Friday, November 22, 2013

CNO on Electronic Warfare

So establishing a better awareness (of the electronic environment), is number one. 

Two, we have got to be more agile, and I kind of mentioned that. We’ve got to be agile in our systems, but we’ve got to be agile in our own operations, in our ability to move around this and understand it. That gets to, that’s strike packages, that’s using our radars, that’s building the radars that can use different frequencies and get out of frequencies when we should and invest in them right off the bat. 

It’s really putting cyber teams together that can be more agile. (VADM) Mike Rogers has done a fantastic job up at 10th Fleet/Fleet CyberCom, doing that. In fact he is leading the way in the overall CyberCom arena in that regard. And we’ve got to evolve this paradigm that I just kind of mentioned to you, how we are going to approach things in the future. If they say hey, so and so just developed a new missile. A lot of times the question is can we shoot it down? The real question I think should be can we jam it, spoof it, avoid it? Can we detect it? And then similarly, whenever we’re designing a new missile, a lot of people want to say bigger warhead, bigger boost. I would say what’s the [seeker] like? What can it do in a turn? How can it avoid things? It’s an entire change to that kill chain approach. 

You can read his extemporaneous talk with the Association of Old Crows HERE.

Submariners are not typically the Navy's experts in EW so give the CNO some latitude here.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

From 3-13 for the CNO -

“There is much more to electronic warfare than simply detecting enemy transmissions.”

Martin Van Creveld

The Navy should have kept its EWs. Merging them with CTTs diminished both groups. Actually eliminated one and greatly diminished the other.