Epirus, a U.S. company specializing in directed energy, and DroneShield, an Australian firm involved with electronic warfare, on June 15 announced the successful marriage of the former’s Leonidas high-power microwave kit and the latter’s sensing-and-jamming DroneSentry.

Together, they provide “significantly expanded options” for the U.S. Department of Defense and other customers, DroneShield CEO Oleg Vornik said in a statement. “Additionally, there are synergies on the business development front, which DroneShield and Epirus are already working on.”

‘Smaller, better and cheaper’: The rise of portable drone interceptors

Epirus in November invested roughly $2.5 million into DroneShield.

Military adoption and deployment of drones has ballooned, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine again pushing their use into the public eye. The proliferation of overhead threats is motivating the Pentagon to rethink its battlefield defenses. High-power microwave systems use bursts of energy to disrupt or destroy distant electronics.

Epirus this year won a $66 million Army prototyping contract handled by the Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office, which serves as a bridge between the science-and-technology community and program executive offices. With the Leonidas equipment, the company is focusing on the service’s indirect fire protection capability, meant to negate rockets, artillery, mortars, missiles and more.

A Leonidas array was previously joined with a Stryker combat vehicle, in partnership with General Dynamics Land Systems, and used to roast both individual drones and collective swarms. The “Stryker Leonidas,” developed in less than one year, was on display at the 2022 Association of the U.S. Army convention.

The ongoing digital belligerence is attributed to a group dubbed “Cadet Blizzard,” allegedly active since 2020, Tom Burt, corporate vice president for customer security and trust, said in the post. The company also connected the group to destructive data-wiping attacks that plagued Ukraine ahead of Russia’s invasion in February 2022.

Russia historically uses cyber to project power, soften targets and meddle in foreign affairs. An International Institute for Strategic Studies report in 2021 placed the country in tier two of its cyber powerhouse rankings, alongside China but behind the U.S.

Advance work in Ukraine blunted Russian cyber advantage, US says

In addition to targeting Ukraine, Cadet Blizzard is focusing efforts on NATO members that are funneling military aid into Eastern Europe, Microsoft said. Countries have committed billions of dollars in equipment, ordnance and combat vehicles to Ukraine to help battle back Russian forces.

“While it has not been the most successful Russian actor, Cadet Blizzard has seen some recent success,” Burt said in the post. “Microsoft’s unique visibility into their operations has motivated us to share information with the security ecosystem and customers to raise visibility and protections against their attacks.”

U.S. leaders have for more than a year urged the private and public sectors to step up their cybersecurity practices and keep an eye out for virtual irregularities.

Cattler now wrangles some 80 intelligence organizations from 31 NATO members, organizing their efforts somewhat like the director of national intelligence provides guidance to U.S. intelligence agencies. His main focus right now? Russia’s all-out war on Ukraine and its hybrid war against Ukraine and NATO, as well as the rest of Europe. This conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.

Q: What does the hybrid fight look like right now?

A: Let’s start with the NATO definition of hybrid threats: Combining military and nonmilitary means to take covert and even overt action that involves everything from disinformation and cyber attacks, economic pressure, energy, coercion, irregular armed groups and even use of regular military forces.

These hybrid methods are used to blur the lines between war and peace, and to attempt to sow doubt in the minds of target populations, really with an aim to destabilize and undermine societies. And what we’ve observed is that the speed, scale and intensity of these hybrid activities has increased in recent years.

Ukraine has been victim to hybrid attacks … since even before 2014 when Crimea was illegally annexed. In some ways, the beginnings of the Russian deployment for the annexation was also a bit of a hybrid operation, in that there were “little green men” there. They didn’t wear identifying badges on their uniforms, clearly intended to create some confusion or to sow some doubt, to cause [Western] decision-making to be a bit delayed, hopefully, to deny consensus, and so on … that could prevent the outcome, this illegal annexation of Crimea.

And then in the years in between, you’ve seen everything from sustained cyber attacks of varying scales, denial of service data, exfiltration and so on, and then attempts to really undermine the Ukrainian people’s confidence in the government, undermine elections, try to steer the government in a direction against a Euro Atlantic alignment, whether for the EU or for NATO.

Q: And the Russian message now?

A: What they’re saying is that external support to Ukraine, if not illegal, prevented under international law, is actually against peace, which is really hard to comprehend when you’ve initiated an illegal war of aggression. Asking the country that you’ve illegally invaded to lay down their arms as a humanitarian gesture is a bit of a stretch, and then also to say to nations — that have the right under international law to come to Ukraine’s defense and assistance — that they may not provide that aid, because it extends the war and increases the human cost? Certainly, we don’t agree with it. But this is the voice in this so far from Moscow.

Q: What of their attempts to message that the Western alliance is experiencing war fatigue?

A: I think war fatigue is a real thing. … You have it in Russia. You see it now, with people refusing to be mobilized and called up. You see it in feedback from soldiers that have been mobilized against their will, or that had been promised one thing, like being in the rear providing rear security or logistics, and then wind up in Bakhmut with little to no training and very poor equipment.

I think there’s a potential that you could see war fatigue elsewhere. In Ukraine, they have been subjected to very, very substantial, not just hybrid attack, but also direct physical attack, with many, many allegations of Russian war crimes and crimes against humanity. And that all does weigh on the society.

Q: But the message that the West is getting tired of war?

A: Look … we need to make clear that we will stand by Ukraine for as long as it takes, that we understand that it’s not just about protecting ourselves with stronger resilience, but it’s very important in a hybrid sense. Meaning that we’ve got the capability to withstand disinformation and propaganda, but also an understanding that there are costs that we feel due to higher inflation, energy prices, and so on.

When will the war in Ukraine end? Experts offer their predictions.

But it’s the right thing to do, not just to help Ukraine, but also to help ourselves when we look at the longer term security implications of the war, because Russia has made clear … in January of 2022, at least, that what they actually wish to see is a revision of the international security order and, especially on their border, to roll back NATO to make changes in the security environment that are not, in fact, in line with international law and the sovereign rights of states.

Now, Ukraine feels it directly because they’ve now suffered this expanded invasion. But I think this is also a key reason why so many nations have stepped up and have made the political statement of resolve and also have acted on that statement by providing this assistance now for more than 444 days.

Q: U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have been told to prepare for war with China. Why should they be paying attention to what Russian troops are doing in Ukraine?

A: I think we can and should be able to handle and think about more than one thing at a time. The resolution of the war in Ukraine, I mean, just from the legal aspect of it alone, has bearing on other potential disputes around the world, even potentially including China and Taiwan. You could think of Russia and Georgia, and also, Moldova and Transnistria (an unrecognised breakaway state that is internationally recognized as a part of Moldova). There are a few other frozen conflicts around the world where these sorts of resolutions really matter.

And I think there’s been a good argument made in a lot of really strong public analysis that if Ukraine prevails, and the international order is preserved, that also helps maintain an international legal system and peace and stability … so these are very important.

Please remember that we … have a set of very important values. The idea that people have an inherent right to be free, that nations have a right to be sovereign, independent and make their own decisions, and that human rights are preserved on an individual level are things that I know we hold very dear.

And so I think this war in Ukraine is important to us whether we are Ukrainian or not. The war matters because of the things that are happening that we wish to stop and what the war means in the longer term for Ukraine, for Euro Atlantic security and also for international security.

Q: Has this war also been important for learning how Russia fights?

A: Yes, I think it is pretty clear in the way the Russians fight that a lot of the military way of thinking seems to be very Soviet in its mindset, in terms of command and control … in the operational art, the way they organize, the way they choose to fight and the way that they employ weapons.

Look at the use of artillery, for example. It’s very high volume with less precision, but then at huge cost in terms of the ammunition expenditure and also the damage on the ground. These are things that are not usually associated with modern warfare. They’re more commonly associated with World War II and even, in some cases, World War I. So they continue to do more and more poorly on the battlefield.

Q: Does the U.S. risk seeing Russia as too weak, whereas before they saw Russian troops as sort of 10 feet tall? Have we gone in the other direction after seeing their performance in Ukraine?

A: I think most of us did not think the Russians were 10 feet tall. … But they had credible capabilities … both strategic and conventional. ….

Some make a mistake when they say that because Russia has been unable to translate the military activity into the strategic political effect, that means that they’re not doing anything. Completely false. They’ve done a tremendous amount of damage. And that damage is devastating on a practical human level. And that’s why I say I think it’s a mistake to lose sight of that.

