defense systems - july-august

8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August

1/36

K N O W L E D G E T E C H N O L O G I E S A N D N E T - E N A B L E D W A R F A R EVolume 9, Number 4 | www.DefenseSystems.com

DEFENSESYSTEMS

CYBER DEFENSE

Can a Cold War approachwork for cyber defense?

DEFENSE IT

Are satellite systems

facing a ‘spacePearl Harbor’?

July/August 2015

THE

NAVYOWNS

UPTaking controlof the network

with NGENcan help avoid

NMCI’s

missteps

http://www.defensesystems.com/http://www.defensesystems.com/


2/36

GEICO has been proudly saving Military customers money on their car insurance

since 1936, and we want to do the same for you. We understand the special needs

and sacrices made by Military members and their families which is why we oer

numerous discounts, exible payment opons, overseas coverage and more.

We stand ready to serve you. Get a free quote today.

Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a

Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. GEICO Gecko image © 1 999-2015. © 2015 GEICO

You Work Hard.We’ll Work Hard to Save You Money.

geico.com | 1-800-MILITARY | local ofce

http://geico.com/http://geico.com/http://geico.com/http://geico.com/http://geico.com/http://geico.com/http://geico.com/http://geico.com/http://geico.com/http://geico.com/http://geico.com/http://geico.com/http://geico.com/


3/36

BATTLESPACE TECH

24 Study: DOD can’t delay in developing anddeploying laser weapons

25 Why the command post of the future will besimpler, lighter

DEFENSE IT

26 DISA’s five-year plan stresses JIE,cyber operations

27 Is a ‘space Pearl Harbor’ inevitable?

MOBILE

28 High-bandwidth battlefield radio doesn’tneed satellites

30 DISA releases a heavy-duty suite for mobileclassified comm

DEPARTMENTS

6 FORWARD OBSERVER

34 COMMENT

CONTENTS | JULY/AUGUST 2015

STAY ABREAST

One of the best ways to keep abreast of the

latest news in C4ISR, cyber and defense IT

is to receive Defense Systems’ twice-weekly

e-newsletters, which compile the most impor-

tant breaking news stories reported by our

staff, plus aggregated content produced by

other respect and ed news outlets. The news-

letters are free, you can sign up at

DefenseSystems.com.

IMPORTANTHEADLINES

With daily coverage of military C4ISR and

net-enabled capabilities, DefenseSystems.

com is one of the best ways to stay on top of

the most important military and industry de-

velopments. You can get immediate access to

those stories throughout the day by following

Defense Systems on Twitter.

The DefenseSystemsNetwork

FEATURES

14 As attacks mount, officials debate whether a Cold . War-style approach to deterrence can work.

UAS & ROBOTICS

16 An Air Force research team changes the wayUAS crews can collaborate

18 The Army is developing a ‘flying motorcycle’for the battlefield

C4ISR

20 The Warfighter Information Network-Tacticalgets to the next level

21 A pocket-size device can track soldiers withoutthe need for GPS

CYBER DEFENSE

22 The Army is giving cyber warriors a training rangeof their own

23 Cyber Guard exercise expands to awhole-of-nation approach

DefenseSystems.com | JULY/AUGUST 2015 3

SPECIAL REPORT

Owning ITWith NGEN, Navy takes control of the network,vowing not to repeat the pitfalls of NMCI

PAGE 10

http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/


4/36

4

JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com

SALES CONTACTINFORMATION

MEDIA CONSULTANTS

Ted Chase

Media Consultant, DC, MD, VA,

OH, Southeast

(703) 944-2188

[email protected]

Bill Cooper

Media Consultant, Midwest, CA, WA, OR

(650) 961-1760

[email protected]

Matt Lally

Media Consultant, Northeast

(973) 600-2749

[email protected]

Mary MartinMedia Consultant, DC, MD, VA

(703) 222-2977

[email protected]

EVENT SPONSORSHIP CONSULTANTS

Stacy Money

(415) 444-6933

[email protected]

Alyce Morrison

(703) 645-7873

[email protected]

Kharry Wolinsky

(703) 300-8525

[email protected]

MEDIA KITS

Direct your media kit requests to Serena Barnes,[email protected]

REPRINTS

For single article reprints (in minimum quantities of

250-500), e-prints, plaques and posters contact:

PARS International

Phone: (212) 221-9595

Email: [email protected]

Web: magreprints.com/QuickQuote.asp

LIST RENTALS

This publication’s subscriber list, as well as other lists

from 1105 Media, Inc., is available for rental. For more

information, please contact our list manager, Merit

Direct. Phone: (914) 368-1000


Web: meritdirect.com/1105

SUBSCRIPTIONS

We will respond to all customer service inquiries within

48 hours.


Mail: Defense Systems

PO Box 2166

Skokie, IL 60076

Phone: (866) 293-3194 or (847) 763-9560

REACHING THE STAFF

A list of staff e-mail addresses and phone numbers

can be found online at DefenseSystems.com.

CORPORATE OFFICE

Weekdays 8:30 a.m.–5:30 p.m. PST

Telephone (818) 814-5200; fax (818) 936-0496

9201 Oakdale Avenue, Suite 101

Chatsworth, CA 91311

Chief Operating Officer and

Public Sector Media Group President

Henry Allain

Co-President and Chief Content Officer

Anne A. Armstrong

Chief Revenue Officer

Dan LaBianca

Chief Marketing Officer

Carmel McDonagh

Advertising and Sales

Chief Revenue Officer Dan LaBianca

Senior Sales Director, Events Stacy Money

Director of Sales David Tucker

Senior Sales Account Executive Jean Dellarobba

Media Consultants Ted Chase, Bill Cooper, Matt Lally,

Mary Martin, Mary Keenan

Event Sponsorships Alyce Morrison,

Kharry Wolinsky

Art Staff

Vice President, Art and Brand Design Scott Shultz

Creative Director Jeffrey Langkau

Associate Creative Director Scott Rovin

Senior Art Director Deirdre Hoffman

Art Director Joshua Gould

Art Director Michele Singh

Assistant Art Director Dragutin Cvijanovic

Senior Graphic Designer Alan Tao

Graphic Designer Erin Horlacher

Senior Web Designer Martin Peace

Print Production Staff

Director, Print Production David Seymour

Print Production Coordinator Lee Alexander

Online/Digital Media (Technical)

Vice President, Digital Strategy Becky Nagel

Senior Site Administrator Shane Lee

Site Administrator Biswarup Bhattacharjee Senior Front-End Developer Rodrigo Munoz

Junior Front-End Developer Anya Smolinski

Executive Producer, New Media Michael Domingo

Site Associate James Bowling

Lead Services

Vice President, Lead Services Michele Imgrund

Senior Director, Audience Development & Data

Procurement Annette Levee

Director, Custom Assets & Client Services Mallory Bundy

Editorial Director Ed Zintel

Project Manager, Client Services Jake Szlenker, Michele

Long

Project Coordinator, Client Services Olivia Urizar

Manager, Lead Generation Marketing Andrew Spangler

Coordinators, Lead Generation Marketing Naija Bryant,

Jason Pickup, Amber Stephens

Marketing

Chief Marketing Officer Carmel McDonagh

Vice President, Marketing Emily JacobsDirector, Custom Events Nicole Szabo

Audience Development Manager Becky Fenton

Senior Director, Audience Development & Data

Procurement Annette Levee

Custom Editorial Director John Monroe

Senior Manager, Marketing Christopher Morales

Manager, Audience Development Tracy Kerley

Senior Coordinator Casey Stankus

FederalSoup and Washington Technology

General Manager Kristi Dougherty

OTHER PSMG BRANDS

Defense Systems

Editor-in-Chief Kevin McCaney

GCN

Editor-in-Chief Troy K. Schneider

Executive Editor Susan MillerPrint Managing Editor Terri J. Huck

Senior Editor Paul McCloskey

Reporter/Producers Derek Major, Amanda Ziadeh

Washington Technology

Editor-in-Chief Nick Wakeman

Senior Staff Writer Mark Hoover

Federal Soup

Managing Editors Phil Piemonte,

Sherkiya Wedgeworth

THE Journal

Editor-in-Chief Christopher Piehler

Campus Technology

Executive Editor Rhea Kelly

Chief Executive Officer

Rajeev Kapur

Chief Operating Officer

Henry Allain

Senior Vice President &

Chief Financial Officer

Richard Vitale

Executive Vice President

Michael J. Valenti

Vice President, Information Technology

& Application Development

Erik A. Lindgren

Chairman of the Board

Jeffrey S. Klein

Editor-In-Chief

Kevin McCaney

Contributing Writers George Leopold,

Mark Pomerleau, Greg Slabodkin, Terry Costlow,

David. C. Walsh

Vice President, Art and Brand Design

Scott Shultz

Creative Director Jeff Langkau

Assistant Art Director Dragutin Cvijanovic

Senior Web Designer Martin Peace

Director, Print Production David Seymour

Print Production Coordinator Lee Alexander

Chief Revenue Officer Dan LaBianca

http://defensesystems.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:ejacobs%401105media.com?subject=mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://defensesystems.com/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:ejacobs%401105media.com?subject=


5/36

EDUCATION TRACKS INCLUDE:

• Achieve Mission Outcomes

• Strengthen Enterprise Management

SESSION TOPICS WILL INCLUDE:

• Agile

• Security and Privacy

• Business Analytics

• Big Data

• Role of the Chief Data Officer

… just to name a few!

