However, despite the National Security Agency’s access to a satellite phone Bin Laden had been using, media reports alerted the terrorist leader to that collection, leading to an effective electronic communications collection blackout for the agency. This made collecting on valuable intelligence for future plots and his movements very difficult, forcing the agency and broader intelligence community to have to be more creative. Officials decided to begin collecting on curriers, which ultimately led the intelligence community to pinpoint Bin Laden’s location in Pakistan.   

That is an anecdote from the NSA’s new podcast that’s dropping Thursday. It’s name, “No Such Podcast,” is a play on the “No Such Agency” moniker given to the organization due to its secretiveness.

NSA, a combat support agency serving as the nation’s premier signals intelligence organization and cybersecurity outfit, wants to pull the curtain back on some of its work and highlight its roles and missions in the national security arena.

“For years, the very existence of NSA was classified, leading to the name ‘No Such Agency.’ Now, as NSA has increased its public engagements in the past several years, ‘No Such Podcast’ provides a new channel for people to learn more about one of the country’s most secretive agencies,” according to an agency spokesperson. “NSA believes in showcasing the incredible, dedicated work of our diverse, expert workforce. ‘No Such Podcast’ extends our existing efforts into a new and growing medium.”

According to a transcript provided by the agency ahead of its release, episode one details the long journey to hunt down Bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist, while also delving into the craft of signals intelligence, or SIGINT.

“We did have some interesting collection on [Bin Laden] in the past using a satellite phone. Unfortunately that got published in the media that we were collecting him off that satellite phone. From that moment on, no more electronic communications from him,” Jon Darby, former director of operations at NSA, said in the podcast’s first episode, highlighting the challenge of maintaining secrets and keeping open avenues for intel gathering.

Officials in the past have said that NSA provides nearly a quarter of the intel contained in the president’s daily brief, a summary of top-level national security information.

“In its basic form, a signal is a current or a pulse or a radio wave — something that transmits information and data between systems and between networks. So each signal, think of a phone call, or a text, or even communicating over the internet. These things create a digital footprint that we would call a signal. There are other digital footprints or signals we’re interested in, like weapon signals, radars, missiles,” Natalie Laing, director of operations at NSA, explained. “There has to be a requirement to go after that signal for some reason of national security and importance. So as most basic, that’s what the signal world is, and that’s what signals intelligence is, that data that rides on the signal that we are interested in for national security purposes.”

Podcast guests provided three distinct examples for how signals intelligence has contributed to national-level insights and helped combat malicious activity. First, interviewees said signals collected ahead of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine provided advance warning of Moscow’s actions, allowing U.S. Cyber Command to send a team of personnel to Kiev to help harden networks — a success largely touted by the U.S. for contributing to Ukraine’s resiliency against digital feints during the early stages of the attack.

Additionally, according to officials, signals intelligence was used to inform the origins of chemicals used to synthesize fentanyl in China, in an effort to help stem the shipment to the United States, where deaths related to the drug have surged to record highs.

Guests also described how signals intelligence collection helped to identify multiple ransomware attacks — some before they occurred — to help protect critical sectors in the U.S. such as the defense industrial base.

When it came to finding Bin Laden, Darby and Laing noted that it was a full-team effort across the intelligence community. They described the long chase that came in fits and starts with lead after lead being investigated. Analysts would pour through collection data and try to discern what was important for senior leaders.

“One of the main things we need to do when we do that collection and processing is make this understandable for the folks that are going to be working this … you might be looking at a signal or a big grouping of signals that are very complicated, highly technical, or encrypted, or all three of those things. So it is our job to not only undo the complexity to get to the meat of the data so that the analysts can use that, but also we have to establish the right thresholds for how to go through that data,” Laing said.

“Jon was talking about the couriers as we were targeting UBL. If we were to go through all this collection and see anything that relates to that courier, obviously that’s something we would discern is of foreign intelligence value. We will keep following up on that. If it was, for example, a signal that was right next to that one, of a local taxi driver near you, okay, that’s not something we would discern we need to follow. So that’s one way that we start to parse out this collection so it’s usable and meaningful because the volume is pretty significant,” Laing added.

On the night of the raid to capture or kill Bin Laden, NSA’s role was to ensure there were no threats to the team, providing indications and warning to the helicopters carrying the SEAL team that carried out the mission.

The rest is history.

Meanwhile, the second episode of the podcast dives into the NSA’s role in cybersecurity.

“Cybersecurity is absolutely critical to national security. So when you think about advanced cyber actors, whether it’s Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, or non-state actors, it’s critically important for our nation to have threat intelligence that helps us navigate all the various aspects of the cybersecurity mission,” Dave Luber, director of cybersecurity for NSA and former executive director of Cybercom, stated.

“When you think about national security systems, you think about all the systems that support the Department of Defense, all the systems that support the intelligence community, and also select portions of our federal civilian agencies and departments, also rely on national security systems capabilities. So whether it’s threat intelligence, whether it’s partnerships, or whether it’s a focus towards key encryption capabilities to protect our most important national security systems, that’s what cybersecurity means to the National Security Agency,” he said.

