Shortly after the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Army asked the National Research Council (NRC) for a series of reports on how science and technology could assist the Army meet its Homeland defense obligations. The first report, Science and Technology for Army Homeland Securityâ€"Report 1, presented a survey of a road range of technologies and recommended applying Future Force technologies to homeland security wherever possible. In particular, the report noted that the Army should play a major role in providing emergency command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities and that the technology and architecture needed for homeland security C4ISR was compatible with that of the Army's Future Force. This second report focuses on C4ISR and how it can facilitate the Army's efforts to assist the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and emergency responders meet a catastrophic event.
The confluence of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack and the U.S. Army's historic role to support civil authorities has resulted in substantial new challenges for the Army. To help meet these challenges, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology requested the National Research Council (NRC) carry out a series of studies on how science and technology could assist the Army prepare for its role in homeland security (HLS). The NRC's Board on Army Science and Technology formed the Committee on Army Science and Technology for Homeland Security to accomplish that assignment. The Committee was asked to review relevant literature and activities, determine areas of emphasis for Army S&T in support of counter terrorism and anti-terrorism, and recommend high-payoff technologies to help the Army fulfill its mission. The Department of Defense Counter-Terrorism Technology Task Force identified four operational areas in reviewing technical proposals for HLS operations: indications and warning; denial and survivability; recovery and consequence management; and attribution and retaliation. The study sponsor asked the Committee to use these four areas as the basis for its assessment of the science and technology (S&T) that will be important for the Army's HLS role. Overall, the Committee found that: There is potential for substantial synergy between S&T work carried out by the Army for its HLS responsibilities and the development of the next generation Army, the Objective Force. The Army National Guard (ARNG) is critical to the success of the Army's HLS efforts.
Dramatic political and economic changes throughout the world, coupled with rapid advances in technology, pose an important question for the U.S. Army: What technologies are best suited to defending U.S. interests against tomorrow's military threats? STAR 21 provides an expert analysis of how the Army can prepare itself for the battlefield of the futureâ€"where soldiers will wear "smart" helmets and combat chemical warfare with vaccines produced in days to counter new threats. This book summarizes emerging developments in robotics, "brillant" munitions, medical support, laser sensors, biotechnolgy, novel materials, and other key areas. Taking into account reliability, deployability, and other values that all military systems will need, the volume identifies new systems and emerging technologies that offer the greatest payoff for the Army. The volume addresses a host of important military issues, including the importance of mobile, rapidly deployable forces, the changing role of the helicopter, and how commercial technology may help the Army stay ahead of potential opponents. Alternative Selection, Doubleday's Military Book Club
The Terms of Reference for this study directed the ASB to analyze the current Army Materiel Command Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) portfolio of S & T projects and objectives and to provide findings and recommendations on a number of strategic issues. The TOR focuses on two principal motivating factors: (1) S & T mission effectiveness; and (2) anticipated Department of Defense (DOD) budget reductions.
The U.S. military has committed to a strategy of network-centric warfare. As a result, the Army has become increasingly interested in the critical role of network science. To a significant extent, this interest was stimulated by an earlier NRC report, Network Science. To build on that book, the Army asked the NRC to conduct a study to define advanced operating models and architectures for future Army laboratories and centers focused on network science, technologies, and experimentation (NSTE). The challenges resulting from base realignment and closure (BRAC) relocations of Army research, development, and engineering resourcesâ€"as they affected the NSTE programâ€"were also to be a focus of the study. This book provides a discussion of what NSTE is needed by the Army; an examination of the NSTE currently carried out by the Army; an assessment of needed infrastructure resources for Army NSTE; and an analysis of goals, models, and alternatives for an NSTE center.
Review of Army Research Laboratory Programs for Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Institutions examines the ways in which historically black colleges and universities and minority institutions have used the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) funds to enhance the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs at their institutions over the past decade. This report also considers which program elements reflect practices that are effective for assisting these institutions in enhancing the STEM programs and could be considered by other Department of Defense agencies for application to their programs. The Army Research Laboratory has contributed to building up the human and infrastructural capacities in the past, and this report looks for ways to enhance ARL program impact on institution-building in the future, confident that more capable black and minority-serving institutions will, in turn, help America as a whole develop a more diverse and intellectually capable STEM workforce.
