Tuesday, August 5, 2008

"Today what I'd like to do is focus squarely on two topics which are the core of this proponent's

mission. One is understanding cyberelectronics that is -- it is evolving in our thinking, and two, appreciating the current state of our development efforts, particularly on the electronic warfare front," said Col. Wayne Parks, director of Computer Network Operations-Electronic Warfare Proponent and TRADOC capabilities manager for Electronic Warfare Integration at the Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

Col. Parks spoke with bloggers today on a DoD Bloggers Roundtable and discussed the current and future roles of cyber-electronic warfare in combat operations.

Joining us on the call were Grim, www.blackfive.net; Richard Lowry, www.marinesinthegardenofeden.com; Colin Clark, www.dodbuzz.com; and Andrew Lubin, www.getthegouge.com.

1 comment:

Grouchy said...


Having attended the AOC (Association of Old Crows) convention last year, and listened to a quite illustrious body of experts in EW/IO, including the Dir. of the ONR, and etc.; and having seen a sampling of the EW ('cyber') systems and platforms being developed, as well as hearing a wish list from each of the service branches... a number of things struck me that I think are worth considering from a command perspective.

1. There isn't a well thought out DEW engagement doctrine. All the big suppliers are developing kinetic DEW platforms without really understanding how their system will interact with the various other missions that fall under the EW/IO umbrella. Obviously this problem has reared its head enough times , between navcom interference, navcom handset failure, problems with legacy port access for some GIG elements, and so forth.

A DEW and "cybersphere" doctrine, including priority rankings for systems jockeying for overlapping support infrastructure, band allocation, and funds, would greatly aid this process. As it stands now, every supplier and PM considers THEIR pet program to have priority, and the development labs are badly in need of control and discipline.

2. The reason there's a problem with clear definition of EW/IO concepts is largely due to the fact that the DoD is bidding out 'fundamental physics' research along with big ticket EW or DEW projects. Hiring a mathematician, a physicist or two, and a coder in order to churn out some "fundamental physics" papers based on observations of novel behavior of a prototype system, which is what the suppliers are doing, isn't a substitute for original work. The result is a great leap and advance in lab techniques and bench gear, but only in development shops (and we all know engineers 'don't do theory'). Outside the DOE and a couple NIST labs, it's not clear to me there are ANY independent facilities for evaluating high end EW/DEW systems, for the simple reason that no one can afford the equipment on a pure research grant (let alone gain access to the sub-system data or corporate engineers field notes).

At any rate, I'd be happy to cover more specifics.

A. Scott Crawford