Attendees will receive an official certificate of

attendance and CEUs for participating at this

highly anticipated event.

WORKSHOPS: OCTOBER 5

CONFERENCE: OCTOBER 6–

7WASHINGTON, DCWALTER E. WASHINGTON CONVENTION CENTER

FREEfor government

personnel through

August 25!

PRODUCED BY

13TH ANNUAL

EA TODAY: MAKING THE MISSION POSSIBLE

THE 13TH ANNUAL ENTERPRISE

ARCHITECTURE EVENT IS THE PREMIER

educational forum for enterprise architects and

project managers to convene and learn from expert

practitioners in EA on the latest methods, frameworksand policies impacting the EA community.

Reserve Your Seat Today —Register Before August 25 for Best Savings!

GovEAconference.comUSE PRIORITY CODE: EAE15

PRESENTING SPONSORS

How? Find Out at the Enterprise Architecture Conference!

EVENT SPONSORS PARTNERING MEDIA

http://goveaconference.com/http://goveaconference.com/http://goveaconference.com/http://goveaconference.com/http://goveaconference.com/http://goveaconference.com/http://goveaconference.com/


6/36

ForwardObserver

6 JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com

Trash talking

One Air Force base’s trash has turned out to be a treasure for

streamlining communications between ground forces and drone

operators, thanks to a young sensor operator’s innovation. The

“Frankenphone”—so dubbed because it is made up materials slated

for scrap—solved stove-piped communications problem that kept UAVpilots’ radio communications and the phone lines to joint terminal

attack controllers separate. Frankenphone, built by Staff Sgt. Marion

at Creech Air Force Base, Nev., ties the phone line directly into the

pilot’s headset intercom, which keeps the pilots’ hands free while

keeping entire aircrew in the loop. “While the design is simple, what

the Frankenphone does for the Air Force is nothing short of incredible,”

said Gen. Herbert J. Carlisle, the commander of Air Combat Command.

Hawkingfor NATO

NATO and Northrop Grumman

have unveiled the first of

five planned Alliance Ground

Surveillance (AGS) aircraft,

which are intended to expand

ISR capability for NATO and

allied forces. The AGS is a high-

altitude, long-range unmanned

system based on the U.S. Global

Hawk Block 40 aircraft. It will

be integrated into a broader

system-of-systems approach

to support NATO missions

such as protection of ground

troops and civilian populations,

border control, maritime safety,

anti-terrorism activities and

humanitarian assistance in

natural disasters.

http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/


7/36


Bandwidth booster

The Navy’s high-powered new satellite communications

system now covers about three-quarters of the globe, after

the third of four planned satellites recently completed on-orbit

testing and was accepted into service by the Navy. The Mobile

User Objective System satellite, MUOS-3 (seen here being

prepared for launch), made by Lockheed Martin, was launched

Jan. 20 and has moved to its on-orbit operational slot. MUOS

provides secure, high-speed, IP-based voice, video and

mission data, and delivers a 16-fold increase in transmission

throughput over the current Ultra High Frequency satellite

system. The first two satellites in the system were launched

in 2012 and 2013. A fourth is set for launch later this year to

complete the constellation.



8/36

ForwardObserver


Becoming

one with acomputerCan you control a computer

with your thoughts? The Army

Research Lab and university

researchers are working on

it, using an EEG-based based

brain-computer interface, or

BCI, to meld the mind withsoftware. It’s a long way

off, but it could transform

applications ranging from

medical treatments to how

soldiers communicate on the

battlefield.

The pulse of future weaponsThe Air Force Research Laboratory and Boeing have been

working on an electromagnetic pulse weapon for several

years, with the goal of using high-powered microwaves to

take out electronics and computer systems without the death

and destruction that comes with conventional weapons.

Now that system, CHAMP, for Counter-electronics High-

powered Microwave Advanced Missile Project, reportedly

is mature and is being miniaturized to fit the Joint Air-

to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM-ER), which ARL has

determined is CHAMP’s optimal vehicle.



9/36

Cyber Pearl Harbor? Nah.

EDITOR’S DISPATCH

B Y K E V I N M c C A N E Y

The hack of the Office of Personnel Management thatcompromised records of as many as 18 million current and

former federal employees roiled the cyber waters around

Washington, with some security experts and GOP critics of the

administration raising the specter of a familiar Internet fear: a “cyber

Pearl Harbor.”

As shorthand for the idea of a major, damaging, retaliation-worthy

cyberattack, the phrase works pretty well. But how likely is it?

On the one hand, in a Pew Research Center report released last

fall, 61 percent of the 1,642 technology experts canvassed said that

by 2025 a major cyberattack will cause “widespread harm,” including

loss of life and/or property lost/damaged/stolen to the tune of tensof billions of dollars. On the other hand, 39 percent of those experts

thought the idea was hooey, telling Pew that many security fears

are trumped up by companies that profit from protecting against

threats. (It’s also worth noting that the percentages might not mean

much, since this was an opt-in process, rather than a randomized,

representative survey; Pew chose the word “canvass” deliberately.)

There’s no doubt that the Internet is a risky place, as the recent

spate of cyberattacks against government and industry—variously

attributed to Russia, China, North Korea and others—show. In

addition to personal data and intellectual property, there are threats

to an increasingly connected infrastructure and the Internet of Things.

Infrastructure, in fact, was a big concern for the 61 percent in Pew’s

report.

The threats are real—and the Pentagon has said that a significant

cyberattack could be seen as an act of war. But how likely are they to

rise to that level? Some experts are skeptical. Eric Gartzke, writing in

a 2013 issue of International Security, called a cyber Pearl Harbor—

and for that matter, cyberwar itself—a “myth,” saying that, unless it

accompanies an actual physical war, there’s little benefit to taking the

time and expense of mounting a truly large-scale, damaging attack.

Others have agreed.

And cyber weapons are hard. Take Stuxnet, the reportedly U.S./

Israeli-developed malware designed to disrupt Iran’s uranium

processing. Called the first weaponized malware, it took years and

millions of dollars to develop and deploy and, although technically

successful, it only put a crimp in Iran’s nuclear program, without

causing any real long-term damage. A reported attempt to set a

Stuxnet relative loose in North Korea failed.

In the world where technology is always changing and improving,

you never want to say never. But for now at least, the real online

threat isn’t a cyber Pearl Harbor but the thousand cuts of constant

hacks and breaches. And as OPM could attest, that’s bad enough.


Shedding light on

space junkThe Naval Research Lab has received a

patent for it Optical Orbital Debris Spotter,

a small, low-power, low-cost local system

that can help better track the growing

amount of debris in space, some of which

is pretty tiny. NRL said the sensor creates a

continuous light sheet by using a collimated

light source, such as a low-power laser, and

a conic mirror. Any particles, even those as

small as 0.01 centimeters, crossing into the

permanently illuminated light sheet scatter

the light. The spotter can then gather data

about the particles that can be added to

modeling software to help increase the

understanding of space debris.



10/36


OwningWith NGEN, Navytakes control of the network,vowing not to repeat the

pitfalls of NMCIBY GREG SLABODKIN

IT


11/36


W

hen the $8.8 billion Navy Marine Corps Intranet

(NMCI) contract was awarded to EDS—now a di-

vision of HP—in 2000, the military service touted

the undertaking to provide a single, secure, enterprise-widenetwork as the world’s largest corporate intranet, second in

size only to the Internet itself.