Driving together themes from the two episodes, officials noted that NSA has started to focus on threat intelligence collected via signals intelligence as a means of improving cybersecurity.

They also highlighted how the U.S. military has changed due to the cyber environment and what the NSA is doing in its role as a combat support agency.

“From a military perspective, in terms of how the landscape has changed over the last decade, I would just reflect on the adversary that we were fighting. And so for the military, for the last 10 years, we were postured for this global war on terrorism. Rightfully so. It was an adversary that was not that sophisticated, did not rely on technology,” then Maj. Gen. Jerry Carter, who was deputy director of cybersecurity for combat support, said. Carter has been promoted to three-star and assumed the role of deputy commandant for information Aug. 2.

“When you look at the world today and out to 2030, I mean, it’s a different environment,” Carter continued. In the past, the focus was on air, land and sea, “but now we add space and cyberspace, which really challenges us.”

Interviewees also noted the partnerships across government and military agencies and the role NSA plays in protecting weapon systems.

“When you look at the changes that have been occurring across our department, especially with the advent and use of proliferated LEO, low-Earth orbit architectures, to support warfighters, it’s been really important for us at NSA to ensure that high assurance cryptography protects all parts of that space ecosystem,” Luber said.

“Whether it’s the ground segment, the user segment, the link segment or the space segment, NSA is there to support the warfighters as they develop those new capabilities to ensure that we have warfighting systems in space. So one of the partnerships that we’ve had over the past three years is with the Space Development Agency,” he said. “Working closely with SDA, Dr. [Derek] Tournear and his team, we’ve ensured that over the last year, we’ve been able to support the launch of 27 low-Earth orbit satellites to support Department of Defense capabilities. And that includes the capabilities to provide secure communications from that ground all the way up to the space segment, but also bring new capabilities online to really enhance warfighting systems.”

The post NSA’s foray into podcasting highlights its role in Bin Laden raid, cybersecurity appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Following operational demonstrations, the service determined that the concept for the Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team was not going to work the way it was intended or gain the efficiencies desired.

TLS-BCT was designed as the first integrated signals intelligence, cyber and electronic warfare platform, devised roughly six years ago. It has been described as a key enabler of Army priorities — considering the service has been without a program-of-record jammer for decades — that will support multi-domain operations. As initially conceived, it was to be mounted on Strykers and then Army Multi-Purpose Vehicle variant prototypes.

Outside experts had always voiced concern with such a setup given the highly classified nature and authorities that come with signals intelligence and the issues associated with putting that on the same platform as electronic warfare tools.

Now, the Army has decided to split the system up — along with the TLS-Echelons Above Brigade, designed primarily for divisions, corps and Multi-Domain Task Forces to sense across greater ranges than its brigade counterpart — into two separate systems.

“TLS-BCT, specifically, this program was birthed with the concept that you could have one system where you had EW and SIGINT soldiers on board the same platform, operating at the same time, supporting different battlefield operating systems,” Kenneth Strayer, project manager for electronic warfare and cyber at program executive office for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, said in an interview.

“Although SIGINT and EW are very similar — they use very similar hardware, software — they have different mission threads and they often need to be at different places on the battlefield. They have different requirements in terms of timeliness and data sharing,” he added. “The big ‘ah-ha’ as we went into the operational demonstration [was] that wasn’t going to work the way that we envisioned it and we weren’t going to get the efficiencies we wanted.”

This has now forced the Army to relook and reset its electronic warfare architecture as to not be tied to the signals intelligence production chain that requires a different hardware and software approach, Strayer said.

One of the key lessons being learned in conflicts like Ukraine is the need for speed. Classification is often a barrier to moving fast, forcing the Army in other portfolios to loosen the reins with concepts such as secure but unclassified-encrypted communications, which reduces overall network complexity and has had huge benefits in terms of interfacing with partner nations and eschewing the need for liaisons. That increases the pace of operations.

Moreover, as the Army shifts to the division as the unit of action instead of the brigade of the last 20 years during the global war on terror, higher classified networks such as signals intelligence will be pushed to higher echelons while smaller units such as brigade and below will need to be unburdened and empowered to share with coalition forces on faster timelines, such as near real-time.

“This really needs to be pushed down to the unclassified level, secret [and] below … so we can share with coalition partners and rapidly feed the fires targeting cycle without having to go up through national SIGINT chains,” Strayer said.

As a result, the program office is gearing up to release a request for information to industry to inquire on the availability of commercially or government-owned, preferably off-the-shelf electronic warfare hardware and software ecosystems or architectures that the Army could leverage to tailor for the unique requirements of each echelon to converge on a common hardware/software architecture that’s scalable across echelons.

