US Has Lost ‘Dominance In Electromagnetic Spectrum’: Shaffer

By on September 03, 2014 at 3:49 PM
The Navy's new EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft during sea trials.

The Navy’s new EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft during sea trials.

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB: “We have lost the electromagnetic spectrum,” said Alan Shaffer, the Pentagon’s research and engineering chief, this morning. “That’s a huge deal when you think about fielding advanced systems that can be [countered] by a very, very cheap digital jammer.”

We’ve heard senior Pentagon officials fret about electronic warfare before, most prominently the Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, but this is the bluntest and most alarming statement yet.

“We have got to, in my opinion, regain some dominance in the electromagnetic spectrum, or at least parity, so things that we buy continue to operate as we intended them to,” Shaffer said. For example, the Pentagon’s biggest program ever, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has much-touted information technology built-in, but, he told reporters cryptically after his public remarks, “if we don’t really pay attention to the EM spectrum, it is not a good news story for the F-35.”

So what the hell happened? “There is no single answer,” Shaffer said when I asked him at the annual Common Defense (ComDef) conference here. Part of the problem is that the US government has sold off many of radio frequencies it used to own, “for good economic reasons,” he told the audience.

But by far the bigger factor is the global shift from analog to digital technologies, with a proliferation of high-powered, low-cost, commercially available equipment driven by Moore’s Law. The kind of electronic eavesdropping and jamming that used to require a nation-state’s resources are now available to small countries and even guerrillas (as well as to innovators inside the Defense Department). “People are able to create very agile, capable systems for very little money, and those agile, capable systems — if we don’t develop counters — can impact the performance of some of our high-end platforms,” Shaffer said.

What Shaffer didn’t say is that the US military neglected electronic warfare for at least the decade after the Soviet Union fell. After 9/11, radio-detonated roadside bombs triggered a rush to get EW gear to ground troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, but outside that narrow area, investments still lagged. While the Air Force has high hopes for the F-35, it has only a handful of dedication electronic warfare aircraft left, the EC-130H Compass Calls. The Navy has spent heavily to replace the geriatric EA-6B Prowler with the sleek EA-18G Growler — but to date it’s putting a lot of old electronics in that new airplane: A new Next-Generation Jammer (NGJ) to go on the Growler is still in development.

Nor has the military take full advantage of new sensor and communications technology. “We have stayed largely in our standard radar and communication bands,” such as X-band radar, Shaffer said, “while the rest of the world has moved to higher and lower frequency….They’ve gone to broader bandwidth and more agile systems.”

As a result, we have cases where Iraqi insurgents could watch video feeds from Predator drones because no one bothered to encrypt the signal. While the guerrillas seem not to have made much of the jittery, out-of-context images, a more sophisticated opponent could have mined them for intelligence, jammed the link between the drones and their human operators, or even hacked into the US network.

A leading independent expert on future warfare agreed with this grim picture.

“Shaffer is absolutely correct,” said Ben Fitzgerald of the Center for a New American Security when I showed him a transcript of the remarks. “Many of the technologies the U.S. uses, GPS for example, don’t use especially strong signals and are susceptible to denial from other systems that are increasingly affordable.”

GPS is arguably the most glaring single vulnerability. While civilians worldwide have come to take the Global Positioning System for granted as part of daily life, the US Air Force still runs GPS, and all branches of the military depend on it for everything from foot patrols in Afghanistan to smart-bomb strikes in Iraq. But GPS jammers are getting cheaper.

“I’d love to give GPS to the Department of Transportation and do precision navigation and timing [PNT] terrestrially,” i.e. without using satellites. “I can’t do that yet,” Shaffer told reporters after his formal remarks, “[but] we’re getting pretty close.” DARPA is leading research on using atomic clocks and other technologies to let military units know exactly where and when they are without having to depend on a satellite signal.

DARPA is doing “good work,” said CNAS’s Fitzgerald, but the technology is not yet mature, let alone ready to affordably retrofit to a host of existing systems.

So, as the civilian world relies ever more on networks and mobile devices, the military is now wrestling with how to keep fighting if the enemy pulls the plug.

Comments

  • ycplum

    And that is why I do not want a heavy reliance on drones for offensive action. Their Archilles Heel is the communication.

    • Gary Church

      Idiotic. The highest threat environment is where you do not want to send pilots; offensive action is where you expend drones. You are the most ass backwards butterbar I have ever met. Do you even think about these things before you write them?

