7

Entering Wedges of Capability to Shape the Naval Forces of 2000 to 2035

Because the naval forces are built around major platforms that cost billions of dollars to acquire, the current view of the forces' prospects tends to emphasize the constraints, mainly fiscal constraints, that make it difficult to undertake major new directions of force evolution. However, in the spirit of the ongoing restructuring of all industry and government to enhance our competitiveness on the world scene, this can also be viewed as a time of opportunity for renewal and change to better meet the challenges we face. There are some similarities between the current period and the period before World War II, when a lack of resources and a lack of perceived need by the public and government officials kept the armed forces at a very low level.

Even in that constrained environment the “entering wedges” of essential military capability—prototype bombers and fighters, aircraft carriers, amphibious landing craft, radar, nuclear fission—were there to be fully developed and become the decisive systems in winning the war. So, too, in fiscally constrained times such as these, we can prepare the entering wedges of naval force capability to help the forces meet the challenges and hedge against the uncertainties of the future. In the current case, the beginnings of the key capabilities are already with us. The task is to bring these capabilities into a form and a level of operational competence within the naval forces that enables them to be exercised, used in action, proven, and become the basis for military success by forces in being and for force expansion should that become necessary.

In keeping with this philosophical approach, this study has identified the following entering wedges of capability as the most important for future naval force evolution:



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 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force 7 Entering Wedges of Capability to Shape the Naval Forces of 2000 to 2035 Because the naval forces are built around major platforms that cost billions of dollars to acquire, the current view of the forces' prospects tends to emphasize the constraints, mainly fiscal constraints, that make it difficult to undertake major new directions of force evolution. However, in the spirit of the ongoing restructuring of all industry and government to enhance our competitiveness on the world scene, this can also be viewed as a time of opportunity for renewal and change to better meet the challenges we face. There are some similarities between the current period and the period before World War II, when a lack of resources and a lack of perceived need by the public and government officials kept the armed forces at a very low level. Even in that constrained environment the “entering wedges” of essential military capability—prototype bombers and fighters, aircraft carriers, amphibious landing craft, radar, nuclear fission—were there to be fully developed and become the decisive systems in winning the war. So, too, in fiscally constrained times such as these, we can prepare the entering wedges of naval force capability to help the forces meet the challenges and hedge against the uncertainties of the future. In the current case, the beginnings of the key capabilities are already with us. The task is to bring these capabilities into a form and a level of operational competence within the naval forces that enables them to be exercised, used in action, proven, and become the basis for military success by forces in being and for force expansion should that become necessary. In keeping with this philosophical approach, this study has identified the following entering wedges of capability as the most important for future naval force evolution:

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Making information systems and operations central to all others; Giving individual sailors and Marines more force-multiplying technical capability, more responsibility, and wider influence on the battlefield and in the battle area; Strengthening the combat fleet by: Preparing a family of rocket-propelled attack missiles capable of fast response, a high rate of fire, long range, high accuracy, and low cost; Changing surface combatant and submarine designs to use such missiles most effectively, and to capitalize on the technological opportunity to increase efficiency and effectiveness; And concurrently, preparing new directions for naval aviation; Expanding the techniques of undersea warfare; Preparing new approaches to operations by military forces in populated areas; Reengineering the logistic system for Operational Maneuver From the Sea (OMFTS); Making modeling and simulation integral to all system acquisition, force preparation, and operational decisions; and Ensuring a focused, sustained research and development program to enable and support all of the other entering wedges of capability. All of these entering wedges of capability are deemed critically important to shaping future naval forces. With one exception (a research and development program), they are listed in rough order of priority that would be accorded for allocation of resources, although preferably some useful level of resources could be applied to each. The rationale for the priority order is straightforward. In the first rank are information and people. Information is first, because without it, the forces will not know where to go, whom to engage, and how to fight. People are next, because it is people, with weapon and support systems at their disposal, who fight and win wars, or ensure that wars are deterred. To help ensure effective use of resources in the resource-constrained environment they face, the naval forces are planning for more effective use of people. Next in order are the weapon systems that constitute the strength of the fighting forces; this capability includes, on roughly the same level of priority, the surface and air systems, the undersea systems, and the most important parts of the land combat systems that will allow implementation of the full force capability described above. Following—but not much lower in importance because strategy, schedules, and success in military operations are often driven by logistics—is the forces' essential support. Also at this level, attention is needed to modeling and simulation, the technology tool that is basic to the successful creation of all major systems and enterprises today. Although ensuring focused, sustained levels of research and development is

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force listed last, it in fact undergirds the list—without it, the others cannot be accomplished. INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND OPERATIONS The Centrality of Information in Warfare The naval forces' environment includes U.S. military forces and others that may be allied, friendly, neutral, or antagonistic; military facilities with which the naval forces may have to interact in friendly or hostile fashion; surrounding and intermixed civilian activities and facilities; and factors in the physical environment, such as weather and ocean conditions, that can affect force operations. Information about all these elements is derived from thousands of sources— from human and technical intelligence, space-based observations, sensors deployed by the fleet and by troops ashore and other Services and civilian bodies, and stored or newly generated analyses that can give historical perspective and deeper insights than simple observations alone. The precision and timeliness of the information, used for purposes ranging from devising strategies and tactics to controlling operational force movements to precision targeting for weapon systems, are becoming ever more critical in modern crisis resolution, conflict, and other military operations. Observation and processing capacities and the ability to communicate the results to multiple users are growing explosively with modern sensing, computing, and communications technologies. Today's military forces exist in a mass of information—an “infosphere”—that is essential to their existence and their effective functioning. All naval force elements must be designed to operate in this information environment. Only if they can capitalize on it to create a complete and accurate picture of their current and projected future situations—more complete, accurate, and timely than their opponents can assemble at any time— can our naval forces, limited in size but with worldwide responsibilities, carry out their tasks effectively. This means that the information-in-warfare system must be considered and treated as one of the major combat systems, just as are the forces ' ships, aircraft, or weapon systems. Indeed, in addition to being an important element of all other combat systems, the information-in-warfare system is the fundamental combat system that integrates and propels all the others. The system design must therefore include the doctrine and the organizational capacity to ensure gathering and distribution of information where and when it is needed. Many of the data sources, and large portions of the communications networks, will be operated by others and therefore will not be under direct naval force control. The naval forces will have to work within this joint system, contribute their own system elements for others' use as well as their own, and integrate their own subsystems

