Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035

Becoming a 21st-Century Force

VOLUME 1 Overview

Committee on Technology for Future Naval Forces

Naval Studies Board

Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1997



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
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035 Becoming a 21st-Century Force VOLUME 1 Overview Committee on Technology for Future Naval Forces Naval Studies Board Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1997

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force 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 report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts 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. William 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. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This work was performed under Department of the Navy Contract N00014-96-D-0169/0001 issued by the Office of Naval Research under contract authority NR 201-124. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the Department of the Navy or the government, and no official endorsement should be inferred. The United States Government has at least a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license throughout the world for government purposes to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, and dispose of all or any of this work, and to authorize others so to do. Copyright 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences . All rights reserved. Copies available from: Naval Studies Board National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY FOR FUTURE NAVAL FORCES DAVID R. HEEBNER, Science Applications International Corporation (retired), Study Director ALBERT J. BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc. ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University NORMAN E. BETAQUE, Logistics Management Institute GERALD A. CANN, Raytheon Company GEORGE F. CARRIER, Harvard University SEYMOUR J. DEITCHMAN, Institute for Defense Analyses (retired) ALEXANDER FLAX, Potomac, Maryland WILLIAM J. MORAN, Redwood City, California ROBERT J. MURRAY, Center for Naval Analyses ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University JOSEPH B. REAGAN, Saratoga, California VINCENT VITTO, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Navy Liaison Representatives RADM JOHN W. CRAINE, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of July 4, 1996) VADM THOMAS B. FARGO, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through July 3, 1996) RADM RICHARD A. RIDDELL, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91 CDR DOUGLASS BIESEL, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N812C1 PAUL G. BLATCH, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N911E Marine Corps Liaison Representative LtGen PAUL K. VAN RIPER, USMC, Marine Corps Combat Development Command Consultants LEE M. HUNT SIDNEY G. REED, JR. JAMES G. WILSON Staff RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director, Naval Studies Board PETER W. ROONEY, Program Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer CHRISTOPHER A. HANNA, Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force NAVAL STUDIES BOARD DAVID R. HEEBNER, Science Applications International Corporation (retired), Chair GEORGE M. WHITESIDES, Harvard University, Vice Chair ALBERT J. BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc. ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University NORMAN E. BETAQUE, Logistics Management Institute NORVAL L. BROOME, Mitre Corporation GERALD A. CANN, Raytheon Company SEYMOUR J. DEITCHMAN, Institute for Defense Analyses (retired), Special Advisor ANTHONY J. DeMARIA, DeMaria ElectroOptics Systems, Inc. JOHN F. EGAN, Lockheed Martin Corporation ROBERT HUMMEL, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University DAVID W. McCALL, Far Hills, New Jersey ROBERT J. MURRAY, Center for Naval Analyses ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, Northstar Associates, Inc. MARA G. PRENTISS, Jefferson Laboratory, Harvard University HERBERT RABIN, University of Maryland JULIE JCH RYAN, Booz, Allen and Hamilton HARRISON SHULL, Monterey, California KEITH A. SMITH, Vienna, Virginia ROBERT C. SPINDEL, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington DAVID L. STANFORD, Science Applications International Corporation H. GREGORY TORNATORE, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University J. PACE VanDEVENDER, Prosperity Institute VINCENT VITTO, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology BRUCE WALD, Arlington Education Consultants Navy Liaison Representatives RADM JOHN W. CRAINE, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of July 4, 1996) VADM THOMAS B. FARGO, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through July 3, 1996) RADM RICHARD A. RIDDELL, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91 RONALD N. KOSTOFF, Office of Naval Research

