Browsing Posts in Military
Few people would dispute the huge challenge facing the newly formed Cyber Command. Perhaps the greatest of these challenges is in the area of coordination and collaboration. The addition of collaboration and coordination was evident in an organization chart for Cyber Command (marked FOUO) that has been circulating around by regular email (go figure) for a few of weeks now.
The heart of the organization is the Joint Operations Center/Integrated Cyber Center. While details at this level are sparse, it is very easy to mentally visualize this combined nerve center in operations.
Before anyone asks – NO – I won’t publish the chart or send it to anyone.
Anyone who has seen the chart realizes the massive challenge of coordination and collaboration that will be required. Given the magnitude of interaction as illustrated in the organizational chart, one has to wonder about the possibility of delays in decision making and response caused by this organizational design.
At a briefing outside of Washington, I heard an interesting comment about this topic. The comment went something like “Due to the unique characteristics of cyber warfare, what took years now must be done in months, what took months now must be done in days, what took days now must be done in hours and what took hours now must be done in minutes.”
To put this in context the Minute Man III ICBM has a range of over 8,000 miles and travels at 15,000 miles an hour. A cyber weapons has unlimited range and travels at nearly light speed at 186,000 miles per second.
One can clearly see the need for streamlined decision making.
As everyone knows C4ISR stands for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. It appears the time has come to add collaboration and coordination to C4ISR and update it to C6ISR. If that happens, we must make every effort to streamline the decision making and authorization process to ensure decisiveness measured in minutes.
[From Collaborative Cyber Command]
Researchers at the Naval Research Laboratory claim to have come up with a better tool for underwater acoustics. The new system uses laser light to create sound underwater from a distance. This technology could allow planes a much easier method of communicating with submarines without the need for a floating buoy. “Efficient conversion of light into sound can be achieved by concentrating the light sufficiently to ionize a small amount of water, which then absorbs laser energy and superheats. The result is a small explosion of steam, which can generate a 220 decibel pulse of sound. Optical properties of water can be manipulated with very intense laser light to act like a focusing lens, allowing nonlinear self-focusing (NSF) to take place. In addition, the slightly different colors of the laser, which travel at different speeds in water due to group velocity dispersion (GVD), can be arranged so that the pulse also compresses in time as it travels through water, further concentrating the light. By using a combination of GVD and NSF, controlled underwater compression of optical pulses can be attained.
[From Navy Scientists Develop Laser For Underwater Communication ]
The GAO is a nonpartisan office that performs critical analyses of government programs, providing a sanity check on federal spending and management. In a report released on Wednesday, the GAO tackled the items the military puts in orbit and did not hold back on the criticism; the report is titled “DOD Faces Substantial Challenges in Developing New Space Systems,” and those substantial challenges are described in substantial detail.
Gen. Kevin Chilton, the head of STRATCOM, just declared that the Law of Armed Conflict will apply to cyberwar, and that the US won’t rule out conventional (read: kinetic) responses to cyber-attacks. This means that we consider state-supported ‘hackers’ to be subject to the Geneva Conventions and Customary International Law, including the rules of proportionality and distinction (i.e. if we catch them, we can try them for war crimes). Incidentally, it also means we consider non-state cyber-attackers to be illegal enemy combatants, which means we can do all kinds of nasty stuff to them.
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that cyber-spies have stolen several terabytes of data from the Joint Strike Fighter project
This is kind of an interesting piece of news. If you remember, a lot of hoopla came out when US naval intelligence said that China only conducted 2 submarine patrols in 2006. There was a lot of discussion on what defined a patrol after that came out. As the article below states, Chinese submarine activity increased exponentially this year.
WASHINGTON (AFP) — China nearly doubled the number of patrols by its fleet of attack submarines last year, surpassing Russia but still far behind the United States, the Federation of American Scientists reported Tuesday.
The report, based on declassified information provided by US naval intelligence, said Chinese attack submarines conducted 12 patrols in 2008, compared to seven in 2007, two in 2006 and none in 2005.
