Category Archives: Future Tech

What is coming down the pipe in naval and maritime technology?

Drones, Future Tech

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles: A Conversation with Chris Rawley

2 Comments

To start our UUV Week, we’re talking with Chris Rawley, owner of the website Naval Drones: Unmanned Naval Systems and author of Unconventional Warfare 2.0. Chris is a surface warfare officer in the US Navy Reserve.

Penguins: They Love UUVs. NSF-funded SeaBED shown.
Penguins: they love UUVs. NSF-funded SeaBED shown.

SD: Thanks for talking with us today, Chris. Let’s get right to it with some initial broad strokes. There’s clearly a great deal of potential out there for UUV platforms, but in a very general sense, what mission areas of those set out by the US Navy’s UUV Master Plan show the most promise in terms of cost effectiveness and practicality?

CR: Thanks Sally. Before I start, I have to provide the disclaimer that I am speaking here in my personal capacity and my comments and opinions do not reflect U.S. Navy or DoD policy. Also, I am by no means an expert in this field, though I have picked up some knowledge the past few of years writing for “Naval Drones,” which was initially established as a marketing tool for a UUV concept I developed. After some fits and starts, my company is currently working on this UUV design with a prototyping firm.

From my perspective, mine countermeasures is the mission area ripest for disruption by unmanned undersea vehicles. As CIMSEC’s readers know, mine clearance involves a painstaking, methodical process of hunting to rule out false positives detected by various sensors or using sweeping gear to activate the mines. Dedicated mine countermeasures ships, though still in service, will eventually be replaced multi-mission platforms embarking UUVs. Most readers know about the Littoral Combat Ship’s dedicated mine countermeasures payload, but pretty much any naval combatant or auxiliary with a margin of payload capacity such as the JHSV can launch UUVs or carry boats or unmanned surface vessels (USVs) that can launch UUVs directly into a mine field at a safe stand-off distance from the mother ship . Multiple UUVs operating together will eventually become faster at mine hunting than dedicated surface ships with sweeping gear or mine-detection sonars. ROVs and UUVs such as the SeaFox can also localize, identify, and neutralize the mines. Though I think the UUV Master plan specifically mentions nine mission areas, besides MCM, at some point UUVs will play a part in pretty much any kind of naval operation one could imagine.

While we continue to wait for the silver bullet of long-endurance propulsion systems, the three areas of UUV development with the most potential I see are payload miniaturization, payload modularity, and swarming algorithms.

USN sailors load a SeaFox MCM UUV (U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Colby Drake/Released)
USN sailors load a SeaFox MCM UUV (U.S. Navy photo by Lt. Colby Drake/Released)

SD: Let’s talk specifically about UUVs in an ASW capacity. A lot of readers (okay, especially me) are interested in what UUVs can bring to anti-submarine warfare (ASW). In all likelihood, such a platform would need to detect low-frequency signals, demanding a large array and a vehicle to support it. Will there have to be a trade off between the reasonable size of a notional platform (to support such an array) and such a platform’s detection capabilities? Are leave-behind arrays delivered as part of a UUV payload a more desirable option?

CR: Autonomous underwater vehicles such as gliders are already helping to characterize the water column, which as you know is one of the most important foundations of ASW. As far as sub-hunting goes, a large UUV towing a passive array might be one way to do it, though I’m not sure that is feasible for a variety of reasons. Or as you’ve alluded to, a larger UUV could basically become a means to more precisely deploy sonobuoys or emplace arrays on the bottom. What about smaller, more numerous UUVs each carrying a single hydrophone and operating at different depths? Or UUVs able to surface and act as non-acoustic data relays between bottom arrays and ASW aircraft? I think there is certainly room for some R&D and experimentation in this area.

SD: The idea of an UUV with the capacity to surface and communicate as a non-acoustic data relay with an MPRA asset is particularly promising and offers a solution to some of the major complexities of airborne prosecutions. Further, the idea of employing UUVs to deploy hydrophones or arrays at specific depths is a novel turn on a well-established technique. But perhaps getting those assets on-station at the appropriate times would present a difficulty; after all, one of MPRA/airborne ASW’s major advantages is speed and flexibility relative to the target. On to another ASW question: in an increasingly crowded underwater environment, do you think that submarine-launched UUVs will offer more or less stealth to launching platforms? Do you see any applicability for UUVs as a decoy, or would maintaining acoustic superiority for existing and future subs prove a more worthwhile, cost-effective pursuit?

