DISTRIBUTED REMOTE SENSING FOR NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE

ABBREVIATED VERSION

Committee on Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare

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
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare DISTRIBUTED REMOTE SENSING FOR NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE ABBREVIATED VERSION Committee on Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare 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
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare 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. N00014-05-G-0288, DO #1 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-13: 978-0-309-10180-6 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-10180-8 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 2007 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare 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 amandate 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 theNational 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
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare COMMITTEE ON DISTRIBUTED REMOTE SENSING FOR NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE ARTHUR B. BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Co-chair BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies, Co-chair JAMES G. BELLINGHAM, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute E. ANN BERMAN, Tri-Space, Incorporated D. RICHARD BLIDBERG, Autonomous Undersea Systems Institute DANIEL R. BOWLER, Lockheed Martin Corporation DAVID L. BRADLEY, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University ALBERT H. KONETZNI, JR., Martinez, Georgia WILLIAM A. LaPLANTE, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University TERRY P. LEWIS, Raytheon Company THOMAS V. McNAMARA, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California DOUGLAS R. MOOK, The Aptec Group JOHN E. RHODES, Balboa, California JAMES WARD, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology DANA R. YOERGER, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director ARUL MOZHI, Study Director IAN M. CAMERON, Associate Program Officer (through May 21, 2007) SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer AYANNA N. VEST, Senior Program Assistant (through June 9, 2006) SIDNEY G. REED, JR., Consultant RAYMOND S. WIDMAYER, Consultant

OCR for page R1
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare NAVAL STUDIES BOARD JOHN F. EGAN, Nashua, New Hampshire, Chair MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories, Vice Chair ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies LEE HAMMARSTROM, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University KERRIE L. HOLLEY, IBM Global Services JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University HARRY W. JENKINS, JR., Gainesville, Virginia EDWARD H. KAPLAN, Yale University THOMAS V. McNAMARA, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Solvang, California GENE H. PORTER, Nashua, New Hampshire JOHN S. QUILTY, Oakton, Virginia J. PAUL REASON, Washington, D.C. JOHN P. STENBIT, Oakton, Virginia RICHARD L. WADE, Exponent JAMES WARD, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology DAVID A. WHELAN, The Boeing Company CINDY WILLIAMS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology ELIHU ZIMET, Gaithersburg, Maryland Navy Liaison Representatives RADM SAMUEL J. LOCKLEAR III, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through October 13, 2005) RDML DAN W. DAVENPORT, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of October 14, 2005) RADM JAY M. COHEN, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N091 (through January 19, 2006) RADM WILLIAM E. LANDAY III, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N091 (as of January 20, 2006) Marine Corps Liaison Representative LTGEN JAMES N. MATTIS, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (through August 3, 2006) LTGEN JAMES F. AMOS, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (as of August 4, 2006)

OCR for page R1
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare Staff CHARLES F. DRAPER, Director ARUL MOZHI, Senior Program Officer EUGENE J. CHOI, Program Officer (through May 18, 2007) IAN M. CAMERON, Associate Program Officer (through May 21, 2007) SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Coordinator MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer AYANNA N. VEST, Senior Program Assistant (through June 9, 2006)

OCR for page R1
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare Preface This study responds to the request from the former Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) that the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Naval Studies Board conduct an assessment of distributed remote sensing (DRS) for naval undersea warfare.1 This request occurs at a time when the overarching guidance from Naval Power 21 articulates the need for the Department of the Navy to ensure access worldwide for military operations.2 Quiet diesel electric submarines and increasingly sophisticated mines available to potential enemies are a threat to such access, especially for missions involving port ingress and egress, rapid transit through choke points, and operations in deep as well as shallow littoral waters. The Department of the Navy has reorganized to give undersea warfare (USW) greater prominence and has conducted several experiments to explore the potential of new DRS approaches to improve its capability to counter the antisubmarine warfare (ASW) threat.3 The CNO Guidance for 2006 includes the objective of ensuring the ability to detect and hold at risk adversary submarines and of shortening the detection-to-engagement time line in both deep and shallow waters. The CNO has been encouraging the rapid prototyping of enabling 1 ADM Vern Clark, USN, CNO, letter dated April 18, 2005, to Dr. Bruce M. Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences. 2 Hon. 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, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C. 3 See John R. Benedict. 2005. “The Unraveling and Revitalization of U.S. Navy Antisubmarine Warfare,” Naval War College Review, Spring, pp. 93-120.