      • ycplum

        Try reading the comment to which you are replying instead of talking the opportunity to writing something stroke your own ego.
        .
        I said I do not like to overly rely on drones because communications is its Archilles heel. This is pertinent to the article lamenting the US losing dominance in the electromagnetic spectrum – which includes communication.
        I never said that drones had no uses or that it should not be used.

    • Raymond_in_DC

      Indeed. About two years ago the Iranians managed to hack the communication link to an advanced US drone, the RQ-170, and force it to land in Iran. (And the US President meekly asked them to give it back. No wonder they have so much contempt for us.) They’ve worked aggressively since then (probably with Russian and/or Chinese assistance) to reverse engineer it.

      • ycplum

        To be fair, an inquiry determined that the signal was not secured. They did not use signal hopping or encoded the transmissions. I would not be surprised if some amateur electronics/AV guys accidentally tapped into the video feed while trying to pick up a soccer game on satellite TV and only later realized that it came from a drone.
        .
        I wonder if this just “fell through the cracks” or did the our hubris of our technical dominance made us careless.

        • Raymond_in_DC

          From my time working with technology, it’s often the case that engineers will focus first on “making it work” and less on objectives down the list like “making it secure”. Security is typically seen as a “cost” that doesn’t directly provide benefit – like insurance.

          This isn’t just a US problem. Back in the 1990s Israel was – and continues to be – a leader in drone technology. But they too for a time were not encrypting their communication links. Hizbullah captured the video feed and, knowing what Israel was looking for, set a trap, and a number of Israeli soldiers were killed in a subsequent ambush.

          Unlike some, I don’t deride or underestimate my enemies. When I was a graduate student in the 1970s my housemate was an Iranian fellow. He too was doing graduate work… in nuclear engineering. Perhaps US contractors who developed and fielded an advanced drone with unsecured signals thought the enemy was too stupid or primitive to tape their communication. Or maybe they just wanted to save some money. Either way, it was a foolish move.

          • ycplum

            I suspect the various components were tasked to various departments. It is very possible that the team in charge of developing the Communications and Control components had either a very small budget or security was simply left out of the specs.

  • TerryTee

    Finally someone “Almost” told the Truth about the “Junk Strike Fighter”. That Stealth isn’t what it use to be. Because the Russians and the Chinese have “New Radars” that can detect Stealth, like some of us in the Tech field have been saying for years. We had a Good 30 year run with it but like most advantages, someone will counter it. Stealth combined with extreme maneuverability will be fine like the F-22. But the Junk Strike Fighter ( Stealth from the front ONLY and the maneuverability of a 1960’s F-4), just won’t cut it in the New Electronic environment of our peer adversary’s.

    What the Pentagon should do is go through with the (Planned but Canceled) upgrades of our current F-15’s & F-16’s with the most advanced AESA radars and other avionics, so our Teen fighters can combat today’s Threats. While we start work on a 6th Gen fighter and re-open the F-22 line. And start work on a stretched version of the F-22 ( larger bomb bay ), and possibly version for the Navy, while they are working on the 6th Gen fighter.

    • Krasniak

      I like it; I’m picking up what you’re putting down. Time to focus on this threat. Perhaps we need a new strategy. I’ve got a crazy idea, how about going analog? Drop all this digital and stuff, leather helmets, wood and canvas with good old tried and true Vickers and Lewis guns. Let ’em track that!

      “We stand today on the edge of a new frontier – the frontier of the 1960’s – a frontier of unknown opportunities and perils – a frontier of unfulfilled hopes and threats.”
      John F. Kennedy

    • Curtis Conway

      Stealth always was a mayfly. It was just a matter of time. Electronic Warfare provides dominance in the EM Spectrum if we stay on our toes and out front in development. The F-35 provides a quantum leap in situational awareness, and some unique system capabilities with a pretty good delivery platform. The F-35 is not a dogfighter, so . . . ROE will get us killed.

      • TerryTee

        Your are right about not being a “Dogfighter” if it try’s to do a high speed maneuver, it starts on fire. The Enemy will just Love that new feature.
        .

        Flight Maneuver Hints at Cause of F-35 Fire
        http://defensetech.org/2014/09/03/flight-maneuver-hints-at-cause-of-f-35-fire/#ixzz3CImywNTn

        • Richard Nixon

          Yet it was the engine’s blades that caused the problem. The excessive rubbing. It was evidently this specific jet’s faulty, not the overall model. ““Over the next three weeks of that airplane flying, those microcracks started growing in what we call ‘high cycle fatigue,’” Bogdan explained. “And eventually on the day this happened, that fan-blade system just cracked too much, the whole circular part of that engine — through centrifugal force — stretched out and became a spear; that spear went up through the left aft fuselage of the fuel tank and it was the fuel tank that caused the fire.””