CR: Unlike a sub-fired missile, I’m not sure a UUV will make a launching submarine any less stealthy. To my knowledge, most of the UUVs that have been tested have been “swim out,” so they wouldn’t add much extra acoustic signature to the launch platform. Some sort of acoustic or magnetic decoy UUV does seem like a viable and useful payload for a submarine.

SD: U.S. Submarine-launched UUVs may have somewhat of a compatibility crisis in the coming decades. SSGNs are uniquely suited for UUV operations, but as modified-Ohio class platforms reach the end of their service life in the coming decades, how do you think UUV platforms will fit into the Virginia Payload Module program?

A Naval Sea Systems Command illustration depicting the VPM concept.
A Naval Sea Systems Command illustration depicting the VPM concept.

CR: Though launching and recovering a UUV from a submarine certainly adds an element of “stealthiness” for the UUVs themselves, it also comes with several complications. There are trade-offs in a submarine’s limited tube space – be it torpedo tubes or the VPM – between UUVs and other payloads such as torpedoes and missiles. Moreover, as you note, more submersible vehicles will result in an increasingly crowded operating environment. A manned submarine operating in conjunction with a large number of friendly (and potentially, enemy) UUVs makes waterspace deconfliction challenging and puts a capital ship at risk for a collision, especially as the size and speed of UUVs grows.

But here’s the thing: a UUV is inherently stealthy. Why do we need to launch it from another low signature platform (a submarine) when it can be launched more cheaply and across wider areas (such as shallow water littorals) by more numerous surface vessels or even air platforms?   Where there is no other way to get a shorter ranged UUV into the water column, a submarine may be the answer. To answer your question, we should save limited submarine payload capacity for offensive weapons and insert the majority of UUVs into the battlespace using more affordable means.

SD: Interesting points. I hadn’t considered the idea of mutual interference, and it certainly makes sense to deploy UUV assets from surface or air assets, where space would not be as much of a premium. This is another broad question, but what role do you see for UUVs in developing a cogent strategy to counter A2AD?

CR: UUVs could potentially serve as fire control sensors, decoys, and deception tools during a counter-A2AD campaign. I’ll leave it at that.

SD: Fair enough. One of the most frequently cited criticisms of developing UUV platforms is the inherent difficulty of communication and navigation in an underwater environment, as well as limitations on data links and processing. What is your answer to these criticisms?

CR: The easiest solution is the surface the UUV every now and then to transmit its data and get its bearings. But advances in underwater data modems (both acoustic and non-acoustic), along with autonomy will mitigate some of these challenges

SD: If operating covertly in a denied area, surfacing might be detrimental to the UUVs mission, but no more so than other subsurface assets that might be required to surface to receive or transmit data. But, admittedly, this is a pretty narrow scope to view a very broad potential mission set, and such a concern would not apply to all those potential applications. Let’s talk autonomous vehicles. AUVs operating at a distance will undoubtedly carry the potential for loss or interception. Is there an acceptable level of platform loss or risk operators of UUVs will have to accept?

CR: Sure. I think we will need a variety of UUV types. Some, like Large Displacement Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (LDUUV), will be large, expensive, and multipurpose. Others will be designed to be single-purpose, affordable, and expendable, while some others will be somewhere in the middle.

SD: Specifically though, do you think that there might be inherent risks to doing business via UUVs that do not exist for manned counterparts? Not necessarily that these risks outweigh the benefits, but, if there are any, they’re worth discussing.

CR: Signal interception is a problem faced with pretty much any platform these days. Even manned aircraft are going to be hard pressed to operate without emissions given how networked everything is.  Many UUV atmospheric signals will be on commercial channels, so hard to differentiate from civilian traffic. As to the technology being recovered by an enemy, that is certainly possible too, and a much higher risk for unmanned vehicles. We’ve learned lessons from UAVs that are applicable in this area.

SD: Great point; the risk for signal interception would likely not be any greater for unmanned platforms, and could be mitigated in similar ways. Let’s scale down a bit. On your blog, you recently discussed possible applications of small-scale UUVs, such as those fielded by the University of Graz’s Collective Cognitive Robots project. What applications do you envision for small-scale UUVs like these operationally?