Armor plays a significant role in the protection of warriors. During the course of history, the introduction of new materials and improvements in the materials already used to construct armor has led to better protection and a reduction in the weight of the armor. But even with such advances in materials, the weight of the armor required to manage threats of ever-increasing destructive capability presents a huge challenge. Opportunities in Protection Materials Science and Technology for Future Army Applications explores the current theoretical and experimental understanding of the key issues surrounding protection materials, identifies the major challenges and technical gaps for developing the future generation of lightweight protection materials, and recommends a path forward for their development. It examines multiscale shockwave energy transfer mechanisms and experimental approaches for their characterization over short timescales, as well as multiscale modeling techniques to predict mechanisms for dissipating energy. The report also considers exemplary threats and design philosophy for the three key applications of armor systems: (1) personnel protection, including body armor and helmets, (2) vehicle armor, and (3) transparent armor. Opportunities in Protection Materials Science and Technology for Future Army Applications recommends that the Department of Defense (DoD) establish a defense initiative for protection materials by design (PMD), with associated funding lines for basic and applied research. The PMD initiative should include a combination of computational, experimental, and materials testing, characterization, and processing research conducted by government, industry, and academia.
The U.S. military does not believe its soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines should be engaged in combat with adversaries on a "level playing field." Our combat individuals enter engagements to win. To that end, the United States has used its technical prowess and industrial capability to develop decisive weapons that overmatch those of potential enemies. In its current engagement-what has been identified as an "era of persistent conflict"- the nation's most important weapon is the dismounted soldier operating in small units. Today's soldier must be prepared to contend with both regular and irregular adversaries. Results in Iraq and Afghanistan show that, while the U.S. soldier is a formidable fighter, the contemporary suite of equipment and support does not afford the same high degree of overmatch capability exhibited by large weapons platforms-yet it is the soldier who ultimately will play the decisive role in restoring stability. Making the Soldier Decisive on Future Battlefields establishes the technical requirements for overmatch capability for dismounted soldiers operating individually or in small units. It prescribes technological and organizational capabilities needed to make the dismounted soldier a decisive weapon in a changing, uncertain, and complex future environment and provides the Army with 15 recommendations on how to focus its efforts to enable the soldier and tactical small unit (TSU) to achieve overmatch.
The development of inexpensive small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) technologies and the growing desire of hobbyists to have more and more capability have created a sustained sUAS industry, however these capabilities are directly enabling the ability of adversaries to threaten U.S. interests. In response to these threats, the U.S. Army and other Department of Defense (DoD) organizations have invested significantly in counter-sUAS technologies, often focusing on detecting radio frequency transmissions by sUASs and/or their operators, and jamming the radio frequency command and control links and Global Positioning System signals of individual sUASs. However, today's consumer and customized sUASs can increasingly operate without radio frequency command and control links by using automated target recognition and tracking, obstacle avoidance, and other software-enabled capabilities. The U.S. Army tasked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to conduct a study to address the above concerns. In particular, the committee was asked to assess the sUAS threat, particularly when massed and collaborating; assess current capabilities of battalion-and- below infantry units to counter sUASs; identify counter-sUAS technologies appropriate for near- term, mid-term, and far-term science and technology investment; consider human factors and logistics; and determine if the Department of Homeland Security could benefit from DoD efforts. This abbreviated report provides background information on the full report and the committee that prepared it.
