Review of Directed Energy Technology for Countering Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars (RAM): Abbreviated Version (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

REview of Directed Energy Technology for Countering Rockets, Artillery, and Mortars (RAM) A bb r e v iated Ve r si o n Committee on Directed Energy Technology for Countering Indirect Weapons Board on Army Science and Technology Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences 

The National Academies PresS   500 Fifth St., 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. W911NF-06-C-0184 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Army. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recom- mendations 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:  978-0-309-11171-3 International Standard Book Number-10:  0-309-11171-4 Limited copies of this report are available from Additional copies are available from Board on Army Science and Technology The National Academies Press National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Room 940 Washington, DC 20055 Washington, DC 20001 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (202) 334-3118 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet, http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America 

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 man- date 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. Charles M. Vest 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 examina- tion 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 sci- entific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Acad- emies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org 



COMMITTEE ON DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY FOR COUNTERING INDIRECT WEAPONS MILLARD F. ROSE, Chair, Radiance Technologies, Inc., Auburn, Alabama RETTIG P. BENEDICT, JR., Schafer Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico ROBERT L. BYER, Stanford University, California GREGORY H. CANAVAN, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge ALEC D. GALLIMORE, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor NARAIN G. HINGORANI, Consultant, Los Altos Hills, California CAROL LIVERMORE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MADELEINE L. NAUDEAU, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico GEORGE W. SUTTON, SPARTA, Inc., Arlington, Virginia CARSON W. TAYLOR, Consultant, Portland, Oregon MICHAEL D. WILLIAMS, Clark Atlanta University, Georgia Staff MARGARET N. NOVACK, Study Director NORMAN HALLER, Consultant JAMES C. MYSKA, Senior Research Associate SARAH PELLEGRIN, Senior Program Assistant (until August 2007)  

BOARD ON ARMY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MALCOLM R. O’NEILL, Chair, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Vienna, Virginia ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Vice Chair, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge RAJ AGGARWAL, Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, Iowa SETH BONDER, The Bonder Group, Ann Arbor, Michigan JAMES CARAFANO, The Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C. ROBERT L. CATTOI, Rockwell International Corporation (retired), Dallas, Texas DARRELL W. COLLIER, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/ Army Forces Strategic Command (retired), Leander, Texas ROBERT R. EVERETT, MITRE Corporation (retired), New Seabury, Massachusetts PATRICIA K. FALCONE, Sandia National Laboratories, Livermore, California WILLIAM R. GRAHAM, National Security Research, Inc. (retired), San Marino, California PETER F. GREEN, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor CARL GUERRERI, Electronic Warfare Associates, Inc., Herndon, Virginia M. FREDERICK HAWTHORNE, University of Missouri, Columbia MARY JANE IRWIN, Pennsylvania State University, University Park CLARENCE W. KITCHENS, Science Applications International Corporation, Vienna, Virginia LARRY LEHOWICZ, Quantum Research International, Arlington, Virginia JOHN W. LYONS, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (retired), Ellicott City, Maryland EDWARD K. REEDY, Georgia Tech Research Institute (retired), Atlanta DENNIS J. REIMER, DFI International, Washington, D.C. WALTER D. SINCOSKIE, Telcordia Technologies, Inc., Morristown, New Jersey JUDITH L. SWAIN, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California WILLIAM R. SWARTOUT, Institute for Creative Technologies, Marina del Rey, California EDWIN L. THOMAS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge ELLEN D. WILLIAMS, University of Maryland, College Park Staff BRUCE A. BRAUN, Director CHRIS JONES, Financial Associate DONNA RANDALL, Administrative Coordinator (until July 2007) DEANNA P. SPARGER, Program Administrative Coordinator vi 

