Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M.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. Wm. A.Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and 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 M.Alberts and Dr. Wm. A.Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

www.national-academies.org

The mission of the Office of Naval Research (ONR) is to maintain a close relationship with the research and development community to support long-range research, foster discovery, nurture future generations of researchers, produce new technologies that meet known naval requirements, and provide innovations in fields relevant to the future Navy and Marine Corps. Accordingly, ONR supports research activities across a broad range of scientific and engineering disciplines. As one means of ensuring that its investments appropriately address naval priorities and requirements and that its programs are of high scientific and technical quality, ONR requires that each of its departments undergo an annual review (with a detailed focus on about one-third of the reviewed department's programs). The Air and Surface Weapons Technology program reviewed in this report resides within the Strike Technology Division (Code 351) of the Naval Expeditionary Warfare S&T Department (Code 35) of ONR.

At the request of ONR, the National Research Council (NRC) established the Committee for the Review of ONR's Air and Surface Weapons Technology Program to review and evaluate discovery and invention (D&I) thrusts (ordnance, directed energy, gun weaponry, precision targeting and guidance, and propulsion and aeromechanics) and air and surface weapons objectives, components, and interfaces in two of ONR's Future Naval Capabilities (FNCs) programs (Time Critical Strike and Missile Defense). The committee selected the review criteria.

The committee met once, May 14–16, 2002, in Washington, D.C., to both gather information and prepare an initial draft report. The 3-day meeting was divided into two parts: The first comprised presentations by and interactions with project managers (and ONR-supported principal investigators) responsible for various program components, and the second was devoted to discussing the issues, developing consensus, and drafting the committee's findings and recommendations. (The committee members received reading material from the sponsor prior to the first meeting.) The committee's report represents its consensus views on the issues posed in the charge.

This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council's Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Eugene E.Covert, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Jose B.Cruz, Jr., Ohio State University,

William A.Davis, Guntersville, Alabama,

Jack E.Goeller, Advanced Technology and Research Corporation,

Arthur H.Guenther, University of New Mexico,

Daniel N.Held, Northrop Grumman Corporation, and

Joseph Metcalf III, Washington, D.C.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lee M.Hunt, Alexandria, Virginia. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.