          Either way, opinion is baseless, as they have not found the root cause yet: “An investigation is still ongoing into the root cause of the issue”

          But okay, keep hating the jet despite it having similar problems to the f-15 and f-16 programs: “In fact, Senator Levin was not the first person to find fault in the F-15 program. A decade earlier, in 1973, the House Armed Services Committee cut funding for the F-15 in half because of a string of engine fires that occurred. The humor and irony in this point is that one F-35 critic recently used the very same technical issue, an F-35 engine fire, to justify cancellation of the JSF program and continued investment in F-15 upgrades. Perhaps F-35 critics are unaware of their favored airplane’s bumpy development history.” – National interest.

          Quit your woeful whining.

          • jk641

            The difference between the F-35 and the F-15/16 is that the F-15/16 were not overweight, but the F-35 is.

            When the found structural problems with the F-15/16, they could fix them and strengthen the airframe even if it meant a weight increase.

            But the F-35 is so heavy and underpowered that they cannot add on any more weight. (particularly the F-35B and C)

            Weight management is a top priority for the F-35 program.
            This can very much get in the way of fixes.

      • Richard Nixon

        The F-35 was meant for a ground-attacked role, but ended up having to take on the air superiority role. But the F-35 can engage targets beyond visual range, and can make sharp turns to engage the hostiles first. It has a higher survivability than the F-35, also.

    • ILikeFish

      In WW2 my great grandfather helped to build and maintain a radar system on the east coast of britain which was the first of its kind in the world. It used long wires on very high poles to send and receive very long wave radar.

      This radar would defeat every stealth system in use today. Every. Single. One.

      “Stealth” is a bad joke.

      • VK HAM

        Thanks. Yes, stealth F-22 or F-35 is Scum,…lol

      • SpaceTech

        While I also do not believe that we need an “all stealth” Air Force and that stealth is over rated. I do question your knowledge of stealth and electromagnetic properties, uses and limitations.

        • ILikeFish

          I have a good understanding of electromagnetism and can explain why all forms of stealth that have been put into use so far are susceptible to some disturbingly basic radar systems.

          We see using light. Light has a wavelength that allows us to see things that are very small, but there is a limit, and that limit is related to the size of the wave the photon is travelling in. If an object is too small (say, 100 nanometers), then it’s literally invisible to your eyes even with the most powerful lens on Earth because light is just too big to bounce off it. But if you used x-rays you would be able to see it, because x-rays have a smaller wave.

          Radar is simply photons that are travelling as radio waves (or microwaves or whatever you happen to call the frequency the radar is using). Radio waves do not interact with normal matter because while they are big enough to bounce off, they are too big to be “caught”. See, really when light bounces it’s actually being absorbed and re-emitted. To be absorbed you have to hit an electron that can travel far enough that it can catch the wave. This is why antennae are long and made of metal- because electrons can move between atom more easily in metal, and a long antennae give you more distance than a short one.

          So by that definition stealth is simply a way to either get the photon’s waves to bend around you enough that it has the same effect as if you were so small that the wave couldn’t bounce off you OR makes your eletrons not able to move far enough to catch the photons, essentially making you “transparent”.

          So then how does someone “defeat” stealth so they can see the plane? Simply use a different radar frequency. After all, if you design your sealth so it defeats radar at one wavelength it doesn’t mean it’s making you transparent to ALL wavelengths.

          The only real benefit stealth gives is you can’t use very long range radar. obviously people use the frequencies that work best over long distances so that’s what the US stealth planes protect against. So en enemy would have to buy new radar equipment that doesn’t work quite as well.

          Not really a very good deal for your money.

          • SpaceTech

            Fish, I retract my assessment.
            The Air Force and defense manufacturers are well aware of multispectral and wavelength pros and cons of stealth. Even though we have platforms that provide all aspect stealth–it certainly is much too expensive to build it into every single aircraft and is reserved for the highest dollar most at risk platforms.
            I too believe that stealth is overrated, limited and enormously expensive to sustain.

          • ILikeFish

            Cool, we agree. An internet miracle! :)

      • Hakan326

        No its not…You don’t know the difference between low observable and stealth there is no such thing as invisible aircraft..The term ‘ Stealth’ is used for aircraft with extremely small Radar Cross Section and made with radar absorbing material..