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Marine Corps Liaison Representative LtGen PAUL K. VAN RIPER, USMC, Marine Corps Combat Development Command RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director PETER W. ROONEY, Program Officer SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer CHRISTOPHER A. HANNA, Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND APPLICATIONS ROBERT J. HERMANN, United Technologies Corporation, Co-Chair W. CARL LINEBERGER, University of Colorado, Co-Chair PETER M. BANKS, Environmental Research Institute of Michigan LAWRENCE D. BROWN, University of Pennsylvania RONALD G. DOUGLAS, Texas A&M University JOHN E. ESTES, University of California at Santa Barbara L. LOUIS HEGEDUS, Elf Atochem North America, Inc. JOHN E. HOPCROFT, Cornell University RHONDA J. HUGHES, Bryn Mawr College SHIRLEY A. JACKSON, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission KENNETH H. KELLER, University of Minnesota KENNETH I. KELLERMANN, National Radio Astronomy Observatory MARGARET G. KIVELSON, University of California at Los Angeles DANIEL KLEPPNER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOHN KREICK, Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company MARSHA I. LESTER, University of Pennsylvania THOMAS A. PRINCE, California Institute of Technology NICHOLAS P. SAMIOS, Brookhaven National Laboratory L.E. SCRIVEN, University of Minnesota SHMUEL WINOGRAD, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center CHARLES A. ZRAKET, Mitre Corporation (retired) NORMAN METZGER, Executive Director

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Preface This study was inspired by the events of the past decade, which saw a vast transformation in the international strategic landscape facing the United States, and in the missions and perspectives of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps as implementing arms of U.S. national security strategy. The terms of reference of the study, developed by VADM Thomas B. Fargo, USN, and RADM Richard A. Riddell, USN, and signed by the Chief of Naval Operations on November 28, 1995, requested that the National Research Council undertake a thorough examination of the impact of advancing technology on the form and capability of the naval forces to the year 2035. Recognizing the anticipated austere budget environment, the terms of reference sought leverage to increase the cost-effectiveness of those forces in that environment, in many technical areas. They specifically asked for an identification of “present and emerging technologies that relate to the full breadth of Navy and Marine Corps mission capabilities,” with specific attention to “(1) information warfare, electronic warfare, and the use of surveillance assets; (2) mine warfare and submarine warfare; (3) Navy and Marine Corps weaponry in the context of effectiveness on target; [and] (4) issues in caring for and maximizing effectiveness of Navy and Marine Corps human resources.” Ten specific technical areas were identified to which attention should be broadly directed. The terms of reference are given in full in Appendix A of this report. These terms of reference follow from a 1988 study of similar scope, the Navy-21 study,1 that covered much the same ground, but in the earlier context of the Cold War that was still ongoing. At the completion of the Navy-21 study, it 1   Naval Studies Board. 1988. Navy-21: Implications of Advancing Technology for Naval Operations in the Twenty-First Century, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force was recognized that the results of a study as broad as that would have to be reviewed periodically to see what had changed in the international security environment, in pertinent domestic circumstances, and in technology, and to renew the projections in the light of those changes. An earlier update of the Navy-21 study,2 and additional Naval Studies Board studies in the areas of advanced sensing,3 mine warfare,4 the combat information network,5 future aircraft carriers,6 command, control, and communications for strike warfare,7 shipboard waste disposal,8 the Navy and Marine Corps in regional conflict,9 and conflict deterrence in the post-Cold War world,10 bore on topics related to naval force development since the publication of the Navy-21 study. All of these studies contributed to the background of the current study, and indeed their results informed the current study in many areas. To carry out this study, eight technical panels were organized to examine all of the specific technical areas called out in the terms of reference, with some of the 10 topics combined under the cognizance of individual panels as the logic of the topics suggested. The panel structure of the study is shown in Figure P.1. Altogether, some 130 experts in the various technical areas participated in the study as panel members, senior advisors, or participants invited to help the panels with specific tasks. In addition, about 30 Navy and Marine Corps liaison representatives met frequently with the technical panels and with the total study membership during the course of the study. They contributed essential support in providing necessary information and in helping the panel members and leadership understand ongoing Service programs and policies. All of the study participants and Service representatives are listed, with the panels they contributed to, in Appendix B. 2   Naval Studies Board. 1993. Navy-21 Update: Implications of Advancing Technology for Naval Operations in the Twenty-First Century, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 3   Naval Studies Board. 1985. Sensor Panel Report, Phase II (U), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (Classified). 4   Naval Studies Board. 1992-1993. Mine Countermeasures Technology, Vol. I-IV, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 5   Naval Studies Board. 1991. Combat Networks for Distributed Naval Forces (U), National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (Classified). 6   Naval Studies Board. 1991. Carrier-21: Future Aircraft Carrier Technology, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 7   Naval Studies Board. 1994. Naval Communications Architecture, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 8   Naval Studies Board. 1996. Shipboard Pollution Control: U.S. Navy Compliance With MARPOL Annex V, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 9   Naval Studies Board. 1996. The Navy and Marine Corps in Regional Conflict in the 21st Century, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 10   Naval Studies Board. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force FIGURE P.1 Organizational structure. Some 100 panel meetings were held during the course of the study, during which there were briefings by the Services and industry, and working sessions to arrive at the study results. Projections of the international security environment, the relationships of the diverse panel outputs to each other, and the significance of those outputs for the naval forces were brought together and interpreted by a coordination and integration group composed of a chairman, the three senior advisors to the study, and the chairmen of the eight technical panels. This group was constituted as the Committee on Technology for Future Naval Forces. The members of the committee met bimonthly to inform each other of progress in the individual panels' efforts and to resolve issues that cut across the responsibilities of more than one panel as they emerged during the panels' work. This overview report is the result of the committee's efforts. There were three plenary sessions of the entire study membership. The first, in March 1996, was addressed by the Chief of Naval Operations and many high-level officials of the Navy Department, the other Services, the Defense Department, and industry. This served as an organization meeting and conveyed a common, starting information base to the study membership. At the second plenary session, in October 1996, all the members of the study had their first opportunity to review each other 's work, to see how the results of all the panels' work were coming together into an integrated overview, and to feed the results back into their own efforts. The last plenary session, in March 1997, served as a coordination and writing session in which all of the panels' reports and this overview report were completed for final review and checked to ensure that the overview