NMCI consolidated literally thousands of Navy and Ma-

rine Corps computer networks into a single, managed service

with a standardized, end-to-end, shore-based I capabil-

ity for voice, video and data communications connecting

more than 700,000 users utilizing more than 300,000 “seats”

(desktops/laptops). However, given its sheer scale, NMCI was

plagued with problems from the start.

echnical and logistical challenges led to delays in the

fielding of the network, which resulted in big financial

losses for EDS. And results of NMCI user surveys at thetime repeatedly showed widespread frustration with the

network, which was described as unstable and slow,

among other sometimes more colorful adjectives.

Critics questioned the Navy’s reasoning for adopt-

ing a fully outsourced model that essentially handed

over its entire I infrastructure to EDS as a con-tractor-owned network. When the NMCI contract

ended in 2010 and a new Continuity of Services

Contract (CoSC) began, the service wasn’t about to

repeat its past mistakes. Tough the Navy retained

the same scope of services with Hewlett-Pack-

ard in the CoSC contract, the network became a government-

owned, contractor-supported, managed service during the

migration to the next phase of the massive intranet, known as

Next Generation Enterprise Network (NGEN).

NEW APPROACHA $3.5 billion contract awarded in 2013 to incumbent HP to

transition I services from NMCI to NGEN was completed

in September 2014—three months ahead of schedule. While

NGEN provides all of the same services that are available un-

der NMCI, the Navy’s acquisition approach was quite differ-

ent in the evolution of the Department of Navy’s shore-based

enterprise network.

Because NGEN is a government-owned network, the

Navy believes it has greater visibility into its enterprise

services and is better able to manage costs than was possi-ble with NMCI, along with providing for more flexible and

adaptable I network services. Capt. Mi-

chael Abreu, program manager for

the Naval Enterprise Networks

Program Management Office,

calls NGEN’s “government-

owned, contractor-operated”

model unique in the de-

fense community and the

reason for its success to

date.

Students from the Center for

Information Dominance work

on the Navy’s network.


12/36

“We obviously went off and bought

the intellectual property and the infra-

structure of the network for a reason—

in order to help our network operator

exercise full command and control ofthe network itself,” Abreu said. “Tere

are very big advantages that come with

that. We have that control and the

ability to make decisions as to how to

provision the network effectively over

time. Te network operator has the

ability to maneuver that network in a

more holistic and faster manner than

in the past.”

Abreu boasts that his program of-

fice is “the largest and only enterprise

I services program of record” in theDefense Department, and that NGEN’s

contracting competition will save tax-

payers more than $1 billion over the

2014-2019 Future Year Defense Pro-

gram in how the Navy is acquiring

these services. According to Abreu,the Navy is spending $20 million per

month less than what it was paying

previously under NMCI due to com-

petitive pricing. Government owner-

ship is a different operating environ-

ment and acquisition model, he said,acknowledging that the Navy is learn-

ing as it goes.

Denby Starling, a retired Navy vice

admiral and HP vice president, said

his company has been working closely

with the Navy—through various con-

tracts—on the network for nearly 15

years. “It’s a model that’s evolved just

like technology has evolved,” Starling

said. “Back in the early 2000s when

the Navy first decided to outsource its

‘back in business’ I infrastructure,

it was quite the industry standard at

the time. But, as the Navy has moved

forward, they have evaluated what

they need to hang onto as core busi-

ness.” Starling added that HP has been

“working very hard to make sure they

have that level of visibility and flex-

ibility that they need as opposed to the

early days when it was largely just adelivered service.”

STRENGTH IN CONTINUITYTough it has not been without its chal-

lenges “as any large enterprise approach

can be,” Abreu said the NGEN contract

with HP is going well and that the pro-

gram has made significant progress

since the transition from NMCI was

completed last September. Abreu said

he believes that the fact that HP was the

prime contractor for NMCI and is the

vendor for NGEN has enabled the Navy

to complete the transition sooner than

the service had planned.

“Tis is about the Navy having much

more insight end-to-end on the whole

network, from acquisition to engineer-

ing to operations,” said Starling. “We’ve

transitioned from a model where essen-

tially HP did all of that on behalf of thegovernment to a model where HP does

all of that in response to the govern-

ment. In the end, we have to have pro-

cesses where we’re working side-by-side

with the government where things that

we just did for them in the past now in

most places actually there is a govern-

ment overseer and/or decision maker

that gives the Navy a much better abil-

ity to operate and improve/modernize

their product.”

o successfully achieve operationalcontrol across a large information

technology enterprise like NGEN, the

Navy turned to I Service Management

(ISM), a discipline for managing I

systems based on industry best prac-

tices.

“What’s important about the newmodel is that we’re working on it un-

der an ISM construct which we really

didn’t have in place fully prior to this,”

said Abreu. “Te evolution of the net-

“The evolution of the network …is moving towards industry bestpractices, so we have governmentroles and contractor roles clearlydefined.” –CAPT. MICHAEL ABREU, NAVY


NGEN

Along with the Navy, the

Marines took back control of

their IT systems with NGEN.



13/36


work and the management o the net-

work is moving towards industry best

practices, so we have government roles

and contractor roles clearly defined and

we have processes that we’re putting in

place to manage the network in an e-

ective way. We’re still learning in that

regard.”

According to Abreu, the Navy contin-

ues to implement a technology rereshand modernization plan that “looksacross the network to optimize and up-

grade the inrastructure equipment on a

regular basis.” Key near-term milestones

include transitioning to Microsof’s

Windows 10 operating as well as testing

and certification o a new browser set.

“Upgrading to the next OS on the

network is a non-trivial affair or a large

number o users, as is ensuring that we

stay on pace with offering browsers that

allow applications to work effectively

and enable the Navy to leverage the

capabilities that the Internet brings,”

Abreu said.

STREAMLINING SERVICEWhen it comes to mobility, NGEN is

migrating rom BlackBerry to Apple

and Android mobile devices to better

reflect product offerings in the com-mercial market. Currently, 700 iPhones

are in use in the network with the ul-

timate goal o more than 25,000 autho-

rized smartphone users deployed by the

end o the year.

Network and data center consolida-

tion remain priorities or NGEN as

the service looks to gain efficiencies,

including planning how the Navy will

adopt cloud computing. Tirty-three

NMCI data centers are being consoli-

dated down to 15 data centers with the

ultimate goal o 10 data centers.

As ar as Navy’s cloud strategy, it re-

mains a work in progress with a num-

ber o cloud-based pilots underway.“We need to do a business case analysis

to understand where we can gain value

add rom the cloud,” said Abreu. “We

have a lot to learn here on that ront to

understand what the cloud means to us

and whether or not those services will

be cost-effective, more secure, scalable,

and ensure that the user continues toget what they need out o the network.”

Abreu said cybersecurity is the big-

gest challenge conronting NGEN. “Se-

curity is our top priority,” he said. “Wehave to continue to improve our ability

to protect our systems, applications and

data. I’m not going to get into specifics

obviously, but we are continuing to put

tools and processes in place to achieve

that level o cybersecurity that our net-

work operator needs to in order to de-

end the network properly.”

NGEN is aligning with DOD’s Joint

Regional Security Stacks (JRSS) e-

ort to consolidate its security posture

across its inrastructure, giving adver-saries less surace area to attack, and

will “start transition planning behind

that JRSS security boundary in FY18,”

said Abreu. “O course, there’s a lot o

work that has to be done between now

and then to ensure that we understand

the capabilities that it will bring and to

make sure that we don’t do any harm

to our network, which we worked long

and hard to build deensive and internal

perimeters around to secure.”

“We’re continuously working on im-proving our cybersecurity posture, with

more than 15 projects underway this

year and more planned or next year,”

he concluded. “Te threat continues to

evolve and we’ve got to do everything

we can to stay ahead o the threat. Tat’s

the only way we’re going to be able to

succeed in the long term when aced

with a variety o enemies that want to

get our data and disrupt our systems

and networks.” n

700,000Number of users on NMCI

$3.5billionSize of the 2013 contract awarded to HP to

transition IT services from NMCI to NGEN

3monthsThe time by which the transition wascompleted ahead of schedule

$20millionThe amount the Navy says it is paying less per

month for services under NGEN

BY THE NUMBERS



14/36

BY MARK POMERLEAU

Military deterrence efforts are

as old as battle tactics. From

troop build-ups to increasedarmaments to robust strategies on highly

advanced warfare such as nuclear arms,

military strategists and commanders have

intently studied the art of deterring adver-

saries.

