NAVY’S NEEDS IN SPACE FOR PROVIDING FUTURE CAPABILITIES

Committee on the Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities

Naval Studies Board

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities NAVY’S NEEDS IN SPACE FOR PROVIDING FUTURE CAPABILITIES Committee on the Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities Naval Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities 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. N00014-00-G-0230, DO #16, between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department 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 0-309-09677-4 Additional copies of this report are available from: Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, The Keck Center of the National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room WS904, Washington, DC 20001; and 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 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities 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. Ralph J. Cicerone 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. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities COMMITTEE ON THE NAVY’S NEEDS IN SPACE FOR PROVIDING FUTURE CAPABILITIES ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation, Co-Chair WILLIAM D. SMITH, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania, Co-Chair ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University E. ANN BERMAN, Tri-Space, Inc. THOMAS C. BETTERTON, Naval Postgraduate School CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., Houston, Texas JOHN F. EGAN, Nashua, New Hampshire BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies RICHARD FLEETER, AeroAstro, Inc. LEE M. HAMMARSTROM, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University DONALD G. HARD, Springfield, Virginia ROBERT E. LINDBERG, National Institute of Aerospace GEORGE O. NOSSAMAN, BAE Systems C. KUMAR N. PATEL, Pranalytica, Inc. GENE H. PORTER, Nashua, New Hampshire JOSEPH B. REAGAN, Saratoga, California DWIGHT C. STREIT, Northrop Grumman Space Technology H. GREGORY TORNATORE, Ellicott City, Maryland DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company DELL P. WILLIAMS III, Moss Beach, California Staff RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director (on leave as of July 12, 2003) CHARLES F. DRAPER, Acting Director (as of July 12, 2003) MICHAEL L. WILSON, Study Director (through August 27, 2004) MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator IAN M. CAMERON, Research Associate SIDNEY G. REED, JR., Consultant

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities NAVAL STUDIES BOARD JOHN F. EGAN, Nashua, New Hampshire, Chair MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories, Vice Chair ARTHUR B. BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN D. CHRISTIE, LMI ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies KERRIE L. HOLLEY, IBM Global Services JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University HARRY W. JENKINS, JR., ITT Industries DAVID V. KALBAUGH, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, Great Falls, Virginia THOMAS V. McNAMARA, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California WILLIAM B. MORGAN, Rockville, Maryland JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Korn/Ferry International JOHN S. QUILTY, Oakton, Virginia NILS R. SANDELL, JR., BAE Systems WILLIAM D. SMITH, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania JOHN P. STENBIT, Oakton, Virginia RICHARD L. WADE, Risk Management Sciences DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company CINDY WILLIAMS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ELIHU ZIMET, National Defense University Navy Liaison Representatives RADM JOSEPH A. SESTAK, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through October 1, 2004) MR. GREG MELCHER, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Acting N81 (from October 2, 2004, through November 8, 2004) RADM SAMUEL J. LOCKLEAR III, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of November 8, 2004) RADM JAY M. COHEN, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N091 Marine Corps Liaison Representative LTGEN EDWARD HANLON, JR., USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (through September 30, 2004) LTGEN JAMES N. MATTIS, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (as of October 1, 2004)

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities Staff RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director (on leave as of July 12, 2003) CHARLES F. DRAPER, Acting Director (as of July 12, 2003) ARUL MOZHI, Senior Program Officer MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator IAN M. CAMERON, Research Associate

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities This page intentionally left blank.

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities Preface The growing importance of space to the nation’s security and economic well-being demands that the United States, through its defense and intelligence establishments, actively pursue policies to maintain and develop capabilities which ensure that the nation’s civil, commercial, defense, and intelligence establishments can operate successfully in space. Furthermore, assured access to space and space assets is necessary as the nation’s armed forces move toward increased reliance on information and networking technology to integrate decision makers, sensors, forces, and weapons into a highly adaptive and comprehensive system, and thus to increase mission effectiveness. In 2001, the Commission to Assess the U.S. National Security Space Management and Organization amplified this theme of U.S. dependence on space and recommended a major restructuring of National Security Space (NSS) management and organization.1 Specifically, the Space Commission recommended, and shortly thereafter the Secretary of Defense directed, that the Secretary of the Air Force serve as the Department of Defense (DOD) Executive Agent for all NSS programs and that the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) be realigned accordingly.2 The responsibilities of the DOD Executive Agent for Space are currently delegated to the Under Secretary of the Air Force, who also serves as the director of the NRO. As a result, the Air Force has primary responsibility for 1   Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization. 2001. Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, Washington, D.C., January 11. 2   Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense. 2003. “DOD Executive Agent for Space,” DOD Directive 5101.2, Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., June 3.

