JED Magazine 2012-10

OCTOBER 2012 Vol. 35, No. 10

Pacing the

Anti-Ship

Missile Threat Also in this issue: Future EW: IEWS Cognitive Radios and EW

With more than 50 years of electronic warfare experience, technology innovation, and commitment to the warfighter, BAE Systems has advanced the game for our naval forces with the Next-Generation Jammer. Partnering with the Navy and a dynamic industry team, we are developing a Jammer that disrupts and degrades enemy use of the electromagnetic spectrum to observe and attack U.S. forces. Technology, experience, commitment— it’s the right combination.

www.baesystems.com/ngj

October 2012 •

Volume 35, Issue 10

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

4

News

Inside IEWS

The Monitor 15 AFRL to Develop New Generation of EW Components. Washington Report 20 Analysis: Budget Uncertainty Dominates Capitol Hill.

40

John Haystead

An inside look at the US Army’s next major EW undertaking, the Integrated EW System, and how it is set to drastically re-shape the service’s requirements, operations and training.

Departments

World Report 22 South Korea Seeks Attack Helos.

6

The View From Here

Features

8

Conferences Calendar

Pacing the Anti-Ship Missile Threat 24

10

Courses Calendar

12

From the President

47

EW 101

50

AOC News

52

Index of Advertisers

54

JED Quick Look

Richard Scott

From the Persian Gulf to the Taiwan Strait, antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs) pose an increasing danger to surface vessels. JED takes a closer look at the technologies driving the threat. Cognition: EW Gets Brainy

32

Barry Manz

New advancements in cognitive technology are poised to shake up the EW world. Experts discuss what we can expect to see and why it matters.

Cover photo courtesy US Navy.

For EW T&E Ranges

MERTS and PRS Whether you need short, medium or long EW T&E ranges, EWST has the solution. MERTS and PRS systems are in service and deployed around the world.

24 USER COUNTRIES CAN’T BE WRONG! Herley-CTI 9 Whippany Road, Whippany , NJ, 07981 Tel: 973-884-2580 Email: [email protected]

EW Simulation Technology Ltd. B9 Armstrong Mall, Southwood Business Park, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 0NR, UK Tel: +44 (0)1252 512951 Fax: +44 (0)1252 512428 www.ewst.co.uk

the view

f ro m h e re

ONE COUNTRY THAT IS GETTING EW RIGHT

I The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

6

t’s not often that I spotlight something that I think deserves heaps of praise. Too often, governments and their military organizations fail (in many different ways), to properly manage or develop their EW capabilities. Australia, however, is following a course that deserves unqualified kudos for their commitment to invest in new EW capabilities. I am referring to the government’s formal announcement in August that it would buy the EA-18G Growler. This alone is a major achievement that significantly boosts the Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF’s) EW arsenal. When you consider that the RAAF has also recently procured new F/A-18F Super Hornets (with an advanced EW suite), and is showing no signs of wavering in its commitment to buy F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (with an even more advanced EW suite), it becomes clear that Australia is taking its defense strategy seriously by funding what it needs to pursue that strategy. With these three aircraft types, Australia will transition from a fighter/strike aircraft fleet that is several decades old to a much newer and more capable force that out-matches the EW capabilities of any other air force in the region. This is a great achievement for Australia, especially when it would have been easy to take a “strategic pause” from major EW investment in the wake of Project Echidna, which has yielded very little EW capability when compared with the expectations the RAAF had for this program in 2000. The Australian Government’s decision to buy the EA-18G did not happen overnight. The Growler fits into a defense strategy that has evolved over many years and across multiple governments. At many points along the way, it would have been convenient to scuttle the EA-8G acquisition. However, it benefitted from just enough political and economic stability to see it through to the formal announcement in August. This achievement is pretty remarkable when you consider the severe political divisions in some governments (think of the US), and the financial strain dominating others (think of Europe). Australia seems to have enjoyed “Goldilocks” conditions to grow its EW program. What impresses me most is that Australia has kept its eyes on the prize. Ten years from now, the RAAF will operate one of the most modern air forces in the region. The backbone of its air power will rely on three aircraft with formidable EW capabilities. This is not a technological success story, however. It is a human success story. Australia understands its neighborhood. It has demonstrated the will and self-discipline to invest in the RAAF and modernize its aircraft fleet, and it will reap the strategic fruits of this investment for many decades. – J. Knowles

OCTOBER 2012 • Vol. 35, No. 10

EDITORIAL STAFF Editor: John Knowles Managing Editor: Elaine Richardson Senior Editor: John Haystead Technical Editor: Ollie Holt Contributing Writers: Dave Adamy, Barry Manz, Richard Scott, Martin Streetly Marketing & Research Coordinator: Heather McMillen Sales Administration: Chelsea Johnston

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Mr. Tom Arseneault Vice President for Product Sector and Chief Technology Officer, BAE Systems Inc. Mr. Gabriele Gambarara Elettronica S.p.A. Mr. Itzchak Gat CEO, Elbit Systems EW and SIGINT - Elisra CAPT John Green Commander, EA-6B Program Office (PMA-234), NAVAIR, USN Mr. Micael Johansson Senior Vice President and Head of Business Area, Electronic Defence Systems, Saab Mr. Mark Kula Vice President, Tactical Airborne Systems, Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems Col Steve Ling Director, Joint Electronic Warfare Center, US Strategic Command LTC James Looney Chief, Electronic Warfare Division, Directorate of Training and Doctrine, Fires Center of Excellence, US Army CAPT Paul Overstreet Joint Strike Gighter Weapons System Program Manager, Naval Air Systems Command, USN Mr. Jeffrey Palombo Senior VP and GM, Land and Self-Protection Systems Division, Electronic Systems, Northrop Grumman Corp. Col Jim Pryor Chief, Electronic Warfare, Operational Capability Requirements Headquarters, USAF Mr. Steve Roberts Vice President, Strategy, Selex Galileo Mr. Rich Sorelle Acting President, Electronic Systems Division, ITT Exelis Wg Cdr P.J. Wallace Chief of Staff, Joint Air Land Organisation, UK MOD Dr. Richard Wittstruck Director, System of Systems Engineering, PEO Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors, USA

PRODUCTION STAFF Layout & Design: Barry Senyk Advertising Art: Christina O’Connor Contact the Editor: (978) 509-1450, [email protected] Contact the Sales Manager: (800) 369-6220 or [email protected] Subscription Information: Please contact Glorianne O’Neilin at (703) 549-1600 or e-mail [email protected]. The Journal of Electronic Defense is published for the AOC by

Naylor, LLC 5950 NW 1st Place Gainesville, FL 32607 Phone: (800) 369-6220 • Fax: (352) 331-3525 www.naylor.com ©2012 Association of Old Crows/Naylor, LLC. All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may not be reproduced by any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written authorization of the publisher. Editorial: The articles and editorials appearing in this magazine do not represent an official AOC position, except for the official notices printed in the “Association News” section or unless specifically identified as an AOC position. PUBLISHED OCTOBER 2012/JED-M1012/7521

It´s a matter of intelligence. From sensors to knowledge: ƒ Acquisition ƒ Analysis ƒ Evaluation ƒ Visualisation www.plath.de

c ale ndar

c o nfe re n c e s

OCTOBER Pacific Theater Air, Sea Battlespace IO/ EW/Cyber Operations October 16-18 Honolulu, HI www.crows.org AUSA Annual Meeting & Exposition October 22-24 Washington, DC www.ausa.org Euronaval 2012 October 22-26 Paris, France www.euronaval.fr

&

trade s h ows

The Cybersecurity Ecosystem October 23-24 Baltimore, MD www.crows.org Aircraft Survivability Symposium 2012 October 23-25 Monterey, CA www.ndia.org Fall Town Hall – Inserting Information into Denied Areas October 24 Washington, DC aoccapitolclub.com

Non-Kinetic Effects – Recent Operational Perspective October 25 Virginia Beach, VA www.crows.org/chapters/tidewater-homepage.html

NOVEMBER Little Crow Conference November 7 Pretoria, South Africa aadvarkaoc.co.za Worldwide Emerging Technologies Utilizing Foreign Military Sales Conference November 14-15 Alexandria, VA www.crows.org

An Orange from your Apple? New MegaPhase® Cable App for iPhone.

Annual Directed Energy Symposium November 26-30 Albuquerque, NM www.deps.org EW Asia 2012: The Future of Electronic Warfare in the ASEAN and Pacific Regions November 27-28 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia www.crows.org Educating the Spectrum Warrior: Harnessing STEM & Spectrum Management Conference November 27-29 Fort Walton Beach, FL www.crows.org

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

8

DECEMBER UAS/RPA Payloads/Requirements/ Operations Conference December 4-6 Nellis AFB, NV www.crows.org Full Spectrum Electromagnetic Operations: The Future of EW, ISTAR and SIGINT December 5-6 Shrivenham, UK ukaoc.org Land EW Conference December 11-13 Quantico, VA www.crows.org

Enter MegaPhase in the iPhone App store.

JANUARY Electronic Warfare GCC January 8-9 Abu Dhabi, UAE www.tangentlink.com a

MegaPhase – Simply Better And still “Lowest Cost per Measurement”

Excellence in RF Interconnects

122 Banner Road, Stroudsburg, PA 18360-6433 Tel: 1-888-268-8063 Email: [email protected] Web: www.megaphase.com/jed

AOC headquarters events noted in red. For more information, visit www.crows.org.

604318_MegaPhase.indd 1

8/31/12 12:34:36 PM

From the factory to the lab, the field to the depot. AAI Test & Training has designed your test systems for decades. Now, trust AAI to deliver the B-1B Advanced Radar Test Station. We don’t just understand how your integrated radar/electronic warfare systems work. We also understand how they fail. So our testers can quickly, reliably and precisely assess system health when and where it matters most. Our knowledge is unmatched in the industry and proven over years of success. From the MIDATS depot tester you relied on during the 80s to the JSECST systems on today’s flight lines, we’ve always remained ahead of the technology curve to meet today’s system requirements, as well as anticipate your future needs. Advanced solutions for today and tomorrow. Get the free mobile app for your phone http://gettag.mobi

To learn more, call 800-655-2616 or email [email protected].

aaicorp.com © 2012 AAI Corporation. All rights reserved. AAI Test & Training is an operating unit of Textron Systems, a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company. AAI and design is a registered trademark of AAI Corporation. B1-B photo courtesy U.S. Air Force. aaijed0412

c ale ndar

c o u r s e s

OCTOBER

&

s e m i n a r s

Principles of Radar Electronic Protection October 9-12 Atlanta, GA www.pe.gatech.edu

Advanced RF EW Principles October 1-5 Atlanta, GA www.pe.gatech.edu Electro-Optics and Infrared Sensors October 1-5 Swindon, Oxfordshire, UK www.cranfield.ac.uk

Survey of EM Battle Management Applications October 15 Honolulu, HI www.crows.org

ELINT and Modern Signals October 9-12 Alexandria, VA www.crows.org

Survey of EW and Cyber Applications October 18 Honolulu, HI www.crows.org

NOVEMBER Military Electronic Warfare November 5-9 Swindon, Oxfordshire, UK www.cranfield.ac.uk System Architecture and Model-Based System Engineering (MBSE) November 6-9 Alexandria, VA www.crows.org Survivability November 19-30 Swindon, Oxfordshire, UK www.cranfield.ac.uk Survey of EM Battle Management Applications November 26 Fort Walton Beach, FL www.crows.org

Soar with the highest power density solid state RF amplifiers available.

Infrared Countermeasures November 27-30 Atlanta, GA www.pe.gatech.edu

DECEMBER Essentials of 21st Century Electronic Warfare December 4-7 Alexandria, VA www.crows.org

JANUARY

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

10

Radar Electronic Warfare January 7-11 Swindon, Oxfordshire, UK www.cranfield.ac.uk

Model BME2969-200 BME2969 200 2–6GHz, 200 Watts* Solid State Power Amp Module Q Highest Power Density to Footprint Ratio Q High Efficiency Over the Entire Bandwidth Q RF Input/Output Sample Ports Q Internal DC to DC Converters Q Optional T/R Switch Available Q Maintains Output Power with Real-World Load Conditions *300 Watts Coming Soon!

Comtech’s latest development expands on its proven innovative integrated GaN RF Power Amplifier designs by further increasing the RF power density, while improving overall operating efficiency. These highly integrated designs are ideal for use in communication, electronic warfare, and radar transmitter systems where space, cooling, and power are limited. Applications include ground, surface, and airborne platforms. Contact us today with your requirements and specs...we’ll meet your needs and exceed your expectations.

Comtech...Simply More.

)3/!3#

MARCH Modeling & Simulation of RF Electronic Warfare Systems March 19-22 Atlanta, GA www.pe.gatech.edu

APRIL Basic RF Electronic Warfare Concepts April 16-18 Atlanta, GA www.pe.gatech.edu Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) Technology April 16-18 Aurora, CO www.pe.gatech.edu Directed Infrared Countermeasures: Technology, Modeling and Testing April 16-18 Atlanta, GA www.pe.gatech.edu a

"AYLIS2OAD -ELVILLE .9s4EL   &AX  sWWWCOMTECHPSTCOM

AOC courses are noted in red. For more info or to register, visit www.crows.org.

601971_Comtech.indd 1

8/22/12 2:32:12 PM

Where you need it, when you need it. A complete range of COMINT/CESM systems — all from a single source. Rohde & Schwarz designs, develops and supplies complete turnkey solutions built from an extensive portfolio of COTS hardware and software products —from antennas to C4 capable sensors, evaluation and reporting. Your success is our mission: Ɗ OQUVFGOCPFKPIQRGTCVKQPCNTGSWKTGOGPVUOGV by solid professional German engineering Ɗ CNNMKPFUQHVCUMUOCPRCEMNCPFOQDKNG sea and airborne platforms Ɗ KPVGITCVKQPNQIKUVKEUCPFUWRRQTVHTQO Rohde & Schwarz subsidiaries worldwide Ɗ ƜGZKDNGEQPVTCEVKPIOQFGNUCPFCVVTCEVKXGRTKEKPI Rohde & Schwarz has decades of experience in the design and introduction of complex radiomonitoring, radiolocation and spectrum management systems. YYYTQJFGUEJYCT\EQOCFEGUO

message

f ro m the p re s i d e nt

MOVING THE AOC FORWARD Fellow Crows,

I The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

12

t is truly a privilege to serve as your president for the coming year. In preparation, I led a year-long “balanced scorecard” strategic planning effort to help the board and international headquarters staff understand and prioritize the needs of all AOC members. Each element of the strategy is assigned to a committee for implementation with board-approved metrics to track progress. We are just beginning this journey, so we are seeking your feedback, particularly on the CY13 focus areas and initiatives. Members told us that they want AOC to be the voice of electronic warfare (EW), electromagnetic spectrum operations (EMSO) and information operations (IO), so we revised the AOC vision: “To serve as the international advocate for EM spectrum operations and associated capabilities in all operational domains.” Members also told us that they particularly value AOC’s ability to advocate on their behalf, so the committee revised the mission: “To advance international policy, plans, programs, and professional development related to EMS operations and associated capabilities in all operational domains.” Three elements of the strategy underpin the mission and vision: (1) Develop and advocate AOC international community positions, (2) inform and communicate the need to control and exploit EM spectrum and information for effective operations in contested or degraded environments and (3) provide international expertise on EW, EMSO and IO. As a result, the board adopted the following three AOC focus areas for CY13: (1) Improve communications among internal AOC stakeholders; (2) improve advocacy with external AOC stakeholders; and (3) expand rank and file member participation to increase recruiting and retention of the next generation of AOC leaders. Now is the time to celebrate AOC’s past 50 years, but also to position AOC for its next 50 years. The key CY13 initiatives are: (1) Monthly Chapter President teleconferences with board members and international staff; (2) implementation of technical committee “e-workshops” led by expertise drawn from the chapters; (3) a refocusing of the conferences program to place greater emphasis on position development and (4) formation of partnerships to increase support for the AOC mission at lower costs. The board’s top priority is to ensure member confidence in AOC leadership. For this reason, the board is reviewing all AOC management processes, conducting a thorough audit of all CY12 expenditures, and will meet more frequently to provide additional oversight. It is also revising the budget process for CY13 to provide a better assessment of return on investment for all AOC activities. We want your participation in this process! Familiarize yourself with the AOC website (www.crows.org) and visit the member information tabs. In particular, take advantage of the social media links to collaborate with fellow members or provide inputs. We look forward to hearing from you. – Bob Elder

Association of Old Crows 1000 North Payne Street, Suite 200 Alexandria, VA 22314-1652 Phone: (703) 549-1600 Fax: (703) 549-2589 PRESIDENT Robert Elder VICE PRESIDENT Wayne Shaw SECRETARY Robin Vanderberry TREASURER Charles Benway AT-LARGE DIRECTORS Michael Oates David Hime Tony Lisuzzo Lisa Frugé Ron Hahn Robin Vanderbury Todd Caruso Vickie Greenier Paul Westcott REGIONAL DIRECTORS Southern: Wes Heidenreich Central: Joe Koesters Northeastern: Charles Benway Mountain-Western: John Wikheim Mid-Atlantic: Douglas Lamb Pacific: Joe Hulsey International I: Robert Andrews International II: Gerry Whitford IO: Al Bynum PAST PRESIDENT Laurie Buckhout AOC STAFF Stew Taylor Don Richetti Exhibits Manager Executive Director [email protected] [email protected] Norman Balchunas Director, Operations [email protected] Mike Dolim Director, Education [email protected] Shelley Frost Director, Logistics [email protected] Kent Barker Conferences Director/ FSO [email protected] Glorianne O’Neilin Director, Member Services [email protected] Tony Ramos Director, Communications [email protected]

Tanya Miller Member and Chapter Support Manager [email protected] Jennifer Bahler Registrar [email protected] Keith Jordan IT Manager [email protected] Glenda M. ReyesMontanez Business Manager reyes-montanez@ crows.org Tasha Miller Membership Assistant [email protected] Miranda Fulk Logistics Coordinator [email protected]

Brock Sheets Director, Marketing [email protected]

Lauren Stewart Logistics Coordinator [email protected]

John Clifford Director, Global Programs [email protected]

Bridget Whyde Marketing/ Communications Assistant [email protected]

THE CYBERSECURITY ECOSYSTEM

– An Interagency, Public-private and Coalition Challenge

SPACE & CYBERSPACE

The Cybersecurity Ecosystem An Interagency, Public-private, and Coalition Challenge October 23-24 | Baltimore, MD

OCTOBER 23-24 \\ BALTIMORE, MD

Dealing with the sophisticated threats facing our networks requires a seamless interaction between domains, public-private sectors, and among Coalition Partners. This conference will examine in a classified environment the current state of those seams and the challenges ahead. This conference is a joint venture that includes the Association of Old Crows Information Operations Institute (AOC IOI), Northrop Grumman and other US Defense Industry Partners.

