Materials Research to Meet 21st-Century Defense Needs [illustrated] 0309087007, 9780309087001

Table of contents :
Executive Summary..............1
1 Department of Defense Materials Needs..............9
3 Structural and Multifunctional Materials..............27
4 Energy and Power Materials..............55
5 Electronic and Photonic Materials..............95
6 Functional Organic and Hybrid Materials..............135
7 Bioinspired and Bioderived Materials..............181
8 Integration of Research Opportunities..............211

Citation preview

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21st CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS Interim Report

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21st CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS Interim Report

Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next National Materials Advisory Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences National Research Council

Publication NMAB-498 NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C.

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 competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This project was conducted under a contract with the U.S. Department of Defense. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.

Available in limited supply from: National Materials Advisory Board National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 202-334-3505 202-334-3506 [email protected]

Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America.

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 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. William 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 advisor to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine 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 community 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 Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS RESEARCH FOR DEFENSE AFTER NEXT

HARVEY SCHADLER (chair), General Electric Corporate Research and Development Center (retired), Schenectady, New York ALAN LOVELACE (vice chair), General Dynamics Corporation (retired), La Jolla, California JAMES BASKERVILLE, Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine FEDERICO CAPASSO, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, New Jersey MILLARD FIREBAUGH, Electric Boat Corporation, Groton, Conneticut JOHN GASSNER, Foster-Miller, Inc., Waltham, Massachusetts MICHAEL JAFFE, New Jersey Center for Biomaterials and Medical Devices, Newark FRANK KARASZ, University of Massachusetts, Amherst MEYYA MEYYAPPAN, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California GEORGE PETERSON, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (retired), Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio JULIA PHILLIPS, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico RICHARD TRESSLER, Pennsylvania State University, University Park JAMES WILLIAMS, Ohio State University, Columbus National Materials Advisory Board Staff ARUL MOZHI, Acting Director and Senior Program Officer SHARON YEUNG, Research Associate PAT A. WILLIAMS, Administrative Assistant National Materials Advisory Board Liaisons HARRY A. LIPSITT, Wright State University (emeritus), Dayton, Ohio KENNETH L. REIFSNIDER, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg EDGAR A. STARKE, University of Virginia, Charlottesville

v

National Academy of Engineering Liaison LANCE DAVIS, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C. Government Liaisons ROBERT POHANKA, Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia ROBERT L. RAPSON, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio JAMES R. SHOEMAKER, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, Arlington, Virginia LEWIS SLOTER, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science and Technology), Washington, D.C. DENNIS J. VIECHNICKI, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland STEVEN WAX, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, Virginia

vi

NATIONAL MATERIALS ADVISORY BOARD

EDGAR A. STARKE (chair), University of Virginia, Charlottesville EARL DOWELL, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina EDWARD C. DOWLING, Cleveland Cliffs, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio THOMAS EAGAR, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge HAMISH L. FRASER, Ohio State University, Columbus ALASTAIR M. GLASS, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, New Jersey MARTIN E. GLICKSMAN, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York JOHN A.S. GREEN, The Aluminum Association, Inc., Washington, D.C. THOMAS S. HARTWICK, TRW, Redmond, Washington ALLAN J. JACOBSON, University of Houston, Houston, Texas MICHAEL JAFFE, New Jersey Institute of Technology and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark SYLVIA M. JOHNSON, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California SHEILA F. KIA, General Motors Research and Development Center, Warren, Michigan LISA KLEIN, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway HARRY A. LIPSITT, Wright State University (emeritus), Dayton, Ohio ALAN G. MILLER, Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Seattle, Washington ROBERT C. PFAHL, JR., Motorola, Schaumburg, Illinois JULIA PHILLIPS, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico HENRY J. RACK, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina KENNETH L. REIFSNIDER, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg T. S. SUDARSHAN, Materials Modification, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia JULIA WEERTMAN, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois National Materials Advisory Board Staff ARUL MOZHI, Acting Director

vii

Acknowledgments

The Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next thanks all of the participants in the study meetings, which were the principal data-gathering sessions for this study. The information and insight from the participants were invaluable to the committee. The committee also thanks the individuals who prepared presentations for the study meetings. Presenters included: Mark Alper, University of California, Berkeley; Michael Andrews, U.S. Department of the Army; Bertram Batlogg, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies; Andrew Crowson, U.S. Army Research Office; Hon. Lawrence Delaney, U.S. Air Force; Ronald DeMarco, Office of Naval Research; Daniel Doughty, Sandia National Laboratories; Anthony Evans, Princeton University; Stephen Foiles, Sandia National Laboratories; Robert Gottschall, U.S. Department of Energy; Gen. Al Gray, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies; Kenneth Harwell, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory; LtC. Lonnie Henley, Defense Intelligence Agency; Fred Herman, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Corporation; Paul Kaminski, Technovation, Inc.; Andrew W. Marshall, Office of the Secretary of Defense; Bruce Pierce, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization; Lyle Schwartz, U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research; Samuel Stupp, Northwestern University; Michael Vickers, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments; and Tom Weber, National Science Foundation. The committee is particularly grateful to the following U.S. Department of Defense study sponsors and liaisons for their support: Robert Pohanka, Office of Naval Research; Robert Rapson, Wright Patterson Air Force Base; Maj. James Shoemaker, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization; Lew Sloter, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Science and Technology); Dennis Viechnicki, U.S. Army Research Laboratory; and Steven Wax, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the authors and the NRC in making the 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 content of the review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank

ix

the following individuals for their participation in the review of this report: David Clarke, University of California-Santa Barbara; Tobin Marks, Northwestern University; Robert Newnham, Pennsylvania State University; James Richardson, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies; and Julia Weertman, Northwestern University. 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 John Wachtman, Jr., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (retired), appointed by the Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems, who 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. Finally, the panel gratefully acknowledges the support of the staff of the National Materials Advisory Board, especially Arul Mozhi, study director; Sharon Yeung, research associate, Pat A. Williams, administrative assistant; and Richard Chait, former staff director.

x

Preface

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) requested that the National Research Council, through the National Materials Advisory Board (NMAB), conduct a study to identify and prioritize critical materials and processing research and development (R&D) that will be needed to meet twenty-first-century defense needs. The Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next was established to investigate investments in R&D required to meet both intermediate (up to 2020) and long-term (beyond 2020) DOD needs. The committee's focus is on revolutionary materials concepts that would provide an advantage to U.S. forces in weapons logistics, deployment, and cost. The following specific tasks will be addressed by the committee: • • • • •

Review DOD planning documents and input from DOD systems development experts to identify long-term technical requirements for weapons system development and support. Develop materials needs and overall materials priorities based on DOD requirements. Establish and guide approximately five study panels to investigate identified priority areas and recommend specific research opportunities. Integrate and prioritize the research opportunities recommended by the study panels. Recommend means to integrate M&P advances into new system designs.

The committee began by attending the Defense Science and Technology Reliance Subarea for Materials and Processes Meeting, on December 6–8, 1999, in Annapolis, Maryland. This was followed by a second committee meeting. The objective of these two meetings was to learn DOD's ideas on long-term future systems, logistics, and cost. A third meeting was held with materials experts from industry, academia, and national laboratories to determine research opportunities that could be realized in the 20-year to 30-year time frame specified for this study. A fourth meeting was held to analyze the data that had been gathered and finalize the draft of this interim report. This report is a review of the study results to date and a plan for future committee activities to meet the study objectives.

xi

The chair and vice chair thank the committee members for their participation in committee meetings and their efforts and dedication in the preparation of this interim report. We also thank the speakers and participants, including DOD study sponsors and liaisons, as well as the staff of the NMAB, especially Arul Mozhi, who coordinated the meetings and provided substantial assistance in the preparation and publication of this interim report. Comments and suggestions can be sent via e-mail to [email protected] or by fax to (202) 334-3718. HARVEY SCHADLER, chair ALAN LOVELACE, vice chair Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next

xii

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

1

INTRODUCTION Study Plan and Methodology, 9 Statement of Task for the Overall Study, 11 Anticipated Study Results, 12

9

2

TRANSLATING SYSTEMS NEEDS INTO MATERIALS NEEDS Generic Defense Needs, 13 Examples of Systems Needs, 15 Translation to Materials Needs, 16

13

3

RESEARCH PRIORITIES System Motivation for Materials and Process Needs, 19 Classes of Materials and Process Needs, 27

19

4

MATERIALS SCIENCE CHALLENGES Structural and Multifunctional Materials, 32 Energy and Power Materials, 37 Electronic and Photonic Materials, 44 Functional Organic and Hybrid Materials, 47 Bio-derived and Bio-inspired Materials, 51

31

REFERENCES

55

APPENDIXES A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members, 57 B Meeting Agendas, 61 C Schedule and Membership of the Five Technical Panels, 71 D Preliminary Outlines of Panel Reports, 73

xiii

Figures and Boxes

FIGURES 1-1

Overall methodology for the study, 10

4-1

Areas included in and excluded from the energy and power materials panel, 40 BOXES

ES-1 ES-2 ES-3

Material types for Defense After Next, 4 Crosscutting Materials Properties, 4 Crosscutting Issues, 5

3-1 3-2 3-3 3-3

Material types for Defense After Next, 20 Crosscutting Materials Properties, 22 Crosscutting Issues, 24 DOD Materials and Processing Needs and the Five Technical Panels, 28

4-1

Scope of the Bio-derived and Bio-inspired Materials Panel, 52

xiv

Executive Summary

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) requested that the National Research Council (NRC), through the National Materials Advisory Board (NMAB), conduct a study to identify and prioritize critical needs for materials and processing research and development (R&D) to meet twenty-first-century defense needs. The Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next was established to investigate investments in R&D required to meet both intermediate (up to 2020) and long-term (beyond 2020) DOD needs. The committee began by attending the Defense Science and Technology Reliance Subarea for Materials and Processes Meeting, on December 6–8, 1999, in Annapolis, Maryland. This was followed by a second committee meeting. The objective of these two meetings was to learn DOD's ideas on long-term future systems, logistics, and cost. A third meeting was held with materials experts from industry, academia, and national laboratories to determine research opportunities that could be realized in the 20-year to 30-year time frame specified for this study. A fourth meeting was held to analyze the data that had been gathered and finalize the draft of this interim report. This report is a review of the study results to date and a plan for future committee activities to meet the study objectives. GENERIC DEFENSE NEEDS The following core tasks lie ahead for the U.S. military: • • • • •

long-distance power projection capability of fighting far away coping with the eroding overseas base structure ensuring homeland defense adjusting to major changes in warfare, including joint-service operations and coalition peacekeeping operations and humanitarian missions

1

2

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

The following trends in warfare are expected to continue: • • •

• •

The focus will be on fielding a precision strike force that can maneuver rapidly and effectively and survive an attack far away. The force must be able to conceal its activities from an enemy and detect enemy activities. Advances in information technology will lead to new levels of coordination among forces. Global awareness through real-time, networked sensors and communications will facilitate command and control and enable precision strikes. Using unmanned vehicles, information will be gathered in new ways, force will be delivered remotely, and the risk of casualties will be reduced. Fighting in urban areas will increase, which will require entirely different strategies and equipment.

The presentations to the committee were focused on new threats that may not necessarily be countered by force projection. During the Cold War, the threat, principally from the Soviet Union, of nuclear weapons was a major concern. U.S. security was safeguarded by highly developed strategic deterrence to neutralize that threat. In the future, threats to the United States may be the delivery by missile (or other means) of small numbers of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons from very disparate sources, such as a terrorist group that gains access to the United States by covert means. The nation could also be threatened by an assault on the complex web of information systems that are becoming increasingly important in the delivery of goods and services. Vulnerable infrastructure points include power grids, dams, and similar facilities. The following priorities were identified to the committee: the United States must continue to improve its capability to project power over long distances; advanced technologies must be harnessed so the United States can maintain its technological lead as long as possible, recognizing that other nations will continue to work hard to counter our capabilities; the ocean buffer must be controlled; and the homeland must be defended. TRANSLATION TO MATERIALS NEEDS Based on these presentations, the committee envisions new roles for advanced materials, including bio-inspired materials, self-assembling polymers, novel magnetic materials, and self-healing materials. Next-generation defense systems (or Defense After Next) will require “smart” materials that are self-healing, can interact independently with the local environment, and are capable of monitoring the health of a structure or component/system during operation. Smart materials

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

will act as the host for evolving technologies, such as embedded sensors and integrated antennas. Advanced materials will also be called on to deliver traditional high performance for structures; protect against corrosion, fouling, and erosion; provide fire protection; control fractures; and be used as fuels, lubricants, and hydraulic fluids. Promising composite material technologies to meet these needs include carbon nanotubes, electron-beam curing, recyclable composite materials, and health-monitoring sensors. The next 20 years will present the materials community with daunting challenges and opportunities. The challenges will be derived from major changes in defense needs that have evolved in the aftermath of the Cold War, spurred by the accelerated pace of advances in electronics and computation. In the committee’s opinion, performance, life span, and maintainability goals will generally double in the next 20 to 25 years, and the requirements for producibility, cost, and availability will be twice as demanding as they are today. Advances in materials will be fundamental enablers for new capabilities to meet these needs. Some of the advances will result from R&D undertaken for competitive advantage by commercial enterprises. For example, substantial commercial funding is likely to be available for research in telecommunications and computation. In other technical areas, however, DOD may have to bear the funding burden directly. Logic dictates that in these special areas considerable funding for fundamental research will be necessary, not only for identifying critical new materials, but also for accelerating their progress through development to applications in deployed systems for the Defense After Next. Performance (of course) and cost will be major considerations. MATERIALS AND PROCESSES RESEARCH PRIORITIES Materials for the Defense After Next will have to be able to perform unique functions or combinations of functions. The committee identified several crosscutting issues that materials must address for successful applications in deployed systems. The committee expects that a combination of breakthroughs in long-established materials and new materials, or combinations thereof, will be necessary to address DOD system needs. Examples of these types of materials are shown in Box ES-1. In addition, a number of adjunct materials properties that cut across materials classes would be desirable, if not absolutely necessary, for DOD systems. Although these properties would not, in and of themselves, lead to the selection of a particular material for a given application, they would be a consideration in that selection. Examples of these properties are listed in Box ES-2.