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force at purely Navy and Marine command levels to operate with the entire “system of systems.” The Information-in-Warfare System Information sources include proliferated sensors in all media—ultraviolet, visible, infrared, and acoustic—as well as radar and electronic intelligence (ELINT) receivers. The sensors are deployed in space, at high and low altitudes in the atmosphere on UAVs and manned aircraft, with the forces on the ground and on the sea, and under the sea—in and over friendly, neutral, or enemy territory. They are fielded and operated by many civilian and military agencies, including, among others: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The National Security Agency (NSA), The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), The Defense Aerial Reconnaissance Office (DARO), The National Image and Mapping Agency (NIMA), and Various military Service agencies and elements, including but not limited to those of the naval forces, as well as Information sources among our coalition partners, whose inputs must be integrated with those of U.S. agencies in reciprocal arrangements. All have access to diverse resources and mission responsibilities under national, regional CINC, and local force command. The flow of information to and from all these sensors must be networked so that data derived from the multiple sources can be correlated in time and space. The information the sensors gather must be processed, analyzed, and distributed to various nodes where it can be used directly or in further analysis to serve various users' specific needs. The networks of sensors and processing nodes must permit adaptive tasking, so that data from sensors and analysis of information can be combined effectively for specific purposes in specific areas, while surveillance is maintained in all other areas of interest. Indeed, surveillance, supported by appropriate processing, must be maintained in areas that might be of interest, and there must be alerting mechanisms to indicate when those areas merit attention. The exchange of information among sensors that is entailed in netting them, and transmission of the raw or processed information to users will require sturdy communications networks that have enormous capacity, in both bandwidth and data rate. Although it is difficult to specify the information transmission capacity needed, because requirements are growing exponentially, two facts about the evolution of future communications technology are essential for the military forces, including the naval forces, to comprehend in planning their communica-

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force tions: (1) civilian communications networks are rapidly surpassing military networks in bandwidth, capacity, and rate of growth; and (2) the attending technological developments will outstrip the evolution of military communications technology, except in specialized areas such as resistance to jamming, the need for special security, and hardening against nuclear effects. Thus civilian communications technologies, including satellite, terrestrial fiber, and wireless communications, will play a dominant role in future military communications. Given its expanding needs, the military simply will not have the resources to establish parallel nodes and networks of the required capacity, but by adopting and adapting civilian communications technology and networks, the military needs for bandwidth and data rate, whatever they may become, will largely be met. Using civilian communications technology to meet military needs and integrating it with military communications will not be as easy as connecting with the Internet, however. The most expeditious and economical approach will be to acquire commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment and subsystems for all but specialized applications. In adapting the forces and their procedures to use of COTS equipment and subsystems with their inherent characteristics, the military forces will have to create a seamless integration of terrestrial fiber, satellite, and tactical wireless communications composed of diverse commercial and military subsystems. They will have to ensure the availability of surge capacity and priority access when many of the available communication channels may be taken up with ongoing civilian business. They will have to come to terms with regulatory restrictions affecting civilian as well as military communication system users. They will have to ensure that they cannot be denied service by antagonistic or otherwise unaccommodating subnetwork operators (the military will constitute a relatively small subset of users, not commanding extremely high financial clout in commercial markets). They will have to provide for special needs, such as enabling antijam and low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) communications when large segments of their networks are not under their control; survivability and restoration of service in wartime or after natural disasters; and other problems not yet foreseen. Doctrines will have to be devised, often ad hoc, for integrating coalition partners into our own naval force information communications and information networks. Accommodating coalitions may complicate our own forces' operation and increase their vulnerability, but it will also make available combat forces, intelligence and logistic support, and external political support that may be essential to any ongoing operation. Special needs of military operations will require preparation of accurate maps of potential areas of operation, keyed to the WGS-84 common grid that is being developed. These maps and other information in extensive, militarily relevant geographic databases, such as population distribution or trafficability, will have to be prepared so that they can be accessed by military forces through any communica-