Under mandate of Section 253, Study and Report on Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes, of the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act, the U.S. Air Force contracted with the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct the present study. In response, the NRC established the Committee on Review of the Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes-composed of academics, active and retired industry executives, former Air Force and Department of Defense (DoD) civilian executives, and retired general officers with acquisition and science and technology (S&T) backgrounds. The committee was to review the effectiveness of the Air Force S&T program and, in particular, the actions that the Air Force has taken to improve the management of the program in recent years in response to concerns voiced in numerous study reports and by Congress. The committee's principal charter was to assess whether, as a whole, the changes put in place by the Air Force since 1999 are sufficient to assure that adequate technology will be available to ensure U.S. military superiority. The committee conducted four open meetings to collect information from the Air Force and its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB), the U.S Navy, the U.S. Army, and DoD. A great many factors influence any judgment of the S&T program's sufficiency in supporting future warfighter needs; these factors include threat assessment, budget constraints, technology opportunities, workforce, and program content. Given the relatively short time available for this study and considering the detailed reviews conducted annually by the SAB, the technical content of the S&T program was necessarily beyond the committee's purview. Rather, the committee focused on S&T management, including areas that have been studied many times, in depth, by previous advisory groups. Besides addressing technical content, those prior studies and congressional concerns highlighted four overarching S&T issues: advocacy and visibility, planning, workforce, and investment levels. In response, the Air Force instituted changes in S&T management. The NRC is requested to conduct a study to determine how changes to the Air Force science and technology program implemented during the past two years affect the future capabilities of the Air Force. Effectiveness of Air Force Science and Technology Program Changes reviews and assess whether such changes as a whole are sufficient to ensure the following: A. That concerns about the management of the science and technology program that have been raised by the Congress, the Defense Science Board, the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, and the Air Force Association have been adequately addressed. B. That appropriate and sufficient technology is available to ensure the military superiority of the United States and counter future high-risk threats. C. That the science and technology investments are balanced to meet near-, mid-, and long-term needs of the Air Force. D. That the Air Force organizational structure provides for a sufficiently senior level advocate of science and technology to ensure an ongoing, effective presence of the science and technology community during the budget and planning process. This report also assess the specific changes to the Air Force science and technology program as whether the biannual science and technology summits provide sufficient visibility into, and understanding and appreciation of, the value of the science and technology program to the senior level of Air Force budget and policy decision makers.
This report summarizes the 2019 findings of the Panel on Review of Extramural Basic Research at the Army Research Laboratory, which reviewed the programs at the Army Research Office's Physical Sciences Directorate.
The mission of the United States Army is to fight and win our nation's wars by providing prompt, sustained land dominance across the full range of military operations and spectrum of conflict in support of combatant commanders. Accomplishing this mission rests on the ability of the Army to equip and move its forces to the battle and sustain them while they are engaged. Logistics provides the backbone for Army combat operations. Without fuel, ammunition, rations, and other supplies, the Army would grind to a halt. The U.S. military must be prepared to fight anywhere on the globe and, in an era of coalition warfare, to logistically support its allies. While aircraft can move large amounts of supplies, the vast majority must be carried on ocean going vessels and unloaded at ports that may be at a great distance from the battlefield. As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown, the costs of convoying vast quantities of supplies is tallied not only in economic terms but also in terms of lives lost in the movement of the materiel. As the ability of potential enemies to interdict movement to the battlefield and interdict movements in the battlespace increases, the challenge of logistics grows even larger. No matter how the nature of battle develops, logistics will remain a key factor. Force Multiplying Technologies for Logistics Support to Military Operations explores Army logistics in a global, complex environment that includes the increasing use of antiaccess and area-denial tactics and technologies by potential adversaries. This report describes new technologies and systems that would reduce the demand for logistics and meet the demand at the point of need, make maintenance more efficient, improve inter- and intratheater mobility, and improve near-real-time, in-transit visibility. Force Multiplying Technologies also explores options for the Army to operate with the other services and improve its support of Special Operations Forces. This report provides a logistics-centric research and development investment strategy and illustrative examples of how improved logistics could look in the future.
