ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR HOMELAND SECURITY
REPORT 2
C4ISR
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu
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 study was supported by Contract No. DAAD19-02-C-0049 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Army. 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 organization that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-09164-0 (Book)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-53071-7 (PDF)
Cover: The Pentagon burning after being struck by a hijacked commercial airliner, September 11, 2001. Courtesy of Reza Marvashti, The Free Lance-Star, Fredericksburg, Virginia.
Limited copies are available from:
Board on Army Science and Technology
National Research Council
500 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 334-3118
Additional copies 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 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
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.
COMMITTEE ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR HOMELAND DEFENSE—C4ISR
JOHN W. LYONS, NAE, Chair,
U.S. Army Research Laboratory (retired), Mount Airy, Maryland
DENNIS J. REIMER, Vice Chair,
U.S. Army (retired) and Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, Oklahoma City
DUANE A. ADAMS,
Carnegie Mellon University, Arlington, Virginia
HENRY L. BERTONI,
Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York
JAMES J. CARAFANO,
The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C.
GEORGE M. CLARK,
Radiance Technologies, Inc., Huntsville, Alabama
TIMOTHY COFFEY,
University of Maryland, College Park, and National Defense University, Washington, D.C.
ANTHONY C. DIRIENZO,
COLSA Corporation, Huntsville, Alabama
MITRA DUTTA,
University of Illinois, Chicago
FREDERICK L. FROSTIC,
Booz Allen Hamilton, McLean, Virginia
C. WILLIAM GEAR,
NAE, NEC Research Institute, Princeton, New Jersey
JAMES R. KLUGH,
U.S. Army (retired) and Dimensions International, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia
JOSEPH P. MACKIN,
E-OIR Measurements, Inc., Spotsylvania, Virginia
LOUIS C. MARQUET, Consultant,
Long Branch, New Jersey
LOIS C. McCOY,
National Institute for Urban Search and Rescue, Santa Barbara, California
CHANDRA KUMAR N. PATEL,
NAE, NAS, University of California at Los Angeles
ALBERT A. SCIARRETTA,
CNS Technologies, Inc., Springfield, Virginia
ANNETTE L. SOBEL,
Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico
MICHAEL F. SPIGELMIRE,
U.S. Army (retired) and
Consultant,
Destin, Florida
LEO YOUNG, NAE, Consultant,
Baltimore, Maryland
Liaisons, Board on Army Science and Technology
ROBERT L. CATTOI,
Rockwell International (retired), Dallas, Texas
DONALD R. KEITH,
U.S. Army (retired) and Cypress International (retired), Alexandria, Virginia
National Research Council Staff
MARGARET N. NOVACK, Study Director
JAMES C. MYSKA, Research Associate
CARTER W. FORD, Senior Project Assistant
BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
JOHN E. MILLER, Chair,
Oracle Corporation, Reston, Virginia
GEORGE T. SINGLEY III, Vice Chair,
Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia
DAWN A. BONNELL,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
NORVAL L. BROOME,
MITRE Corporation (retired), Suffolk, Virginia
ROBERT L. CATTOI,
Rockwell International (retired), Dallas, Texas
DARRELL W. COLLIER, Consultant,
Leander, Texas
GILBERT F. DECKER,
Walt Disney Imagineering (retired), Glendale, California
ALAN H. EPSTEIN,
NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
ROBERT R. EVERETT,
NAE, MITRE Corporation (retired), New Seabury, Massachusetts
PATRICK F. FLYNN,
NAE, Cummins Engine Company, Inc. (retired), Columbus, Indiana
WILLIAM R. GRAHAM,
National Security Research, Inc., Arlington, Virginia
HENRY J. HATCH,
NAE, Army Chief of Engineers (retired) Oakton, Virginia
EDWARD J. HAUG,
University of Iowa, Iowa City
MIRIAM E. JOHN, California
Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore
DONALD R. KEITH,
Cypress International (retired), Alexandria, Virginia
CLARENCE W. KITCHENS,
Hicks and Associates, Inc., McLean, Virginia
ROGER A. KRONE,
Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
JOHN W. LYONS,
NAE, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (retired), Mount Airy, Maryland
JOHN H. MOXLEY,
IOM, Korn/Ferry International, Los Angeles, California
MALCOLM R. O’NEIL,
Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
EDWARD K. REEDY,
Georgia Institute of Technology Research Institute, Atlanta
DENNIS J. REIMER,
U.S. Army (retired) and Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, Oklahoma City
WALTER D. SINCOSKIE,
Telcordia Technologies, Inc., Morristown, New Jersey
WILLIAM R. SWARTOUT,
Institute for Creative Technologies, University of Southern California, Marina del Rey
EDWIN L. THOMAS,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
JOSEPH J. VERVIER,
ENSCO, Inc., Melbourne, Florida
National Research Council Staff
BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director
WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL, Administrative Officer
CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate
DEANNA P. SPARGER, Administrative Associate
Preface
This is the second study in a series of three sponsored by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology. It was conducted by the Committee on Army Science and Technology for Homeland Defense—C4ISR1 of the Board on Army Science and Technology in the Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences of the National Research Council. The statement of task for this second report is as follows:
In this follow-on study, focusing on the C4ISR area and the first responder mission, the National Research Council will:
-
examine stated capabilities needed for Homeland Security and the Army’s Objective Force,2 identifying and describing areas in which the two communities have similar technical needs and in which collaboration may be possible.
