Naval Forces' Capability for Theater Missile Defense (2001)
Chapter: Front Matter
Page ii
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20418
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 work was performed under Department of the Navy Contract N00014-00-G-0230/0003 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.
Cover: Photographs courtesy of the U.S. Navy.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-07426-6
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Copies available from:
Naval Studies Board
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20418
Printed in the United States of America
Page iii
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
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. 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 M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
Page v
COMMITTEE FOR NAVAL FORCES' CAPABILITY FOR THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE
ALAN BERMAN, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, Chair
ROY R. BUEHLER, Mableton, Georgia
WILLIAM A. DAVIS, JR., Guntersville, Alabama
LARRY E. DRUFFEL, South Carolina Research Authority
BRIG “CHIP” ELLIOTT, BBN Technologies
FRANK A. HORRIGAN, Raytheon Company (retired)
RICHARD J. IVANETICH, Institute for Defense Analyses
HARRY W. JENKINS, ITT Industries
DAVID V. KALBAUGH, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University
FRANK KENDALL, Falls Church, Virginia
L. DAVID MONTAGUE, Menlo Park, California
F. ROBERT NAKA, CERA, Inc.
J. THEODORE PARKER, Annapolis, Maryland
C. KUMAR N. PATEL, Pranalytica, Inc.
NILS R. SANDELL, JR., ALPHATECH, Inc.
HOWARD E. SHROBE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
JOHN P. STENBIT, TRW, Inc.
ROBERT F. STENGEL, Princeton University
EDWARD J. WEGMAN, George Mason University
STEPHEN D. WEINER, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Staff
CHARLES F. DRAPER, Study Director
SIDNEY G. REED, JR., Consultant
JAMES G. WILSON, Consultant
Page vi
NAVAL STUDIES BOARD
VINCENT VITTO, Charles S. Draper Laboratory, Inc., Chair
JOSEPH B. REAGAN, Saratoga, California, Vice Chair
DAVID R. HEEBNER, McLean, Virginia, Past Chair
ALBERT J. BACIOCCO, JR., The Baciocco Group, Inc.
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.
PAUL K. DAVIS, RAND and RAND Graduate School of Policy Studies
DANIEL E. HASTINGS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
FRANK A. HORRIGAN, Raytheon Company (retired)
RICHARD J. IVANETICH, Institute for Defense Analyses
MIRIAM E. JOHN, Sandia National Laboratories
DAVID V. KALBAUGH, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University
ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL, Great Falls, Virginia
WILLIAM B. MORGAN, Rockville, Maryland
ROBERT B. OAKLEY, National Defense University
NILS R. SANDELL, JR., ALPHATECH, Inc.
HARRISON SHULL, Monterey, California
JAMES M. SINNETT, The Boeing Company
WILLIAM D. SMITH, Fayetteville, Pennsylvania
JOHN P. STENBIT, TRW, Inc.
PAUL K. VAN RIPER, Williamsburg, Virginia
MITZI M. WERTHEIM, Center for Naval Analyses
Navy Liaison Representatives
RADM RAYMOND C. SMITH, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (through November 3, 2000)
RADM ALFRED G. HARMS, JR., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N81 (as of November 4, 2000)
RADM PAUL G. GAFFNEY II, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91 (through June 7, 2000)
RADM JAY M. COHEN, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, N91 (as of June 8, 2000)
Page vii
Marine Corps Liaison Representative
LTGEN JOHN E. RHODES, USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (through August 17, 2000)
LTGEN BRUCE B. KNUTSON, JR., USMC, Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command (as of August 18, 2000)
RONALD D. TAYLOR, Director
CHARLES F. DRAPER, Senior Program Officer
MARY G. GORDON, Information Officer
SUSAN G. CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant
KERRY A.M. WILLIAMS, Research Assistant
Page ix
Preface
Under the precepts of Joint Vision 2020,1 full-dimensional protection is one of four principal operational concepts that describe future war-fighting objectives. Defense against cruise and ballistic missiles remains a key challenge for the military forces. The missile threat to these forces continues to grow with the continued global diffusion of missile technologies and the expansion of access to space-based reconnaissance and imagery. The threat is made even more difficult to defeat if the missile warheads are armed with chemical or biological warfare payloads. The goal of the Department of Defense is to develop an integrated, indepth theater air and missile defense system that exploits capabilities to detect, identify, locate, track, and deny enemy missile attacks on joint forces and friendly nations. For naval forces operating in a littoral environment the cruise missile defense problem is further complicated by the need to detect, identify, and track cruise missiles against the land clutter background.