“While the increase in submarine patrols is important, it has to be seen in comparison with the size of the Chinese submarine fleet,” said Hans Kristensen, director of the organization’s nuclear information project.
“With approximately 54 submarines, the patrol rate means that each submarine on average goes on patrol once every four and a half years,” he said.
The patrols may have been carried out by just the most modern and capable types of submarines in the Chinese fleet, the report said, noting that a new class of nuclear-powered Shang-class attack submarines is replacing the aging Han-class.
In an interview, Kristensen said the information, although sketchy, was a window into how Chinese naval operations are changing as it builds up its forces.
“We don’t know where they went or for how long. But it certainly seems to be a new mission. They have been very modest in their patrols in the past,” he said.
“The fact that from one year to another they have doubled their patrols seems that they have something new to do,” he said.
“It could be, as we’ve heard for the last four years or so, an attempt to expand their naval defense barrier further eastward into the Pacific,” he said.
In comparison with other major navies, a dozen patrols a year “are not much,” the report said.
“The patrol rate of the US attack submarine fleet, which is focused on long-range patrols and probably operate regularly near the Chinese coast, is much higher with each submarine conducting at least one extended patrol per year,” it said.
“But the Chinese patrol rate is higher than that of the Russian navy, which in 2008 conducted only seven attack submarine patrols, the same as in 2007,” it said.
China has yet to conduct a single patrol by a ballistic missile submarine, according to the report.
“The old Xia, China’s first SSBN, completed a multi-year overhaul in late-2007 but did not sail on patrol in 2008,” it said.
“Neither the Xia-class (Type-092) ballistic missile submarine nor the new Jin-class (Type-094) have ever conducted a deterrent patrol,” it said.
This story from Reuters-India tells us that Russian President Medvedev is talking up the possibility of leasing not only the ill-fated Nerpa but ’several’ Project-971 submarines to India, for 10-year leases. Although there isn’t any press on India’s response to this – the Nerpa deal was on, off, on, etc. after the recent accident – it’s got to be tempting, as Galrahn reminded us earlier. It’s a way to get into a serious nuclear submarine force for much less money and time than would required to build it domestically; and if they do decide to go the domestic route for attack boats (in addition to the oft-discussed ATV likely-SSBN) the lease deals would provide an excellent means to acquire a trained nuc cadre. It would also allow for quick acquisition of escorts capable of keeping up with the ATV when she goes to sea on deployment. [From Russia pushes India SSN lease deal]
The New York Times has published an editorial on funding the Pentagon in the coming years, along with specific recommendations on various big-name Pentagon procurement programs. I won’t repeat their recommendations here, since you can easily read them at the link above, but wanted to touch on a few of them.
They recommend canceling the Virginia-class submarine (SSN-774) program, and instead spending money to ‘extend the operating lives of the existing fleet of Los Angeles class fast-attack nuclear submarines, which can capably perform all needed post-cold-war missions — from launching cruise missiles to countering China’s expanding but technologically inferior submarine fleet.’ They further claim that this decision would produce net savings of $2.5 billion. Given that they describe the Virginias as costing $2 billion each, recommending that the U.S. put off the replacement of a submarine force which is already aging and which was acquired initially at a high rate, meaning that it will leave service at the same high rate, for savings amounting to little more than the cost of one of the current boats seems foolish to me. Also, given that the Virginia is one of the few programs which does in fact appear to be roughly on budget and on time, the message this would send appears counterproductive.
They recommend cancelling DD-1000 (unsurprisingly) but explicitly choose to do so in order to favor funding the LCS acquisition. I’m not sure I should even bother going into that here – and I won’t. I’m sure Galrahn and Yankee Sailor will chime in if they think anything even needs to be said. They want to cut a CVBG (at least one) and offer straight-ahead acquisition cost numbers to justify this.