And then further, they still retain great nuclear capability. They have the largest nuclear inventory in the world. And that does represent an existential threat, potentially, that needs to be really closely monitored and understood. That’s still retained. And this is a force that in some ways, is larger.

Just because an army is less capable doesn’t mean that it can’t cause significant damage, as this one has done and continues to do so.

Q: And you’ve been having to warn American and international companies about another threat from Russia: critical infrastructure threats.

A: To be clear, I’m not attributing the Nord Stream I or II attacks to Russia. But I’m just pointing out that you see that … the investigation has already preliminarily, to the extent it can, confirmed that it was sabotage and not a naturally caused outage in the two pipelines.

And we’re increasingly mindful that the way our societies have evolved, whether for information technology, communications, financial transfers, or for energy, now natural gas and oil transfers, but increasingly in the future, offshore windmills and solar panel arrays and so on, that we need to pay attention to the potential that Russia could choose to attack that infrastructure.

We already see them mapping undersea infrastructure. We know that they have capabilities that they’ve sought to preserve and expand over time to do the sorts of activities whether for intelligence, or for more hostile activities, more hostile actions against that infrastructure. And we have to look for it because, as I said in the definition, economic … leverage and energy leverage are two tools that we would consider to be in the hybrid toolkit.

Part of our public outreach has, in fact, been to the private sector — to the energy industry, to telecommunications industry, to IT service providers, network operators, and so on — to try to explain the potential of these threats because they have a large stake in the risk.

They do own some of it, and they also have some capabilities on their own to help us monitor, to provide that situational awareness and to see some anomalies, potentially to detect problems in the system. And I think, in some cases, they’re likely to be first, in fact, to see these things. …

I think it was the open ocean that they used to consider was the protection — that they had to provide armor for a telecommunications cable close to the beach so an anchor couldn’t drag across it and cut it. … Or maybe put a bigger fence or have some physical standoff around a landing station, so a terrorist attack would be less effective. Or there can’t be a break in, because I’ve got guards, and I’ve got cameras and things.

And what we’re saying to them now is: You have to potentially worry about a state capability that could reach out and touch your infrastructure.

Q: You’re essentially asking them to armor every foot of those undersea cables and put some sort of sensor on them to detect interference?

A: I wouldn’t quite go that far. … That’s reasonably unreasonable, because the cost would be phenomenal. … But that’s where you have to really then think through what do I do for surveillance? What do I do for monitoring? Maybe I use AI for anomaly detection or to look for patterns of surface ships, aircraft hovering around key nodes and that sort of thing. How do I use my network monitoring? If I’m on Google or … Deutsche Telekom, British Telecom, maybe there are things I could do other than just monitoring my network. I think there needs to be a good healthy discussion between the public and private sector about … ways to mitigate it that are feasible and affordable.

The Russian defense ministry said five drones were shot down and the systems of three others were jammed, causing them to veer off course. It called the incident a “terrorist attack” by the “Kyiv regime.”

Ukraine’s Kinzhal intercepts should cool hypersonic hype

The attack caused “insignificant damage” to several buildings, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin said. Two people received medical attention for unspecified injuries but did not need hospitalization, he said in a Telegram post. Residents of two high-rise buildings damaged in the attack were evacuated, Sobyanin said.

Andrei Vorobyov, governor of the wider Moscow region, said some of the drones were “shot down on the approach to Moscow.”

Ukraine made no immediate comment on the attack, which would be one of its deepest and most daring strikes into Russia since the Kremlin launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine more than 15 months ago.

The attacks have raised questions about the effectiveness of Russia’s air defense systems.

A senior Russian lawmaker, Andrei Kartapolov, told Russian business news site RBC that “we have a very big country and there will always be a loophole where the drone can fly around the areas where air defense systems are located.”

Kartapolov said the purpose of the attacks was to unnerve the Russian people. “It’s an intimidation act aimed at the civilian population,” RBC quoted him as saying. “It’s designed to create a wave of panic.”

Moscow residents reported hearing explosions before dawn. Police were seen working at one site of a crashed drone in southwest Moscow. An area near a residential building was fenced off, and police put the drone debris in a cardboard box before carrying it away.

At another site, apartment windows were shattered and there were scorch marks on the building’s front.

It was the second reported attack on Moscow. Russian authorities said two drones targeted the Kremlin earlier this month in what they portrayed as an attempt on President Vladimir Putin’s life.

Ukrainian drones have reportedly flown deep into Russia several times. In December, Russia claimed it had shot down drones at airfields in the Saratov and Ryazan regions. Three soldiers were reported killed in the attack in Saratov, which targeted an important military airfield.

Earlier, Russia reported shooting down a Ukrainian drone that targeted the headquarters of its Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol in Russia-annexed Crimea.

In Ukraine, Russia launched a pre-dawn air raid on Kyiv, killing at least one person and sending the capital’s residents again scrambling into shelters.

At least 20 Shahed explosive drones were destroyed by air defense forces in Kyiv’s airspace in Russia’s third attack on the capital in the past 24 hours, according to early information from the Kyiv Military Administration. Overall, Ukraine shot down 29 of 31 drones fired into the country, most in the Kyiv area, the air force later added.

Before daylight, the buzzing of drones could be heard over the city, followed by loud explosions as they were taken down by air defense systems.

In the overnight attacks on Kyiv, one person died and seven were injured, according to the municipal military administration. A high-rise building in the Holosiiv district caught fire after being hit by debris either from from drones being hit or interceptor missiles.

The building’s upper two floors were destroyed, and there may be people under the rubble, the Kyiv Military Administration said. More than 20 people were evacuated.

Resident Valeriya Oreshko told The Associated Press in the aftermath that even though the immediate threat was over, the attacks had everyone on edge.

“You are happy that you are alive, but think about what will happen next,” the 39-year-old said.

A resident who gave only her first name, Oksana, said the whole building shook when it was hit.

“Go to shelters, because you really do not know where it (the drone) will fly,” she advised others. “We hold on.”

Elsewhere in the capital, falling debris caused a fire in a private house in Darnytskyi district and three cars were set alight in Pechersky district, according to the military administration.

The series of attacks that began Sunday included a rare daylight attack Monday that left puffs of white smoke in the blue skies.

On that day, Russian forces fired 11 ballistic and cruise missiles at Kyiv at about 11:30 a.m., according to Ukraine’s chief of staff, Valerii Zaluzhnyi. All of them were shot down, he said.

Debris from intercepted missiles fell in Kyiv’s central and northern districts during the morning, landing in the middle of traffic on a city road and also starting a fire on the roof of a building, the Kyiv military administration said. At least one civilian was reported hurt.

The Russian Defense Ministry said it launched a series of strikes early Monday targeting Ukrainian air bases with precision long-range air-launched missiles. It claimed the strikes destroyed command posts, radars, aircraft and ammunition stockpiles, but didn’t say anything about hitting cities or other civilian areas.

The service’s 556th Test and Evaluation Squadron in April completed initial ground and flight testing of an MQ-9A Reaper outfitted with the Angry Kitten ALQ-167 Electronic Countermeasures Pod, a cluster of components contained in a vaguely cat-shaped tube.

The successful trials at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada, focused on providing electronic attack from the Reaper, a General Atomics Aeronautical Systems product typically used to collect intelligence or conduct reconnaissance. The pod is derived from technology developed by the Georgia Tech Research Institute, which in 2013 described the project as using commercial electronics, custom hardware and novel machine-learning for flexibility.

“The goal is to expand the mission sets the MQ-9 can accomplish,” Maj. Aaron Aguilar, the 556th Test and Evaluation Squadron assistant director of operations, said in a statement May 13. “The proliferation and persistence of MQ-9s in theater allows us to fill traditional platform capability gaps that may be present.”

Electronic warfare, or EW, is an invisible fight for control of the electromagnetic spectrum, used to communicate with friendly forces, to identify and suppress opponents, and to guide weapons. Dominance of the spectrum will be critical in a fight with China or Russia, the two most significant national security threats, according to U.S. defense officials.

The Air Force is trying to reinvigorate its EW capabilities after years of neglect; the service in September announced a “sprint” to dig up deficiencies, seek needed resources and identify next steps.