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force tion systems, civilian or military, with appropriate security safeguards, on an asneeded and when-needed basis. The complexity of the information system and the vast amount of everchanging information in it at any time eventually will make assimilation of information the primary challenge in system use. Concentration on technologies and other means that aid people in selecting and understanding information—recognition theory, digital agents, network appliances, image analysis, spatial decision support, targeted marketing, and others—will be essential. Also required will be decentralized system operation, much like the civilian World Wide Web, in which information is made available as it becomes available and can be acquired by query when needed by a user without placing rigid demands on user hardware and software system design and operation. Applying this concept to the military information system will present special challenges such as ensuring the timeliness of data; understanding time discrepancies among related data elements that can distort overall situational awareness, and therefore can distort mission planning, execution, and outcome; and alerting diverse users to new inputs that are of direct concern to them and require urgent action. The “system of systems” that can provide such services will surely grow in size as its architecture evolves in the coming decades. In time it will become large and complex beyond easy comprehension by any one individual, group, or agency, leading to the possibility of unanticipated dynamic command-and-control instabilities that will have to be guarded against, thus making information warfare defense even more critical to reliable system operation. Other dangers include the risk of self-jamming or of confusion if conflicting information arrives from different sources thought to be equally reliable. The latter possibility raises the concern that if information from various sources acts as a sort of forcing function for command decisions, and if the timing of arrival of disparate information from diverse sources is in an unfortunate relationship with decision cycle times, then serious command-and-control instabilities could arise in which maneuvering and firing orders lose coherence and become incompatible with situations on the ground. The result could be malpositioning of forces or failure to move them as and where needed, leading to inability to achieve missions, or even to defeat. There are many historical examples of situations where poor information led to military failure. The risks in a plethora of information, poorly integrated, could be serious, especially with “lean” forces that depend on timely and accurate information and domination of enemy response time lines for military success. The War for Information Advantage Objects of observation and surveillance will take steps to disguise or mask their locations, installations, and activities. Beyond that, they will try to take advantage of the known characteristics of our sensors and systems to deceive

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force them, to deny our forces information or to lead them astray or cause them to undertake actions that can lead to their defeat. Growing technical capability in sensors and data processing will permit penetration of concealment, cover, and deception, however. Concealment and cover may be penetrated by airborne hyperspectral and foliage-penetrating radar sensors, and deception can be detected through sufficiently sophisticated processing of information from diverse sources with sufficiently powerful computers. Of even greater concern than the operational problems in mixing and using civilian facilities with the purely military communications, sensors, and computing networks will be defending against deliberate information warfare attack— reading, disrupting, confusing, and denying reliable information and the successful use of information-based systems, or planting false information that remains undetected. Such defense will need many components to create a balanced defense in keeping with the complexity of the information system. A balanced defense will include various steps to deny visibility into military and naval force use of the system; operation with concurrent backup always in place; preparation for degraded operations; and continuous monitoring, auditing, application of protective measures, and active defense against penetration. Perversely, there may be some safety in open use of multiple networks accessible to many users, some of whom will be opponents. Electronic warfare, including ELINT, jamming of sensors, communications, and navigation systems including GPS, and steps to counter the jammers, as well as possible use of high-powered microwaves to destroy electronic circuits and defense against such weapons, will continue to be part of the war for information advantage. Every combat and support system design will have to account for vulnerability to electronic countermeasures, and will have to provide for counter-countermeasures. Electronic countermeasures will also have to be part of the offensive “kit of tools” that helps weapon systems and forces reach and attack their objectives against effective defenses in order to deny sensor information to the opposition. Stealth and signature management in ships and aircraft will continue to be essential in denying unit and force movement and targeting information to an opponent. Even where it is difficult to reduce a platform signature to extremely low levels, some signature reduction will help other electronic warfare components to deny information about the platforms to the opposition. The quest for information superiority is becoming so broad and complex that the aggregation of the various areas involved, such as surveillance, intelligence gathering, defense against information warfare, non-weapon-specific electronic warfare, and others, must be considered a major warfare area in its own right, of status comparable to ASW, ASUW, AAW, and the other recognized warfare areas. The implications of such a change in viewpoint are addressed below.

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Instituting the Information-in-Warfare System It is clear from the above discussion that the commander's display screen— whether the commander is a CINC, a ship or battalion commander, or at some other level of unit command—together with the information on it, the links to sources of information, the sensors and processing nodes that acquire and develop the information, and the links to weapons and their guidance to targets, constitutes a warfighting system just as much as the ships, aircraft, and combat battalions of the Navy and Marine Corps. It is the operative “meta-system” of the information superiority warfare area. This system must be acquired and integrated into the forces by the same processes that govern the acquisition and integration of all the other major warfighting systems, with similar, integrated attention at the same command and executive levels in the Services and the Department of the Navy. In particular, the information-in-warfare system must be managed in an integrated fashion, and the ultimate statement of requirements for the system, the descriptions of its characteristics, and the impetus to acquire and modernize it must come from the operational forces, as do the requirements for and characteristics of the other warfighting systems. Some of the information sensors and processing nodes, as well as support systems such as GPS, are outside the Navy and Marine Corps, in other Service, Defense Agency, and National systems, including space systems. In these cases, compatibility and interoperability of the naval force systems and other systems must be ensured, and the naval forces must be assured that they will receive the needed utility from the systems. The originators and operators of the other systems, whether the systems are in space, in the atmosphere, or on land, must be kept aware of Navy and the Marine Corps information and information support needs, and the Navy and Marine Corps must be represented in joint forums with the other agencies at levels that would ensure attention to their needs. Department of the Navy senior leadership must be actively involved in this process. Future technology advances and fiscal constraints will heighten the need. Specific Navy Department attention at high levels is especially needed in the area of space systems, where the Navy and Marine Corps field few systems but rely critically on many. They depend on space systems for environmental (weather and ocean condition) forecasting, navigation, communication, surveillance, reconnaissance, targeting, position fixing, and weapon guidance. In the past, they have been served well by systems that other Services and agencies have fielded with the requirements of the naval forces as well as other requirements in view. The effective liaison between the naval forces and the other Services and agencies that made this possible could come under severe pressure in the future in a fiscally constrained environment unless explicit attention is given to ensuring that the effective liaison continues.