4

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

BOX ES-1 Material Types for Defense After Next •

lightweight materials that retain their functionality

•

materials that enhance protection/survivability

•

stealth materials

•

electronic/photonic materials for high-speed communications

•

sensor materials

•

high-energy-density materials

•

materials for improved propulsion technologies

BOX ES-2 Crosscutting Materials Properties •

multifunctionality

•

self-healing and/or self-diagnosing materials

•

materials for low total-cost systems

•

low-maintenance materials

•

high-reliability materials

•

environmentally conscious materials and processes

Successful research in the broad classes of materials and process research enumerated above would have an impact on systems for Defense After Next only if a number of crosscutting issues are also addressed successfully (Box ES-3). These issues must be considered concurrently with plans for research because the questions they raise will reveal the direction research should take.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5

BOX ES-3 Crosscutting Issues •

design issues

•

materials-by-design

•

materials tailorability

•

materials influence on development and deployment costs

•

availability of a commercial alternative

•

risk management

•

manufacturing issues

•

life-cycle issues

FIVE TECHNICAL PANELS The study sponsor and NMAB plan to establish five technical panels, each of which will explore in depth opportunities in a given materials research area. The technical panels will be responsible for relating these discoveries to DOD needs. The relationship must be clear in principle but not necessarily in detail. Because new discoveries are in their infancy, the mindset of the committee (and the reader) must be optimistic expectation. The question to be answered is what the impact of successful R&D, in a given area, will be on future defense systems. The next question (which also applies to more developed technologies already identified by DOD) is how their application can be accelerated to meet DOD needs. Materials and process needs considered in the context of systems needs reveals several materials areas for which there are opportunities for major advances. Research areas can be grouped so they have sufficient overlap to ensure that all major areas are included. The committee identified five technical areas for these detailed studies: structural and multifunctional materials; energy and power materials; electronic and photonic materials; functional organic and hybrid materials; and bio-derived and bio-inspired materials. The organization of the panels by function will encourage technical experts to participate, which will be crucial to their success. Members must also include systems thinkers and manufacturing experts. Each panel will attempt to quantify the impact of new materials and processes and identify technical road blocks to their development.

6

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

This interim report includes a discussion of DOD systems needs in Chapter 2 and research priorities for materials and processes in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 contains a plan to relate the R&D priorities to the materials science challenges. As a whole, this report defines the general direction of future R&D. To facilitate the management of the technical panels, members of the study committee would provide the chair of each panel (and perhaps also the co-chair and panel members, as appropriate), subject to NRC approval. NMAB liaisons to the study committee will also serve as liaisons to the technical panels. Structural and Multifunctional Materials Panel A consistent theme in DOD’s system needs is the requirement for stronger, lighter, and stiffer materials that can meet increasingly stringent weight, mobility, and performance requirements. Other areas of need include higher temperature materials for improved performance. Merging multiple functions into a single material structure (e.g., structural member plus stealth) is another area for investigation. Energy and Power Materials Panel Many Defense After Next needs are related to power generation, energy harvesting, energy conversion and storage, and energy delivery and dissipation. A particularly important area of research will be the emerging issues of operations from greater distances, survivability, weight minimization, and environmental consciousness. Electronic and Photonic Materials Panel The emergence of the battlefield as a network of entities each of which is collecting, transmitting, and processing information in real time will place stringent demands on electronic and/or optical materials that can function securely at the required bandwidth. Sensors will be necessary to collect information to be processed and shared. Integrated microsystems that can move, sense, think, and act are also likely to be used in Defense After Next systems on the battlefield, for reconnaissance and/or in unmanned vehicles.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

7

Functional Organic and Hybrid Materials Panel The combination of requirements for minimal weight and maximum functionality could potentially be met by this class of materials. Attractive materials would be self-healing and/or self-diagnosing, including lightweight electronic, optical, sensing, and, perhaps, structural materials. Bio-derived and Bio-inspired Materials Panel This rapidly developing area will be of great interest for a variety of Defense After Next needs. These materials frequently offer weight advantages over their inorganic counterparts. If some functionalities, such as environmental responsivity or the capability of self-healing, could be introduced, these materials would be extremely attractive, as sensors, for example, or for dealing with chemical and biological agents. This class of materials is most likely to lead to advances in maintaining the health of soldiers—through wound healing, tissue engineering, drug delivery, and so forth. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation. Five technical panels should be established to address advances and challenges in materials science to meet twenty-first-century defense needs. The five technical panels should focus on the following areas: (1) structural and multifunctional materials; (2) energy and power materials; (3) electronic and photonic materials; (4) functional organic and hybrid materials; and (5) bio-derived and bio-inspired materials. Recommendation. Over the next 12 months, each panel should meet about four times to assess research priorities in its respective area. The panels should coordinate their work to ensure that all important research areas are covered. Recommendation. Based on the results of the panels’ assessments, the committee should integrate and prioritize the recommended research opportunities and recommend means of integrating materials and processing advances into new system designs.

1 Introduction

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), through the Defense Science and Technology Reliance Group Subarea for Materials and Processes, requested that the National Materials Advisory Board (NMAB) of the National Research Council conduct a study to identify and prioritize critical materials and processing research and development (R&D) to meet twenty-first-century defense needs. The Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next was established to investigate investments in R&D required to meet both intermediate (up to 2020) and long-term (beyond 2020) DOD needs. The committee's focus is on revolutionary materials concepts that would provide an advantage to U.S. forces in weapons logistics, deployment, and cost. STUDY PLAN AND METHODOLOGY The NMAB has undertaken a three-year study entitled “Materials Research for Defense After Next.” The overall methodology for the study is shown in Figure 1-1. The initial phase, which began in December 1999 and is now complete, is documented in this interim report. In this phase the committee (13 scientists and engineers) met with technical representatives of the military services and DOD agencies, directors of service laboratories, and managers of DOD agencies (see Appendix A for information about committee members and Appendix B for meeting agendas). The objective of these meetings was to learn firsthand DOD’s ideas about current and future systems, logistics, and long-term costs (DOD, 1999a). The committee also learned the status of current R&D supported by DOD (Crowson, 2000; Schwartz, 2000; DOD, 1999a), the U.S. Department of Energy (Gottschall, 2000), and the National Science Foundation (Weber, 2000). The committee’s investigation was not exhaustive but provided a context for organizing subsequent meetings. The committee then met with materials experts from industry, academia, and national laboratories to determine research that could be brought to fruition in the 20-year to 30-year time frame specified for this study. At a subsequent meeting, the committee analyzed the data gathered and drafted this interim report.

9

Subject-area materials experts

Advances in materials and processes for prority areas

c

d

FIGURE 1-1 Overall methodology for the study .

Integrates and prioritizes panel results; recommends integration of materials advances into new system designs

e

Overall materials and processes needs and priorities

b

Publish Final Reporte

Publish Interim Reportb

Co-chairs recognized materials and systems expert, respectively

Establish Study Committeea

a

10

Draft Panel Reportsd

Establish Five Technical Panelsc

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

INTRIDUCTION

11

The next phase of the study will begin with the establishment of five technical panels to explore in depth new opportunities in a given area of materials research and relate them to DOD needs. The relationship must be clear in principle, but not necessarily detailed because many of these concepts are still in their infancy. The mindset of the committee (and the reader) should be optimistic expectation. The question to be answered is what the impact of successful R&D, in a given area, will be on future defense systems. The next question (which also applies to more developed technologies already identified by DOD) is how their application can be accelerated to meet DOD needs. The committee identified five technical areas for these detailed studies: structural and multifunctional materials; energy and power materials; electronic and photonic materials; functional organic and hybrid materials; and bio-derived and bio-inspired materials. The organization of the panels by function will encourage technical experts to participate, which will be crucial to their success. Members must also include systems thinkers and manufacturing experts. Each panel will attempt to quantify the impact of new materials and processes and identify technical road blocks to their development. This interim report includes a discussion of DOD systems needs in Chapter 2 and research priorities for materials and processes in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 contains a plan to relate the R&D priorities to the materials science challenges. As a whole, this report defines the general direction of future R&D. To facilitate the management of the technical panels, members of the study committee would provide the chair of each panel (and perhaps also the co-chair and panel members, as appropriate), subject to NRC approval. NMAB liaisons to the study committee will also serve as liaisons to the technical panels (see Appendix C). STATEMENT OF TASK FOR THE OVERALL STUDY The committee was asked to accomplish the following tasks: • • • •

review DOD planning documents and input from DOD systemsdevelopment experts to identify long-term technical requirements for weapons system development and support develop materials needs and overall materials priorities based on DOD requirements establish and guide approximately five study panels to investigate priority areas and recommend specific research opportunities integrate and prioritize the research opportunities recommended by the study panels

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

12

•

recommend means of integrating materials and processing advances into new system designs. ANTICIPATED STUDY RESULTS

The anticipated results when this study is completed are: • • • •

definition of the materials needs of DOD in the next 20 years and identification of investment priorities and opportunities for materials and processing R&D most likely to lead to the fulfillment of those needs analysis of specific research opportunities that match the identified needs of DOD integration and prioritization of the research opportunities recommendation of methods best suited for integrating materials and processing advances into new systems designs to accelerate the development and deployment of new war-fighting equipment.

2

Translating Systems Needs into Materials Needs

Senior representatives of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the armed services, DOD, and other federal agencies made presentations to the committee on future DOD systems and materials needs. The discussion that follows is based on information derived from those presentations and committee members’ expert opinions. GENERIC DEFENSE NEEDS A presentation by Andrew Marshall, director, Office of Net Assessment for the Secretary of Defense, provided an overview and context for subsequent presentations. Marshall observed that for the foreseeable future the United States will require the ability to project force around the globe to safeguard its interests. As the United States, its institutions, and its citizens interact throughout the world, situations may arise that call for military force. Today, the United States is far and away the greatest military power in the world and is far ahead in taking advantage of new technologies in military systems (Marshall, 2000). Because the United States is surrounded by oceans, it has developed a worldwide base structure to support forward-deployed forces. The oceans form a buffer over which the United States maintains military control. Whereas other nations tend to work in their own backyards, as a matter of strategic principle, the United States projects power over long distances with medium-range and shortrange systems. The buffer is not impermeable, though. It can be penetrated by long-range missiles, space-based systems, and submarines. The present capability of the United States to project force essentially anywhere around the globe came about mainly as a result of our participation in World War II, which left us with an infrastructure of U.S. military bases around the globe to support treaty obligations and mutual-defense agreements. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the infrastructure of overseas bases is being dismantled, partly as a cost-reduction measure and partly because many host countries no longer welcome a powerful U.S. presence on their soil. The closing of overseas bases affects all of the Armed Forces, but especially the Army and Air Force. The Navy, in effect, brings its overseas bases with it in the form of the

13

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

14

fleet, taking advantage of freedom of the seas to move freely about the oceans and adjacent seas of the world. Marshall observed that low-cost, highly capable, commercially based technologies are increasingly enabling many nations, including nations with very limited resources, to mount considerable local threats based on precision strikes from their own territories. Marshall believes that in the next 20 to 30 years, the time period of interest for this study, even surface ships of the U.S. fleet might be threatened in the home waters of most nations. Submarines, however, will continue to be relatively invulnerable in the foreseeable future. The possibility that even resource-constrained nations will be able to acquire potent, albeit limited-range, offensive capabilities increases the vulnerability of overseas U.S. bases. According to Marshall, the following core tasks, lie ahead for the U.S. military: • • • • •

long-distance power projection capability of fighting far away coping with the eroding overseas base structure ensuring homeland defense adjusting to major changes in warfare, including joint-service operations and coalition peacekeeping operations and humanitarian missions

According to Marshall, the following trends in warfare are expected to continue: • • •

• •

The focus will be on fielding a precision strike force that can maneuver rapidly and effectively, and survive an attack far away. The force must be able to conceal its activities from an enemy and detect enemy activities. Advances in information technology will lead to new levels of coordination among forces. Global awareness through real-time, networked sensors and communications will facilitate command and control and enable precision strikes. Using unmanned vehicles, information will be gathered in new ways, force will be delivered remotely, and the risk of casualties will be reduced. Fighting in urban areas will increase, which will require entirely different strategies and equipment.

Marshall and subsequent speakers also focused the committee’s attention on new threats that could not be counteracted by force projection (Vickers, 2000; Henley, 2000). Weapons of mass destruction, for example, are a growing threat. During the Cold War, the threat of nuclear weapons, principally from the Soviet Union, was a major concern. U.S. security was safeguarded by highly developed

TRANSLATING SYSTEMS NEEDS INTO MATERIAL NEEDS

15

strategic deterrence to neutralize that threat. In the future, threats to the United States may be the delivery by missile (or other means) of small numbers of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons from very disparate sources, such as a terrorist group that gains access to the United States by covert means. The nation could also be threatened by an assault on the complex web of information systems that are becoming increasingly important in the delivery of goods and services. Vulnerable infrastructure points include power grids, dams, and similar facilities. In general, Marshall recommended that the United States maintain its capability to project power over long distances, harness advancing technologies to maintain its technological lead as long as possible (recognizing that other nations will be working to counter our capabilities), continue to control the ocean buffer, and develop more plans for defending the homeland.