This conference seeks to discuss ideas, requirements, plans, and challenges of interest to EMS, IO and the Cyber community of interest while educating attendees on the following topics: POLICY AND GUIDANCE OSD EMERGING REQUIREMENTS AND CHALLENGES BUDGET IMPLICATIONS AND LIMITATIONS SPACE AND CYBERSPACE ENABLING EMS CAPABILITIES

AIR SEA BATTLE STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT COALITION ENGAGEMENT OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES REGIONAL INTEL BRIEFS NORTHERN EDGE FINDINGS

TERMINAL FURY FINDINGS INDUSTRY & TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY IT/DATA INFRASTRUCTURE PRODUCTION ADVANCED EW CONCEPTS GTRI STUDY

ATTENDANCE \\ In order to attend the Cybersecurity Ecosystem Conference you must complete the registration application and return via email to [email protected] or by fax to (703) 549-2589 by FRIDAY, 12 OCTOBER. After all registration applications are received the committee will review the list for acceptance. Once you receive an acceptance email with the online registration link please follow the link to complete your registration and submit your credit card/payment information. No onsite registration will be available.

VISIT WWW.CROWS.ORG FOR MORE INFORMATION

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

14

Worldwide Emerging Technologies Utilizing Foreign Military Sales Conference NOVEMBER 14-16 // ALEXANDRIA, VA

Worldwide Emerging Technologies Utilizing Foreign Military Sales November 14-15 | Alexandria, VA

Take advantage of this strategic event in the D.C. area and gain valuable insights into the technologies emerging on the worldwide stage and how best to position your business to take advantage of opportunities available through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) process.

AGENDA (As of September 19. Subject to Change.) WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2012 Opening Remarks Mr. Kermit Quick, AOC Past President Keynote Address Mr. Frank Kenlon, OSD/AT&L (Accepted)

International Perspective panel Academia Advances and Programs Mr. Bob Beasley, GTRI (invited) A DoD Perspective on the Future of EW Mr. Jay Kistler OSD-AT&L/ EWCO (accepted)

Maintaining and Building Trust with Existing and New Partners for Global Security MG Johnston SAF/IA (accepted)

Industry Perspective Panel DoD Panel on Current/Future EW Issue Is There EW FMS Reform?

Technology Security and Foreign Disclosure ITAR: Understanding and Working within Regulation Mr. Keith Webster, DASA DEC (invited)

Steps for Working Together Better Mr. Link Span, Navy IPO (accepted)

Day One Closing Remarks Mr. Kermit Quick, AOC Past President

Accessing the Current Environment: Approaches by the Obama Administration and the Congress to Export Controls and Enforcement

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2012 Opening Remarks Mr. Lee Simonetta, GTRI

VISIT WWW.CROWS.ORG FOR MORE INFORMATION

Conference Wrap-Up Mr. Kermit Quick, AOC Past President

t he

monitor news NEXT GEN JAMMER UPDATE

AFRL TO DEVELOP NEW GENERATION OF EW COMPONENTS

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

The Air Force Research Lab’s Sensors Directorate (Wright-Patterson AFB, OH) is expected to issue a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) in the coming weeks for a program to develop a new generation of electronic warfare components that will be used in future EW systems. Known as the Advanced Components for EW (ACE) program, AFRL’s aim is to develop the enabling technologies that will make next-generation cognitive and distributed EW systems a reality. (See “Cognition: EW Gets Brainy” on page 32.) Managed by the RF/EO Subsystems Branch of the Sensors Directorate’s Aerospace Components and Subsystems Division (AFRL/RYDR), the ACE program is currently focused on defining the scope of the effort. The program specifically seeks “leap-ahead component technologies” for next generation cognitive and distributed EW systems to stay current with emerging threats. According to a request for information (RFI) from AFRL, program officials are still in the early stages of defining Phase 0 and learning about industry capabilities in four technology areas: 1) integrated photonic circuits (IPCs), 2) millimeter-wave (MMW) source and receiver components for EW (MMW), 3) reconfigurable and adaptive RF electronics (RARE) and 4) heterogeneous integration for photonic sources (HIPS). AFRL plans for a four-phase ACE effort modeled along the lines of DARPA’s successful Microwave and Millimeter Wave Monolithic Integrated Circuit (MIMIC) program of the late 1980s and early 1990s that improved the performance of high-performance microwave components and drove down their cost. AFRL hosted an ACE industry day in late September, and program officials are expected to issue an ACE BAA in October or November. The technical point of contact is Stephen Hary, (937) 528-8727, e-mail: [email protected]. Responses to the ACE RFI are due October 10. – E. Richardson and J. Knowles

The US Navy’s Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) Program has passed a small but significant milestone, as written proposals were submitted late last month for the Technology Development (TD) phase. Under the NGJ program, the Navy wants to modernize its Airborne Electronic Attack capabilities by replacing its inventory of aging ALQ-99 electronic attack pods with new high-power solid-state jammers. The NGJ will be flown on the EA-18G Growler initially, with the possibility of later integration on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and possibly the F-35. Like the ALQ-99, the Navy wants to develop the NGJ in low-, mid- and high-band variants, with the initial development effort focusing on the mid-band pod. Four major EW companies – BAE Systems (Nashua, NH), ITT Exelis (Clifton, NJ), Northrop Grumman (Bethpage, NY) and Raytheon (El Segundo, CA) – have been supporting the program for the past two years during the Technology Maturation phase.

15

In 2011 2011, the Navy announced that it would award a single contract for the TD phase of NGJ development instead of two contracts as it had previously planned. This decision had a ripple effect on the program, according to informed sources. It placed a new level of significance on the role of EA-18G prime contractor Boeing, which obviously possesses unique knowledge about the EA-18G design. Boeing was teamed with Exelis earlier in the program, but the two companies announced this past summer that they would not continue in the competition as a team. This, according to informed sources, enabled the Navy to essentially designate Boeing as the platform integrator that could work with whichever team won the single TD contract without any conflict of interest. To re-affirm Boeing’s new role in the NGJ program, the Navy issued an contracting announcement last month indicating that it intended to award Boeing a “sole-source cost reimbursement order” under an existing contract for support “to assist in the Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) process in order to identify technical, logistics, programmatic and contractual EA-18G aircraft integration requirements for NGJ.” It went on to say, “This

t h e

m o n i t o r

|

n e w s

effort will ensure that the development, preparation and delivery of a preliminary ECP Part I design is suitable to support NGJ entry into the Technology Development (TD) Phase.” This work will begin in June 2013 and will continue for 15 months, in parallel with the TD phase of NGJ. At present, three teams are chasing the program and have submitted written proposals – the first part of a three-part bidding process that also includes oral presentations, which are scheduled for next month. BAE Systems and Raytheon are leading their respective efforts. Exelis has joined the Northrop Grumman team. Even before the Navy decided to select a single NGJ TD contractor instead of two, program officials at Naval Air Systems Command had hoped that all four major EW companies would form teams in order to be part of a NGJ development program that will be an important gateway to a new generation of Gallium Nitride (GaN)-powered AESA-based EW systems. The program by no means represents the only pathway toward AESA-based EW technology. There are still likely to be opportunities, such as the US Air Force’s Next-Gen Bomber and the Navy’s SEWIP Block 3 programs, which also will likely focus on GaN- powered AESA jammers. The NGJ program also may provide additional opportunities for industry. The Navy is in the process of determining how it will approach the low-band variant in the NGJ program. While the Navy wants the mid-band and low-band NGJ pods to share as much hardware and software as possible, the low-band pod may still require significant development work. It is not clear

5IF
/FYU
(FOFSBUJPO
.JDSPXBWF
3FDFJWFS SMR-7512 / SMR-7522

IN BRIEF The US Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Battle Management Directorate, AWACS Division, Next Generation Identification Friend or Foe (NGIFF) Program Office has issued a sources sought synopsis as part of market research it is conducting in order to rent two ground-based jammers (GBJs) for an upcoming flight test program. Both SIF and Mode 5 jamming will be required during the AWACS Block 40/45 NGIFF program testing on the coast of Washington State. The two GBJs will be equipped with directional electronic attack systems capable of generating jamming signals to test the E-3 Sentry’s IFF system. The GBJs are required for two separate E-3 flights planned approximately 2 weeks apart in August 2013. The solicitation number is F1962801D00160058 and the point of contact is Pino D’Orazio, [email protected]. The RFI response date is October 15.

✪ ✪ ✪ Alliant Techsystems (Woodland Hills, CA) has received a $71 million firm-fixed-price contract for the first full rate production lot of AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missiles (AARGM). The contract provides for conversion of 53 government furnished AGM-88B High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARMs) into 53 of the AARGM configuration – 49 for the US Navy and four for the government of Italy. It also includes 23 captive air training missile systems for the Navy and all related supplies and services for manufacturing, spares and fleet deployment. Work is expected to be complete in December.

✪ ✪ ✪

SMR-5550i

FEATURES

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

16

how this could affect the Navy’s acquisition strategy for that phase of the program, but it could mean an entirely new competition for EW companies to pursue. – J. Knowles

t 0.8-9.6 GHz base unit (SMR-7512) t


()[
FYUFOEFE
4.3

t

-PX
48"1
wYwYw

MCT
8
7ED t


%
JHJUJ[FE
%BUB
.)[
#8
(14
UJNF
TUBNQFE
I/Q over 10G Fiber t


.)[
BOBMPH
*'
PVUQVU
!
NBY

.)[
#8 t

¡
*OUFHSBUFE
1IBTF
/PJTF t

*OUFHSBUFE
4QFDUSVN
%JTQMBZ

For more information contact our sales office or visit www.cobham.com/defence-electronics/HuntValley Email: Phone:

TJHJOUTBMFT!DPCIBNDPN 

Cobham Electronic Systems SIGINT Inc. 10713 Gilroy Rd, Hunt Valley, MD 21031 SIGINT is a member of the Cobham Defence Electronics family which includes Baltimore, MD; Lansdale, PA; Lowell, MA; San Diego, CA; San Jose, CA.

598024_Cobham.indd 1

7/25/12 3:58:05 PM

The Mission and Installation Contracting Command, Directorate of Contracting (Fort Gordon, GA) has announced plans to negotiate and award a sole-source contract to Rohde & Schwarz for five PR-100 RF Receiver Kits.

✪ ✪ ✪ Northrop Grumman (Linthicum Heights, MD) has received a $424,816 contract from the Office of Naval Research for Photonics Enabled Elemental Digital Beamforming for EW Applications (eDBF).

✪ ✪ ✪ The Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (Point Mugu, CA) has announced plans to negotiate and award an eight-month, cost-reimbursable, single-award contract to Rockwell Collins (Cedar Rapids, IA) for software support and updates to the USQ-113 software as part of the ICAP III Block 6 upgrade for the EA-6B Prowler. As part of the upgrade, the USQ-113 radio countermeasures set will be used as the communications surveillance and jamming system aboard the EA-6B for electronic support (ES) and electronic

The enemy is out there...hiding...waiƟng.

objecƟves and intenƟons. TSF5 delivers industry leading spectrum dominance sub-systems providing greater SIGINT (simultaneous ELINT and COMINT) exploitaƟon via spectral analysis suites, digital tuning, domain transformaƟon, demodulaƟon and channelizaƟon tools, giving you the lens to peer into the mind of your adversary and understand more than what, but deeper into how and why. See more at www.TSF5.com and explore where it comes to exploiƟng enemy intenƟons, there are inĮnite possibiliƟes.

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

The need has never been greater to not only see and hear what your enemy is doing, but more importantly, understand their goals,

17 601033_TSF5.indd 1

8/30/12 9:08:35 AM

2012 Land EW Conference DECEMBER 11-13 // QUANTICO, VA Within many military circles, it is becoming more and more evident that the electromagnetic spectrum and its manipulation, with a variety of toolsets, will dictate the actions of commanders in the 21st Century. History has demonstrated that commanders that shape their battlefield, thereby dictating the tempo of operations, will eventually emerge victorious. However, history has also proven that control of a single warfighting domain does not allow a commander to dictate terms within the battle space either. Therefore, no one “domain” is a panacea to victory. The combining of arms in all of the domains has proven the most effective in eventually defeating or placating an adversary.

The AOC Land EW Conference provides focus on technological and organizational efforts, from land component perspective towards meeting these ends. Sessions and demonstrations provide evidence of how the U.S. and Allied services are implementing technology and changing organizational paradigms in order to manipulate the EMS environment.

VISIT WWW.CROWS.ORG FOR MORE INFORMATION

t h e

m o n i t o r

|

n e w s

attack (EA) operations. The software upgrade will include enhancements in the RF controller and address jamming issues, with all pieces merging into the USQ-113 Block 6 (v8.4) software development.

✪ ✪ ✪ The Naval Research Lab’s Aerospace Electronic Warfare (AEWS) Branch has issued a broad agency announcement for proposals and research to support future Navy and Marine mission needs for air-

borne electronic warfare, particularly in the area of electronic attack (EA). Specific areas of interest include, but are not limited to: 1) very wideband EA technologies, including amplifiers, power combiners, filters, and other discrete components; 2) wideband, high-power millimeter wave transmitter concepts and technologies; 3) compact antenna designs for for efficient transmission/ reception of EM energy at long wavelengths; 4) wideband, multifunction, or other special requirement antenna

designs and technology; 5) innovative EA techniques and systems; 6) innovative methods for the generation of optimized EA techniques; and 7) concepts and technologies to efficiently cue an EA exciter to select/generate appropriate techniques in a dense signal environment, especially with respect to the constrained payloads available to UAVs. The BAA number is BAA-N00173-02 and BAA topic number is #57-11-05.

✪ ✪ ✪ US Army Electronic Proving Ground (Fort Huachuca, AZ) has announced plans to award a new firm fixed price contract to X-Com Systems, as re-seller for manufacturer CFRS, for acquisition of two RFeye spectrum monitoring and geo-location systems to meet the a requirement for an upgrade to current RF spectrum monitoring systems that increases spectrum sampling rate and adds geo-location of emitters.

✪ ✪ ✪ The Naval Surface Warfare Center (Crane, IN) has announced plans to enter into an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract with URS (Germantown, MD). The agreement will include issuance of fixed-price-levelof-effort task orders to continue engineering, technical and programmatic support for EW and IO.