This volume is the latest in a series of biennial assessments of the scientific and technical quality of the Army Research Laboratory (ARL). The current report summarizes findings for the 2007-2008 period, during which 95 volunteer experts in fields of science and engineering participated in the following activities: visiting ARL annually, receiving formal presentations of technical work, examining facilities, engaging in technical discussions with ARL staff, and reviewing ARL technical materials. The overall quality of ARL's technical staff and their work continues to be impressive, as well as the relevance of their work to Army needs. ARL continues to exhibit a clear, passionate concern for the end user of its technology-the soldier in the field. While two directorates have large program-support missions, there is considerable customer-support work across the directorates, which universally demonstrate mindfulness of the importance of transitioning technology to support immediate and near-term Army needs. ARL staff also continue to expand their involvement with the wider scientific and engineering community. This involvement includes monitoring relevant developments elsewhere, engaging in significant collaborative work (including the Collaborative Technology Alliances), and sharing work through peer reviews. In general, ARL is working very well within an appropriate research and development niche and has been demonstrating significant accomplishments.
The United States Army is looking for ways to defend against missile and mortar attacks. In this book, the National Research Council assesses a plan to create a 100 kW mobile, solid-state, laser weapon that could defend an area several kilometers in diameter. The NRC provides several recommendations: A 100 kW Laser is of limited value, so the program's goal should be a 400 kW weapon. The Army should proceed with the program in stages, focusing first on a rugged transportable platform for the weapon using existing 25 kW laser technology, then directing resources toward 100kW and 400 kW weapons. The Army should perform a detailed, quantitative study of the effectiveness of a high energy, solid-state laser weapon against future threats. The Army should continue to participate in U.S.-based and international research on high-energy lasers and related equipment. The committee found substantial benefits for the Army's solid-state laser program from other programs outside the Army. The Army should conduct risk-assessments that investigate the effects that a high energy laser may have on other airborne platforms in the vicinity of the target. The Army should study eye safety for both the operators of the laser and for civilians. The results of these studies should be integrated into the development of the weapon.
During the past decade and a half, the National Research Council, through its Committee on National Statistics, has carried out a number of studies on the application of statistical methods to improve the testing and development of defense systems. These studies were intended to provide advice to the Department of Defense (DOD), which sponsored these studies. The previous studies have been concerned with the role of statistical methods in testing and evaluation, reliability practices, software methods, combining information, and evolutionary acquisition. Industrial Methods for the Effective Testing and Development of Defense Systems is the latest in a series of studies, and unlike earlier studies, this report identifies current engineering practices that have proved successful in industrial applications for system development and testing. This report explores how developmental and operational testing, modeling and simulation, and related techniques can improve the development and performance of defense systems, particularly techniques that have been shown to be effective in industrial applications and are likely to be useful in defense system development. In addition to the broad issues, the report identifies three specific topics for its focus: finding failure modes earlier, technology maturity, and use of all relevant information for operational assessments.
Unmanned ground vehicles (UGV) are expected to play a key role in the Army's Objective Force structure. These UGVs would be used for weapons platforms, logistics carriers, and reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition among other things. To examine aspects of the Army's UGV program, assess technology readiness, and identify key issues in implementing UGV systems, among other questions, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Technology asked the National Research Council (NRC) to conduct a study of UGV technologies. This report discusses UGV operational requirements, current development efforts, and technology integration and roadmaps to the future. Key recommendations are presented addressing technical content, time lines, and milestones for the UGV efforts.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board (ARLTAB) provides biennial assessments of the scientific and technical quality of the research, development, and analysis programs at the Army Research Laboratory (ARL), focusing on ballistics sciences, human sciences, information sciences, materials sciences, and mechanical sciences. This biennial report summarizes the findings of the ARLTAB from the reviews conducted by the panels in 2015 and 2016 and subsumes the 2015-2016 interim report.
The charge of the Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board (ARLTAB) is to provide biannual assessments of the scientific and technical quality of the research, development, and analysis programs at the Army Research Laboratory (ARL). The advice provided in this report focuses on technical rather than programmatic considerations. The Board is assisted by six National Research Council (NRC) panels, each of which focuses on the portion of the ARL program conducted by one of ARL's six directorates. When requested to do so by ARL, the Board also examines work that cuts across the directorates. The Board has been performing assessments of ARL since 1996. The current report summarizes its finding for the 2009-2010 period, during which 96 volunteer experts in fields of science and engineering participated in the following activities: visiting ARL annually, receiving formal presentations of technical work, examining facilities, engaging in technical discussions with ARL staff, and reviewing ARL technical materials. The Board continues to be impressed by the overall quality of ARL's technical staff and their work and applauds ARL for its clear, passionate concern for the end user of its technology-the soldier in the field-and for ARL's demonstrated mindfulness of the importance of transitioning technology to support immediate and longer-term Army needs. ARL staff also continue to expand their involvement with the wider scientific and engineering community. In general, ARL is working very well within an appropriate research and development (R&D) niche and has been demonstrating significant accomplishments.