But deterrence in cyberspace is a differ-

ent game. With the proliferation of tech-

nology, the Internet and greater connec-

tivity, malicious actors in cyberspace are

able to operate much more freely than in

the physical world. Te number of cyber-

attacks on both government and commer-cial networks is growing, and established

practices for protecting those networks

could be falling short. Former director of

the National Security Agency Keith Al-exander, in a keynote address earlier this

year at the American Enterprise Institute

said flatly, “I’d say our defense isn’t work-

ing.” Citing cyberattacks from Iran, China,

Russia and North Korea, Alexander told

the audience that “if everybody’s getting

hacked… industry and government… the

strategy that we’re working on is flawed.”

So is deterrence an option? Can the type

of military deterrence policies that have

worked in the physical world be applied

to cyberspace? It’s an issue military leadersare starting to focus on.

As Scott Jasper, retired Navy captain and

a lecturer at the Center for Civil-Military

Relations and the National Security Affairs

Department at the Naval Postgraduate

School, wrote in a recent essay for Strate-

gic Studies Quarterly (PDF), “Te aim of

deterrence is to create disincentives for

hostile action and normally involves two

components: deterrence by punishment

(the threat of retaliation) and deterrence

by denial (the ability to prevent benefit).

Some notable scholars have suggested a

complementary third component: deter-

rence by entanglement (mutual interests)

that encourages responsible behavior ofactors based on economic and political

relationships.”

In an attempt to outline the Defense

Department’s framework and strategicinterests in cyber deterrence at a Senate

Armed Services Subcommittee hearing,

Eric Rosenbach, principal cyber advisor to

the Secretary of Defense, described deter-

rence policy as a “[w]hole-of-government

cyber strategy to deter attacks. Tis strat-

egy depends on the totality of U.S. actions

to include declared deterrent policy, over-all defensive posture, effective response

procedures, indication and warning capa-

bilities, and the resilience of U.S. networks

and systems.”

In addition to DOD’s three missions for

cyberspace—defending DOD networks,

defending U.S. networks overall against

significant attacks and providing full-

spectrum cyber support for military op-

erations—Rosenbach outlined three roles

the Defense Department can play within


CYBER WAR:

As breaches mount, the military debates the

merits of a Cold War defense

Candeterrence

work?

“The U.S. is a glasshouse when

it comes to cyber.”— ERIC ROSENBACH, DOD CYBER

ADVISOR



15/36


the whole-of-government approach. “We

need to develop the capabilities to deny a

potential attack from achieving its desired

effect,” he said. “Second, the U.S. must

increase the cost of executing a cyberat-

tack, and this is where DOD must be able

to provide the president with options to

respond to cyberattacks on the U.S., if re-

quired through cyber and other means…

And finally, we have to ensure that we areresilient, so if there is an attack that we canbounce back.”

STRIKING BACK?Jasper in his essay noted that current

deterrence strategies, specifically those

involving retaliation, are compounded by

the fact that attributing a cyberattack to

its source is difficult given that Internet

routing can allow bad actors to conceal

their identity and give them plausible de-

niability. Rosenbach also addressed this

concern, saying that the government must

reduce anonymity in cyberspace so that

“adversaries who attack us don’t think that

they can get away with it.”

Given the anonymity in cyberspace,

typical military deterrence policies must

be tweaked and tailored to the specific

threat. For example, Rosenbach said, the

U.S. government’s response to a cyberat-tack might not be retaliation in the cy-

ber realm. “[S]omething I would like to

emphasize is, although it’s a cyberattack,

we don’t think about the response purely

through cyber lens; it would be all the tools

of foreign policy and military options,” he

told lawmakers. One example is the eco-

nomic sanctions imposed on North Korea

for the Sony hack.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of de-

terrence depends on the attacker. Certain

state actors are can be deterred more than

others, while criminal, non-state actors

are the most difficult to deter, he said. “I

would say [adversaries] probably do view

it as low risk when it comes to exploitation

and trying to steal data,” Rosenbach said.

“I would say it’s considerably higher risk if

they were to conduct a destructive attack

against a DOD network – the deterrence

level there is much higher and I think theysee that as higher risk, which is what we

go for.”

NO NUCLEAR OPTIONIn terms of the overall efforts at of cyber

deterrence, Jasper wrote: “Te concept

of deterrence is still hotly debated in the

cyber community, because, for instance,

traditional nuclear deterrence relies on

an adversary having knowledge of the

destruction that will result from transgres-

sions, which is not possible in cyber be-cause the secrecy of weapons is necessary

to preserve their effectiveness.”

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), during the

same subcommittee hearing where

Rosenbach spoke, suggested that kind

of Cold War approach, saying that cyber

threats to critical to critical infrastructure

could deter nation states, “just like the [in-

tercontinental ballistic missiles] of years

ago – mutual assured destruction.” But

Rosenbach said that the notion of a com-

parable nuclear deterrent and cyber deter-rent strategy is unfounded. “[]he analogy

with nuclear part is not that strong,” he

said.

Rosenbach said the biggest challenge in

cyber deterrence and response efforts is a

balance between “making sure we deter

enough that the attack doesn’t come butwe don’t escalate things to the point that

bring more attacks upon ourselves,” he

stated. “Te U.S. is a glass house when it

comes to cyber.” n

“If everybody’s getting hacked…the strategy that we’re working

on is flawed.” –KEITH ALEXANDER, FORMER NSA DIRECTOR

A DOD graphic depicts integrated,

cyber, electronic and conventional

warfare.



16/36

UAS&ROBOT I C S

BY MARK POMERLEAU

A group o resourceul Air Force

intelligence experts are being

recognized or taking existing

technology and developing a Web-based

system that makes collaboration on un-

manned aircraf operations a lot easier orair, ground and intelligence users.

Te team will receive the U.S. Geospa-

tial Intelligence Foundation Achievement

Award or their work in developing the

Surveillance Intelligence Reconnaissance

Inormation System, or SIRIS. Requiring

only a Web browser and access to Google

Earth, SIRIS revamps the way in which

remotely piloted aircraf – the Air Force’s

preerred term or drones – crews share

inormation, including imagery, ull-mo-

tion video, mission planning files, aircraflocations, sensor points o interest, signals

intelligence and weather.

Young airman and pilots were restrict-

ed by existing platorms and technologies

because they “did not permit a shared

intelligence picture, limiting the ability to

collaborate with each other,” Col. Frances

Deutch, Ph.D., the Intelligence Innova-

tion Programs director, said in an Air

Force news release.

“We chose a Web-based solution that

does not require a costly retrofit o theplatorm, and we created rapid, sustain-

able innovations that were non-compart-

mentalized,” said Stephen Coffey, an RPA

subject matter expert at the Air Force’s ISR

Innovations Directorate.

Air Force researchers enhanced SIRIS’

capability by expanding its Internet Coor-

dinate Extractor, or ICE, program, which

can monitor several chat rooms at once

and plots valuable inormation on Google

Earth or crews. Tis eature saves not

only money but lives, Coffey said, because

“ICE allowed us to ocus on Google Earth

in the moment, so instead o looking at six

computer displays, I’d look at one.” RPA

crews, with the advent o the ICE con-

cept, could receive visual threat warningsright on their map displays as opposed to

scouring chat rooms or intelligence – a

first o its kind occurrence.

Experts and researchers have larger

plans or RPAs other than providing ISR

(intelligence, surveillance, reconnais-

sance) and close air support, especially

as threat awareness and threat detection

continue to emerge in more sustainable

platorms. “We’re trying to get the user in

ront o the technology, then they can tell

us in a more succinct and specific mannerwhat inormation they need,” Coffey said.

Te SIRIS program was also used do-

mestically to help first responders combat

orest fires in Yosemite National Park in

Caliornia, relaying images collected by

the Caliornia National Guard’s Predator

drones to local fire fighters. Te SIRIS

program assisted in imagery, video and

collaboration with teams responding to

the incident.