Their general positions is made explicitly clear on page 2, where they call for reductions in the Navy and Air Force in order to fund needed increases in ground forces. Especially for the Times, this seems odd – since the primary cause of those ‘necessary increases’ is ground wars which they have been unabashedly critical of in the past. They also seem quite sure that the U.S. Navy’s current blue-water dominance is something which can be confidently assumed to continue into the near to medium future, even with said reductions in ship procurement. I would argue instead that while ground forces are a possible reaction to events which affect the U.S. overseas, access to those locations is a prerequisite, and the Navy is what buys the U.S. that access. Furthermore, the Navy is much more about the classic defense of the United States’ sovereign territory than the Army. The Army exists in present day to enforce U.S. foreign policy, even if that policy is in ‘defense’ of the United States. However, in order to perform classic defense of the U.S., you need to prevent intrusion onto the U.S, its territories and those of its core allies. That is done not, in fact, by an expanded Army, but by a strong and ready Navy and Air Force. Claiming that an expanded ground force is the primary means of defense of the United States is to state that either the U.S. has thrown away its traditional advantages of sea power and would prefer to engage enemies after they have come ashore, or that a vigorous prosecution of foreign interventions is now critical to U.S. core defense. While the latter may be possible, it runs counter to much of what the Times has spent a great deal of time claiming.
For this post, I would offer the opinion that for the moment, improving the efficiency, predictability and reliability of U.S. weapons procurement will offer much more valuable savings as well as more assets than a hasty attempt to control total procurement dollars by cutting large programs for their acquisition cost savings. Although I don’t presently know the answer, I would be much more inclined to listen to calls for extending the 688 boats vs. funding 774s if there was any evidence presented that the operating costs (as opposed to simply the acquisition total costs) would be lower. None is forthcoming.
Snarkily selected image is a Victor-III being dismantled. Har, har, ‘cut submarine,’ I’m such a card. [From The Grey Lady Weighs In]
killmofasta notes an LA Times story on a severe and widespread attack on US military computers that may have originated in Russia. Turns out the military’s recent ban on flash drives was a precursor to this attack, which was significant enough that the President and the Defense Secretary were briefed on it. “The ‘malware’ strike, thought to be from inside Russia, hit combat zone computers and the US Central Command overseeing Iraq and Afghanistan. The attack underscores concerns about computer warfare. ‘This one was significant; this one got our attention,’ said one defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing internal assessments. Although officials are withholding many details, the attack underscores the increasing danger and potential significance of computer warfare, which defense experts say could one day be used by combatants to undermine even a militarily superior adversary. … [A defense official said] ‘We have taken a number of corrective measures, but I would be overstating it if I said we were through this.’”
The rapid advancement of cyber attacks and the emergence of cyber warfare have caught government and military leaders around the world off guard. Decision making in time requiring defensive measures or military crisis is guided by doctrine and rules of engagement, but in the case of cyber attacks and cyber warfare they do not currently exist. The complexities and unique characteristics of cyber warfare mandate establishing Cyber Attack and Warfare Rules of Engagement (CAWRoE).
Cyber warfare is different than the conventional war in many ways. It is this difference that will challenge the minds of experts around the world when they attempt to create cyber warfare doctrine and ROE. To frame this discussion, below you will find two definitions that put this challenge in context.
Definition – Cyber Warfare & Terrorism – “The premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives. Or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives.” Source: This definition was published in the U.S. Army Cyber Operations and Cyber Terrorism Handbook 1.02. This definition was written by Kevin Coleman back in 2004 for an online article.
Definition – Rules of Engagement – Rules of engagement date at least to the Middle Ages in Europe. In military terms this refers to a directive issued by a military authority controlling the use and degree of force, esp. specifying circumstances and limitations for engaging in combat. The directive delineates the limitations and circumstances under which forces will initiate and prosecute combat engagement with other forces encountered. Source: This definition is based on multiple authorities’ sources and combined to clearly articulate ROE.
NOTE– After months of research, we will soon publish a paper that addresses the question: “What constitutes an act of cyber war?”
History has shown that ROE are often over controlled and regulated by politicians and military leaders. It is anticipated that this will also be the case as it relates to cyber attacks and warfare. In addition, commanders and government leaders at all levels must understand the situation, complexities and uncertainty they face.
