AOC ADVOCACY: EW Working Group Hosts EW/EMSO Educational Briefing Series for Congress
Print this Article | Send to Colleague
As the 115th Congress gets underway, there are many uncertainties about the FY 2017 and FY 2018 defense budgets, legislative priorities and regulatory pathways. What we can expect is that electromagnetic spectrum (EMS)-related issues will garner a great deal of attention in Congress, from investment in Third Offset Technologies to defense acquisition reform to Spectrum management and telecommunications. AOC will again have an opportunity to inform and influence policy on a wide range from fronts.
To help prepare Congress for these considerations, the AOC worked in cooperation with Electronic Warfare Working Group (EWWG) and the Directed Energy (DE) Caucus to convene a series of educational briefings throughout February to provide congressional staff the fundamentals of EW, DE, and EMSO under the broader context of the Third Offset Strategy. The goal of the briefing series, which will be an annual offering, was to provide Members of Congress and staff a shared starting point to dive deeper into the range of EMS-related issues throughout the year.
The series started with the Fundamentals of the Electromagnetic Spectrum in Defense by AOC’s own Jesse "Judge" Bourque. He covered the principles of electromagnetic energy, electronic warfare, and EMS operations. Judge stated that the EMS is the one physical maneuver space shared by all with boundless and complex responsibilities, vulnerabilities and opportunities. He also discussed the competing models of Spectrum use between civilian/commercial and the military. There are fundamental differences in how we think about the EMS - our assumptions, goals and tactics - depending on the sector we are coming from. With regard to EW, a key point was that anyone operating in the Spectrum "against enemy wishes" was doing some form of EW. Too often, leaders and stakeholders think too narrowly in terms of what EW brings to the fight
Judge then provided an introduction to EMSO stating that the one that controls access to the Spectrum that we all share can control the entire fight. According the Joint Publication 6-01, EMSO is defined as those "activities consisting of electronic warfare, and join EM spectrum management operations used to exploit, attack, protect, and manage the electromagnetic operating environment to achieve the commander’s objective." He noted that the Defense Department’s (DoD) pursuit of EMSO will drive and normalize changes in organization, development, acquisition and capability. He concluded with five key points for Congress to keep in mind: (1) there is a growing DoD discussion and interest in EMSO; (2) the expert cadre for Joint EMSO is diminishing; (3) combat power requires coherent EMS acquisition; (4) there is an urgent need for realistic training for complex EMSO missions, and (5) there needs to be a "problem owner" for the EMS as a warfighting domain.
Mark Gunzinger, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) followed with an overview of Directed Energy Weapons. Mr. Gunzinger’s key point was that DE weapons can help enable new concepts for offensive and defensive operations. But, while we have decades of experimentation and demonstrations in DE, there are no operational high-power DE weapons in DoD’s inventory. In fact, CSBA assessments concluded that funding, not technology, may now be the more significant barrier to fielding DE weapons. Thus, there are still challenges to overcome. Specifically, progress is needed on reducing size, weight, power, and cooling requirements for DE weapons. Mr. Gunzinger also notes that there is a tendency to wait for the perfect technical solution. Additional effects testing, modeling and simulation, and assessments in stressing scenarios would help demonstrate the value of DE weapons relative to kinetic options such as rail guns and power guns capable of launching Hyper Velocity Projectiles (HVPs).
Next, Bryan Clark, also a Senior Fellow at CSBA, provided an update on the Third Offset Strategy and the future of EW. He discussed the need for new strategic approaches to counter improving capabilities and revisionist objectives of China and Russia. In the future, US forces will not be able to respond after aggression like it did in Iraq or Kosovo. They will need to fight from "inside the threat ring." The purpose of the Third Offset Strategy is establish and exploit enduring US advantages in order to project power despite adversary A2/AD capabilities. Additionally, the new strategy should (1) harness new CONOPS to leverage legacy capabilities; (2) impose costs on rivals; (3) leverage alliances; and (4) emphasize deterrence by denial and punishment.