CR: Search and recovery, especially in inshore waters or the littorals, comes to mind. But also acoustic decoys, and maybe even small, mobile sonobuoys for ASW. I’d love to get some reader feedback on this one actually.

SD: I really look forward to reading what others have to say on this issue as well. I think the MPRA ASW applications are especially promising. Last but certainly not least, let’s discuss the LDUUV program. What is your take on pier-launched or even surface-ship based systems with longer endurance and on-station capabilities?

The U.S. Navy's LDUUV
The U.S. Navy’s LDUUV

CR: For some applications, a pier-launched UUV might be viable. But a Navy’s strength is based on its mobility. So yes, as we seem to agree, surface ships are a pretty viable launch platform for large UUVs. The Naval Special Warfare Command’s Swimmer Delivery Vehicle is an analogy. Of course, they are most stealthy when operated from a submarine, but can also be launched from ships and smaller combatant craft. And depending on the operational range of the LDUUV, surface ships would be fine for many mission profiles. And if you are looking for stealth, the stealthiest platform is the one that hides in plain sight, so not every launch platform has to be a naval vessel.

SD: This has been tremendously interesting discussion! Thank you, Chris, for your time; congratulations on your progress with your own UUV design. We look forward to following its development! Thanks as well to the CIMSEC readers who have followed along. Let’s continue this discussion in the comments section.

Sally DeBoer is an Associate Editor for CIMSEC.

Visit Chris Rawley’s blog at: blog.navaldrones.com

 

 

 

Book Review, Future Tech, Future War

Death From Above

2 Comments

Kill Chain

Andrew Cockburn. Kill Chain: The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins. Henry Holt Publishers. 307pp. $28.00.

It’s not often that a book review coincides with current events. Books, particularly nonfiction, are usually written and published months, if not years after an event has occurred. That’s because good nonfiction is written in retrospect: writers have spent some time absorbing their subject, researching and analyzing the facts; authors are hesitant to be rash in judgment or thought.

However, there are exceptions. Some pieces of nonfiction, particularly journalists’ works, are appropriate now — not later. Andrew Cockburn’s new book, Kill Chain: The Rise of the High-Tech Assassins, is one of them.  Cockburn’s book is timely.  In just the past few weeks there has been a flood of reporting from media outlets stating that a drone strike killed an American and an Italian hostage when targeting a group of Al-Qaeda members operating near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Suddenly, questions about drone strikes, the debate about targeted killing, and the transparency of the drone program are on the front page of print and online news media worldwide.

Yes, timely indeed.

Although Cockburn’s book cover is plastered with silhouettes of unmanned aerial vehicles — with what appears to be the X-47B, Predator, Global Hawk, and Fire Scout, among others — he is making a larger argument.  Cockburn it seems, is arguing that all technology is suspect.  It’s not simply unmanned aerial vehicles, but it’s the idea that human beings are continuously so bold as to come up with technological solutions that will win our wars.   History, however, tells us a much different story.

Cockburn, then, starts his book with an interesting tale.

In 1966 the Vietnam War was not going well.  Secretary McNamara, a man who was fond of scientific solutions to difficult problems, turned his attention to “The Jasons.”  The Jasons, Cockburn says, were a small group of scientists and scholars, many of whom would go on to become Nobel Prize winners. These were also some of the same men — Carl Kaysen, Richard Garwin, George Kistiakowski — that were part of the Manhattan Project some twenty years earlier.

The Jasons tried to do what Rolling Thunder could not — they tried to figure out a way to defeat North Vietnam’s ability to use the Ho Chi Minh trail — to cut off their supply routes.  They ended up deploying small sensors along the trail that could, presumably, pick up the noise, vibration, and in some cases, the ammonia of someone urinating, all in an attempt to locate men and machines moving goods to the South.  Then, if they could hear them and find them, U.S. commanders could task air strikes against the communists on the trail.  It didn’t take long, Cockburn says, for the North Vietnamese to find a work-around.  How long?  It took one week.  Cockburn notes that all the North Vietnamese had to do was to use cows and trucks, often running over an area of the trail multiple times to create a diversion while the real logistical effort was moved elsewhere.  So simple and so effective — and relatively inexpensive.  However, Cockburn says the cost of the electronic barrier for the U.S. was around six billion dollars.

This formula is repeated throughout the rest of the book.  That is 1) There is a military problem 2) Someone always tries to find a technological solution, and then 3) Spends a lot of money only to find out the U.S. has made the problem worse.