The increase in complexity, technical aspects and difficulty in tracing the cyber attacks back to the aggressor will combine to increase the difficulty of creating the ROE for cyber. Careful crafting of cyber ROE is required to diminish ambiguities that could caused delays in actions when the use of force is required and will surely lead to increased implication on the United States.
Cyber attack and warfare rules of engagement will undoubtedly require hundreds of pages to establish a decision framework. That being said, there are a few critical areas that will pose the most significant challenge to policy makers. One of these areas will be the level of confidence in the identification of the entity behind an attack on a nation. Tracing and tracking cyber attacks back to those responsible is not an easy task. Usually this takes months or years not minutes and hours. Current intelligence and surveillance capabilities will provide only minimal assistance in this effort. Although promising research on tracking and tracing cyber attacks is currently underway and advances are occurring on a regular basis, we are far from being able to rapidly identify the party or parties behind the attack with the high degree of confidence and hard evidence necessary to launch an offensive cyber response. At the present time, the newness of cyber attacks and weapons coupled with their potential, but unproven power and the uncertainty about how they might be used, have pushed the decision around the response to cyber attacks all the way to the top and in the hands of the President of the United States.
Conclusion
Over 140 countries around the world have cyber weapons development efforts underway but lack a comprehensive doctrine and legal framework for responding to cyber attacks as well as using offensive cyber weapons against attackers and adversaries. President-elect Barack Obama’s national security team will have to rapidly establish the rules of engagement as they relate to cyber attacks and all out cyber warfare. His national security team is said to include: Sarah Sewall, Tom Donilon, Wendy R. Sherman, Michèle A. Flournoy, John P. White, Robert R. Beers, Clark Kent Ervin, Gayle E. Smith, Aaron Williams, John O. Brennan and Judith A. (“Jami”) Miscik.The United States Military has an expansive arsenal of sophisticated cyber weapons at its disposal, policy makers have yet to define the rules of engagement that govern when and how to use them. In a briefing earlier this year I said: “This is totally uncharted territory for policy makers. The characteristics of cyber attacks coupled with the operational aspects of cyber weapons make this a unique challenge.”
This remains the case and time is growing short before the next significant cyber attack is launched. Cyber warfare requires new rules of engagement.
In the recent Zhuhai airshow (still ongoing), we’ve seen a plethora of UAV/UCAV models coming out. A lot of them seem to be concepts, abandoned projects, but there are a couple of brands standing out: CH-3 and WingLong. If you do search on Google News recently, you might be able to find the condensed version of the Jane’s report on Chinese UAV here.
In the condensed version, they’ve only shown the CH-3 UCAV, here are some of its photos. You can also see the AR-1 ATGM in the second photo
This video is supposedly WingLong, which supposedly mirrors the role of Predator.
If we just judge this UCAV vs Predator, then I guess China has reached a comparable level to Predator.
Some stats on this plane:
maximum speed 240 km/h
ceiling 5000 m
endurance 20 hours
maximum take-off weight 1150 kg
payload 200 kg
Can carry 4 25 kg A2G missile or 2 50 kg PGMs.
Unfortunately, this plane has just finished all of its testings, so it’s more than a decade behind.
Along with the Chinese Global hawk, it looks like CAC is trying to clone the entire US UAV portfolio.They’ve also shown a bunch of AShM, which I’m sure are aimed for the smaller navies in the world, but I will show that in a later post. [From New Chinese UAVs]
There are some fresh details on the Russian submarine accident TheCustodian covered last night. According to several news reports this morning, seventeen of the dead were employees of the Amur Ship-Building Enterprise while only three were sailors. The government released a list of 20 names this morning, all were Russian. While the name of the submarine has not been officially released, it is almost certainly the Akula II submarine Nerpa that recently went to sea for trials and is widely expected to be “leased” to India.
While it is still unclear what kind of gas was involved, the cause of a gas discharge from the fire extinguishing systems appears to be the official story. Much of the speculation this morning in Russia is questioning whether there were enough oxygen masks for everyone on board and whether this was the deciding factor regarding the number of deaths. According to news reports, there were 208 people on board, three times the number that normally serve on an Akula II submarine.