The charge of the Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board (ARLTAB) is to provide biennial assessments of the scientific and technical quality of the research, development, and analysis programs at the Army Research Laboratory (ARL). The ARLTAB is assisted by six panels, each of which focuses on the portion of the ARL program conducted by one of ARL's six directorates1. When requested to do so by ARL, the ARLTAB also examines work that cuts across the directorates. For example, during 2011-2012, ARL requested that the ARLTAB examine crosscutting work in the areas of autonomous systems and network science. The overall quality of ARL's technical staff and their work continues to be impressive. Staff continue to demonstrate clear, passionate mindfulness of the importance of transitioning technology to support immediate and longer-term Army needs. Their involvement with the wider scientific and engineering community continues to expand. Such continued involvement and collaboration are fundamentally important for ARL's scientific and technical activities and need to include the essential elements of peer review and interaction through publications and travel to attend professional meetings, including international professional meetings. In general, ARL is working very well within an appropriate research and development niche and has been demonstrating significant accomplishments, as exemplified in the following discussion, which also addresses opportunities and challenges.
The United States manufactured significant quantities of chemical weapons during the Cold War and the years prior. Because the chemical weapons are aging, storage constitutes an ongoing risk to the facility workforces and to the communities nearby. In addition, the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty stipulates that the chemical weapons be destroyed. The United States has destroyed approximately 90 percent of the chemical weapons stockpile located at seven sites. As part of the effort to destroy its remaining stockpile, the Department of Defense is building the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant (BGCAPP) on the Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD), near Richmond, Kentucky. The stockpile stored at BGAD consists of rockets and projectiles containing the nerve agents GB and VX and the blister agent mustard. Continued storage poses a risk to the BGAD workforce and the surrounding community because these munitions are several decades old and are developing leaks. Due to public opposition to the use of incineration to destroy the BGAD stockpile, Congress mandated that non- incineration technologies be identified for use at BGCAPP. As a result, the original BGCAPP design called for munitions to be drained of agent and then for the munition bodies to be washed out using high-pressure hot water. However as part of a larger package of modifications called Engineering Change Proposal 87 (ECP-87), the munition washout step was eliminated. Effects of the Deletion of Chemical Agent Washout on Operations at the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant examines the impacts of this design change on operations at BGCAPP and makes recommendations to guide future decision making.
The National Research Council's Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board provides biennial assessments of the scientific and technical quality of the research, development, and analysis programs at the Army Research Laboratory, focusing on ballistics sciences, human sciences, information sciences, materials sciences, and mechanical sciences. This interim report summarizes the findings of the Board for the first year of this biennial assessment. During the first year the Board examined the following elements: within ballistic sciences, terminal ballistics; within human sciences, translational neuroscience and soldier simulation and training technology; within information sciences, autonomous systems; and within materials sciences, energy materials and devices, photonic materials and devices, and biomaterials. The review of autonomous systems included examination of the mechanical sciences competency area for autonomous systems. A second, final report will subsume the findings of this interim report and add the findings from the second year of the review, during which the Board will examine additional elements.
The Army Research Laboratory (ARL) is the corporate laboratory for the U.S. army, which bridges scientific and military communities. The ARL is critical in maintaining the United States' dominant military power through its advanced research and analysis capabilities. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board (ARLTAB) conducts biennial assessments of the scientific and technical quality of the facilities. These assessments are necessary to ensure that the ARL's resources and quality of programs are maximized. 2017-2018 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory includes findings and recommendations regarding the quality of the ARL's research, development, and analysis programs. The report of the assessment is subdivided by the ARL's Science and Technology campaigns, including Materials Research, Sciences for Lethality and Protection, Information Sciences, Computational Sciences, Sciences for Maneuver, Human Sciences, and Analysis and Assessment. This biennial report summarizes the findings for the 2017-2018 period.