OCR for page R1
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare technologies to accomplish that goal, and CNO Guidance for 2006 emphasizes the key role of improved sensors in meeting that objective.4 For the mine threat, which may require avoidance, rapid detection, and clearance of large numbers of mines, the use of DRS systems for persistent surveillance and cooperative, multiple, mobile sensors is needed to define areas of safe maneuver and safe passage rapidly, as described in the FY07 U.S. Naval Mine Countermeasures (MCM) Plan.5 The Naval Transformation Roadmap, which guides these efforts, states that transformational efforts in ASW are “focused on and planned for developing new operational concepts that leverage advanced technologies to improve broad-area surveillance, detection, localization, tracking, and attack capabilities against quiet adversary submarines,”6 and that tranformational countermine warfare efforts will “employ sophisticated, networked unmanned surface, air, and underwater vehicles equipped with advanced technology systems … to quickly avoid or enter and safely clear dangerous mined areas.”7 Previous reports of the Naval Studies Board, such as Mine Countermeasures Technology (U); Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035, Volume 7: Undersea Warfare; and Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces,8 have recommended that high priority be accorded the development of networked, distributed sensor fields, including unmanned platforms for submarine detection and mine countermeasures (MCM), or, more appropriately, countermine warfare.9 The essential features of a DRS system for USW include the following: a sensor field involving a number of fixed and/or moving nodes to conduct sur- 4 Chief of Naval Operations (ADM Michael Mullen, USN). 2005. CNO Guidance for 2006: Meeting the Challenge of a New Era, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., October 30, p. 5. 5 Department of the Navy. 2006. FY07 U.S. Naval Mine Countermeasures (MCM) Plan: Vision, Roadmap, and Program, Washington, D.C., February. 6 Hon. 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 Transformation Roadmap, Power and Access … From the Sea, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., February 6, p. 19. 7 Hon. 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 Transformation Roadmap, Power and Access … From the Sea, Department of the Navy, Washington, D.C., February 6, p. 21. 8 Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, 1993, Mine Countermeasures Technology (U), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (classified); Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, 1997, Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force, Volume 7: Undersea Warfare, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, 2001, Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 9 The term “countermine warfare” includes not only local measures to detect and clear mines, but also the intelligence and other support activities important to countering the threat of mines at sea and in the approaches to shore.

OCR for page R1
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare veillance, detection, and localization of submarines or mines; communications links to transmit data from the sensor subsystem to a processing facility or unit; and a communications center to receive results from the processing facility or unit, to combine them with other intelligence for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), and in a time of hostilities to cue available attack assets to locations where targets can be found more precisely and attacked or neutralized. On the battlefield, all of these systems must carry out their functions for DRS to be effective. DRS systems can be deployed before or during hostilities and can be fixed, drifting, or propelled. There are now several examples of sensor nodes, but not systems, that have the attributes listed above. No single type of sensor alone is adequate to the task, although under the surface of the water acoustic sensors dominate the tactical sensors. Acoustic sensors are divided into passive and active categories. All other sensors are included in the category nonacoustic sensors. Multiple independent detections of a target are very effective at providing a high probability of detection at a low false-alarm rate. For that reason and because various sensors have complementary capabilities, multisensor fields can offer advantages in demanding situations, although their use may limit detection ranges, since some sensors excel at greater detection ranges but with less precision. The use of more sensors can help only if each is treated within its performance envelope. Historically, the Navy has operated a number of distributed remote sensing systems for ASW. Air-dropped sonobuoys have become increasingly sophisticated since their first use in World War II. At first passive, sonobuoy systems can now involve active sources. During the Cold War, the Navy operated the long-range Sound Surveillance System—a passive DRS system.10 Passive acoustic sensor arrays are towed by Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System (SURTASS) ships and submarines, with increased capability for signal processing and networking, specifically in deeper water. When the Soviets quieted their submarines in the 1980s, the response of the U.S. Navy was to develop short-range passive, acoustic arrays for deployment on the ocean bottom in critical operational areas. The Fixed Distributed System (FDS) connects a number of distributed sensor clusters by cable with one another and to a signal-processing and communications center on land. The FDS’s location is necessarily limited to areas and times in which it is safe to deploy. The follow-on Advanced Deployable System (ADS) has similar technology, is designed to be deployable by ship or submarine in deep or shallow water, and connects (by cable) to a processing and communications buoy on the surface. DRS systems can include nonacoustic sensors able to detect submarine-associated emissions or phenomena. The question addressed in the present study is this: Can the U.S. Navy use its 10 All DRS ASW systems have not been acoustic. During World War II, the 10th Fleet exploited high-frequency electromagnetic emission from German submarines, intercepted by distributed fixed U.S. and British stations, to help win the Second Battle of the Atlantic.