        • ILikeFish

          Yes, but they must target a specific radar frequency to cancel out. They can’t cancel out every frequency of radar, so they target the ones commonly used because they are effective at very long ranges. If you wanted, you could build a radar system that uses a different frequency and the stealth would have no effect. However, that radar system wouldn’t work as well as radar that uses a frequency that has better penetration. So you would only use it if you knew you faced stealth. Therefore, stealth is simply a good way to get a surprise attack. After the enemy realizes, they would deploy systems to defeat your stealth.

          They are not expensive. Russia sells these radar systems for I think 1-3 million each, mounted on a truck. You can set it up in a couple hours.

    • Richard Nixon

      Someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

      ” “New Radars” that can detect Stealth” rarely, these radars are rare and can detect the plane as it is bombing, but even that is extremely rare. Rarely when it is just flying.

      “What the Pentagon should do is go through with the (Planned but Canceled) upgrades of our current F-15’s & F-16’s with the most advanced AESA radars and other avionics” You seem to realize that the F-15 and F-16 program had the same problems as the F-35, include engine fires but excluding the stealth. You can’t stick to a 19th century fighting, Terry. You can keep upgrading them but there are limits.

      The F-22 also has similar, if not the same, stealth capabilities as the F-35. The F-35 perhaps has even more advanced stealth capabilities.

      Advanced electronic warfare (EW) capabilities enable F-35 pilots to locate and track enemy forces, jam radars and disrupt attacks with unparalleled effectiveness. Advanced avionics give the pilot real-time access to battle space information with 360-degree coverage and an unparalleled ability to dominate the tactical environment. Data collected by sensors on the F-35 will immediately be shared with commanders at sea, in the air or on the ground, providing an instantaneous, high-fidelity view of ongoing operations – making the F-35 a formidable force multiplier while enhancing coalition operations. This system allows F-35 pilots to reach well-defended targets and suppress enemy radars. The F-35’s integrated sensors, information and weapons systems give pilots an advantage over enemy aircraft. Compared to 5th Generation fighters like the F-35 and F-22, legacy aircraft have a larger radar cross-section, which means they can be more easily detected by enemy radar. In combat, legacy aircraft have relatively equal opportunities to detect and engage one another, while a 5th Generation fighter pilot can see enemy aircraft first and take action. The ability to see and not be seen has redefined air-to-air tactics.

      “People think stealth is what defines 5th Gen[eration aircraft]. It’s not the only thing. It’s stealth and then the avionics and the fusion of avionics.”
      —Gen. Mike Hostage, Commander, Air Combat Command, U.S. Air Force

      But whatever, Terry. You’re just repeating the junk critics repeated about the last 3-4 jet programs like the F-15 or F-16 that you love to cling on to.

      • Branko Dodig

        Given the price difference between the F-22 and F-35 has dwindled a lot, wouldn’t you say that the decision to close the F-22 line seems unfortunate in retrospect?

      • Gary Church

        Cannot hide heat. Which makes the most expensive plane in history a waste of money.

      • Hakan326

        Good post mate..Dog fights rarely happen today, is you can detect and lock on the enemy fighter before it detects you, you win as simple as that..In todays world Avionics defeats Aerodynamics..Pure and simple.. I also agree that F-35 will have by far the most advanced avionics on the planet..

    • 10579

      I’ve been saying this for a while now,even though i am only a lay person, when it comes to new technology,I would make the F-23 the Gen 6 addition to our military.It is faster than the F-22,and F-35. Way cheaper to build than the F-35 and still cheaper than the F-22. We still have harriers or are they going to retire them to when the F-35 finally comes on line.Thats why we have helo’s for no need for the F-35B. Put a tail hook on the F-23 and a launch thingy on the front wheel and fold the wings that is technology we already have.All I know is that there is some fat cats in the defense dept. who are making a bundle on the F-35.Up grade all F15s and make them marine and navy friendly.There would be no big deal with the technology that they are incorporating into the strike fighter.Again put a tail hook on the F-15.all this to me the layman makes sense since they always come down to dollars and no sense. I don’t think there is another nation building anything as good as the F-22 or F-23.The way the world is going we could use a look at my suggestion sooner than later.

    • Gary Church

      “While we start work on a 6th Gen fighter and re-open the F-22 line. And
      start work on a stretched version of the F-22 ( larger bomb bay ), and
      possibly version for the Navy,-”

      Building quarter billion dollar manned fighters is the very best way to lose the next war. Drones are the future and you cannot jam the entire electromagnetic spectrum – except momentarily with an H-bomb. The level of autonomy is going up so drones will only need intermittent control and certain missions they need on control right now.

    • e Blogga

      800 billion and counting?