Testing of electronic warfare package for Army’s AMPV expected in 2024

Lt. Col. Michael Chmielewski, the 556th Test and Evaluation Squadron commander, in a statement said electronic attack aboard a Reaper is “compelling.” The Air Force previously used Angry Kitten in training, outfitting aggressor squadrons with the gear to harass trainees and simulate dizzying electronic barrages.

“Fifteen hours of persistent noise integrated with a large force package will affect an adversary, require them to take some form of scalable action to honor it, and gets at the heart of strategic deterrence,” Chmielewski said.

Angry Kitten’s name is a brew of inside joke and design goals, according to a 2013 Newsweek report. It is also a departure from the typical terror-inducing military moniker: Hellfire missile, Predator drone, Stryker combat vehicle.

Roger Dickerson, a senior research engineer with the Sensor and Electromagnetic Applications Laboratory at the Georgia Tech Research Institute, in 2015 told C4ISRNET that although the pod has “an admittedly slightly silly name,” it represents “very serious technology.”

“We’ve been working hard to improve the capabilities and the readiness of the war fighters in our sponsor organizations: the Army, the Navy and especially the U.S. Air Force air combat community,” Dickerson said at the time.

Command posts of the past were relatively stationary, cumbersome to set up and break down, and often identifiable by the heat, noise and electronic artifacts they give off. Such easy targets will not cut it in a fight against China or Russia, world powers with mature sensing and targeting capabilities, according to Army officials.

So the service is investing in several projects to make the battlefield hubs hardier, including what are known as Command Post Integrated Infrastructure and the less-mature Mobile and Survivable Command Post. The former combines trucks with communication nodes and off-the-shelf commercial technologies for intuitive use. The latter could feature remote antenna systems, enhanced camouflage techniques and self-sufficient power generation and banking.

“Five years ago, two years ago, we spent a day setting up a command post and then we spend a day tearing it down, so the command post was never able to really fight,” Ward Roberts, the assistant program executive officer for command, control and communications-tactical, or PEO C3T, said at a virtual C4ISRNET event May 16. “Now, the idea is that commander needs to be maneuvering the command post as well as maneuvering his elements.”

“Between the ability to move the command post around and the efforts to reduce the ability to detect the command post — two lines of effort really driving at solving that problem of ‘how do we make the command post survivable,’” he added.

A conflict with either China or Russia would mean defending against an array of eager eyes and ears: drones overhead, signals intelligence capabilities that can cue in on communications, and other long-range sensors. Commanders need to understand their footprint, Ward said, as well as how to manipulate the hardware they have in hand.

US Army preps for fresh mobile communications experiment

The envisioned future — to which the broader Defense Department is cleaving — is a far cry from the decades the U.S. spent waging counterterrorism campaigns in the Middle East, where combatants were less equipped and less technologically savvy.

“Most of our commanders have grown up not having to worry about that problem. When you were in a forward-operating base in Iraq and Afghanistan, it wasn’t a challenge,” Roberts said. “We have seen that when you have a highly skilled enemy, you can’t sit there very long. If you do sit there and long, they’re going to find you. If they can find you, they can target you.”

Footage captured in Ukraine and disseminated through social media, among other outlets, shows the dangers of staying still; entrenched troops are often the pickings of airdropped ordnance, as are slow-rolling vehicles.

Maj. Gen. Jeth Rey, the director of the Army’s Network Cross-Functional Team, earlier this month told reporters there is a clear demand for mobility. Minutes in the same place can mean the difference between life or death.

“We can’t halt,” said Rey, who works closely with PEO C3T. “One of the big things we’re moving forward on is on-the-move capabilities for them.”

The mission has shifted dramatically as the United States ratchets up competition in the frequency bands with peer competitors like Russia and China, a far cry from deciphering mobile phone signals from violent extremists, officials said.

That’s one request to industry within a small slice of a larger portfolio under U.S. Special Operations Command Program Executive Office-Special Reconnaissance.

On Wednesday, a panel of program managers ticked off the varied sensor, communications and intelligence gear the office wants during the Global SOF Foundation’s SOF Week here.

Their efforts to upgrade and improve collection and dissemination of data continues in an ever-more crowded radio frequency spectrum across, and beyond, the globe.

Chris Wilson, acquisition program manager for signals intelligence, spelled out some of the emerging needs as the nation targets peer and near-peer competitors, while it continues to collect information on violent extremist organizations.

The office is developing next-generation sensors and antennas, all domain flexible, tactical sensors, and cross-platform modular payloads for air, surface and subsurface maritime sensors. Their new work includes software-reconfigurable space payloads for satellites and a larger national “reachback” capability for sharing intelligence from the tactical to strategic levels.

The office’s portfolio also includes the Joint Threat Warning System-Air, primarily used by U.S. Air Forces Special Operations Command. The drone portion works through payloads on Group 1 to 3 drones. The equipment detects, locates and exploits signals across the radio frequency spectrum. All of this is for threat warning and situational awareness in airborne platforms.

JTWS-Ground serves a similar function on ground vehicles and individual operators. It fields frequency-specific data collection equipment to detect similar threats at the ground level.

The JTWS-Maritime conducts the same functions, but with gear that can be installed on waterborne platforms and removed for use off-platform.

In June, Wilson’s team is set to experiment with smaller electronics intelligence hardware that can go on or off boats. The current systems are too heavy to remove from boats for operations, he said.

Another area newly added to the portfolio is space-based payloads for high-altitude frequency detection, including software-defined radios and sensors for satellites.

Wilson told the audience a key focus moving forward is using software “squirts” to remotely update or reconfigure satellite-based hardware for different types of missions or needs.

Lastly, the Silent Dagger package is a scalable intelligence cell type of platform in a box that includes laptops, phones, transceivers and other hardware and gives small teams the connectivity and intelligence usually held by higher-echelon units such as brigades or divisions.

“We have this in a garrison capability, and we have this in deployable systems, so it’s forward deployed with reach back to the national intelligence community’s databases,” Wilson said.

The team is also looking to tie smaller sensors to the system so that at the edge of the tactical footprint, operators can feed into and pull out necessary data from those massive databases, he said.

In the next one to two years, Wilson’s said his team is looking for gear with advanced and complex signals, advanced radio frequency filtering, modular payload-compliant sensors and advanced networking for more precise geolocation.

“For a long time, we were really focused on counter-[violent extremist organizations] and when you’re focused on counter-VEO, from our perspective, it’s the communications methods that those violent extremist organizations would use,” he said.

His office was “heavy” on those collection methods — radio frequencies in the mobile phone or push-to-talk transmitter’s range, for example.

“As we shift though, we have to look at capabilities that go after the comms methods for any other type of [radio frequency] capabilities that our strategic competitors would use, including machine to machine and things like that,” Wilson said.

In the three to five-year timeframe, the team needs enhanced antennas, which means low profile, and improved performance for those new antennae.

As operators see a more frequency-crowded battlefield, automated signal processing is key to reducing the burden of manual frequency configuration by operators.

They need to be able to process data and signals intelligence in remote locations without connections to more powerful computing present in large formations or stateside.

High altitude and space payloads are key for integrating space assets. And they must be able to hide their own signals transmissions and collections efforts in the radio frequency spectrum.

Beyond the six-year mark, the team is looking for sensor autonomy and sensor data communicating from field locations to vehicles and air or maritime vessels on the move.

The Terrestrial Layer System-Echelons Above Brigade, or TLS-EAB, is envisioned for use by larger Army formations including divisions and corps with thousands upon thousands of troops and extensive firepower. The system is considered a key part of the service’s “deep-sensing” playbook, or the ability to identify, monitor, target and strike opponents from farther distances and with greater precision.

Mark Kitz, the leader of the Program Executive Office for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors, or PEO IEW&S, said the Army is “evolving our acquisition approach,” specifically for flexibility. Targets and topography in the Indo-Pacific, where the U.S. could come to blows with China, and Europe, where it could clash with Russia, are radically different, for example.

“I don’t think we’re going to get to production with an EAB capability,” Kitz said during the virtual C4ISRNET Conference on April 26. “I think we’re going to build tailored solutions to the combatant commands 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 environments we’ll see.”

The TLS-EAB might not be well-suited for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles in the Indo-Pacific, Kitz said. In Europe, where far less island-hopping is required, the heavy-duty trucks might be the best option.

