Abbreviated Version of a Classified Report

At the request of the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine appointed an expert committee to study ways to defend forward-deployed U.S. Navy platforms from potential enemy missile and rocket attacks over the next 15 years. The Department of the Navy has determined that the final report prepared by the committee is classified in its entirety under Executive Order 13526 and therefore cannot be made available to the public. This abbreviated report provides background information on the full report and the committee that prepared it.

Copies of the report will be available to authorized individuals in the government from the National Academies’ Naval Studies Board (NSB) (http://www.nationalacademies.org/nsb). Other requests for the report should be submitted to the Department of the Navy.

The study that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Academies, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Academy of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. The study was supported by a contracting arrangement (ref. N00189-16-G-Z0001, TO#002) between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of the Navy.

BACKGROUND

The current CNO requested that the National Academies through the NSB conduct a comprehensive study to explore ways to defend forward-deployed U.S. Navy platforms from potential enemy missile and rocket attacks. Subsequent to ensuring that all the necessary contracting and industrial security requirements were met, the President of the National

Academy of Sciences appointed the Committee on Defending Forward-Deployed U.S. Navy Platforms from Potential Enemy Missile and Rocket Attacks.

The study’s terms of reference (TOR) were formulated by the Assessment Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV N81), in consultation with the NSB chair and director, and charge the committee to produce two reports. The specific TOR for the study (i.e., the committee’s charge) was as follows:

1. Review current and projected missile and rocket threats to forward-deployed U.S. Navy platforms over the next 15 years.
2. Assess the Department of the Navy’s capabilities and concepts aimed at defending forward-deployed U.S. platforms vis-à-vis the kinetic threats reviewed in (1), accounting for any kinetic and non-kinetic efforts also being pursued by the other Services and defense agencies.
3. Evaluate the Department of the Navy’s current technology investment strategy in defending forward-deployed U.S. Navy platforms vis-à-vis the kinetic threats reviewed in (1), accounting for any kinetic and non-kinetic technology investments also being made by the other Services, defense agencies, and defense community at-large (e.g., laboratories, industrial base, and academia).
4. Recommend any novel kinetic and non-kinetic ways (e.g., future capabilities, concepts, and technologies) to defend forward-deployed U.S. Navy platforms from potential enemy missile and rocket attacks over the next 15 years.

APPROACH

The committee’s approach to its data-gathering efforts focused on three primary collection objectives: (1) current and emerging threats; (2) current kinetic and non-kinetic warfare capabilities (available and developing U.S. defenses and countermeasures); and (3) the feasibility and potential benefit of novel capabilities, concepts, and technologies for defense against potential missile and rocket attacks. As appropriate, the committee also sought information regarding opportunities to leverage or benefit from strategies and developments across the Department of Defense, other Services, and other national organizations. Following submission of its interim report, the committee’s data-gathering efforts focused on understanding the requirements to operationalize promising systems and technologies under development and other non-materiel improvements with operational impact. To achieve its objectives, the committee held seven plenary meetings, numerous subgroup site visits, and benefited from receipt of previously completed studies and other research material.

Acknowledgement of Reviewers

National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reports are reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Academies’ 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 the draft final report:

Michael D. Anderson, Systems Engineering Group, Inc.;

Arthur H. (Trip) Barber,^* Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc.;

Michael Bennett, Congressional Budget Office;

Dennis M. Bushnell, NASA Langley Research Center;

Dennis M. Gallagher,^* The MITRE Corporation;

Gary A. O’Connell,^* Dayton, Ohio;

Mark J. Lewis,^* Institute for Defense Analysis Science and Technology Policy Institute;

Thomas E. Romesser,^* Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems (retired);

David M. Van Wie,^* Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory; and

Marc A. Zissman,^* Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lincoln Laboratory.

Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the findings or recommendations, nor did they see the final report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lester L. Lyles, Gen, USAF (Retired), Vienna, Virginia, and John P. Stenbit, U.S. Department of Defense (retired), who were 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 the report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution.

___________________

^* Denotes the individual served as a reviewer of both the interim and final reports.