2001-2002 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory (2003)

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 2001-2002 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 committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract No. DAAD17-99-C-0081 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 2003 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. 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. 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 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 Acad- emies 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 

iv CONTENTS ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT BOARD C. WILLIAM GEAR, NEC Research Institute (president emeritus), Chair GEORGE E. DIETER, University of Maryland (emeritus) MICHAEL G. DUNN, Ohio State University CLIVE L. DYM, Harvey Mudd College DAVID R. FERGUSON, Boeing Information and Support Services ARTHUR GUENTHER, University of New Mexico FRANK A. HORRIGAN, Raytheon Systems Company (retired) MARY JANE IRWIN, Pennsylvania State University KEITH H. JACKSON, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory CHRISTINE M. MITCHELL, Georgia Institute of Technology JAMES W. MITCHELL, Lucent Technologies RICHARD W. PEW, BBN Technologies Unit of Verizon National Research Council Staff SCOTT T. WEIDMAN, Director CY L. BUTNER, Senior Program Officer DAWN M. COURTNEY, Senior Project Assistant JAMES P. MCGEE, Senior Research Associate 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 Council’s 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: Howard R. Baum, National Institute of Standards and Technology, William B. Bridges, California Institute of Technology, Nicholas M. Donofrio, IBM Corporation, Irene Peden, University of Washington (emeritus), and Eugene Sevin, Independent Consultant. 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 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 entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. v 

vi CONTENTS 

CONTENTS vii Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 CHANGES SINCE THE 1999-2000 ASSESSMENT 5 Responsiveness to Particular Recommendations in the 1999-2000 Report, 6 Improvements Made to Some Outdated Instrumentation at ARL’s White Sands Site, 6 New Program Begun for Rotorcraft Engine Surge Control, 6 Continued Improvements to the Zahl Physical Sciences Laboratory, 7 Rising Profile of ARL’s Millimeter-wave Technology Work, 8 Examples of Responses Requiring Further Action, 8 General Level of Responsiveness, 10 Some Significant Advances Since the 1999-2000 Report, 11 Leadership in Radar and Ladar Imaging for Foliage Penetration, 11 Materials Research with Important Potential for the Army, 11 Optical Communication, 12 Crack Growth Modeling, 13 3 CONNECTIVITY 15 Existing Benefits of and Future Enhancements to Connectivity, 15 Army Research Office, 17 4 OPPORTUNITIES 19 Facilities, 19 Crash Dynamics, 20 Physics-based Modeling of Mechanical Behavior, 20 Micrometeorology, 21 Battlefield Communications, 22 Communications Standards, 22 Incorporation of Environmental Effects, 23 Improvements in Weaponry, 23 Data of Interest to Other Researchers, 25 vii 

viii CONTENTS 5 CHALLENGES 27 Vulnerabilities of the Digital Army, 27 Vulnerabilities of COTS Products, 29 Information Assurance, 30 Management and Workforce, 30 Computational Modeling, 32 6 LOOKING FORWARD 35 APPENDIXES A Army Research Laboratory Organization Chart and Resources 39 B Membership of the Army Research Laboratory Technical Assessment Board and Its Panels 43 C Panel Meeting Agendas, 2001 and 2002 67 D Panel Assessment Criteria 93 E Selected Acronyms 95 

2001-2002 Assessment of the Army Research Laboratory