Testing of electronic warfare package for Army’s AMPV expected in 2024

“INDOPACOM looks very different than Africa, looks very different than anywhere,” he said. “We can’t just cookie cutter a solution that’s going to marginally work in that combatant command.”

Defense officials consider China and Russia to be serious national security threats. Both have invested in military science and technology, and are thought capable of hampering or withstanding U.S. military communications, targeting and attacks.

The Army in August inked separate deals with Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics Mission Systems for TLS-EAB concepts and demonstrations. The first phase was valued at $15 million over 11 months. Lockheed and General Dynamics are among the top five largest defense contractors in the world when ranked by revenue, according to Defense News analysis.

Kitz said much opportunity exists for both industry and government partnership as TLS-EAB is roughed out and realized.

“We’re keeping an open mind,” he said, “and trying to come up with the right acquisition approach that gets the right capability for our commanders in each of those combatant commands.”

WASHINGTON — Prototype work on combined electronic warfare, cyber and signals intelligence technology to be mounted into U.S. Army armored vehicles will happen this year, with eyes set on operational demonstrations in 2024, according a service official.

The so-called Terrestrial Layer System, or TLS, is designed to provide soldiers greater situational awareness on the battlefield, as well as improved means to disrupt or dismantle enemy networks.

Mark Kitz, who leads the Army’s Program Executive Office for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors, or PEO IEW&S, said the service “has some very positive momentum” regarding TLS, including the “prototyping for our armored brigades, on an AMPV platform.”

The AMPV, or Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle, will replace the Vietnam War-era M113 troop carrier, hundreds of which have been committed to Ukraine to help push back the Russian invasion. The AMPV shares common components with the Army fleet, including howitzers, a factor service officials say will ease logistics and maintenance demands.

“It’s really critical for the Army, and the joint services, to understand that future operating environment that we’re going to fight in,” Kitz said at the 22nd annual C4ISRNET Conference, held virtually April 26. “And being able to see far, being able to sense deep and being able to understand that environment is really critical to the future of how we want to operate.”

Electronic warfare is ‘new frontier’ for US Missile Defense Agency

Modern warfare often revolves around control of the electromagnetic spectrum, relied upon for weapons guidance, communication with friendly forces and the identification of foes in the field. The Army is attempting to beef up its electronic warfare arsenal for large-scale battles with the likes of China or Russia after years of focusing on counterterrorism and the Middle East.

“I think our investments now are very different, as we get into a multi-domain operations fight,” Kitz said of electronic warfare spending. “In order to deliver an effect, you’ve got to be able to do it much more surgically.”

PEO IEW&S earlier this month tapped Lockheed Martin to fit TLS tech onto Stryker combat vehicles, made by General Dynamics, and kicked off “the system design” for mounting into AMPVs, made by BAE Systems.

The deal is valued at $73 million. Lockheed is the world’s largest defense contractor when ranked by revenue, according to Defense News analysis.

The green light for the Maryland-based company to work on AMPV integration follows both a previous TLS award in July, worth about $59 million, and delivery of the AMPV to the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, at Fort Stewart in Georgia.

Brig. Gen. Ed Barker was named the new boss of the Program Executive Office for Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors, or PEO IEW&S, according to an April 24 announcement from the Pentagon.

Barker has served as the office’s deputy since July 2021. He will succeed Mark Kitz, who has held the job as the program executive officer since May 2021. The announcement made no mention of Kitz’s next move.

The transition is expected to take place “sometime this summer,” a PEO IEW&S spokesperson told C4ISRNET on Monday. An exact timeframe was not available.

PEO IEW&S helps develop, test and field a plethora of military equipment, including navigation packages, missile warning systems, biometric tools and electronic jammers. The office’s reach is long, and its portfolio touches “everything from the sights on an Abrams tank” to “identity access of somebody driving on the Redstone Arsenal,” Barker said in August.

This article may be updated. Check back for the latest information.

Navy Adm. John Aquilino, who leads the China-focused Indo-Pacific Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee April 20 that “immediately behind” the pressing demand for beefed up Guam missile defense stands another need for so-called decision superiority, or the ability to find, classify, target and knock out foreign threats, among other actions.

‘Agnostic’ drone guns can secure US infrastructure, manufacturer says

“We need to be able to operate in contested space,” he said. “We need persistent battlespace awareness of all things going on, and we need to be able to close our kill chains with the weapons and the networks that allow that to happen. The electromagnetic spectrum is critical to that.”

Electronic warfare is a fight over the spectrum, and is increasingly important as militaries across the world deploy growing numbers of digital-first systems. The contest for spectrum superiority in any conflict involving the U.S., China or Russia is expected to be fierce.

The Pentagon is rebuilding its EW arsenal after decades of post-Cold War atrophy and years spent in the Middle East fighting forces with lesser equipment. An Air Force official in September, for example, said the service is “nowhere near” where it needs to be concerning the spectrum and, as a result, is reviewing its deficiencies and potential solutions.

INDOPACOM’s fiscal 2024 unfunded priorities list, totaling nearly $3.5 billion, includes items Aquilino said would “provide benefit in the electromagnetic spectrum, in order to execute our mission.” Military leaders submit the inventories, colloquially known as wish lists, each year to lawmakers as legally required. They allow defense officials to highlight for Congress items that did not make it into the latest budget request from the White House but that would be useful, should money be available.

The command’s “wish list” includes hundreds of millions of dollars for better tracking, targeting and international coordination. It also seeks an additional $184 million for offensive cyber capabilities, $90 million for cybersecurity and network hardening, $45.4 million for signals intelligence upgrades and $11.3 million for influence campaigns.

Sen. Jack Reed, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said Aquilino faces a tricky juggle of priorities and investments, and that “one area, which seems critical, is the electromagnetic spectrum.”

Future Army recon helicopter will still need pilots, study finds

“To successfully conduct operations in the Pacific, ideally, you could disrupt the communication of our enemies and also their ISR, and, at the same time, in a complementary fashion, disguise our assets and also have constant, secure communication,” the Rhode Island Democrat said.

Jamming and spoofing, among other electronic warfare techniques, would be critical in that regard.

Reed previously told reporters the U.S. needs to rethink how it fights its fights, including across the spectrum. Technologies and their respective applications are rapidly evolving, he said in February, producing a “tremendously dynamic situation.”

A nearly $73 million order, announced this month by the Army Project Manager for Electronic Warfare and Cyber, calls for Terrestrial Layer System-Brigade Combat Team technologies, or TLS-BCT, installed on Strykers, made by General Dynamics, and “initiates the system design” for mounting onto AMPVs, made by BAE Systems.

The TLS-BCT system, developed by Lockheed, is one of several Army initiatives to reinvigorate its EW capabilities. It’s meant to provide soldiers with increased situational awareness by sensing what’s on the battlefield and beefing up options to disrupt or dismantle faraway networks.

Modern warfare often revolves around control of the electromagnetic spectrum for weapons guidance, allied communication and enemy identification and suppression.

Electronic warfare is ‘new frontier’ for US Missile Defense Agency

The go-ahead for Lockheed to work on AMPV integration follows both a previous TLS-BCT award in July, worth about $59 million, and delivery of the AMPV to the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, at Fort Stewart in Georgia.

The AMPV replaces the Vietnam War-era M113, hundreds of which have been committed to Ukraine to help fend off Russia’s invasion. It shares common components with other Army assets, including howitzers.

The Army, which has purchased thousands of Strykers in the program’s two-decade history, expects to buy 197 AMPVs in fiscal 2024, when combining base budget and supplemental funding, Defense News reported.

China established itself as a leader in the public safety marketplace, primarily through the production of commercial drones from Da Jang Innovations, known as DJI. A 2019 report found that 73 percent of public safety unmanned aerial systems operators in the U.S. were flying the DJI Mavic series, and by 2021, the company reportedly controlled as much as 90 percent of the North American consumer market.

Rising geopolitical tensions have frayed relations between the U.S. and China, and American government officials are expressing alarm over the widespread use of Chinese UAS in the country. In a letter to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency sent in March, lawmakers warned that DJI could be providing “richly detailed, regularly updated pictures of our nation’s pipelines, railways, power generation facilities and waterways,” to the Chinese government.

Pentagon’s counter-drone boss tackles rising threat

Matt McCrann, CEO of DroneShield, an Australian and U.S. maker of the “DroneGun” and other counter-UAS tech, said that while Chinese products still dominate in this market, any C-UAS system must be able to defend against any type of drone.