Mr. Clark continued by discussing that emerging EMS warfare technology must be networked, agile and maneuverable, multifunction, smaller and less expensive, and shift from simply automated to cognitive. Yet, considerable challenges remain including an out-dated acquisition system, existing CONOPs that limit innovation and, as is especially the case with DE, new technology is maturing but not being fielded. In response to these challenges, Mr. Clark briefed that the EW EXCOMM is driving change and the release of the new DoD EW Strategy is starting the shift in the right direction. Most importantly, the EW Strategy treats the EMS as a domain and calls for DoD to (1) organize to maintain EMS superiority; (2) train and educate in EW competencies; (3) equip force with agile, adaptive, and integrated EW capabilities; and (4) build and maintain partnerships between academia, international partners, and the defense industrial base.
John Knowles, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Electronic Defense (JED) concluded the briefing series by providing industry perspectives on the Third Offset Strategy. John began by discussing how DoD has mismanaged EW over the past 75 years. Due to a heavy dependance on Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) programs, DoD has conducted EW via a crisis paradigm, which leads to an unbalanced DOTMLPF-P perspective that weighs materiel too heavily. QRCs are supposed to be "tweaks" to existing systems, but for EW, QRCs have been responsible for whole new systems. This has an extremely adverse effect on EW supply chains, wastes money, and creates long timelines to field urgently needed EW equipment. Furthermore, QRCs create difficult sustainment plans for EW systems because of the transition from QRC to programs of record. In the end, DoD often is unhappy with its EW solution, but EW systems manufacturers struggle with the rollercoaster funding and lose EW component companies to more reliable markets.
Fortunately, there is significant progress in transitioning to a new paradigm. New EW and EMS policy, leadership, and organization is providing a better platform for DoD to manage EW. These advances will affect the EW industrial base in positive ways but two overarching challenges exist: (1) shifting operational landscapes requires new EW technology; and (2) shifting acquisition landscape requires a new business model. DoD is asking industry to assume more cost and risk to develop next generation EW technology and live with fewer guarantees in procurement and sustainment phases. Increased competition means the path to profitability may be narrower and less certain. This will affect industrial base participation at all levels. In response, industry needs to know more about the new EMS CONOPS. They also need more interface with the operational community, including more emphasis on field demonstrations and exercises to better understand operational innovations.
The EWWG briefing series lays the necessary groundwork for other briefing modules throughout the year that are necessary to dive deeper into policy considerations. The AOC will continue to work with the EWWG to refine this series and offer it on an annual basis to ensure that Congress has the latest knowledge and resources available to them. If you have any questions or would like additional information on the briefing series, please contact Ken Miller, AOC Director of Government and Industry Affairs, at kmiller@crows.org.
To help prepare Congress for these considerations, the AOC worked in cooperation with Electronic Warfare Working Group (EWWG) and the Directed Energy (DE) Caucus to convene a series of educational briefings throughout February to provide congressional staff the fundamentals of EW, DE, and EMSO under the broader context of the Third Offset Strategy. The goal of the briefing series, which will be an annual offering, was to provide Members of Congress and staff a shared starting point to dive deeper into the range of EMS-related issues throughout the year.
The series started with the Fundamentals of the Electromagnetic Spectrum in Defense by AOC’s own Jesse "Judge" Bourque. He covered the principles of electromagnetic energy, electronic warfare, and EMS operations. Judge stated that the EMS is the one physical maneuver space shared by all with boundless and complex responsibilities, vulnerabilities and opportunities. He also discussed the competing models of Spectrum use between civilian/commercial and the military. There are fundamental differences in how we think about the EMS - our assumptions, goals and tactics - depending on the sector we are coming from. With regard to EW, a key point was that anyone operating in the Spectrum "against enemy wishes" was doing some form of EW. Too often, leaders and stakeholders think too narrowly in terms of what EW brings to the fight
Judge then provided an introduction to EMSO stating that the one that controls access to the Spectrum that we all share can control the entire fight. According the Joint Publication 6-01, EMSO is defined as those "activities consisting of electronic warfare, and join EM spectrum management operations used to exploit, attack, protect, and manage the electromagnetic operating environment to achieve the commander’s objective." He noted that the Defense Department’s (DoD) pursuit of EMSO will drive and normalize changes in organization, development, acquisition and capability. He concluded with five key points for Congress to keep in mind: (1) there is a growing DoD discussion and interest in EMSO; (2) the expert cadre for Joint EMSO is diminishing; (3) combat power requires coherent EMS acquisition; (4) there is an urgent need for realistic training for complex EMSO missions, and (5) there needs to be a "problem owner" for the EMS as a warfighting domain.
