23 juillet 2018 | International, C4ISR

The Army wants to build a better signals intelligence force

By:

The Army's top intelligence official signed the service's new signals intelligence strategy July 16, a move that defense leaders believe leaves the Army better situated to better fight despite electronic warfare and cyber attacks.

The new strategy ensures "our readiness to provide timely and relevant SIGINT-support [and meet] the commander's information needs in a large scale combat operation against a sophisticated adversary,” Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, said July 18 during an event on Capitol Hill hosted by the Association of Old Crows.

Officials say the integration of SIGINT, electronic warfare and cyber is critical from a material, organization and doctrinal perspective.

“Not only will our four lines of effort improve our SIGINT corps' capabilities and relevance in the face of rapid changes in the global security environment, it will also enable our electronic warfare and cyberspace effort to meet new challenges,” Berrier said.

The four initiatives in the new strategy include:

- Organizing and building the Army SIGINT force,

- Educating the force,

- Equipping the force, and

- Developing doctrine.

The new strategy increases the Army's ability to collect intelligence against peer adversaries, such as China and Russia, and provides a firm foundation for successful electronic warfare and cyber operations, Berrier said.

A key component of the convergence includes the new Terrestrial Layer System (TLS), a SIGINT/EW system projected to be fielded on vehicles and used by new military intelligence-electronic warfare (MI-EW) companies the Army is working to stand up.

The Army wants SIGINT, electronic warfare and cyber systems on the same platforms in the air and ground domain, Maj. Gen. Robert Walters, commander of the Intelligence Center of Excellence, said at the event. These systems, Berrier said, should be able to not only sense the environment but employ some type of action such as electronic attack or cyber capability.

Why converge?

Officials have stressed repeatedly in the last year the need for colleagues in similar disciplines throughout the Army to stay in touch and reap the mutually beneficial equities on behalf of commanders in the field.

Lt. Gen. Stephen Fogarty, the head of Army Cyber Command, said commanders shouldn't have to have something explained to them by the EW guy, the SIGINT guy and then the cyber guy.

“What we decided is there's a better way, we have to pull it all together” for the commander, he said at the event. “We're going to have to work together because we all operate in the same space. And so do we really need three separate tools to plan operations in the spectrum? My argument would be no.”

From an organizational perspective, the 29 series electronic warfare personnel will have deep knowledge in both cyber and electromagnetic spectrum operations. On the materiel side, especially with programs like the Terrestrial Layer System, the cyber and intel community are meeting regularly to integrate their requirements, officials said. In addition, Maj. Gen. John Morrison, commander of the Cyber Center of Excellence, told reporters in June that the Intelligence Center of Excellence is working with the Cyber Center to help ensure integrated formation and integrated capabilities.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/intel-geoint/2018/07/19/the-army-wants-to-build-a-better-signals-intelligence-force/

Sur le même sujet

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

    18 juin 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Terrestre, 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/

  • Maintenance delays are ‘blood in the water’ for aircraft carrier critics, admiral says

    15 septembre 2020 | International, Naval

    Maintenance delays are ‘blood in the water’ for aircraft carrier critics, admiral says

    David B. Larter WASHINGTON – The head of the U.S. Navy's East Coast-based aviation enterprise said the service must demand to get aircraft carriers out of their maintenance availabilities on time, and that failure to do so throws fuel on the fire of critics who say the aircraft carrier is becoming irrelevant. Calling carrier operational availability his “number one concern,” Rear Adm. John Meier, commander of Naval Air Forces Atlantic, said the service had to make sure shipyards delivered its ships to the fleet on time. “More often than not we've been having delays getting them out of the yards on time,” Meier said at the virtual edition of the annual Tailhook Association Symposium. "With the budgetary pressure we'll be facing, when we don't get the return on the enormous investment in aircraft carriers, every day we lose of operational ability is like a drop of blood in the water. “It fans the flames of critics who want to cut aircraft carriers. And in my mind, I can't see a naval aviation force or a Navy without carriers in the future.” A recent government watchdog report said that 75 percent of the Navy's carrier and submarine maintenance availabilities have run late, resulting in 7,425 days of delays. Both the Truman and Eisenhower have had recent maintenance woes and delays, and the carrier Bush is currently working through a 28-month maintenance period, much longer than the normal 16-month availability. A forthcoming DoD-led Navy force structure assessment could herald cuts to the 11-carrier fleet. In April, Defense News reported that the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense recommended cutting two aircraft carriers from the current force structure in the coming decades. https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/09/11/maintenance-delays-are-blood-in-the-water-for-aircraft-carrier-critics-admiral-says/

  • Chinese Hackers Use GHOSTSPIDER Malware to Hack Telecoms Across 12+ Countries

    26 novembre 2024 | International, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Chinese Hackers Use GHOSTSPIDER Malware to Hack Telecoms Across 12+ Countries

    China-linked Earth Estries uses GHOSTSPIDER malware to hack telecoms and governments globally, breaching 20+ entities.

Toutes les nouvelles