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Finally, the information-in-warfare system has reached a level of importance that requires—like the ship, submarine, gunnery, aviation, infantry, and other operational communities before it—information operations and information warfare specialties in the Navy and the Marine Corps. Only with the attending incentives will the naval forces be assured of finding and retaining personnel with the high level of performance and capability the area demands. ENHANCING THE CAPABILITIES OF INDIVIDUAL SAILORS AND MARINES Using People Effectively Because, short of a dire emergency threatening U.S. survival, we will continue to have volunteer armed forces, the naval forces will have to compete with the civilian economy for personnel. Among the many factors in this competition are compensation, the need to provide work and living experiences that will encourage personnel to make Service-oriented career decisions, and—different from most careers in the civilian world—the fact that armed forces' personnel will, at uncertain times, be asked to risk their lives, and consequently the welfare of their families, as part of their jobs. The future personnel pool will include both male and female sailors and Marines, who will come from a rich variety of cultural and educational backgrounds to which the recruiting and training systems will have to be sensitive and adaptive. At the same time, training technology and techniques are changing rapidly, in parallel with the technological evolution of the naval forces' hardware systems. The personnel system of the naval forces thus faces the prospect of complete revamping in the years ahead. All major naval force systems are being designed to operate with fewer people who have more technical capability at their disposal. Technology, in the form of elaborate, networked instrumentation, automated controls, and integrated information, communication, and transportation systems that can generate fast response by forces far from crisis areas, is being used to streamline and consolidate functions at sea and to move many traditional shipboard maintenance and support functions ashore. The functions affected will vary from shipboard damage control and system maintenance to target acquisition and weapon firing, all of which will be performed with fewer personnel in future naval systems. Manning1major combat systems so as to optimize the mix of equipment and personnel thus becomes a parameter to be considered early in the system design process, along with the technical elements of a system. Gone are the days when major platforms such as ships could be built under the assumption that crew would be found to perform whatever functions were needed; personnel 1   The term “manning” is used as a convenient, generic shorthand for assigning personnel, male or female, to organizational and technical tasks within major systems and support bases.

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force must now be considered to be integral parts of the overall system, from its inception. As a result, future force design will encourage more naval forces personnel to make the Service their profession.2 They will require more training and advanced education, and they will carry more responsibility for system operation, both in the narrow sense of making the system work, and in the broader sense of using the system in combat. In terms of both economics and force effectiveness, it will be important to keep the people in the forces longer. There will be advantages in recruiting people who are, on average, better qualified than today's recruits. Recruiting may have to tap people in the personnel pool, such as community college graduates or individuals in mid-career, who are not generally approached in recruiting today. Naval force personnel will thus become more expensive to recruit, train, and retain, with added expense for accommodating their outside responsibilities. These higher unit costs for personnel will offset the savings from technology-based reductions in personnel, putting a premium on achieving maximum productivity from the force. Aside from using technology to help fewer personnel operate major systems, thus making the assigned personnel inherently more productive, known technology can be applied to speed training and improve job performance, and the naval forces must move ahead rapidly to capitalize on technology for such activities as training in synthetic environments and using simulators to represent parts of systems, thereby shortening the time required for more expensive training with actual systems and forces in their real environment. Computer and communication networks allow distributed training, so that one expert instructor can train people simultaneously at widely dispersed locations, with a consequent reduction in travel costs and time away from assigned stations. Such training can be designed to be adaptive, allowing each trainee to go at his or her own rate, without having to conform to a fixed schedule based on some average training performance; it will also be possible to change the “courseware” easily to fit the different backgrounds of trainees and different circumstances of training and variations in system design. Distributed networks providing access to remotely located experts—e.g., the designers of a system, or the nation's best electronics warfare experts—together with technical aids such as computer-based plug-in diagnostic tools, can help personnel at sea or at far-flung bases to accomplish their tasks expeditiously and effectively without extensive in situ backup. Quality of Life Quality of life—the large complex of factors attending job satisfaction and living in the job-associated environment—is a key factor affecting personnel 2   This should not be construed to mean that a military class in our society is being advocated. That is, indeed, an outcome to be guarded against, perhaps by ensuring that the Service professional's family life is rooted in the civilian community.

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force productivity and retention. Military careers must be competitive with careers in the civilian economy, and expectations for quality of life are now higher than they may have been in the past. The quality of life for naval force personnel depends not only on pay, which is a key factor, but also on the perception that the Services have policies that value and support their personnel, that the Services ' leadership takes those policies seriously and implements them effectively, and that the public approves of and supports the missions and values of the people in the Services. Research confirms what could be understood intuitively, that people feel more satisfied with their lives if they are satisfied with their jobs, and that good matching of people to jobs leads to better job performance and greater job satisfaction. The well-known psychological tests and associated techniques for accomplishing such matching must be considered part of the Service personnel management's kit of tools. Technology can also improve the work environment in many ways, from enhancing creature comfort to providing adequate and suitable tools and machinery to get jobs done. Deployed sailors and Marines also perform better if they know that during their absences their families are well provided for in terms of housing, schooling, religious and medical care, work opportunities for spouses and older children, and all the other tangible and intangible factors that lead families to feel satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their daily lives. Sailors and Marines also want to keep in touch with their families, a need that is possible to meet with today 's worldwide communications networks. But shipboard and remote base policies and routines must provide for it, and must do so without compromising ship or base security. A ship that is operating in emission control (EMCON), for example, cannot allow calls out, nor can it allow tracking of the ship to locate it for incoming cell-phone calls arriving by satellite. Thus, technical means must be devised to support a policy of keeping in touch with families without jeopardizing the force or its operations. There is also evidence that deployed personnel feel they are being benefited if they can use their spare time to advance their education and technical skills, leading either to more rapid promotion or better job prospects on leaving the Service. Providing such benefits could help make longer stays at sea acceptable to more sailors, thereby reducing the number of personnel ashore who must be retained for rotation. The balance is a delicate one to achieve, since the rotation policy will affect family interests as well. More must be learned about attitudes and interests that affect views of the rotation policy in relation to perceptions of quality of life in the Service. It is clear that costs will be incurred in ensuring a quality of life that will encourage retention of personnel. The amount of the investments needed to improve living and working conditions must be known and planned for, and ways of measuring their success must be determined. Ongoing research in all the Services is suggesting quantitative measures of quality of life that may be a