“We don’t want to go trying to reinvent something. We think the commercial marketplace is really caught up based on the work that’s going on with other services and throughout industry. We’re excited to hear what industry has to offer in the coming months,” Strayer said. “That’s going to drive our acquisition strategy for EW moving forward.”

The new architecture it’s pursuing is supposed to allow for the rapid collection, dissemination and reprogramming of signals in the field at the speed of war. The service wants the ability to have a compute architecture of standard CPUs and GPUs that can be purchased to facilitate the ability to pull out classification and identification of signals in the environment, and plug in third-party capabilities such as artificial intelligence and machine learning to keep pace with threats by being able to identify and classify signals.

All the while, the Army wants to be able to purchase commercial sensors given the rich marketplace that exists in the private sector now, rather than spending money to develop its own, unique, fit-for-purpose sensors.  

As the service is conducting market research on this evolving electronic warfare architecture, it’s still pursing the signals intelligence system development, which is more mature than the electronic warfare portions.

Strayer said the Army was “pretty close” on the Stryker-based signals intelligence system configuration, formerly TLS-BCT, at the operational demonstration last year. Officials will look to continue refining that effort with a customer test this year and a follow-on demonstration next year before getting it into the field.

On TLS-EAB, the Army started bifurcating the electronic warfare and signals intelligence capabilities based on lessons learned from Europe, despite initially envisioning it as one system that does it all. That program initiated after the brigade version.

As a result, that effort is also going down two pathways: signals intelligence and electronic warfare.

Given the new approach with the electronic warfare architecture, the Army has asked the vendor to prioritize the signals intelligence portion of the system. The vendor is working on a hands-on physical integration of the desired signals intelligence architecture that could be a 20-foot container for the first prototype, allowing it to be mounted in different ways.

That prototype is scheduled to be delivered to the Army in early calendar 2025 but could slip to second quarter.

On the electronic warfare aspect, officials are using this system as the main component for defining and demonstrating the initial EW architecture, given the BCT portion of the program went so far with a demonstration and design on an integrated platform.

The EAB program will be publishing the requests for information concerning the architecture, that will eventually deliver it back to the BCT version for integration.

Once developed, the architecture will have the ability to tailor for the need at each echelon.

Next year will be a focal point for the effort, with demonstrations planned and the goal of selecting a common architecture by the end of 2025. It will then be instantiated in some physical prototypes in 2026 for both the EAB and hopefully BCT as well, according to Army plans.

The post Army pursuing new electronic warfare architecture appeared first on DefenseScoop.

PHILADELPHIA — Following years of development, the Army intends to break up its integrated signals intelligence and electronic warfare platform into two distinct variants.

The Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team was designed as the first integrated signals intelligence, cyber and EW platform devised roughly six years ago. It has been described as a key enabler of Army priorities — considering the service has been without a program-of-record jammer for decades — that will support multi-domain operations. As initially conceived, it was to be mounted on Stykers and then Army Multi-Purpose Vehicle variant prototypes.

Outside experts had always voiced concern with such a setup given the highly classified nature and authorities that come with signals intelligence and the issues associated with putting that on the same platform as electronic warfare tools.

The Army awarded a middle tier acquisition contract to Lockheed Martin for the platform five years ago. Officials explained that the breakup of the TLS-BCT demonstrates the benefit of this MTA approach — which at the conclusion could lead to rapid fielding, transitioning to a major capability acquisition, continue prototyping through other means, or termination — and the authorities Congress has granted the Army.

“It’s the beauty of the MTA process. It allows you to learn what’s not going to work or what’s not going to be successful in the fight. That kind of aggregation of SIGINT and EW physically located presented a multitude of challenges. The reality was that the best path was to have them separated, not on a single platform,” Brig. Gen. Wayne “Ed” Barker, program executive officer for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, said in an interview at the Army’s Technical Exchange Meeting in Philadelphia this week.

That existing MTA will conclude next year, meaning there will not be a rapid fielding decision on TLS at that time. The Army will continue prototyping on both an electronic warfare and signals intelligence variant over the course of a 12 to 18-month period outside that MTA period to refine what those capabilities look like.

At the end of that time frame, depending on how far the Army has progressed from a prototype for each variant, a decision will be made determining if one or both of those platforms is mature enough to go into a rapid fielding or transitions into a major capability acquisition.

The changing nature of the EW environment

Currently, the more stable of the two systems is the signals intelligence system from a requirements and platform standpoint, which would simply require the removal of the electronic warfare payload from the platform.

The Army has been undergoing a years-long rejuvenation of EW following significant divestments at the end of the Cold War. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 spurred a hastening of those efforts after it was determined their systems and concepts were in many cases more mature than those of the Army.

Conversely, for decades, the Army has had a series of platform-based signals intelligence systems, such as Prophet, a ground-based tactical SIGINT system.

One of the critical and ongoing lessons coming from Ukraine is that the EW environment is changing rapidly. The Army’s chief of staff is directing the service to prioritize electronic warfare equipment to soldiers to experiment with via a concept called “transforming in contact,” where the Army plans to use deployments and troop rotations to test new equipment — mainly commercial off-the-shelf gear — to allow units to be more responsive on a dynamic battlefield.