  • TDog

    Reading in between the lines, I’d say the main worries for the Pentagon right now aren’t Iraqi and Afghan insurgents, but China, Russia, and Iran. China and, if one believes the press, Iran have been concentrating a lot on IT warfare and I can’t imagine any planner in Washington is too keen on the prospect of a billion-dollar fighter being stymied by a ten-dollar jammer or detected by a handheld radar gun.
    The major issue facing the Pentagon these days is the fact that the procurement process has pretty much turned into a dog-and-pony show. The F-35, which by most rational accounts is a waste of time and a danger to our Air Force’s long term viability, was sold on the strength of promises and advertising, not need. The F-35 does not fill a niche that can’t be filled with other aircraft for cheaper – but it sold because glittering generalities were taken over hard questions and pressing needs.

    And things like electronic warfare don’t elicit the same sort of excited girlish squeals that terms like “stealth” and “strike fighter” do. The end result: this.

    But we’re not dumb people and regaining competitiveness in this arena is not an impossible task. The only thing holding us back is us.

    • Richard Nixon

      Iran wouldn’t have major capabilities unless someone gave it to them. Their technology is still behind. And no jammer is worth $10 and a “handheld radar gun”? Wtf?

      • TDog

        I’m overstating things for the sake of humor.

        As for Iran, their technology isn’t the greatest, but if it were purely a matter of technology, would we be having this conversation?

  • Joseph White

    That’s just disturbing. That some insurgent with a rinky dink transciever can intercept Drone feed, or jam the F-35. The most sophisticated equipment is no good if the enemy can jam it.

  • Derek Sage

    Sounds like poor Military leadership, unfortunately that is the only kind. Yet, we keep feeding this cycle of incompetency more and more money, hoping that they might actually get something right…so far they are batting .000%

  • Jim

    Knew this years ago, all I have to say is, BRING BACK THE A-10!

    • Richard Nixon

      F-15 had the same problems in regards to the engine. They threatened to scrap the program and even cut its budget in half (yet rated one of history’s top fighters by an F-35 critic).

  • http://www.crows.org Association of Old Crows

    This article is absolutely correct. The US DoD continues to push Cyberwarfare without realizing we need to control the entire EMS, not just the digital environment and IT infrastructures traditionally considered Cyberspace. ADM Greenert “gets it,” in that he has stated the fight is really about “EM Maneuver Warfare”(EMMW), but from a whole of DoD point of view, we still do not protect our comms and PNT capabilities, and our ability to conduct electronic attack against near-peers, regional adversaries and asymmetric/terrorist threats is ‎in a shameful state of neglect. We continue to push our ever-shrinking defense dollars towards kinetic solutions when our potential enemies have long ago decided to go for the faster, cheaper weapons which harness the invisible. electromagnetic spectrum. Because of an intelligence enterprise geared to listen to signals and collect intelligence, these global EMS-using advances have gone largely unreported to leaders who need to program defense dollars and build programs. As another consequence of our ignorance, our apertures, the RF portals/antennae for sending and receiving any signal, are virtually unprotected – a critical vulnerability allowing the entrance for EMS and cyberattack into our networks and weapon systems.

    I spoke to a senior Army intelligence officer‎ recently about EW. ‎He stated the Army EWOs were really just Counter-IED officers and now that the IED threat is gone (it isn’t, by the way), they need to go away because the intelligence corps does EW. I asked him how the Army was going to conduct tactical Comms EA. He first asked “What’s that?” When I explained that it is communications electronic attack – our ability to jam and exploit enemy C4 via the EMS – he shook his head and said, “We have National assets for that.” Actually, study after study, and on the ground experience, show that isn’t true. We lack the assets, awareness and policy to understand how all our assets need to participate in the battle to spectrally blind and deafen the enemy before he does the same to us.

    The solution is EMMW (which we EW types have called EMSO -EM Spectrum Operations), and by making an aggressive move to tie an entire Service’s mission to the electromagnetic spectrum, I believeADM Greenert has coined one of the most important acronyms of 21st Century Warfare.

    – AOC Past President, COL Laurie “Moe” Buckhout (US Army, Ret)

  • VK HAM

    Russian military jammed the link between the drone or US Navy in Black Sea was completely disaster,…lol

  • john

    EM jamming is straightforward and does not depend on owning any portion of the EM spectrum. Christ. You think other nations care anything about what frequencies they can and cant broadcast on? Total BS.

  • Joe Schmoe

    It’s not a headline catcher, but all this anti-stealth hype misses the cheap stealth decoy tactic we’ve developed and updated for decades now.