Preface Rockets, artillery, and mortars (RAM) have been mainstays of the world’s military forces for hundreds of years. Historical approaches against RAM can be grouped as either purely defensive (e.g., taking cover in foxholes, bunkers, or armored vehicles) or offensive (e.g., attacking the launchers and guns). The U.S. military’s approach to countering these weapons has primarily been one of counterbattery fire, which is consistent with traditional offensive strategies of taking the fight to the enemy. The tactical calculus that favors one or the other of these approaches changes when the RAM targets are civilian populations rather than military formations and encampments. As illustrated in the fighting in southern Lebanon and north- ern Israel in 2006, the indiscriminate use of rockets and mortars against civilian populations, when combined with widespread press coverage, can turn low-cost tactical weapons into ones of strategic significance. Political pressures to stop at- tacks against civilians, even attacks that cause relatively little damage, can force major changes not just in tactics but also in the major strategic decisions on how and when to fight. The need to defend civilians against RAM and the relative ineffectiveness of conventional counterforce approaches against irregular forces embedded in civilian populations imply that counterrocket, -artillery, -mortar (counter-RAM) technologies may be much more important to the United States and its allies than had been thought. A high-energy laser (HEL) system may be an attractive solution to this problem since, unlike kinetic approaches, a laser generates little or no collateral damage from debris. Recent advances in power scaling, thermal management, and efficiency, together with the short wavelength and inherently excellent beam quality, make solid-state lasers (SSLs) an attractive candidate for vii 

viii PREFACE tactical weapons. This new application would bring with it new requirements, new opportunities, and new imperatives. As one example, a compact mobile defense system is needed to protect an army on the go, but civilian defense can certainly be provided by bulky, relatively immobile systems that are easier to realize. Other detailed system-level requirements such as coverage, range, and targets per minute may differ as well, with significant implications for technology readiness, resources required for development, and entry-into-service dates. Altogether, an SSL weapon system that could counter RAM would be a tool of national importance. If one existed today, it would be in great demand in many places around the world. The value to the nation of such a strategic system adds to the value that accrues from existing requirements for the tactical defense of military formations and installations. For decades the possibility has been raised that lasers could be used to d ­ efend strategic ground-based targets against offensive weapons launched at them; e ­ xamples would be population centers or military-industrial complexes attacked by intercontinental ballistic missiles. More recently there have also been sugges- tions that lasers could be used in a theater of conflict to defend tactical military targets that are attacked by RAM, which have a shorter range. This more recent concept has the added significance of providing strategic defense if the target of the shorter-range attack is a population or government center in a more limited theater of conflict, such as in the Middle East. This study focuses on the use of lasers to defend against rockets, artillery, and mortars, a mission labeled counter-RAM. Specifically, the U.S. Army is develop- ing lasers that could be used as part of a defensive overlay of fixed installations. The technology under development employs solid-state laser devices, which use electricity to produce the laser beams, in contrast to the more mature laser devices, which use a chemical reaction to produce their beam and have already been tested for the counter-RAM mission. SSLs offer the advantage of eliminating depen- dency on an accompanying suite of chemicals in a tactical military environment. However, they require instead the transport of heavy equipment to generate the very large amount of electricity needed to operate the laser. Statement of Task The U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command asked the National Research Council (NRC) to accomplish the study tasks listed below: Identify and provide recommendations concerning the quality and complementarities of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command (SMDC/ARSTRAT) and related technical efforts, including assessment of the effective- ness of DE Solid-state Laser (SSL) Weapon System Concepts in a counter rocket, artillery, and mortar (RAM) application. The following issues will be addressed: 