This news report from RussiaToday, in English, is also a useful 5 minute video for getting a feel of the official reporting.
Many nations are under constant cyber attack. The United States seems to be ground zero for the vast majority of the cyber attacks launched be their digital enemies around the world. A former CIA official provided the following statistics. In 2007 there were 37,000 reported breaches of government and private systems. In addition, there were nearly 13,000 direct assaults on federal agencies and 80,000 attempted computer network attacks on Defense Department systems.
In addition who could forget the U.S. Air Force commercial showing a picture of the pentagon and saying this building gets 6 million cyber attacks a day.
Cyber attacks are now expected to cause maximum damage because of the professional tools being used by the attackers. According to the cyber threat report released by Intelomics, the following list identifies the cyber attack techniques that have seen a significant increase in their level of sophistication.
- Internet social engineering attacks
- Wireless and wired network sniffers
- Packet spoofing
- Hijacking sessions
- Automated probes and scans
- GUI intruder tools
- Automated widespread attacks
- Widespread denial-of-service attacks
- Executable code attacks (against browsers)
- Techniques to analyze code to identify vulnerabilities
- Widespread attacks on DNS infrastructure
- Widespread attacks using NNTP to distribute attack
- “Stealth” and other advanced scanning techniques
- Windows-based remote controllable Trojans (Back Orifice)
- Email propagation of malicious code
- Wide-scale Trojan distribution
- Distributed attack tools
- Distributed denial of service attacks
- BotNets and Zombies
- Anti-forensic techniques
- Wide-scale use of worms
- Man-in-the Middle plus Man-in-the-Browser exploitation
Cyber threats are now demanding immediate attention because of the increased dangers they pose to commercial and government entities and national security. The Congressional Research Service study found the economic impact of cyber attacks on businesses has grown to over $226 billion annually. Despite the significant impact, there is no clear framework for business executives to assess the financial impact of their cyber risks. According to two new surveys, the threat to corporate computer systems from cyber attacks is getting worse, despite stronger corporate defenses. Some cyber security measures might include more restrictive hiring practices, restricting remote working arrangements, increasing monitoring of flexible work hours and telecommuting as well as restriction on access by trading partners, vendors and consultants. In addition, organizations must also increase computer security awareness training for information technology workers as well as the general systems/computer user community.
A cyber attack special investigator at Intelomics said, “the reports of attacks, breaches and system compromises that make the news are only the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of these attacks go undisclosed and thus are not covered by the media.”
Most nations do not have adequate IT security to protect against targeted cyber attacks. Technolytics have warned before that these cyber attackers are well financed and have an arsenal of highly sophisticated weapons that not only circumvent current security controls, but leverage anti-forensic techniques that remove evidence of their attacks. The United States, European Union, United Nations and NATO must act and act now. In view of the current situation I would like to suggest they seriously consider the following actions and move immediately to adopt and implement these measures.
1. Establish a cyber threat operating committee under the United Nations Security Council.
a. This cyber threat operating committee must be closely linked in a collaborative relationship with the Counter-Terrorism Committee.
2. Create a framework to determine what constitutes an act of cyber war and create a legal framework that addresses international criminal cyber acts.
3. Proactively create a framework of actions that can quickly be levied against cyber aggressors.
a. These actions must include both economic and military sanctions as well as suspension of connectivity to the Internet backbone by both physical communications cables and via satellite.
4. Create a cyber peacekeeping force that is a rapid response asset to assist in repelling any offensive cyber-based aggression.In the interest of global peace, economic integrity and stability, I believe that the United States, European Union, United Nations and NATO must proactively send a stern warning to those who choose to use cyber weapons against other nations, that there will be severe consequences of such actions.
[From The Cyber Attack Danger]
Rear Adm. (sel.) Mark Kenny, director of the new Navy Irregular Warfare Office, told the Submarine Naval League Symposium in Virginia last week that the SSGNs are being sent “where al Qaeda is at…it’s that simple” according to an article in Defense Daily (subscription) this morning.