Mark Gunzinger, a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) followed with an overview of Directed Energy Weapons. Mr. Gunzinger’s key point was that DE weapons can help enable new concepts for offensive and defensive operations. But, while we have decades of experimentation and demonstrations in DE, there are no operational high-power DE weapons in DoD’s inventory. In fact, CSBA assessments concluded that funding, not technology, may now be the more significant barrier to fielding DE weapons. Thus, there are still challenges to overcome. Specifically, progress is needed on reducing size, weight, power, and cooling requirements for DE weapons. Mr. Gunzinger also notes that there is a tendency to wait for the perfect technical solution. Additional effects testing, modeling and simulation, and assessments in stressing scenarios would help demonstrate the value of DE weapons relative to kinetic options such as rail guns and power guns capable of launching Hyper Velocity Projectiles (HVPs).
Next, Bryan Clark, also a Senior Fellow at CSBA, provided an update on the Third Offset Strategy and the future of EW. He discussed the need for new strategic approaches to counter improving capabilities and revisionist objectives of China and Russia. In the future, US forces will not be able to respond after aggression like it did in Iraq or Kosovo. They will need to fight from "inside the threat ring." The purpose of the Third Offset Strategy is establish and exploit enduring US advantages in order to project power despite adversary A2/AD capabilities. Additionally, the new strategy should (1) harness new CONOPS to leverage legacy capabilities; (2) impose costs on rivals; (3) leverage alliances; and (4) emphasize deterrence by denial and punishment.
Mr. Clark continued by discussing that emerging EMS warfare technology must be networked, agile and maneuverable, multifunction, smaller and less expensive, and shift from simply automated to cognitive. Yet, considerable challenges remain including an out-dated acquisition system, existing CONOPs that limit innovation and, as is especially the case with DE, new technology is maturing but not being fielded. In response to these challenges, Mr. Clark briefed that the EW EXCOMM is driving change and the release of the new DoD EW Strategy is starting the shift in the right direction. Most importantly, the EW Strategy treats the EMS as a domain and calls for DoD to (1) organize to maintain EMS superiority; (2) train and educate in EW competencies; (3) equip force with agile, adaptive, and integrated EW capabilities; and (4) build and maintain partnerships between academia, international partners, and the defense industrial base.
John Knowles, Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Electronic Defense (JED) concluded the briefing series by providing industry perspectives on the Third Offset Strategy. John began by discussing how DoD has mismanaged EW over the past 75 years. Due to a heavy dependance on Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) programs, DoD has conducted EW via a crisis paradigm, which leads to an unbalanced DOTMLPF-P perspective that weighs materiel too heavily. QRCs are supposed to be "tweaks" to existing systems, but for EW, QRCs have been responsible for whole new systems. This has an extremely adverse effect on EW supply chains, wastes money, and creates long timelines to field urgently needed EW equipment. Furthermore, QRCs create difficult sustainment plans for EW systems because of the transition from QRC to programs of record. In the end, DoD often is unhappy with its EW solution, but EW systems manufacturers struggle with the rollercoaster funding and lose EW component companies to more reliable markets.
Fortunately, there is significant progress in transitioning to a new paradigm. New EW and EMS policy, leadership, and organization is providing a better platform for DoD to manage EW. These advances will affect the EW industrial base in positive ways but two overarching challenges exist: (1) shifting operational landscapes requires new EW technology; and (2) shifting acquisition landscape requires a new business model. DoD is asking industry to assume more cost and risk to develop next generation EW technology and live with fewer guarantees in procurement and sustainment phases. Increased competition means the path to profitability may be narrower and less certain. This will affect industrial base participation at all levels. In response, industry needs to know more about the new EMS CONOPS. They also need more interface with the operational community, including more emphasis on field demonstrations and exercises to better understand operational innovations.
The EWWG briefing series lays the necessary groundwork for other briefing modules throughout the year that are necessary to dive deeper into policy considerations. The AOC will continue to work with the EWWG to refine this series and offer it on an annual basis to ensure that Congress has the latest knowledge and resources available to them. If you have any questions or would like additional information on the briefing series, please contact Ken Miller, AOC Director of Government and Industry Affairs, at kmiller@crows.org.