“C-UAS solutions need to be drone agnostic, meaning that they can detect, and when authorized, defeat more than just DJI drones,” he said.

The company this month introduced the “DroneGun Mk4,” a portable countermeasure with enhanced range and upgraded features such as low-size weight and power (low-SWaP).

The expansion of use cases across federal agencies is primarily due to the rise of drones being used to carry out criminal activities in or around airports, prisons and other critical infrastructure, creating an ever-present potential threat. Full production of the Mk4 is expected to be reached in the second half of 2023.

“We are seeing a significant uptick in the number of federal end-users [for DroneGuns] both domestic and international who have active counter-drone requirements and whose authority to operate is expanding,” said Tom Branstetter, director of business development at DroneShield.

Drone guns in Ukraine

Anti-drone guns have gained important traction as effective gap-fill or last mile countermeasure. More companies are coming out with their own versions, such as a recent new player in this space, Ukraine’s Kvertus Technology. The firm has developed the KVS G-6, which uses radio-signals to jam Russian systems.

“We are starting to see a lot of consolidation in the C-UAS space, with now a lot of quality systems available today. But, there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to the challenge of drone threats,” Branstetter said. “The key is the ability to implement those technologies collaboratively and in a way that provides the greatest level of capability while simultaneously meeting key customer requirements.”

DroneShield’s guns have reportedly been used by the Ukrainian military since the early days of the war. When asked whether the latest variant would be provided to troops, McCrann said that “the Mk4 has a clear application for Ukraine and can add immediate value to their counter-drone efforts, we’ll continue to standby to support however we can.”

Key considerations of the platform that could be beneficial for the Ukrainians and other end-users is its overall form factor and component design. Not wanting to burden users with having to learn and operate an overly complex system, especially as they often operate multiple technology kits in the field, it is designed to leverage muscle memory established with other weapons.

“It provides similar components that are very familiar to military and security personnel. This familiarity becomes especially important when under stress, the design simplicity allows any operator to deploy it at a moment’s notice,” Branstetter said.

Army counter-drone office recommends 3 teams to protect installations

Shrinking the form factor of any C-UAS weaponry can lead to trade-offs, including limiting the range at which they are effective, forcing operators in some cases to get closer to the threat to neutralize it.

As for the future of this technology, the company executives said that users need layered options to stay ahead of developing threats, whereby unmanned systems are already a multi-domain danger as seen through recent developments in autonomous underwater platforms or unmanned ground vehicles.

“C-UAS solutions, strategies and requirements are not really focused on countering potential multi-domain at scale yet, but we will see that shift soon,” McCrann said.

The Defense Acquisition Program Administration announced Thursday its approval of a $1.41 billion program to develop a new airborne electronic warfare platform. The project is expected to run from 2024 to 2032, and the new aircraft will seek to improve joint operational capabilities and the survivability of the country’s air assets by jamming and disrupting adversarial air defenses as well as command and communications systems.

This latest acquisition will form part of South Korea’s future electronic warfare response system, and it represents the government’s latest effort to acquire or develop a range of aircraft for special missions.

DAPA also greenlighted the $2.84 billion acquisition of “heavy helicopters” to replace older helicopters currently used by South Korea’s Army and Air Force for special operations as well as search and rescue missions.

The agency did not identify the platform selected for either requirement, although the use of the term “heavy helicopters” hints at the Boeing-made CH-47F Chinook. South Korea already operates an older version of the Chinook, with both the Army and Air Force flying the type.

The Army currently operates 26 CH-47D and six CH-47DLR heavy-lift helicopters, while the Air Force has 11 HH-47Ds for transport and combat search and rescue roles.

DAPA had approved a smaller acquisition of CH-47Fs in March, clearing $1.14 billion to buy helicopters for the Army. Neither announcement disclosed the number of helicopters it will acquire, although the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency cleared a South Korean request for 18 CH-47Fs in December 2022 that was estimated to be worth $1.5 billion.

Another South Korean effort to acquire or develop aircraft for special missions includes a previous contract award to Korea Aerospace Industries to convert four Dassault Falcon 2000LXS business jets into Baekdu surveillance platforms.

The new platforms will replace four older Hawker 800XP (RC-800SIG) intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft operated by the Air Force and acquired under the Peace Pioneer program in the late 1990s. The new jets are expected to enter service in 2026.

South Korea has an ongoing need for ISR capabilities, chiefly to monitor neighboring North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

The South Korean Air Force already has the Boeing-made E-7A Peace Eye airborne early warning and control aircraft; the Northrop Grumman-made RQ-4 Global Hawk surveillance drone; and the Peace Krypton reconnaissance aircraft.

The services already have LVC training systems that go beyond basic simulators for a single pilot or infantryman and connect sailors and Marines at different training centers and ships. This allows them to see a complex picture of U.S. and adversary forces, some of which are real and some of which are simulated.

Now they are trying to speed the integration of more systems into the LVC training environment. The Navy and the Marines say they have the basic backbone in place, with some platforms and systems fully integrated into this network. But they need further integration, so the entire naval force and all the tools at its disposal can train in this LVC environment.

Navy doesn’t want to keep guessing whether its information warfare systems work

“We have to be able to link the ships that are training off the East Coast with an exercise that’s going on in the South China Sea with something unmanned that’s happening in 5th Fleet in Bahrain with some Marine unit that’s flying F-35s in Twentynine Palms,” Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David Berger said this month at the Navy League’s annual Sea Air Space conference in Maryland.

“We have to tie all that together so that the virtual, live, constructive, all aspects of that are all woven together,” he said. ”That’s how we take [training] to another level — and we’re headed there, but we’ve got to keep the resources behind it or it will fall off, and we can’t let that happen.”

In a separate panel at the conference, Vice Adm. Scott Conn, the deputy chief of naval operations for warfighting requirements and capabilities, explained why it was so important to put aircraft, surface ships, submarines, cyber capabilities and more all into connected LVC training scenarios.

The LVC training environment allows the sailors “to be able to see scenarios you couldn’t show them before, to be able to see things in training before they see it in combat,” he said. “Because when you see something for the first time, you pause, and when you pause in combat, people die.”

Conn told Defense News that modern aircraft and weapons can fly longer than the area of some of the largest training ranges. Also, there are some tactics the Navy may not want to practice in real life due to spying concerns, and there are some weapons that would conflict with or endanger commercial air traffic and communications, making LVC the only way to practice them before combat.

Lagging behind

The aviation community is lagging behind its surface ship counterparts in being able to tap into the LVC netted environment, according to Adm. Daryl Caudle, the head of U.S. Fleet Forces Command.

There is no daylight between Conn at the Pentagon and himself in recognizing the importance of these investments in the LVC training environment, he said, but acquiring the right technology can be very challenging.

“We have done a lot to get ourselves down the road to being able to integrate our training requirements into the ships and aviation and training centers through the LVC suite of technologies, where we can simulate our blue forces, our red forces, practice our concepts of operations [without showing] our adversaries or potential adversaries everything I’m doing,” Caudle told Defense News in a March 30 interview in his Norfolk office. “It also just allows me to actually test things I cannot do with live: I cannot actually shoot adversary weapons at myself and have that show up on the screens that I want the operators to be able to diagnose, find, fix, track and engage to take that out to protect high value units or themselves.”

GPS simulator will support US Air Force swarming munitions testing

“We’re very mature shipboard. We’re very mature training center-wise,” he said. “I’m not as far along the lines in the aviation space,” meaning pilots can’t be fully looped into larger fleet training events in the LVC training environment.

“Now, aviation has a lot of ways to do synthetic training,” Conn said. “It’s just not integrated synthetic training.”

For example, whereas the ships in a carrier strike group can all have LVC training scenarios piped into their combat systems — allowing the ship to see both real and simulated aircraft and missiles in their airspace and rehearse defensive tactics while at sea — the aircraft in the carrier air wing can’t see the same simulated threats inside their cockpits.

“If you go out to [Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada], they’re doing things like this all the time. If you go down to [Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida], they’re able to do this, too,” Caudle said. “I’m trying to integrate that more closely, and then really make sure that the high-end weapon systems that are coming online, like F-35, are baked into the actual LVC enterprise.”