Also worth noting, according to re-

ports by the Air Force imes, the initial

Air Force release indicated that this par-

ticular application was adjusted ollowing

the shoot-down o a Predator belonging

to European Command in Syria as part

o Operation Inherent Resolve. Te ac-knowledgement by the Air Force in the

release that the Predator was shot down in

the Syrian border town o Latakia, likely

by Syrian orces but it is still unclear, was

the first time the military publically stated

the aircraf was shot down. Te Air Force

imes also discovered that ollowing its

initial report, the Air Force actually re-

moved language reerencing the March

incident involving EUCOM’s Predator

drone.

“Applying technology without the skillcraf … had atrophied or us, since RPAs

had not been shot at or 20 years… ime

was not our riend in this particular case,

so it’s important that we had an early

adoption o the technology,” the report

quoted Coffey as saying in the initial Air

Force release. “Te March shoot-down

was among the first times remotely pi-

loted aircraf had been shot at,” the report

stated, relying again on Coffey’s com-

ments in the initial release. n

Air Force team develops

RPA collaboration systemThe Web-bases SIRIS revamps the way crews work together


SIRIS was used to help

coordinate the response

to a 2013 wildfire at

Yosemite National Park.



17/36

DefenseSystems.com/events

Providing public sector IT

decision makers with real-worldstrategies and tech tactics to

support government, agency

and corporate operations.

These events are FREE and

located in the Washington, DC

area.

For event sponsorship information, contact: Alyce MorrisonEvent Sponsorship Consultant 703.645.7873

[email protected]

Face-to-FaceEvent Series

UPCOMINGEVENTS

Cybersecurity: CDM

AUGUST 19

DOD: Joint

Information

Environment

SEPTEMBER 23

Cybersecurity

OCTOBER 27

Big Data

DECEMBER 2

http://defensesystems.com/eventsmailto:[email protected]://defensesystems.com/eventshttp://defensesystems.com/eventshttp://defensesystems.com/eventshttp://defensesystems.com/eventsmailto:[email protected]


18/36

UAS&ROBOT I C S

BY MARK POMERLEAU

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus ex-

pressed rustration recently over

the delays with the Navy’s car-

rier-based unmanned aircraf program,

saying the debate over how the aircraf

will be used is hindering its development.

Te Unmanned Carrier-Launched Air-

borne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS)program, on which the Navy plans to

spend $3 billion by 2020, is being held up

by a debate with Congress over whether

its role would be primarily intelligence,

intelligence, surveillance and reconnais-

sance (ISR) with limited strike capabili-

ties, or primarily strike with limited ISR,

according to a recent Government Ac-

countability Office report.

Some in Congress, such as Senate

Armed Services Chairman John McCain

(R-Ariz.), want to emphasize strike, whilethe Navy has leaned toward ISR, with Ma-

bus saying UCLASS is part o a more in-

cremental approach toward autonomous

systems with deep strike capability.

Meanwhile, UCLASS’ development

languishes.

“We’ve had [a request or proposal]…

ready to go or a year and a hal/two years

now, and it’s been held up because o a

look at overall ISR systems,” Mabus said

at an event at the American Enterprise

Institute. “I don’t know i the Navy sees

UCLASS as ISR … Tat’s certainly one

role, but it’s got a lot more roles … One o

the reasons we’d like to go ahead and get

the RFP out, is that we’d like to find out

what’s available out there in industry.”

Mabus said UCLASS would have strike

capabilities but operate in less contested

areas and would serve as a bridge to ully

autonomous systems capable o strike,

which he expects sometime in the 2020s.

GAO, in its report, said UCLASS current-

ly stands to be ready or early operational

capacity in 2022, two years later than

planned. n

Mabus: delays are holding back UCLASSWhile Congress debates, the carrier-based drone program languishes


BY DEFENSE SYSTEMS STAFF

The Air Force is looking to develop

low-cost UAS that could operate

in difficult environments and es-

sentially be expendable. Te service is

soliciting technology that would allow

or long-range, high-speed unmanned

aircraf with strike capability but with

a price tag lower than what it pays or

its current fleet. Te solicitation says it

wants the UAS or operations “where

orward basing is difficult or prohibited.”Te Air Force notes that aircraf costs

are rising, driven by a ocus on peror-

mance, reliability and durability. o date,

the military has acquired UAS—such as

the MQ-9 Reaper, which costs about $13

million each—with long liecycles, just as

it does with manned aircraf. Te service

wants to look into trading off some o

those attributes in avor o lowering the

cost, so that “loss o aircraf could be tol-

erated.” Te Air Force suggests that low-

ering the bar on its usual requirementscould lead to innovations in design, and

allow or the use o commercial technol-

ogies and manuacturing techniques that

could cut costs.

At the moment, the Air Force said it is

willing to spend about $7.45 million or

a 30 month effort to “design, develop, as-

semble, and test a technical baseline or a

high speed, long range, low cost, limited

lie strike UAS,” although the program is

flexible. n

Next for the Air Force: Expendable drones?

Navy Secretary

Ray Mabus



19/36

Downloadthe tablet

app today!

DefenseSystemsHasGone

Mobile.

GO TO:DEFENSESYSTEMS.COM/TABLET

http://defensesystems.com/TABLEThttp://defensesystems.com/TABLEThttp://defensesystems.com/TABLEThttp://defensesystems.com/TABLEThttp://defensesystems.com/TABLEThttp://defensesystems.com/TABLEThttp://defensesystems.com/TABLEThttp://defensesystems.com/TABLEThttp://defensesystems.com/TABLET


20/36

BY KEVIN McCANEY

T

he Army has received the go-

ahead to take the second incre-

ment of its high-speed battle-

field communications network intofull-rate production. Te Undersecre-

tary of Defense for Acquisition, ech-

nology and Logistics issued a memo-randum authorizing the next stages for

the Warfighter Information Network

– actical (WIN-) Increment 2, con-

tractor General Dynamics said.

WIN- is the Army’s effort to

eventually extend a command-and-

control view—including voice, data

and imagery—down to the squad level.

Increment 1 of WIN- takes com-

munications to the battalion level, in

at-the-halt environments such as a for-

ward deployed base. Increment 2 puts

it on-the-go at the company level, with

equipment mounted on vehicles suchas Mine Resistant Ambush Protected

vehicles, High Mobility Multi-purpose

Wheeled Vehicles and Strykers.

Increment 3, which will take high-

bandwidth communications further out

to soldiers the field while adding an air

tier, is being developed and tested un-

der a $475 million contract awarded in

November 2013 to General Dynamics.

Currently, Increment 2 has been de-

ployed at four division headquarters

and 12 brigade combat teams have.

General Dynamics said. It has been

used in Afghanistan to replace fixed

communications infrastructure that

was removed when U.S. forces closed

their bases there, and last year pro- vided the communications backbone

in West Africa during the international

response to the Ebola epidemic.

WIN- is a priority for the Army.

Despite an overall decline in recent

Defense Department spending, a DOD

report in March, which compared

spending between December 2013 and

December 2014, noted that the Army’s

spending on WIN- had jumped by

36.2 percent.

Army taking tacticalnetwork to the next stageWIN-T Increment 2 is going to full-rate production


Vehicle-mounted Increment 2

equipment brings the network to

the company level.



21/36

Working on expanding the tacti-

cal network also includes reducing

the complexity o network operations

and more nodes are added. And as the

Army eventually gets to Increment 3,

the equipment used or the first two

increments will stay in operation at

the battalion and company levels, re-

spectively. Te Army recently awarded

General Dynamics a $36 million con-

tract or maintenance and repair o

Increment 1 equipment. n

WINS can locate a soldier on a map

when GPS signals are unavailable

BY KEVIN McCANEY

Army researchers are developing

a pocket-size device that willgive soldiers precise geoloca-

tion inormation even when GPS sig-

nals are unavailable.

Te Warfighter Integrated Navigation

System (WINS), being developed at the

Communications Electronics

Research Development and En-

gineering Center, uses a variety

o sensors to track a soldier’s

movement rom a last known

location, recording ootsteps,

speed, time, altitude and otheractors to show the soldier’s lo-

cation on a map.

“It’s got a number o inertial

sensors, such as a pedometer

and an accelerometer, things

you will find on your cell phone

but o a higher quality,” Osie

David, a CERDEC researcher,

said in a statement. “Even i the

enemy is denying you GPS or the ter-

rain is, you can still get known location

on here so it will show up on your NettWarrior device or your command and

control system.”