PREFACE ix •  he assessment of technological maturity of each subsystem versus the level T r ­ equired for maturation of DE SSL Weapon System Concepts; •  he complementarities between the various pieces of the Army directed energy T (DE) technology effort, including the solid-state laser device, the beam control/fire control element, and the system engineering/integration effort; •  he adequacy of the phenomenological base, including presently available data T and ongoing research to validate the effectiveness against RAM targets of laser weapons with the envisioned characteristics; •  he credibility and adequacy of supporting technologies, including mobility and T power generation/conditioning, being independently funded and developed by both the Army and others; •  he benefits which would accrue from maturation of related Directed Energy T e ­ fforts at DARPA, other Services, DOE, or elsewhere; •  he sufficiency of Army budgets and allotted schedule to ensure adequate techno- T logical maturation and evaluation of a weapons prototype; •  he assessments of mission effectiveness of the DE SSL Weapon System Concepts; T and •  he assessments of risk to overhead airborne and space platforms posed by DE T SSL Weapon System concept. To perform this task, the NRC established the Committee on Directed Energy Technology for Countering Indirect Weapons, informally called the Directed En- ergy Committee, in December 2006. The committee included experts in physics, high-energy lasers, mechanical and electrical engineering, systems engineering, electric power generation, fluid mechanics, program management, military opera- tions, risk management, and technology integration and management (see Appen- dix A for biographies of the committee members). The committee operated under the auspices of the NRC’s Board on Army Science and Technology (BAST). Given that the committee would require access to classified national security information in the course of the study and that it would also require access to other information that is exempt from public disclosure under the Freedom of Informa- tion Act (5 U.S.C.§552, as amended by Public Law 104-231, 110 Stat. 3048), all members were required to have a Department of Defense security clearance. The committee deeply appreciates the cooperation of the Army sponsor and the many government agencies and defense contractors that provided informa- tion during the conduct of this study. The committee is also very grateful to the dedicated staff of the NRC who worked tirelessly to assist the committee. Finally, the chair is especially thankful for the diligent efforts of the committee members, who completed this study under a rigorous time schedule. This report is the product of their efforts and represents a consensus view of the solid-state- laser technologies. Role of the Board The members of BAST, listed on p. vi, were not asked to endorse the committee’s conclusions or recommendations, nor did they review the final draft 

 PREFACE of this report before its release. (Board members with appropriate expertise may nevertheless be nominated to serve as formal members of study committees or as report reviewers.) Established in 1982 by the National Academies at the request of the U.S. Army, BAST brings broad military, industrial, and academic experience and scientific, engineering, and management expertise to bear on Army technical challenges and other issues of importance to senior Army leaders. The board dis- cusses studies that might be of interest; develops and frames statements of task; ensures proper project planning; suggests potential members of study committees, which are fully independent, ad hoc bodies; proposes reviewers of reports; and convenes meetings to examine and discuss strategic issues. COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES The first meeting for the committee was conducted near the headquarters of SMDC/ARSTRAT in Huntsville, Alabama. The second and third were conducted at the National Academies’ Keck Center in Washington, D.C. The fourth and final meeting was conducted at the National Academies’ Beckman Center in Irvine, California. (See Appendix B for dates and agendas.) The committee received briefings from the following government agencies and defense contractors: • U.S. Army Air and Missile Defense Battle Laboratory; •  .S. Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development, & Engineering U Center; • U.S. Army Research Laboratory; •  .S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic U Command; •  .S. Army Tank-Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering U Center; • U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory; • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; • Missile Defense Agency; • BAE Systems; • Boeing Missile Defense Systems; • DRS-TEM, Inc.; • Lockheed Martin Corporation; • Northrop Grumman Corporation; • Raytheon Corporation; and • Textron Defense Corporation. The months between the committee’s last meeting and the publication of the report were spent gathering additional information, preparing the draft manu- script, reviewing and responding to the external review comments, editing the 

PREFACE xi report, and conducting the required security classification review necessary to produce this Abbreviated Version of the report, which does not disclose infor- mation as described in 5 U.S.C.§552(b). It was mutually determined by the SMDC/ARSTRAT and the NRC that the full report might contain information as described in 5 U.S.C.§552(b) and therefore could not be released to the public in its entirety. Millard F. Rose, Chair Committee on Directed Energy Technology for Countering Indirect Weapons 



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 ap- proved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The pur- pose 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: Thomas Ball, Naval Directed Energy and Electric Weapons Program Office; R. Michael Dowe, Jr., Information Systems Laboratories; William E. Howard III, Army Space and Strategic Technology Division (retired); Edward Moses, Lawrence Livermore Lincoln Laboratories; F. Robert Naka, CERA, Inc.; Malcolm O’Neill, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired); Quentin E. Saulter, Air Force Research Laboratory/Directed Energy; Edl Schamiloglu, University of New Mexico; John T. Schriempf, Naval Directed Energy and Electric Weapons Program Office; and John C. Sommerer, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive com- ments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recom- xiii 

xiv ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS mendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Harold K. Forsen, Bechtel Corporation (retired). 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 care- fully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. 

Contents SUMMARY 1 Appendixes A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 11 B Committee Meetings 19 C Abbreviations and Acronyms 24 D Definitions of Technology Readiness Levels 26 xv