“We’re learning that the EW landscape is changing everywhere between three weeks and three months, and so that we need to be more flexible in our approach … The battlefield is changing really, really rapidly,” George said during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in April.

While the European theater had been the priority for a long time, the Army is now beginning to turn its focus to the Pacific as well, where the Department of Defense refers to China as the pacing threat.

Given that the threat — both in Europe and the Pacific — is changing, combined with the terrain in each theater, a relook at capabilities is necessary, officials have said.

Moreover, larger platforms such as Strykers and AMPVs don’t island-hop as easily in the Pacific, which includes thousands of islands spread across thousands of miles in maritime and jungle environments.

“This is one area where the technology just isn’t necessarily there. The prototyping actually creates a demand signal back to industry to go, ‘Hey, our challenge is a couple of things,’” Alex Miller, chief technology officer for the chief of staff, said in an interview at the Technical Exchange Meeting. “One, we have some older kit that has really proprietary interfaces and control mechanisms, and we don’t want that. We want something that’s more open. Two, when you’re on a vehicle you have access to a lot more power [and] we want you to be able to use that power to create either the effect of protecting or the effect of attacking.”

He noted that at experiments such as Project Convergence, the Army saw a lot of newer capabilities such as robotically mounted or small drone-mounted electronic warfare, that were promising.  

“That’s the real truth is we need help on that technology on that mounted, high power, mobile type of EW kit versus the Manpack, which is a little bit more low power,” Miller said, adding they can throw an electronic warfare kit onto a pickup truck or an Infantry Squad Vehicle that is more mobile and transportable through C-130 or C-17 lift.

The Manpack version he mentioned was envisioned as a complement to the TLS-BCT system encompassing a series of two systems dismounted soldiers can use for jamming, signal direction finding and signals intelligence. The Army awarded a $1.5 million contract to Mastodon Design, a CACI subsidiary, last year.

There has been a rapid fielding decision made on the Manpack with first unit equipped scheduled for later this year, Barker said, adding: “When you think of it in terms of that transforming in contact, this is the real first piece of kit that we’re getting in the hands of folks.”

Miller also explained that the Army is trying to get out of the business of “gold-plating” requirements where “perfect” becomes the enemy of “good enough.”

“Part of the reason that the IEW&S team were forced to make the decision is because the alternative was try to get it perfect and never revealed anything. And that’s wrong. Soldiers deserve better than that,” he said. “Being able to say the operational environment has changed, we need to stop gold-plating requirements, we need to get the smallest requirement out the door so [Barker] can prototype — that’s another part of it. And that goes back to the transform in contact and how do we iterate on requirements and how do we give a piece of kit to soldiers and formations so they can give feedback more rapidly?”

On the acquisition side, Barker noted that Doug Bush – assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology — has been clear that he would rather have these types of conversations now during the MTA and realize this is something the Army doesn’t want, instead of going through a major capability acquisition and trying to deliver something to the field years later that doesn’t meet the need.

“One of the key criteria they enter into an MTA is the ability to demonstrate a successful prototype. That’s what the vendors are held accountable to. If it appears that we won’t have a successful prototype, then then the Army has the right to recompete if we want [or] if we need to,” Barker said.

Moreover, the service is rethinking what it means to field something, which historically had very specific acquisition and programmatic connotations.

“We’re getting so much new and useful kit to soldiers so often that it’s no longer a pickup game on a soldier touch point once a year. It is now, ‘Here’s this kit, you keep it if it’s useful to you,’ and they use it and they provide feedback until the next piece of kit comes and they’re using that. That’s the continuous transformation,” Miller said. “The notion that, hey, you only see the output five years at the very end of the MTA — that’s no longer the case. As soon as there’s something useful, we want feedback.”

Additionally, the Army Force Structure Transformation plan that was released in February also made changes to electronic warfare forces regarding the placement of EW companies and platoons at certain echelons, which will inform changes to the platform.

Part two of this series will focus on how the Army is evaluating electronic warfare technology, who is in charge and how to get kit into the hands of soldiers faster.

The post Army plans to split up signals intelligence, electronic warfare platform appeared first on DefenseScoop.

A new start program for fiscal 2025, the Theater SIGINT System (TSIGS) is aimed at providing integrated signals intelligence capabilities to support multi-domain operations, force protection and information superiority for Army service component commands and combatant commands. According to budget documents, it will equip military intelligence brigades with “non-persistent mobile capabilities, persistent static capabilities, and portable survey capabilities to their subordinate formations.”

A spokesperson from program executive office for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, which runs TISGS, said the intent of the program is to transition existing quick-reaction capabilities that are deployed today into an enduring program of record for continuous development and modernization in order to adapt to changing threats.