OCR for page R1
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare advanced distributed remote sensing technology effectively to counter the threats it faces in carrying out its mission? At issue are the technical feasibility, concept of operations, networked-systems definition, processing requirements, cost, and effectiveness measures for DRS in support of specific undersea warfare missions. While all of these are very challenging technically, the deliberations of the NRC’s Committee on Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare led to a positive answer; nevertheless, significant research and development (R&D) as well as training need to be carried out for advanced DRS technology to be used routinely by fleet operators. TERMS OF REFERENCE At the request of the former Chief of Naval Operations,11 the Naval Studies Board of the National Research Council conducted an assessment of distributed remote sensing for naval undersea warfare. Specifically, the study assessed the following topic areas: Undersea (antisubmarine and countermine) warfare missions in future operating areas, including for port access and egress, transit through choke points, and in shallow/sloping harsh acoustic littoral environments. Range of current approaches of DRS, and their utility in possible concepts of operation for accomplishing specific undersea warfare missions. Status and anticipated improvements in underwater sensors and communications for DRS and related platforms for specific undersea warfare missions. DRS requirements (sensor numbers, concept of employment, characteristics, target signature exploitation, aperture, connectivity, processing, longevity, latency of reporting, false alarm control measures, covertness/counterdetection, survivability, and reliability) to provide capabilities needed for specific undersea warfare missions. Technology for fusion capabilities of information from the underwater and above water sensors, and relationship to network-centric operations (FORCEnet, Global Information Grid). Underwater sensors and balance of vehicles to fixed nodes, including technology limitations affecting use of multiple unmanned undersea vehicles. Critical technologies, performance measures, and scaling relationships associated with DRS networks for specific undersea warfare missions. Expectations for improvements in applicable network technology and wireless connectivity, including information to engaged systems and decision making. Other operational factors such as ability for covert and rapid deployment, environmental sensitivity (including biological effects for active sonar systems), system, network and information security, training, and end-to-end logistics. 11 ADM Vern Clark, USN, CNO, letter dated April 18, 2005, to Dr. Bruce M. Alberts, President, National Academy of Sciences.

OCR for page R1
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare THE COMMITTEE’S APPROACH This report aims to provide a clear, near-term path by which useful distributed remote sensing systems can be applied rapidly to pressing naval undersea warfare problems and by which ongoing science and technology efforts can be channeled toward the most useful ends. The approach of the committee was to create a tentative priority ranking of DRS applications by listing the key missions and matching these missions to the art of the possible. What is possible is a balance of what exists, what has been tried, and what can be operationally deployed in the near term taking into account constraints such as cost, technology maturity, and rules of engagement. The committee’s hypotheses were then tested with strawman concepts and scenarios. In its approach, the committee considered that DRS systems can be of great near-term use for naval missions, particularly those outlined below: Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in hostile littorals; Barriers for detection and cueing; Support for sea base protection; and Scouting and surveillance of high-risk transit routes. During its assessment of DRS systems for naval undersea warfare, the committee focused on the ASW problem because that threat is growing rapidly and is new as far as the quiet, diesel electric submarines are concerned. Since two prior studies have addressed the countermine warfare topic,12 the committee did not devote extensive attention to this issue. Instead, it concentrated on (1) reviewing the status of the Navy MCM program and comparing it with the recommendations in the two previous studies, and (2) considering briefly how the resulting planned organic MCM systems could be harnessed to compose DRS systems. The committee (biographies of its members are provided in Appendix A) first convened in June 2005 and held additional meetings over a period of 7 months, both to gather input from the relevant communities and to discuss the committee’s findings and recommendations.13 Summary agendas for these meetings are provided in Appendix B. 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/public release review necessary to produce this version of the report that does not disclose information as described 12 Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, 2001, Naval Mine Warfare: Operational and Technical Challenges for Naval Forces, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.; Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command, 2002, Mine Warfare—The Way Ahead: Long Range Planning and Concepts, Norfolk, Va., February 5. 13 During the entire course of its study, the committee held meetings in which it received (and discussed) materials that are exempt from release under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).

OCR for page R1
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare in 5 U.S.C. 552(b). It was mutually determined by the Department of the Navy and the National Research Council that the full report contained information as described in 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and therefore could not be released to the public in its entirety.

OCR for page R1
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare Acknowledgment of Reviewers National Research Council (NRC) reports are reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the 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 reports as sound as possible and to ensure that the reports meet institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscripts remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. Although the reviewers provide many constructive comments and suggestions, they are not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor do they see the final draft of reports before release. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of the draft report: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Joseph Henry Laboratories, Princeton University, Nicholas P. Chotiros, Applied Research Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin, Henry Cox, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Douglas J. Katz, VADM, USN (retired), Annapolis, Maryland, John G. Schuster, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Robert C. Spindel, University of Washington, Lawrence D. Stone, Metron, Inc., and William A. Whitlow, MajGen, USMC (retired), Titan Corporation.

OCR for page R1
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare The review of the draft report was overseen by Robert J. Hermann, Global Technology Partners, LLC. Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the draft report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of NRC reports rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

OCR for page R1
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare Contents     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1     APPENDIXES          A  Committee and Staff Biographies   17      B  Summary of Committee Meeting Agendas   22      C  Acronyms and Abbreviations   24

OCR for page R1
Distributed Remote Sensing for Naval Undersea Warfare This page intentionally left blank.