The authors developed recommendations to improve existing formal requirements and technological solutions regarding naval surface fire support, a way for the U.S. Navy to provide the equivalent of artillery support for forces operating ashore.

Marine Corps Warfighting Publication (MCWP) 3-16, Fire Support Coordina- tion in the Ground Combat Element, is a framework for coordinating and em- ploying supporting arms in consonance with maneuver elements.

Land-based anti-ship missiles (ASMs) feature prominently in the capabilities of many island nations in the Western Pacific, but the United States currently lacks such systems. This report illustrates the potential strategic advantages of the United States working with partners to build a coalition ASM capability, particularly in the event of a conflict with China, and includes an assessment of logistical challenges and positioning approaches.

At the request of the Chief of Naval Operations, the National Research Council (NRC) conducted a study to determine the technological requirements, operational changes, and combat service support structure necessary to land and support forces ashore under the newly evolving Navy and Marine Corps doctrine. The Committee on Naval Expeditionary Logistics, operating under the auspices of the NRC's Naval Studies Board, was appointed to (1) evaluate the packaging, sealift, and distribution network and identify critical nodes and operations that affect timely insertion of fuels, ammunition, water, medical supplies, food, vehicles, and maintenance parts and tool blocks; (2) determine specific changes required to relieve these critical nodes and support forces ashore, from assault through follow-on echelonment; and (3) present implementable changes to existing support systems, and suggest the development of innovative new systems and technologies to land and sustain dispersed units from the shoreline to 200 miles inland. In the course of its study, the committee soon learned that development of OMFTS is not yet at a stage to allow, directly, detailed answers to many of these questions. As a result, the committee addressed the questions in terms of the major logistics functions of force deployment, force sustainment, and force medical support, and the fundamental logistics issues related to each of these functions.

Training Circular (TC) 3-09.81, "Field Artillery Manual Cannon Gunnery," sets forth the doctrine pertaining to the employment of artillery fires. It explains all aspects of the manual cannon gunnery problem and presents a practical application of the science of ballistics. It includes step-by-step instructions for manually solving the gunnery problem which can be applied within the framework of decisive action or unified land operations. It is applicable to any Army personnel at the battalion or battery responsible to delivered field artillery fires. The principal audience for ATP 3-09.42 is all members of the Profession of Arms. This includes field artillery Soldiers and combined arms chain of command field and company grade officers, middle-grade and senior noncommissioned officers (NCO), and battalion and squadron command groups and staffs. This manual also provides guidance for division and corps leaders and staffs in training for and employment of the BCT in decisive action. This publication may also be used by other Army organizations to assist in their planning for support of battalions. This manual builds on the collective knowledge and experience gained through recent operations, numerous exercises, and the deliberate process of informed reasoning. It is rooted in time-tested principles and fundamentals, while accommodating new technologies and diverse threats to national security.

This manual provides guidance for the organization, planning, and conduct of the full range of military operations on urbanized terrain. This publication was prepared primarily for commanders, staffs, and subordinate leaders down to the squad and fire team level. It is written from a Marine air-ground task force perspective, with emphasis on the ground combat element as the most likely supported element in that environment. It provides the level of detailed information that supports the complexities of planning, preparing for, and executing small-unit combat operations on urbanized terrain. It also provides historical and environmental information that supports planning and training for combat in built-up areas

The Navy is developing three new ship-based weapons that could improve the ability of Navy surface ships to defend themselves against missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and surface craft: the Surface Navy Laser Weapon System (SNLWS), the electromagnetic railgun (EMRG), and the gun-launched guided projectile (GLGP), previously known as the hypervelocity projectile (HVP). The Navy refers to the initial (i.e., Increment 1) version of SNLWS as HELIOS, an acronym meaning high-energy laser with integrated optical dazzler and surveillance. EMRG could additionally provide the Navy with a new naval surface fire support (NSFS) weapon for attacking land targets in support of Marines or other friendly ground forces ashore. The Department of Defense is exploring the potential for using GLGP across multiple U.S. military services. Any one of these three new weapons, if successfully developed and deployed, might be regarded as a "game changer" for defending Navy surface ships against enemy missiles and UAVs. If two or three of them are successfully developed and deployed, the result might be considered not just a game changer, but a revolution. Rarely has the Navy had so many potential new types of surface-ship air-defense weapons simultaneously available for development and potential deployment. Although the Navy in recent years has made considerable progress in developing technologies for these new weapons, a number of significant development challenges remain. Overcoming these challenges will require additional development work, and ultimate success in overcoming them is not guaranteed. The issue for Congress is whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy's funding requests and proposed acquisition strategies for these three potential new weapons. Potential oversight questions for Congress include the following: Using currently available air-defense weapons, how well could Navy surface ships defend themselves in a combat scenario against an adversary such as China that has or could have large numbers of missiles and UAVs? How would this situation change if Navy surface ships in coming years were equipped with SNLWS, EMRG, GLGP, or some combination of these systems? How significant are the remaining development challenges for SNLWS, EMRG, and GLGP? Are current schedules for developing SNLWS, EMRG, and GLGP appropriate in relation to remaining development challenges and projected improvements in enemy missiles and UAVs? When does the Navy anticipate issuing roadmaps detailing its plans for procuring and installing production versions of SNLWS, EMRG, and GLGP on specific Navy ships by specific dates? Will the kinds of surface ships that the Navy plans to procure in coming years have sufficient space, weight, electrical power, and cooling capability to take full advantage of SNLWS and EMRG? What changes, if any, would need to be made in Navy plans for procuring large surface combatants (i.e., destroyers and cruisers) or other Navy ships to take full advantage of SNLWS and EMRGs? Given the Navy's interest in HPV, how committed is the Navy to completing the development of EMRG and eventually deploying EMRGs on Navy ships? Are the funding line items for SNLWS, EMRG, and GLDP sufficiently visible for supporting congressional oversight?

Tells the story of the evolution of the Dahlgren Laboratory from a proof and test facility into a modern research and development center crucial to the technological evolution of the United States Navy.