Some of those technologies offer the ability to detect, identify, locate, collect, process and report advanced adversarial signals of interest for indications and warnings, support to electronic order of battle development for U.S. and allied maneuver units, and SIGINT support to electromagnetic warfare and cyber operations, per the budget documents.

With the shift to what the Pentagon refers to as great power competition with China and Russia, the U.S. military must be prepared to fight larger and more sophisticated forces across longer distances. As a result, the Army is placing greater importance on capabilities and procedures at higher echelons such as division, corps and theater instead of brigade, which was the primary fighting unit during the post-9/11 counterinsurgency wars.

The $6.6 million ask will provide the initial funding that will be utilized to begin transition of the program, including needed non-recurring engineering and testing to establish an enduring program, according to the Army spokesperson. Budget documents state it will support the development, integration and technical insertions of signals of interest to the program.

The service’s justification books didn’t provide any additional funding projections for the initiative across the five-year planning period known as the future years defense program.

The Army spokesperson explained that additional money for R&D and procurement will likely be requested in future years, once the transition baseline has been established.

Going forward, a competitive acquisition strategy will be approved at the program’s initiation involving adoption of the major capability acquisition framework and integrating elements of the software acquisition model, according to budget documents.

“The goal is to swiftly deliver an integrated ground intelligence system of systems that aligns with strategically positioned theater-based forces,” the documents state. “The TSIGS initiative will capitalize on MCA authorities to expedite development and continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) of software products, ensuring adaptability to evolving and emerging requirements over time.”

The post Army requesting funding to initiate new theater signals intelligence program appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team (TLS-BCT), being developed by Lockheed Martin, is the first integrated electronic warfare, signals intelligence and cyber platform. The program will be a key enabler of Army priorities — considering the service has been without a program-of-record jammer for decades — and support multi-domain operations.

As initially conceived, the technology was to be designed for Stryker platforms. However, acquisition priorities shifted.

Budget documents released last year projected the Army would spend $196.1 million to procure 26 systems in fiscal 2025. Now, the Army is requesting $95.4 million for 54 systems, according to newly released fiscal 2025 budget justification documents.

The Army attributes the change in funding and quantities to prioritizing the TLS Manpack version — a series of two systems dismounted soldiers can use for jamming, signal direction finding and signals intelligence. The Army awarded a $1.5 million contract to Mastodon Design LLC, a CACI subsidiary, last year.

“The change in procurement quantities is reflective of our plan to accelerate the procurement and fielding of the TLS BCT Manpack, which is scheduled to begin this year. The Justification materials include 52 manpacks in FY24 and 51 in FY25, an increase from last year to accelerate the delivery of this critical capability to the field,” a spokesperson from program executive office for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, which runs the program, said in a statement to DefenseScoop.

Budget documents also note that procurement funding will go to Stryker variant systems as well.

This is the second year in a row that funding was altered in favor of the manpack solution.

Officials requested $14.7 million for research, development, test and evaluation funding for TLS-BCT in fiscal 2025. Budget documents released last year did not provide any RDT&E funding projections for the effort beyond fiscal 2024. New budget documents note the increase is to complete Army Multi-Purpose Vehicle variant prototypes and execute operational testing.

“The additional RDT&E in FY25 fully funds the 5-year MTA Rapid Prototyping program and completes required testing,” the spokesperson said.

The new documents also project a $7.1 million RDT&E request for fiscal 2026 but no funds beyond that. The spokesperson said that money is for ongoing efforts to maintain the relevancy of the system and keep pace with changes in the threat environment, noting this is expected to be an enduring requirement.

Movin’ on up (echelons)

For TLS-Echelon Above Brigade, the TLS-BCT’s larger cousin, the Army asked for $1.4 million in procurement funding for fiscal 2025.

A new start last year, the program is designed primarily for divisions, corps and Multi-Domain Task Forces to sense across greater ranges than its brigade counterpart. Lockheed Martin is also the lead contractor for that effort.

The Army altered its approach to the system, opting to tailor it to theaters rather than building a one-size-fits-all capability.

There was no procurement ask in last year’s budget documents, and funds this year will go toward pre-production planning and support for future contracting activities.

For R&D, the Army previously projected it would spend $42.8 million on the capability in fiscal 2025, but it requested $116.3 million in its latest budget proposal. Total cost to complete the program, according to last year’s documents, was $175.8 million — but this year’s documents project a $296.5 million price tag.

“The additional RDTE has been requested in FY25-FY26 to fully fund the 5-year Middle Tier Rapid Prototyping program. We are in year 2 of the 5-year prototyping effort, transitioning from concept design into the prototype build phase,” the Army spokesperson said. “Lessons learned from observation of ongoing operations have informed requirements. The program is maximizing the flexibilities that come with Middle Tier acquisition to update prototype designs to address the refined requirements for Multidomain operations.”

Budget documents note the first unit issued for the EAB system is slated for the third quarter of fiscal 2026.