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force naval force aviation changes along with changing combat techniques and systems; this will be difficult to predict, and the differences will have to be assessed and reflected in changes to the logistic system as the forces evolve. Ammunition resupply requirements will also change as the means of land attack and fire support change. Shifting strike and fire support from “dumb” bombs and shells to greater use of guided weaponry, and using large numbers of tube-launched weapons for strike and naval surface fire support, will radically affect those requirements in currently unpredictable ways, leading to many changes in logistic support loads and how they are delivered. A major operational problem, capable of technical solutions but needing system analysis of the design and operational tradeoffs, will be whether to reload missiles into ship VLS at sea, or to return the ships to the nearest base for that purpose after all or parts of their loads are expended. Exploration of this problem must become part of the overall, simulation-based system design for the surface and undersea land-attack ships and forces, possibly arriving at different solutions for each type of force. For the remainder of the logistic load, reduced crew sizes will be reflected in a reduced logistic train from CONUS to the fleet. More efficient and rapid delivery to the under-way replenishment ships can be achieved with containerized loads, saving at-sea manpower and preparation time. With a move to containerized logistics, the next generation of logistic ships will have to be designed so that the loads can be broken out for “retail” delivery to diverse warships at sea. This is consistent with the changes needed for OMFTS.22 Faster fuel-pumping capacity that is in development will also reduce the time spent in refueling, rearming, and resupply operations. Solid-waste management has also become a major problem for ships at sea, as constraints against ocean dumping of such waste increase. System-based solutions will be required in new ship design: designing for reduced waste in the first place, and consideration of on-board treatment, compacting, and storage for shore disposal, incineration, or a combination of these methods.23 This will have to be considered part of the overall logistic system in designing for support of ships and aircraft at sea. Supporting Forces Ashore As for ships at sea, the greatest loads to be moved ashore during combat operations are fuel and ammunition. In most environments, uncontaminated water also represents a significant load, difficult to process in mobile operations 22   Naval Studies Board. 1996. The Navy and Marine Corps in Regional Conflict in the 21st Century, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 74-75. 23   Naval Studies Board. 1996. Shipboard Pollution Control: U.S. Navy Compliance With MARPOL Annex V, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force and difficult to deliver from outside. Fuel needs ashore will be mitigated to some extent by the use of more efficient power sources for support equipment— long-life batteries and fuel cells instead of electric generators, for example— although the fuel needs are associated mainly with combat vehicles and aircraft. Although fuel transport by pipeline from ships or depots will be available to support forward ground forces in stable situations, combat operations will be wide ranging and will require air resupply, or resupply by tanker trucks when stable and secure land lines of communication are established. Air resupply of fuel and water to mobile forces during combat will depend heavily on the use of 500-gallon pods slung under heavy-lift helicopters and V-22 aircraft, both of which will be able to carry more than one pod per load. This (and other air resupply) will require protection of the air routes of supply, and landing zones— forward arming and refueling points (FARPs) and forward troop positions. A reduction of massed artillery fire in favor of fire support from the sea, as visualized in the OMFTS doctrine, will significantly reduce the daily ammunition load that must be delivered. For example, the regional conflict study estimated that the logistic load to support a light battalion-sized force ashore would be reduced from 37 to 7 tons per day if all the battalion's fire support were delivered from the sea.24 Land combat units with less heavy equipment, as visualized under the evolving doctrine, will also require less fuel. Remaining logistic requirements for the ground forces in combat will have to be supplied routinely (for food and other consumables) or ad hoc (for maintenance items), usually by air. Air delivery will involve vertical-lift aircraft, with the same protection problems posed by fuel and ammunition delivery, and sometimes precision air drop using systems that are being developed by the Army and Air Force. In addition to reducing the loads as described above, the ground forces will have to practice “smart” logistics to ensure steady resupply as needed with minimal waste in the system. This will, as will ship resupply at sea, require containerization starting from the sources in CONUS, and continuous visibility into container contents through electronic tagging and tracking until delivery to the using units. Logistic and MPF ships will have to be designed with the capability for on-board container handling and load manipulation, and for operating vertical-lift aircraft. A heavy-lift helicopter to replace the CH-53E, when that is needed, should be designed to move containers from ships to operational forces ashore, less awkwardly than in the current process for large underslung loads. Not least, integral container carriage will allow such aircraft to fly closer to the terrain in areas where very low altitude flight is needed to afford a measure of protection from shoulder-fired SAMs. There will be times when logistics delivery over-the-shore (LOTS) will be 24   Naval Studies Board. 1996. The Navy and Marine Corps in Regional Conflict in the 21st Century, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., p. 70.