EXAMPLES OF SYSTEMS NEEDS Briefings by senior officials of the Armed Services, defense agencies, and other government agencies covered a variety of short-term and long-term perspectives. The starting point for the fundamental needs of the U.S. Army, as stated by Michael Andrews, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for research and technology, was that the Army would continue to be based in the United States but would have to be able to respond quickly to provide a global presence (Andrews, 2000). Quick response would necessarily be provided by airlift, which implies lightweight forces. The Army has established a goal of being able to move a large concentration of troops anywhere in the world in 48 hours. The Army anticipates that armored forces will continue to be the principal means of attacking an enemy. Accordingly, the emphasis will be on very lightweight vehicles equipped with armor protection and stealth to survive against highintensity threats. Infantrymen are facing increasingly potent weapons and require a very high degree of information connectivity on the battlefield. Currently, each soldier must carry heavy personal protective equipment and batteries to support electronics. In the future, the Army plans to lighten each soldier’s load with lightweight equipment and communication packages. The Air Force also envisions supporting its power projection from the United States (Delaney, 2000). According to Kenneth Harwell, chief scientist for the Air Force Research Laboratory, the goal is to deliver munitions to targets anywhere around the globe from the United States in 55 minutes (Harwell, 2000). This will require very high speeds, as well as very lightweight material. Meeting this goal will be a formidable technical challenge. The U.S. Navy wants systems that are stealthy and can operate in littoral areas around the world to fulfill its objective of decisively influencing events on land

16

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

anywhere at any time (DeMarco, 2000). The Navy’s emphasis will be on antisubmarine and mine warfare to ensure that the U.S. fleet can carry out its power projection mission in inshore waters. The U.S. Marine Corps’ goal is to provide very lightweight, agile, early-entry forces, operating from sea bases with minimal needs for logistic support ashore (Gray, 2000). The Marine Crops will be a strike force rather than an occupying force. All of the military services expressed a need for systems that cost less for acquisition and require less maintenance. The principal delivery hardware—ships, submarines, aircraft, and vehicles—will probably be expected to remain in service for very long periods of time, placing new demands on underlying technologies for durability, maintainability, and ease of upgrade. The Air Force was particularly forceful in stating the case for aircraft with very long service lives and the need to maintain and modernize aircraft at much less cost (Delaney, 2000). TRANSLATION TO MATERIALS NEEDS The presentations to the committee were organized by the needs of individual services, but materials needs are related to more generic kinds of systems, platforms, and equipment. For example, all of the services require aircraft. Therefore, materials research that enables more advanced aircraft will be valuable to all of the services. Although the need of a particular service might be the impetus for meeting a defined capability, once a technology matures to the point that it can be readily used in an operational system, it can probably also be used advantageously in similar systems for other purposes. Ships, submarines, aircraft, military vehicles, sailors, airmen, soldiers, and marines of the future will have common requirements for advanced materials that will enable significant changes in: maneuverability (mobility, speed, agility); force protection (from nuclear, biological, chemical, kinetic, or explosive weapons through stealth, identification, armor, and active defense); engagement (highly concentrated and sustained firepower); and logistics (durability, maintainability). Advanced materials will be required to satisfy diverse requirements in terms of speed, strength, precision, survivability, signature, materials selection, cost, weight, and commonality. Ships may be able to travel at 75-knots; very lightweight tanks will travel at speeds up to 75 miles per hour; weapons will be delivered at hypersonic speeds. Materials will have to endure tougher environments for longer periods of time—from ocean depths to Arctic cold to desert heat to space reentry. For example, the Army envisions that new highstrength, very lightweight materials that can be integrated with primary structures and have active features to defend armored vehicles against future weapons. The Army hopes to field systems with an offensive capability similar to the M1A2

TRANSLATING SYSTEMS NEEDS INTO MATERIAL NEEDS

17

Abrams tank for about one-third the weight, including unmanned ground vehicles and munitions. Materials processes will require greater precision compatible with reduced fabrication and operational tolerances. Increased survivability will require materials capable of multispectral absorption (radio frequency, thermal, acoustic) and providing ballistic protection. New materials will reduce signatures, including, but not be limited to, radar, infrared, acoustic, visible light, and magnetic signatures. Materials must be cost effective. The cost of acquisition and lifetime support of DOD platforms and men must be reduced. For example, precision munitions will not be completely effective until they are inexpensive enough to be used at even the lowest tactical unit level. Increased capability at increased cost must be weighed carefully against advanced materials that introduce similar capabilities at reduced costs. Cost effectiveness must include reduced maintenance and upkeep costs. Manpower is the single largest DOD cost. Therefore, advanced materials that reduce the need for manpower will be extremely beneficial. Materials that reduce weight but retain functionality will permit increases in payload and range. For example, reducing the weight of seamless piping systems by another 25 percent during the next 20 years would have widespread value. A 20-percent reduction in the high topside weight of surface ships would significantly reduce displacement and reduce fuel requirements. The use of common materials across platforms, between services, and among soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will be necessary. The services will have to develop processes that encourage the sharing of materials technologies between programs. The committee envisions new roles for advanced materials, including bioinspired materials, self-assembling polymers, novel magnetic materials, and selfhealing materials. Next-generation defense systems (or Defense After Next) will require “smart” materials that are self-healing, can interact independently with the local environment, and are capable of monitoring the health of a structure or component/system during operation. Smart materials will act as the host for evolving technologies, such as embedded sensors and integrated antennas. Advanced materials will also be called on to deliver traditional high performance for structures; protect against corrosion, fouling, and erosion; provide fire protection; control fractures; and be used as fuels, lubricants, and hydraulic fluids. Promising composite material technologies to meet these needs include carbon nanotubes, electron-beam curing, recyclable composite materials, and healthmonitoring sensors. The next 20 years will present the materials community with daunting challenges and opportunities. The challenges will be derived from major changes in defense needs that have evolved in the aftermath of the Cold War, spurred by the accelerated pace of advances in electronics and computation. In the committee’s opinion, performance, life span, and maintainability goals will generally double in the next 20 to 25 years, and the requirements for producibility,

18

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

cost, and availability will be twice as demanding as they are today. Advances in materials will be fundamental enablers for new capabilities to meet these needs. Some of the advances will result from R&D undertaken for competitive advantage by commercial enterprises. For example, substantial commercial funding is likely to be available for research in telecommunications and computation. In other technical areas, however, DOD may have to bear the funding burden directly. Logic dictates that in these special areas considerable funding for fundamental research will be necessary, not only for identifying critical new materials, but also for accelerating their progress through development to applications in deployed systems for the Defense After Next. Performance (of course) and cost will be major considerations.

3 Research Priorities

Chapter 2 highlights DOD’s need for various types of functionality or combinations thereof for systems. In this chapter, those system needs are examined to determine priorities for materials and processes research areas. The committee also points out crosscutting issues any material must address. These research priorities will provide a basis for the technical panels for the next phase of the study. SYSTEM MOTIVATION FOR MATERIALS AND PROCESS NEEDS R&D in materials and processes will be needed in a number of general areas. A combination of breakthroughs in long-established materials and new materials or materials combinations will probably be necessary to address system needs. Examples of the types of materials needed are shown in Box 3-1 and are described below. Types of Materials Lightweight Materials with Retained or Enhanced Functionality A pervasive requirement for DOD systems is weight reduction in everything from tanks to the equipment carried by individual soldiers. At the same time, military forces will require at least the same functionality as today’s force—for example, the ability to withstand enemy fire. New functionalities will also be required, particularly in sensing surroundings, communicating with and responding to other elements of the force, increasing lethality, and responding to new threats.

19

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

20

BOX 3-1 Material Types for Defense After Next •

lightweight materials that retain their functionality

•

materials that enhance protection/survivability

•

stealth materials

•

electronic/photonic materials for high-speed communications

•

sensor materials

•

high-energy-density materials

•

materials for improved propulsion technologies

Materials for Enhanced Protection/Survivability The ability of DOD forces to withstand enemy fire will continue to be critical. Considerable research could be done on new approaches to providing this capability, particularly at reduced weight. Hybrid materials that perform multiple functions are likely to be a promising area of research. Stealth Materials As the range of operations increases, it will be increasingly important for some elements to remain invisible for as long as possible by means of stealth technologies. This presents an important area of research in several directions, ranging from multifunctional structural materials that incorporate a stealth capability to electronic and/or optical materials and devices that may actively respond to probes to achieve invisibility. Electronic and Photonic Materials for High-Speed Communications New levels of communication and coordination of elements in a force will require extremely high bandwidth, secure transmission, reception, and interpretation. These in turn will require materials that will enable these functions,

RESEARCH PRIORITIES

21

be they optical, electronic, or some combination thereof. In addition, the force elements that must be coordinated will be under constraints for weight, speed, or both—meaning that the desired functionality must be achieved in very small volume and probably also with as little weight as possible. Sensor Materials A battlefield of interconnected elements poses many demands, one of which is the need to detect signals, which may be of many types (e.g., electromagnetic, molecular, etc.). Research on sensor materials and their integration into larger systems will be important to DOD. An emerging area of sensor needs is for the detection of chemical and/or biological agents. High-Energy-Density Materials The projected increase in operating distance for forces of the future, coupled with the need for environmental consciousness (see below), will require R&D on materials and systems that can increase energy efficiency. Materials for Improved Propulsion Technology Future forces hope to rely eventually on hypersonic propulsion systems. Regardless of the validity of this hope, improved propulsion will be necessary in several arenas, particularly undersea, in air, and in space. Abundant materials issues will have to be addressed, ranging from the need for high-energy-density fuels to high-temperature materials to materials for improved undersea propulsion. Materials Properties In addition to the materials needs discussed above, a number of adjunct materials properties would be desirable for DOD systems. These characteristics cut across the classes of materials already discussed. Although they would not, in and of themselves, lead to the selection of a particular material for a given application, they are likely to play an important role in that selection. Examples of these properties are listed in Box 3-2 and discussed below.

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

22

BOX 3-2 Crosscutting Materials Properties •

multifunctionality

•

self-healing and/or self-diagnosing materials

•

materials for low total-cost systems

•

low-maintenance materials

•

high-reliability materials

•

environmentally conscious materials and processes

Multifunctionality One way to reduce weight and volume is through multifunctionality— materials that can perform at least two functions (e.g., stealth and structural support). Multifunctionality can be thought of on two scales: (1) on a mesoscopic (e.g., coatings) or macroscopic (e.g., load-bearing) scale, and (2) on a microscopic or nanoscopic scale, in which multiple physical phenomena are produced through molecular design and/or architectural textures. The need for multifunctionality is driven by the need to incorporate more functions into a fixed or shrinking volume. The concept of multifunctionality encompasses many classes of materials and applications, ranging from structural materials that may be self-interrogating, selfhealing, provide stealth, or protect against enemy fire, to microscopic materials or systems that may do some combination of sensing, moving, thinking, communicating, and acting. Self-Healing and/or Self-Diagnosing Materials These materials could address a number of DOD needs, ranging from improving survivability to minimizing system maintenance. Materials for Low Total-Cost Systems Cost is expected to be a primary criterion for DOD decisions for the foreseeable future. Materials that enable low total-system cost (i.e., including

RESEARCH PRIORITIES

23

procurement, processing, maintenance, etc.) will have a decided advantage, even if the cost of the material itself is high relative to other choices. Low-Maintenance Materials As history demonstrates, systems for Defense After Next are likely to be in use for many decades. Therefore, materials that do not require extensive, active maintenance are clearly preferred. This is especially true for structural materials, which would make it possible to upgrade many components in a large system as technology advances without having to scrap the entire system. An example is the Navy’s critical need for ship structures or coatings that reduce the necessity of paint chipping, an egregious task that adds significantly to the Navy’s manpower requirements, recruiting levels, and retention levels. High-Reliability Materials The consequences of materials failure in many DOD systems can be dire. The need for materials and processes that meet reliability requirements spans all classes of materials. Environmentally Conscious Materials and Processes DOD has become increasingly sensitive to the environmental impact of military activities. The use of environmentally friendly energy sources, the efficient use of power, and so forth are areas where considerable R&D is needed. Environmental concerns extend to other materials as well. Materials and processes for DOD systems should have as little adverse impact on the environment as possible. An area of special concern is the decommissioning and disposal of obsolete systems, including the recycling and/or reuse of as much of an old system as possible. Crosscutting Issues Successful research on the broad classes of materials and process research enumerated above would impact systems for Defense After Next only if a number of crosscutting issues are also are addressed. These issues (see Box 3-3) must be considered concurrently with R&D because they are likely to reveal the direction research should take.