The Navy's Aegis system was developed as part of a layered integrated system of ship-based sensors and weapons to protect ships against air- and ground-launched cruise missile attack. The effectiveness of current Navy and Marine Corps cruise missile defenses should be enhanced by the planned introduction of the cooperative engagement capability (CEC), which will allow participants in a CEC network to contribute to the development of target tracks based on detections by geographically dispersed sensors.
1 Shelton, GEN Henry H., USA. 2000. Joint Vision 2020. Joint Chiefs of Staff, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. Available online at <http://www.dtic.mil/jv2020/jvpub2.htm>.
Page x
The Navy and the other Services are developing systems that can contribute to theater ballistic missile defense. Ultimately, theater ballistic missile defense systems will evolve from the layered capabilities of several independent systems. These systems might include the Patriot advanced capability-3 (PAC-3), the medium extended air defense system (MEADS), the theater high altitude area defense (THAAD) system, the airborne laser (ABL), the Navy area defense (NAD) system, and the Navy theater wide (NTW) system. Navy programs must be evaluated in the context of the capabilities and likely availability of systems fielded by other Services and in the context of the mutual integration of Navy/ Marine Corps and the other Services' systems.
As currently envisioned, naval forces will rely on evolved variants of the Aegis system. These will employ an improved standard missile (SM) to provide an in-theater (at sea) capability to engage ballistic missiles within the atmosphere (the NAD system) and an advanced SM to engage ballistic missiles at longer ranges outside the atmosphere (the NTW system). Forward-deployed naval forces would make this contribution in developing phases of conflict, protecting threatened nations and arriving joint forces against attacks by ballistic missiles that can deliver weapons of mass destruction.
The development of a robust theater missile defense capability will demand technological advances in a number of areas. Based on current concepts, the successful engagement of attacking ballistic missiles will depend on the availability of effective hit-to-kill interceptors, multispectral seekers, and improvements to radar performance that will provide an ability to detect, evaluate, and overcome penetration aids and other countermeasures to theater missile defense. The successful engagement of hostile cruise missiles in a littoral environment will depend on advances in radar performance in a high-clutter background; networked, distributed, surveillance capabilities; low-observable detection technology; and data processing and fusion. The network that integrates the layered capabilities will require very low latencies and high bandwidth so that data and information are delivered when and where needed.
The committee was asked to evaluate all of these factors in the context of the Department of the Navy's current and planned acquisitions and in the context of its current investment in research and development (R&D).
TERMS OF REFERENCE
At the request of Admiral Jay L. Johnson, USN, former Chief of Naval Operations, the National Research Council, under the auspices of the Naval Studies Board, conducted a study of current and future naval theater missile defense capabilities. The terms of reference for the study are as follows:
-
Evaluate present and projected future ballistic and cruise missile threats to naval forces operating in littoral areas and to joint force operations in these areas.
Page xi
Evaluate the current state of technologies involved in theater missile defense, accounting for the efforts of the other Services and defense agencies. Project (out to 2015) the future state of the technologies involved.
Evaluate current and projected Department of the Navy programs designed to meet the threats. Evaluate current and projected R&D programs aimed at providing naval forces with new and improved capabilities, including the Navy's own efforts and those of other Services.
Recommend R&D priorities, accounting for the potential technical and operational interactions among Navy, other Services and defense agencies, and allied nations' programs.