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

18

577034_Emhiser.indd 1

✪ ✪ ✪ TriQuint Semiconductor (Hillsboro, OR) has received a $2.7 million contract from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for the Near Junction Thermal Transport (NJTT) effort. The NJTT builds on TriQuint’s advanced gallium nitride (GaN) on silicon carbide (SiC) technology and RF integrated circuits to triple the power handling performance of GaN circuits. The NJTT is part of DARPA’s Thermal Management Technologies program and the company seeks to reduce heat buildup and enable GaN devices to generate more power. TriQuint’s program partners include University of Bristol (United Kingdom), Group4 Labs and Lockheed Martin. a 3/12/12 5:01:42 PM

You work in all kinds of conditions, so should your spectrum analyzer.

Worst-case scenario: You’ve got minutes to troubleshoot RF interference that has shut down communications on the ground, at dusk, in the desert.

Scan the QR code or visit http://goo.gl/Rfbde to see a HSA N9344C demo guide video

Best-case scenario: You’ve got the only spectrum analyzer with benchtop performance in a lightweight MIL-PRF 28800F Class 2 compliant handheld — with secure erase to keep classified data classified.

That’s thinking ahead. That’s Agilent.

Agilent and our Distributor Network Right Instrument. Right Expertise. Delivered Right Now.

866-436-0887 www.metrictest.com/agilent

© 2012 Agilent Technologies, Inc. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Patrick Tharpe) (Released)

Handheld Spectrum Analyzers (HSA) Key Specs

N9344C

N9343C

N9342C

Frequency

1 MHz– 20 GHz

1 MHz– 13.6 GHz

100 kHz– 7 GHz

DANL

-155 dBm/Hz -155 dBm/Hz -164 dBm/Hz

Sweep time < 0.9 s

< 0.7 s

< 0.4 s

Weight with 3.6 kg (7.9 lbs) battery

3.6 kg (7.9 lbs)

3.6 kg (7.9 lbs)

View online HSA video demos Download demonstration guides www.metrictest.com/agilent/specan.jsp

washing t on repor t ANALYSIS: BUDGET UNCERTAINTY DOMINATES CAPITOL HILL The US Congress adjourned late last month, leaving its defense policy bill and defense spending bill unfinished. In what has proven to be a very turbulent year in Washington, both defense bills seem to be losing their significance in the face of pending across-the-board defense budget cuts of around 9.4 percent (of 2012 levels) that could be automatically imposed on January 2.

FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

20

The FY2013 National Defense Authorization Bill, which sets defense policy and soldier pay, passed the House in May. The Senate Armed Services Committee passed its version of the Bill on May 24, and it has been awaiting a floor debate and vote in the Senate since then. The Senate may debate the defense authorization bill and vote on it during the brief “lame duck” session after the November 6 election. But the Senate must complete a long list of other important legislation in that time. While the defense authorization bill does not directly fund any procurement programs, it provides important guidance to the DOD. Several EW and SIGINT programs are addressed in the respective House and Senate versions of the bill. If the Senate passes the bill, the House and Senate will iron out differences in their respective bills during a conference session and then send it to the President. Because this bill sets defense policy and not spending levels, it is usually less contentious than the defense appropriations bill. Congress usually passes it before the end of the fiscal year.

FY2013 Defense Appropriations While the defense authorization bill has stalled in the Senate, FY2013 defense spending was boosted in a governmentwide “continuing appropriations resolution” that will keep the government funded through March 27. The bill, signed by the President on September 28, funds the DOD at an annual level of $519.9 billion, which is more than the FY2012 base level ($516.8 billion), the House version of the bill ($518.1 billion) or the Senate version of the bill ($511.2 billion) provide. As with the defense authorization bills, the House and Senate appropriations bills included some differences in EW and SIGINT spending. It is not clear how the DOD will handle those differences, which may have been largely smoothed over by the higher spending level.

Sequestration The main reason for the slow pace of Congressional defense legislation this year has been the large pending cut known as sequestration, which has overshadowed defense funding debates on Capitol Hill. The White House’s Office of Management and Budget released its report on September 14 explaining how sequestration cuts, mandated by last year’s Budget Control Act, would be implemented across the government. The DOD would suffer a 9.4 percent reduction based on FY2012 spending levels. The report indicated that $15.3 billion would be taken from DOD procurement programs and $7.9 billion would be cut from research and development. It is not clear how the DOD would prioritize those cuts within the various funding lines, but it is certain to affect most EW and SIGINT programs. The DOD would need to renegotiate many of its existing contracts with suppliers and would risk losing much of the savings embedded in its multi-year procurement contracts. Congress is frustrated by the lack of insight the DOD has provided regarding specific program cuts. But, the DOD has repeatedly given guidance to its workers that they should not plan for the sequestration cuts until they begin to take effect on January 2. It has also asked defense companies to avoid sending out warning notices to employees about potential layoffs beginning on January 2.

Analysis The uncertainty of exactly how the DOD will implement the cuts with regard to specific programs is the main concern at the moment. The DOD isn’t saying much, and this leaves many, if not all, procurement and R&D programs at risk. The potential impact on EW programs could be disproportionately harsh, as most program advocacy depends on senior military and civilian leaders that typically do not have EW backgrounds and who do not understand EW in a strategic context. EW programs suffered disproportionately during defense cuts in the 1990s, and today’s programs remain at risk for the same reasons: the lack of senior EW leadership, poor understanding within the broader DOD, the lack of EW in most training exercises and a shrinking corps of EW professionals (except for the Army) in most services. Even if sequestration is rescinded as a mechanism, the DOD’s budget will remain under significant pressure because well-organized factions in both parties expect defense spending to be a significant part of the government’s overall debt reduction plan. – J. Knowles a

From DC to Daylight.... Scan, Detect, Process, Record & Playback RF Signals At Will RFvision-1 Wideband (40MHz) Scanning Transceiver

(20 MHz – 6 GHz) 5),Q

5)2XW

X

X

$'&

'$&

5),)

DTA-3290 (1U) DTA-1000-R (1U)

,)%DVHEDQG , 4

6KRFNSURWHFWHGSDFNDJLQJ

‡ ²*+]IUHTXHQF\FRYHUDJH ‡ 0+]LQVWDQWDQHRXV%: ‡ %LW$'& '$& ‡ )3*$EDVHGSURJUDPPDEOH''&IRUFRPSOH[EDVHEDQGFRQYHUVLRQ ‡ 5HDO7LPHUHFRUGLQJRYHUKUVIRU0+]%: ‡ 2SWLRQDO5)SOD\EDFNRIUHFRUGHG VLPXODWHGVLJQDO ‡ &RQYHQLHQW IDLOVDIH*8,IRUFRQWURODQGGLVSOD\

DTA-1000-R (Record / Playback)

‡ ²*+]IUHTXHQF\FRYHUDJH ‡ 0+]LQVWDQWDQHRXV%: ‡ %LW$'& '$& ‡ )3*$EDVHG''&IRUFRPSOH[EDVHEDQGFRQYHUVLRQ ‡ 5HDO7LPHUHFRUGLQJIRUKRXUV ‡ 2SWLRQDO,)SOD\EDFNRIUHFRUGHG VLPXODWHGVLJQDO ‡ &RQYHQLHQW IDLOVDIH*8,IRUFRQWURODQGGLVSOD\

)3*$ *E(&RQWURO

Multi-Core Server with 8 TB Storage

*E( 8VHU3&

RFvision-1

Click “RFvision-1 Wideband Scanning Transceiver” on our home page.

(500 MHz – 26.5 GHz) 5),Q

X *+],) %LW$'& '$& )V *+] ;9)3*$

6KRFNSURWHFWHGSDFNDJLQJ

%LW$'& '$& )V 0+]

''& 1HWZRUN

DTA-5900 (1U)

DTA-5000 (3U)

0+],) 0+],%:

*LJDELW 1HWZRUN'DWD

RFvision-2 Ultra-Wideband (500 MHz) Scanning Transceiver

DTA-9500 (1U)

DTA-3290

DTA-5900 (RF / IF)

0+],%:

$'&

'$&

''& 1HWZRUN

'XDO*LJDELW 1HWZRUNV'DWD

DTA-5000 (Record / Playback)

/2V

,)2XW

DTA-9500 (IF / Baseband)

*E(&RQWURO

Multi-Core Server with 9.6 TB Storage *E(

RFvision-2

8VHU3&

Click “RFvision-2 Ultra-Wideband Scanning Transceiver” on our home page.

SigInspector™ GUI Waterfall

FFT

A Sensor Interface and Processing Company

www.d-ta.com

5HFRUG

‡ ¶3OXJ 3OD\·VROXWLRQVZLWK'7$·V6LJ,QVSHFWRUŒ*8, ‡ 5DSLGXVHUGHYHORSPHQWXVLQJ'7$·V6RIWZDUH 'HYHORSPHQW.LW6'. DQGVXSSRUW

[email protected] 1-877-382-3222

spectrum intelligence from d-ta nothing else comes close!

world repor t SOUTH KOREA SEEKS ATTACK HELOS The Republic of Korea (ROK) Army is soliciting bids for its AHX attack helicopter program. The competition to provide 36 new attack helos has focused on three suppliers: Turkish Aerospace Industry’s T-129B, Bell’s AH-1Z Cobra and Boeing’s AH-64D Apache Longbow Block III. Last month, the ROK formally requested 36 Apaches and 36 Cobras from the US Government via Foreign Military Sales channels. The ROK Army is seeking the Cobras be fitted with an EW suite comprising

EADS AND BAE SYSTEMS PROPOSE MERGER

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

22

Two of Europe’s largest defense houses are proposing a complicated scheme to effectively merge into a single company. EADS and BAE Systems would keep separate boards for various entities, such as BAE Systems Inc. in the US, but would operate financially as a single company under the terms of a proposed $45 billion merger. Although the two companies primarily build aircraft and support other large weapons systems, both also maintain large and active EW businesses. BAE Systems includes its Electronic Systems group in Nashua, NH, which manufactures missile warning systems, dispensers and directed infrared countermeasures systems for helicopters; RWR/ESM systems for several types of aircraft and radar jammers, as well as SIGINT equipment. EADS Defense Electronics Subsidiary Cassidian makes missile warners for the international market as well as a variety of RF EW and SIGINT products for the German Armed Forces. At press time, the merger was facing several hurdles from the various industry and customer entities involved in the sale. The merger is not expected to impact BAE Systems Inc.’s operation in the US. – J. Knowles

AAR-47 missile warners, ALQ-144 IR jammers, ALQ-136 RF jammers and ALE47 chaff and flare dispensers. Although not stipulated in the request, the deal is also expected to include APR-39 radar warning receivers. Other systems requested with the helicopters include AAQ-30 Target Sighting Systems and APX-123 Mode-4 IFF Systems. Weapons requested in the sale include 288 AGM114K3 Hellfire missiles and 72 AIM-9M-8 Sidewinder missiles. The ROK has requested Apaches that would be fitted with APR-39 RWRs from Northrop Grumman (Baltimore, MD), AVR-2B laser warners from Goodrich Aerospace (Danbury, CT), AAR-57 Common Missile Warning Systems from BAE Systems (Nashua, NH) and ALE-47 dispensers. The AAR-57 would be fitted in the five-sensor configuration. The

IN BRIEF

Apaches would also carry the APX-123 IFF system, along with Improved Helmet Display Sight Systems, ARC-210 SINCGARS radios and Target Acquisition and Designation Sight/Modernized Pilot Night Vision Sensors. Other systems include the APG-78 Longbow fire-control radar and the integrated APR-48A RF Interferometer (RFI). The Cobra sale is estimated at $2.6 billion, and the Apache deal is estimated to cost $3.6 billion. Another contender in the AHX program is the T-129B. It is being offered with Aselsan’s Helicopter EW Suite (HEWS), which comprises Cassidian’s AAR-60 missile warner, an RWR, and chaff and flare dispensers. The ROK Army currently operates about 50 AH-1S Cobras in an attack role and wants to supplement them with the 36 new attack helicopters. – J. Knowles

❍ Grintek Ewation (Silverton, South Africa) has changed its name to GEW Technologies, A Cassidian Company due to a lager South African stake in the company. The company’s sole shareholders are now EADS Deutchland GmbH of Germany and Kunene Finance Company of South Africa. Aside from the name change, all other aspects of the company’s management and operations remain the same. ❍ ITT Exelis (Clifton, NJ) announced the successful demonstration of its Advanced Defensive Electronic Warfare System (AIDEWS) for the Chilean Air Force. The test, a cooperative effort between Exelis and the Chilean and US Air Forces, demonstrated the performance of AIDEWS Block 5.2 against multiple airborne fire control radars with overlapping operating frequencies. The Block 5.2 configuration supports upcoming delivery of combat capable EW mission data to countries using AIDEWS-equipped F-16s. ❍ Indonesia has requested via FMS channels the sale of eight AH-64D Apache Longbow Block III helicopters. The helicopters would be sold with four each APG78 fire-control radars and APR-48A RF interferometer emitter targeting systems, and 10 each AAR-57 missile warners, 10 AVR-2B laser warners, and APR-36 RWRs. The total estimated cost is $1.4 billion. ❍ MBDA (Ulm, Germany) announced that it has achieved power of 40 kW using its high-energy laser demonstrator. This marks the successful demonstration of the company’s patented beam coupling of fiber lasers in target tracking and firing tests and continues the company’s development in high-power laser weaponry. Development is being funded internally and in part with research and technology resources from the German Federal Office of Defence Technology and Procurement (BWB). a

t r a p l gra .. e t n i . n s a n e g i b n es a d c e s v e wa ori o t r a c r i o m b a d L n c a i F tr R c e r l u e i o D y g n i v i of g

your e c u red . n a c e.. ies c r n o t a a . e abor e perform g L d c i E r e lect h prov e i T m i D u d yo from eight an g s n n i o i iv g olut e and w s m o z Cust nents' si Hi-Q Multi-Layer Capacitors o p s New Broadband Block 1111 case size. 200W RF Power, m co 10,000pF 1MHz-4GHz for high power wide band amplifiers s New Extreme leach resistant terminations for harsh

Thin Film Filters, Resonators, Equalizers



soldering profiles

s High K Dielectrics s Small Lightweight, temperature stable s Manufacturing repeatability sNew 40 GHz bandpass filters for backhaul point to point sFrequencies from 500MHz to >67GHz

s New 0201 Opti-Caps® - improved low frequency s Appraising the opportunity of Qualified

Parts List (QPL) for MIL-PRF-55681

Hi-Q Single-Layer s High K Dielectric space qualified s High K Ceramics and Custom thin Film components have

over 200,000,000 life hours with no failures

Build-to-Print – Thin Film s Filters, Heatsinks, Standoffs, Integrated

s Wide range of materials & designs s Appraising the opportunity of Qualified

passive components and RC Networks

Parts List (QPL) for MIL-PRF-49464

s High K Dielectric to improve performance, reduce size s >100 proprietary or patented ceramic formulations

Learn how Dielectric Laboratories capacitor solutions and thin-film expertise can give you The Edge. BSC FILTERS t DOW-KEY MICROWAVE t NOVACAP t SYFER TECHNOLOGY DIELECTRIC LABORATORIES t K&L MICROWAVE t POLE/ZERO t VOLTRONICS

www.dilabs.com

315.655.8710

By Richard Scott

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

24

Individual events in the eastern Mediterranean, the South Atlantic and the Persian Gulf have, at critical junctures over the past half century, demonstrated the potency of the anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) against surface combatants unaware, unprepared or simply unable to defend themselves. Indeed, the sinking of the destroyer INS Eilat by P-15 Termit (SS-N-2 Styx) missiles outside Port Said in October 1967 marked the start point for shipborne “soft kill” electronic warfare (EW) as we know it today. The sinking of the Eilat, the loss of HMS Sheffield in 1982, the crippling damage suffered by USS Stark in 1987 and the damage inflicted on INS Hanit off Lebanon in 2006 all bear testament to the potency of the ASCM threat. In each of these cases, a lack of situational awareness and/or a breakdown in the command chain prevented any defensive counteraction. Yet, in taking a historical perspective, it is also worth remembering that in those cases where adequate warning of an ASCM attack has been achieved, and well-practiced tactical responses put into effect, the timely deployment of countermeasures has proved effective. In 1973, for example, the Israel Navy made innovative use of soft-kill electronic deception techniques to nullify the threat from Styx missiles fired from Syrian missile craft on the second day of the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Similarly, post-war analysis of Royal Navy actions in the South Atlantic in 1982 showed that “Chaff Delta” (distraction chaff) was, when deployed in good time, successful in decoying at least two AM39 Exocet attacks. The key is to understand the characteristics and vulnerabilities in the missile’s terminal homing guidance

package, known more generically as the seeker, and then exploit these weaknesses so as to achieve soft-kill effect by means of onboard jamming, offboard decoys, or a combination thereof. What is apparent today is that the technology associated with ASCM threat seekers is becoming both more advanced and more diverse, as the leading European, Russian and Chinese manufacturers strive to develop terminal guidance packages that are more discriminative and less susceptible to electronic countermeasures. Moreover, the fact is that missiles embodying some of these technologies are proliferating to a number of regional states – and even non-state actors – to an extent that is causing more than a little discomfort among western navies. The threat set has also become more diverse, with the appearance of a number of ASCM seekers operating in portions of the electromagnetic spectrum outside of the typical radio frequency (RF) and infrared (IR) bands. These include the millimeter wave (mmW) radar seekers associated with a new breed of Chinese anti-ship missiles already proliferated into the Gulf region; and electro-optical (EO) and laser guidance systems allied to shorter-range guided weapons that may be encountered in the near-land, littoral environment.