The IW community is also struggling to tap into this larger LVC training environment, Vice Adm. Kelly Aeschbach, the commander of Naval Information Forces, said at the WEST naval conference in February in San Diego.

She said there are two key problems for the IW community: it’s been hard for engineers to take their weapons systems and integrate them into the LVC environment, or otherwise replicate the weapons’ effects accurately, she said; and the Navy needs to move its classified training to a Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information level so “we can really maximize the presentation of the threat, and make everything much more realistic for everyone.”

Aeschbach told reporters at the conference that, on the classification issue, the Navy made progress last year in dealing with the “bureaucratic” challenges of getting approvals to operate at the TS/SCI level on LVC systems. In fiscal 2025, she said, the Navy wants to test an LVC training event on a ship at sea at this classification level — which is important because, she said, at the secret level “we don’t really have much representation in terms of information warfare capability.”

On the engineering challenges, Aeschbach told reporters that last year the IW community ran seven or eight pilot programs to bring existing systems including AN/SLQ-32 shipboard electronic warfare suite and the Ships Signal Exploitation Equipment Increments E and F into the LVC training environment.

“There have been challenges working backwards on existing capabilities on how you connect them, or replicate what they do independently so it’s like you’re really using them when you’re in the [LVC] system,” she said. “Some of that is straightforward, and some of that turns out to be challenging for the engineers.”

The IW community determined it needed more time between events to allow for this engineering troubleshooting, “and so we have a less aggressive schedule this coming year, which affords more time for the feedback loop on how they take on some of the engineering stuff, knock it down, and then we move into the next pilot,” Aeschbach said.

C4ISRNET reporter Colin Demarest contributed to this report.

The firm said the upgrades — dubbed AN/ALQ-257 Integrated Viper Electronic Warfare Suite, or IVEWS — performed better than the benchmarks that were set in the simulation testing.

Northrop said the new electronic warfare system will allow the F-16 to counter threats using modern radio frequencies, and find and defeat newer, more advanced sensors and weapons than the fighter’s older systems can. The company said the IVEWS has more efficient broadband power amplifiers and adaptive countermeasure modulations, and will allow the aircraft to respond more quickly while covering extended frequencies and detecting threats in all directions. IVEWS uses a modular open-systems design, the company added.

“As advanced radio frequency threats continue to proliferate, the protection afforded by IVEWS is essential,” James Conroy, Northrop’s vice president for navigation, targeting and survivability, said in a statement. “This successful evaluation under very challenging conditions is an important step on the path to fielding the suite.”

The Air Force chose Northrop Grumman, among others, to start prototyping a design for the F-16′s new electronic warfare system in 2019.

In January 2021, the Air Force tapped Northrop to finish the project as the sole contractor. Northrop said at the time its new system would be compatible with the jet’s AN/APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar, which the company also makes.

Northrop received another contract from the Air Force in May 2022 to get IVEWS ready for developmental testing and full hardware qualification.

Defense News has asked the company how much the Air Force is paying it to create IVEWS.

Northrop said the testing process “injected” simulated air defense radar pulses into the electronic warfare system to ensure it could recognize and counter advanced threats.

The testing, which is now complete, took place in the Air Force’s Laboratory Intelligence Validated Emulator, Northrop said, which allows for the testing of electronic warfare technology in realistic environments. This was the first time IVEWS’ ultra-wideband architecture was tested in that emulator, the firm added.

The system exceeded benchmarks and demonstrated the ability to counter modern radio frequency threats, the Falls Church, Virginia-based company said in a statement. This was the first time the ultra-wideband architecture in IVEWS underwent LIVE testing.

“As advanced radio frequency threats continue to proliferate, the protection afforded by IVEWS is essential,” said James Conroy, vice president, navigation, targeting and survivability at Northrop, in the statement. “This successful evaluation under very challenging conditions is an important step on the path to fielding the suite.”

Northrop links drones, ships in demonstration of connected Navy fleet

During the test, simulated air defense radar pulses were injected directly into IVEWS to verify the suite’s ability to recognize and counter advanced threats. The signals used in LIVE testing are validated models that provide realistic representations of such threats, according to the company. LIVE is closed-loop RF direct-injection threat radar emulator based on threat capabilities and features that allows for the testing electronic warfare systems in realistic environments.

The receiver/exciter architecture in IVEWS provides significant advantages over heritage systems, according to Northrop. This technology allows for extended frequency and full spatial coverage, as well as more rapid responses. It is designed to detect, identify, locate, and defeat next generation sensors and weapons using broadband power amplifiers and adaptive countermeasure modulations.

IVEWS is a program of record electronic warfare suite for the U.S. Air Force F-16 fleet. The system is exportable for current and previous generations of F-16 aircraft.

The jets are to be converted from six Gulfstream aircraft Italy already has on order, with the remainder to be converted into early warning variants, said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the press on the record.

The decision ends uncertainty over what the Air Force plans to do with the unconverted Gulfstream jets it ordered.

Last year, Air Force chief Gen. Luca Goretti told Defense News the service wants six aircraft converted into a mix of electronic attack and early warning versions, without providing further details.

The U.S. is currently testing the electronic attack version of the Gulfstream G550. The aircraft, known as the EC-37B Compass Call, contains electronics transferred from older EC-130H aircraft, which have been in service for decades with the U.S. Air Force and cannot manage the speed and altitude of the more modern Gulfstream.

The aircraft’s systems are designed to disrupt enemy command-and-control, communications, radars, and navigation systems.

Italy is now trying to receive U.S. approval to update its Gulfstreams to the same standard. An Italian Defence Ministry document published last month indicated such an arrangement would involve a commercial deal with American defense contractor L3Harris Technologies — which is working to integrate Compass Call electronic warfare technology into the G550 — and a foreign military sale negotiated through the U.S. government for the acquisition of the mission system.

If the U.S. approves the deal, it will enhance the capabilities of the Italian Air Force’s 10-strong Gulfstream fleet, which stemmed from the 2012 acquisition of two jets in the Conformal Airborne Early Warning format from Israel Aerospace Industries.

The jets have spent the last year flying missions close to Ukraine to monitor the airspace near the country, which is fighting a Russian invasion.

Italy also cut a deal in 2020 with the U.S. to obtain two more G550s for signals intelligence in a standard dubbed Airborne Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Electronic Warfare.

The government document released last month said Italy would pay €1.22 billion (U.S. $1.33 billion) for those two jets and the other six unconvereted G550s. A further €925 million would cover conversion work on four of the six aircraft, and another €167 million for specific work on the Compass Call conversions, the document stated.

The so-called Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar would be established in the southern portion of the province of Ontario and provide long-range detection of incoming threats approaching Alaska. The system would be part of what the Canadian government is calling a layered approach to keep watch over the northern approaches of the continent.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the system March 24, 2023, during a visit to Ottawa by U.S. President Joe Biden.

As many as four sites could be needed for the system’s transmitters and receivers. Canada’s Department of National Defence is currently assessing locations in the province bordering the American states of Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York.

“Decisions on potential locations are expected to be finalized by spring 2024,” department spokeswoman Jessica Lamirande said.

Initial operating capability for the Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar is set for 2028, she added, and full operating capability for 2031.

The radar would “provide long-range surveillance of northern approaches to the major population centers in North America by establishing a northward-aimed high frequency over-the-horizon radar system in southern Canada,” according to an April 7, 2022, briefing prepared for defense industry representatives.

The preliminary cost estimate for the system is CA$1 billion (U.S. $743 million).

A second system to be built, the Polar Over-the-Horizon Radar, would also provide early warning radar coverage over the Arctic, but that system would be located in the high Arctic at a site still undetermined. Its capability would come online two years after the Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar, according to Canadian defense officials.

Lamirande did not have a cost estimate for that effort.

A third project, called Crossbow, is a complementary but classified network of sensors that will be distributed across northern Canada. It’s expected Crossbow will begin operating around 2029 or 2030. Development of Crossbow is taking place in conjunction with the U.S. military.

The Department of National Defence declined to provide additional details, citing the classified nature of the project.

A fourth portion of the layered defense involves space-based capabilities. Canada will develop a new space-based system to replace the surveillance satellites of the current RADARSAT Constellation Mission as well as other surveillance-related spacecraft now operating. The new project, called Defence Enhanced Surveillance from Space, will include a space-based synthetic aperture radar and an automatic identification system for maritime tracking.

That new space system won’t be available until at least 2035, according to the Canadian government.