-
highlight technology and systems solutions under development (in both S&T and Acquisition) for the Objective Force, both in the Department of Defense and commercially, which might meet the needs of the Department of Homeland Security.
-
describe other issues that should be addressed in order to facilitate collaboration and sharing of research.
-
prepare a consensus report documenting the study results and containing findings and recommendations to assist the Army.
FOUNDATION PROVIDED BY THE FIRST STUDY
In September 2001, the U.S. Army asked the Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST) to investigate how science and technology might better enable the Army to accomplish its mission in the homeland. The initial BAST report (completed before the establishment of the new Department of Homeland Security) surveyed a broad range of relevant technologies, recommending that the Army take advantage of potential transferability between technologies for the Future Force and those for homeland security.3 In the C4ISR area, the committee noted that the Army will need the capability to establish links between its first responder military units and civilian first responders to emergency events. The committee also took the view that the Army should play a major role in providing emergency C4ISR in the event of a major natural or terrorism disaster in which civilian systems are seriously impaired. The committee further concluded that the architecture and technology needed for a C4ISR system for homeland security are compatible with the Army’s framework for developing and fielding the Future Force, although the Future Force system would have to be adapted or extended to meet the different mission and challenges of homeland security.
The first report was written in a relatively short period of time. Because of the extensive scope of the review, the lack of a well-defined national operational framework,4 and the time-sensitive nature of the Army’s interest, the committee did not study specific products but rather considered technologies one level above individual products, processes, or services.
COMMITTEE COMPOSITION AND PROCESS FOR THE CURRENT STUDY
The second study began with a review of the membership of the first committee and the nomination to the second committee of members with the necessary expertise in C4ISR. The membership of the Committee on Army Science and Technology for Homeland Defense—C4ISR was chosen to include representation from three communities: the military sector, the emergency responder community, and the C4ISR scientific and technical world. The scientific and technological skill sets of the membership include communications, computer science, sensors and guidance, information science, systems engineering, model-
ing and simulation, and systems analysis. Although there is no classified material in this report, a security clearance was considered essential, as many of the topics that would be of interest to the committee are classified.
The committee spent considerable time deliberating on how to address the statement of task. It determined that the report should focus on the response phase of a catastrophic event rather than attempt to consider the prevention of such an event. This approach was justified because the response phase would be the time when most emergency responders would be engaged and when emergency C4ISR capabilities would be most called upon.
The committee also chose not to address commercial items, for a variety of reasons. To begin with, the timing of the study as required by the contract was constrained. Additionally, the Army now uses commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment whenever possible, and the committee believed that whatever COTS items might be of interest would already have been embedded in the Army Future Force technologies. Nevertheless, the committee admits that it may have missed some of the more innovative COTS technologies.5 Lastly, in order to do justice to a commercial equipment survey, the committee believed that it would have had to review a large variety of products, which could have entailed the requirement to review the claims of multiple vendors for the same products. The committee did not wish to try to distinguish between what was claimed for products and what they could actually deliver, nor did it want to subject itself or the National Academies to criticism for overlooking a particular vendor’s product.
The committee held two meetings to familiarize its members with the capabilities required for homeland security and the applicable C4ISR technologies that are available or under development for the Army’s Future Force. Two more meetings were devoted to writing and coming to a consensus on the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in the report.
