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.
CONTENTS i 2003-2004 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C. www.nap.edu
ii CONTENTS 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 Board responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. DAAD17-03-C-0017 between the National Academy of Sciences and the Army Research Laboratory. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations 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. Copies of this report are available from the Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board, The National Academies, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20001. Copyright 2005 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America
CONTENTS iii 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. Ralph J. Cicerone 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. 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 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. 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 commu- nity of science and technology with the Academyâs 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 Acad- emies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org
iv CONTENTS ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT BOARD 2003-2004 ROBERT W. BRODERSEN, University of California at Berkeley, Chair GEORGE E. DIETER, University of Maryland (Emeritus) CLIVE L. DYM, Harvey Mudd College DAVID R. FERGUSON, Boeing Information and Support Services DOUGLAS H. HARRIS, Anacapa Sciences MARY JANE IRWIN, Pennsylvania State University RICHARD S. MULLER (2003), University of California at Berkeley JOHN C. SOMMERER (2003), Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory DWIGHT C. STREIT, Northrop Grumman Space Technology DENNIS W. THOMSON, Pennsylvania State University National Research Council Staff JAMES P. McGEE, Director CY L. BUTNER, Senior Program Officer RADHIKA S. CHARI, Administrative Coordinator ALLISON E.I. SHOUP, Senior Program Assistant iv
CONTENTS v 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 Councilâs 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 delibera- tive process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: James W. Dally, University of Maryland, College Park, James L. Flanagan, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, James Glimm, State University of New York, Stony Brook, Thom Hodgson, North Carolina State University, Harry Lipsitt, Wright State University, Richard Pew, BBN Technologies, Charles V. Shank, E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Christine Sloane, General Motors Corporation. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Alton Slay of Slay Enterprises, Inc. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an inde- pendent 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 entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. v
vi CONTENTS
CONTENTS vii Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 The Biennial Assessment Process, 1 Preparation and Organization of This Report, 2 Assessment Criteria, 3 Completion of the Report, 3 Army Research Laboratory Support for War-Related Operations, 4 Crosscutting Issues, 6 Modeling and Simulation, 6 Information Assurance and Security, 7 Interdirectorate Activities, 7 2 COMPUTATIONAL AND INFORMATION SCIENCES DIRECTORATE 9 Introduction, 9 Accomplishments and Opportunities, 9 Contributions to Army Needs and the Broader Community, 10 Contributions to Army Needs, 10 Contributions to the Broader Community, 11 Relevance of Crosscutting Issues to This Directorate, 12 3 HUMAN RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE 15 Introduction, 15 Changes Since the Previous Review, 15 Accomplishments and Opportunities, 16 Most Significant Advances, 16 Opportunities and Challenges, 17 vii
viii CONTENTS Contributions to Army Needs and the Broader Community, 18 Contributions to Army Needs, 18 Contributions to the Broader Community, 19 Relevance of Crosscutting Issues to This Directorate, 19 4 SENSORS AND ELECTRON DEVICES DIRECTORATE 21 Introduction, 21 Changes Since the Previous Review, 21 Accomplishments and Opportunities, 22 Most Significant Advances, 22 Opportunities and Challenges, 22 Contributions to Army Needs and the Broader Community, 24 Contributions to Army Needs, 24 Contributions to the Broader Community, 24 Relevance of Crosscutting Issues to This Directorate, 25 5 SURVIVABILITY AND LETHALITY ANALYSIS DIRECTORATE 27 Introduction, 27 Changes Since the Previous Review, 27 Accomplishments and Opportunities, 28 Most Significant Advances, 28 Opportunities and Challenges, 28 Contributions to Army Needs and the Broader Community, 28 Contributions to Army Needs, 28 Contributions to the Broader Community, 30 Relevance of Crosscutting Issues to This Directorate, 30 6 VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE 31 Introduction, 31 Accomplishments and Opportunities, 31 Most Significant Advances, 31 Opportunities and Challenges, 32 Contributions to Army Needs and the Broader Community, 35 Contributions to Army Needs, 35 Contributions to the Broader Community, 37 Relevance of Crosscutting Issues to This Directorate, 37 7 WEAPONS AND MATERIALS RESEARCH DIRECTORATE 39 Introduction, 39 Changes Since the Previous Review, 39 Accomplishments and Opportunities, 40 Most Significant Advances, 40 Opportunities and Challenges, 41 Contributions to Army Needs and the Broader Community, 41 Contributions to Army Needs, 41 Contributions to the Broader Community, 44
CONTENTS ix 8 NANOTECHNOLOGY 45 Introduction, 45 Charge to Review Team and Review Process, 45 What Is Nanotechnology and Why Is It Relevant to the Army Research Laboratory?, 45 Nanotechnology Within the Army Research Laboratory, 46 Accomplishments and Opportunities, 47 Most Significant Advances, 47 Opportunities, 47 Challenges, 47 Contributions to Army Needs and the Broader Community, 49 Contributions to Army Needs, 49 Contributions to the Broader Community, 49 Relevance of Crosscutting Issues, 50 9 ROBOTICS 51 Introduction, 51 Accomplishments and Opportunities, 52 Most Significant Advances, 53 Opportunities and Challenges, 53 Contributions to Army Needs and the Broader Community, 54 Contributions to Army Needs, 54 Contributions to the Broader Community, 54 Relevance of Crosscutting Issues, 54 APPENDIXES A Army Research Laboratory Organization Chart, Resources, and Directorate 57 Staffing Profile B Membership of the Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment 61 Board and Its Panels C Panel Meeting Agendas, 2003 and 2004 89 D Assessment Criteria 123 E Selected Acronyms 125
2003-2004 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory
