The Role of Experimentation in Building Future Naval Forces

255 Pages·2004·1.36 MB·English

by  National Research Council, Committee for the Role of Experimentation in Building Future Naval Forces

The Role of Experimentation
in Building Future Naval Forces
Committee for the Role of Experimentation in Building Future Naval Forces
Naval Studies Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
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 study was supported by Contract No. N00014-00-G-0230, DO #12, between the National Acad-
emy of Sciences and the Department of the Navy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommen-
dations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-08873-9 (Book)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-50851-7 (PDF)
Copies available from:
Naval Studies Board
The Keck Center of the National Academies
500 Fifth Street, N.W., Room WS904
Washington, DC 20001
Additional copies of this report are available from National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W.,
Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; [phone] or [phone] (in the Washington metro-
politan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2004 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
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 achieve-
ments 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 respon-
sibility 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
COMMITTEE FOR THE ROLE OF EXPERIMENTATION IN
BUILDING FUTURE NAVAL FORCES
ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, Great Falls, Virginia, Chair
RUZENA K. BAJCSY, Center for Information Technology Research in the
Interest of Society, University of California, Berkeley
ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University
DUNCAN A. BROWN, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University
MARION R. BRYSON, North Tree Management
JOHN D. CHRISTIE, Logistics Management Institute
JOHN A. CORDER, Colleyville, Texas
PAUL K. DAVIS, RAND and RAND Graduate School of Policy Studies
BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies
J. DEXTER FLETCHER, Institute for Defense Analyses
RICHARD J. IVANETICH, Institute for Defense Analyses
L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California
WILLIAM B. MORGAN, Rockville, Maryland
JASON PROVIDAKES, MITRE Corporation
JOHN E. RHODES, Balboa, California
WILLIAM D. SMITH, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL G. SOVEREIGN, Monterey, California
MITZI M. WERTHEIM, Center for Naval Analyses
CINDY WILLIAMS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JOSEPH ZEIDNER, Bethesda, Maryland
Staff
RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director (on leave as of July 12, 2003)
CHARLES F. DRAPER, Acting Director (as of July 12, 2003)
MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer
SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant
IAN M. CAMERON, Project Assistant
SEYMOUR J. DEITCHMAN, Consultant
SIDNEY G. REED, JR., Consultant
JAMES G. WILSON, Consultant
v
NAVAL STUDIES BOARD
VINCENT VITTO, Charles S. Draper Laboratory, Inc., Chair
JOSEPH B. REAGAN, Saratoga, California, Vice Chair
ARTHUR B. BAGGEROER, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State
University, Special Advisor
JAMES P. BROOKS, Litton/Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc.
JOHN D. CHRISTIE, Logistics Management Institute
RUTH A. DAVID, Analytic Services, Inc.
ANTONIO L. ELIAS, Orbital Sciences Corporation
BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies
FRANK A. HORRIGAN, Bedford, Massachusetts
JOHN W. HUTCHINSON, Harvard University
RICHARD J. IVANETICH, Institute for Defense Analyses
HARRY W. JENKINS, ITT Industries
MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories
DAVID V. KALBAUGH, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University
ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, Great Falls, Virginia
L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California
WILLIAM B. MORGAN, Rockville, Maryland
JOHN H. MOXLEY III, Korn/Ferry International
ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University
NILS R. SANDELL, JR., ALPHATECH, Inc.
JAMES M. SINNETT, Ballwin, Missouri
WILLIAM D. SMITH, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania
RICHARD L. WADE, Risk Management Sciences
MITZI M. WERTHEIM, Center for Naval Analyses
CINDY WILLIAMS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Navy Liaison Representatives
RADM LEWIS W. CRENSHAW, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations, N81 (through June 6, 2003)
RADM JOSEPH A. SESTAK, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations, N81 (as of July 15, 2003)
RADM JAY M. COHEN, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91
Marine Corps Liaison Representative
LTGEN EDWARD HANLON, JR., USMC, Commanding General, Marine
Corps Combat Development Command
vi
Staff
RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director (on leave as of July 12, 2003)
CHARLES F. DRAPER, Acting Director (as of July 12, 2003)
MICHAEL L. WILSON, Program Officer
MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer
SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant
IAN M. CAMERON, Project Assistant
vii
Preface
As we enter the 21st century, the Department of Defense (DOD) seeks to
transform the nation’s armed forces to meet the military challenges of the future.
The absence of a threatening major power in today’s world offers the DOD a rare
opportunity to experiment, change, innovate, and transform its forces to meet
tomorrow’s needs while at the same time addressing today’s missions. Various
reviews currently under way are seeking to establish strategic guidelines for
building tomorrow’s joint military forces. In addition, activities such as the
DOD’s fiscal year 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review help to ensure that Navy
and Marine Corps programs, processes, and organizations, and the capabilities
that they create, are integral to realizing the objectives of joint forces. In this
context, the development of joint warfighting capabilities is among the most
important of the future issues facing the Department of Defense (and the Depart-
ment of the Navy), and the recent war with Iraq has accelerated recognition of
future requirements and the development of concepts to address them.1
During the past decade, experimentation has taken on increased importance
in building naval force capabilities. Through its fleet battle experiments, the
Navy has attempted to explore and use emerging systems and technologies in
order to develop new operational concepts. The Marine Corps Warfighting
1The present study concluded at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom, just as assessments of lessons
learned were being initiated. The U.S. Joint Forces Command, for instance, was assigned to meet
with assessment teams from all of the Services to collect their respective observations on the war.
See Malina Brown, 2003, “Thornberry Questions Services’ Objectivity: USJFCOM Team to Meet
with Services on Lessons Learned from Iraq War,” Inside the Navy, Vol. 16, No. 18, May 5, p. 1.
ix