National Academies Press: OpenBook

Advanced Energetic Materials (2004)

Chapter: 8 Major Conclusions and Recommendations

« Previous: 7 Exotic Physics
Suggested Citation:"8 Major Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2004. Advanced Energetic Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10918.
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"8 Major Conclusions and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2004. Advanced Energetic Materials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10918.
Page 38

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

8 Major Conclusions and Recommendations The central conclusion reached in this study is that the introduction of improved materials into the defense systems and weapons inventory is necessary, looks overwhelmingly difficult, and requires sustained, long-term efforts. Today's small, fragmented, suboptimal effort in energetic materials research and development puts a critical U.S. national technology area at risk. Resources across the entire spectrum of energetic materials research and development are severely limited, but particularly so in the funding for scale-up and advanced development studies of potential new materials. Funding for the nation's energetic materials technology effort is shrinking.) Without the opportunity for the current workforce to train the next generation of expert scientists and engineers, much corporate knowledge may be lost. This knowledge is key to maintaining the cu rrent weapon stockpiles safely, to ensu ring their performance, and to develop) ng the next generation of energetic materials. Resources required for scale-up and characterization of new materials are so limited that it has proven nearly impossible to advance a new energetic material through the required extensive characterization and qualification that must be performed to bring the material to a level of maturity that will allow a system developer to consider the material as a low- or moderate-risk candidate. In addition, transition funding for promising new materials and formulations is essentially nonexistent. Concomitant with the decrease in research and development resou roes, the com m ittee fou nd that the i nd ustria I base for prod uction of energetic materials has continued to erode, as observed also in a manufacturing study by the Department of Commerce,2 which concluded that energetic materials technology development is in rapid decline and that the nation's energetic materials technology base is at risk unless significant new resources are committed to this vital technology and top-level national leadership is committed to sustaining this capability. Revolutionary, orders-of-magnitude increases in performance as measured by increased energy density or increased power are unlikely to occur in the near future. Yet, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Export Administration, Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security. 2001. National Security Assessment of High Performance Explosives and High Performance Components Industries. Executive summary available at ustrial baseprograms/OSI ES/DefMa rketResea rch Rpts/Explosive Componentsindustries.html. Accessed September 2003. Department of Commerce. See note 1 above. 37

38 ADVANCED ENERGETIC MATERIALS incremental improvements in performance provide great leverage when coupled to other systems-specific improvements. Potential payoffs accrue in improved survivability and in increased range and increased lethality of weapons. The scarce resources available to the energetic materials technology effort are too often focused on short-term responses. The driving force behind such short-term efforts is perceived technology capability gaps, which may be attributable to hyperbole in news accounts of foreign weapons effects, as well as overly dramatized intelligence reports of foreign capabilities.3 The current defense focus is on limited theater actions, with an emphasis on deployment of precision strike weapons that are smaller, cheaper, and at the same time more lethal against all target classes. An extensive technology effort from the energetic materials community will be required to meet the explosive and propellant requirements of these new systems. To ensure that such an effort is effective, it is important to couple it closely to efforts of the services to improve target lethality and weapons effects. Current funding for the services often focuses on near-term individual service requirements, and the resulting competition for scarce resources inhibits cooperative efforts aimed toward more global national requirements. To overcome these barriers and competition for scarce resources, a major restructuring of the programmatic control and funding of energetic materials research and development is required in order to rebuild a robust and productive national effort in energetic materials technology. 1. The committee recommends that the Department of Defense redirect attention and resources to focus on strategies for reducing transition barriers to scale-up. This effort should be closely coupled to the ongoing efforts of the services to improve target lethality and weapons effects. Such an approach would ensure an extensive technology effort from the energetic materials community and would help provide for an adequate supply of well-trained scientists and engineers to meet the nation's future defense requirements. 2. The committee recommends that the Department of Defense consider centralizing its management of energetic materials research and development in order to achieve a longer- term, cross-service perspective. One possible approach to such a restructuring might include establishing an Energetic Materials Technology Office in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Similar to the Office of Munitions, such an office would require a unique program element funding line with the charter and authority to lead a national, coordinated energetic materials technology thrust effectively. A clear benefit of this approach would be a robust and productive national effort in energetic materials technology. The recently initiated Advanced Energetics Initiative might be the cornerstone of this national effort. However, any approach to achieving this suggested office would require establishing broad oversight and coordination responsibility as well as authority over all the energetic materials programs of the Department of Defense and a charter to develop cooperative engagement with and coordination of industrial and academic programs at the National Laboratories focused on energetic materials. The overarching issue remains one of priority. Energetic materials are a key component of the nation's defense strategies. A coordinated and sustained effort in research, technology transition, and production technologies is needed to maintain the contribution of these materials to U.S. national defense. 3 Examples can be found at and mond linesO2/0303-06.htm. Accessed Novem ber 2003.

Next: Appendix A: Biographical Sketches of Committee Members »
Advanced Energetic Materials Get This Book
Buy Paperback | $29.00 Buy Ebook | $23.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Advanced energetic materials—explosive fill and propellants—are a critical technology for national security. While several new promising concepts and formulations have emerged in recent years, the Department of Defense is concerned about the nation’s ability to maintain and improve the knowledge base in this area. To assist in addressing these concerns, two offices within DOD asked the NRC to investigate and assess the scope and health of the U.S. R&D efforts in energetic materials. This report provides that assessment. It presents several findings about the current R&D effort and recommendations aimed at improving U.S. capabilities in developing new energetic materials technology.

This study reviewed U.S. research and development in advanced energetics being conducted by DoD, the DoE national laboratories, industries, and academia, from a list provided by the sponsors. It also: (a) reviewed papers and technology assessments of non-U.S. work in advanced energetics, assessed important parameters, such as validity, viability, and the likelihood that each of these materials can be produced in quantity; (b) identified barriers to scale-up and production, and suggested technical approaches for addressing potential problems; and (c) suggested specific opportunities, strategies, and priorities for government sponsorship of technologies and manufacturing process development.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook,'s online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!