20 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR

What’s industry role in DoD information warfare efforts?

Government leaders are telling industry they need help with integration as the Department of Defense and individual services push toward a unifying approach to information warfare.

Information warfare combines several types of capabilities, including cyber, intelligence, electronic warfare, information operations, psychological operations and military deception. On a high-tempo battlefield, military leaders expect to face against a near peer or peer adversary. There, one-off solutions, systems that only provide one function, or those that can't feed information to others won't cut it. Systems must be multi-functional and be able to easily communicate with other equipment and do so across services.

“A networked force, that's been our problem for years. Having built a lot of military systems, a lot in C4 and mission command, battle command, we build them and buy them in stovepipes. Then we think of integration and connecting after the fact,” Greg Wenzel, executive vice president at Booz Allen, told C4ISRNET. “My whole view ... networking the force really is probably the best thing to achieve overmatch against our adversaries.”

Much of this networking revolves around new concepts DoD is experimenting with to be better prepared to fight in the information environment through multi domain operations or through Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2). The former aims to seamlessly integrate the capabilities of each domain of warfare – land, sea, air, space and cyber – at will. It also aims to integrate systems and capabilities across the services under a common framework to rapidly share data.

While not an official program, JADC2 is more of a framework for the services to build equipment.

“It's more likely a mish-mash of service level agreements, pre-scripted architecting and interoperability mandates that you got to be in keeping with those in order to play in the environment,” Bill Bender, senior vice president of strategic accounts and government relations at Leidos, told C4ISRNET of JADC2. “It's going to take a long journey to get there because, oh by the way, we're a very legacy force and ... a limited amount of technology has the interoperability that is absolutely required for that mission to become a reality.”

The “information warfare” nomenclature can fell nebulous and hard to understand for industry officials that provide solutions to the Pentagon.

“It's a pretty broad definition. I think it's something that the DoD is struggling with, that's what we're struggling with in industry and it also makes it challenging because no one really buys equipment that way,” Anthony Nigara, director of mission solutions for electronic warfare at L3Harris, said. “No one really buys stuff to an abstract term like information warfare.”

Others agreed that the term “information warfare” may be too broad, an issue that's further complicated as each service tackles information warfare in their own way.

Most members of industry C4ISRNET talked with on the need to integrate described the key theme of a more networked force as a unifying way to think about the new push to information warfare.

“There's a lot of discussions about the Joint All Domain Operations or the multidomain operations. When we look at that and we want to say ‘okay, what is information warfare really mean to everyone?” Steven Allen, director of information operations and spectrum convergence at Lockheed Martin rotary and mission systems, told C4ISRNET. “We look at it as how can we get the right information to warfighters in order to fight or how do we get the right information for them to plan? How do we move all that data across whether it's different levels of security or different levels of the warfighting and the data associated with it.”

Others expressed the need for contractors to be flexible with how DoD is describing its needs.

“Industry has learned to be flexible in responding to messaging calling for new situational awareness capabilities while other established capabilities were being mandated for use in cyber exercises,” Jay Porter, director of programs at Raytheon Intelligence & Space, said.

The push to a more information warfare-centric force under the guise of larger concepts to defeat adversaries is pushing the DoD as a whole to fight in a more joint manner.

Paul Welch, vice president and division manager for the Air Force and defense agencies portfolio at Leidos, explained that there's a consistent view by the services and the department that they must integrate operations within the broad umbrella of activities called information warfare just as they're integrating warfighting capabilities between the services and across the domains. This goes beyond merely deconflicting activities or cooperation, but must encompass true integration of combat capabilities.

Some members of industry described this idea as one part of convergence.

“When I talk about convergence, my observation is there is a convergence in terms of of a family of technologies and of a family of challenge problems and how do they come together,” Ravi Ravichandran, chief technology officer of the intelligence and security sector at BAE, told C4ISRNET.

Ravichandran provided five specific challenge problems the military may have in which a married suite of technologies can help provide an advantage against adversaries.

They include JADC2, overmatch or the notion of assembling technologies in a way better than enemies, joint fires where one service's sensors may be acquiring a target and passing that target off to another service to prosecute it, sensing in the electromagnetic spectrum and strategic mobility to get forces and resources to a particular place at a particular time.

Similarly, Welch provided the notional example of an F-35 flying over an area, seeing something on its sensors and sending that information to either an Army unit, a carrier strike group, a Marine Corps unit, or even a coalition partner to seamlessly and rapidly understand the information and act upon it.

These sensors must be incorporated into a joint kill chain that can be acted upon, coordinated and closed by any service at any time.