ACTIVE RADAR The vast majority of currently fielded ASCMs can trace their antecedents back to the emergence in the 1970s of a new genre of long-range “fire and forget” anti-ship guided weapons capable of striking at major surface targets well over the horizon. These missiles, optimized for blue water engagements against distant targets along a clearly defined threat

The USS STARK (FFG-31) listing to port after being struck by an Iraqi-launched Exocet missile while operating in the Persian Gulf in 1987. (DOD image)

axis, were characterized by a combination of inertial guidance and active radar search and terminal homing, a high subsonic speed (Mach 0.9) and the employment of a “sea-skimming”

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

25

approach (so as to offer the minimum warning time to air defense radars). The open ocean Cold War battle for which these missiles were originally designed has today given way to an increased propensity for expeditionary operations in littoral environments. This has forced navies to re-evaluate

tactical flexibility and military effect, particularly given the far more restrictive rules of engagement now prevalent, and given impetus to missile developers to engineer a new breed of missiles designed to be capable of delivering more precise effects against a wider range of targets at sea, alongside and ashore. By

taking advantage of GPS-aided precision guidance and navigation, allied to the provision of improved shipborne mission planning facilities, this new genre offers the ability to execute complex multiplewaypoint flight profiles in confined littoral environments, and then find and strike their target.

The 3M54 Klub (SS-N-27B) remains one of the most formidable ASCM threats in service today. (Richard Scott photo)

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

26

Active RF seekers operating in a portion of the X-band or Ku-band have traditionally been preferred for terminal guidance on account of their robust, all-weather performance. Of course, technology has advanced significantly since the introduction of the Styx came to mark the beginning of the ASCM age. One informed, open-source account by Pace and Burton observed successive generational shifts. (1) The first generation of ASCM threats – typified by Styx – used a single-frequency pulse with a constant pulse repetition interval (PRI) and employed relatively wide range gates, leaving them highly susceptible to electronic countermeasures. A second generation, broadly corresponding to the introduction of early sea-skimming missiles during the 1970s, were differentiated by a marked increase in electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) capability, monopulse processing and the use of discrete computer circuits that enabled additional RF capability using both staggered and jittered PRI. Narrower range gates also figured. A third generation of RF seekers, coming into service from the late

1970s, began to see the use of complex RF modulations and frequency agility. Coherent Doppler processing (offering improved target discrimination and tracking) and ever more sophisticated electronic protection techniques also began to appear. Finally, a trend towards even more capable fourth-generation seekers was identified. These incorporated vastly improved signal processing functions so as to allow for the use of complex waveforms. Dual-mode RF-IR seekers also began to appear. It should be noted that one impact of the introduction of GPS-aided inertial navigation systems has been to significantly reduce the target search area, and thus allow for delayed or “late” seeker switch-on and shortened target search times. This in turn reduces the warning time from shipboard ESM systems. Introduction of net-enabled weapons able to receive in-flight target position updates will further reduce the size of the search area, and so further delay seeker activation. It is the capability of modern seeker logic to be able to so comprehensively evaluate and discriminate RF signals

that challenges the soft-kill designer. Advanced signal-processing algorithms are executed in order that the seeker’s received response is comprehensively analyzed and characterized, and that the kinematic behaviors associated with decoys, such as chaff, are recognized and rejected. Such ECCM techniques include intensity processing, spectral response, polarization, temporal spatial features, edge detection and side-line spin rate. The technology embodied in the active radar seeker for Saab’s latest RBS 15 Mk 3 missile – sold to Germany, Poland, Sweden and most recently Algeria – provides a case in point. The company points out that the upper Ku-band operating frequency and wide antenna aperture offer excellent angular resolution, while high-power monopulse with short pulse length gives good range resolution. These features mean that target selection can be conditioned according to a range of parameters: target position; single/multiple/group; target size and priority; search area type and size; search area masking and intelligent area scanning. The seeker logic also provides for a re-attack capability.

Unnpredictable situuations, unnforgiving condittions, unknown hazzards. It’s all in a day’s woorkk.

People depend on you every day. And you can depend on compact, accurate Agilent FieldFox microwave analyzers. At a kit-friendly 6.6 lbs., these rugged performers include a water and dust-resistant chassis, easy-to-read portrait orientation with low-reflective display and integrated calibration that eliminates the need to carry extra gear. Whatever the day throws your way, FieldFox can help you achieve it all. See how FieldFox measures up – watch the video. Scan the QR code or visit: http://qrs.ly/ty20pqk

FieldFox Microwave Analyzers 1 Models: precise measurements up to 26.5 GHz 12 • Spectrum u analyzers • Vector network analyzers (VNA) • Combination analyzers (cable & antenna analyzer + spectrum anaalyzer + VNA)

MIL-PRF-28800F Class 2 with 14 to 131 °F operating range

Learn about interference analysis, cable & antenna analysis and hassle-free calibration with our application note series. www.agilent.com/find/DependOnFieldFox © Agilent Technologies, Inc. 2012

u.s. 1-800-829-4444 canada: 1-877-894-4414

Saab also cites the seeker’s ECCM performance against jamming and active and passive decoys. Specific attributes include target analysis (false target discrimination for both distraction and seduction); home-on-jam; high-bandwidth frequency agility; and jittered pulse repetition frequency. Russia’s latest ASCM types also exemplify current trends. In developing the seeker for the 3M55 Yakhont (NATO designation SS-N-26) supersonic missile, the Granit Central Research Institute opted for a dual-channel active/passive RF homing head employing wideband coherent monopulse processing in active mode. Radar MMS supplies the ARGS35 and ARGS-54 active radar seekers for the 3M24 Uran (SS-N-25 Switchblade) subsonic ASCM and the 3M54 (SS-N-27B Sizzler) two-stage missile respectively. Both are believed to be coherent J-band seekers embodying a range of ECCM features.

MILLIMETER WAVE

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

28

Moving up from traditional microwave frequencies, a portion of the ASCM threat is now employing mmW radar seekers. While mmW radar is commonplace in the air-to-surface and antiarmor weapon sectors, its emergence as an ASCM seeker option - very much championed by China’s missile industry – is comparatively recent and presents a significant threat change for a naval EW community that has historically been focused on a threat spectrum between 8 and 18 GHz. Publicity materials produced by the state-run China National Precision Machinery Import and Export Corporation (CPMIEC) suggest that the intermediate range C701AR and C-704 missiles combine a digital autopilot with a 35-GHz mmW radar seeker. Both systems have found their way into Iran’s growing arsenal of anti-ship guided weapons, and licensed clones are manufactured under the respective names Kosar (in Iran) and Nasr (in Pakistan). CPMIEC information releases also state that the longer-range (>140 km) turbojet-powered C-705 missile uses a mmW terminal seeker. Most analysts do not believe that China has yet exported

the C-705 to Iran, but precedent suggests that it most likely will do so in due course. Although active radar seekers predominate in the ASCM world, a number of missiles use IR guidance techniques for terminal homing. And just as RF seeker technology has made significant leaps over time, so too has the science behind so-called heat-seeking sensors. First-generation IR seekers, such as that associated with the P-15 Termit variant of Styx, used simple midwaveband (3-5µm) detectors to pick up “hot spots” such as efflux plumes from a ship’s stack or other hot metal. Later generation two-color seekers (using two spectral windows within the same waveband) offer an improved capability for spectral discrimination to aid in targeting and offer some level of discrimination to reject early types of IR decoys. But the real concern today is the emergence of reduced field-of-view imaging infrared (IIR) seekers, operating at both mid- and far-IR wavebands and using advanced automatic target recognition (ATR) techniques. Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile (NSM), now being delivered into the Royal Norwegian Navy (RNoN), and the subject of a major export push by its manufacturer, is a case in point. NSM has been developed to meet the specific needs of the RNoN for a surface-to-surface guided weapon that combined excellent target acquisition and selection/recognition characteristics – effective in both open and confined waters – with a very “stealthy” design so as to maximize the probability of penetrating layers of enemy air defenses. An active RF seeker was rejected, according to Kongsberg, because it could not offer the very high level of discrimination and selectivity required in cluttered and crowded littoral engagements. It was considered to be overly susceptible to ECM, and the tell-tale RF emissions associated with a radar seeker in search mode would compromise the missile’s carefully-crafted stealth characteristics. Instead, Kongsberg and the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment have collaboratively developed a stabilized, dual-band wide field-of-view IIR

seeker that effectively “sees” and tracks the target and builds an image based on the vessel’s thermal signature in two separate wavebands. The application of intelligent filtering algorithms and narrow tracking gates is designed to discriminate against IR decoys. Extensive captive flight testing has also demonstrated real-time image processing for ATR and classification, this conferring the seeker with a capability to accurately discriminate between specific classes of ship.

DUAL-MODE SEEKERS A number of ASCMs have adopted dual-mode homing systems that exploit different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Taiwan’s Hsiung Feng II, developed in the 1980s by the Chung Shan Institute of Science and Technology, is generally credited as being the first subsonic ASCM to adopt a dualmode solution, in this case combining a radar seeker, an IIR seeker and a data fusion algorithm. Saab has also built and flight tested a dual-mode seeker demonstrator combining low-probability of intercept (LPI) radar based on spread-spectrum techniques, and an imaging infrared (IIR) seeker. This work derives directly from the wider Saab-led Swedish MultiSensor Program (which has examined radar, synthetic aperture radar, IIR sensors and associated sensor fusion techniques), and is intended to offer an all-weather, blue water, littoral and precision land strike capability. Saab argues that spread spectrum LPI technology would reduce power output in any given band to a level where it would be near impossible to detect the RF signal amid background noise. It adds that synthetic aperture radar techniques would offer additional improvements in angular resolution, leading to improvements in target discrimination. The move into the littorals means that naval units may now encounter guided weapon threats using parts of the electromagnetic spectrum hitherto not exploited by ASCMs. In particular, vessels operating close to shore, or in the confines of a port environment, may find themselves targeted by widely proliferated, laser-guided,

Government Solutions

Keeping the Peace

by simply keeping tabs

VNA MASTER MS2038C Made in USA

SPECTRUM MASTER MS2726C Made in USA

Electronic Peacekeeping Today’s evolving communications systems enable peacekeeping organizations around the globe to maintain strong communications systems capable of voice, video and data transmission that can be deployed anytime, anywhere. Wireless and Àber optic technology are used to help monitor conÁicts and arms embargoes, carry out early warnings and maintain situational awareness necessary to identify threats and support humanitarian efforts. Understanding potential threats is essential to peacefully resolving conÁict and avoiding disaster. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) aids in Ànding buried arms caches, while Ground Surveillance Radar (GSR) provides perimeter security and detects illegal activity. Using air surveillance and satellites, peacekeepers detect airspace violations and conÀrm large refugee movements common in war-torn areas.

Scan the QR code to view details directly on your smartphone

At Anritsu, we are proud of the role our test and measurement products play to support peacekeeping operations around the world. Peace through the strength of advanced communications is what we are about at Anritsu.

For more information and to download our FREE APPLICATION NOTE: Detecting Signals Hidden in Plain Sight visit us online at: www.anritsuco.com/jed-peace

USA/Canada 1-800-ANRITSU

Europe 44 1582-433433

Japan 81 (46) 223-1111

Asia-Pacific (852) 2301-4980

South America 55 (11) 3283-2511

The Naval Strike Missile combines GPS and an advanced IR seeker with a stealth design. (Kongsberg Defense and Aerospace)

anti-armor missiles (types such as the 9M133 Kornet [NATO designation AT14 Spriggan]). There are also numerous air-launched munitions now using semi-active laser guidance.

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

30

INTRODUCING THE ANTISHIP BALLISTIC MISSILE Finally, mention must be made of a totally different class of threat in the shape of the anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). China’s Dongfeng-21D (DF21D/CSS-5 Mod 5) medium-range ASBM, characterized by many commentators as a “carrier-killer,” is now believed to be at an advanced stage of development, if not already deployed, and is assessed by some as a potential anti-access/area denial “game-changer.” China in 2011 publicly confirmed the development of an ASBM based on a variant of the DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile. In its 2012 report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China, the Pentagon notes that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Second Artillery Corps is acquiring and fielding greater numbers of conventional medium-range ballistic missiles to “increase the range at which it can conduct precision strikes against…. naval ships, including aircraft carriers, operating far from China’s shores

beyond the First island chain”. The assessed range of the DF-21D/CSS-5 Mod 5 exceeds 1,500 km, bringing targets in the western Pacific within range; the missile is armed with a maneuverable warhead and homing seeker. Analysis suggests that China is developing a wide-area, maritime-surveillance and targeting network – building its picture from land-based, over-thehorizon backscatter radars, land-based over-the-horizon surface wave radars, surveillance aircraft, electro-optical satellites, radar satellites, and seabed sonar arrays – that could be used to localize hostile ships and submarines at extended range, and provide targeting information for Chinese ASBMs and other air- and sea-based weapons systems. According to the Pentagon’s 2011 report to Congress on Chinese military development, “[the] PLA Navy is improving its long-range surveillance capability with skywave and surface-wave overthe-horizon radars. In combination with early-warning aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and other surveillance and reconnaissance equipment, the radars allow China to carry out surveillance and reconnaissance over the western Pacific. These radars can be used in conjunction with reconnaissance satellites to locate targets at great distances from China, thereby supporting long-range

precision strikes, including employment of ASBMs”. Of course, a key technical question surrounding the ASBM is the nature of its targeting, terminal-homing system - the method by which the CSS-5 Mod 5 will make course corrections so as to home onto its target in the final phase of flight. Both active radar (perhaps mmW) and passive RF seekers have been theorized, possibly augmented by an IR sensor. Ronald O’Rourke, in the Congressional Research Service’s August 2012 report, China Naval Modernization: Implications for US Navy Capabilities – Background and Issues for Congress, suggests that countering China’s projected ASBMs could involve employing a combination of hard-kill and soft-kill measures (the latter for masking the exact location of naval unit ships or confusing ASBM re-entry vehicles), to attack various points in the “kill chain.” This could, for example, include careful control of electromagnetic emissions or the use of deception emitters for decoying and confusing ASBMs as they approach their intended targets. a 1. Antiship Cruise Missiles: Technology, Simulation and Ship Self-Defense, P.E. Pace and Lt G.D. Burton, Journal of Electronic Defense, November 1998.

Yeah, we do that.

TX

RX

Repeater Dilemma that must be resolved.

Trying to send and receive a small signal among big interferers on your repeater platform? We should talk.

513.870.4087 w w w. p o l e z e ro . c o m

Cognition:

EW Gets Brainy By Barry Manz

“The desire to autonomously anticipate, find, fix, track, target, engage and assess anything, anytime, anywhere (AF2T2EA4) in spectrallydense environments will require changes to how we build, modify, and deploy radar and radio frequency systems.” The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

32

– Dr. Michael Wicks, AFRL Sensors Directorate, 2010 (1)

Besides including what may be one of DOD’s most convoluted acronyms ever, this opening statement from Dr. Wicks is as good a summary as any of the future challenges for adaptability faced by defense systems and their developers. Although his paper addressed these tasks as they apply to radar, they are equally applicable to the EW environment. To successfully achieve them, in whole or in part, will rely on “cognition,” (to summarize definitions from Merriam Webster and Wikipedia), that is, conscious intellectual activity such as thinking, reasoning, remembering, imagining, or learning, and processing information, applying knowledge and changing preferences. The key word in Dr. Wicks’ sentence is “autonomously,” as these functions will be performed by machines not men, and in tiny fractions of a second. It is arguably as daunting a challenge as any the defense community has been forced to tackle.