Trudeau also announced what he called the Defence of Canada Fighter Infrastructure project. That will involve spending CA$7.3 billion on new infrastructure to support the acquisition of F-35 jets by Canada. Those aircraft are expected to arrive starting in 2026 but would not be fully operational until three years later.

The new infrastructure project would include upgraded locations in the Arctic region from which aircraft operate.

A significant difference exists between the services available to personnel on land and on sea, with the latter constrained by intermittent connectivity, constant movement and crowded vessel footprints.

What’s needed, according to Rear Adm. Stephen Donald, deputy commander of the 10th Fleet, is an extension of enterprise systems to “our maritime assets afloat, for all our weapons platforms out there.”

“When we go to the afloat side, I love the cloud, right, but I don’t have access to the cloud all the time,” he said April 4 at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space conference in National Harbor, Maryland. The 10th Fleet is directly involved with Navy cyber operations.

“I need industry to figure out how to give me a ‘virtual cloud,’ if you will, while afloat, so that while I’m disconnected, I still have all the capabilities I can possibly have locally,” he said. “And then, when I reconnect, it is seamless.”

Navy vessels dot waters the world over, separated by vast distances and fickle weather conditions, and are expected to play a critical role should the U.S. come to blows with China in the Indo-Pacific or Russia in Europe.

A fight with either world power would put the ships in the line of fire — hacking and jamming, or something more deadly — making connectivity and continuity all the more difficult to maintain.

The ability to rebound, as a result, is key, according to Rear Adm. Tracy Hines, the cybersecurity division director at the office of the chief of naval operations.

“We just need to have more robustness and more resiliency in that area, and I know there’s a lot of people that are working on that,” she said Tuesday at the conference. “I think the big challenge is when you’re in that denied, degraded, intermittent environment, how do you overcome that, so when you do come back online you can still have what you need and keep moving.”

The Navy in December 2022 awarded Amazon a five-year, $724 million contract for access to the company’s commercial cloud, related professional services and training options.

Amazon is also one of four companies picked for the Pentagon’s Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability, a competitive deal worth up to $9 billion. The JWCC arrangement was engineered to complement service-led cloud efforts, not commandeer them, defense officials say.

Brig. Gen. David Walsh of Marine Corps Systems Command laid out the prospective uses of drones and robots April 4 at the Navy League’s Sea-Air-Space conference in National Harbor, Maryland. He also detailed the tripwires, technical or otherwise, that could hamper effectiveness in the field.

The Corps’ experimentation with systems that require no crew comes as part of an ambitious revamp of the service. Called Force Design 2030, the plan seeks to make Marines nimbler and less detectable in contested areas. A Force Design document from 2022 mentions the Long Range Unmanned Surface Vessel and “swarming” unmanned aircraft systems, among others, as an example. It also calls for drone capabilities to “expand and increase dramatically.”

“Everything from what we’re doing with LRUSV, we’re starting to experiment with those types of platforms, from small to large,” Walsh said. “They can move supplies and people and weapons around the battlefield,” especially in dispersed or treacherous conditions in the Indo-Pacific, he said.

Here’s how the Marine Corps may use uncrewed technology, according to Walsh:

A ‘persistent sensor’

Uncrewed systems will be a “persistent sensor” on battlefields of the future, Walsh said, capable of spying in places too distant or too chaotic to explore.

“Part of our role as a stand-in force is to do reconnaissance and counter-reconnaissance,” he said, referring to the concept of Marines constantly positioned close to an adversary. “So, this is persistent eyes on the battlefield, on the shipping lanes, on the sea lanes, that allow us to identify targets, maintain custody of those targets and” act accordingly.

Logistics

The Marine Corps’ logistics system is especially in need of modernization, Commandant Gen. David Berger has said.

The Corps last month published an updated logistics doctrine for the first time since 1997, in an effort to adapt to an increasingly contested environment. Drones will be a part of the Corps’ new logistics strategy, according to the doctrine.

Walsh said Tuesday that there is a “huge opportunity” for machines when it comes to shuttling resources.

Marine Corps wants to test out partner drones, new MQ-9 Reaper payloads

Can you hear me now?

Uncrewed tech could also serve as a communications relay, a means to boost signals and link far-flung Marines who would otherwise be disconnected and at risk of attack.

“Again, as we’re spread out in smaller units — extending out communications lines and maintaining communications, sharing data that we get from those sensors to somebody that can have an effect on target is really, really important,” Walsh said.

Electronic warfare

Uncrewed systems “of course” can play a role in “effects, fires, all-domain fires,” Walsh said.

Autonomous or remotely piloted vehicles could also be quickly jeopardized by foreign jamming or hacking, Walsh warned. Such invisible attacks would leave them ripe for interdiction.

“Operating in that contested EW environment, that contested spectrum, we have to be able to maintain control of those platforms and also be able to share the information those platforms are gathering,” Walsh said. “We have concerns about cybersecurity, especially looking at some of the commercial platforms.”

Both China and Russia are thought capable of interfering with U.S. networks and electronics. And given the heightened importance of cyber operations in a potential conflict, the Corps has emphasized the need to recruit and retain Marines with cyber skills.

Power supply

Ensuring uncrewed tech has enough power to keep going will be critical. And the matter is only complicated by the way Marines expect to fight in the future: in smaller groups, jumping from island to island, under constant threat.

Downing of MQ-9 Reaper is latest US drone lost in contested zone

“We have concerns about power and energy. We need to fuel and power these systems somehow,” Walsh said. “Getting fuel, getting power, getting electricity to keep these things flying or operating is a challenge for us.”

The Corps this year published its Installation and Logistics 2030 strategy, which examines supply chains under fire.

In remarks accompanying the report, Lt. Gen. Edward Banta, deputy commandant for installations and logistics, described the U.S. as having been “spoiled by two decades of conducting strategic and operational logistics in a permissive environment.”

The development process

Uncrewed systems are a “fast-moving technology,” which means nailing down the best of the best and getting it to those who need it is difficult, Walsh said.

“The acquisition, keeping up with that, to ensure our Marines are able to take advantage of the cutting-edge technology, is always a challenge,” he said. “So as we look at those challenges, bringing the best of what industry has to the hands of our Marines, we want to be as agile as we can, particularly around capabilities, not so much platforms.”

The announcement comes amid the war in Ukraine, which has entered its second year. And earlier this week, Russia said a Ukrainian drone crashed and caused a fatal explosion in a town 175 kilometers (109 miles) south of Moscow. Ukraine did not immediately comment on the report, while Russia’s Defence Ministry said the drone crashed after an electronic jamming system disabled its navigation.

Russian state-run news agency Tass said authorities identified the drone as a Ukrainian Tu-141. The Soviet-era drone was reintroduced in Ukraine in 2014 and has a range of about 1,000 kilometers.

Shoigu made the announcement about Moscow’s defenses at a board meeting of his ministry this month. In 2023, he said, the country will form an air defense division and brigade, a special-purpose air and missile defense brigade, and an anti-aircraft regiment with the S-350 surface-to-air missile complex.

Developing aerospace defense capabilities has been a major component of Russia’s State Armament Program since 2020. That effort has accounted for about 17.5% of the 3.4 trillion rubles (U.S. $44.3 billion) spent on the program since it began in 2011.

The program is meant to lead to the deployment of 100 battalions, which include 800 launchers made up of the S-400, S-350 and S-500 missile systems. Under the latest iteration of Russia’s State Armament Program, also known as GPV-2027, funds will help with the production of the S-500. The previous iteration, GPV-2020, laid out efforts to create, produce and maintain military equipment.

Currently, Russia’s air and missile defense forces control 1st Air and Missile Defense Army, which defends Moscow and the central industrial district. The 1st Air and Missile Defense Army has regiments equipped with S-300 or S-400 systems, but Shoigu said the force is to receive S-350 weapons.

In total, according to the 2018-2027 timeline for the State Armament Program, Russian forces will receive 12 battalions of the S-350 to replace the S-300. Six S-350 launchers are already in service, but the 1st Air Missile Defense Army has not yet received this weapon.

Regarding the planned special-purpose air and missile defense brigade, Russia will arm the 15th Aerospace Forces Army with the S-500, which can counter ballistic missiles.

