required that will allow cost-benefit tradeoffs to drive the establishment of focused research objectives. The committee also believes that independent identification of alternative domestic radar strategies is needed. A thorough and independent cost-benefit analysis of MPAR and those alternatives would be in the nation’s best interest.

BOX S.2

Recommendations from the Joint Action Group for Phased Array Radar Project JAG/PARP Report

Recommendation 1: The FCMSSR should endorse the concept of an MPAR risk-reduction R&D program that substantially incorporates the objectives and the three components of the plan outlined in chapter 6 of this report.


Recommendation 2: The FCMSSR should consider organizational options to foster collaborative and joint R&D on the MPAR risk reduction activities by establishing a joint entity, such as a Joint National Center for advanced Radar Research and Development, to manage agencies’ contributions to the risk reduction program outlined in this report.


Recommendation 3: For the period prior to standup of a joint management entity, the FCMSSR should direct OFCM to form an interagency MPAR Working Group (WG/MPAR) within the OFCM infrastructure to coordinate and report on the R&D activities of participating agencies in implementing an MPAR risk-reduction program. Activities of the WG/MPAR should include, but not be limited to:

  • Identification of agency contributions to the first phase of risk-reduction activities in each component prong of the program.

  • Establish a cost basis for near-term agency contributions, sufficient to allow incorporation into agency budget submissions.

  • Explore options to foster interagency cooperation and collaboration on MPAR risk-reduction activities.

  • Develop a set of specific program progress metrics against which annual progress toward risk-reduction goals and objectives can be assessed.

  • Prepare and publish an annual statement of the next-year objectives and activities for the risk-reduction program. This annual statement should include a review of progress in the current year and connections to out-year activities and objectives, to show how each year’s activities contribute toward achieving the overall risk-reduction goals. As guidance to the participating agencies, the report should include an estimate of budget resources needed for the next-year activities and a summary of prior-year funding by agency. Progress toward goals and objectives, using the program metrics, should be reported each year, with an analysis of areas of shortfall and substantial progress.

  • Identify opportunities for review of program plans and progress by appropriate boards or study committees of the National Academies’ National Research Council.

  • Prepare and publish an MPAR Education and Outreach Plan to build understanding of and garner support for a national surveillance radar strategy decision within all the potentially affected federal agencies, Congress, state and local governmental entities, the private sector, and the public. This plan should involve the academic community and the media and include dissemination of results from the NRC studies suggested above. A series of workshops, coordinated through the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), should be considered for engaging the academic research community.

Recommendation 4: The FCMSSR should direct that, in conjunction with the MPAR risk-reduction program, a cost-benefit analysis be undertaken to establish the cost-effectiveness of the MPAR option and competing domestic radar strategies. The basis for MPAR acquisition and life-cycle costs should include results from the technology development and test activities and the MPAR network refinement, as appropriate.



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