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force and the eight panel reports were consistent with each other and mutually supporting. This overview, the first volume in the nine-volume series produced as a result of this study, is, of course, based on the detailed material developed by the individual eight panels. That material is presented in eight separately published volumes whose major topics are outlined in Box P.1. A periodic “sanity check” on the progress and results of the entire study was provided by the Advisory Council, which met three times during the course of the study: early in the study, to review and advise on the study plans and scope as they were developing within the panels; after the first plenary session, to review and advise on the panels' outputs and on the integrated results as they began to appear; and after the last plenary session, to advise on the final results of the study as they emerged from that session. This final version of the overview report and the final versions of the panel reports reflect the Advisory Council's inputs as well as the comments made in the National Research Council review process. Throughout this report, the term “naval forces” is used to refer to the Navy and the Marine Corps together. Much of the discussion in the report refers to the two Services. Especially in the post-Cold War world, the two Services are inextricably linked together and must function essentially as a single force over much of their mission spectrum. This is especially true in the difficult and complex transfer of Marine combat power from the sea to the shore against actual or potential opposition, and in the subsequent support of forces ashore by sea-based firepower and logistics. Although several of the important system advances described in this report will clearly apply more to the Navy than to the Marine Corps, the developing Marine Corps concept for Operational Maneuver From the Sea (OMFTS), the associated Marine Corps systems, and the required Navy fire-power and logistic support were examined in some detail in the recent Naval Studies Board report on regional conflict.11 That report examines many system and technology issues that are germane to the subjects discussed in this report. The two reports should be considered companion pieces that, together, probe the future system and technology needs of the two Services that make up the naval forces. Many more areas of effort and investment than could be treated in this overview report are reviewed and presented in the reports of the study panels, in accordance with their specific areas of concern. Omission of an item from this overview does not imply a judgment on its relative or absolute importance. In many cases, the level of detail precluded detailed treatment here and resulted in the item 's being subsumed in a more general topic area. Also, this first volume in the nine-part series concentrates on the presentation of new or different ideas for technology and systems, and their impact on naval force operations; programs 11   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 R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force under way that need no comment in that respect are noted in context where appropriate and essential to the discussion, but they are not elaborated in this report. The subject of the use of nuclear weapons by the naval forces was raised during the conduct of this study in connection with the need for destruction of deeply buried targets that conventional weapons may not be able to reach. Such targets might contain key command centers, or they might be storage sites for weapons of mass destruction. Deeply buried command centers can be inactivated for practical use by conventional attacks against exposed support systems (for ventilation, power, communications, and so on). The key problem would be gaining intelligence on these systems to guide the attack. Also, access to storage sites might be cut off by similar means. However, physical destruction of stored agents or warheads in deeply buried sites may require nuclear weapons. In addition to the possible use of existing weapons for such purposes, the very high accuracies that will be achievable in the future may make it possible to attack such targets with much smaller nuclear warheads than are currently available. Nuclear weapons will be available to the military forces for many years to come, even in the presence of arms control agreements extant and to be negotiated in the future, but their use will be governed by national security decisions at the highest levels of government. In case it is desired to design and build a new class of much smaller nuclear warheads than those now available, they could not be tested under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. These issues are extraordinarily complex, with political dimensions far exceeding their technical aspects. They affect all of the armed forces and national policies in many national security-related areas. They must be dealt with at the national level, and they continue to require attention. Although they arose and were discussed during this study, no attempt was made in this report to deal in a substantive way with the broad issues involving nuclear weapons. Some of those issues are discussed in the recent Naval Studies Board study on post-Cold War conflict deterrence. 12 This overview report is unclassified, to permit the greatest possible circulation to the communities concerned with the future of the naval forces and to the interested public. However, the study participants have taken pains to ensure that, to the best of their knowledge, the unclassified results of this study remain consistent with classified research and development efforts being conducted by the Department of the Navy and other agencies that will contribute to future naval force capabilities in important ways. The results of this nine-volume study show, as requested in the terms of reference, research and development paths by which the naval forces can become as capable and responsive as will be expected of them in the future, within anticipated fiscal constraints. By itself, however, the ability of the forces to respond 12   Naval Studies Board. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force BOX P.1 Topics Addressed in Volumes 2 Through 9 Volume 2: Technology Discusses nine technology areas expected to be of greatest importance for future naval operations, including computation, information and communications, sensors, automation, human performance, materials, power and propulsion, environmental technology, and enterprise processes Emphasizes the continuing key role for Navy-sponsored R&D in sensors, special materials, fluid dynamics, ship power and propulsion, and oceanography Volume 3: Information in Warfare Discusses offensive and defensive information warfare Emphasizes the dependence of future naval operations and capability on commercial information technology and infrastructure Discusses the role of advanced sensors in information collection; points out the importance of naval space-based operations Defines and discusses aspects of strategy for achieving information superiority in warfare Volume 4: Human Resources Presents strategic objectives for developing and maintaining human performance and competence in naval operations Discusses the importance of information-based training and job performance enhancement Points out recruitment opportunity in 2-year colleges Outlines quality-of-life issues and the need to assess results of efforts toward improvement Volume 5: Weapons Covers the following categories: offensive and defensive systems, surface-to-surface and air-to-surface weapons, air-to-air weapons, weapons for undersea warfare, laser weapons, special-purpose weapons, and sea-based nuclear weapon alternatives Discusses the following concepts: family of low-cost, modular, rocket-propelled, precision-guided, sea-based missiles for land attack; explosive and propellant improvements to decrease the size of all munitions, missiles, and torpedoes; networked multimode targeting for cooperative antimissile defense; networked sensors for distributed minefields for offensive and defensive mine warfare; long-range missiles for air-to-air combat; theater ballistic missile defense needed for amphibious operations; laser weapons for aircraft defense; and special systems for urban combat and hard targets Volume 6: Platforms Emphasizes pursuit of R&D in common technology thrust areas: stealth, automation, minimal manning, affordability, fluid and flow control, and off-board unmanned vehicles; acknowledges environmental issues