SDR AND COGNITIVE: A BIG DIFFERENCE Before going further, it’s important to recognize the difference between the terms software-defined and cognitive. A software-defined radio (SDR) is the classic example of digital components taking the place of their analog counterparts and this trend has been covered in the pages of JED before. Suffice it to say that when functions can be performed digitally they will be, eliminating components such as mixers, filters and other devices. The functions in an SDR are performed in software using digital components such as FPGAs, DSPs, high-speed memory and analog-to-digital and digitalto-analog converters. As standard-based waveforms are defined in software, and signal processing is performed digitally, an SDR can receive, transmit and switch between a large number of waveforms. One of the best-known military examples of SDR is the Joint Tactical Radio System

short, while the SDR is smart enough to make limited decisions based on preprogrammed capabilities, cognitive systems can make orders of magnitude more types of decisions, and act on them. The development of cognitive techniques is a highly mathematical domain, focused on behavioral models and algorithms rather than hardware. Even with this as a backdrop, Dr. Shubha Kadambe, principal systems engineer at Rockwell Collins Technology Center (Cedar Rapids, IA), says that current digital components are not a limiting factor today.

This is important, as the goal of every program, from DARPA or elsewhere, is to enhance the capabilities of existing systems while integrating them into many others in the future. The company, which has been working in this area for five years, has a prototype system with algorithms running on a laptop using I/Q files from spectrum captures used as the simulated environment. Dr. Kadambe explains that there are essentially three elements encompassing cognitive EW. “The first is situational awareness, scanning the environment, determining what signals are present, their waveforms, their location and who might be transmitting them,” she says. “The second is electronic attack, the essence of cognitive techniques, in which you jam either the physical, MAC or network layers.” “The algorithms make optimal decisions as to which node to use and to which layer to apply jamming in order to optimize the amount of energy in the waveform while minimizing the energy elsewhere to avoid collateral damage,” she continues. “We want to target only those foes whose signals have the most significant effects on friendly forces. The last element is protection, managing the spectrum based on terrain, the type of equipment the enemy is using, minimizing jamming to friendly forces, and jamming networks. In the learning part of cognition, the system digests something it does not know, learns about it, and adapts to the new environment. It does not require huge computational resources,” says Kadambe, “but this depends on the number of unknowns. Our algorithms are very efficient.” Albert Davis, program manager for Spectrum Systems Laboratories, within Lockheed Martin’s Advanced Technology Laboratories (Cherry Hill, NJ), adds another element to the equation: distributed sensing, which the company’s researchers have been working on in addition to other aspect of cognitive EW. “In the six years our lab has been working on these issues, “says Davis, “there have been so many sensing, processing, and networking advances that it is now possible to put some cognitive algorithms on small platforms.”

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

(JTRS) program. When the program was re-scoped by the US Army last year, the key element remained the waveforms, which future JTRS-compliant radios must incorporate. In contrast, a radio, radar or EW system with cognitive abilities can reconfigure itself not just with preprogrammed waveforms, but with waveforms created in place and on the fly, so to speak, using cognitive abilities to make multiple, simultaneous advanced decisions about a bewildering array of questions in real-time or nearly so. In

33

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

34

“Probably our greatest strength,” he continues, “is in distributed sensing, that is, using not just one sensor but multiple sensors fused to provide greater situational awareness. One of the benefits of this approach is that if you have a lot of inexpensive sensors in the field that send feedback to a central computer, each sensor needs to have much less processing capability, which gives you more flexibility than one large, expensive sensor in one location. As each sensor captures different information, and each one covers a specific frequency range, there is enhanced ability to establish situational awareness.” Davis strongly believes that a distributed approach is one of the aspects of cognitive EW that will deliver the greatest benefits in performance, cost control, and SWaP (size, weight and power), among others. “As we become a more networked world, we have to think the distributed approach,” says Davis, “understanding what we are sensing, mapping, and modeling before we send information out the people who need it. To achieve this, we need smart algorithms on localized, small sensors and also bigger algorithms at a central point.” He defines some of the major cognitive EW challenges as focusing on spatial temporal aspects, distribution of emitters in space when they appear, if they correlate to known models or are unknown, and how various events diverge from what should be expected (which can indicate that the situation has changed). Ultimately, the end result is to identify targets, determine if it is the enemy, determine its weakness, jam it selectively and suppress it with very smart techniques developed over time with adaptive algorithms. Davis presents an interesting point that is probably as important as any technological aspect of cognitive EW development – resistance to change. “The classic approach to EW is very strongly held by many people, and getting them to rely on algorithms and advanced sensing takes some time. So we have to demonstrate that the techniques work and are as effective, if not more so, as traditional barrage attacks.”

“The algorithms make optimal decisions as to which node to use and to which layer to apply jamming in order to optimize the amount of energy in the waveform while minimizing the energy elsewhere to avoid collateral damage.” – Dr. Shubha Kadambe, Rockwell Collins THE ORIGIN OF COGNITIVE CAPABILITY The word “cognitive” was first applied, and is most closely associated, with RF and microwave communications and refers to the ability of a system to “sniff” a particular portion of spectrum, assess whether or not it is free of interference and available for use, and then direct the radio to either use it or move elsewhere after examining other spectral choices. This is obviously a simple description, especially as applied to defense systems, as there may be many reasons why a military channel or other slice of spectrum may not be available for use, such as the presence of signals from friendly forces and jamming. However, a precise definition of availability differs with the application. For example, a commercial communications system may need only a clear channel and an acceptable signal-tonoise ratio, and perhaps, as is the case with the emerging networks operating in the “white spaces” between TV channels, a database of licensed stations present in some but not all geographic areas to which the white space system must defer. This is essentially a fairly rudimentary form of cognitive radio, as it assesses the spectral environment and makes autonomous decisions about where to operate.

A defense communications system needs this as well as information about the presence of the aforementioned friendly communications systems, jamming, the presence of enemy communications, radar and other signals. In today’s signal environment, this is a formidable task. As licensed bands vary by country and region, the enemy will often use different frequencies in these countries or regions, and the electromagnetic environment may be packed with signals from various services. A radar system requires all of this plus dynamically-changing knowledge of the presence of natural and man-made clutter, a history of previous signals, more complex analysis of signal conditions and the ability to act on them to anticipate their presence even if they are temporarily off the air. The radar must also be able to anticipate its next move and those of its adversaries before they occur. Finally, EW systems require all of the above plus the ability to perform electronic attack against known or suspected enemy emitters. Implementing cognitive EW functions against radar systems may be considered the most challenging, and thus initial efforts have been focused on it. Designing and implementing cognitive capabilities in EW systems will nevertheless be extraordinarily difficult, especially as groundbased systems (for example) must often function in densely-packed regions of the communications spectrum. The challenge of implementing cognitive functionality is a major focus throughout DOD, and not surprisingly it is intensely focused on the algorithmic aspects of intelligent utilization of the spectrum, high-speed selection of available waveforms, tracking of all types of target signals from voice to data, video, and images from multiple sensors as well as terrain and clutter maps. Radar performance has improved dramatically over the years through development of intelligent constant false alarm rate (CFAR), space time adaptive processing (STAP), and various other techniques. In general, radar signal processing and functionality has evolved from being purely deterministic to be intelligent and adaptive.

Harness the Legacy of Teledyne Storm’s Cabling Expertise

Our Heritage is Your Heritage More than 30 years of microwave cable design and manufacturing expertise goes into our multi-channel harness assemblies...assemblies built to satisfy the challenging requirements of a wide range of airborne, ground, and sea-based defense systems. Put our reputation for technical expertise and outstanding customer service to the test.

Contact us today for a harness solution designed to meet your needs.

10221 Werch Drive Woodridge, Illinois 60517 Tel 630.754.3300 Toll Free 888.347.8676

Download our Multi-Channel Microwave Solutions brochure at www.teledynestorm.com/JED1012

Cognitive capability adds the function of making decisions based on a form of reasoning.

DARPA’S ALL OVER IT Today, in the US, a debate rages about the role of government in the economy. The $500 million the Obama administration threw at Solyndra for solar panel development has been flogged incessantly as proof positive that government has no place in private industry. However, programs conducted by

“The classic approach to EW is very strongly held by many people, and getting them to rely on algorithms and advanced sensing takes some time.” – Albert Davis, Lockheed Martin the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) have demonstrated otherwise. Without them, gallium arsenide (GaAs) MMICs would never have

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

36

605157_OPHIR.indd 1

9/27/12 1:40:33 PM

become commercialized as quickly, and neither would have gallium nitride (GaN), proving (at least to the author), that when handled professionally, government-industry partnerships can produce excellent results. Hopefully, the broad range of DARPA programs either underway or in the proposal stage to develop cognitive, adaptive solutions for jamming and radar will prove to be just as successful. Two major programs in particular, the latest of which is the Adaptive Radar Countermeasures (ARC) program, focuses on thwarting the increasing agility and other capabilities of radars, while the Behavioral Learning for Adaptive Electronic Warfare (BLADE) program focus on threats from wireless communications systems and IEDs. Neither addresses RF hardware such as the receiver, transmitter and antenna, but rather focuses on software, networking and other aspects. A key tenet of both programs is to improve the way EW systems operate. Today’s EW systems rely on libraries of known emitter (radar, communications, etc.) waveforms, which typically have been studied in the lab and for which effective countermeasures have been developed. Emitters using new and otherwise unknown waveforms and other techniques cannot be effectively addressed without recording them, going back into the lab, repeating the above process, and getting them into the field. Both programs recognize that this is too slow and will place US forces at a major disadvantage in the future unless adaptive EW systems are developed that employ cognitive abilities. The program requires participants to use open-software architectures to allow insertion, modification, and removal of software modules with minimal impact on the rest of the system in a plug-and-play approach.

Introducing RF-to-Digital (RF2D ) Wideband Solutions ™

5HYYV^IHUK9-[LJOUVSVNPLZJHUILPUZ\MÄJPLU[ for modern defense and aerospace applications where broad spectrum coverage is the goal. Applying deep RF expertise and advanced data converter technologies, Tektronix Component Solutions now offers integrated multi-channel RF2D™ solutions that deliver wideband performance, more direct frequency conversion and lower SWaP.

,_HTWSLZWLJPÄJH[PVUZ!^PKLIHUKYLJLP]LY Input frequency range: 0-70 GHz 1 RF channel at 4.8 GHz BW: 58 dB SFDR, 142 dB/Hz SNR 1 RF channel at 1.2 GHz BW: 66 dB SFDR, 146 dB/Hz SNR 4 RF channels at 1.2 GHz BW: 58 dB SFDR, 136 dB/Hz SNR

Performance. Reliability. Quality. To learn more about our RF2D™ solutions: www.component-solutions.tek.com/jed-rf2d [email protected] 800.462.9835 © 2012 Tektronix Component Solutions. All rights reserved. Tektronix Component Solutions services and products are covered by U.S. and foreign patents, issued and pending. TEKTRONIX COMPONENT SOLUTIONS and the Tektronix Component Solutions logo are registered trademarks.

ADAPTIVE RADAR COUNTERMEASURES (ARC)

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

38

DARPA issued the Broad Agency Announcement for the Adaptive Radar Countermeasures (ARC) program in July for which responses were due in late August. The goals of the program, worth up to $70 million to the participants, is to develop the ability to counter threats from radars in “tactically relevant” timeframes whose waveforms and behavior are either new, unknown, or ambiguous. Enemy radars of interest include ground-to-air and air-to-air types that can perform multiple functions with agile beam steering, waveform modification, and advanced coding and pulse repetition interval. The challenges, as stated by DARPA, are in general to isolate the signal in the presence of both friendly and hostile signals in potentially dense signal environments consisting of friendly, enemy, and neutral signals, determine the level of the threat, and transmit a countermeasure. The ARC program specifically calls for development of new processing techniques and algorithms that can counter adaptive radar threats by assessing its behavior in real-time, autonomously generating countermeasures, and evaluating their effects, while providing feedback to a weapons systems operator. The program considers acceptable approaches that use a modular, open, scalable software architecture, and allow the pilot or other operator to be inserted “in the loop.” The program does not address the RF portion of the EW system but rather algorithms that can be integrated into existing EW platforms and become part of new ones. Once deployed, a platform embodying ARC technology should be able to operate either independently or within a network of other ARC-enabled systems.

BLADE: THE CUTTING EDGE The goal of DARPA’s BLADE program is to develop the ability to counter adaptive wireless communications threats in tactical environments, once again in “tactically relevant timescales.” BLADE defines a wireless communications threat as enemy use of wireless radios and networks for command, control, and com-

The ARC program specifically calls for development of new processing techniques and algorithms that can counter adaptive radar threats by assessing its behavior in realtime, autonomously generating countermeasures, and evaluating their effects, while providing feedback to a weapons systems operator. munications (C3), as well as for Remote Controlled Improvised Explosive Devices (RCIEDs). Once again, the problem is that the lag time between unknown threat identification, countermeasures development and deployment in the field leaves forces vulnerable. As AESA technologies are constantly evolving in radars and EW, so too are wireless technologies through the use of Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA) approaches and other techniques. DARPA calls for a “paradigm shift” in electronic attack (EA) from lab-based development to “on-the-fly” countermeasure development in the field using learned techniques. In late 2011, BAE Systems’ National Security Systems business in Burlington, MA, received an $8.4 million contract from DARPA, and the work is being performed at Burlington, Nashua, NH, and Piscataway, NJ. In July 2011, a team led by Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Laboratories in Cherry Hill, NJ, also received a 15-month, $5.9 million contract from DARPA. The team includes the company’s Space Systems Co, the Applied Research Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University, and Princeton University.

The participants are working on the ability to detect and characterize new threats, learning to effectively jam them, and assessing jamming effectiveness in situ with the Electronic Warfare Officer (EWO) able to both command the system to either jam specific threats or identify them and learn how to defeat them. The EWO thus has the ability to select denial effects based on mission and determine how well the threats are performing against the enemy. Algorithms developed in BLADE should find applications in existing EW systems, and a BLADE-equipped system should be able to operate alone or as part of a network of other BLADE systems, with performance improving as the number of nodes increases. Existing networking capabilities are expected to be used to enable information sharing among multiple EW nodes. Specifically, the BLADE program demands the ability to detect and deny new communication threats in the field, provide feedback on jamming effectiveness in real-time, “surgically” attack multiple new threats simultaneously, and be suitable for use on ground vehicles and UAVs. The 51-month BLADE program is being conducted in three phases. Phase 1 targets system design and algorithm development with testing conducted in a test-bed environment. Phase 2 will focus on real-time implementation of designs created in Phase 1 to demonstrate networking ability. Phase 3 calls for a networked prototype that will run in real-time and be suitable for use in a ground-based platform. Phase 2 and Phase 3 testing will use a real-time, over-the-air signal environment.

DEALING WITH INTERFERENCE Yet another DARPA program called Communications in Extreme RF Spectrum Conditions (COMMEX) aims to help develop the adaptability and flexibility needed to allow communications systems to functions successfully through interference suppression. The Air Force Research Lab, on behalf DARPA, awarded initial two-year COMMEX contracts to Shared Spectrum Co. of Vienna, VA, and BAE Systems Electronics Solutions in Merrimack, NH.

AFRL’S APPROACH Another program called Cognitive Jammer from the Electronic Warfare Techniques Development and Analysis Branch of the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Sensors Directorate at WrightPatterson AFB, focuses on development of techniques that will result in a firstgeneration cognitive jammer. The objective is to improve jamming effectiveness while minimizing fratricide, and it is envisioned as an adaptive, multifunctional (communications, radar, navigation), jammer based on a networked Software Defined Architecture (SDA). The program, at its initiation in 2010, was focused on exploring concepts, techniques and technologies at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 3+. In yet another program, Raytheon was awarded a two-year $3.8 million DARPA contract designed to allow forces to conduct jamming operations with minimal interference to friendly forces. Platforms of interest in the High-Power Efficient RF Digital-toAnalog Converter (HiPERDAC) program are ships, ground vehicles, tactical aircraft, UAVs, and individual soldiers. By generating signals that are linear and efficient, HiPERDAC aims to let jamming be performed over a broad swatch of spectrum, leaving precise gaps for communication by friendly forces. The program calls for Raytheon to produce a technology demonstration that efficiently generates high-power, rapidly-tunable, linear, microwave signals across a wide range of spectrum.

