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

This page intentionally left blank.

This page intentionally left blank.

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

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.

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;

• 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 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

“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.

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:

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

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.