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Discusses the following: Surface ships: automation and integrated information and control systems, passive and active signature management, and modular electric propulsion Aircraft: increasingly short takeoff and landing (STOL) and short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL), Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) program engine improvements, improved infrared stealth, and cost control with advanced design and manufacturing Submarines: continued stealth, integrated payload systems for power projection, improved sensors and connectivity for cooperative engagement capability and strike, and higher-power-density propulsion Volume 7: Undersea Warfare Antisubmarine warfare (ASW) Points out increasing ASW threat; at-sea training exercises essential Emphasizes importance of advances in computation, sensors, and oceanography to regain much of U.S. acoustic advantage Discusses use of multiple platforms, a cooperative engagement capability-like network, for littoral ASW Mine warfare and mine countermeasures (MCM): discusses more rapid MCM with a balanced system involving integrated ISR; organic capability with small transportable SWATH ship; night helicopter MCM operations and expendable neutralizers; shallow water surveillance and networking with UUVs, mammals, EODs, and SEAL teams; and brute-force surf and beach breaching using controlled space-time explosive patterns Volume 8: Logistics Discusses use of information-based systems for total asset visibility and control for managing and moving materiel Discusses prospective use of information technology for reducing maintenance and for supporting weapon system readiness Points out the advantages of using modeling and simulation in designing a fully functional logistic ship For logistics hardware, emphasizes more containerization, robotics for rough-sea cargo transfer, methods for VLS reload, and improved vehicles for ship-to-shore transport Volume 9: Modeling and Simulation Describes current modeling and simulation (M&S) infrastructure Surveys prospects for M&S technology developments, including those for decision support, acquisition, and training Describes potential pitfalls in naval use of M&S, especially those related to model validity and system complexity Addresses challenges in assimilating and exploiting M&S technology Presents an approach to prioritizing warfare subjects for research Describes needed improvements in the conceptual, methodological, and technological infrastructure for M&S