As was the case with the first report, even as this report was being prepared doctrine and policy were being developed and amended at all levels of government. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) Northern Command, which are to have the major responsibilities and authority for homeland security at the national level, had been established and were in the early stages of formation and organization. The actual role that will be played by the Army in homeland security must certainly depend in large measure on the operational assignments that Army units will be given in the framework of, or in support of, these overarching organizations. The details remain in a state of flux. As is indicated in the report, while it is anticipated that much of the doctrine will be drawn from existing protocols, the lack of specific doctrine made the study of specific equipment requirements difficult.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
The introductory chapter provides a context for the rest of the report by describing the government’s organization for homeland security, beginning with the DHS, followed by the elements of the DOD that will play a role in homeland security, and lastly, the community of civilian emergency responders. A short section compares the ways in which the DOD and local emergency responders acquire their equipment. The chapter closes with a description of a series of potential scenarios illustrating how complexities will mount as additional events requiring emergency response take place.
Chapter 2 describes how the Army plans to equip the Future Force, drawing attention to certain C4ISR technologies that offer potential for collaborative efforts by the DOD and the DHS. Chapter 3 describes who constitutes the emergency responder community, what they are trying to accomplish, and the kinds of capabilities and training they need; the chapter ends with a description of Project Responder, an independent effort focusing on the status of equipment for emergency responders. Chapter 4 provides a detailed description of a subset of C4ISR technologies for the Future Force that appear to match the requirements of emergency responders. Chapter 5 discusses possible ways of bridging the gap between the Future Force technologies and emergency responder requirements and suggests means to facilitate collaboration between the DOD and the DHS to help specify and meet those requirements. Chapter 6 provides a complete listing of the report’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Separate appendixes provide additional background information on committee biographies, meeting topics, organization of the U.S. Army, the Army acquisition system, C4ISR capabilities for the Army’s Future Force, C4ISR capabilities needed for the civilian emergency responder, and criteria for technology readiness levels.
The committee would like to recognize the assistance given by the emergency responder community and the U.S. Army in providing information and answering questions from the committee. It is likewise grateful for the assistance of NRC staff members Margaret N. Novack, James C. Myska, Carter W. Ford, William E. Campbell, and Dorothy Sawicki in producing this report.
John W. Lyons, Chair
Dennis J. Reimer, Vice Chair
Committee on Army Science and Technology for Homeland Defense—C4ISR
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
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 (NRC’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 review of this report:
MG Jack D’Araujo, U.S. Army National Guard (retired), Knoxville, Tennessee
Michael J. Grove, Consultant, Stafford, Virginia
Michael J. Hopmeier, Unconventional Concepts, Inc., Arlington, Virginia
James C. McGroddy, National Academy of Engineering, IBM (retired), Briarcliff Manor, New York
Richard Nowakowski, Raytheon JPS Communications, Chicago, Illinois
Jimmy K. Omura, National Academy of Engineering, Cylink Corporation (retired), San Francisco, California
James Shea, Filtronic Sigteck, Inc., Columbia, Maryland
George F. Sheldon, Institute of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Paul N. Stockton, Naval Post Graduate School, Monterey, California
Robert J. Trew, North Carolina State University, Raleigh
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 Alexander H. Flax, Consultant. Appointed by the National Research Council, he 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.