Finding alternatives to GPS is a ocus

or the Deense Department precisely

or those times when Global Position-

ing Systems signals don’t get through,

whether because o terrain such as

dense orests or jungles, or enemy in-

tererence. GPS signals can be jammed

even with low-powered devices or

spooed by stronger signals.

Or both. In 2011, Iranian engineers

jammed the GPS signal or an U.S. RQ-

170 Sentinel drone, then spooed its co-

ordinates to make it land in Iran insteado its base in Aghanistan. University o

exas students also have demonstrated

using spoofing to take control o un-

manned aircraf and even an 80-oot

yacht.

Te military doesn’t expect that it ever

will do without GPS—it’s still the most

accurate and ar-reaching geolocationsystem ever created and likely will re-

main so or the oreseeable uture. But

in addition to hardening GPS signals

against jamming and other electronic

warare attacks, researchers are work-

ing on alternatives or those times when

GPS service is blocked. Te Deense

Advanced Research Projects Agency, or

example, has been developing chip-scale

inertial measurement units that use

chip-scale atomic clocks or navigation.

U.K. researchers are working on a sensor

system that scans the environment and

cross-reerences that inormation with

a database o the terrain and structuresin an area. Maritime officials also are

considering an updated, digital version

o the Loran (Long Range Navigation)

system used to guide ships in World War

two but was eventually made obsolete by

GPS.

Like the DARPA and U.K.

projects, WINS would rely on

an initial GPS signal or a start-

ing point, as well as or a cor-

rective signal i it’s used or too

long, because its accuracy willdecrease over time. It will, how-

ever, display its error range so

the user knows when he or she

is looking at a rough estimate.

“It’s still better than having no

GPS at all,” David said.

Even i its accuracy is short-

term, WINS could provide a

vital link when necessary, such

as in a jungle, David said. “I’m navigat-

ing around and I lose the GPS because

with the triple-canopy jungle, the GPScan’t penetrate that,” he said. “I don’t

know where I am on the map, so I’m in a

bad situation. I I want to know exactly

where I am so I can call or reinorce-

ments or resupply, WINS is going to

give me my location on a map, no mat-

ter where I am.”

Although still in development, David

said he expects WINS or a subsequent

device built on WINS technology, will

someday be fielded. n

Device can track soldiers without GPS


WINS, at center, uses inertial sensors to

determine location.



22/36

BY MARK POMERLEAU

T

he Army has been building up itscyber workorce, but once those

soldiers are in the door they

still have to be trained. In order to helpspeed up the process, the service’s Com-

munications Electronic Command, or

CECOM, is launching a new training

range dedicated to cyber operations.

Te Cyber Battle Ground is expected

to be open to all units in late 2015, the

Army said.

Te range, whose creation was

prompted by a request rom the 7th

Cyber Protection Brigade, or CPB,

will provide soldiers with a re-

alistic environment or testingskills learned and reinorced in

a classroom setting. “Te range

is designed to reinorce learning

and build confidence in what

leadership acknowledges is an

agile skill set that will need to be

continuously honed in concert

with the ever-increasingly com-

plex challenges o cybersecurity,”

said Michael Martinez, training

support division branch chie or

CECOM’s field support director-ate. “o date, we’ve had at least

100 7th CPB soldiers take advan-

tage o it.”

Te cyber range is intended

to reduce the time and costs o

training cyber warriors, while

providing repeatable processes,

access to enterprise tools and

some services not available else-

where. “CECOM can also develop

configurations to support multiple

environments/configurations through

the cyber range and has incorporated

real world Cyber Actor/Cyber Treat

characterization, dynamic threat actor/

agent capability into training,” the re-

lease stated.Several experts and military officials

have lauded the importance o addi-

tional training and greater “cyber hy-

giene” as a means o protecting against

threats and mounting a ormidable

deense (which also translates into the

civilian government and commercial

realm as well).

“So when you look at cyber, where

are the weakest links in the chain across

our entire cyber domain?,” Adm. Paul

Zukunf, commandant o the Coast

Guard, said during a recent speech at

the Center or Strategic and Interna-

tional Studies. “And that’s a bit challeng-

ing or us to be able to determine withabsolute certainty that we know where

every one o those weak links are. Rec-

ognizing that the biggest weak links are

the many operators that we have in that

cyber domain that don’t exercise good

cyber hygiene.”

According to the Deense Depart-

ment’s most recent cyber strategy, re-

leased in April, the entire Cyber Mis-

sion Force eventually will comprise

Army giving cyber warriorsa training range of their own

CYBERDEFENSE

Soldiers at work in a cyber control center; the Army is hoping to train cyber

operators more quickly.


The Cyber Battle Ground will be open to all units later this year



23/36

BY MARK POMERLEAU

Two key words in defining a uni-

fied national cyber deense are“operational” and “interoperable.”

More than 100 organizations rom gov-

ernment, academia, industry and the in-

ternational community recently worked

on developing those aspects during the

ourth annual Cyber Guard exercise,

rom June 8 to June 26. Te large-scale

exercise ocused on building a whole-o-

nation approach to deending networks,

protecting inrastructure and sharing in-

ormation across established lines.

“Cyber Guard is designed to exercisethe interace between the Department o

Deense — the active and Reserve and

Guard components — that are ocused

on the cyber mission, and to partner

with other elements o the U.S. govern-

ment as well as state and local authori-

ties,” U.S. Cyber Command Commander

Navy Adm. Michael S. Rogers said in a

statement.

“Te greatest challenge in this exercise

is, how do we build those partnerships

between organizations that don’t nec-essarily have a common background,

a common verbiage, a common set o

terms, so how are we going to harness

the power o governmental capacity to

include our own department in deend-

ing critical inrastructure in the private

sector o the United States,” Rogers said.

Te exercise took place at a Joint Staff

J7 acility in Suffolk, Va., which was de-

signed to support a wide range o mili-

tary tests and exercises.

Participants included the Homeland

Security Department, FBI, Federal Avia-

tion Administration, members o the U.S.

Cyber Command, Northern Command,Strategic Command, National Guard

teams rom 16 states, service component

commands rom each branch’s cyber

teams, reserve personnel rom Army,

Navy, Marines and Air Force, private

industry partners rom the financial and

energy sectors and three private industry

inormation sharing and analysis cen-

ters, among others.

Cyber Guard had three phases, eachcovering numerous support exercises.

Phase 1 involved state and ederal support

or private, municipal and state owned

critical inrastructure in accordance with

the National Response Framework — a

guide to how the nation responds to all

types o disasters and emergencies — as

well as deense support to civil authori-

ties; Phase 2 tested deense support to

ederal agencies, and Phase 3 ocused on

training and certification o DOD cyber

teams and joint cyber headquarters ele-

ments the act sheet stated.

Other scenarios included training

on the industrial control systems (ICS)commonly ound in critical inra-

structure acilities, as well as hands-onexercises in classified network environ-

ments similar to DOD and non-DOD

networks, with blue teams deending

riendly networks rom simulated at-

tacks rom red teams.

Te addition this year o the private

sector, coordinated with DHS, repre-

sents a shif rom a whole-o-govern-

ment approach to a whole-o-nation

approach to cybersecurity and response,according to the act sheet. Tat mirrors

legislation recently proposed in Con-

gress to provide legal protections and

saeguards to members o the private

sector that share cyber threat inorma-

tion with the government — something

Rogers has said is the thing he wants

most rom Congress. Some, however,

have been critical o such proposals as

“surveillance by another name.”

Te renewed desire to partner with

the private sector comes rom not onlyan intelligence and situational awareness

perspective, but inrastructure owner-

ship as well. “Most critical inrastructure

in the United States, particularly in the

inormation technology area, is owned

by the private sector,” said Coast Guard

Rear Adm. Kevin Lunday, U.S. Cyber

Command’s director o training and ex-

ercises. “So we rely on them, particularly

when we are responding to a major in-

cident or attack on the private sector.” n

Exercise tests a whole-of-nation approach

cyber operators organized into 133

teams with a variety o mission sets

and goals, such as Cyber Protection

Forces to augment traditional deen-sive measures and deend priority

DOD networks and systems, National

Mission Forces to deend the United

States and its interests against cyberat-

tacks o significant consequence, and

Combat Mission Forces to support

combatant commands by generatingintegrated cyberspace effects in sup-

port o operational plans and contin-

gency operations to name a ew.