Now fast forward almost sixty-years to the age of drones, and Cockburn introduces us to Rex Rivolo, an analyst at the Institute of Defense Analysis.  It’s 2007 and improvised explosive devices are a major problem; they are killing and maiming hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq.  Asked to analyze the networks behind the IEDs, Rivolo, Cockburn says, discovers that targeted killings of these networks  lead to more attacks, not fewer.  This is because someone more aggressive fills the place of the leader who was recently killed.  Rivolo would return to D.C., even getting the ear of the Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, telling him that attacking high- value targets was not the right strategy — the IED networks and individuals setting them off were more autonomous then was initially thought.  Going after the senior guy, Rivolo noted, was not the answer.  But, as Cockburn says, nothing changed. Now people simply refer to the continous cycle of targeting and killing  high-value targets as “mowing the grass.”

The idea of killing  senior leaders or HVTs is not new, it’s been around for a long time (think Caesar).  Cockburn, then, brings up one of the more interesting “what if’s” that military officers — or any student of military history — likes to debate.  That is, what if someone had killed Hitler before the end of the war?  Would the war have ended?  Or would he have become a martyr and someone worse or someone better have taken his place?  Cockburn tells us about British Lieutenant Colonel Robert Thornley, who argued during WWII that, no, the Fuhrer should not be killed.  Thornley noted, that if Hitler was killed, his death would likely make him a martyr for national socialism.  And that Hitler was often a man that “override completely the soundest military appreciation and thereby helped the Allied cause tremendously.”  Therefore, the thinking went, we should let Hitler live and dig his own grave.

However, the problem with this debate is that context matters.  Was it Germany in 1933? 1938? Or 1944? It matters because while Cockburn does not differentiate between the killing of a leader of a state and the leader of a terrorist network, they are indeed different systems that have different levers of power and legitimacy.

He is on firmer ground when he rightly notes how difficult it is for anyone to predict systemic effects when targeting a network.  He reiterates these difficulties throughout the book.  The most historical compelling case is WWII and the strategic bombing campaign.  All one has to do is pick up the WWII U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey and read the fine work done by John K. Galbraith, Paul Nitze, and others.  Disrupting or destroying networks from the air — in this case, Germany’s economy — was incredibly difficult.  In many cases, assumptions of German capabilities or weaknesses were far from correct.  And as Cockburn notes, the term “effects based operations,” namely, operations that are military and nonmilitary that can disrupt complex systems while minimizing risk, was a term that was outlawed in 2008 by General Mattis while the head of Joint Forces Command.

Ultimately, the debate over drones — who should control them, what should they be used for, should the U.S. target particular individuals — will continue.  It’s an important topic.  There are, however, a few shortcomings in this book.  One of the biggest questions that goes unanswered is this: If the U.S. should not strike identified enemies or high-value targets…then what?  Do nothing? Allow a Hitler to simply remain in power?  Is this not a form of moral ignorance?

The questions military planners and policy makers should ask is this:  Do we understand the character of this war?  And are these the right tools we should use to win this war?  We should not blame a drone — or any other type of tech for that matter — for bad strategies, poor operational planning, and gooned up tactics.

Drones are the future.  But we should read Cockburn’s book as a cautionary tale.  We should disabuse ourselves of the illusion that future technologies will be our savior.  And finally, we should not let those illusions crowd out the very difficult task  of understanding our adversaries and the enduring nature of war.

Andrew Cockburn’s book is worth reading.  But have your pencil ready — you’ll want to  argue with him in the margins.

Lieutenant Commander Christopher Nelson, USN, is a naval intelligence officer and recent graduate of the U.S. Naval War College and the Navy’s operational planning school, the Maritime Advanced Warfighting School in Newport, RI.  LCDR Nelson is also CIMSEC’s book review editor and is looking for readers interested in reviewing books for CIMSEC.  You can contact him at [email protected].  The views above are the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the US Navy or the US Department of Defense.

Drones, Future Tech

Can Small AUVs Work at Sea?

Leave a comment

This post published on NavalDrones.com and was republished with permission. It may read in its original form here.

The researchers at CoCoRo continue to push the limits of autonomy and swarming behavior with autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). Recently, they’ve taken their AUVs out of the controlled laboratory tanks and into the wild, with small scale tests in ponds, lakes, and protected ocean harbors. These robots are prototypes designed to explore small scale autonomous group behavior. But the ocean tests hint at possibilities of using smaller marine robots to perform useful functions.