“The first two deployments, the Ohio and Florida, were groundbreaking deployments,” he said at the Naval Submarine League Symposium in McLean, Va. “The ships work as advertised, brought home the bacon. And I wish I could give you the briefs in detail, because they are eye-watering…”
“These ships are the Navy’s premiere counterterrorism tool, no doubt about it,” Kenny said. He added that’s the view of “those that lead this fight”–officers such as Special Operations Command leader Adm. Eric Olson–as well as the intelligence community.
We recently observed the USS Ohio (SSGN 726) with two dry deck shelters, which one would imply that there were at least two special operations teams aboard. The article goes on to the discuss unmanned systems in development for the SSGN, including submarine versions of the Sea Stalker and the Boeing ScanEagle, to improve ISR capabilities.
The SSGN has an advantage over aircraft because it has both the intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance (ISR) and strike capabilities, he said, and doesn’t need permission from other nations to take off and land.
If you have read here long, you should already be aware that it is the submarine force quietly leading from the front lines for the Navy. Good to see the submariners get some credit. However, ADM Kenny should have stopped while he was ahead.
He added that the SSGN can fill the gap in surface-fire support created by the planned truncation of the DDG-1000 destroyer line.
Sigh. ADM, stick to irregular warfare, that last comment drove a Marine sitting 20 feet from my desk to use his outside voice indoors, and when you remove the colorful adjectives of his comment it goes something like “that guy knows nothing about fire support.” Maybe you were making an important point, but the Tomahawk Cruise Missile is not fire support, and if that is what you are talking about I will agree with the Marines. [From The Navy's Premiere Counterterrorism Tool]
Private organizations and for that matter individuals that provide military-style security have been in existence for thousands of years. Their origins can be traced back to the medieval times. Many refer to the individuals who make up these groups as Soldiers of Fortune. A Soldier of Fortune is a person hired to fight for a cause in a country other than their own. Many times they are referred to as mercenaries, but that term carries negative connotations. These professional soldiers go where conflicts break out and where their skills are needed. Now Cyber Soldiers of Fortune are beginning to appear as are cyber arms dealers.We have entered a new age of conflict. The new era of conflict is one that does not operate in the physical worlds and is not defined by physical boundaries. Cyber warfare, conflicts and attacks are now a reality and a reality that every nation in the world must address. Given that this type of warfare is relatively new, there is a severe shortage of resources. The three hottest positions emerging are cyber conflict resolution specialists (CCRS) and cyber operational support technicians (COST). CCRS create cyber attack strategies, plans and direct offensive strategies against specific targets. The COST provides the hands-on development, customization and deployment of cyber weapons as directed by the commanding CCRS. The third hot resource is the cyber espionage operative (CEO) - the spy.
More and more attention is being given to cyber attacks. They have become an all too frequent a topic in the media today. Metrics collected by Spy-Ops clearly indicate the rapid growth in coverage of these incidents. The chart to the right tracks cyber threat awareness. As the number and significance of incident increase the media coverage and threat awareness increase. The spike that occurred in April is sure to increase the demand for these resources. Patty Luther, a security recruiting specialist said, There is an ever increasing demand for highly skilled cyber security resources. When you add the demand for Cyber Soldiers of Fortune, resources are in short supply. It’s no secret that there are fewer students majoring in computer science today. The Computing Research Association’s statistics show that the number of freshman who list computer science as a probable major has fallen by 70 percent since 2000.
New national data shows that what has been a traumatic decade for computer science departments is finally starting to turn around. For the first time since 2000, the number of newly declared undergraduate majors at doctoral-granting computer science departments is now on the increase.
As the cyber warfare threat environment continues to evolve new opportunities will be created. This threat is in its infancy and will continue to grow for the foreseeable future. While Cyber Soldiers of Fortune are now a new entity, they will soon become old news and common place. In the past two months I have received emails and phone messages asking if I would be interested in joining/leading a cyber militia. This is a very dangerous proposition. It is difficult to determine who really is in controls of these organizations and how the cyber capabilities of the militia would be used. I would urge any of our readers on here to resist the temptation to join or support such groups.
[From Cyber Soldier of Fortune]