CECOM, headquartered at Aberdeen

Proving Ground, Md., says its aim is to

“develop, provide, integrate and sustain

the logistics and readiness o C4ISR sys-tems and mission command capabilities

or joint, interagency and multi-nation-

al orces worldwide.” n


Service members and civilians take

part in Cyber Guard in Suffolk, Va.



24/36

Report also recommends abandoning piecemeal approach

BY GEORGE LEOPOLD

Among the emerging compo-

nents of the Defense Innovation

Initiative launched late last year

is a concerted push to develop directed-

energy weapons, including high-energy

lasers and high-power microwaves.As a number of test platforms are

fielded, including land- and sea-based

platforms like the anti-drone laser the

Navy deployed in the Persian Gulf last

year, military planners are attempting

to move beyond high-profile failures of

the past, most notably high-energy la-

sers for missile defense.

According to a recent study on di-

rect-energy weapons by the Center for

a New American Security, “despite re-

source levels that are inadequate to fullyexploit the potential of directed-energy

weapons, there is substantial and grow-

ing evidence that laser and microwave

weapon systems are finally coming of

age for battlefield use.”

One reason for optimism about in-

tegrating such weapons into ground,

air and naval forces is that current pro-

grams are more modest that the overly

ambitious “Star Wars” missile defense

efforts of the 1980s. Te think tank con-

cluded that directed energy programscould be used in mission applications

ranging from defending ships and

bases against certain forms of attack to

combating identification and counter-

electronic missions.

Te Air Force has not ruled out la-

ser weapons as a possible counterspace

weapon to defend its satellite constella-

tions. Based on the fear of creating new

debris fields in space—space junk that

could knock out critical infrastructure

on Earth—analysts think laser technol-

ogies that could blind but not destroy

satellites are a likely focus of Air Force

development.

Meanwhile, the pace of development

is quickening. For example, the Defense

Advanced Research Projects Agencyannounced in May that the High-En-

ergy Liquid Laser Area Defense System

would move from laboratory develop-

ment into Air Force field-testing. And

the Army’s High Energy Laser mobile

demonstrator is advancing to live-fire

tests.

Te security study listed a number

of features that would speed the de-

ployment of directed-energy weapons,

among the ability to operate at high- or

low-power output and at multiple fre-

quencies. Te authors also recommend

compact, energy-efficient systems with

modular designs that could be applies

to a variety of platforms.

Before such systems can be fielded,

the report argues, DOD needs a depart-mentwide strategic plan for directed-

energy weapons. It noted that the Navy

has developed but not yet released a

directed-energy roadmap. Meanwhile,

Army and Air Force labs have demon-

strated prototype capabilities. Tose

efforts must be merged, the study rec-

ommended: “DOD must develop and

promulgate cross-service approaches

to [directed-energy] weapons develop-

ment.”

Study: DOD needs to field

laser weapons ASAP

The Army’s High Energy Laser mobile demonstrator is moving into

live-fire tests.

TECH




25/36

Te report also recommends that

DOD replace its current “laissez-faire

developmental approach” in which

“communities of interest” within the

Office of the Secretary of Defense pur-

sue directed-energy development on a

piecemeal basis.

Along with funding development,

a directed energy effort should target

“low-hanging fruit” to get demonstra-

tion projects into the field as quickly

as possible. Te Navy’s Laser Weapon

System deployed aboard the USS Ponce

last year is “at the head of the queue,” the

study noted. n

It will be a lot easier to set up and tear down

BY KEVIN McCANEY

A

n Army command post is a

lot like a data center—a cen-

tral hub for the information,images and communications that go

into military operations. And like data

centers, they can be unwieldy, cluttered

with all kinds of hardware, the transit

cases, wires, cables and more

wires and cables.

For a mobile Army that

is steadily pushing its com-

mand-and-control view

out to soldiers in the field,

managing a command post,

which could take a platoonof soldiers a whole day to set

up, could be a drag on opera-

tions. But that is changing, as

new technologies and a bet-

ter acquisition approach help

create a lighter, faster and

more efficient central hub.

Te Army recently detailed

how it’s increasing command post ca-

pabilities while reducing SWaP (size,

weight and power) requirements, in

many ways with technologies that arefamiliar to everyday users on the street.

Te future command post will be light-

er to ship, more quickly set up and torn

down, and more efficient to use. Here

are the basic elements.

SECURE WIRELESSIf you want to unclutter a workspace,

one of the first things to do is get rid of

wires. Tat was easier said than done

for the Army, for whom secure trans-

missions are paramount, until a collab-

orative effort produced secure 4G LE/

Wi-Fi for use in the field. Te National

Security Agency, Special OperationsCommand, Joint Staff and Nett Warrior

program office worked to develop and

implement an NSA encryption system,

called Commercial Solutions for Classi-

fied. Adding what the Army only called

a “special sauce” made it fit for use on

military networks.

Not only does it get rid of wires, italso frees commanders and staff from

their workstations, allowing them to

work with classified information from

smartphones and tablets without the

extra baggage of encryption hardware.

SWAPING OUTOne of the key technologies the Army is

using to lighten the command post load

is virtualization. Virtualizing applica-

tions eliminates hardware appliances

such as call managers and security and

bandwidth management tools.

A microgrid power generation sys-

tem called Intelligent Power also man-ages power use, preventing overloads

through rebalancing and has cut fuel

consumption by 25 to 40 percent and

the number of required generators from

18 to four. Te Army also has

adapted the transmissions in

some of its vehicles so that

they could produce enough

electrical power for use within

a vehicle or even a small com-

mand post.

THE WORLD WIDE WEBTe Army is ready to deploy

the Web-based Command

Post Computing Environ-

ment, or CP CE, which will

eliminate the multiple work-

stations that had them swivel-

ing and rolling from point to

point in a chair, pulling data from one

system and manually entering it into

another.

CP CE provides an integrated envi-ronment designed to let commanders

and soldiers use one system to share

data, imagery and warfighting services

ranging from logistics, intelligence and

airspace management to fires and ma-

neuvers. Te system, Version 1 of which

is ready for fielding, will simplify the

computing backend and give users one

system to start up rather than many. It

also means that soldiers will only have

to train on one system. n

The elements of the next-generationcommand post

Secure wireless and a Web-based environment will

simplify command posts.




26/36

Strategy also calls for supporting anytime/anywhere access


The Deense Inormation Systems

Agency has released a new five-

year strategic plan that ocuses

on supporting the Pentagon’s Joint In-

ormation Environment and cyberspace

operations while cutting back on dupli-cative systems.

Te plan or 2015-2020, released

June 16, also calls or streamlining its

networks, taking advantage o commer-

cial technology and supporting mobile

computing to guarantee authorized

personnel anytime/anywhere access to

Deense Department networks.

Release o the document is likely the

last major act o DISA Director Lt. Gen.

Ronnie Hawkins, who is set to step

down and be replaced by DISA’s Vice

Director Maj. Gen. Alan Lynn.

In the plan, Hawkins, who has been

DISA’s director since 2012, said DISA

will “be aggressive in our pursuit o effi-

ciency and effectiveness, and no longer

support the operations o legacy and

costly applications without senior lead-

ership’s approval and direction.”Among the goals laid out in the plan

is development o the Joint Inormation

Headquarters or DOD Inormation

Networks, a new office set up earlier

this year that also alls under the pur-

view o the DISA director. Te JIE, an

integrated architecture intended to ac-

commodate all o the military services

as well as other DOD components and

coalition partners, “remains the cor-

nerstone o the Department’s uture,”

the plan states. DISA, as one o its key

goals, plans to continue to deploy the

Joint Regional Security Stacks that

serve as the cybersecurity oundation

o JIE.

Along those lines, the plan also puts

a heavy ocus on cybersecurity. “We are

first and oremost” DOD’s cyberspace

I combat support agency, Hawkinswrites. DISA will continue to support

development o the cyber workorce,

while working with the Intelligence

Community and industry in developing

countermeasures to the range o threats.