Allen noted that when looking at information warfare, his business is examining how to take a variety of information from sensor information to human information to movement information and pull it all together.

“There's a lot of discussion on [artificial intelligence] AI and machine learning and it's very, very important, but there's also important aspects of that, which is hey what's the technology to help the AI, what's that data that's going to help them,” he said. “We tend to look very closely with the customers on how do we really shape that in terms of the information you're getting and how much more can you do for the warfighter.”

By bringing all these together, ultimately, it's about providing warfighters with the situational awareness, command and control and information they need to make decisions and cause the necessary effects, be it cyber C4ISR, intelligence or electronic warfare, Nigara said.

Porter said at Raytheon's Intelligence & Space outfit, they view information warfare as “the unification of offensive and defensive cyber missions, electronic warfare and information operations within the battlespace.” Integrating EW and IO with cyber will allow forces to take advantage of a broader set of data to enable high-confidence decision-making in real time, he added, which is particularly important in the multi-domain information environment to influence or degrade adversary decision making.

From a Navy perspective, the ability to share data rapidly across a distributed force within the Navy's distributed maritime operations concept will be critical for ensuring success.

“We will certainly have to include the mechanisms with which we share information, data and fuse that data from node to node. When I say node to node, a node may be a ship, a node may be an unmanned vehicle and a node may be a shore based facility,” Kev Hays, director of information warfare programs at Northrop Grumman, who mostly supports the Navy, said regarding areas Northrop is investing. “Linking all those participants into a network ... is critically important. We have quite a bit of technology we're investing in to help communicate point to point and over the horizon and a low probability of intercept and low probability of detection fashion.”

Ultimately, the information space is about affecting the adversary's cognitive space, they said.

“When it comes to information warfare, it's a lot less tangible ... It's not tank on tank anymore. You're trying to affect people's perception,” James Montgomery, capture strategy lead for information operations and spectrum convergence at Lockheed Martin rotary and mission systems, told C4ISRNET.

As a result, he said, it is critical to take the time with the customer to truly understand the concepts and capabilities and how they all fit together in order to best support them.

“Really spending time with them [the customer] and understanding what it is that they're attempting to get at. It helps us better shape the requirements but it also helps us better understand what is it they're asking for,” he said. “When you're moving forward and attempting to come together with both a software hardware based solution to something, it takes a lot of talking time and a lot of touch time with that customer to understand where their head's at.”

https://www.c4isrnet.com/information-warfare/2020/07/19/whats-industry-role-in-dod-information-warfare-efforts

Sur le même sujet

  • This is who Congress wants in charge of new hypersonic-tracking sensors

    11 décembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial, C4ISR

    This is who Congress wants in charge of new hypersonic-tracking sensors

    By: Nathan Strout Congress wants the Missile Defense Agency to take the lead on developing a space-based sensor layer capable of tracking hypersonic weapons, despite a number of objections made by the Trump administration earlier this year. The administration claimed in a Sept. 4 letter that selecting a lead agency for the sensor layer this early “would limit DoD's ability to establish the most cost-effective missile defense architecture for the nation,” but the conference committee apparently brushed those concerns aside to place the project squarely in the hands of the MDA in their report on the annual National Defense Authorization Act, released Dec. 9. The Hypersonic and Ballistic Tracking Space Sensor would be a new addition to the nation's missile defense architecture, supplementing the current Space-based Infrared System and the future Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared system in detecting and tracking ballistic weapons from space. Unlike those two systems, however, HBTSS is specifically designed to detect and track hypersonic weapons as well. Compared to traditional ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons are faster, maneuverable and dimmer when viewed from space. Both SBIRS and Next Gen OPIR were designed for ballistic missile threats and are ill suited for tracking the dimmer, faster targets presented by hypersonics. HBTSS meets that challenge in two main ways. First, unlike the two previous systems operating in geosynchronous orbit, HBTSS will be located in low-Earth orbit — far closer to the action. Being that much closer allows them to overcome the dimness of hypersonic threats in order to effectively track them. Secondly, the HBTSS sensors are meant to pass information from satellite to satellite, allowing uninterrupted tracking even as the hypersonic weapons move quickly out of view of any one satellite. The fate of the sensor layer has been up in the air for much of the year. The MDA didn't include the effort in its fiscal year 2020 budget, but listed it among their unfunded priorities in a report to Congress, asking for $108 million for the project. Authorization for that funding was included in both the House and Senate versions of the legislation, and unsurprisingly has been included in the conference report. To date, HBTSS has been a combined effort split between multiple organizations — primarily the MDA, the Space Development Agency and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. While the MDA is in charge of the actual payload, DARPA's Project Blackjack has served as a prototype effort for the design of the new sensor layer. Meanwhile, the SDA was established earlier this year to build a new multilayered space architecture in low-Earth orbit, of which HBTSS would comprise one layer. The dividing issue between the two legislative bodies was whether to put the MDA firmly in charge of the operation or continue to let it develop between the MDA and the Space Development Agency, an organization stood up earlier this year to create a new space architecture comprised of hundreds of small satellites providing a variety of capabilities in low-Earth orbit. While the Senate wanted to have the MDA take the lead on development and deployment of HBTSS, the House supported a coordinated approach with responsibility shared between the MDA, the SDA and the Air Force. “This is one of the interesting boundary cases that is going to keep coming up between what do you give to the space service and what do you keep in the other agencies and services,” said Todd Harrison, director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “In this case, the MDA had already been working on the payload, and so I think there was a lot of angst in taking the MDA's work on that and giving it to another organization where it might lose some momentum.” The conference report comes down on the Senate side of the equation, directing the secretary of defense to assign primary responsibility for the development and deployment of HBTSS with the MDA. The legislation would also require the secretary to submit a plan for how the agency will work with the SDA and the Air Force to develop and integrate the payload. https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/space/2019/12/10/this-is-who-congress-wants-in-charge-of-new-hypersonic-tracking-sensors

