.) JULIAN P. MCCREARY, JR., University of Hawaii, Honolulu JACQUELINE MICHEL, Research Planning, Inc., Columbus, South Carolina SCOTT NIXON, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett SHIRLEY POMPONI, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Ft. Pierce, Florida FRED SPIESS, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California JON G. SUTINEN, University of Rhode Island, Kingston NANCY TARGETT, University of Delaware, Lewes Staff MORGAN GOPNIK, Director SUSAN ROBERTS, Senior Program Officer DAN WALKER, Senior Program Officer JOANNE BINTZ, Program Officer JENNIFER MERRILL, Program Officer TERRY SCHAEFER, Program Officer ROBIN MORRIS, Financial Officer JOHN DANDELSKI, Research Associate SHIREL SMITH, Administrative Associate JODI BACHIM, Senior Project Assistant NANCY CAPUTO, Senior Project Assistant DENISE GREENE, Senior Project Assistant SARAH CAPOTE, Project Assistant BYRON MASON, Project Assistant JULIE PULLEY, Project Assistant
OCR for page R6
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R7
Preface During my years of naval service, I depended on accurate and timely information about atmospheric and oceanographic conditions derived from a limited number of sources. Today’s operational commander can access multiple sources via high-bandwidth data paths. This plethora of information, however, can rapidly overwhelm his or her ability to incorporate that information into real-time decisionmaking. Fortunately, the tools are now at hand to evaluate the uncertainty associated with various information products, greatly facilitating decisions based on an ever-increasing volume of information. Introducing 13 talented scientists to the meteorological and oceanographic (METOC) community and the challenges facing it was a pleasure. After many years of Naval Service, I am very proud of the organization and particularly of the METOC community where I spent my last two years of service. U.S. Naval Forces consist of two very large, multifaceted, complex organizations (i.e., the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps). Fortunately, scientists deal with complex systems routinely, and their ability to assimilate the details of naval METOC has been remarkable. The learning process involved climbing through a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier and a Guided Missile Destroyer and visiting major METOC activities on both coasts. I am indebted to the panel members for the generous use of their time and to the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps for opening every door we requested to pass through. Seeing the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps through the eyes of scientists was very useful and enlightening for me. The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have each made a great investment in their METOC personnel. This community is one of the most highly educated groups in either service. A comparable investment in collection platforms, sensors, computer models, and expendable resources to cover the entire world has not and
OCR for page R8
cannot be made. Commanders, Pilots and Ship Captains all desire perfect METOC information, all of the time. There are tools now available that bring us as close to that goal as practical, provided all the needed resources are available at the desired location. How close do we come to the goal of forecasting certainty? The answer is the traditional “it depends.” If the location were Moorhead City, North Carolina, or Camp Pendleton, California, the degree of certainty would be high in the short term. We have studied these areas intensely over the last 75 years and hold many exercises at each yearly. Sensing resources are always available and climatological data are extensive, but even in these ideal cases we cannot adequately forecast parameters like wave height and coastal currents beyond 72 hours. Locations like Kandahar, Afghanistan, present a whole range of new problems, including limited access, sparse historical data, limited remote sensing, and a hostile climate. Another complicating aspect is the varied nature of naval missions. METOC information support for peacetime naval presence varies dramatically from the most difficult scenario of all, an amphibious operation. Finally, the enemy threat must be known, and we rely heavily on the Naval Intelligence Community to provide enemy intentions and weapons capabilities. Mission, location, season, friendly weapons choices, and enemy intentions are all part of a complex matrix that the Commander and METOC planners must confront. The degree of forecasting success thus depends on how well scarce resources are allocated across this broad range of factors. Some requirements, such as safety in the air and on the sea, have been well supported over the years and although important do not offer the potential for large new payoffs through increased investments. Properly chosen increased support of warfighting mission