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities developing, acquiring, and fielding NSS systems that meet the operational needs of the DOD, and the NRO has primary responsibility for developing, acquiring, and fielding NSS systems for the wider national security effort as well as for providing support to the DOD. The Department of the Navy is a major user of space capabilities. Historically, the Navy filled a significant role in developing a broad range of space capabilities: navigation, communications, environmental, and other systems. These capabilities are now provided predominantly by the DOD, the Air Force, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Recent military operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq demonstrated again the need for naval forces to rely on national and commercial space capabilities (which played an essential role in joint operations). Subsequent to issuance of the 2001 Space Commission report, the Under Secretary of the Navy commissioned the Panel to Review Naval Space “to make a careful assessment of the Department of the Navy space policy and strategy to ensure that the maximum amount of operational space support is provided to naval warfighters.”3 In March 2002, the panel recommended that the Department of the Navy provide senior oversight, management, and participation in NSS organizations. In addition, the panel recommended that the Department of the Navy increase its technology investments in space, revitalize its space systems requirements process, and refocus the management of its naval space cadre. The present study serves, in part, as an extension of the work of the Panel to Review Naval Space. At issue are the Department of the Navy’s needs in space for providing future capabilities, taking into account its role in influencing the operational, technical, programmatic, and budgetary aspects of NSS programs. TERMS OF REFERENCE At the request of the Chief of Naval Operations, the National Research Council, under the auspices of the Naval Studies Board, conducted a study to examine the Department of the Navy’s needs in space for providing future operational and technical capabilities. Taking into account that joint operations will evolve to be more dependent on future naval capabilities, the study addressed the opportunities offered by and the implications of space, as well as addressing the following: Review future naval operational concepts (Sea Strike, Sea Shield, Sea Basing, and FORCEnet) and plans for naval (and joint) force use of space, and identify corresponding specific space and space-related needs; 3   Panel to Review Naval Space. 2002. Report of the Panel to Review Naval Space: Assured Space Capabilities for Critical Mission Support, Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, Va., March 19.

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities Evaluate corresponding naval space-related requirements as a means to employ those future naval operational concepts and plans, and compare the relation of space-related requirements to other requirements that compete for Department of the Navy funding; Examine the results of past and ongoing experiments designed to address naval unique space needs, and recommend future opportunities in experimentation for enhancing operational and technical system space-related capabilities; and Assess the Department of the Navy’s space technical expertise and space science and technology base, and identify research priorities in space for supporting future naval operational concepts. THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH The committee’s approach for examining the Department of the Navy’s needs in space for providing future capabilities is rooted in the first item in the terms of reference listed above. Specifically, by integrating the Navy and the Marine Corps visions—Sea Power 214 and Marine Corps Strategy 21,5 respectively—the Naval Operating Concept for Joint Operations, known informally as the NOC, describes how the Naval Services “will organize, deploy, employ, and sustain forces to conduct operations guided by the interrelated and complementary concepts of Sea Strike, Sea Shield, and Sea Basing integrated with the family of Marine Corps concepts, Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare, Operational Maneuver From the Sea, and Ship-to-Objective Maneuver; all of this will be enabled by FORCEnet.”6 As a result of this integration, the NOC’s description of the Navy’s Sea Strike concept, for example, takes into consideration Marine Corps concepts such as Operational Maneuver from the Sea and Ship-to-Objective Maneuver. In addition, the Department of the Navy’s capstone vision, Naval Power 21, articulates the naval transformational vision and integrates Sea Power 21 and Marine Corps Strategy 21 for the sea-air-land-and-space domain.7 And the recently released Marine Corps Concepts and Programs 2004 states that 4   ADM Vern Clark, USN, Chief of Naval Operations. 2002. “Sea Power 21,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, Vol. 128, No. 10, pp. 32-41. 5   Gen James L. Jones, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps. 1999. Marine Corps Strategy 21, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., July. 6   ADM Vern Clark, USN, Chief of Naval Operations; and Gen Michael W. Hagee, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps. 2003. Naval Operating Concept for Joint Operations, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., September 22, p. 3. 7   Gordon England, Secretary of the Navy; ADM Vern Clark, USN, Chief of Naval Operations; and Gen James L. Jones, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps. 2002. Naval Power 21 … A Naval Vision, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., October.