The assessment should include consideration of existing and planned platform, missile, and command, control, communications, computing, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems and the capability of these systems to support the ability of the naval forces to contribute to the development of a robust theater missile defense for naval forces in expeditionary operations and to cooperatively protect joint forces in joint operations.2
In a letter dated December 11, 2000, to the president of the National Academy of Sciences, General James L. Jones, USMC, Commandant of the Marine Corps, indicated that he also endorsed the study's terms of reference.
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
The Committee for Naval Forces' Capability for Theater Missile Defense first convened in April 2000 and held further meetings and site visits over a period of 8 months:
-
April 25-26, 2000, in Washington, D.C. Organizational meeting: Navy and Marine Corps briefings on operational requirements and naval missile defense programs and Office of Naval Research and Naval Research Laboratory briefings on naval theater missile defense science and technology efforts.
-
May 23-24, 2000, in Washington, D.C. Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and Office of Naval Intelligence briefings on missile threats; Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), Joint Theater Air Missile Defense Organization, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Theater Combat Systems, Naval Sea Systems Command (PMS 456), Program Executive Office for Theater Surface Combatants (PEO TSC), Army Program Executive Office for Air and Missile Defense, and Air Force Global Power Program Office
2 Adopting a usage common in the briefings to the committee, the report uses the term “battle management command, control, and communications” (BMC3) to encompass things that could also be described as C4ISR.
Page xii
briefings on theater missile defense programs, operations, and technologies; and Center for Naval Analyses briefing on the limitations of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
June 27-28, 2000, in Washington, D.C. PEO TSC and Program Executive Office for Expeditionary Warfare briefings on NAD and NTW systems; Naval Sea Systems Command (PMS 500) and Raytheon Electronic Systems briefing on MFR/DD21; and BMDO system engineering briefing.
July 25-26, 2000, in Washington, D.C. PEO TSC, Joint Technology Program, Naval Sea Systems Command (PMS 467), Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (PMW 159), and Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensors Program Office briefings on missile defense programs, operations, and technologies.
August 29-30, 2000, in Washington, D.C. Deputy Commandant for Aviation and Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (N865) briefings on naval theater missile defense operational requirements and programs; U.S. Joint Forces Command briefing on theater missile defense documentation; Applied Research Laboratory (Pennsylvania State University), Army Space and Missile Defense Command, and Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate briefings on advanced electro-optics and laser systems; and Institute for Defense Analyses and Naval Sea Systems Command briefing on single integrated air picture efforts.
August 31, 2000, in Laurel, Maryland. Small group site visit to the Applied Physics Laboratory (Johns Hopkins University) to follow up on information presented on the NAD and NTW systems presented at the June 27-28 meeting.
September 8, 2000, in Lexington, Massachusetts. Small group site visit to Lincoln Laboratory (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) for briefings on radar/infrared discrimination, SPY radar, open architecture, and combat identification techniques.
September 11-15, 2000, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Committee deliberations and report drafting.
November 28-29, 2000, in Washington, D.C. Committee deliberations and report drafting.
The months between the last meeting and publication of the report were spent preparing the draft manuscript, reviewing and responding to the external review comments, and editing the report.
Page xiii
Acknowledgment of Reviewers
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 (NRC's) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the 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:
Gregory H. Canavan, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Anthony J. DeMaria, DeMaria ElectroOptics,
James H. Doyle, Bethesda, Maryland,
Eugene Fox, McLean, Virginia,
Marvin J. Langston, SALUS Company, Inc.,
George Lewis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Donald L. Pilling, Battelle Memorial Institute,
Merrill I. Skolnik, Baltimore, Maryland, and
Keith A. Smith, Vienna, Virginia.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions and recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review
Page xiv
of this report was overseen by Robert A. Frosch, appointed by the NRC's Report Review Committee, who 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 solely with the authoring committee and the institution.
Page xv
Contents
|
Page xvi
|