Unmanned Underwater Vehicles employed in military and research operations range in size from man portable, weighing less than 100 pounds, to monsters such as Boeing’s Echo Ranger, which weighs more than 5,000 kilograms. Small scale AUVs weighing less than a few kilograms or so are limited in endurance primarily due to battery size. More importantly, the ocean environment presents a number of challenges for tinier AUVs including surf and currents, poor visibility, and even hungry marine predators. But CoCoRo’s tests of their “Lily” and “Jeff” robots are early indications that these types of AUVs can operate on a limited scale in ocean conditions. What say you, readers? Can small AUV’s do real work in a maritime environment? If so, what are some potential applications for mini-AUVs? Can the obstacles the ocean presents to AUVs be overcome with larger numbers of vehicles or swarming behavior? 

Future Tech, Global Analysis

The Importance of Space in Maritime Security

Leave a comment

Honorable Mention – CIMSEC High School Essay Contest

As long as man has walked the Earth and gazed into the stars, he’s asked “what’s out there what’s waiting for me?” Today, our country asks that very same question, although not for what we can find, but how we can use Space and its resources to advance our scientific and military might into, and hopefully beyond the 21st century.

GPS_Satellite_NASA_art-iifWith the dawn of rockets and the nuclear confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, Space would soon become a vital asset for the interests of both countries and other major players for the years to come (particularly China). With the sudden rise of China, and the reemergence of the Russia as a major military power, it is absolutely vital that the United States once again pursue Space for economic, political, and commercial purposes, as well as for strategic military purposes which will benefit not only the military, but the United States as a whole; and how our Navy can play a big role in helping us make this happen.

As of the time of this writing, the United States and other Western European Countries are currently embroiled in a geopolitical dispute with Russia over Ukraine and the rights of its territory such as Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. As a result of this, the United States and the European Union declared economic sanctions on Russia which are meant to cripple the Russian economy and force Russia out over its interference in Ukraine. In response to this, the Kremlin has threatened to stop shuttling Astronauts to and from the International Space Station, and cut off supplies to the ISS.  In 2007, the Chinese military carried out its first antisatellite missile test when it launched a ground based missile 500 miles to destroy an aging satellite of theirs.

Both of these events are very disturbing as they easily threaten the United States and its space capability to carry out intelligence gathering and reconnaissance missions in Space using the latest technology and satellites. If these satellites, whether civilian or military, ever happen to be threatened in a time of war, the results could be catastrophic. The Navy should invest in further developing laser weapons like the LaWS that are capable of punching holes through thick steel plates on ships as well as a countermeasure against any ballistic missile that may threaten our satellite capability in Space or onboard the ISS. Laser weapons are surprisingly very cheap and affordable. According to Rear Admiral Matthew Klunder in an interview for defense-aerospace.com, “with affordability a serious concern for our defense budgets, this will more effectively manage resources to ensure our sailors and marines are never in a fair fight.” The article goes on to claim that firing this type of weapon can cost less than $1 dollar per shot; a great bargain in a time that our military is starting to see a drawdown in military spending. Christopher Harrier, an analyst at the Institute for the Study of War was quoted as saying that: “The existing naval weapons systems, small-caliber cannons, large-caliber naval guns, and missiles, are at or near the limits of their potential capability. Guns and missiles just aren’t going to get much more accurate or lethal while lasers have significant potential for increases in range, accuracy, lethality, reliability, and cost-effectiveness.”

It is clear that if the Navy wants to confront new 21st Century threats, it must research and develop new combat systems, whether it is by land, sea, air, or space.  The Russians and the Chinese are also looking into developing similar weapons systems, while also trying to implement a missile defense system capable of intercepting and eliminating enemy targets. With a resurgent Russia and emerging China, this has become a must for defense of our allies and overseas military installations all around the world. It has been stated that an enemy country wouldn’t necessarily have to launch a direct nuclear strike if it wanted to destroy the United States. Countries like China and Russia could simply detonate a nuclear weapon in the upper atmosphere right over the Midwestern United States and knock out most, if not all, of the electrical power grids in the continental United States through an Electromagnetic Pulse Effect. An EMP would be devastating to the United States as it would cripple our infrastructure, down all of our technology, leave the US Government and military crippled and slow to react, and cause the global economy to collapse. It would be a scene right out of a post-apocalyptic film like The Postman or The Book of Eli. Not to mention the millions of casualties and deaths that would occur due to starvation or anarchy. It would truly be a shame and a complete lack of competence if our Government doesn’t have a contingency plan already in place for an event like this.