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

24

BOX 3-3 Crosscutting Issues •

design issues

•

materials-by-design

•

materials tailorability

•

materials influence on development and deployment costs

•

availability of a commercial alternative

•

risk management

•

manufacturing issues

•

life-cycle issues

Design Issues The successful introduction of a new material into a system requires that the design/selection of the material(s) be integrated with the design of the entire system. In this way the best material for meeting the needs of the system can be selected (or, perhaps even tailored or designed). Conversely, early in the design process, certain modifications can be made to the design to compensate for the shortcomings of a material. Materials-by-Design If system designers and materials and process experts are in communication early enough in the process, it may be possible to design a material to meet the needs of the system, rather than designing the system around available materials. In fact, this is likely to become more common as selected strategic experiments, coupled with validated physical models, are incorporated into computer simulations that enable the “virtual” exploration of composition/structure/processing/properties space as a partial replacement for extensive laboratory experimentation. A move in this direction would also address the need for reducing development time and cost. Comprehensive databases of materials properties, although not glamorous to compile, would greatly facilitate

RESEARCH PRIORITIES

25

the design of materials. In addition, characterizing materials for the desired properties, an essential aspect of materials design, may require the development of new techniques. Tailorability of Materials The properties of a material are seldom ideal for all aspects of a particular application. Materials and process scientists must be aware of the desirability of materials or systems of materials with properties that can be tailored over a range of parameters to be compatible with a variety of system requirements. The concept of treating multiple materials as a system as, for example, in structural composites, has already been shown to increase the tailorability of materials properties substantially. The ability to tailor materials systems in multiple dimensions or at shorter length scales than has previously been possible also promises to open new doors. The degree of tailorability required will vary with the type of material and application. Early communication between materials scientists and systems engineers can help in defining the required or desired variations. Influence of Materials on Development/Deployment Costs The choice of a material can influence development and deployment costs in many ways. First, the cost of raw materials may be an issue, particularly if it is very high. If a material is extremely difficult to process, or if there is a great deal of waste or rejected material, costs can escalate quickly. The development of an entirely new processing technology or qualification procedure is also a cost factor. It is critical that the baseline process, the range of acceptable properties, and other factors governing these costs be understood early on so that the research program can at least be mindful of the issues and perhaps even tailor the research to respond to them. Availability of a Commercial Alternative Buying a commercial material or part will almost always be cheaper than designing, developing, and manufacturing a new one specifically for DOD. In some cases, the quality of a commercial product may even be better as a result of economies of scale and well understood process quality controls. Before DOD invests in the development of a new material or process that would marginally improve performance, the improvement should be shown to have a sufficiently

26

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

high potential payoff to be worth the investment. A crucial aspect of DOD’s investments in the development and acquisition of the best materials in the future will involve choosing between in-house development, collaboration with, or purchase from industry. Risk Management For obvious reasons, DOD is highly risk averse, whenever possible. In the materials and process arena, risk aversion translates to a reluctance to introduce new materials or processes unless the benefits have been clearly demonstrated and the risk has been shown to be acceptably low. Minimizing risk leads to a desire to minimize the number of materials in use and to a desire for identifying materials that would lead to the simplification of a component or system design, which in turn would potentially reduce cost and risk—assuming, of course, that the material meets all of the other risk minimization criteria. Finally, DOD must constantly be on the lookout for “fatal flaws” in a material that could eliminate it from consideration no matter how desirable its other characteristics might be. Manufacturing Issues A new material or process may be very promising in the laboratory and yet be completely inappropriate because it is not manufacturable. Materials and process scientists must ensure that production of the material or component can be scaled to a level appropriate for its end use. Defect density must be acceptably low and the yield high so there is little or no waste or inefficiency in the process. The end product must be able to be inspected and characterized, either through rigorous process-based quality approaches or more standard inspection. Finally, the product must be manufacturable at an acceptable cost. Life-Cycle Issues The performance of a material throughout the life of the component or system is an essential consideration in the selection of a material for a particular application. If a predictive reliability model exists for a material or process, the lifetime expectation for the material under conditions of use could be easily determined. An alternative would be a self-interrogating, self-reporting material or system that indicates when attention is required. Materials incorporated into DOD systems must meet extremely high reliability requirements, which can be ensured in a number of ways, ranging from the selection of materials with important

RESEARCH PRIORITIES

27

properties that persist over a wide range of conditions to rigorous process-based quality that enables one to develop a prediction of material reliability. The components and systems must also be maintainable so that they can function at specification for many years, if necessary. Life-cycle costs, including the cost of maintenance over the life of the system, must be considered in the materials selection. Finally, the end of system life must be considered, including the recycling or reuse of as much of the system as possible and the environmentally conscious disposal of parts that cannot be of further use. CLASSES OF MATERIALS AND PROCESS NEEDS Several materials areas have been shown to have a pervasive need, as well as an opportunity, for major advances by appropriate research. One way to group these research areas would be to divide them into five (a manageable number) groups with sufficient overlap so that all major areas are covered. The committee then spent a good deal of time brainstorming and deliberating over classifications for these five areas: material types (polymeric, metallic, or ceramic), functions (structural or electronic), applications (aerospace, naval, etc.), or a combination. The committee first considered the classification used in the Defense S&T Reliance: Materials and Processes Joint Program Plan (DOD, 1999b). The five materials research areas finally agreed upon by the committee are described below. The five technical panels are: (1) structural and multifunctional materials; (2) energy and power materials; (3) electronic and photonic materials; (4) functional organic and hybrid materials; and (5) bio-derived and bio-inspired materials. Box 3-4 shows how the materials and process areas in the DOD Joint Program Plan relate to these five areas. Structural and Multifunctional Materials Panel A consistent theme in the list of system needs is the requirement for stronger, lighter, and stiffer materials that can meet increasingly stringent weight, mobility, and performance requirements. Other areas of need include higher temperature materials for improved performance. Merging multiple functions into a single material structure (e.g., structural member plus stealth) is another area for investigation.

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

28

BOX 3-4 DOD Materials and Processing Needs and the Five Technical Panels DOD Joint Program Plan

Panel Studies

Platform structural materials

Structural and multifunctional materials Bio-derived and bio-inspired materials

Propulsion and power materials

Energy and power materials Structural and multifunctional materials Bio-derived and bio-inspired materials

Armor/antiarmor

Structural and multifunctional materials Energy and power materials

Materials for electronic and sensor systems

Electronic and photonic materials Functional organic and hybrid materials Bio-derived and bio-inspired materials

Laser-hardened materials Operational support materials/ nondestructive evaluation

Energy and power materials Structural and multifunctional materials

Energy and Power Materials Panel Many Defense After Next needs are related to power generation, energy harvesting, energy conversion and storage, and energy delivery and dissipation. A particularly important area of research will be the emerging issues of operations from greater distances, survivability, weight minimization, and environmental consciousness. Electronic and Photonic Materials Panel The emergence of the battlefield as a network of entities each of which is collecting, transmitting, and processing information in real-time will place stringent demands on electronic and/or optical materials that can function securely at the required bandwidth. Sensors will be necessary to collect information to be

RESEARCH PRIORITIES

29

processed and shared. Integrated microsystems that can move, sense, think, and act are also likely to be used in Defense After Next systems on the battlefield, for reconnaissance and/or in unmanned vehicles. Functional Organic and Hybrid Materials Panel The combination of requirements for minimal weight and maximum functionality could potentially be met by this class of materials. Attractive materials would be self-healing and/or self-diagnosing, including lightweight electronic, optical, sensing, and, perhaps, structural materials. Bio-derived and Bio-inspired Materials Panel This rapidly developing area will be of great interest for a variety of Defense After Next needs. These materials frequently offer weight advantages over their inorganic counterparts. If some functionalities, such as environmental responsivity or the capability of self-healing, could be introduced, these materials would be extremely attractive, as sensors, for example, or for dealing with chemical and biological agents. This class of materials is most likely to lead to advances in maintaining the health of soldiers—through wound healing, tissue engineering, drug delivery, and so forth.

4

Materials Science Challenges

The five technical areas for detailed studies are: structural and multifunctional materials; energy and power materials; electronic and photonic materials; functional organic and hybrid materials; and bio-derived and bio-inspired materials. The organization of the panels by function will encourage technical experts to participate, which will be crucial to their success. Members must also include systems thinkers and manufacturing experts. Each panel will attempt to quantify the impact of new materials and prosses and identify technical road blocks to their development. To facilitate management of the technical panels, a member of the study committee will chair each panel; in some cases they will also serve as co-chair or members of the panel (see Appendix C). Recommendation. Five technical panels should be established to address advances and challenges in materials science to meet twenty-first-century defense needs. The five technical panels should focus on the following areas: (1) structural and multifunctional materials; (2) energy and power materials; (3) electronic and photonic materials; (4) functional organic and hybrid materials; and (5) bio-derived and bio-inspired materials. Recommendation. Over the next 12 months, each panel should meet about four times to assess research priorities in its respective area. The panels should coordinate their work to ensure that all important research areas are covered. Recommendation. Based on the results of the panels’ assessments, the committee should integrate and prioritize the recommended research opportunities and recommend means of integrating materials and processing advances into new system designs.

31

32

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

STRUCTURAL AND MULTIFUNCTIONAL MATERIALS Scope This panel will focus on structural and mesoscopic and macroscopic multifunctional materials. The panel will begin by focusing on emerging materials and processes for fabricating structural (load-bearing) materials. The panel will then consider other functions that might be “built into” the structure, such as health monitoring, thermal-load dissipation, and electromagnetic radiation management. The panel’s investigation of multifunctionality will be limited to mesoscopic and macroscopic scales, such as thin laminates, mesoscopic trusses, “active” fibers (piezoelectrics, optics, etc.), and coatings. Multifunctionality introduced by atomic or molecular design will be addressed by the panel on functional organic and hybrid materials. The panel will not address research focused on incremental improvements of already commercialized materials, unless these changes are expected to lead to breakthroughs. The panel will identify research that could lead to the development of lighter, stiffer, or stronger materials. The impact of nanoscopic features of structural materials will be assessed, as well as nanoscale composites, including laminates and carbon nanotubes. Structurally efficient foams and engineered microtrusses will be discussed as a means of achieving lightweight structures with functionality, such as thermal-load dissipation. DOD has a special interest in harder, stronger materials for shock-absorbing structures for defeating projectiles. The panel will assess new computational tools for clarifying the response of materials and structures to projectile impact with the intent of combining these tools into an integrated approach to structural materials and structures that would be both lightweight and effective as armor. New tools for computational materials design will also be investigated, as well as the thermodynamic and kinetic databases necessary for their application. Another area of the panel’s investigation will be new materials (coatings, composites, etc.) for gun tubes. High-temperature materials are necessary for propulsion systems, highvelocity airframes, reentry vehicles, and other DOD special interests. Therefore, the panel will investigate new approaches to using/protecting carbon-carbon composites and ceramic-matrix composites, as well as low-cost processing of structural ceramics and ceramic composites. Other topics of interest to the panel will be concepts for refractory metal superalloys, novel metal-nonmetal composites, and amorphous/nanocrystalline Si-based materials (e.g., Si-B-C-N materials). High-performance, structural polymers are emerging, particularly hightemperature polymers and nanoscale polymer-inorganic composites as potential

MATERIALS SCIENCE CHALLENGES

33

structurally efficient materials. The panel will include fabrication and scale-up of these exotic new materials. In a related area, resistance to fire damage, with an emphasis on the maintenance of structural integrity, will also be investigated. The space environment places special requirements on materials in terms of weight, stiffness, and deployability. Large-area, polymer-film structures and dimensionally stable mirrors will require new approaches, particularly in light of reliability requirements. Revolutionary processing approaches leading to low cost and high performance will be investigated. Free-form processing, rapid prototyping, and liquid/vapor sources, as in spray forming, laser sintering, and so forth will be reviewed. Multifunctionality in terms of sensing/activating, energy absorption, tailorable thermal expansion, and conductivity will be another focus area, as will highly unitized structures with localized placement of material to achieve a function. The panel will investigate the use of deterministic damage models with real-time sensor input of environmental parameters as a means of incorporating path dependence into lifetime predictions of structures. Dynamic stealth materials that allow the operator/system to change the signature characteristics at will to meet real-time threats will be investigated in terms of structural materials with built-in or overlaid stealth capabilities. Finally, ideas for improving reliability, dependability, and affordability will be pursued with regard to currently deployed materials and structures and new materials that are emerging for deployment after 2020. New techniques for nondestructive investigation/nondestructive evaluation would reveal smaller flaws earlier in component life, sense internal flaws under coatings and in rivet holes, and scan and assess aircraft condition without human attendants. The ultimate goal is to understand failure initiation sufficiently well to place embedded sensors in critical areas to provide for continuous health monitoring. Changing over to computer-assisted component design will require the development of property databases and improved design education, both aimed at improving component reliability and affordability. New coatings schemes that incorporate erosion/corrosion protection and low observability will be included in the panel’s study. Operational support materials (lubricants, coolants, sealants, hydraulic fluids) will be investigated in terms of potential breakthroughs for the 2020 time frame. A preliminary outline of the report is provided in Appendix D. Methodology This panel will meet four times. At the first meeting the subject matter will be organized by aligning topics with panel members’ expertise. Preliminary writing/outlining assignments will be made. At least three speakers representing

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

34

broad subareas of the topic will be invited (e.g., structurally efficient materials, deterministic models of damage, high-performance structural polymers and nanocomposites). The panel will make a preliminary outline focusing on subsequent meetings and speaker selection. At the second meeting, the panel will invite a few generalists to fill gaps identified at the end of the first meeting. Specialists will be invited to complete this one-day workshop. One day will be spent reviewing progress in writing assignments and on realigning assignments, as necessary. A list of speakers will be completed to address the remaining topics included in the report. A one-day workshop with specialized speakers will lead off the third meeting. The panel will then meet for a day to discuss preliminary conclusions and recommendations and to incorporate crosscutting issues into the panel report. Before the fourth meeting, members will distribute their writing assignments to all panel members. The panel chairman will assemble the report, including a preliminary draft of conclusions and recommendations. Obvious gaps in the report will be highlighted for discussion. At this meeting, the final report will be assembled and gaps filled (see Appendix C for a proposed schedule). Required Expertise Panel members will have to be experts in many areas, including manufacturing (e.g., joining, secondary fabrication); structural design; metallurgy; ceramics; polymers and polymer composites; computational materials science; aerospace/space applications for materials; land and sea applications for materials. Materials Advances to Meet Long-Term Needs Smart Materials There are many applications for structural materials that contain sensors and simple logic circuits that enable a structure to react to the signal from the sensor. A simple example would be a structure that sustains battle damage resulting in reduced stiffness or strength, which can be sensed ultrasonically; the structure could then react by reconfiguring to reduce the load on the damaged components. Ultimately, a material might be self-healing by an in situ repair.