The S-500 has been under development since the early 2000s. In 2011, Russia unveiled plans for two new plants to produce the S-500; they opened in 2016. In 2020, analysts with the Russian military news outlet Avia.pro estimated one S-500 — including launchers, radar, the command post, missiles and technical vehicles — costs $700-800 million.

In 2019, production of the S-500 began for the Aerospace Forces. The Defence Ministry and local company Almaz-Antey signed a contract for the supply of more than 10 S-500s in 2021, with the first delivery expected in 2022. The 15th Aerospace Forces Army received the first S-500 prototype in 2021, but no delivery took place last year.

Shoigu also said his ministry will put the space control station Razvyazka on combat alert this year. This is a replacement for the Dunai-3U long-range radar station, which was in service from 1978 until the early 2000s. The Dunai-3U is located in the Chekhov district of the Moscow region, where the Razvyazka is based.

The Razvyazka early warning radar will complement the existing Don-2N radar station, which has operated around Moscow since 1989 and received upgrades in recent years.

Russian company Radiofizika said at the MAKS military conference in 2021 the Razvyazka is a P-band radar whose main purpose is cataloging and working with high-orbit space objects. According to the company, about 1 billion rubles went toward developing this radar in 2014.

The State Armament Program is also expected to accomplish the following tasks by 2027:

• The creation of the S-550, an anti-missile and anti-space system with improved detection capabilities and a greater range compared to the S-400 and S-500. The Aerospace Forces are to receive the S-550 by 2025. However, Russia hasn’t announced test launches.
• Designating the A-235 Nudol anti-missile and anti-satellite system as one of the top defense priorities. The ground-based, mobile, non-nuclear system should be capable of hitting objects in orbit at a maximum altitude of 700 kilometers (435 miles). Russia is creating it to replace the Soviet-era A-135 system. The A-235′s 12th test launch took place in December 2022 at the Sary Shagan test site in Kazakhstan.
• Delivering Pantsir S-1 anti-aircraft weapons to Russia’s air and missile defense forces to protect the other systems defending the country. A total of 507 items will be delivered to the Aerospace Forces this year. According to Shoigu, about 85% of the Aerospace Forces’ equipment will be modernized versions by the end of the year.

The Associated Press’ Karl Ritter in Kyiv, Ukraine, and Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin contributed to this report.

The Indian military currently buys the majority of materiel from state-run defense companies on a single-vendor nomination basis, while the share of private defense contractors constitutes barely 15%.

The ministry on March 24 announced it signed a contract worth about 30 billion rupees with BEL for Himshakti integrated electronic warfare systems. The government’s Defence Research and Development Organisation, which designed and developed the Himshakti, said the technology will help the Army in mountainous terrain.

The system features several new-generation technologies such as ultraviolet very high-frequency directional finders and jammers.

The government ordered two Himshakti systems from BEL on a nominated single-vendor basis, despite private defense contractor Tata Power SED having previously won a $115.37 million deal for the supply of two similar systems in a multivendor competition.

The ministry maintains its Project Himshakti will bolster the local economy and provide employment opportunities.

And on March 23, two separate contracts were awarded to BEL for the supply of locally made Arudhra ground-based, medium-power radars and DR-118 radar warning receivers to enhance the electronic warfare capabilities of Su-30 MKI fighter jets in service with the Air Force. The DR-118 deal is worth about 9.5 billion rupees.

The ministry noted that the majority of subassemblies and parts will be sourced from domestic manufacturers.

“The Su-30MKI fighters were earlier integrated with R-118 [radar warning receivers], which employed analog technology, which has inherent limitations; whereas DR-118 has adopted digital technology in processing the inputs,” said Daljit Singh, an independent defense analyst and retired officer in the Air Force, “and it would be a significant improvement over the previous model, and it is indeed a positive development toward self-reliance.”

The eight Arudhra systems are the first indigenous, multifunction, rotating active phased array radars with digital beam-forming technology. They are to replace legacy TRS-2215 and PSM-33 radars supplied by the French company Thales. The deal is worth about 28 billion rupees.

BEL said the Arudhra is locally developed and manufactures the technology based on the a DRDO design. The system is expected to enhance the Air Force’s surveillance capability.

The MDA is tasked with developing and deploying layers of missile-killing systems to protect the U.S. as well as its deployed forces and interests abroad. Key to the assignment is detecting what’s actually incoming, calculating where it will land and quickly deciding the best means of interception, all of which is made more difficult by jamming and cyber harassment, according to Navy Vice Adm. Jon Hill.

“When I look at the future, and I think about the problems we face, beyond all of those different trajectory types and warhead types, for me it becomes the electronic attack and protection side of the house,” he said at a March 24 event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. “We have to make sure we are as resilient as possible. We’ve been working on the cyber aspects.”

Electronic warfare is a fight for control of the electromagnetic spectrum, relied upon for communications, situational awareness, weapons guidance and more. The Defense Department is attempting to rebuild its related arsenal after decades of post-Cold War atrophy and years spent in the Middle East fighting less technologically-savvy forces.

US Indo-Pacific Command seeks extra $274 million for cyber

Hill on Friday said the constellation of threats that exists and continues to evolve today is a far cry from previous years. Adversaries “have really upped their game in this area,” he said, “which means you have to up your game in defense, which also means it’s harder.”

Both China and Russia, the top national security hazards, according to U.S. officials, are developing advanced missiles that can be launched from the air, ground and sea as well as below the waves. And newer systems take advantage of decoys and other countermeasures to hide and misdirect, ultimately boosting survival rates.

“The future is how do you deal with these different kind of attacks we’ll have on the system, that are beyond just jamming,” Hill said. “It’s going to be hard.”

The MDA for fiscal 2024 requested nearly $11 billion, up from its ask of $9.6 billion in 2023 and $8.9 billion in 2022.

The budget blueprint has $346 million for what the MDA this month called “flight, ground and cybersecurity testing.” It also allocates $39 million to continue innovation, science and technology programs meant to “explore leap-ahead and disruptive technologies” that can be folded into missile defenses.

The 11 items total $2 billion, while past years’ lists included dozens of items and expensive procurement requests.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday has set readiness as his top priority, followed by boosting lethality, and then not increasing the size of the fleet beyond what it can support in manpower, maintenance, munitions and other measures of readiness.

In line with those priorities, the top four items on the Navy’s fiscal 2024 unfunded priorities list are research and development efforts to boost lethality.

The sea service wants $45 million to develop the Maritime Targeting Cell-Afloat, which would fuse information from a range of sensors to shore-based and at-sea nodes in communications-denied environments. This project “[d]irectly supports Project Overmatch and Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2) by integrating intelligence, sensors, shooters, platforms, and weapons to enhance lethality and survivability,” according to the Navy.

A second research and development effort, for $49 million, would modernize the E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft, which serves as the command-and-control “quarterback” in naval aviation operations. This effort to update “legacy cockpit, mission computers, displays, and multiple cyber issues” would allow the aircraft, which operate at sea as part of the carrier air wing, to improve their targeting and enable long-range maritime strike missions.

Third on the list is $186 million to help bring the Zumwalt-class destroyers — the first ships that will host the Conventional Prompt Strike hypersonic missiles — into the Project Overmatch network. The Zumwalt Enterprise Upgrade Solution would add assured beyond-line-of-sight communications to support hypersonic weapons employment.

The fourth item, dubbed VIOLET, is classified.

The list includes a combined $472 million to accelerate the installation of the Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program block III capabilities onto both new Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers — including hulls 136 and 137, which won’t deliver until 2028 or 2029 — and aircraft carriers, including Harry S. Truman during its midlife refueling and complex overhaul as well as Enterprise during its ongoing construction.

The two largest items on the list are $550 million for a set of facilities restoration and modernization projects for installations around the globe, and $300 million for dry dock repairs at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Washington.

Also boosting readiness is $100 million to field more spare parts on ships for surface, cyber and information technology systems onboard ships, as well as $175 million for more aviation spares on aircraft carriers.

The one procurement item on the Navy’s list is $118 million for a single KC-130J aircraft to support Navy logistics and resupply missions.

These items are part of a wish list to Congress, with items that did not make it into the official president’s budget request that was vetted through the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget.

The Navy and Marine Corps’ formal budget request totaled $255.8 billion for the two services.

In contrast to the Navy’s limited wish list, the Marine Corps this week asked for $3.67 billion, which covered a new amphibious warship, aircraft and vehicle procurement, military construction and more.