As the result of disposal practices from the early to mid-twentieth century, approximately 250 sites in 40 states, the District of Columbia, and 3 territories are known or suspected to have buried chemical warfare materiel (CWM). Much of this CWM is likely to occur in the form of small finds that necessitate the continuation of the Army's capability to transport treatment systems to disposal locations for destruction. Of greatest concern for the future are sites in residential areas and large sites on legacy military installations. The Army mission regarding the remediation of recovered chemical warfare materiel (RCWM) is turning into a program much larger than the existing munition and hazardous substance cleanup programs. The Army asked the Nation Research Council (NRC) to examine this evolving mission in part because this change is significant and becoming even more prominent as the stockpile destruction is nearing completion. One focus in this report is the current and future status of the Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Project (NSCMP), which now plays a central role in the remediation of recovered chemical warfare materiel and which reports to the Chemical Materials Agency. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel also reviews current supporting technologies for cleanup of CWM sites and surveys organizations involved with remediation of suspected CWM disposal sites to determine current practices and coordination. In this report, potential deficiencies in operational areas based on the review of current supporting technologies for cleanup of CWM sites and develop options for targeted research and development efforts to mitigate potential problem areas are identified.
The main approach adopted by the U.S. Army for destruction of all declared chemical weapon materiel (CWM) is incineration. There has been considerable public opposition to this approach, however, and the Army is developing a mix of fixed site and mobile treatment technologies to dispose of non-stockpile CWM. To assist in this effort, the Army requested NRC to review and evaluate these technologies, and to assess its plans for obtaining regulatory approval for and to involve the public in decisions about the application of those technologies. This book presents an assessment of non-stockpile treatment options and the application of these systems to the non-stockpile inventory, of regulatory and permitting issues, and of the role of the public.
The Intelligence Community Studies Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a workshop on February 27, 2020 to explore insights from world-class experts and technologists familiar with the extensive range of issues associated with the counterproliferation mission, which is countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems, related technologies, and expertise as a result of indigenous developments and/or transfers between entities. The workshop was designed to explore emerging technology intersections of interest and areas of convergence with relevance to the mission of the National Counterproliferation Center (NCPC) within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. This publication summarizes the presentation and discussion of the workshop.
Non-lethal weapons (NLWs) are designed to minimize fatalities and other undesired collateral damage when used. Events of the last few years including the attack on the USS Cole have raised ideas about the role NLWs can play in enhancing support to naval forces. In particular to what extent and in what areas should Department of the Navy (DoN) -sponsored science and technology (S&T) provide a research base for developing NLW capabilities? To assist with this question and to evaluate the current NLWs program, the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate (JNLWD) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) requested the National Research Council perform an assessment of NLWs science and technology. The report presents the results of that assessment. It discusses promising NLW S&T areas, development accomplishments and concerns about NLW, and series of recommendations about future NLW development and application.
From the days of biplanes and open cockpits, the air forces of the United States have relied on the mastery of technology. From design to operation, a project can stretch to 20 years and more, with continuous increases in cost. Much of the delay and cost growth afflicting modern United States Air Force (USAF) programs is rooted in the incorporation of advanced technology into major systems acquisition. Leaders in the Air Force responsible for science and technology and acquisition are trying to determine the optimal way to utilize existing policies, processes, and resources to properly document and execute pre-program of record technology development efforts, including opportunities to facilitate the rapid acquisition of revolutionary capabilities and the more deliberate acquisition of evolutionary capabilities. Evaluation of U.S. Air Force Preacquisition Technology Development responds to this need with an examination of the current state of Air Force technology development and the environment in which technology is acquired. The book considers best practices from both government and industry to distill appropriate recommendations that can be implemented within the USAF.