MATERIALS SCIENCE CHALLENGES

35

Computationally Driven Materials Development and Modeling Complex problems in materials design can be solved with modern computational capabilities. DOD’s needs include first-principles calculations at the atomic and small-molecule levels and large-scale modeling of complex electronic and photonic devices. In the structural materials arena, thermodynamic and kinetic modeling of complex alloys might someday be carried out and verified by experiments. Deterministic models of material damage would be useful for lifetime predictions. Nanotechnology With advances in the design and assembly of materials at the nanoscopic level, new materials will be lighter, stiffer, and stronger. The intercalation of polymers into layered materials has been shown to result in much stiffer polymer nanocomposites than one would predict from the rule of mixtures. Nanocrystalline or amorphous silicon-based ceramics fabricated from polymer precursors could lead to ultrahigh strength and thermal stability at temperatures approaching 1,500°C. High-Temperature Materials In addition to the examples cited above, DOD needs monolithic refractory superalloys that can increase the turbine inlet temperature of gas turbine engines by 300°F (from 2,800°F to 3,100°F) by 2020. This will require that ceramicmatrix composites advance from the research stage to the engineering-application stage in the range of 1,500°C and beyond for heat engines, reentry vehicles, and hypersonic airframes and engines. Space Structures Large-area, thin-film polymer and composite structures must be developed for mirrors and antennas. Deployability and dimensional stability are required features for space structural materials. Ultralight weight, stiffness, and strength are also required.

36

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

Reliability, Dependability, Survivability, and Affordability The cost of maintaining current DOD assets now surpasses expenditures for new materiel. Methods of ensuring the reliability of structural materials must be developed so that lifetimes can be predicted. New manufacturing and fabrication processes must be developed to produce affordable structures. Processing and Fabrication New methods of processing currently specified materials must be found to make them more affordable. Processing of new materials, such as composites, new polymers, nanostructured metals, and ceramics, must be scaled up and automated. Rapid prototyping must be a priority to accelerate assessments of new materials in component form. Composite Technology The only realistic scheme for achieving some performance goals with regard to density, stiffness, strength, and multifunctionality is to design composite structures. New light-metal matrix composites, high-performance polymer-matrix composites, intermetallic-matrix composites, and ceramic-matrix composites all appear attractive in terms of performance. Research on automated manufacturing and highly tailored architecture will be necessary to qualify these materials for Defense After Next. Multifunctional Materials The types of functionality that might be built into structures include stealth, health monitoring, energy absorption, tailorable thermal properties, and selfhealing.

MATERIALS SCIENCE CHALLENGES

37

ENERGY AND POWER MATERIALS Scope The panel on energy and power materials will focus on emerging materials and processes to meet DOD needs in the 2020 time frame for components capable of generating, converting, and storing energy and power. In addition, materials and processes required for sensing and for controlled dissipation of energy will be addressed for DOD needs not covered by other panels. The panel will identify improvements to experimental and computational methods to accelerate the development of new materials and processes to support DOD energy and power needs. The panel will also examine research directions for power and energy-related technologies that could have a significant impact on reliability, supportability, and life-cycle costs. A summary of areas specifically included and excluded from the panel’s study is provided in the next few paragraphs. Emerging materials and processes for energy storage (e.g., electrical, electrochemical, mechanical, and magnetic) will be a major area of focus. This area includes challenges to the development of improved batteries (primary, secondary, and reserve batteries based on various principles) for a broad range of DOD applications. It also includes novel approaches to capacitors for storing electrical energy. This category also encompasses fuels and propellants that could provide a significant advantage to the military in the 2020 time frame but that are either not used currently or are only beginning to be seriously considered. The panel will identify these fuels and propellants and seek to identify materials challenges to their development. The panel will also consider novel explosive materials in its study. The panel will not address materials that rely on structural integrity for mechanical energy storage (e.g., flywheels), which will be covered by the structural and multifunctional materials panel. The energy and power materials panel will attempt to identify challenges to efficient energy conversion. One important component of this category includes fuel cells for both small- scale and large-scale energy conversion systems. Structural materials for converting chemical energy into thrust, such as those used in turbine/turboshaft engines and other propulsion systems, will be excluded from this panel’s study, as will structural materials for hypersonic and rocket propulsion. These structural materials will be addressed by the structural and multifunctional materials panel. The impact of structural materials for use in very small-scale applications, such as materials and processes for microturbines useful in supporting systems, such as individual soldiers or mini/microuninhabited air vechicles, will be included.

38

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

Advanced materials and processes for power generation components for 2020 systems will be examined. Important applications will include advanced motors and generators; electric propulsion for ships and ground vehicles; power generation components (e.g., high-power, solid-state switches, electric drives) for land and amphibious vehicles; and power conditioning and transmission equipment. Potential materials for these applications include high-temperature, low-loss, soft magnetic materials and advanced superconductors (for highefficiency shipboard motors). The panel will also look into materials challenges to be met in fielding advanced weapons, that is, placing energy on target. Energy-on-target includes materials for some of the most advanced weapons systems concepts under consideration, including particle beams, advanced high-energy lasers, acoustic and high-power microwave weapons, and electromagnetic guns, in addition to conventional warheads (e.g., kinetic-energy penetrators). This area will be coordinated with the electronic and photonic materials panel to identify common materials themes and challenges. For example, advanced laser materials may be applicable in different forms to both high-speed data communications and lowenergy laser weapons. In this area, the panel will work closely with the structural and multifunctional materials panel; areas such as gun-tube materials will be excluded because they will be considered by the structural and multifunctional materials panel. Materials problems specifically related to electromagnetic launchers (e.g., rail erosion in plasma railguns) are significant and have been examined for several decades. It is unclear whether these problems can be overcome to the point that practical, weight-efficient, electromagnetic weapons systems could be fielded by 2020. The panel will, therefore attempt to articulate the remaining challenges but will not delve into this area; as noted above, the panel will consider the development of materials for high-energy-density storage that could accelerate these materials into applications. The need to dissipate or control the effects of energy in its various forms is ubiquitous, and aspects of this overall need will be addressed by several panels. Materials challenges for effective kinetic-energy dissipation (e.g., novel armor) will be addressed in close coordination with the structural and multifunctional materials panel, with the latter addressing integrated structural armor and this panel addressing both transparent armor and body armor. The panel will also address materials challenges for hardening against high-energy and low-energy lasers. Dissipation of other forms of energy (acoustic, thermal, electromagnetic) will be coordinated on a case-by-case basis with other panels, as appropriate. Like challenges in energy dissipation, challenges in sensing energy or power will also be divided among various panels. Sensors will be exceedingly important to DOD capabilities in terms of understanding and reacting to the battlefield environment. Sensors are often electronic/photonic; they can be based on bio-

MATERIALS SCIENCE CHALLENGES

39

derived or bio-inspired materials and often involve functional organic and hybrid materials. The panel on energy and power materials will examine only materials challenges for novel sensors for energy (e.g., optical, thermal, mechanical) required by DOD that are not being covered by other panels. Natural energy sources (water, wind, biomass, etc.) and potential shifts in the reliance of DOD on these sources will not be addressed by this panel. The need for changing U.S. reliance on energy sources, particularly from fossil fuels to renewable resources, has been well documented. Morever, if the rate of change in petroleum-based fuel prices begins to accelerate dramatically, a substantial U.S. initiative to develop and apply alternative energy sources will probably follow, with DOD being a major beneficiary. However, materials and process challenges that could significantly improve DOD’s ability to harvest energy from various sources, thereby improving field power-generating capability and decreasing the logistics burden involved in supporting expeditionary forces, will be explored. In addition, the panel will consider other potentially unique DOD power/energy requirements that would not otherwise be met. Figure 4-1 shows the areas included and excluded by the energy and power materials panel. A preliminary outline of the panel report is provided in Appendix D. Methodology The energy and power materials panel study will be quite broad in terms of scope, range of applications and systems, and materials and process challenges. Several areas of overlap with other panels have already been identified and assigned to other panels. Undoubtedly, there will be more. Work by this panel will, therefore, be closely coordinated with the work of other panels. In addition, joint panel sessions will be held, to review proceedings of other panels and minimize overlap (some overlap is desirable to ensure that nothing is missed). Members of this panel will meet four times (schedule shown in Appendix C), with each meeting lasting two or three days. The first meeting will be primarily focused on organization, familiarizing panel members with study objectives, and assigning tasks. Topic responsibilities will be assigned in keeping with the expertise of panel members. At this meeting, approximately three speakers with broad knowledge in at least one major category will be invited to present overviews to provide a context for the panel’s activities. A preliminary report outline will then be prepared, and the potential contents of each subsection (and issues that may be unique to those sections) will be discussed. At the conclusion of the first meeting, preliminary information-gathering and writing assignments will be made, gaps in coverage will be identified, and potential speakers for the next meeting will be identified.

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

40

Energy and Power Materials Panel Energy Dissipation and Protection Against Energy Effects Armor Transparent armor Body armor Active armor Other armor --> structural Panel High-energy laser hardening Low-energy laser hardening Other hardening (e.g., electromagnetic, acoustic) --> considered on a case-by-case basis with other panels Sensing Materials for sensor power sources Materials for sensing energy/power (i.e. sensor materials) not being addressed by another panel. Natural Energy Sources Materials/processes for energy harvesting

Energy Storage Capacitors (electrical) Batteries (electrochemical) Fuels, Explosives (chemical) Other (Thermal, magnetic) Flywheels (mechanical) --> structural and multifunctional materials panel Energy Conversion and Power Generation Fuel cells Microturbines, pulsed detnoation engines Electric motors, generators, switches Electric drives Other (materials for other conversion/generation components) Turbine/rocket structures --> structural and multifunctional materials panel Energy On Target Kinetic-energy penetrators High-power microwave High-energy lasers Electrothermal chemical/Electromagenetic launchers (see text) Particle beams Acoustic weapons Gun Tube structures --> structural and multifunctional materials panel

Figure 4-1 Areas included in and excluded from the energy and power materials

MATERIALS SCIENCE CHALLENGES

41

The second meeting will be heavily oriented toward fact finding and filling in the knowledge base. Speakers will address broad gaps identified during the first meeting. Specialists will then present a focused views of the current status and prospects in specific areas to be investigated by the energy and power panel. Progress on the preliminary writing assignments made at the prior meeting will be discussed, and the outline will be refined and adjusted. During the second meeting, the level of detail of the panel report will be specified. Writing assignments will then be modified based on the revised (and more detailed) report outline. The third meeting will involve some outside speakers but will focus mainly on the writing assignments. A major objective of this meeting will be to complete a rough draft of the panel report. Given the broad scope of the power and energy panel, information on possibilities and materials challenges in certain areas may require some additional fact finding. However, panel members will focus on the specific content of their sections. Approximately 50 percent of the meeting will be devoted to identifying and discussing conclusions of the study; discussing the status of writing assignments; identifying issues that have arisen during writing; discussing balance among subsections in terms of level of detail and overall perspective; and generating content for subsections. A rough draft of all panel report sections will be assembled and provided to panel members. The fourth meeting will focus on finalizing the draft report. Between the third and the fourth meetings, revised drafts of report subsections will be obtained from each member, assembled into a single document, and combined with tentative panel conclusions and recommendations. The assembled draft will be provided to each member prior to the meeting for review and modification. At the meeting, omissions, segues, and other gaps in the report will be identified and supplied. The entire content of the draft report will be assembled, reviewed by the panel, and finalized. Required Expertise The power and energy materials panel will involve approximately six individuals with expertise in the research and development of materials and processes for applications and components covered by the panel. One potential mix of areas of expertise, based on academic training, would include the following topics: chemistry/electrochemistry, polymer science, ceramics, chemical engineering, mechanical engineering/thermal processes, aerospace engineering, metallurgy, and condensed matter physics. A mix of expertise, based on work experience, would include: energy storage and conversion (batteries, fuel cells, etc.); electromagnetic materials (guns, motors, etc.); manufacturing; armor materials; small power generation (microturbines, pulse detonation engines, etc.);

42

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

distributed energy, directed energy (application, protection); and sensors. Each panel member must have technical expertise in at least one major area. Overall, the panel must comprise a balanced perspective. Materials Advances to Meet Long-Term Needs A host of materials and processing advances will be necessary to meet DOD’s long-term needs for power and energy components and systems. Major areas are discussed below. Improved High-Dielectric Constant Materials Directed-energy weapons that involve high amounts of pulsed power must store energy indefinitely and release it rapidly. The same is true of electromagnetic launch systems of kinetic-energy payloads, such as projected future aircraft-carrier catapults. To advance these capabilities, improvements in lightweight, high dielectric-constant materials that also have sufficient dielectric strength will be essential. Advances in the design of novel polymeric materials that can self-assemble at the molecular level may offer one solution to this problem. High-Energy-Density, Ultralightweight Power Sources Individual soldiers are being provided with tools that enhance their battlefield awareness, their ability to communicate, and their lethality. These tools must perform reliably in a hostile environment and must be carried into battle. These systems include advanced radios, global positioning system, computer, nightvision capability, and weapon/heads-up display links, all of which rely on portable power. Maximizing mission duration and minimizing weight will require new materials that increase gravimetric energy density fivefold to tenfold by 2020. Advanced Individual Protective Materials Novel, lightweight body armor involving engineered combinations of polymer, ceramic, and metallic materials will be required to offset the increased lethality of individual weapons and the increasing weight burden on the soldier from added equipment and capabilities. In addition, the surge in battlefield lasers

MATERIALS SCIENCE CHALLENGES

43

operating at numerous frequencies will require new approaches to materials for eye protection. Novel Magnetic Materials The need for high-performance, electric-drive ship propulsion with a fully integrated power system places a premium on the development of advanced forms of permanent magnets, possibly involving materials specifically tailored at the nanostructural level to achieve a given set of properties. Advanced airborne power generation would also benefit from high-temperature, low-loss, soft magnetic materials. Materials for Energy Harvesting The need for increasing amounts of power across a broad range of DOD applications places a premium on harvesting energy from mechanical, solar, and other sources. For example, mechanical harvesting may involve advanced regenerative braking or energy scavenging from soldier maneuvers, both of which will require new approaches involving combinations of new materials and innovative design techniques. Likewise, the Air Force migration into the space environment will require advanced, high conversion-efficiency photovoltaic materials. Advanced Modeling Approaches to the Design of Novel Materials Many of the advances in power and energy components will require materials with unique electronic properties. The most frequent approach for developing these materials in the past has involved careful synthesis followed by microstructural, chemical, and electronic characterization. Improvements in computing power have continued to improve predictions of the dielectric constant of polymers as a function of composition, but less progress has been made in the computational understanding of flaw-dependent properties, such as dielectric strength. Identification of the best polymeric materials for soft-body armor is largely a trial-and-error process. Modeling of the potential performance of materials has been limited by computer capability and the availability of models for including copolymer composition, monomer sequence, and crystallinity on ballistic response. Identification and development of new materials for these applications would be greatly improved with advanced modeling approaches.