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force required. Currently, such delivery is limited to relatively calm seas—sea state 2, or waves of 3-ft height or less—permitting over-the-shore offloading only about half of the time in areas around the world where military operations are likely. There are means in work or proposed for increasing LOTS capability for off-loading through sea state 3, or waves up to 5-ft height. This advance would increase the period of time in which offloading could be conducted over the shore by 20 percent or more in many areas, depending on the geographical area and the season. The means in work include stable cranes, high-sea-state lighter-age, and “portable ports” or emplaceable causeways that will permit docking and offloading of combat vehicles and load transporters. Many aspects of the logistic advances described can be implemented using existing technology. In areas such as containerization and container handling, loading and unloading at terminals, and asset tracking, the commercial world is ahead of the military. The latter can adopt and adapt the technology applications it will need. In doing so, it will have to ensure that compatibility is retained between the military and commercial systems, in case the latter must be called on to augment the military logistic system—much in the manner in which the Civil Reserve Airlift Fleet (CRAF) is used. Logistics and support, in addition to communications, are areas where extensive “outsourcing” and privatization will take place, in the interest of conserving resources and improving efficiency. This will add to the use of COTS systems and technology that will be adapted to many military systems. All of this trend reinforces the argument for extensive efforts to ensure functional and physical compatibility between military and commercial systems. MODELING AND SIMULATION AS A FOUNDATION TECHNOLOGY Over the years since World War II, mathematics and computer models have been used increasingly to describe the dynamics of military engagements and warfare. Simulated equipment and computers have enabled representations of military equipment and operations. Modeling and simulation (M&S) now constitutes a fundamental technology area underlying all aspects of the creation and use of military systems and forces. Three basic kinds of simulation that are used by the military forces reinforce and interact with each other: (1) so-called constructive simulation of systems and combat performed wholly on computers; (2) distributed interactive simulation (DIS) and “virtual” simulation that join actual or simulated equipment operated by people—many of them in different locations and networked together—with computer-generated “environments” to simulate operations of the systems and their use in the field; and (3) simulations of combat (field exercises) in which military units with their actual equipment operate in the field on instrumented ranges, with quantitative measurement of system and unit performance. All DIS, virtual simulations, and field exercises have

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force people in the loop by design, and constructive simulations have also been devised to involve people for decision making. The various techniques involved have also been developed by industry to support design and construction of military as well as commercial systems. Applications vary from exploration of preferred system design parameters to simulation, derived from computer-aided design practices, of system elements or complete platforms—aircraft, ships, or manufacturing plants—to examine how internal space is utilized and how the systems will perform under various conditions. All these forms of simulation are now used in complex combinations. They affect all aspects of naval force planning, acquisition, and operation: designing systems and optimizing their operation; choosing among systems and forces for specific military tasks; developing and testing operational concepts with real or postulated force designs; mission planning and rehearsal, and evaluating alternative courses of action in carrying out missions; evaluating mission outcomes and the results of operational test and evaluation; and training forces and commanders at all command levels. Such a pervasive technology requires a new “corporate” management approach if the naval forces are to capitalize fully on the benefits that modeling and simulation can offer. These include the ability to evaluate and to integrate ideas, systems, and force designs and to adjust them to each other before actual building begins, as well as to evaluate the economies to be gained by eliminating steps in building and modifying hardware early in the creation of military systems and forces. As was the case in prior years for the technology of computing itself as it was being integrated into commerce, industry, and the military forces, it is now becoming apparent that M&S demands the attention and support of top Department of the Navy command and management levels because it affects every aspect of military force design, equipment, and operation. The necessary integration of viewpoint and utilization cannot “just happen” without such attention and support. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have recognized this in arranging for the construction of large-scale simulation models—JWARS, to support the requirements and process of force design, and JSIMS, to support education and training and their integration into military operations. The Navy and the Marine Corps have been building their own separate management and operational structures for M&S and establishing simulation systems for the individual Services. The latter include, in addition to the use of M&S in weapon system design, the Navy's Battle Force Tactical Trainer (BFTT), a simulation of maritime operations (MARSIM), the Naval Simulation System (NSS), and the Marine Corps Commandant's Battle Laboratory that will, among other things, systematically test and help develop the evolving OMFTS concept. The Navy's cooperative engagement capability was developed using “embedded simulation” by operation of actual air defense systems aboard ships at sea and defenses on land against simulated attackers.

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Completely incorporating and effectively using M&S as a Navy Department foundation technology requires the creation of a joint Navy and Marine Corps strategy that spans the two Services ' operations in expeditionary warfare, where the two must function as a single force that operates in a joint environment with other Service forces involved. This strategy and the M&S activities it guides and supports must also feed, draw from, and interoperate with the joint efforts embodied in JWARS and JSIMS. After completion of the institutional arrangements by which the Department of the Navy can best capitalize on M&S, two important advances (which could be undertaken simultaneously) are needed: (1) bringing the M&S conceptual foundation up to date with current knowledge of how modern warfare is and may be fought, and (2) changing the technical basis of M&S to incorporate and capitalize on modern computing and M&S technology. The needs for these advances apply initially in the area of constructive simulation but also will have an important influence on the way virtual simulations and field exercises are planned and on the way their results are interpreted and used. There is at present a dearth of theoretical understanding and knowledge of modern, post-Cold War types of warfare based on collected and analyzed data to describe the phenomena of warfare—what really happens in complex interactions among modern armed forces and between them and irregulars of various derivations, why it happens, and what drives the effects of the critical parameters. Indeed, the databases on which such a theoretical foundation can be built have yet to be assembled. As a result, while computer programming and software technology have advanced rapidly and have been used to build today's generation of models and simulations, the knowledge base on which the existing models and simulations are built is obsolete and deficient in many ways. For example, many models derived from years of development still do not allow for dynamic evolution of a battlefield or a battle area and feedback into force operations, and their output in the hands of users not familiar with their multitudinous and usually hidden assumptions often does not accord with modern understanding of force-on-force interaction. As another example, simulations that attempt to describe the functioning of individual systems or subsystems in exquisite detail both challenge the economics of efficient computing and miss the mark in simulating the functioning of networked systems with many similar components that can each be described by a few functional attributes. Decision makers who rely on M&S for system acquisition or military planning have little basis, at present, for knowing whether the M&S results that they use are valid representations of the real world on which to base extrapolations to some future world. There is a dearth of model validation that compares the results of models describing warfare with the outcomes of actual conflicts or even of field exercises, nor are there credible methods for model validation. If there is to be any confidence in the projections and plans that the M&S results are supposed to support, there must be a continuing effort to validate existing