A key to DOD’s networking plans and

anytime/anywhere access is cloud com-

puting. Te plan says that both internal

and commercials clouds will be part o

a “global elastic inrastructure” that will

also incorporate collaboration tools and

mobile computing. n

DISA’s 5-year plan stresses

joint environment, cyber operations



The Navy may have removed Win-

dows XP rom the Navy-MarineCorps Intranet, but obviously

that doesn’t mean there aren’t still pock-

ets o XP around the service.And some pretty big pockets at that,

as the Space and Naval Warare Systems

Command recently awarded Microsof

a $9.1 million contract to continue the

company’s Premier and Custom support

services or 100,000 workstations still

running XP, Office 2003, Exchange 2003

and Server 2003. Te contract is or ser-

vices through July 12, 2016, but includes

options that, i exercised, would contin-

ue support until June 2017 and bring the

total tab to $30.8 million.

Microsof quit selling XP in 2010 and

ended its regular, ree support or XP

and the 2003 iterations o Office and

Exchange in April 2014, as it encour-

aged users and organizations to move tonewer versions. Support or Server 2003

is due to end July 14. But the company

does offer continued support—which

includes security and other upgrades—

or a price, and XP still has plenty o

users.

Earlier this year, Net Applications

said XP, the first version o which was

released August 2001, still accounts oralmost 17 percent o desktop operating

systems worldwide. Another website

analyst, StatCounter, said the number

was more like 11 percent. Either way,

that covers a lot o computers, including,

or example, about 10,000 at the Labor

Department, some 35 percent o users at

the British National Health Services—and 100,000 workstations in the Navy.

Te Navy began moving away rom

XP in 2013 and plans eventually to

adopt Windows 10, which is set to be

released July 29. In the meantime, it has

to provide protections or systems that

haven’t been upgraded, hence the deal

with Microsof. On the bright side, $9.1

million or 100,000 computers works

out to $91 per machine, which at least

costs less than a new OS or each one. n

It lives! Navy still paying for XP support



27/36

Debate rages over how to best protect satellite systems

BY GEORGE LEOPOLD

A debate is raging among U.S.

policy wonks over how best to

prevent a “space Pearl Harbor.”

Tose concerns have grown in recent

years with light-saber-rattling between

the U.S. and China over a debris-gener-

ating Chinese anti-satellite (ASA) test

in 2007, along with growing tensions

between Moscow and Washington.

Some even worry that increased “coun-

terspace testing” in the form of kineticASA tests, jamming and the use of

lasers to blind satellite optics couldeventually leave low Earth orbit un-

usable.

Te U.S. National Security Space

Strategy highlights the fact that

“space is increasingly congested.

Growing global space activity and

testing of China’s destructive anti-

satellite system have increased con-

gestion in important areas in space.

“Te debate over space deterrence

is playing out in space policy jour-

nals in which analysts have argued

back and forth over whether the

current U.S military space strategy

requires an overhaul. Meanwhile,

experts are fearful that U.S. space

assets like military communications

satellites are especially vulnerable

to asymmetric warfare. Indeed, the

U.S. military is far more reliant on

space systems than Russia or China,a reality some policy makers assert

China is attempting to exploit.

As U.S. counterspace strategy

evolves, experts are debating wheth-

er traditional space deterrence

should evolve along with growing

threats. Proposed revisions to the

U.S military space strategy have

argued for a layered approach to

deterring space attacks. Recommen-

dations submitted to the Defense

Department in 2014 by the EisenhowerCenter for Space and Defense Stud-

ies outlined a series of escalating steps

aimed at blunting asymmetric attacks

on U.S. space assets.

Te proposed layered defenses in-

clude: diplomacy and enforcement of

international norms; military and com-

mercial alliances; resilience, or demon-strating the ability to withstand a space

attack; and, finally, retaliation.

Retaliation would include a “dem-

onstrated ability of the United Statesto deliver unacceptable damage even if

confronted with a broad spectrum of

attacks against its space assets as wellas those available to its allies and the

commercial sector,” Ambassador Roger

G. Harrison and retired Lt. Col. Deron

Jackson of the Eisenhower Center wrote

in the journal Te Space Review. Har-

rison and Jackson, respectively the

former and current directors of the

Eisenhower Center, were responding to

criticism of the think tank’s space deter-

rence proposals.

Christopher Stone, a space policy

analyst, argued that the layered de-fense approach leaves U.S. space assets

vulnerable in an asymmetric conflict.

China followed its 2007 test with

additional kinetic ASA tests along

with “lasing of satellites and an ap-parent new norm of nation-state

behavior in space via the tripling of

reversible counterspace attacks such

as jamming and other means of in-

terference,” Stone asserted.

In response, Harrison and Jack-

son acknowledged: “An enemy thatcan put the United States off balance

through an attack on space sys-

tems, but is not equally dependent

on space systems to coordinate its

own military operations, will be on

its way to victory while American

strategists are looking to assess the

effects of retaliation against the en-

emy’s space assets.”

Stone argues that military plan-

ners must design “future architec-

tures and strategies for space se-curity so that we are better able to

tailor our deterrence strategy to the

adversaries we might face, and are

already facing….”

o some extent, the Air Force

has begun doing just that with the

planned launched of maneuverable

communications satellites and in-

creased testing of laser weapons thatcould be used as part of an overall

counterspace strategy. n

Analysts: space risk is growing

Analysts stress the need to protect

satellites such as the Wideband Global

SATCOM spacecraft.




28/36

BY MARK POMERLEAU

T

he Army has developed amethod for improved battlefield

communication without the

need for satellites. Vehicle-mounted,high-bandwidth networking radios

that use line-of-sight communication

waveforms link soldiers at the com-

pany level with battalion and brigade

commands, providing ground-level

connectivity.

Mid-tier networking vehicular ra-

dios, or MNVRs, allow for rapid ex-

change of voice messages, images and

video with commanders.

“MNVR meets the need of getting

data down to the soldiers,” Lt. Col.Stephen Dail, communications officer

for the 2nd Brigade Combat eam, 1st

Armored Division, said in an Army an-

nouncement. “Te fact that you have

the ability to push data back out from

locations in the field and graphically

get that information back to higher

headquarters—who has the expertise

to examine it and potentially get in-

formation back to the Soldiers while

they’re still on the ground so they can

react—is a game changer.”Te MNVR underwent limited user

tests at the recent Network Integra-

tion Evaluation to ensure it is ready to

be deployed as part of the Army’s next

network capability set. MNVR test-

ing at NIE involved mounting it onto

Strykers, Mine-Resistant, Ambush-

Protected vehicles and High-Mobility,

Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, the

Army said.

Te Army wants to ensure that the

MNVR is capable of handling a wide

range of environments. “We are cur-

rently completing a tropic field experi-

ment in Panama, where the radios will

be subjected to high temperatures,

humidity and fungus to see how wellthey perform in these conditions,” said

Eric Goodman, product manager for

MNVR. “While this is not a pass-fail

event, we will use the information to set

a base line for future evaluations.”

One of the draws for the MNVR is its

independence from satellites to provide

ground-level connectivity. Te system

uses Wideband Networking Waveform

and Soldier Radio Waveform operating

as a node to hop from one MNVR to

another until it reaches its destination

the Army release stated.

“By using these waveforms to linklower-echelon digital radios, like the

Rifleman and Manpack, to Warfighter

Information Network-actical, alsoknown as WIN-, the MNVR provides

a significant tactical advantage for Sol-

diers. Since the MNVR is integrated

into Army tactical vehicles, it ensures

wireless communications and network-

ing services for both mobile and statio-

nery forces,” according to the release.

Additional testing measured the

MNVR’s ability to integrate with other

communication systems and radios

such as the WIN-. n

High-bandwidth battlefield radiodoesn’t need satellites

M BILE

A soldier operates the MNVR during a test at Fort Huachuca, Ariz.

Vehicle-mounted system a ‘game changer’ for tactical comm




29/36

engineeredfor you

@ the sourceJoin us August 3 – 7, 2015 for TechMentor 2015:

Datacenter Edition, focused entirely on making your datacenter

more modern, capable, and manageable through 5 days of

immediately usable IT education.

event sponsor:

microsoft headquarters,redmond, wa

august 3 - 7, 2015

the agendafeatures:

75-minute topic overview

breakout sessions

3 hour content-rich deep dives

"Hands on" labs with yourown laptop

content areasinclude:

Windows PowerShell

Infrastructure Foundations

Runbook Automation

Configuration andService Management

Datacenter Provisioningand Deployment

gold sponsors: supported by:

produced by:

platinum sponsor:

save$

400

defense systems - july-august

Documents