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities “seabasing effectively integrates the transformational thrust of Marine Corps Strategy 21 and the Navy’s Sea Power 21 visions.”8 Accordingly, for the purposes of this report, the committee elected to structure its examination of the Department of the Navy’s needs in space in terms of the Navy’s Sea Power 21 vision (i.e., those needs arising from Sea Strike, Sea Shield, Sea Basing, and FORCEnet). While the committee had access to a broad range of information on Navy and Navy-related space technology programs and systems, it was unable to fully address the charge in the second of the tasks listed above: to “compare the relation of space-related requirements to other requirements that compete for Department of the Navy funding.” Thus, the committee made recommendations consistent with establishing priorities among space-related requirements but did not seek to address priorities of space- versus non-space-related requirements. The Committee on the Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities first convened in June 2003 and held additional meetings over a period of 6 months, both to gather input from the relevant communities and to discuss the committee’s findings.9 Agendas for these meetings are provided in Appendix F. The months between the committee’s last meeting and the publication of the report were spent preparing the draft manuscript, gathering additional information, reviewing and responding to the external review comments, editing the report, and conducting the required security review necessary to produce an unclassified report. 8   Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps. 2004. Marine Corps Concepts and Programs 2004, Quantico, Va., p. 6. 9   During the entire course of its study, the committee held meetings in which it received (and discussed) classified materials. Accordingly, the information contained in this report has been restricted in order to produce an unclassified report.

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities 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: Timothy P. Coffey, National Defense University, Donald L. Cromer, Lt Gen, USAF (retired), Lompoc, California, Paul A. Fratarangelo, MajGen, USMC (retired), St. Pete Beach, Florida, Robert J. Hermann, Global Technology Partners, LLC, William E. Howard, McLean, Virginia, Alfred U. MacRae, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey, John C. Mather, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Marc Y.E. Pelaez, RADM, USN (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia, and John F. Vesecky, University of California, Santa Cruz. Although the reviewers listed above 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 Lee Hunt, Alexandria, Virginia. Appointed by the

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities 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.

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   INTRODUCTION   20      The Navy and Space, Past and Present,   20      Crosscutting Themes,   24      Organization of This Report,   28 2   STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK: FUTURE OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS AND SPACE NEEDS   29      Strategic Environment,   29      Sea Power 21 and Its Reliance on Space,   38      Space Policy,   59 3   ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: MEETING NAVAL SPACE NEEDS   62      The DOD Executive Agent for Space and New Management Structure,   64      Navy Space Support,   69 4   IMPLEMENTATION: NAVY SUPPORT TO SPACE MISSION AREAS   82      Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance,   83      Meteorology and Oceanography,   92      Theater and Ballistic Missile Defense of Naval Forces,   101

OCR for page R1
Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities      Space-Based Communications,   108      Position, Navigation, and Timing,   130      Space Control,   142 5   FULFILLING NAVAL FORCES SPACE NEEDS: A VISION   143     APPENDIXES         A   Department of the Navy History in Space   149     B   Department of Defense Directive 5101.2   165     C   Sea Power 21 Capability Areas: Assessment of Dependence on Space Mission Areas   177     D   Space Communications Systems and Capabilities   200     E   Biographies of Committee Members and Staff   219     F   Agendas for Committee Meetings   227     G   Acronyms and Abbreviations   243