Abbreviated Version of Full Report
At the request of then-Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Admiral John Richardson, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine appointed an expert committee to study the extent to which state-of-the-art (SoA) data science, data analytics, networking, communications, and architecture approaches could be potentially applied to broader U.S. Naval Forces’ “decision space” needs to ensure that the speed and flexibility of the Navy’s decision-making process is better than that of its potential adversaries.1 The Department of the Navy (DoN) has determined that the full report prepared by the Committee on Maintaining Operational Effectiveness for U.S. Naval Forces in Highly Degraded Environments—Phase 1 is subject to Department of Defense (DoD) Distribution Statement D: Release Restricted to DoD and DoD Contractors. This abbreviated report provides additional information on the full report and the committee that prepared it.
Copies of the full report will be available to authorized individuals in DoD from the National Academies’ Naval Studies Board (NSB) (http://www.nationalacademies.org/nsb). Other requests for the report should be submitted to the DoN.
The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Academies, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the National Academy of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for this report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. The project was supported by a contracting arrangement (ref. N00189-16-Z0001, Delivery Order N0018918FZ116) between the National Academies and the DoN.
BACKGROUND
In 2018, the NSB assessed the topic of “data warfare” with the objective of identifying certain data-relevant challenges associated with future distributed U.S. Navy operations. Specific topics included the following:
- Data integrity (e.g., how can the Navy maintain and ensure the availability and integrity of its mission-critical data),
- Data analytics (e.g., how can the Navy best apply artificial intelligence to its mission-critical decision making), and
- Resilient connectivity (e.g., how can the Navy optimize its networking and communication to access and deliver data, and to develop and execute courses of action)—all in the context of ensuring that the speed and flexibility of the Navy’s decision-making process is better than that of its adversaries.
In order to understand the Navy’s current practices and perceived future challenges, the NSB also engaged in a series of discussions and planning meetings with the CNO, the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV); representatives from the Fleet; and DoN research, development, and acquisition communities.
The NSB also solicited input from representatives from other boards within the National Academies with the goal of identifying a sampling of non-Navy sectors and organizations that are exploring SoA data science, data analytics, networking, communications, and architecture approaches for enhanced decision
__________________
1 The term “Naval Forces” refers to “Fleet and Fleet Marine Forces.” For the purposes of this initial study, the committee’s emphasis was more so on Fleet (U.S. Navy) operations associated with Naval Forces and, thus, the report’s title reflects this emphasis.
making. Indeed, it became apparent during these planning meetings that many data-centric challenges that the Navy faces are being explored in commercial, academia, and other (non-Navy) sectors. Some trends are deemed fairly universal—an ever-expanding amount of data to be processed rapidly, evolving threats from cyber, and the growing use of artificial intelligence/machine learning to augment decision making. Others, such as operations in disadvantaged communications environments, have some analogs—for example, in the commercial sector—that could be potentially applied or adapted for future Navy operations.
Toward the end of 2018, the NSB, informed by discussions with the former CNO, outlined the terms of reference for a study that would be conducted in two phases. The first phase of the study would initially focus on SoA approaches being explored outside of the Navy related to the requirements on the data, from collection to decision making, and on the networks, communications, and architectures through which data flow. The first phase of the study—conducted over a 6-month period—is the subject of this report prepared by the expert committee shown on page ii. Separately, a follow-on (phase 2) study will be conducted by a second expert committee that will focus on an operational usage, while having the insights provided in the initial report and exploring additional SoA approaches.
APPROACH
Following its appointment in December 2018, the committee organized two workshops, which were held in early 2019 in Washington, D.C. Both workshops included experts across commercial, academia, and other sectors, as well as “consumers” across the Fleet; OPNAV; and DoN research, development, and acquisition communities.
Of special note, in organizing its workshops, the committee’s intent was not to provide an exhaustive survey of possible technologies, but rather to focus on sectors with comparable functional challenges and learn from them in terms of how they handle, transmit, and disseminate data in support of end-state decision making. The goal of both workshops was to explore candidate SoA approaches from non-Navy sectors that could be potentially applied or adapted more broadly, to Naval Forces’ “decision space” needs.
In March 2019, shortly after the conclusion of the workshops, the committee reconvened to begin preparation of its report. Following an independent review by the National Academies in late May 2019 (see next section), the report was submitted to the DoN for a security and public release review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REVIEWERS
The Consensus Study Report for phase 1 of the project was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain privileged to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of the full report:
Andrea Goldsmith, NAE,2 Stanford University,
David D. Jensen, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
Steven B. Lipner, NAE, SAFECode,
Ronald R. Luman, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
J. Paul Reason, ADM, U.S. Navy (Retired),
Mikel D. Rodriguez, The MITRE Corporation, and
Steven J. Wallach, NAE, Micron Technology.
__________________
2 Member, National Academy of Engineering.
Although the reviewers listed above 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 full report before its release. The review of the full report was overseen by Robert F. Sproull, NAE, Oracle Labs (Retired). He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of the report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