COGNITIVE EW TOMORROW As radars become more adaptive (or deceptive, from an EW perspective), as the spectrum becomes more congested, and as new waveforms evolve both in the commercial and military domains, there is only one way for EW to keep up: It has to get smarter. That is, it must employ cognitive techniques. Based on the sheer number of programs dedicated to various elements of cognitive EW, from developing situational awareness, to dealing with in-

terference, separating friend from foe, and jamming, there is little doubt that not only will the next generation of EW systems have cognitive capability, but current EW systems will have at least increased cognitive abilities as well. a

Reference 1. Dr. Michael Wicks, “Spectrum Crowding and Cognitive Radar”, Air Force Research Laboratory, Sensors Directorate, March 2010.

SIGINT BLOCKS FOR COMINT SYSTEMS EW RADAR Tekmicro offers:

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

Shared Spectrum received $5.9 million and BAE Systems $6 million. The companies are exploring systems interference properties and behaviors, frequency and time agility, smart antenna techniques, advanced circuit and component design, novel receiver architectures, linear, adaptive, and nonlinear signal processing techniques, adaptive modulation and error control waveform properties and adaptive networking, network topology, multi-link, and multi-networking. The initial phase focuses on technology development and the next phase on full-scale development and operational demonstration of RF interference suppression systems.

• More channels • More analog resolution

39

• More bandwidth • More FPGA processing • More choices for your application In VME & VXS form factors for easy retrofit into existing systems.

Channels Resolution Sample Rate FPGAs

Aries-V6 Aries V6 Calypso-V6 Proteus-V6 10 6 2 16-bit 12-bit 10-bit 250 MSPS 1.8 GSPS 5 GSPS Three Virtex-6 devices from LX240T to SX475T

Along with many other ADC and DAC choices, all with sample accurate synchronization, network enabled, inherently scalable, and available for commercial and ruggedized applications including conduction cooled.

554132_TEK.indd 1

Tekmicro www.tekmicro.com | [email protected] 978-244-9200 | 978-328-5951 fax 300 Apollo Drive, Chelmsford, MA 01824-3629

10/6/11 4:11:04 PM

Inside IEWS Tackling Major New Army EW Capabilities Development By John Haystead

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

40

By any standard, the Integrated EW System (IEWS) is a big program, and a big challenge for the Army. Aside from the technology development and the number of new systems involved, IEWS will require many years to develop and field, cross multiple disciplines and command levels, and encompass a broad range of battlefield missions and users. In order to accomplish its ultimate vision for IEWS, the Army will need to not only dramatically reshape both its EW system requirements definition process, but also its operational and training doctrine for manning and managing this major new family of EW systems. The scope of the challenge posed by IEWS appears to be recognized and accepted by both senior Army and DOD leadership, however. According to COL Jim Ekvall, Chief of the EW Division, G-3/5/7 Operations, Readiness, and Mobilization Directorate, Headquarters, Department of the Army, “The leadership understand what’s going to be required, the level of long-term commitment, and the dedicated funding that will be needed for successful development and implementation of IEWS.” At the same time, however, Ekvall also recognizes that the Army will have to weigh its need for IEWS among all of its other priorities. “But, my impression is that senior leaders of the Army understand that the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) has taken on a new role in warfighting as it relates to the traditional domains of air, land, space and maritime as well as the cyberspace domain, and that EW has a role in every one of these warfighting domains. They

understand it’s not something that we can ignore, and it’s not something that we can afford the Army to not have a solution for.” The new level of interest and commitment to EW is largely driven by the Army’s experiences in Iraq and Afghani-

stan, where the need for more capable and organically-managed assets was made patently clear. As described by Ekvall, however, “It would be incorrect to say that the Army has been out of the EW business. EW support and EW protect have always been a part of the way the

Prophet Enhanced SIGINT platform, 504th Battlefield Surveillance Brigade. (US Army photo)

ed to better protect its vehicles and soldiers from radio controlled improvised explosive devices (RFIEDs), it also learned that the overall EW mission requirement was much broader than that. “As a result, we looked at all aspects of our Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and education, Personnel, and Facilities (DOTMLPF), to identify where gaps existed and what we needed to do to fill them. The first need identified was that of dedicated people, followed by specialized training, and changes in doctrine, and the Army has moved out aggressively to meet this.” It was also clear however, says Ekvall, that these steps alone would not be enough to close the gaps sufficiently. “We needed an integrated system, in fact a system-of-systems, that addressed everything we needed to do for EW, including EP, EW support, and EA – a variety of systems that collectively made up a complete, integrated EW system for the ground maneuver commander.” This is IEWS.

A COMPLEX MANAGEMENT TASK The lead organization responsible for making IEWS a reality is Product Development Manager (PdM) Raven Fire, one of three product offices within the Army’s Program Management Office for EW (PM-EW), which also contains the Army’s CREW family-of-systems and PROPHET product offices. PM-EW, itself, resides in the Army’s Program Executive Office for Intelligence, EW and Sensors (PEO IEW&S). Michael Ryan, PM-EW Deputy Project Manager says the extent of upfront planning and definition being implemented with the IEWS development effort is unprecedented. “In the past, we’ve been behind the threat and had to put out a lot of disparate, stand-alone, quickreaction capabilities (QRCs). We didn’t really get a chance to do all the proper system engineering, but with IEWS, the objective is to make these systems broader and highly adaptive to meet an equally broad range of EW threats, both offensively and defensively.” Successfully achieving this goal will entail much more than detailed system engineering, however. It must begin with a comprehensive requirements

definition, and accomplishing this is no small task. In fact as COL Joe DuPont, head of PM-EW says, this has been his primary focus since coming on board. “What you’ve seen over the last few years are really QRC efforts, and we play in that arena as well, but getting our arms around all this is really where IEWS comes in.” Colonel DuPont says his first objective has been to engage all of the various stakeholders – “trying to determine who our proponents are, who our champion is, who we go to for requirements, and trying to make some sense of it all.” But he points out that there are multiple centers of excellence within the Army, such as signals, intelligence, mission commands etc., “all throwing out requirements.” In addition, there is the EW Proponent Office (EWPO) at the Combined Arms Center (Fort Leavenworth, KS) whose responsibility it is to review everything across Army EW DOTMLPF. “What we don’t have,” says DuPont, “is a ‘single capabilities manager’ for EW, and what I’m pushing for right now, as well as my counterparts in the EWPO, is for a single entity to be identified that handles material requirements within TRADOC – be that a TRADOC Capabilities Manager (TCM) or a TRADOC project office. Our job at the PM level is to reach out and pull in all EW activities across all areas of the Army, wherever there is technology or systems, existing or in development, QRC or otherwise, and pull this all in under IEWS. But, because we don’t have this single-capability manager, it makes it more challenging.” Ekvall endorses this view. “I absolutely believe that there needs to be one head for Army EW. Not necessarily a single individual, but one voice that keeps all of Army EW moving in a common direction. The Army has been moving steadily towards EW becoming an enduring core capability. We’re not there yet, but we’re on a path, and at some point, one TRADOC capabilities manager needs to be able to keep everyone on this same path. It may wind up being something called a TRADOC Program Office in its initial phases and evolve into a capabilities manager role as IEWS becomes more mature. As for a lead advocate, or champion for IEWS within the Army, DuPont points

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

Army looks at accomplishing its mission, but our ability to gain and maintain an advantage in the EMS has ebbed and flowed over time.” What’s different today, says Ekvall, is that up until now the Army has relied heavily on the joint service community to meet much of its EW needs across all aspects of the requirement including electronic protect (EP), EW support, and electronic attack (EA). “That community’s ability to meet the Army’s requirements in major combat operations, and at the unified command levels, has been very good, but what we learned during the war on terrorism was that it was not tailored to the needs of the maneuver commander. What they needed was a more precise capability, albeit less powerful, but one that was available to them 24 hours a day/7 days a week.” In addition, Ekvall notes that while the Army learned early on that it need-

41

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

42

to the G-3/5/7 and Colonel Ekvall, but also points out that this office does not currently have the authority to validate requirements under EW and that this is instead done at the Capabilities Integration Division (DAMO-CI). “It would be great if I could go to him (Colonel Ekvall) to validate requirements instead of having to go to two different entities within the G3.” As the Army staff focal point for EW, Ekvall does see himself as a primary advocate for IEWS. However, he also notes that he is not organizationally “the boss” of either the EWPO or PM-EW. “My role is to do what I can to ensure that the various organizations in the Army’s EW community are working toward a common goal and that we are all focused on the warfighters’ requirements.” Funding issues are, of course, another factor and Colonel DuPont points out that his funding currently resides under intelligence for the “Prophet” SIGINT program, but otherwise comes under the various mission commands. “Under mission command, we compete with all their other requirements, and since EW is brand new to their portfolio, this is often a struggle.” In that regard, DuPont says there are a number of ongoing discussions regarding whether this is in fact the best funding structure. “There is senior leadership interest in getting this cleaned up, and it’s just a matter of where it’s going to go.”

I absolutely believe there needs to be one head for Army EW. – COL Jim Ekvall idea is to afford commanders an “actionable picture of the spectrum,” with the option of listening to, jamming, or firing on an enemy signal.” The total EWPMT effort is divided into six “Capability Drops (CDs)” with the first planned for fielding in 2014 and providing essential EW mission planning and management tools. This will be followed by an initial operating capability (IOC) no later than 2015 and full operational capability (FOC) by 2018. The Army plans to test the first iteration of the tool at the brigade level as part of its Network Integration Evaluation in 2014. An analysis of alternatives (AOA) for EWPMT was recently completed, and the program office has released two draft

THE SHAPE AND SCOPE OF IEWS The IEWS family of systems is divided into three segments: Defensive Electronic Attack (DEA), Multifunction EW (MFEW) and the EW Planning and Management Tool (EWPMT), with the last two elements now established as Army programs of record. The EWPMT is the initial focus of IEWS, as it will provide the framework for managing all other elements of the system. Using the EWPMT, the Army’s EWOs will be able to perform targeting; coordinate air and ground EMS operations; model EW effects and deconflict with other systems in the battlespace; integrate with fires, intelligence and spectrum management databases; and conduct battle damage assessment. LTC Douglas Burbey, Product Director of Raven Fire, says the

Army CPT Daniel Grieve, 1st Armored Division Military Transition Team advisor and Phoenix Academy student, speaks to Air Force Capt Dane Bannach, Phoenix Academy electronic warfare officer and counter radio-controlled improvised explosive device instructor, on how to properly function check a new generation jammer system. Photo by Staff Sgt. Dilia Ayala. (US Army photo)

performance work statements (PWSs) in advance of releasing an RFP with a contract award planned for sometime toward the end of 2013. DuPont observes that the EWPMT effort is a good example of how they are leveraging all of the different Army communities and their capabilities as they plan to bring all these different tool sets together under IEWS. “As an integrated EW fighting management tool, a big part of the job is of course spectrum management, but responsibility for spectrum management lies within the signals community, and they have tools available to them today that we will be looking at.” In 2013, EWPMT will become its own program management office in PM-EW with a new board-select lieutenant colonel product manager. It will be known as PdM Electronic Warfare Integration (EWI), encompassing EWPMT as its program of record product. The analysis of alternatives (AOA) study for the multifunction EW (MFEW) portion of IEWS is currently in process with results expected this November. MFEW comprises the systems that will provide the actual EA capabilities of IEWS, components of which are already in development through QRC efforts. The Army is planning for a combination of systems – dismounted, vehiclemounted, fixed site, and UAV. Performance Work Statements for MFEW will be released after its milestone A decision, which is planned for the first quarter of 2013. A new dedicated program office will be stood up for MFEW in FY 2014. The final piece of the IEWS project to be addressed is Defensive EA. As described by Colonel DuPont, there are still a lot of elements in flux regarding this segment, such as the future status of the Joint Counter Radio Controlled IED (JCREW) program, and the “Army G3 does not yet feel it is at the point where it can put together adequate study guidance for an AOA release.” DuPont estimates this won’t take place until sometime in the next calendar year.

QRC EFFORTS Even as PM-EW ramps up IEWS, it must also manage or monitor all of the

Army’s ongoing quick reaction efforts to provide its fielded forces with critical EW capabilities needed today – all of which must also be factored heavily into its IEWS AOAs. In fact, as pointed out by Ryan, as it stands today, all of the Army’s existing and near-term defensive EA capabilities are QRC efforts. Within PM-EW’s PdM CREW family of systems office, the existing defensive EA capability is the Duke vehicle-mounted RCIED self-protection jamming system. The Duke V2 EA version was a QRC upgrade of these existing Duke systems into a shelterized version, adding new amplifiers and antennas to give them an expanded EA capability. The CREW office is now establishing requirements for an upgrade to the current Duke V3 system called Duke Technical Insertion (DTI), which is intended to ensure the system can keep pace with current threats as well as replace or upgrade obsolete equipment. The CREW office is also developing a lightweight (7-12 lb.), wearable RCIED self-protection jamming system for in-

Air Force Maj Jamy L. L Sirmans, Sirmans Multi-National Corps - Iraq Security Force Assistance personnelrecovery officer, instructs soldiers on the use of a new-generation jammer system in Iraq. (Photo by Tech. Sgt. Lionel Castellano)

soldiers, but only as long as they remain within its sphere of coverage. ICREW is currently in source selection, with proposals being evaluated. As reported in the April 2012 JED, CENTCOM has stated an urgent need for up to 3,900 ICREW

dividual soldiers. The Individual CREW device, or “ICREW” will supplement or serve in place of the existing THOR family of systems which weigh approximately 14-17 lbs and provide a limited “zone of protection” encompassing multiple

The Future of Electronic Warfare in the ASEAN and Pacific Regions NOVEMBER 27-28 // KUALA LUMPUR, MALAYSIA

G

ELECTRONIC WARFARE ASIA 2012

L

O

L BA

AOC

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

44

Join the AOC for its second electronic warfare conference and exhibition focused on the EW needs of the Asia-Pacific region. SESSION ONE SESSION TWO SESSION THREE

An Introduction to Pacific Basin EW Challenges Perspectives on Regional EM Ops Platform Survivability

SESSION SESSION SESSION SESSION

FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN

EW Developments EM Operations Integration State of the Art EW Future EM Technology

For details on EW Asia 2012 exhibition and sponsorship opportunities please contact ALISON KNAPP // +44 (0)1628 550048 // [email protected] FURTHER INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT WWW.CROWS.ORG AND WWW.TANGENTLINK.COM.

theater indicated that “there have been a lot of good lessons learned. CEASAR has been requested back for the next fighting season, and program funding has also been approved.” A UAV-scaled version of CEASAR is considered as a possible candidate for a future MFEW capability.

OPERATIONAL COMMAND AND CONTROL As the Army’s new EW operators (EWOs) come out into the battalions

and into the tactical operations centers, there is a growing recognition within the Army that it needs a different operational paradigm from that of the past – one with a much greater understanding of, and appreciation for, the role of EW. Colonel Ekvall says this is indeed recognized and being planned for. “At the command level, by the time individuals reach these positions, whether at the company or brigade level, the new training they are receiving and more importantly their experiences will

40 Years ŽĨtĞdžƉĞƌƟƐĞ now has a new name GEW Technologies

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

units with initial fielding planned for spring of FY13. Another major factor impacting both the Army’s CREW QRC activities and IEWS is the possible transition of the Navy’s Joint CREW (JCREW) program, currently managed by Naval Sea Systems Command’s Joint CREW Program Office (PMS-408), to the Army. According to Colonel Ekvall, this is indeed currently under consideration with “possible courses of action being developed to determine exactly how the future of JCREW should relate to IEWS. There are obviously funding issues tied to this decision, as well as the maturity of the JCREW technology and how it might fit into the overall timeline for IEWS. We’re always looking for efficiencies, and if these are to be gained by JCREW and IEWS, then we’ll work toward them.” Another QRC effort is the Ground Auto Targeting Observation Reactive Jammer (GATOR) program. Intended for deployment at forward operating bases, GATOR will provide brigade-level forces with an organic, fixed-site EA capability capable of surgically targeting and jamming enemy communications. Based around an improved Duke jammer, GATOR is comprised of a shelter, transceiver and mast antenna. Several early prototypes have already been deployed in theater. In August, the Army approved fielding of a second-generation version of the system, GATOR V2, and Lieutenant Colonel Burbey reports that they have begun shipping the systems together with training and field support teams to theater. “We’ll immediately get started on putting these systems into action on the battlefield, which will be the first offensive non-kinetic weapon that our EWOs will have in hand.” The Communication Electronic Attack with Surveillance and Reconnaissance (CEASAR) program is an airborne communications jamming program being managed by the Rapid Equipment Force (REF), but which is also tracked closely by IEWS. Two CEASAR systems were deployed last year to Afghanistan on C-12 aircraft for evaluation of possible tactics and techniques. According to Burbey, reports from the

45

Formerly known as

COMBAT DECISIONS RELY ON REAL-TIME INFORMATION ͲDĂŝů͗ŵĂƌŬĞƟŶŐΛŐĞǁ͘ĐŽ͘njĂͮtĞďƐŝƚĞ͗ǁǁǁ͘ŐĞǁ͘ĐŽ͘njĂ

603460_Grintek.indd 1

8/30/12 8:59:21 AM

have provided them a clear education of their need to have an advantage in the EMS. But, in addition, a big part of the responsibility of our new EW professionals will be to educate their commanders, and sell the value of what they bring to the battlefield.” Noting that the EWOs, together with the EWPMT, will provide a major jump in capability for the Army’s maneuver commanders, he also emphasizes that it will be their responsibility to integrate all aspects of cyber-electromagnetic activities into their commanders overall mission plan. “They may not necessarily directly control the means to conduct an EA, but will be responsible for integrating and for understanding the intelligence picture sufficiently to make the proper recommendations and to ensure that everything comes together under the direction of those responsible for the operations planning for the commander.” Networking capabilities will be another critical requirement in this process. As emphasized by Ryan, “If we want to take full advantage of network-

ing, and of all available sensors and assets, we have to ensure that all elements of the IEWS family of systems are architected properly and use common components to the maximum extent practical.” IEWS developers are also working closely with the Integrated Radio-frequency Operations Network (IRON) Symphony program, which is defining and developing a next-generation EW networking capability for the Army based on an integrated and distributed EW framework to “enable the coordinated detection, geo-location, reporting and engagement of multiple diverse threat waveforms.”