44

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

Materials and Processing for Microelectromechanical Systems-Based, Mobile Power Components Recent developments have shown the feasibility of producing microturbines in silicon capable of high power-to-weight ratios. Efforts are now under way to translate these advances into materials more characteristic of turbine engines (e.g., silicon carbide). Further advances in the processing of traditional structural materials at the microscale might lead to high-efficiency, lightweight power modules for mini and micro-uninhabited air vehicles and other DOD systems with low power requirements. Materials Development for Mobility and Supportability The availability of lighter weight, higher energy-density materials should extend mission duration while reducing the logistics tail required to support them. The availability of lighter, higher energy-density energy sources should also have positive impacts on system maintainability. The panel will examine the effects of materials improvements on various crosscutting issues. ELECTRONIC AND PHOTONIC MATERIALS Scope The panel on electronic and photonic materials will cover materials research needs for the Defense After Next in four areas: (1) electronics; (2) optoelectronics and photonics; (3) sensors; and (4) microsystems. Packaging issues will also be considered, as necessary. The need for research on organic materials that perform these functions (e.g., organic electronic or optical materials) will be covered by the functional organic and hybrid materials panel. Progress in electronic and photonic materials and their derivatives, such as sensors and microsystems, is occurring at an extremely rapid rate, fueled by tremendous investments by the private sector. As a result, this panel will carefully consider which future defense needs can be met by monitoring developments in industry and which needs are specific to DOD and, therefore, in need of DOD investment. Each section of the panel report, therefore, will discuss (1) future defense needs; (2) commercial and other drivers for the technologies needed by DOD; and (3) an assessment, based on these two factors, of the need for DOD investment in a particular technical area. A preliminary outline of the panel report is included in Appendix D.

MATERIALS SCIENCE CHALLENGES

45

Panel Composition The panel will be cochaired by two members of the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next. Approximately four other panel members will be named, one representing each of the four general areas outlined above. Ideally, panel members will be generally knowledgable about at least one of the four major areas covered by the panel. Other desired expertise includes (1) general knowledge of DOD vision and system needs; (2) general knowledge of the areas of emphasis and scope of corporate, university, and government laboratory research; (3) knowledge of current commercial drivers for technologies of potential interest to DOD; and (4) knowledge of specialists to invite to address the panel. Methodology The panel will perform its work over the course of approximately one year (see schedule in Appendix C). Prior to the first meeting, information on DOD system needs (including this interim report) will be provided to the panel members. At the first meeting, the panel will be briefed on long-term DOD directions and system needs, either by an expert or the panel cochairs. This will be followed by a discussion of potential significant advances in electronic and photonic materials led by individual panel members and, perhaps, selected invitees. The briefings and discussion will provide a background for selection of focus areas in which DOD could invest most profitably. These selections will facilitate the development of a draft outline for the panel report and the selection of speakers for the next one or two meetings. The second meeting will feature speakers who will address the technical areas of emphasis identified at the first meeting. Panel members will report on background information they have gathered on the section(s) for which they are responsible, either through individual discussions or searches of the literature. Each of the four sections of the report will be covered by at least one speaker. A combination of general speakers and specialists working in the areas of most interest will be included. Based on these talks, the panel will refine the outline and discuss preliminary observations and possible conclusions. The third meeting will feature additional speakers addressing important issues that have not yet been covered adequately. Panel members will present refined outlines of the section(s) for which they are responsible. System and crosscutting issues that underlie materials or technology choices will be discussed. Preliminary conclusions and recommendations will be outlined.

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

46

The fourth and final meeting will focus on a discussion of the sections of the report, which have been previously submitted. The conclusions will be finalized and a draft report assembled. Materials Advances to Meet Long-Term Needs At the December 1999 Defense Science and Technology Reliance Subarea for Materials and Processes Meeting, the DOD panel on materials for electronic and sensor systems outlined the general areas in which materials advances would be necessary to meet DOD needs in the 2020 time frame. The following system needs were identified: • • • •

information gathering, which would be accomplished by appropriate sensors information processing, which would require new approaches to signal processing, memory, and computation transmission of information, which, above all, would require extremely high bandwidth protection of information, which would involve both hardware and software approaches to nonvolatile information storage and encryption

The range of the electromagnetic spectrum that has been identified as being of particular interest for sensors is very large, from 0.3 to 100 m. High-power, compact, tunable lasers in this range could be used for active imaging and targeting, as well as remote detection of chemical and/or biological agents. Similarly, heterodyne receivers based on narrow line-width lasers in this range could serve as low-noise detectors. Finally, electromagnetic windows in the same range that are resistant to high temperatures and shock could protect the vulnerable parts of the sensor. The fabrication of any elements that operate over such a large wavelength region, or even a sizable portion of it, is likely to require very complex and precisely controlled combinations of materials graded on the scale of the wavelengths involved. Such needs may well be unique to DOD and could require significant DOD investment. An analysis of DOD materials and process needs for communications, computation, and signal processing indicates that communications and processing will be done optically at very high bandwidth (> 10 GB/sec), perhaps with freespace communications or third- (3G) or fourth-generation (4G) wireless communications at megabyte rates. High-power (both peak and average) semiconductor lasers, fiber lasers, and materials and devices for ultrafast switching of signals will all be needed. New components (e.g., thin-film resonators) and “systems on a chip” will be needed for 3G/4G wireless

MATERIALS SCIENCE CHALLENGES

47

communicators. Research in this area is already a major topic of interest at government research laboratories. DOD investment will also be necessary to keep abreast of recent industrial developments and to tailor recent advances to meet unique defense needs. Other DOD needs include high-power, high-frequency, and high-temperature electronics, terahertz electronics, nonvolatile, very high-density, radiation-hard memories, and systems on a chip or integrated microsystems. There are likely to be commercial drivers for some of the foundational technologies, such as microsystems, but other needs on this list may be DOD specific. Future materials systems with specific functionalities addressing particular system needs are: • • • • • •

molecular systems, including carbon-based nanostructures quantum semiconductor nanostructures, such as superlattices, quantum wires, and quantum dots photonic bandgap materials magnetic thin films for spintronics ferroelectrics and low k dielectric materials for memories new piezoelectric, ferroelectric, and thermoelectric materials FUNCTIONAL ORGANIC AND HYBRID MATERIALS Scope

This panel will consider potential research opportunities in the area of organic and organic/inorganic hybrid materials, in which physical phenomena are present primarily as a result of molecular design and/or architectural textures with supramolecular, microscopic, or nanoscopic length scales. The materials will include both low and high molar-mass organic molecules with one, two, or three dimensionality, as well as integration of these with ceramic and metallic components. Systems that are functional in a macroscopic (e.g., load-bearing) sense will not be included (see structural and multifunctional materials panel); neither will inorganic semiconducting assemblies (see electronic and photonic materials panel). However, materials that combine active organic moieties with inorganic semiconductors will be addressed, as will novel carbon structures (fullerene and related structures) that have functionalities relevant to this panel. Some overlaps will be inevitable, particularly when mechanical properties are involved. The panel will be guided by the overall objective of considering systems that have a high probability of defense applications in a 20-year time frame. Therefore,

48

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

the focus is likely to be on materials that are presently either at an extremely early stage of development (e.g., ferromagnetic organic compounds) or are as yet unknown (e.g., superconducting macromolecules). Functionalities expected to be of prime interest include those associated with electronic, optical, magnetic, and thermal properties.The combination of two or more of these functionalities will be a core focus. A preliminary outline of the panel report is provided in Appendix D. Methodology The methodology adopted by the panel will generally follow procedures evolved in discussions with the overall study committee. Panel members will have broad expertise in the range of organic functional materials outlined above. The fields represented will thus include low molar-mass organic materials, macromolecular organic materials, polymer-ceramic hybrid materials, and metalbased functional materials that incorporate organic moieties. Panel members will be responsible for writing relevant sections of the final report. The panel chair will identify topics that appear to require additional or special attention and will contribute appropriate input in these areas. This panel will be relatively small, which will facilitate interactions between panel members between formal meetings. Information will be gathered by both formal briefings during the panel sessions and surveys of the literature, which will be a main responsibility of the panel chair and vice chair. Briefings will be conducted during four meetings by relevant experts identified by the panelists. Each panelist will also be given the opportunity at any early stage to present an overall review of his/her area of expertise. The panel will meet four times (see Appendix C). The first meeting will be devoted to a general overview of the charge to the panel and a discussion of the relevance of the charge to DOD problems. The panelists will present briefings in their respective subareas; and speakers for subsequent meetings will be identified. The second meeting will include briefings by a limited number of speakers in the four major areas of investigation. Topic overlaps and coordination and/or liaison with other panels will be explored. Gaps in coverage will be identified and remedied. A plan for the panel report will be developed to ensure reasonable organizational uniformity. The third meeting will be devoted to a review of preliminary drafts of subarea reports and a limited number of briefings in specific areas. The fourth meeting will necessarily be devoted to a detailed review by the panelists of the subarea reports they had submitted to the chairman and members prior to the meeting.

MATERIALS SCIENCE CHALLENGES

49

Materials Advances to Meet Long-Term Needs Efficient, Organic, Light-Emitting Diodes Versatile, conjugated macromolecules with good mechanical properties will have to be developed to provide efficient, low-pollution, low-voltage light sources for multiple applications in addressable displays and as large-area devices. Color changes by variation of electric field for use in camouflage and extension beyond the visible spectral range would be desirable adjunct properties. Efficiencies in the range of 100 lumens/watt (comparable to present-day fluorescent sources), will be necessary, a huge difference from the current 10 lumens/watt. Optically Transparent Ferromagnetic Materials These materials will have multiple applications, ranging from sensor devices to displays. The development of magnetic nonmetallics is also an obvious weight reduction strategy for all electromagnetic areas and, possibly, for magnetic thin films. Photorefractive Macromolecules These macromolecules will be necessary for optical data storage and other applications in photonic technology. Such materials combine photoconductivity with an electro-optical nonlinearity to modulate refractivity in a grating configuration. The optical energy of two incident beams can be exchanged asymmetrically, a property that has potential applications in information storage and holography. Multifunctional polymers or a combination of advanced materials with greatly enhanced photorefractive performance levels are long-term goals for DOD photonic applications.

Optical Power Limiters Optical power limiters will be important for laser protection. Lightweight organic systems that are wavelength adaptable may eventually lead to the development of hybrid organic-ceramic materials. Nonlinear absorption, reverse saturatable absorption, and nonlinear refraction are all functions that would be useful in this application.

50

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

Environmentally Stable, Highly Conducting Macromolecules Electrically conducting polymers that are stable and readily processible will be applicable in many DOD systems. These materials would be next-generation systems, follow-ons from the present limited-use polyacetylenes and similar macromolecules. New materials, for example, that combine a high third-order optical nonlinearity function with electrical conductivity and would have applicability in opto-electronic systems. Efficient, stable, conducting polymers also have obvious uses as charge carriers, in electrodes batteries and capacitors, and shielding. Transparency is important in coating applications. Photoconductive Photovoltaic Materials Materials that combine these traditional inorganic functions with light weight, versatility, and easy processibility are highly desirable for multiple DOD applications. Piezo-Sensitive Multifunctional Materials These materials will be necessary for sensor applications in a wide range of contexts. The basic requirements of light weight, processibility, and versatility will require that new classes of materials be developed. Additional Comments The common basis of materials advances sought by DOD are low cost, easy processibility, low maintenance, light weight, and efficiency. Multiple functionality is an attractive avenue of approach to meeting these fundamental requirements. Successful novel materials will be those that can advantageously replace existing materials by virtue of making improvements in one or more of the parameters listed above or, more rarely, by presenting an entirely new property set. Clearly, the latter category is highly serendipitous and seldom achieved. Nevertheless, in a 20-year time frame, a number of totally unforeseeable materials developments could very well take place. DOD should have an infrastructure in place to recognize and exploit these opportunities as part of the materials research strategy.

MATERIALS SCIENCE CHALLENGES

51

BIO-DERIVED AND BIO-INSPIRED MATERIALS Scope This panel will explore the potential impact of bio-inspired and bio-derived materials concepts on defined DOD needs in the 2020 time frame. Areas in which biological approaches suggest attractive solutions to meeting these needs will be identified and prioritized. Biology represents a successful strategy for the design of materials, the fabrication of parts and components, and the integration of parts into systems that can meet complex performance requirements in a variety of stringent environments. The possibility of incorporating the principles of biology into modern engineering and scientific practice is an emerging focus of applied materials science. Combinatorial synthesis has been defined as computer-enabled, real-time evolutionary engineering. The broad range of performance characteristics now possible in polyolefins with controlled-backbone architecture is analogous to the control of protein function through the control of primary structure. Modern biology and medicine are elucidating the mechanisms of cell differentiation, tissue growth, and pathogen attack through the identification of site-specific, receptor/binding site chemistry. Application of this information to the synthetic material/biological system interface is accelerating the design of materials that emulate functions of the extracellular matrix, leading to improved materials for tissue-engineering scaffolds, wound healing, and drug delivery. The potential impact of the integration of biology and materials science on the achievement of twenty-first-century DOD goals defines the scope of the bioderived and bio-inspired materials panel (see Box 4-1). Specific areas to be examined by the panel will include: • structural materials: weight reduction, ballistic protection, environmentally driven responsiveness, and self-healing • functional materials: sensors, diagnostics, fast switching, molecular circuits, and high-density energy storage • battlefield/civilian chemical and biological warfare identification, interdiction, and counteraction • medical: battlefield wound identification and countermeasures A preliminary outline of the panel report is provided in Appendix D.