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force and new models against real-world situations when there are data for comparison, however sketchy or anecdotal. Building databases that include historical data from actual warfare and from pertinent exercises will be an essential part of such an effort. Recent simulation concepts being developed in the commercial world, and the growing mass of results from virtual simulations and measured field exercises in the military world, can help rectify some of these deficiencies in modeling and simulation. To make the most of the new concepts and data, much of the current approach to and utilization of models in planning will have to be changed, often at the price of extensive investment in replacements for current models, simulations, and M&S tools. Future practice should create an interlinked, hierarchical family of models, all developed together, describing various levels and phases of expeditionary warfare from the system through the strategic level. Such a family of models would be based on a common high-level architecture and a common set of input data. The various models would be calibrated together and have functional connections to allow various elements of the family to operate together in diverse combinations. Use of M&S in the military environment where there will be great uncertainty about opposing forces and operational environments far into the future must allow for that uncertainty. Within the family of models and simulations, it will be necessary to provide the capability for easy and inexpensive exploratory analyses and tests with different scenarios, databases, and concepts of operation, to learn which approaches are most likely to give robust solutions before specific plans and force designs are “cast in concrete.” These advances in the M&S field to support naval forces will not be made effectively without focused technical support. As in any other important technical area, an ongoing research effort is needed to provide that support. This research must first be focused on military science and technique, to ensure that the knowledge base incorporating the latest concepts and understanding about the uses of naval forces and how they will fight is included in the resulting models and simulations. Research must be performed in simulation science and technology applicable to military systems and operations. And databases covering worldwide military forces and environments, by warfare area, must be constructed and maintained. This research program would, especially, review and resolve technical problems in adopting and adapting related developments from civilian areas that can be applied in military M&S. FOCUSED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT No modern, technology-intensive enterprise can prosper without sustained research and development support focused on the enterprise's main objectives. This truism has been recognized for the armed forces since World War II, but the nation may be losing sight of it today as budget concerns move front and center

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force in national attention. The environment in which future naval forces will exist and in which they will have to function effectively will be characterized by continuing budget stringency, barring the emergence of some future mortal threat to the United States and its allies. Regardless of the level of resources that will be allocated to support the creation of the entering wedges of capability that this study foresees as essential to future naval force viability, and however they are found, the R&D part of those resources will have to be spent as efficiently and effectively as possible, and in a timely manner. In addition to effective technical management, a key step in effective use of resources for R&D will be to focus the R&D effort on those elements that are unique to military and naval forces, and for the rest to capitalize to the greatest extent possible on R&D and technology emerging from the civilian, commercial sector. The technology areas listed in Table 6.1 were reviewed to see where relevant R&D is currently performed and is likely to continue. The review showed extensive scientific and technology development effort in the civilian sector that can be of value and use to the naval forces in the following technology areas or clusters: Information technology (with some exceptions to be noted), Technologies for human performance, Computational technologies, Automation, Materials (with some exceptions to be noted), Power and propulsion technologies, Environmental technologies, and Technologies for enterprise processes. Although particular areas of science and related military and naval applications will always require Department of the Navy investment and attention, military R&D in the above areas can concentrate heavily on adapting the civilian and commercial technologies and their products to naval force use. This orientation must be adopted with caution, however, because in many areas commercial industry is also deferring long-term R&D in favor of short-term programs offering a quick payoff in highly competitive markets. The Department of the Navy must thus remain vigilant to ensure that its needs will indeed be met in these areas by the civilian world. In no sense, therefore, should comments on priority in this regard be taken as a suggestion that basic, long-term research be foregone by the Department of the Navy in all these areas without first ascertaining that research needed for naval force purposes will in fact be performed by the commercial sector. The Navy Department must also be ready to recognize and adapt wholly new advances that can change how military tasks are performed, equipment is brought into being, and kinds of equipment created. The naval forces must remain open to new and vital knowledge. The issue is to apply appropriate judgment to allocation of scarce research resources.

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force With due attention to these caveats, it appears now that science and technology for military and naval force use will have to be especially sustained by the military R&D community (where possible and beneficial, in cooperation with the civilian community) in the following areas because, in the absence of large civilian markets, no one else is likely to support it (the inclusions in parentheses give examples of the kinds of capabilities and devices that would be included in each): Sensor technologies (electronically steered and low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) radar, IR and advanced infrared search and track (IRST), multispectral imaging, embedded microsensors and “smart” skins and structures, lasers, SQUIDs); The sensor technologies would be joined in application with specialized information technologies (secure data access; stealth and counterstealth; ASW; chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons detection; automatic target recognition) to contribute to the military parts of the information-in-warfare system. (Fundamental research into the theoretical basis of naval warfare underlying modeling and simulation must obviously be supported by the naval forces, as well.) Military-oriented materials (energetic materials, including explosives and rocket propellants, high-temperature materials for engine turbine blades and combustors, and composites, among others); The materials together with power and propulsion technologies (rocket engines, warheads, and advanced aircraft, ship, and submarine power plants) would contribute to the creation of advanced weapon systems and, in the form of long-life and high-power-density power sources, to reducing equipment loads and logistic resupply requirements. In many of these areas, the naval forces will have to join with the other military departments to share the applied R&D and advanced development loads so that the total resources are spent as efficiently as possible. R&D expenditures by the Navy Department in these areas, and in the adaptation of civilian technology to naval force purposes, must be focused in two areas: development of unique naval force capabilities needed to support ongoing force improvement and creation of future capability; and development, by work-sharing arrangements in the joint environment, of capabilities that all the Services will be able to use. Deciding the allocation of resources between these two areas of effort will obviously be the responsibility of the Department of the Navy working with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the other military departments, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Some of the jointly agreed R&D will help the naval forces, just as some of the Navy Department R&D will help meet needs of the other Services. Within the Department of the Navy, the following areas of concentration for R&D application, associated with the entering wedges of capability and leading