Advances and major investments in the field of neuroscience can enhance traditional behavioral science approaches to training, learning, and other applications of value to the Army. Neural-behavioral indicators offer new ways to evaluate how well an individual trainee has assimilated mission critical knowledge and skills, and can also be used to provide feedback on the readiness of soldiers for combat. Current methods for matching individual capabilities with the requirements for performing high-value Army assignments do not include neuropsychological, psychophysiological, neurochemical or neurogenetic components; simple neuropsychological testing could greatly improve training success rates for these assignments. Opportunities in Neuroscience for Future Army Applications makes 17 recommendations that focus on utilizing current scientific research and development initiatives to improve performance and efficiency, collaborating with pharmaceutical companies to employ neuropharmaceuticals for general sustainment or enhancement of soldier performance, and improving cognitive and behavioral performance using interdisciplinary approaches and technological investments. An essential guide for the Army, this book will also be of interest to other branches of military, national security and intelligence agencies, academic and commercial researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and others interested in applying the rapid advances in neuroscience to the performance of individual and group tasks.
The U.S. military has a stockpile of approximately 400,000 tons of excess, obsolete, or unserviceable munitions. About 60,000 tons are added to the stockpile each year. Munitions include projectiles, bombs, rockets, landmines, and missiles. Open burning/open detonation (OB/OD) of these munitions has been a common disposal practice for decades, although it has decreased significantly since 2011. OB/OD is relatively quick, procedurally straightforward, and inexpensive. However, the downside of OB and OD is that they release contaminants from the operation directly into the environment. Over time, a number of technology alternatives to OB/OD have become available and more are in research and development. Alternative technologies generally involve some type of contained destruction of the energetic materials, including contained burning or contained detonation as well as contained methods that forego combustion or detonation. Alternatives for the Demilitarization of Conventional Munitions reviews the current conventional munitions demilitarization stockpile and analyzes existing and emerging disposal, treatment, and reuse technologies. This report identifies and evaluates any barriers to full-scale deployment of alternatives to OB/OD or non-closed loop incineration/combustion, and provides recommendations to overcome such barriers.
Owing to the expected nature of combat in 2010, U.S. military forces face a pressing need to transform themselves for rapid response to an unpredictable threat. Rapid advances in commercial technology (particularly in electronics), coupled with the easy access to commercial technology enjoyed by potential adversaries, will compel DOD and defense contractors to excel at integrating commercial technology into defense systems. This integration of commercial and military manufacturing (ICMM) has begun on a small scale. By 2010, it needs to increase substantially if U.S. forces are to retain a technological edge. This report assesses the opportunities for increased ICMM in 2010 and beyond, identifies barriers, and recommends strategies for overcoming them.
This review of the Science and Technology (S&T) program of the Office of Naval Research's (ONR's) Expeditionary Warfare Operations Technology Division, Code 353, comes at a time of considerable change in the Marine Corps and in ONR, which are currently in the midst of significant transitions. The Marine Corps is making plans to equip and train for engaging in a new style of warfare known as Operational Maneuver From the Sea (OMFTS) and for performing a wide variety of missions in urban settings, ranging from humanitarian assistance to combat and mixes of these suggested by the term three-block war. During 1999, ONR assumed management of that portion of the Marine Corps S&T program that had not been assigned several years earlier to the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory (MCWL). In 2002, control of most of ONR's advanced development funding (6.3), and of much of its exploratory development funding (6.2), will move from ONR's line divisions, of which Code 353 is one of many, to 12 new program offices, each dedicated to demonstrating technologies for future naval capabilities (FNCs). Given these changes, it is not surprising that some of the projects inherited recently by ONR, and assessed by the Committee for the Review of ONR's Marine Corps Science and Technology Program under the auspices of the Naval Studies Board of the National Research Council, differed from the customary ONR project and were more akin to preacquisition or acquisition support than to S&T. It is also not surprising that Code 353 could not articulate its plans for future investments clearly and concisely, given the current uncertainty about the content of and funding level for FNCs. The Marine Corps S&T program supports the five imperatives for technology advancement that the Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC) has identified as prerequisites for the transition to OMFTS: maneuver, firepower, logistics, training and education, and command and control. The committee supports investment in these areas and, in the report's discussions and recommendations, follows the five imperatives.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.