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

52

BOX 4-1 Scope of the Bio-derived and Bio-inspired Materials Panel •

Biomaterials Application - in vivo use - protheses - tissue engineering - drug delivery

•

Bio-inspired Materials - improved performance - combinatorial synthesis - nanotechnology - self-assembly

•

Bio-derived Materials - bio-enabled performance - extremers - genetic modification - DNA memory devices

Methodology The panel will meet four times, following the schedule shown in Appendix C. At the first meeting, the panel will be briefed on DOD needs, the overall objectives of the larger study, and the scope of the panel’s assignment. In this context, the panel will then define its priorities, members’ areas of responsibility, and areas requiring external expert-led discussions. Experts in key areas will be selected to address the panel at future meetings. The panel will review its membership with respect to appropriate breadth to complete the assignment as charged. Finally, the panel will prepare an initial outline of the report. The second meeting will focus on briefings by, and discussions with, experts chosen at the first panel meeting. The need for additional expert visitors will be discussed, and appropriate speakers for the third panel meeting will be identified, if necessary. The report outline will be critically reviewed and initial writing assignments defined. Discussions of report conclusions and recommendations will be initiated.

MATERIALS SCIENCE CHALLENGES

53

The third meeting will commence with discussions with the remaining invited experts. The report outline and writing assignments will be finalized. Key issues to be emphasized in the report will be identified, and approaches for integrating the report into a cohesive document will be discussed. A lexicon of important terms will be prepared. Conclusions and recommendations will be further refined. A schedule for the completion of writing assignments will be adopted. The fourth meeting will be dedicated to completing the report and finalizing the conclusions and recommendations. If possible, this will be completed in one day; a second day will be scheduled as a contingency. Panel Composition The panel will be chaired by a member of the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next. Four panel members will be chosen to represent the broad interdisciplinary nature of the field and will have expertise in medicine, molecular biology, biochemistry, and biorelevant ceramics. Panelists will be chosen for a combination of their specific expertise and a general appreciation of the field. It is expected that one panel member will be a member of an NRC committee that conducted a study on the impact of biotechnologies on the future army. Advanced Biomaterials to Meet Long-Term Needs Silk-Mimetic, Tough, Ballistic Protection Fibers Spider silk, although lower in tensile modulus and strength than many synthetic high-performance fibers, exhibits much better toughness and compressive performance than these materials. These attributes, combined with the inherent comfort of silk, make it an attractive target for the next generation of military protective garments. Aptamer-Based Pathogen Receptors Aptamers are synthetically produced peptides that behave similarly to naturally occurring protein sequences in their ability to bind to pathogens and other biological entities. Produced combinatorially, aptamers offer an attractive route to broad-based protection strategies for biological warfare.

54

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

Nacre-Inspired Hard Armor DOD has identified a need for lightweight, damage-resistant vehicles, lightweight tanks, improved airframes, and so forth. The shells of bivalves, made of protein calcium carbonate arranged in thin parallel plates, combine extreme toughness with longitudinal stiffness and damage tolerance. A tank armor material based on this concept has been produced and is currently being tested. DNA-Based Circuitry and Information Storage The controlled complexity that marks the primary structure and assembly behavior of DNA allows for high-density information storage in biology and has the potential to be the basis of very high-density information storage in nonbiological systems, either through the use of DNA or with DNA-mimetic molecules. DNA assembly can be the basis of molecular-scale circuitry. Given DOD’s needs for small, flexible computing and communications devices, this technology is very promising for future systems.

References

Andrews, M. 2000. Army Vision and S&T: Accelerating the Pace of Transformation. Presentation by M. Andrews, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for research and technology, to the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 15, 2000. Crowson, A. 2000.U.S. Army Research Office Materials Science Research. Presentation by A. Crowson, director, physical science, U.S. Army Research Office, to the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 16, 2000. DOD (U.S. Department of Defense). 1999a. Proceedings of the Defense S&T Reliance Subarea for Materials and Processes Planning Meeting. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense. DOD. 1999b. Defense S&T Reliance: Materials and Processes Joint Program Plan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense. Delaney, L. 2000. Air Force Modernization. Presentation by L. Delaney, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisitions, to the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 15, 2000. DeMarco, R. 2000. Department of the Navy Science and Technology—Materials: Today, Tomorrow, and the Future. Presentation by R. DeMarco, associate technical director, Office of Naval Research, to the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 15, 2000. Gottschall, R. 2000. Overview of DOE Materials Programs. Presentation by R. Gottschall, team leader for metal, ceramic and engineering sciences, Office of Basic Energy Sciences U.S. Department of Energy, to the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 16, 2000. Gray, A. 2000. Thoughts on Future Marine Corps Materials Needs. Presentation by A. Gray, member, board of regents, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies, to the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 15, 2000.

55

56

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

Harwell, K. 2000. Air Force Research Laboratory: Technology Vision. Presentation by K. Harwell, chief scientist, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, to the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 16, 2000. Henley, L. 2000. The Revolution in Military Affairs After Next. Presentation by L. Henley, senior intelligence officer, Office for Asia/Pacific, Defense Intelligence Agency, to the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 15, 2000. Marshall, A. 2000. Overview of DOD Vision and System Needs. Presentation by A. Marshall, director, Office of the Secretary of Defense, to the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 15, 2000.Schwartz, L. 2000. Basic Materials Research in the Air Force: AFOSR Overview. Presentation by L. Schwartz, director, aerospace and materials sciences, U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research, to the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 16, 2000. Vickers, M. 2000. The Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). Presentation by M. Vickers, director for strategic studies, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, to the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 15, 2000. Weber, T. 2000. Overview of NSF Materials Programs. Presentation by T. Weber, Division of Materials Research, National Science Foundation, to the Committee on Materials Research for Defense After Next, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., February 16, 2000.

Appendix A

Biographical Sketches of Committee Members

Harvey Schadler, chair (NAE), is a retired technical director of the General Electric Corporate Research and Development Center. He was elected to the NAE for exceptional leadership in the development and application of advanced materials and processes in the electrical and aircraft engine industries. His expertise is in the physical properties and processes of manufacture of magnetic, superconducting, high-temperature, and nuclear metallic and ceramic materials. His expertise includes aerospace and Army systems. Alan Lovelace, vice chair (NAE), is a retired senior corporate vice president and chairman of Commercial Launch Services, General Dynamics Corporation. His expertise includes aerospace and defense systems and materials. He was elected to the NAE for his contributions to aerospace materials, particularly the application of boron- and graphite-reinforced epoxy composites. James Baskerville is chief engineer for advanced technology at Bath Iron Works. His expertise is in Navy systems and materials. He joined Bath Iron Works in 1997 after serving more than 25 years in the Navy. He is a registered professional engineer and has extensive experience in the development and use of marine composites. Federico Capasso (NAS, NAE) is vice president of the Physical Research Laboratory, Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies. His expertise is in the area of electronic materials. He pioneered the use of bandgap engineering as a powerful tool in the design of semiconductor devices and heterostructures and made related seminal contributions to electronics, photonics, and semiconductor science in the areas of detectors, lasers, transistors, quantum devices and circuits, and artificial structures with new transport and optical properties. Millard Firebaugh (NAE), a retired U.S. Navy rear admiral, is currently vice president of innovation and chief engineer for Electric Boat Corporation. His expertise is in naval systems and materials, submarine design, and naval architecture.

57

58

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET THE 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

John Gassner is chief technologist of the Materials Technology Group and head of emerging technology at Foster-Miller, Inc. His expertise is in emerging materials technologies, polymer research, composites development, manufacturing, and Army systems. His research activities have focused on selfassembling coatings, biodegradable nanocomposites, sensor materials, microcellular foam cores, and other innovative materials. Michael Jaffe is a faculty member at Rutgers University and the New Jersey Institute of Technology. He is chief scientist for applied programs and director of the Medical Device Concept Laboratory of the New Jersey Center for Biomaterials and Medical Devices, Rutgers University. His expertise is in innovative materials research areas, such as biomimetics, the structure-property relationships of polymers and related materials, the application of biological paradigms to materials design, and the translation of new technologies to commercial reality. Frank Karasz (NAE) is director of the Center for Advanced Structural and Electronic Polymers, University of Massachusetts. His research activities are concentrated in a number of areas in polymer physics and chemistry: polymerpolymer interactions in binary amorphous and amorphous crystalline blend systems; effects of copolymerization and microstructure; nuclear magnetic resonance studies of polymer solid state, especially blends; computer simulations of polymer-polymer miscibility; quasi-elastic light scattering from macromolecular solutions; electronic and optical properties of conducting polymers; and polyimide systems. Meyya Meyyappan is project manager of the Integrated Product Team on Devices and Nanotechnology at the NASA Ames Research Center. His expertise is in nanotechnology, carbon nanotubes and sensor materials, and electronic materials. At NASA, he is responsible for basic research in nanotechnology, computational semiconductor device physics, computational and experimental chemistry in materials processing, and process/equipment modeling. George Peterson (NAE) is a retired director of the Materials Laboratory at the U.S. Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories. His expertise is in the properties and processing of structural polymer composites, manufacturing technologies, and aerospace systems. Under his direction, the Air Force focused its efforts on the development of low-cost production processes for electronics, nonmetallics, and metallics. Julia Phillips is deputy director of the Materials and Process Sciences Center at Sandia National Laboratories. Her expertise is in electronic materials, materials characterization, and computational materials science. Her accomplishments have

APPENDIX A

59

been in the growth and characterization of alkaline earth fluoride epitaxial films on semiconductors, fabrication of metal-epitaxial insulator-semiconductor fieldeffect transistors, and demonstration of the utility of rapid thermal annealing to improve heteroepitaxy. Richard Tressler is professor and head of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Pennsylvania State University. His expertise is in the properties and processing of structural ceramics and ceramic composites, as well as Army and aerospace systems. His research interests include the fabrication and mechanical behavior of structural ceramics, ceramic composites, fracture and strengthening mechanisms, and the correlation of processing with ceramic properties. James Williams (NAE) is Honda Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Ohio State University. His expertise is in structural metallic and intermetallic materials and aerospace systems. His technical expertise is in structure-property relations in materials, materials performance and selection, materials processing, and the behavior of intermetallic compounds.

60

Appendix B

Meeting Agendas First Meeting Defense Science and Technology Reliance Subarea for Materials and Processes Workshop Annapolis, Maryland December 6–8, 1999 Monday, December 6, 1999 1100 Registration in Main Lobby, 1130-1245 Buffet Luncheon 1300

Welcome

Dr. Robert Pohanka, ONR

1310

Why we are here and what we want to accomplish

Dr. Robert Pohanka, ONR

1330

Overview of M/P Reliance Status

1430

Break

1500

Army M&P Program - Update

1615

Navy M&P Program Update

1730

Adjourn for Day

Tuesday, December 7, 1999

Dr. Lewis Sloter, ODDR&E

Dr. Dennis Viechnicki, ARL Dr. Robert Pohanka, ONR

Service/Agency M&P Program Updates Continued

0800

Air Force M&P Program Update

0915

DARPA M&P Program Update

1030

Break

1100

BMDO M&P Program Update

Mr. Robert Rapson, AFRL Dr. Steven Wax, DSO

Maj. James Shoemaker, BMDO

61

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

62

12:00

Lunch Break

1300

History of DOD Materials

1400

NMAB Study Materials Research for Defense After Next

1500

Break

1520

Charge to the Technical Panels

1530

Technical Panel Breakout Sessions with NMAB POC

Mr. Jerome Persh, IDA Dr. Harvey Schadler

Dr. Robert Pohanka, ONR

TP 1.0—Platform Structural Materials Dr. Scott Tiebert, AFRL, Chair TP 2.0—Power and Propulsion Materials Dr. Kathy Stevens, AFRL, Chair TP 3.0—Armor/AntiArmor Materials Mr. Robert Dowding, ARL, Chair TP 4.0—Electronic Materials Mr. Bill Woody, AFRL, Chair TP 5.0—Laser-Hardened Materials Dr. George Mueller, NRL, Chair TP 6.0 (A)—Operational Support Materials Mr. Gume Rodriguez,ARL, Chair TP 6.0 (B)—Nondestructive Evaluation Dr. Ignatio Perez,NRL, Chair TP 7.0—Signature Control Materials Mr. Don Woodbury, ARL, Chair 1700

Adjourn for Day

Wednesday, December 8, 1999 0800

Reconvene Individual Technical Panel Breakout Working Sessions (Technical Panels brainstorm elements of their individual tech focus areas for input and guidance to NMAB Study Group on Materials Research for Defense After Next. Prepare 12-minute summary outbrief for general session).