The post Army alters funding again for integrated cyber, EW, SIGINT system to speed up delivery of ‘critical’ manpack version appeared first on DefenseScoop.

“Fracturing the current USCYBERCOM-NSA command arrangement would degrade flexibility, adaptability, and speed of action now provided through close and interconnected processes; ultimately impacting mission outcomes,” Lt. Gen. Timothy Haugh wrote to members of the Senate Armed Services Committee in a questionnaire as part of his confirmation process.

The phrase “dual hat” refers to Cybercom and NSA sharing a boss. When Cybercom was first created a decade ago, it was co-located with NSA at Fort Meade, Maryland to help the nascent command grow, relying on the personnel, expertise and infrastructure of the NSA. The arrangement was initially expected to be temporary.

Opponents say the dual-hat arrangement is too much work for a single person and relying on the intelligence community’s tools — which are meant to stay undetected — for military activities poses risks to such espionage activity.

Haugh said the demands of each position are effectively managed and aren’t excessive for one individual.  

There has been a burgeoning consensus in Washington that the two organizations have grown closer and might never split as officials have maintained the critical intelligence NSA provides helps feed Cybercom’s operations. Haugh noted in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee July 12 that “the overlap between activities in cyberspace and within signals intelligence, those things are inextricably linked.”  

To date, many officials — including the findings of a conducted by a Defense Department and intelligence community steering group, led by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Joseph Dunford — have simply noted that the dual-hat arrangement is in the best interest of the United States.

However, Haugh, who is currently Cybercom’s deputy commander, went further, telling lawmakers that severing NSA and Cyber Command leadership would be problematic.

“The signals intelligence and cyber operating environments substantially overlap. Eliminating the dual hat would reduce relevant visibility and understanding across both mission sets, increasing risk to intelligence sources and operational activities,” Haugh wrote. “It would reduce the speed and effectiveness of cybersecurity collaboration in the protection of National Security Systems (NSS), the [DOD Information Network], and the [defense industrial base] by slowing and complicating information sharing and work with overlapping partners. Finally, ending the dual hat would complicate relationships with Allies and partners that conduct their own signals intelligence and cyberspace operations.”

Haugh told senators Thursday during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee that having worked on each side of both organizations, “how we partner and be able to take the guidance from a single leader becomes effective in our response so we can move with the speed and agility today” — and it “would be very difficult to replicate [that] in a different configuration.”

‘Call balls and strikes’

One of the biggest arguments for keeping the current arrangement is having a single person at the top of both organizations that has oversight over the operations and activities of each.

Given the sensitivities and competing interests involved between espionage — which aims to burrow into systems and avoid detection for continued intel collection — and warfighting — which involves disrupting or destroying systems — some have argued for the need of a single person to weigh in on these equities.

“I think if you did not have a dual-hat arrangement … you would have two separate bureaucracies who would clash on a daily basis about the use of the tools, about the coordination of efforts, about the protection of their own silos,” Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, has said. “I think you have to have a person on top who can call balls and strikes between the two separate organizations.”

This so-called intelligence gain/loss, some argue, is essentially why there needs to be a single person in charge of each organization, rather than risk reducing speed of action and oversight by splitting leadership roles and adding more bureaucracy.

“This is perhaps the most critical advantage of the dual hat — a single decision maker, responsible and accountable for the mission outcomes of both organizations, is best equipped to protect critical intelligence equities while executing national priorities, as directed. It ensures fully informed tradeoff decisions are made under accountability to both the Secretary of Defense and Director of National Intelligence,” Haugh wrote.

“The most positive aspect of the dual hat is the ability of a single decision maker, responsible for the separate and distinct mission outcomes of both organizations, to allocate resources, set priorities, and execute complementary actions to produce critical outcomes for the nation. It ensures that a single, fully informed decision maker is able to protect our nation’s most sensitive signals intelligence equities and ensure both organizations are aligned with the nation’s priorities,” he added.

It is unclear when Haugh might be confirmed and take over for the retiring Gen. Paul Nakasone because Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville has put a blanket hold on senior military officer confirmations in protest of the DOD’s abortion policies.

The post Cybercom-NSA nominee argues severing dual hat would be ‘time consuming, more complex and less effective’ appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The Terrestrial Layer System-Echelons Above Brigade (TLS-EAB) capability will be designed for higher echelons — primarily division and corps — that will need to monitor and sense the battlefield across greater distances than lower, more tactically focused echelons. It will be used by the Army’s Multi-Domain Task Force. The technology comes as advanced adversaries are forcing the Army to operate at greater distances, and therefore, the service needs to be able to sense farther and at higher echelons.

“I would say the Army’s evolving sort of our acquisition approach to echelons above brigade. How are we going to do long-range effects from a corps or a division?” Mark Kitz, program executive officer for intelligence, electronic warfare and sensors, said at the virtual C4ISRNET conference Wednesday. “How are we going to do that when … the [combatant command] environments are very different. [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command] looks very different than Africa, looks very different than anywhere. How do we build a tailored electronic warfare capability for our divisions and corps that are going to operate in significantly different environments?”