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force to their creation, should be especially fostered25 (for completeness, the following list brings forward some critical R&D areas that were circleussed in more detail in the report of the regional conflict study26 than in this report; these items are starred in the list): Information, intelligence, and space systems: Information security, defensive information warfare; *Satellite-based position-location security, deniability to opponents, within treaty commitments; Penetration of concealment, cover, and deception for intelligence and situational awareness; Preserving privacy, security, and military functionality while using commercial communications. Human resources: Distributed training; Advanced casualty treatment and recovery, including chemical and biological casualty avoidance and treatment; Data comprehension; Quality-of-life research: QOL data collection; QOL metrics and analysis of return on investment in QOL. Surface and air systems: Rocket-propelled missile system design: staging and advanced, insensitive propellants for range extension, tailored warheads, terminal guidance, cold launch, at-sea reload, and cost reduction; Target sensing, target recognition, and target location using unmanned platforms; Continued work in stealth and counterstealth for all platforms, with special emphasis on the IR regime for aircraft signature reduction; Continuation of ATBM systems development; Laser weapons for ship defense against missiles, in the cooperative engagement capability (CEC) mode; Electric systems, oriented toward advanced propulsion and power conditioning for Navy ships and submarines; 25   There may be other areas of effort that are not mentioned in this list, that in the judgment of the Navy Department's R&D management have deserved program emphasis and resources. Failure to mention such an area of effort here does not carry the connotation that the study examined it and decided that it was of no importance, only that it was not directly connected with the entering wedges of capability described in this report. 26   Naval Studies Board. 1996. The Navy and Marine Corps in Regional Conflict in the 21st Century, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Ship design for smaller crews—especially, distributed sensors, actuators, controls, and intelligent automated subsystems; Advanced ship hull forms, especially those contributing to speed, seakeeping, and stealth; Advanced submarine designs; Advanced combat aircraft design features, including more efficient, high thrust-weight ratio engines, lightweight unitary structures, microsensor-based aerodynamic flow control techniques, and low-speed aerodynamic and propulsion control techniques, to mitigate weight penalties associated with vertical or near-vertical lift; Advanced aircraft design and manufacturing processes, using simulation, electronic prototyping, and flexible tooling. Undersea systems: Matched-field coherent processing technologies for extending passive ASW detection and tracking capability; Multistatic active ASW; Multispectrum active and passive nonacoustic sensors for both ASW and mine detection; Mobile underwater synoptic sensor networks; Ocean science and related technology developments; Secure tactical communications between undersea and surface, air, and space systems; Advanced explosives, undersea weapon warheads, and mine fusing and warheads; Ship defense against torpedoes; Advanced countermine warfare—rapid location and tagging, parallel neutralization, defeating “smart” minefields, explosive blasting of channels to the beach from the air with precision bomb emplacement and timing. Ground forces and their combat support: *Target designation for precision weapon delivery on precisely known coordinates; *Reliable combat identification; *Integration with at-sea forces in the overall information and communication network, down to the smallest forward unit; *Reducing vulnerability of vertical-lift aircraft to shoulder-fired SAMs; airborne detection of minefields in landing zones; *Situation awareness, target detection, sensors, robotic vehicles, and nondestructive weaponry for fighting in built-up areas; techniques for operations other than war, nonlethal weapons, and crowd-control devices.

OCR for page 52
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Logistics: Design for readiness and minimal field maintenance; *Adapting to fully containerized logistic support—packaging, transport, delivery, ships, airlift, depot handling, and “retail” distribution to forward units; *Information-based logistic techniques, equipment, and systems for maintaining weapon system readiness and for delivering materiel to forces at sea and over the shore; *Achieving sea-state 3 LOTS capability. Modeling and simulation: Military science and phenomenology; Simulation science and methodology applicable to military systems; Constructing and maintaining warfare-area and world databases; Adopting and adapting related developments in civilian fields to military problems and activities; Validating concepts and methodology. Finally, it must be emphasized that some major system advances take place in major steps after ongoing research and advanced development have created new opportunities. This has been especially apparent in the aviation area, where ongoing R&D in propulsion, aerodynamics, and structures leads periodically to a major advance in capability embodied in a new class of aircraft. For this to happen, the R& D must be supported in a sustained, long-term program in which each step is built on the last, such that at significant points a new system can be built on the advances achieved to that time. An example is the Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) program, jointly sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Departments, and industry. This program, together with its predecessor Service programs, has led to major advances in turbine and compressor materials, advanced combustors and engine controls, and overall engine designs. These advances have led in turn to major improvements in thrust, thrust-weight ratio, and fuel economy, leading to the superior U.S. military aircraft engine performance we see today, and to significant advances in civilian aviation as well. The areas of surface ship and submarine design and construction, ASW, and oceanography listed above need a similar model of integrated, sustained R&D support, with clearly defined goals and schedules, industry-government collaboration, and stable funding, to achieve the potential seen for them in this study.