Although there are many challenges and potential obstacles to be addressed and overcome, it appears that IEWS is proceeding according to a well-defined and sound management model and that, at least to date, it is enjoying strong leadership support. As noted by Colonel DuPont, “the important action I note is that the Army has decided to stand-up two programs of record. They would not have made that decision if they thought there would not be funding available for those programs.” Ekvall agrees, but also keeps an eye out for any possible deviation from the path. “My greatest fear right now is that, as we disengage from operations in the Middle East, that we don’t lose sight of the continuing critical importance of the Army’s ability to provide its ground commanders the ability to gain and maintain an advantage in the EMS. That we don’t say, ‘well we won’t need that now because we’ve pulled out of theater.’ That we continue to stay the course to develop this Integrated Electronic Warfare System.” a

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

46

EDUCATING THE SPECTRUM WARRIOR:

Educating the Spectrum Warrior: Harnessing STEM & Spectrum Management

Harnessing STEM & Spectrum Management Conference NOVEMBER 27-29 // EMERALD COAST, FL

November 27-29 | Emerald Coast, FL

This inaugural conference addresses key Special Operation’s concerns about tomorrow’s EMS battlespace; specifically the programming, planning, and execution of operational Special Operations Forces within the EMS across all domains. This highly charged aspect of the conference will have presentations from SOF senior leaders, operators, and programmers. Declining SOF budgets make it imperative that government, industry, and academia come together to demonstrate innovation in speedy acquisition & development of critical EMS enabling capabilities. Senior leaders from Congress, OSD, Military Services, Research Labs, and other government organizations will then discuss and engage attendees on the vital role science, technology, engineering, and mathematics play on preparing military operations and personnel.

The goal of the STEM portion of the conference supports OSD’s Focus and Vision: To safeguard our Nation’s security by developing world-class STEM talent in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Learn more about STEM education, current initiatives and what is being done to promote world-class STEM talent today!

VISIT WWW.CROWS.ORG FOR MORE INFORMATION

EW 101

Spectrum Warfare – Part 18

Steganography By Dave Adamy

STEGANOGRAPHY VS. ENCRYPTION This comparison is analogous to the difference between transmission security and message security in transmitted signal paths. When we use spread spectrum techniques, particularly highlevel direct-sequence spread spectrum (DSSS), the signal received by an enemy who does not have access to the pseudorandom spreading code is “noise like.”

That is, the signal appears to be only a slight increase in the noise level in the direction of the transmitter. Thus, without special equipment and techniques, an enemy will not even be able to detect that a transmission has taken place. On the other hand, encryption keeps an enemy from being able to recover the information sent. The spread spectrum modulation provides transmission security, which prevents an enemy from locating and attacking the transmitter. Encryption is also required because it keeps the enemy from learning our secrets after sophisticated means are used to detect the signal. (See Figure 1.) Steganography deals directly with the information we are sending – either by hard copy or electronic means. It covers our secret messages with seemingly unrelated data, as shown in Figure 2; so an enemy will not even know that we are conducting important (typically military) communication. This, in effect, provides transmission security. Encryption has the same function as above – protecting our information if

ENCRYPTOR

MESSAGE SECURITY

SPREADING MODULATOR

TRANSMISSION SECURITY

XMTR

the enemy discovers our hidden messages. However, an encrypted message displays random letters or bits – making it obvious that we are hiding something. This tells the enemy that we are communicating important information, and may trigger an effort to analyze and ultimately recover our information. Steganography, if successful, will deny the enemy this operational advantage.

EARLY STEGANOGRAPHIC TECHNIQUES One early technique discussed in some articles was to shave the head of a messenger, tattoo a message on his bald head, and let his hair grow back. His head was then shaved to recover the message. Other techniques have included writing innocuous messages in which some pattern of letters scattered through the message contained the hidden information. There was also the use of micro-dots and invisible inks in seemingly innocent written communication. One particularly interesting approach (in a WWII spy movie) was to

DECRYPTOR

SPREADING DEMODULATOR RCVR

Figure 1: Spread spectrum communication provides transmission security, while encryption provides message security.

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

S

teganography is defi ned as “hidden writing,” and has been around for centuries. However, with the advent of digital communication, it has taken on a whole new life. If you look up steganography on your web browser, you will get many evenings of entertainment; including detailed history, theory, countermeasures, and available software products to implement and detect it. As usual with this kind of subject, we will focus on its utility in electronic and information warfare and particularly on its applicability to spectrum warfare.

47

E W101

INTENDED READER SEES IMPORTANT HIDDEN INFORMATION

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

STEGANOGRAPHIC GANO PROCESS

COVER MEDIUM (IMPORTANT INFORMATION HIDDEN)

STEGANOGRAPHIC S PROCESS

Figure 2: Steganography provides the equivalent of transmission security in hard copy or electronically delivered messages.

have a musician write a song in which the placement of a particular note (B flat in this case) carried the coded message.

DIGITAL TECHNIQUES

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

48

image. The person looking at the received image would never detect that subtle change (without very specialized equipment). Using that one sacrificed bit of blue for hidden data will allow us to insert our covert messages at a 1.8 Megabit rate (640 x 480 x 6) – which allows a significant amount of hidden information to be passed. Web articles on steganography typically show a cover picture sent along with a greatly different hidden picture. One article has a detailed picture of a tabby cat on a rug hidden in a picture of trees against a cloudy sky. There are similar approaches that can be employed in digital text transmission.

Digital signals provide many opportunities to hide information in the format of the data. One very effective technique involves digitizing a color picture and making subtle changes to the transmitted data. Consider one image digitization technique. The picture is carried as pixels (tiny spots of color). Each pixel is digitized with a code that records the density of three basic colors (say, red, yellow and blue). By combining the densities of these primary colors (analogous to mixing paint), a very large array of colors can be produced. See Figure 3. If HOW DOES STEGANOGRAPHY RELATE TO SPECTRUM each primary color density is measured in 256 levels, it can WARFARE? be captured in 8 bits. The transmitted full color data has 24 First, of course, it allows us to send important information bits (8 bits for each primary color). The transmitted data rate from point A to point B without the enemy knowing that we is then 24 times the pixels-per-frame times the frame rate. If are communicating. Another approach might be to imbed malthere are 640 by 480 pixels in a frame and there are 30 frames per second, this means that (without compression) the ONE data rate would be about 2.2 x 108 bits PIXEL per second sent (640 x 480 x 24 x 30). Note that there are data compression techniques that reduce the transmitted Digital coding bit rate, but they do not prevent the use of brightness for each of of steganography. three primary Now that the image is digitized, we colors sent can reduce the number of bits for one sequentially primary color, and use the extra bits to send our hidden message. For example, let’s reduce the digitization of blue by one bit as shown in Figure 4 for every fifth pixel. This will very subtly change Figure 3: A digitized image is typically transmitted as pixels, each of which has coded brightness the color of every fifth pixel in the full and color information.

FULL IMAGE

E W101 ware in seemingly innocent messages or graphics to initiate a cyber attack. Unless the steganography is detected, the targeted enemy will not know that a cyber attack is taking place.

DATA FOR NORMAL PIXEL YELLOW INTENSITY BLUE INTENSITY 8 BITS 8 BITS

RED INTENSITY 8 BITS

HOW IS STEGANOGRAPHY DETECTED?

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

This field is called “Steganalysis.” With older techniques, like invisible DATA FOR PIXEL MODIFIED BY STEGANOGRAPHY ink, the approaches included careful inspection under magnification and the RED INTENSITY YELLOW INTENSITY BLUE INTENSITY use of developing agents and/or ultra7 BITS 8 BITS 8 BITS violet light. In World War II prisoner of war camps, prisoners were required 1 BIT OF DATA FROM HIDDEN MESSAGE to send letters on special paper, which was (secretly) designed to clearly show Figure 4: By use of a few bits in the digitized image, a second, hidden image or message can be the presence of invisible inks. In digital carried in the transmitted signal. communication, steganography can be detected by comparing an original of the “cover art’ with the anticipated. In reviewing the series, a number of “loose modified art (containing stenographic messages). Also, sophisends” spring up. Thus, there will be a few more “odds and ticated statistical analysis can detect the presence of modified ends” columns before we quit. So far identified are link text or graphics. In every case, steganalysis is an expensive jamming and a couple of important specific links. A few and time consuming process. of you have e-mailed some suggested subjects that will be covered in future series; this is the time to make any suggestions for subjects in this series. Please e-mail them to WHAT‘S NEXT Dave Adamy at [email protected]. Thanks for being my We are coming to the end of this series on Spectrum honored colleagues. a Warfare… but it is not as easy to end as the author had

49

Join the AOC

AOC MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

FIRST _________________________ MIDDLE ______LAST ______________________________ RANK/TITLE ______ MAILING ADDRESS _________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ CITY ______________________________STATE ___________ZIP CODE _____________ COUNTRY _______________ TELEPHONE _____________________________________FAX (OPTIONAL) ___________________________________ EMAIL ____________________________________________________________________________________________

PAYMENT INFORMATION (Make checks payable to: Association of Old Crows) 1yr $45

3yr $115

LIFE $500

STUDENT $15

RETIRED $15

AOC EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION DONATIONS $ __________________________________________________ Payment (US dollars only) Check One:

Check enclosed

Visa

MasterCard

American Express

Credit Card Number_______________________________________________Expiration Date ______________________ Please Sign _________________________________________________________________ Date ______________________ Recruited By ____________________________________________________________________________ Check here if you would like to be a part of the Information Operations Institute (IOI): The IO Institute is a department of the Association of Old Crows chartered by the AOC Board of Directors to give members of the IO community an opportunity to exchange ideas and keep informed about current and discrete developments in the field of Information Operations.

EMPLOYER TYPE R R R R R R R

Army Navy Coast Guard Marines Air Force DoD Civilian Government Non-DoD R Industry R Education R Other PRINCIPAL JOB FUNCTION R Management, Corp. R Management, General R Engineering R&D R Operations R Marketing R Data Processing R Procurement R Production R Engineering Support R Training R Testing R Other

PRODUCT/SERVICE/ APPLICATION R EW R Avionics R Intelligence R Cyberspace R Computers R Electronics R Electro-Optics R Communications R Test/Diag. R Logistics R Spectrum Mgmt. R Consultant R Components R Space Applications R Radar R Directed Energy R IO R Other

Association of Old Crows

1000 North Payne Street, Suite 200 • Alexandria, VA 22314 • Phone: 703-549-1600 • Fax: 703-549-2589 • www.crows.org

AOCMembership_HALFPG_EditorialAd.indd 1

1/4/11 1:42:42 PM

association news AOC INDIA CHAPTER PRESENTS AWARDS

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

50

The AOC India Chapter Awards were presented at The Lalit Ashok, Bangalore on September 8. In the glittering function that commenced in the traditional Indian fashion. Mr. H.V. Harish, Secretary, AOC India Chapter welcomed the distinguished guests including Directors of DRDO Labs and Director (R&D), BEL, Bangalore. Dr. U.K. Revankar, President , AOC India Chapter addressed the gathering highlighting the current and near future EW scenario in India and how AOC India Chapter is relevant and capable to serve the EW community in India. Eight awards, two each from Defence Research Development Organisation, Defence Public Sector Units, Indian tri-services and Indian EW industry, were presented to the individuals recognizing their outstanding contributions in the field of EW in India. The 2012 Awardees are: Mr J Shanker Rao, Scientist G, DLRL (DRDO), Hyderabad Mr R Rama Rao, Scientist G, DLRL (DRDO), Hyderabad

Colonel Vijay Khedekar, Director (Communication), PMO SURAJ, Indian Army Wing Commander S Ramesh, Joint Director (EW), Air Head Quarters, Indian Air Force Mr Sunil Kumar Sharma, Director (Bangalore Complex), BEL, Bangalore Mr Abhishek Singh, Chief Manager (Design), MSRDC, HAL, Bangalore Mr Keshav Bapat, General Manager, Agilent Technologies (India), Bangalore Wing Commander V B Atmaram (Retd), CEO, AEDS & ED, ADTL, Bangalore The Awards that included a citation were given away by Mr. S.S. Sundaram, Distinguished Scientist, Chief Controller R&D (ECS & LIC), Defence Research and Development Establishment (DRDO), India. Delivering his address on the occasion, Mr. Sundaram appreciated the timely creation and exemplary activities of the AOC India Chapter and suggested that the chapter could play a major role in the formulation of needed EW policies for India. He also felt that DRDO should support AOC during its ac-

tivities. He made a number of suggestions, including the idea that retired Services professionals could team up with AOC and help formulate specifications, like GSQR for the EW systems needed for Indian tri-services. During the Awards Function, the AOC India Chapter showed appreciation to Mr. I.V. Sarma, Former Director (R&D), Bharat Electronics Ltd, Bangalore, on the occasion of his superannuation and recognizing his overwhelming support to the AOC India Chapter, right from its inception. Speaking on the occasion, Mr. Sarma envisaged a bigger role for AOC India Chapter. He said the EW Industry in India is growing very fast and one can expect INR 40,000 Crore worth of business that could be generated in the coming decade. Hence, he said, there is a need to plan, co-ordinate and collaborate EW related activities and EW organizations through independent organisation like the AOC India Chapter, to meet the challenges of this huge and specialized industry. a

AOC Fall Professional Development Courses This fall, keep ahead of the curve by taking advantage of the AOC’s conveniently located courses held with AOC Conferences and at AOC Headquarters. OCTOBER 9- 12

NOVEMBER 6-9

ELINT and Modern Signals Course

System Architecture and Model-Based System Engineering (MBSE) Course

AOC Headquarters, Alexandria, VA

AOC Headquarters, Alexandria, VA

OCTOBER 15

Survey of EM Battle Management Applications Course With the AOC Pacific Theater Air, Sea, Land Battle Concept: IO/EW/Cyber Operations International Conference, Honolulu, HI

NOVEMBER 26

Survey of EM Battle Management Applications Course With the Educating the Spectrum Warrior: Harnessing STEM & Spectrum Management Conference, Fort Walton Beach, FL

OCTOBER 18

Survey of EW and Cyber Applications Course With the AOC Pacific Theater Air, Sea, Land Battle Concept: IO/EW/Cyber Operations International Conference, Honolulu, HI

DECEMBER 4-7

Essentials of 21st Century Electronic Warfare Course AOC Headquarters, Alexandria, VA

VISIT WWW.CROWS.ORG FOR MORE INFORMATION

AOC Industry and Institute/University Members SUSTAINING

INSTITUTE/UNIVERSITY Georgia Tech Research Institute Mercer Engineering Research Center MIT Lincoln Laboratory National EW Research and Simulation Center

GROUP 3dB Labs Inc. 453 EWS/EDW Research AAI Corporation Active Spectrum Inc. Advanced Concepts Advanced Testing Technologies Aeronix Aethercomm, Inc. Air Scan Inc. Akon, Inc. Alion Science and Technology Alpha Design Technologies Pvt. Ltd. American Systems AMPEX Data Systems Amplifier Technology Limited Anaren Microwave, Inc. Anatech Electronics Annapolis Micro Systems, Inc. Anritsu Applied Geo Technologies Applied Signal Technology ARIEL Group, Inc. ARINC, Inc. Aselsan A.S. ATDI ATK Missile Systems Company Atkinson Aeronautics & Technology, Inc. Avalon Electronics, Inc. Azure Summit Technologies, Inc. B&Z Technologies, LLC Battlespace Simulations, Inc. Bharat Electronics Ltd. Blackhawk Management Corporation Blue Ridge Envisioneering, Inc. Booz & Allen Hamilton CACI International

JT3, LLC Keragis Corporation KRYTAR, Inc. KMIC Technology KOR Electronics, Inc. L-3 Communications L-3 Communications-Applied Signal & Image Technology L-3 Communications Cincinnati Electronics L-3 Communications/ Randtron Antenna Systems LNX Corporation Lockheed Martin Lockheed Martin Aculight Corporation Logos Microwave Longmont Machining Lorch Microwave LS telcom AG MacAulay-Brown MANTECH Security Technologies Mass Consultants MC Countermeasures, Inc. MegaPhase Mercury Computer Systems Micro-Coax, Inc. Microsemi Corporation Micro Systems Midcon Cable Company MiKES Microwave Electronic Systems Inc. Miles Industrial Electronics Ltd. Milso AB MITEQ, Inc. The MITRE Corporation Modern Technology Solutions, Inc. MRSL Multiconsult Srl My-konsult New World Solutions, Inc. Nova Defence Nurad Technologies, Inc Ophir RF Inc. Optocon USA, Division of Impulse Orion International Technologies Overlook Systems Technology Overwatch Systems Ltd. Parker Aerospace (SprayCool) Peralex Phoenix International Systems, Inc. Plath, GmbH Protium Technologies, Inc. QUALCOMM Queued Solutions, L.L.C. Rafael-Electronic Systems Div. Research Associates of Syracuse, Inc. RF Simulation Systems Inc. Rheinmetall Air Defence AG Rising Edge Technologies Rohde & Schwarz GmbH & Co. KG Rohde & Schwarz USA RUAG Holding Science Applications International Corporation Scientific Research Corporation SELEX Galileo Inc.