Figures, Tables, and Boxes
FIGURES
1-1 |
Organizational chart of the Department of Homeland Security as of March 1, 2003, |
|||
1-2 |
Organizational chart for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense (ASD [HD]), |
|||
1-3 |
NORTHCOM command-and-control relationships, |
|||
2-1 |
Characteristics of the Army’s Future Force, |
|||
2-2 |
Basic elements of integrated Future Combat Systems (FCS), |
TABLES
ES-1 |
Bridge Between Department of the Army/DOD Science and Technology for the Future Force and Emergency Responder Requirements, |
|||
2-1 |
Expected Operational Benefits of the Army’s Future Force Concept for the Conduct of Joint Operations, |
|||
3-1 |
Capability Shortfalls for Emergency Responders in the Detection, Identification, and Assessment of Weapons of Mass Destruction Threats, |
|||
3-2 |
Capability Shortfalls for Emergency Responders in Unified Incident Command Decision Support and Interoperable Communications, |
3-3 |
Capability Shortfalls for Emergency Responders in Emergency Management Preparation and Planning for Weapons of Mass Destruction Scenarios, |
|||
3-4 |
Capability Shortfalls for Emergency Responders in Crisis Evaluation and Management for Weapons of Mass Destruction Scenarios, |
|||
4-1 |
Integrated Systems Technology Programs Relevant to Emergency Responders, |
|||
4-2 |
Summary of Programs Relevant to Emergency Responders: Command, Control, and Computer (C3) Technologies, |
|||
4-3 |
Summary of Programs Relevant to Emergency Responders: Communications, |
|||
4-4 |
Summary of Programs Relevant to Emergency Responders: Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR), |
|||
4-5 |
Summary of Programs Relevant to Emergency Responders: Other Assets for Consideration, |
|||
5-1 |
Bridge Between Department of the Army/DOD Science and Technology for the Future Force and Emergency Responder Requirements, |
|||
G-1 |
Criteria for Technology Readiness Levels, |
BOXES
1-1 |
Some U.S. Agencies and Organizations Involved in Emergency Response, |
|||
1-2 |
Findings from Report 1 Relevant to the Current Report, |
|||
1-3 |
Conclusion and Recommendation from Report 1 Relevant to the Current Report, |
|||
2-1 |
Future Force Warrior Elements, |
|||
3-1 |
National Terrorism Response Objectives, |
Acronyms
ACTD
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration
ANVG
Advanced Night Vision Goggle
ARNET
Army Reserve Network
ASD (HLD)
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense
C
communications
C2
command and control
C3
command, control, and communications
C4ISR
command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
CINC
commander-in-chief
COP
common operational picture
COTS
commercial off-the-shelf
DA
Department of the Army
DARPA
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DASD
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
DDR&E
Director, Defense Research and Engineering
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
DISA
Defense Information Systems Agency
DMSO
Defense Modeling and Simulation Office
DOD
Department of Defense
DTRA
Defense Threat Reduction Agency
DUSD (S&T)
Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Science and Technology
EPR
Emergency Preparedness and Response (DHS directorate)
FBCB2
Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below
FBI
Federal Bureau of Investigation
FCS
Future Combat System(s)
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFW
Future Force Warrior
FOPEN
foliage penetration
GIG
global information grid
GIS
Global Information System
GPS
Global Positioning System
HSARPA
Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency
HSPD
Homeland Security Presidential Directive
IAB
Interagency Board for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability
IR
infrared
ISR
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
IT
information technology
JBFSA
Joint Blue Force Situational Awareness
JPO
Joint Program Office
JTF-CS
Joint Task Forcce-Civil Support
JTRS
Joint Tactical Radio System
LW
Land Warrior
LW-AC
Land Warrior-advanced capability
LW-IC
Land Warrior-initial capability
LW-SI
Land Warrior-Stryker Interoperable
M&S
modeling and simulation
METL
Mission Essential Task List
MTI
moving target indicator
NBC
nuclear, biological, and chemical
NCO
network-centric operations
NCW
network-centric warfare
NDMS
National Disaster Medical System
NEST
Networked Embedded Systems Technology
NGA
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
NGO
nongovernmental organization
NIMS
National Incident Management System
NORTHCOM
U.S. Northern Command
NRC
National Research Council
NRP
National Response Plan
ODP
Office of Domestic Preparedness
ORD
operational requirements document
OSD
Office of the Secretary of Defense
PDA
personal digital assistant
PDASD
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
R&D
research and development
RDEC
Research, Development, and Engineering Center
RDT&E
research, development, testing, and evaluation
RSTA
reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition
SAR
synthetic aperture radar
SCA
software communications architecture
SDR
software-defined radio
SIGINT/EW
signals intelligence/electronic warfare
S&T
science and technology
STO
science and technology objective
TDA
tactical decision aid
TRL
technology readiness level
TSWG
Technical Support Working Group
UAV
unmanned aerial vehicle
UGS
unattended ground sensor
UGV
unmanned ground vehicle
USAF
U.S. Air Force
USAR
U.S. Army Reserve
USN
U.S. Navy
US&T
Undersecretary for Science and Technology
UV
ultraviolet
WIN-T
Warfighter Information Network-Tactical
WMD
weapons of mass destruction