areas could yield major gains in terms of weapons performance and ultimate victory. An example would be enhanced remote sensing through aircraft, autonomous aviation vehicles, or satellites in support of Precision-Guided Munitions. Reducing uncertainty here could be critically important. Current trends in weapons deploymneet suggest that this is and will continue to be the case. Since we are dealing with scarce resources, it is no surprise that uncertainty and business models are areas that this study has found as keys to the future. We are very fortunate to have the tools at hand to ensure accurate forecasting and success in combat. We currently excel in this process, and if we make the right choices in the future, environmental uncertainty will not be completely eliminated but will be a far more manageable concern for our commanders. The following study will describe a process that I firmly believe will take us to that goal. Paul E. Tobin, RADM USN (ret.) Chair, Committee on Environmental Information for Naval Use
OCR for page R9
Acknowledgments This report was greatly enhanced by the participants of the multiple information-gathering activities held as part of this study. The committee would first like to acknowledge the efforts of those who gave presentations at meetings. The following individuals provided significant insight by making formal presentations to the committee. JOE ATANGAN RUSS BEARD JERRY BIRD JERRY BOATMAN MARK BOSTON MELBOURNE G. BRISCOE HOUSTON COSTOLO DOUG CRONIN TOM CUFF JOHN GARSTKA JERRY GATHOF ALFRED GENT CHRISTINE JARET ROB LAWSON STEVE LINGSCH MICHAEL S. LOESCHER STEPHEN MARTIN DINTY MUSK TERRY PALUSZKIEWICZ
OCR for page R10
JAMES RIGNEY RICHARD SPINRAD JOSEPH SWAYKOS VAN GURLEY PHIL VINSON The committee also met with various Navy and Marine Corps personnel during seven subgroup meetings. These meetings were invaluable, and we would like to express our appreciation to each individual, but there are too many names to mention. The committee is also grateful to the Navy panel that provided important discussion and/or material for this report: CAPT TY ALDINGER, Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet; LCDR JIM BERDEQUEZ, DCNO for Expeditionary Warfare (N75); LT COL (RET) TOM CUMMINS, USCM, Defense Intelligence Agency; DR. RON FEREK, Office of Naval Research; CAPT CHRIS GUNDERSON, Deputy Oceanographer of the Navy; LCDR VAN GURLEY, Commander, Cruiser-Destroyer Group 2; LCDR PAUL MATTHEWS, Commander, Naval METOC Command; LCDR TONY NEGRON, Commander, Naval METOC Command; DR. TERRY PALUSZKIEWICZ, Office of Naval Research; DR. RUTH PRELLER, Naval Research Laboratory; CAPT DAVE TITLEY, Dept Asst. SECNAV (Mine/ Undersea Warfare); and CDR ZDENKA WILLIS, Commanding Officer, Naval Ice Center. The committee also owes significant thanks to the members and staff of the Naval Studies Board. The willingness of Alan Berman and Richard Ivanetich to review the report, of Art Baggeroer to serve on the committee, and of the NSB staff to provide assistance where possible reflects a genuine and deep commitment to helping the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps benefit from the best scientific and technical advice available. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report:
OCR for page R11
DR. ALAN BERMAN, Independent Consultant, Alexandria, Virginia REAR ADM MILLARD S. FIREBAUGH, General Dynamics, Electric Boat Corporation, Groton, Connecticut DR. DONALD P. GAVER, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California DR. RICHARD IVANETICH, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia DR. ALFRED KAUFMAN, Institute for Defense Analyses, Alexandria, Virginia DR. JOAN OLTMAN-SHAY, Northwest Research Associates, Inc., Bellevue, Washington REAR ADM RICHARD F. PITTENGER, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts DR. ROBERT WELLER, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Massachusetts GEN KEITH SMITH, U.S Marine Corps. (ret.), Vienna, Virginia Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Brad Mooney, appointed by the Divison on Earth and Life Studies, who was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.
OCR for page R12
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page R13
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 12 2 THE VALUE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 34 3 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM: SOURCES AND LIMITATIONS OF METOC KNOWLEDGE 53 4 IMPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BY REDUCING UNCERTAINTY 70 5 INFORMATION FLOW: LEVERAGING NETWORK-CENTRIC CONCEPTS 110 6 MOVING AHEAD 124 REFERENCES 138 APPENDIXES A COMMITTEE AND STAFF BIOGRAPHIES 143 B THE ROLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION IN NAVAL WARFARE 147
OCR for page R14
C ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS 172 D ACRONYMS 195 E INFORMATION-GATHERING ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FOR NAVAL USE 201