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force rapidly and effectively to crises requiring military action will not be a sufficient condition for crisis resolution. The government decision processes leading up to commitment of the forces to a mission could well be a pacing detail that could dissipate the advantages of the naval forces' strength and responsiveness for crisis resolution. Finally, the Naval Studies Board wishes to express its appreciation to the dozens of Navy, Marine Corps, other Service, Defense Department, and commercial industry representatives who contributed information to this study and who briefed the panels during their meetings. Without these inputs the essential information and perspectives on the future national security environment and developing future technology could not have been developed.

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force Contents  PART I:   SYNOPSIS       1  THE 2035 NAVAL FORCES   3      Naval Force Missions,   3      Driving Factors in the Future Naval Force Environment,   4      The Future Naval Forces,   5     2  CREATING THE 2035 NAVAL FORCES   8      Naval Force Restructuring,   8      Future Naval Force Capabilities,   10      Research and Development,   19     3  RECOMMENDATIONS   20  PART II:   OVERVIEW DISCUSSION       4  INTRODUCTION   25     5  THE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY ENVIRONMENT: 2000–2035   30      International Security Trends,   30      Additional Factors in the Environment,   34      Military Capabilities of Potential Adversaries,   36      Strategic Significance of the Future Naval Force Environment,   39

OCR for page R1
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035: Becoming a 21st-Century Force     6  ANTICIPATED U.S. NAVAL FORCE CAPABILITIES: 2000–2035   42      The Emerging Shape of the Future Naval Forces,   42      What Will the Naval Forces Be Required to Do?,   48      How Will the Naval Forces Operate?,   50     7  ENTERING WEDGES OF CAPABILITY TO SHAPE THE NAVAL FORCES OF 2000 TO 2035   52      Information Systems and Operations,   54      Enhancing the Capabilities of Individual Sailors and Marines,   60      The Combat Fleet,   64      New Approaches to Undersea Warfare,   77      New Approaches to Operations in Populated Areas,   84      Reengineering the Logistic System,   87      Modeling and Simulation as a Foundation Technology,   92      Focused Research and Development,   95     8  IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY   101      A Conceptual Revolution,   101      Payoffs and Vulnerabilities,   102      Implications for Naval Force Planning,   105      An Evolutionary Approach to Revolutionary Capability,   106     APPENDIXES       A  Terms of Reference   111     B  Study Membership and Participants   116     C  Acronyms and Abbreviations   124