In order for this plan on space based missile defense to work however, it must learn from the mistakes made in the 1980’s when Ronald Reagan famously proposed in 1983 his SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative) or the “Star Wars Program”. As many people know, SDI was announced in 1983 by Ronald Reagan as a means of countering the Soviet threat with space based weaponry capable of shooting down any Soviet missile before it entered American airspace. Unfortunately, due to the slow technological development at the time of space based missile defense systems, as well as other factors including the Dissolution of the USSR, inefficiency, and overall lack of continued public support, SDI did not succeed in meeting its goals.

In comparison to the 1980’s-early 90’s, America does have the infrastructure in 2015 to support a new SDI type program. For starters, in 1983 something called: “private space companies” did not exist. With companies such as SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Orbital Sciences, and Blue Origin starting to appear and establish themselves as legitimate companies in the aerospace sector, there’s no reason why they couldn’t be expected to help the American military develop a space based missile defense system. Similar to how other Aerospace contractors such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin have helped the Air Force in its development of their new aircraft and weapons systems, a joint government/private program with the DoD and Navy providing the funding, and the private companies will handle the testing and development could be developed. That way there won’t be as large of an outcry by the public as there was with SDI in the 1980’s and the politicians/military leaders don’t have to worry so much about any failures and the potential political backlash with the program, as it will fall on the shoulders of the private contractors. Plus, this program will be more affordable now than it ever was in the 1980s.

SpaceX is currently developing the Falcon-9 space rocket with the intention of making it reusable and cheaper to launch into orbit. According to NASA, the average typical launch cost for the Space Shuttle Program was $450 million dollars. With the SpaceX designed Falcon-9 rocket, that cost is now about 50-56 million USD, an absolute bargain when compared to how much NASA’s launches cost. The biggest obstacle to this plan would not necessarily be the technical or financial challenges involved, but compliance with international law such as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. Article IV of the 1967 Space Treaty states: “States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited. “

The key words in this text being: “Nuclear or any kinds of weapons of mass destruction.” WMD’s are most often defined as being either: Biological, Chemical, Radiological, or Nuclear.  Since lasers do not fall into either of these specifically defined categories (as lasers are electromagnetic), this would not violate international law regarding space and weapons of mass destruction. And their primary purpose would be defensive in nature. The Navy could easily place these interceptors on ships or in bases around the world in order to be alerted by any of these threats, as well as satellites which can track and locate enemy ships and submarines before they attack.

It is obvious that space will play a critical role in the development of naval affairs and maritime security through the use of satellites and space based defense which will be used to further America’s Naval supremacy in both the Sea and Space throughout the rest of the 21st century and beyond. As we can see, the Navy will not just be limited to the sea but will have an increasingly expanded role as technology and space travel progresses.

Citations:

http://bart.tcc.virginia.edu/classes/200R/Projects/fall_2002/nasa/casestudies–sdi.html

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/m8310017.htm,

http://history.nasa.gov/1967treaty.html,

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/electromagnetic–pulse–newtgingrich–emp–attack–93002.html

About the Author 

Nolan McEleney was born in Jacksonville, Florida in 1996 and is a diehard fan of the Jacksonville Jaguars. His family moved to CT in 2005, before finally settling in MD in 2008. Nolan is currently a cadet officer in the Civil Air Patrol for the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Composite Squadron where he is currently assigned as a flight commander. Nolan currently attends The Avalon School in Gaithersburg where he is the Washington house captain. In extracurriculars, he is heavily involved with the Civil Air Patrol. Nolan is also a part of his squadrons cyberpatriot team which deals with cybersecurity and other threats as part of a nationwide competition. He has also taken online courses with the Cisco Networking Academy and Hillsdale College. 

 In the future, Nolan would like to work with NASA, a private space company, or any science and tech company. Whether it be in a technical or non-technical role, he feel like a lot of these companies such as SpaceX are on the cusp of history with proposed missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. He would also like to be a part of and contribute to that in any way he can. Nolan currently intends on going to the University of Washington and participating in ROTC so that he can become an officer.