  • After Poland, Romania also wants to buy American Abrams tanks

    8 mars 2023 | International, Terrestre

    After Poland, Romania also wants to buy American Abrams tanks

    A request to approve the acquisition is expected for consideration by the Romanian parliament shortly, a senior defense official said.

  • Coronavirus: les industriels de défense plaident pour un "plan de relance"

    24 avril 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    Coronavirus: les industriels de défense plaident pour un "plan de relance"

    Par AFP ,publié le 23/04/2020 à 19:52 , mis à jour à 19:52 Paris, 23 avr 2020 - Les industries de défense jugent "fondamental" un plan de relance de l'économie dont elles bénéficieraient face à l'épidémie de coronavirus, mettant en avant les emplois en jeu en France et la concurrence internationale, ont affirmé jeudi leurs représentants. "Nous proposons un plan de relance pour soutenir la base industrielle et technologique de défense à l'image de ce qui avait été réalisé après la crise de 2008 pourtant beaucoup moins forte", a plaidé Stéphane Mayer, président du Conseil des industries de défense française (Cidef) lors d'une audition par les députés de la commission des Forces armées. Il était entendu en tant que président du Groupement des industries françaises de défense et de sécurité terrestres (Gicat) au côté de ses homologues du Gifas (industries aéronautiques et spatiales), Eric Trappier, et du Gican (constructions navales), Hervé Guillou. Le volet défense du plan de relance lancé en 2008 représentait 2,4 milliards d'euros. Il avait notamment donné lieu à la commande d'un porte-hélicoptères supplémentaire, le Dixmude, qui croise aujourd'hui dans les Antilles pour y apporter soutien logistique et matériel sanitaire face à l'épidémie de Covid-19. Un tel plan de relance est aujourd'hui "absolument fondamental", selon eux. "La commande publique est le meilleur moyen de redémarrer l'économie", a jugé Hervé Guillou. "Il faut être capable de relancer notre économie au risque sinon de voir déferler une vague relativement forte de problématiques d'emplois, de problématiques d'activités qui serait désastreuses", a observé Eric Trappier pour le Gifas. Les salariés des industries de défense sont estimés à au moins 165.000 personnes, pour beaucoup très qualifiés et répartis sur l'ensemble du territoire. "Avant de parler de relocalisations, l'industrie de défense est déjà localisée en France, donc un euro dans le budget français va directement dans l'emploi en France et l'export c'est du budget étranger qui donne de l'emploi en France", selon M. Trappier. Le secteur est contributeur net à la balance commerciale, mais fait face à une forte concurrence internationale, notamment d'Allemagne, de Chine ou des États-Unis. "Or, nos principaux concurrents se sont mis dans une situation de redémarrage [de l'activité] qui pourrait très rapidement tuer nos parts de marché", a estimé Hervé Guillou. Entendue par les sénateurs le 10 avril, la ministre des Armées Florence Parly avait affirmé que son ministère, "premier investisseur de l'État", aurait "un rôle particulier à jouer lorsqu'il s'agirait de relancer l'économie française". https://lentreprise.lexpress.fr/actualites/1/actualites/coronavirus-les-industriels-de-defense-plaident-pour-un-plan-de-relance_2124513.html

Toutes les nouvelles