DARPA: Program Targets Innovative Propulsion Solutions for Ground-Based Weapons Delivery System

On the same subject

• 

  October 13, 2021 | International, Land

  Robot Dogs Now Have Assault Rifles Mounted On Their Backs

  Robot dogs have been met with equal parts fascination and fear by the public, but their utility for military applications is becoming undeniable.

• 

  July 14, 2020 | International, C4ISR, Security

  Cyber Command’s measure of success? Outcomes

  Mark Pomerleau A U.S. Cyber Command official said that when they examine whether any given operation or even when a strategy has been successful, they're not looking at metrics, but rather outcomes. “It's really about: have we enabled the collective defense of the nation,” Maj. Gen. John Morrison, Cyber Command's outgoing chief of staff, told C4ISRNET in a July interview. Roughly two years ago, Cyber Command and the Department of Defense started a paradigm shift for cyber policy and operations. The 2018 DoD cyber strategy tasked Cyber Command to “defend forward,” which is best described as operators working on foreign networks to prevent attacks before they happen. The way Cyber Command meets those goals is through persistent engagement, which means challenging adversary activities wherever they operate. Part of the need for a change was that adversaries were achieving their objectives but doing so below the threshold of armed conflict – in the so-called gray zone – through cyberspace. DoD wanted to stop that from happening through more assertive cyberspace action. Some in the academic community have wanted to see some way in which the command can measure the success of these new approaches. But Morrison explained that these outcomes, or intended effects during operations, could be enabling other partners – foreign or other agencies within the U.S. government – to take action in defense of the nation. For example, he said that when Cyber Command teams encounter malware they haven't seen before, they share it with partners in government, such as FBI or DHS, which can lead to the greater national collective defense. He also noted that building partnerships enables a sense of collective defense in cyberspace and can help significantly in the future against sophisticated adversaries. Morrison will be replaced at Cyber Command by Maj. Gen. David Isaacson. It is unclear where Morrison is headed next. The need for flexibility As Cyber Command has gained more authorities in recent years, it has been able to conduct significantly more operations and different types of operations as well, Morrison said. Throughout these missions, leaders have learned they must be flexible, be it in tactics, structure of teams, or the capabilities they need or develop. “We have thinking adversaries that we go against every single day. That drives us to change how we operate,” Morrison said. “You change your tactics, techniques and procedures but that's also going to drive changes in how we train and what we train ... It drives how we do capability development and development of capabilities and the employment of those capabilities, which again ties back to training at a much faster pace in this space.” Morrison noted that this includes how teams are organized. He explained the way defensive cyber protection teams were first envisioned when they were created in 2012-2013 is not at all how they fight now. To keep up with dynamic adversaries, Cyber Command is keeping closer watch on readiness metrics developed by the command for its cyber teams. This is a framework that details standards for how teams are equipped, manned and supplied. Cyber protection teams were detailed first and now Cyber Command has readiness metrics for combat mission teams, the offensive teams that support combatant commands, and intelligence/support teams. Officials are still working through metrics for what are called national teams that are charged with defending the nation. The command also needs to improve the way it feeds operational requirements into capabilities cyber warriors can use, Morrison said. This includes improving acquisition practices for both of the programs of record Cyber Command is executing through its Joint Cyber Warfighting Architecture — which guides capability development priorities and includes the Unified Platform and Persistent Cyber Training Environment — and the more rapidly developed tools needed on the fly. “That's where you've got the ability inside the command now to rapidly produce that capability through a variety of means and get it into the hands of our operators as quick as possible,” he said. In fact, the Army has begun to embed tool developers and coders alongside operators through the Rapid Cyber Development Network to more quickly meet urgent needs. This allows them in almost in near real time to develop or change tools to meet requirements. “How do we do capability development in a much smoother fashion than we sometimes do today where we're able to rapidly assess, prioritize, resource operational requirements to produce a capability that we can then get back into the hands of our operators as quickly as possible,” Morrison said. From these capabilities that are developed for shorter term needs, he said the key will be deciding if they want to move them into a program of record. Will it be a longer term capability, will it adjust tactics, techniques and procedures or training? “We've got to work those pieces,” he explained. On the longer term, program of record capabilities, he noted officials still want the iterative development associated with more software-centric systems as opposed to more traditional military hardware. Integration with combatant commands Cyber is much more ingrained in military planning and operations than it was in years prior, Morrison said, however, work remains. There is now a closer link between the combatant commands and Cyber Command elements that plan, coordinate, synchronize and conduct cyber operations on their behalf, Morrison said, noting that they are still maturing. These include the Joint Force Headquarters-Cybers‚ which are commanded by each of the service cyber component commanders, and plan, synchronize and conduct operations for combatant commands they're assigned to, and new entities being created called cyber operations-integrated planning elements. These are forward extensions of the Joint Force Headquarters resident within the combatant commands to better coordinate cyber planning with other operations for the combatant commander. These entities all enable a greater central connective tissue from a Cyber Command perspective as they can feed from the theater level back to the command providing a global cyberspace picture. “You have to take not only a regional view of anything that you're doing, but, when you can bring the power of a global enterprise behind it, that's a pretty powerful capability for our nation,” Morrison said. “We are in the process of building every one of our CO-IPEs but I definitely think that we are heading in the right direction, especially as [the CO-IPEs] get built and they integrate closer and closer with their supported combatant commands.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/cyber/2020/07/10/cyber-commands-measure-of-success-outcomes/