1200

Lunch Break

1300

Technical Panel Summary Outbrief Comments

1400

NMAB Study Group Comments

1530

Break

1600

TPAM Principals comments

1700

Wrap up/Adjourn Workshop

APPENDIX B

63

Second Meeting National Research Council February 15–17, 2000 Tuesday, February 15, 2000 8:30 am

Bias and Conflict of Interest Discussion; Recap Committee and NRC of Annapolis Workshop, Plans for this Meeting Staff Only DOD Vision/Systems Needs Session (10:00 am Dr. Alan Lovelace, to 5:00 pm) Session Chair

10:00

Overview of DOD Vision and System Needs

Mr. Andrew Marshall, OSD

10:40

Discussion

11:00

Overview of Army Vision and System Needs

11:40

Discussion

12:15 pm

Overview of Military Transformation and Future Mr. Michael Vickers, Warfare Center for Strategic & Budgetary Assessments

1:00

Overview of Air Force Vision and System Needs

1:40

Discussion

2:00

Overview of Navy Vision and System Needs

2:40

Discussion

3:00

Break

3:15

Overview of Marines Vision and System Needs

3:50

Discussion

4:05

Revolution in Military Affairs After Next

4:45

Discussion

Dr. Michael Andrews, U.S. Army

Dr. Lawrence Delaney, U.S. Air Force Dr. Ronald De Marco, ONR

Gen. Gray, retired (U.S. Marine Corps) LTC Lonnie Henley (Defense Intelligence Agency)

Brainstorm Session on Systems Needs (5:00 to Dr. Millard Firebaugh 6:30 pm) Facilitator 5:00

Review and Identification of DOD System Needs

All

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

64

Wednesday, February 16, 2000 7:45 am Continental Breakfast Brainstorm Session on (Continued 8:30 to 9:45 am)

Systems

Needs Dr. Millard Firebaugh Facilitator

8:30

Review and Identification of DOD System Needs

9:45

Break

All

DOD, NSF, DOE Materials Basic Research Dr. Harvey Schadler, Session (10:00 am to 3:00 pm) Session Chair 10:00

Overview of ARO Materials Programs

10:40

Discussion

11:00

Overview of AFOSR Materials Programs

11:40

Discussion

Dr. Andrew Crowson, ARO Dr. Lyle AFOSR

Schwartz,

12:00 to Lunch 1:00 pm 12:15

Air Force Chief Scientist Study (Overview of Air Dr. Kenneth Harwell, Force S&T needs) Chief Scientist, AFRL

12:45

Discussion

1:00

Overview of NSF Materials Programs

1:40

Discussion

2:00

Overview of DOE Materials Programs

2:40

Discussion

3:00

Dr. Thomas NSF

Weber,

Dr. Robert Gottschall, DOE

Break Brainstorm Session on Materials Areas (3:15 to Dr. Julia 5:30pm) Facilitator

3:15

Identify materials areas to meet DOD system needs

5:30

Adjourn

Phillips,

NRC study members and staff only

APPENDIX B

65

Thursday, February 17, 2000 Continental Breakfast 7:15am Brainstorm on Panel Structure & Report Dr. Harvey Schadler, Outline (8:00 am to 12:00pm) Facilitator 8:00

10:00

Select panel structure, identify candidate chairs and NRC study members members, and identify subject-matter expert and staff only speakers for April meeting Break

10:15

Draft report outline, assign report writing tasks, NRC study members plan April and June meetings and staff only

12:00

Lunch

1:00

Adjourn

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

66

Third Meeting Arnold and Mable Beckman Center Irvine, California April 18–20, 2000 Tuesday, April 18, 2000

Review Systems Needs and Panel Structure

1:00 pm Welcome, Recap February Meeting Tasks for April Meeting

Harvey Schadler

Session on Review of Systems Needs 1:15

Recap of Systems Needs Session from February Meeting

Millard Firebaugh

1:30 1:55 2:20

Summary of Navy Needs Summary of Army Needs Summary of Air Force Needs

Millard Firebaugh

2:45

Discussion

3:00

Break

John Gassner George Peterson All

Session on Materials Area Panel Scope, Thrust, and Membership 3:15 3:30 3:50 4:10 4:30 4:50 5:10

Recap of Panels Structure from February Meeting Structural Materials Electronic/Photonic Materials BioMaterials Energy/Power Materials Multifunctional (Other) Materials Discussion

5:25

Closing Comments

Julia Phillips Facilitator Julia Phillips Richard Tressler Meyya Meyyappan Michael Jaffe John Gassner Frank Karasz All Harvey Schadler

Wednesday, April 19, 2000 Presentations from Industry/Academia/National Labs on Emerging Materials Research 8:35 am

Welcome and Study Scope and Status

8:45

Structural Materials Challenges for Long-Term Defense Needs

Harvey Schadler Chair Anthony Evans Princeton University

APPENDIX B

67

9:25

Discussion

9:45

Materials Research at Bell Laboratories

10:25

Discussion

10:45

Break

11:00

Biology as Our Mentor for Materials Research— Can We Learn from Its Example?

11:40

Discussion

12:00 pm

Lunch

1:00

Computational Materials Science to Meet LongTerm Needs

1:40

Discussion

2:00

Carbon Nanotubes and Other Revolutionary Materials and Processes—Industry View

2:40

Discussion

3:00

Break

3:15

Emerging Materials and Processes—Long-Term Challenges

3:55

Discussion

4:15

Review of Enabling Crosscutting Areas for Materials Research

4:55

Discussion

5:15

Closing Comments

Bertram Batlogg Lucent Technologies

Mark Alper University of California, Berkeley

Stephen Foiles Sandia National Laboratories Livermore Fred Herman Lockheed Martin Corporation

Samuel Stupp Northwestern University

Millard Firebaugh General Dynamics

Harvey Schadler

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

68

Thursday, April 20, 2000 and Report Writing

Complete Presentations; Committee Deliberations

Session to Complete Presentations 8:00 am

Transition of New Materials to Development of Systems—Cost Perspective

8:40

Discussion

9:00

Power Source Materials and Technologies— Long-Term View

9:40

Discussion

Paul Kaminski Technovation, Inc.

Daniel Doughty Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque

Session on Committee Deliberations and Report Writing Harvey Schadler Chair

10:15

Deliberations on Presentations with Regard to Panel Structure

10:45

Panel Scope, Thrust, and Candidate Membership

All

11:30

Report Assignments; Plans for June Meeting

All

12:00 pm

Lunch

1:00

Panel Breakout to Draft Interim Report Section Outlines

3:00

Break

3:15

Each Panel Briefing to Entire Committee on Status of Report Writing

4:45

Wrap up and Action Items

5:00

Adjourn

All

Panel Leads Harvey Schadler

APPENDIX B

69

Fourth Meeting J. Erik Jonsson Center Woods Hole Center of the National Academy of Sciences Woods Hole, Massachusetts June 27–29, 2000 Tuesday, June 27, 2000 7:45 am

Breakfast

8:30

Welcome and Review of Meeting Objectives

8:35 9:15 10:30 10:45 12:00 pm 1:00 1:45 2:30 2:45 3:30 4:15 5:00 5:20 5:30

Introduction and Appendix: Out-Year Schedule DOD Systems Needs Break Materials and Processing Research (including “ilities” list)

Harvey Schadler Harvey Schadler Millard Firebaugh Julia Phillips

Lunch Structural Materials Functional (Electronic/Photonic) Materials Break Bio-derived & Bio-inspired Materials Energy/Power Materials Multifunctional and Hybrid Materials Discussion Plans for Day 2 and Closing Comments

Dick Tressler Meyya Meyyappan Mike Jaffe John Gassner Frank Karasz All Harvey Schadler

Adjourn

Wednesday, June 28, 2000 8:00 am

Breakfast

8:30

Members break out to edit/complete assigned sections

12:00 pm

Lunch

1:00 2:15 2:45

Indentify panel members (15 minutes for each of the five panels) Develop December 2000 meeting agenda Break

All All

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

70

3:00

Debrief and Discussion—Out of the Box and the Into the Future: A Dialogue Between Warfighters and Scientists on Far-Future Warfare (2025) Conference, June 26-27, 2000, Washington, D.C., organized by the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies and attended by Sharon Yeung

5:00

Break

Sharon Yeung/All

Thursday, June 29, 2000 8:00 am

Breakfast

8:30

Members review and discuss entire report, mark up/edit report provide concurrence on interim report and panel slates

12:00 pm Lunch 1:00

Adjourn

All

Appendix C

Schedule and Membership of the Five Technical Panels Structural and Multifunctional Materials Richard Tressler, chair Millard Firebaugh, co-chair George Peterson James Williams Harry Lipsitt, NMAB liaison Edgar Starke, NMAB liaison Energy and Power Materials John Gassner, chair James Baskerville, co-chair Kenneth Reifsnider, NMAB liaison Electronic and Photonic Materials Meyya Meyyappan, chair Julia Phillips, co-chair Robert Pfahl, NMAB liaison Functional Organic and Hybrid Materials Frank Karasz, chair Robert Pfahl, NMAB liaison Bio-derived and Bio-inspired Materials Michael Jaffe, chair Harry Lipsitt, NMAB liaison Schedule1 Panel Meetings Kick-off meeting: Second meeting: Third meeting: Final meeting:

1

March 2001 June 2001 October 2001 January 2002

Subject to availability of funds and study members 71

72

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

FY02 Study Committee Meetings February 2002 April 2002 July 2002 Final Report Schedule Committee concurrence draft NRC review complete Report published

July 2002 September 2002 October 2002

Appendix D Preliminary Outlines of Panel Reports

Structural and Multifunctional Materials Panel Report I. Summary II. Introduction A. Scope of Study B. Inputs to the Panel C. DOD Systems Needs Addressed by the Panel D. Rationale for Panel Report Structure III. Lighter, Stiffer, Stronger Materials for Space and Aerospace Structures IV. High-Temperature Materials for Propulsion and Reentry Vehicles V. Smart Materials—Multifunctionality VI. Mobility Materials—Land and Sea Based VII.

Non Destructive Investigation/Non Destructive Evaluation—Health Monitoring and Condition Based Maintenance

VIII.

Operational Support Materials

IX.

Surface Treatments, Coatings, and Thin Films

X.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Energy and Power Materials Panel Report I.

Executive Summary and Major Conclusions

II.

Introduction A. Statement of Task/Scope B. Description of Study Process

73

74

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

C. Overall System Needs Relevant to Panel D. Guide to Panel Report III.

DOD Needs and Challenges A. Energy Storage 1. Future Defense Needs for Energy Storage 2. Electrical and Electrochemical Storage Batteries Capacitors 3. Magnetic Energy Storage 4. Chemical Energy Storage Fuels Explosives and Propeliants Other B. Energy Conversion 1. Future Defense Needs for Energy Conversion 2. Fuel Cells 3. Microturbines/MEMS Heat Engines 4. Other 5. Assessment of Need for DOD Investment C. Power Generation 1. Future Defense Needs for Power Generation 2. Electric Propulsion 3. Generation Components (switches, drives, etc.) 4. Power Conditioning/Transmission 5. Assessment of Needs for DOD Investment D. Energy on Target (Weapons) 1. Future Defense Needs for Placing Energy on Target 2. High- and Low-Energy Laser Weapons 3. High-Power Microwave (HPMV) and Acoustics 4. Particle Beams 5. Electro-Magnetic Launch 6. Assessment of Needs for DOD Investment E. Energy Dissipation 1. Future Defense Needs for Energy Dissipation Materials 2. Armor Body armor Transparent armor Active armor 3. Low- and High-Energy Laser-Hardened Materials 4. Other 5. Assessment of Need for DOD Investment

APPENDIX D

75

F Sensor-Related Energy and Power 1. Future Defense Needs 2. Unique Issues Related to Power, Energy, and Sensing 3. Assessment of Need for DOD Investment G. Energy Sources 1. Future Defense Issues Regarding Energy Sources 2. DOD Reliance on Energy Sources 3. Energy Harvesting 4. Other 5. Assessment of Need for DOD Investment IV.

Preferred Challenges

V.

Crosscutting Issues to be Addressed to Meet Materials Challenges

VI.

Recommendations/Future Actions

VII.

Discarded Opportunities/Materials Science Challenges (Why discarded?)

Electronic and Photonic Materials Panel Report I.

Executive Summary

II.

Introduction A. Statement of Task/Scope B. Description of Inputs to Panel C. Overall System Needs Relevant to Panel D. Guide to Panel Report

III.

Electronics A. Future Defense Needs for Advances in Electronics B. Commercial/Other Drivers for Technologies Needed by DOD C. DOD-Specific Needs in Electronics, Including “Ilities” D. Assessment of the Need for DOD Investment

IV.

Optoelectronics And Photonics A. Future Defense Needs for Advances in Optoelectronics And Photonics B. Commercial/Other Drivers for Technologies Needed By DOD C. DOD-Specific Needs in Optoelectronics and Photonics, Including “Ilities” D. Assessment of the Need for DOD Investment

MATERIALS RESEARCH TO MEET 21ST CENTURY DEFENSE NEEDS

76

V.

Sensors A. Future Defense Needs for Advances in Sensors B. Commercial/Other Drivers for Technologies Needed by DOD C. DOD-Specific Needs in Sensors, Including “Ilities” D. Assessment of the Need for DOD Investment

VI.

Microsystems A. Future Defense Needs for Advances in Microsystems B. Commercial/Other Drivers for Technologies Needed by DOD C. DOD-Specific Needs in Microsystems, Including “Ilities” D. Assessment of the Need for DOD Investment

VII.

Conclusions And Recommendations

Functional Organic and Hybrid Materials Panel Report I.

Summary

II.

Introduction A. Scope of Study B. Inputs to the Panel C. DOD Systems Needs Addressed by the Panel D. Rationale for Panel Report Structure

III.

Low Molar Mass Organic Materials

IV.

Macromolecular Organic Materials

V.

Polymer-Ceramic Hybrid Materials

VI.

Metallic Functional Materials with Organic Moieties

VII.

Conclusions And Recommendations

Bio-derived and Bio-inspired Materials Panel Report I.

Summary

II.

Introduction A. Scope of Study B. Inputs to the Panel C. DOD Systems Needs Addressed by the Panel D. Rationale for Panel Report Structure

APPENDIX D

77

III.

Structural Materials: Weight Reduction, Ballistic Environmentally Driven Responsiveness, Self-Healing

Protection,

IV.

Functional Materials: Sensors, Diagnostics, Fast Switching, Molecular Circuits, High Density Energy Storage.

V.

Battlefield/Civilian Chemical and Biological Warfare Identification, Interdiction, Counteraction

VI.

Medical: Battlefield Wound Identification, Countermeasures

VII.

Conclusions and Recommendations