The Shephard Group Siemens IT Solutions and Services Sierra Nevada Corporation Sivers IMA AB Soneticom, Inc. SOS International SOURIAU PA&E Southern Marketing Associates, Inc. SpecPro-Inc. Spectranetix, Inc. Spectrum Signal Processing by Vecima SR Technologies SRC, Inc. SRCTec, Inc. SRI International STI Electronics, Inc. Strategic Influence Alternatives, Inc. Subsidium Sunshine Aero Industries SURVICE Engineering Co. Symetrics Industries, LLC Sypris Data Systems Systematic Software Engineering Systems & Processes Engineering Corp. SystemWare Inc. Tactical Technologies Inc. Tadiran Electronic Systems Ltd. TASC TCI International Tech Resources, Inc. Technical Information Products & Services LLC (TIPS) Technology Management Consultants TECOM Industries TEK Microsystems, Inc. Tektronix, Inc. Tektronix Component Solutions Teledyne Technologies Teleplan AS Teligy TERASYS Technologies, LLC TERMA A/S Thales Components Corp. Thales Homeland Security Times Microwave Systems TINEX AS TMD Technologies TRAK Microwave TriaSys Technologies Corp. Tri Star Engineering TRU Corporation Ultra Electronics Avalon Systems Ultra Electronics Telemus Vigilance VMR Electronics LLC W.L. Gore & Associates W5 Technologies, Inc. Wavepoint Research, Inc. Werlatone Inc. Wideband Systems, Inc. X-Com Systems ZETA Associates Zodiac Data Systems

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

Agilent Technologies Applied Research Associates Inc. Argon ST BAE SYSTEMS The Boeing Company Chemring Group Plc DRS Defense Solutions Electronic Warfare Associates, Inc. Elettronica, SpA General Dynamics ITT Exelis Northrop Grumman Corporation Raytheon Company Rockwell Collins Saab TASC Thales Communications Thales Aerospace Division

CAE CAP Wireless, Inc. Ceralta Technologies Inc. Clausewitz Technology ClearanceJobs.com Cobham DES M/A-Com Colorado Engineering Inc. Communications Audit UK Ltd. Comtech PST Concord Components Inc. CPI Crane Aerospace & Electronics Group CSIR CSP Associates Cubic Defense Curtiss-Wright Controls Embedded Computing CyberVillage Networkers Inc. DARE Electronics Inc. Dayton-Granger, Inc. dB Control Defence R&D Canada Defense Research Associates Inc. Delta Microwave DHPC Technologies, Inc. DRS Tactical Systems D-TA Systems, Inc. Dynetics, Inc. EADS Deutschland GmbH, Defense Electronics EADS North America Electro-Metrics Elisra Electronic Systems, Ltd ELTA Systems Ltd EM Research Inc. Empower RF Systems EMS Technologies Inc. Eonic B.V. ESL Defence Limited ESROE Limited Esterline Defense Group ET Industries ETM Electromatic Inc. e2v Aerospace and Defense, Inc. EW Simulation Technology Ltd EWA-Australia Pty Ltd. FEI-Elcom Tech, Inc. GBL Systems Gigatronics Inc. Hittite Microwave Honeywell International Huber + Suhner Hunter Technology Corp. Hutchins & Associates, Inc. Impact Cases Inc. Impact Science & Technology Innovationszentrum Fur Telekommunikation -stechnik GmbH (IZT) Integrated Microwave Technologies, LLC ITCN, Inc. iVeia, LLC Jabil Circuit JB Management, Inc. JP Morgan Chase

51

Index

of ad ve r tise r s

AAI Corporation .............................................www.aaicorp.com.......................................................9 Aethercomm ...................................................www.aethercomm.com ............................................. 43 Agilent Technologies Inc. ..............................www.agilent.com ................................................19, 27 Anritsu Company ...........................................www.us.anritsu.com ................................................ 29 BAE Systems ...................................................www.baesystems.com ................... inside front cover, 54 Cobham Sensor Systems - Hunt Valley ..........www.cobham.com/sensorsystems.............................. 16 Comtech PST Corp. .........................................www.comtechpst.com............................................... 10 Dielectric Laboratories, Inc. ..........................www.dilabs.com....................................................... 23 D-TA Systems Inc. ..........................................www.d-ta.com ......................................................... 21 Emhiser Research ..........................................www.emhiser.com .................................................... 18 EW Simulation Technology Ltd......................www.ewst.co.uk.........................................................5 GEW Technologies (PTY) Ltd. ........................www.gew.co.za ........................................................ 45 ITT Exelis........................................................www.exelisinc.com .......................... outside back cover KOR Electronics ..............................................www.korelectronics.com.............................................3 MegaPhase......................................................www.megaphase.com .................................................8 OPHIR RF ........................................................www.ophirrf.com ..................................................... 36 PLATH GmbH ..................................................www.plath.de ............................................................7 Pole Zero Corp. ...............................................www.polezero.com ................................................... 31 Raytheon Company ........................................www.raytheon.com ............................ inside back cover Rohde & Schwarz ............................................www.rohde-schwarz.com .......................................... 11 Sierra Nevada Corporation ( SNC ) ................www.sncorp.com ...................................................... 13 TEK Microsystems, Inc. ..................................www.tekmicro.com .................................................. 39 Tektronix Component Solutions ....................www.component-solutions.tek.com ........................... 37 Teledyne Storm Products ...............................www.teledynestorm.com .......................................... 35 TSF5 ................................................................www.tsf5.com .......................................................... 17

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

52

JED, The Journal of Electronic Defense (ISSN 0192-429X), is published monthly by Naylor, LLC, for the Association of Old Crows, 1000 N. Payne St., Ste. 200, Alexandria, VA 22314-1652. Periodicals postage paid at Alexandria, VA, and additional mailing offices. Subscriptions: JED, The Journal of Electronic Defense, is sent to AOC members and subscribers only. Subscription rates for paid subscribers are $160 per year in the US, $240 per year elsewhere; single copies and back issues (if available) $12 each in the US; $25 elsewhere. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to JED, The Journal of Electronic Defense, c/o Association of Old Crows, 1000 N. Payne St., Ste. 300, Alexandria, VA 22314-1652. Subscription Information: Glorianne O’Neilin (703) 549-1600 [email protected]

JED Sales

Whether you’re in the office or on the go,

Stay on Top

Naylor, LLC – Florida 5950 NW 1st Place Gainesville, FL 32607 Toll Free (US): (800) 369-6220 Fax: +1 (352) 331-3525

with eCrow

Project Manager: Jason White Direct: +1 (770) 810-6970 [email protected]

More than 11,000 subscribers trust eCrow to provide weekly updates on industry news, AOC events, new contracts and more. eCrow pushes up-to-date information to your inbox every Wednesday. View relevant news from any computer, tablet and most smart phones.

Offices

Advertising Sales Representatives: Shaun Greyling Direct: +1 (352) 333-3385 [email protected]

eCrow has a brand new design!

Erik Henson Direct: +1 (352) 333-3443 [email protected] Chris Zabel Direct: +1 (352) 333-3420 [email protected] Naylor – Canada 300 – 1630 Ness Ave. Winnipeg, MB Canada R3J 3X1 Toll Free (US): (800) 665-2456 Fax: +1 (204) 947-2047

To read past issues or to subscribe, visit www.ecrow.org/newsletterArchive.asp. Official eNewsletter

The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

53

UAS/RPA Payloads/Requirements/ Operations Conference DECEMBER 4-6 // NELLIS AFB, NV This conference will explore current payloads and operations in ongoing day-to-day operations. We will discuss and identify short-term and long-term program requirements, identify capability gaps and help develop courses of action to address them. Today it is more important than ever to bring military, government, industry, academia, and research labs together to ensure our military men and women have the tools and knowledge needed to be successful in tomorrow’s battlespace.

Tuesday, 4 December, 2012

Wednesday, 5 December, 2012

Thursday, 6 December, 2012

THEME: Joint Military Training & Operations

THEME: UAS/RPA Ops (classified)

THEME: UAS/RPA Payloads, Requirements, and Challenges (classified)

Working Group (unclassified)

VISIT WWW.CROWS.ORG FOR MORE INFORMATION

JED

quick look

Details

Page #

Ground Auto Targeting Observation Reactive Jammer (GATOR) program ............................................................ 45

Adaptive Radar Countermeasures (ARC) program ............................... 36

Individual CREW device (ICREW) .......................................................44

Advanced Components for EW (ACE) program...................................... 15

Indonesia, AH-64D Apache Longbow Block III helo request.................. 22

AFRL, Cognitive Jammer ................................................................... 39

Integrated EW System (IEWS) ............................................................ 40

Air Force Research Lab, next generation EW components..................... 15

Integrated Radio-frequency Operations Network (IRON) Symphony ...... 45

Albert Davis, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Laboratories ...... 33

ITT Exelis, AIDEWS demonstration for Chilean Air Force ...................... 22

Alliant Techsystems, AARGM............................................................. 16

ITT Exelis, Next Gen Jammer ............................................................. 15

ALQ-99 electronic attack pod ............................................................ 15

Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) program ....................................... 32

Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles .................................................................. 24

Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM) ................................................ 28

AOC India Chapter awards ................................................................. 50

LTC Douglas Burbey, US Army ............................................................ 42

Aselsan, helicopter EW suite ............................................................. 22

MBDA, high energy laser demonstrator .............................................. 22

BAE Systems, AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System for South Korea........................................................................... 22

Michael Ryan, US Army Program Management Office for EW ................ 41

BAE Systems, COMMEX contract ......................................................... 38

Next Generation Identification Friend or Foe (NGIFF) ......................... 16

BAE Systems, Next Gen Jammer......................................................... 15

Next Generation Jammer (NGJ).......................................................... 15

BAE Systems, possible merger with EADS ........................................... 22

Northrop Grumman, APR-39 RWR for South Korean helos..................... 22

Behavioral Learning for Adaptive Electronic Warfare (BLADE) program ............................................................ 36

Northrop Grumman, beamforming contract ........................................ 16

Bell, AH-1Z Cobra ............................................................................. 22 Boeing, AH-64D Apache Longbow Block III ......................................... 22 Boeing, Next Gen Jammer integration contract................................... 15 Cassidian, AAR-60 missile warner ...................................................... 22 The Journal of Electronic Defense | October 2012

Page #

9M133 Kornet anti-armor missile ....................................................... 30

3M55 Yakhont anti-ship cruise missile ............................................... 28

54

Details

Naval Research Lab, airborne EW research .......................................... 18

Northrop Grumman, Next Gen Jammer ............................................... 15 Norwegian Defence Research Establishment ....................................... 28 Rapid Equipment Force (REF) ............................................................ 45 Raven Fire ....................................................................................... 41

China National Precision Import and Export Corporation Machinery (CPMIEC) .................................................. 28

Raytheon, High-Power Efficient RF Digital-to-Analog Converter (HiPERDAC) ................................................................. 39

China, Dongfeng-21D ........................................................................ 30

Raytheon, Next Gen Jammer ............................................................. 15

Cognitive EW capabilities .................................................................. 34

RBS 15 Mk missile ............................................................................ 26

COL Jim Ekvall, US Army ................................................................... 40

RF seekers ....................................................................................... 26

COL Joe DuPont, US Army ................................................................. 41

Rhode & Schwarz, receiver kit contract .............................................. 16

Communication Electronic Attack with Surveillance and Reconnaissance (CEASAR) program ........................................ 45

Rockwell Collins, USQ-113 software upgrade contract .......................... 16

Communications in Extreme RF Spectrum Conditions (COMMEX) .......... 38

Sequestration .................................................................................. 20

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) ......................... 36

Shared Spectrum Co., COMMEX contract ............................................. 38

DF-21D Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) .......................................... 30

Software-Defined Radio (SDR) ........................................................... 32

Dr. Michael Wicks, AFRL Sensors Directorate ...................................... 32

South Korea, attack helicopter program bids ...................................... 22

Dr. Shubha Kadambe, Rockwell Collins Technology Center ................... 33

Spectrum Warfare, part 18 ................................................................ 47

Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA) ....................................................... 38

SS-N-2 Styx missiles ......................................................................... 24

EADS, possible merger with BAE Systems ........................................... 22

Steganography ................................................................................. 47

Electronic Counter-Countermeasures (ECCM)....................................... 26

Taiwan, Hsiung Feng II ..................................................................... 28

FY2013 budget issues........................................................................ 20 GEW Technologies, A Cassidian Company, new name for Grintek Ewation ..................................................... 22 Goodrich Aerospace, AVR-2B laser warners for South Korean helos ....... 22 Grintek Ewation, name change to GEW Technologies, A Cassidian Company .................................................................. 22

Saab, Swedish Multi-Sensor Program .................................................. 28

TriQuint Semiconductor, DARPA contract ........................................... 18 Turkish Aerospace Industry, T-129B .................................................. 22 URS, NSWC EW and IO support contract .............................................. 18 US Air Force, sources sought for Ground Based Jammers (GBJs) ............ 16 X-Com, Rfeye systems for US Army .................................................... 18

With more than 50 years of electronic warfare experience, BAE SYSTEMS is pleased to sponsor the JED Quick Look.

ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEMS

PROTECTING

THE MISSION AND THOSE WHO

MUST COMPLETE IT. Effectors that provide state-of-the-art jamming and countermeasure capabilities. Sensors that enhance situational awareness. Integrated EW systems that give warfighters control of the electromagnetic spectrum. They’re all part of Raytheon’s combat-proven electronic warfare systems — and can be integrated into platforms across land, sea and air.

INNOVATION IN ALL DOMAINS www.raytheon.com | Keyword: EWS Follow us on:

© 2012 Raytheon Company. All rights reserved. “Customer Success Is Our Mission” is a registered trademark of Raytheon Company.

Identify and neutralize threats. Control the airspace. Fulfill the mission. Rapidly evolving battlespace conditions and scenarios demand a flexible and innovative approach to electronic warfare. ITT Exelis is the EW industry leader, leveraging our unrivaled electromagnetic spectrum experience for fixed-wing aircraft. From pod upgrades to on-board systems, we’re ready to work on your platform and on your schedule. Look to Exelis for the expertise and agility to complete your mission affordably. Learn more at www.exelisinc.com/electronicwarfare.

[NYSE: XLS] Photo courtesy of the U.S. Air Force. Taken by Tech. Sgt. Michael Holzworth.

www.exelisinc.com Exelis and “The Power of Ingenuity” are trademarks of Exelis Inc. ITT is a trademark of ITT Manufacturing Enterprises, LLC., and is used under license. Copyright © 2012 Exelis Inc. All rights reserved.