• 

  June 18, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Land, C4ISR

  The next key to the Army network: air-ground integration

  By: Mark Pomerleau The Army wants greater network integration with its air and ground units and has started working with industry to make that process more seamless. Service leaders point to significant gaps in today's network architecture enabling aircraft to communicate with ground units and vice versa. But, they say, forces in the future will have to operate over significant distances and do so under a near constant jamming threat. “A lot of units and rifle squads in the 101st [Airborne Division] right now, that squad leader's radio in many cases can't interface with similar radios in adjacent units or the helicopter that just delivered him or her to an objective area. Or the helicopter that's providing close air support ... can't pass data with it,” Maj. Gen. Brian Winski, the division's commander, said in Nashville, Tennessee, May 30. “We need that capability for ground forces to be able to talk to their aviation partners and have that inextricable link that makes us so incredibly powerful. We also have to collectively figure out how we're going to communicate over significantly increased distances.” To solve these problems, Army leaders from the aviation and networking community gathered in Nashville, Tennessee at the end of May to hash out the challenges they face with industry and the operational community. The forum was a venue for members of the operational community to voice their concerns and provide examples of issues they faced while deployed. “This air to ground focus ... is the thing we've really got to crack the code on if we are going to penetrate deep into an [anti-Access/area denial] environment ... they've got to be able to communicate,” Maj. Gen. Peter Gallagher, director of the network cross functional team, said at the event. “Contested in space, contested in cyber, there are no easy answers to that wicked problem.” Gallagher stressed to the industry representatives that it's up to their engineers to “help us crack the code to making sure we have assured network transport in a contested environment, terrestrial, aerial and space.” Operating at long distances One of the first challenges officials described was ensuring network connectivity over hundreds of miles while facing a jamming threat. “No longer are we talking about operating at distances of 100 to 150 kilometers. We're about talking of operating at distance to 400 to 1,000-plus kilometers,” Al Abejon, chief of aviation architecture at the program executive office aviation, said. “Now the challenge is: how do you maintain that continuous mission command, [situational awareness] ... throughout that operational distance and oh, by the way, be able to survive the operational environments that are going to be changing at these distances at those air speeds. "All those rolled into one thing make up a considerable problem set.” Along with the newtwork, the Army has also listed future vertical lift aircraft as one of its six top modernization priorities. These future aircraft will be capable of teaming with unmanned systems, a concept the aviation community is calling advanced teaming. From an operational perspective, Winski said the 101st must be able to share information digitally between air and ground units in the Army and with joint and coalition partners to “violently and decisively exploit developing opportunities on the battlefield.” They'll also need to provide electronic and kinetic fires over the horizon, increase the linkages between intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms and shooters, whether they are existing or future aircraft, future long range precision fires platforms or existing fires platforms. Gallagher told C4ISRNET that if beyond line of sight satellite communications are knocked out, alternative solutions could include high frequency solutions or mid-earth or low-earth orbit satellites rather than geosynchronous satellites. Abejon mentioned one option could be to link line of sight communications to the command and control aircraft that have beyond line of sight capability. Those aircraft can then move data forward while still maintaining connectivity to bases. Unmanned systems can also be used as range extension platforms. Common operating environment The Army is pursuing a common operating environment that will allow soldiers in a command post, ground vehicle, aircraft or on the ground to easily pass data back and forth, share information, communicate and look at the same map. Now, the aviation community is trying to change its mission command system and radios into a program called the Aviation Information System (AIS). This system will “centralize mission command on a single tool that connects war fighting function software and applications with [the] mission command network,” said Col. Ryan Coyle of the aviation enablers – requirements determination directorate. “Converging [the] mission command system and the network to support efficient data management but also rapid voice and data exchange are critical in order to optimize those cross domain effects.” This is similar to the Command Post Computing Environment, which will shrink stovepiped systems into applications on a common interface allowing all forces to have a common look and feel regardless of their location. The other part of a common suite of communications gear is having radios that can connect to ground and air forces. However, for air platforms, such as radios, waveforms or mission command systems, the air community must pass airworthiness standards to fly in domestic or international airspaces. “If we have a SINCGARS waveform in the bird and we have a SINCGARS waveform on the ground in a manpack radio or a leader radio, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to interoperate perfectly between those two systems,” said Jim Evangelos, standards branch deputy director of the Joint Tactical Networking Center. “One way to guarantee this interoperability is to have software defined radios on the ground, software defined radios in the bird operating the same version of the same software. That's a lot easier said than done. I totally get and understand the aviation challenges and you have to meet some very tough standards especially with airworthiness standards.” Overall, the top tactical network buyer for the Army says he wants one single network, though acknowledges there will be some exceptions. “My goal is one network. One tactical network,” Maj. Gen. Dave Bassett, program executive officer, command, control, communications-tactical, said. “There are going to be some exceptions. There are going to be some things the aviation platforms want to do in terms of [man-unmanned teaming] or sensor to shooter and other things where the networks that the common network isn't going to meet that requirement. We ought to manage those things as exceptions but that should not be the default.” To the extent possible, Bassett said, the Army should ensure the aviation community is part of the overall Army network using the waveforms and capabilities that are provided and common to all. The Army is currently soliciting white papers and will evaluate proposals to help solve these challenges. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/2019/06/15/the-next-key-to-the-army-network-air-ground-integration/