The Army first developed a TLS system for brigades, but unlike its smaller sibling, TLS-EAB will likely be less integrated with cyber, EW and signals intelligence capabilities due to the greater distances it must sense and provide effects for. The ranges covered for these echelons make operations like electronic attack more difficult as opposed to the more tactically focused brigade version that would perform more local jamming operations on the battlefield.

As a platform that supports these higher echelons, the TLS-EAB capability will contribute to deep sensing, enabling the Army to discover targets across thousands of miles for long-range fires while also possibly conducting its own electronic attacks such as jamming.

Given each theater is different in terms of the target sets, adversaries and terrain, the Army is now thinking its solutions will have to be tailored to a particular theater.

“If you’d asked me, I don’t think we’re going to get to production with an EAB capability. I think we’re going to build tailored solutions to the [combatant commands] that we’re going to operate in — and iterate that over and over and over again so that we build sort of a specific solution for the different type of contested and congested environment we’ll see. We’re certainly evolving our acquisition approach there,” Kitz said. “I think it may even look significantly different. I think that’s what we got to experiment and understand, because if the environment looks significantly different, we can’t just [have a] cookie-cutter solution that’s going to marginally work in that” particular combatant command.

For example, a Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) might not be the right platform for EAB in the Indo-Pacom region, Kitz said. However, it could be the right platform for U.S. European Command.

Officials have previously indicated FMTV was the targeted platform for EAB.

“I think we’re really keeping an open book here, we’re keeping an open in mind and trying to come up with the right acquisition approach that gets the right capability for our commanders in each of those” combatant commands, Kitz said.

The Army last year awarded two companies — Lockheed and General Dynamics Mission Systems — to do design work on TLS-EAB, which included software infrastructure and vehicle design worth approximately $15 million over an 11-month period of performance. For phase two, as initially envisioned, one of the companies would receive an award for prototype development. However, it’s unclear if that is still the approach.

The post Army tweaking its approach for a long-range electronic warfare system appeared first on DefenseScoop.

The award, announced on April 12, is for the Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team (TLS-BCT), which will be will first be mounted on Strykers but includes a man-packable solution for infantry units as well.

This contract is a follow-on to Lockheed’s initial award for the program, which is phased and will continue to include future components.

This most recent award is broken up into two parts — both under the larger program’s umbrella — due to authorities and what the Army refers to as “colors of money,” which are broken into dollars for procurement, research and development, and operations and maintenance. Using funds set aside for one area for a different silo is strictly prohibited by law.

The first is a $35.4 million award for the procurement of TLS-BCT systems on Strykers, according to an Army spokesperson.

The other is $37.4 million in research and development funds that will go toward supporting the operational demonstration and initial designs for the Army Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV).

While the main platform for TLS-BCT currently is a Stryker, the Army is planning to outfit other types of brigades such as armored and infantry. For armored units, the Army is targeting the forthcoming AMPV, which is the replacement for the M113 family of vehicles.

This is the first award for TLS-BCT as it relates to AMPV platforms. An Army spokesperson said those AMPV platforms will be provided to Lockheed through the electronic warfare and cyber program office to begin work on.

Regarding operational demonstration for Stryker platforms, fiscal 2024 budget documents indicate such activity will occur in the fourth quarter of 2023. Operational demonstration for AMPV will occur in the third quarter of 2025.

The total systems awarded under this announcement help get the Army into a position to meet quantities required to complete operational demonstration and meet the first unit issued planned for fiscal 2024, the spokesperson said.

Overall, the Army requested $64.9 million for research and development funds for TLS-BCT in fiscal 2024. That is compared to the $12.4 million it anticipated spending in 2024 as outlined in fiscal 2023 budget documents.

On the procurement front, the Army adjusted funding for TLS-BCT this year. Budget documents released last year projected the Army requesting $201.1 million in fiscal 2024 for procurement for TLS-BCT, however, that has shifted to prioritize infantry units and dismounted systems, which are cheaper than the Strykers.

The post Army issues first award to integrate cyber, EW and intelligence system on armored platform appeared first on DefenseScoop.

Budget documents released last year projected the Army requesting $201.1 million in fiscal 2024 for procurement of the Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team, which is the first brigade-organic integrated signals intelligence, electronic warfare and cyber platform that will first be mounted on Strykers. It is part of a family of systems that also includes the TLS-Echelons Above Brigade, which is designed for higher echelons that will need to monitor and sense the battlefield across greater distances than lower, more tactically focused echelons.

However, the recently released fiscal 2024 budget request includes just $84.6 million for TLS-BCT procurement.

“This funding change was in response to an adjustment in the program’s Middle-Tier Acquisition Rapid Prototyping strategy to prioritize and accelerate the fielding of capability to [infantry brigade combat teams],” Ken Strayer, project manager for electronic warfare and cyber at Program Executive Office Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors, said in a statement to DefenseScoop. “The cost to equip an IBCT with a TLS-BCT manpack solution is lower than either the Stryker BCT or Armored BCT solutions.”

