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/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
4/36
4
JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com
SALES CONTACTINFORMATION
MEDIA CONSULTANTS
Ted Chase
Media Consultant, DC, MD, VA,
OH, Southeast
(703) 944-2188
Bill Cooper
Media Consultant, Midwest, CA, WA, OR
(650) 961-1760
Matt Lally
Media Consultant, Northeast
(973) 600-2749
Mary MartinMedia Consultant, DC, MD, VA
(703) 222-2977
EVENT SPONSORSHIP CONSULTANTS
Stacy Money
(415) 444-6933
Alyce Morrison
(703) 645-7873
Kharry Wolinsky
(703) 300-8525
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
Email: [email protected]
Web: meritdirect.com/1105
SUBSCRIPTIONS
We will respond to all customer service inquiries within
48 hours.
Email: [email protected]
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=
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
7/36
DefenseSystems.com | JULY/AUGUST 2015 7
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.
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
8/36
ForwardObserver
8 JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com
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.
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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.
DefenseSystems.com | JULY/AUGUST 2015 9
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.
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
10/36
10 JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com
OwningWith NGEN, Navytakes control of the network,vowing not to repeat the
pitfalls of NMCIBY GREG SLABODKIN
IT
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
11/36
DefenseSystems.com | JULY/AUGUST 2015 11
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.
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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
12 JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com
NGEN
Along with the Navy, the
Marines took back control of
their IT systems with NGEN.
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
13/36
DefenseSystems.com | JULY/AUGUST 2015 13
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
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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
14 JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com
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
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
15/36
DefenseSystems.com | JULY/AUGUST 2015 15
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.
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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
16 JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com
SIRIS was used to help
coordinate the response
to a 2013 wildfire at
Yosemite National Park.
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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
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]
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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
18 JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com
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
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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
20 JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com
Vehicle-mounted Increment 2
equipment brings the network to
the company level.
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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
DefenseSystems.com | JULY/AUGUST 2015 21
WINS, at center, uses inertial sensors to
determine location.
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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.
22 JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com
The Cyber Battle Ground will be open to all units later this year
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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
DefenseSystems.com | JULY/AUGUST 2015 23
Service members and civilians take
part in Cyber Guard in Suffolk, Va.
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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
24 JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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.
DefenseSystems.com | JULY/AUGUST 2015 25
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
26/36
Strategy also calls for supporting anytime/anywhere access
BY DEFENSE SYSTEMS STAFF
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
26 JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com
BY DEFENSE SYSTEMS STAFF
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
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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.
DefenseSystems.com | JULY/AUGUST 2015 27
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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
28 JULY/AUGUST 2015 | DefenseSystems.com
http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/http://defensesystems.com/
8/18/2019 Defense Systems - July-August
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