At the end of the Cold War, the Army divested much of its electronic warfare inventory. As a result, the service doesn’t have any program-of-record jamming capabilities and has historically relied upon quick reaction capabilities that fill gaps identified by commanders. These have consisted of the dismounted Versatile Radio Observation and Direction (VROD) and VROD Modular Adaptive Transmission system (VMAX) — the former surveys the field from an electromagnetic perspective, and the latter provides a limited electronic attack capability.

When it comes to developing programs of record, the Army is prioritizing filling immediate gaps.

The service has created a requirement for a dismounted capability associated with TLS-BCT that will be a manpack version. Officials have said soldiers will be able to take a backpack off the platform for dismounted operations.

Last year’s budget request for fiscal 2023 sought to procure six TLS-BCT systems, while projecting a 25 system spend in fiscal 2024. However, the new 2024 budget blueprint is requesting 56 total systems — 52 are the manpack version and the remaining four are for the Stryker production.

Fiscal 2024 funding would also go toward contract management required for an urgent operational needs statement for V Corps in support of the European Deterrence Initiative, budget documents state.

Strayer emphasized that the decrease in requested procurement funding does not equate to a slip in program schedule.

“The program is on-schedule for an Operational Demonstration in September 2023 that will inform the production and fielding decision. Additionally, the added [research, development, test and evaluation] funding will support the FY24 integration of the TLS BCT mission payload onto the Army’s new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) for Armored BCTs,” he told DefenseScoop.

“Additionally, a portion of this OPA reduction was shifted to the program’s FY24 RDTE request. This will allow the Army to issue the prototype Stryker-based systems to an operational unit in FY24 in support of more expansive operational testing prior to commitment to production and full fielding,” Strayer said.

The Army has yet to release budget justification books for research, development, test and evaluation with the new five-year spending projections.

The 2024 budget request included $859,000 for procurement for TLS-EAB, which was a new start this year regarding procurement under the TLS line item.

Requested funding would also go toward the planning for procurement of some of the most critical long lead items required for the initial TLS-EAB production systems, budget documents state. Last summer, the Army awarded Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Mission Systems contracts to do design work, which includes software infrastructure and vehicle design worth approximately $15 million over an 11-month period of performance.

Both companies recently declined to provide updates to DefenseScoop on their efforts ahead of the Army’s award.

The post Army shifts procurement funding for integrated cyber, EW and signals intelligence platform appeared first on DefenseScoop.

“Right now, about 85% of how we enable and understand long-range precision fires is through SIGINT,” Vice Adm. Craig Clapperton, commander of 10^th Fleet/Fleet Cyber Command, said Feb. 14 during a presentation at the annual WEST conference in San Diego.

One of Fleet Cyber’s key roles is providing maritime and space domain awareness, which involves not only understanding and sensing what’s going on in various domains, “but then if and when necessary, deliver lethal long-range precision fires,” Clapperton said. “[You] can’t do that unless you have the picture. You can’t do that unless you can bring together a multi-INT, a lot of it is SIGINT. Quite honestly, somewhere north of 75 to 80% of it right now is a SIGINT picture.”

Clapperton said that for the theaters and commands he supports – including U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, U.S. Forces Korea and U.S. Southern Command – Fleet Cyber has to give them battlespace awareness to enable long-range precision fires. Space, cyber and electronic warfare effects that occur on or off a network, can all be part of the equation.

On the flip side, denying the adversary the ability to sense targets and conduct long-range fires on U.S. and allied forces would be a critical task in future conflicts against high-tech foes.

“My ability to prevent the adversary from doing those things and then targeting our forces and enabling them greater freedom of movement — that could potentially be the most important,” Clapperton said at the conference. “If I can make it so that the adversary’s ability to use and employ and implement the same concepts, if I can degrade those, then we’re winning.”

Clapperton said that ultimately, non-kinetic capabilities that are integrated with kinetic capabilities are the way to win in modern warfare. The term non-kinetic, in U.S. military parlance, generally refers to capabilities or tools that don’t fall under the traditional weapons portfolio of physical objects, such as cyber, signals intelligence, information operations and electromagnetic spectrum ops.

The Nay isn’t the only service that’s interested in leveraging non-kinetic capabilities to enable attacks across great distances. The Army, for example, has experimented with how passive sensors can improve targeting for long-range precision fires. Officials have also noted that such non-kinetic capabilities can provide significant intelligence to be able to see across thousands of miles, such as using sensors in the electromagnetic spectrum and cyberspace.

Moreover, high-altitude sensors, such as the High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation System (HADES), aim to provide the Army a greater ability to conduct what it calls deep sensing, or sensing over much greater distances.

The post Signals intelligence expected to play big role in enabling – and denying – long-range fires appeared first on DefenseScoop.