This is a subject we have not touched much in our FDR/SDSR coverage, as we balance our pragmatic real world budgetary realism with our love of all things shiny and our delight in delivering our fantasy fleets.
Information Operations to use the latest NATO acronym is an immensely broad subject area, but this is not going to be a really long article, because I am going to give you a couple of excellent links so that you may go and research the topics yourself.
Context
Disclaimer, I did ten years in communications in the Navy. I have literally had concepts such EMCON (emission control) and COMSEC (communications security) drummed into me since I was a ‘baby sailor’, so even though the landscape has broadened I have some experience in this realm, so I will try to keep the coverage at layman’s level.
When I joined the jolly old RN in the post-Falklands early 80’s we talked a lot about Electronic Warfare (EW). There was much discussion of why HMS Sheffield had not picked up the active transmitting radar of an Exocet missile on its passive radar detection kit (Electronic Support Measures or ESM). My first ship, and many others were having their ‘passive countermeasures’ (i.e. chaff rockets) supplanted with the new Type 670 jammer. Meanwhile our overall doctrine in the face of the Soviet naval “intelligence-reconnaissance-strike complex” and its fleets of missile carrying Backfires and Bears was to be very careful with our EMCON, to run often run around in radar and radio silence, so as not to attract attention to ourselves. On the other end of the scale, even though we had secure SHF satellite communications, we often practiced loosing the satellites to ‘enemy action’ and reverted to good old HF radio for long range comms.
In the air EW was both tactical, the use of external jamming pods alongside the chaff and flares on our tactical aircraft (although we were waaaay behind some of our allies in equipping our planes with such kit) and strategic with Canberra’s, modified V bombers and other ‘assets’ in use.
I did not get to play much with the army in those days, so I am not really sure how we used signals intelligence or direction finding as a targeting aid against the Warsaw pact hordes, but I am sure Army signalers got ‘EMCON’ bashed into them as forcefully as I did !
Evolution
Things move on. Technology certainly has moved at a great pace thanks to Moore’s Law, with computer processing power doubling every couple of years. When I left the TA the Panasonic Toughbook laptop I would use in the field had way more processing power than the whole Computer Assisted Action Information System (CAAIS) computer fire control system of my first ship (an Exocet / Sea Wolf broad-beamed Leander). The proliferation of computers has been a double edged sword for the military. We can pack massive processing power in aircraft or ships, even in the back of an armoured command vehicle. Software definable radios, and silicon powered encryption technology mean that every member of an infantry squad can speak to his buddies clearly, in the middle of a firefight over an encrypted channel the bad guys can’t eavesdrop on.
On the other hand, one of my roles in the TA was as the secondary ‘Unit IT Security Officer’ (primary was the ‘regular’ WO). Our systems are now open to a new form of attack – electronic attack. Our systems can be ‘cracked’ by the bad guys (I am an ‘old school’ IT geek, I don’t use the term ‘hack’ or ‘hackers’ in this context). Sure its questionable how tactical such electronic attacks can be, but it is a well known fact that our systems are constantly be probed / attacked at a higher (non-battlefield) level.
Increasing Complexity
One of the reasons Electronic Warfare has burgeoned into Information Operations is the way many different disciplines or areas now overlap:
- Strategic communications
- Civilian mass media
- Military PR
- Psychological operations
- Computer Network Operations / Computer Network Attack (CNO/CNA – “cyber defence / cyber-warfare”)
As a TA soldier I was a member of 15 (UK) Psyops Group, the UK’s tri-service Psychological Operations Group, so I have another perspective on this complexity. The UK’s Psyops capability is small, as is our military mass media capability, but the UK’s Psyops team has a great pedigree and a very successful track record. On the other side of the coin you might be surprised by the quality of the psyops products (DVD’s for example) churned out by the bad guys in Iraq, and we might also say that they have a more fertile audience who ‘want’ to consume their message.
So now we can be campaigning with bombs and bullets, locally attempting to win ‘hearts and minds’ with various physical projects, doing hearts and minds on a bigger scale with TV, radio and Internet, while electronically attacking and disrupting the enemies communications and mass media, and perhaps coming full circle to ‘kinetic’ operations against enemy information assets.
See, I told you it was getting complicated………
This is not to even mention really high tech EW stuff such as using electronically scanned phased array radars to generate and transmit advanced waveforms which can be used to attack enemy electronic systems, cracking the bad guys air defence network etc – any sci-fi geeks out there see the connection to the Cylon surprise attack on the Colonials and why the Battlestar Galactica had discrete non-networked systems !
So, before we get to the conclusion here is your homework; if your interested go read up on the topic at these two excellent UK web sites:
- The Information Operations page at the Information Warfare Site
- Prof. Phil Taylors site at the Institute of Communications Studies at the University of Leeds
(Prof. Phil used to come and lecture at 15 Pysops and it always incredibly interesting).
You might be surprised at the depth of the ‘open source’ / unclassified content at these sites.
The Question
So, does this burgeoning area of military operations need considerable investment in the post-SDR British military ? I would suggest it certainly does, but how do these abstract concepts hold up against the more traditional and easy to understand concepts of bombs and bullets ?
The US is struggling to setup its multi-service Cyber Command, but at least they are on the right track, acknowledging that there has to be a long term career path for “military geeks”.
So what are we going to do about it ?
Discuss………
Good post Jed, its a very interesting subject. You are right that in many ways our non traditional enemies have run rings around us in terms of information warfare, using the internet and Web 2 type technologies but I think we are gradually catching up.
Its just another competing draw on resources though and is the military the most attractive environment for the free thinkers that are sometimes needed.
Perhaps the answer is to reduce the military footprint in the less traditional information operations but have them supervised by people with the appropriate military/warfare outlook
More mil/civ joint capabilities
Good article Jed, and area of Defence i knew very little about.
“So, does this burgeoning area of military operations need considerable investment in the post-SDR British military?”
yes.
Admin,
There have been times and ways when the Forces cultivated discrete groups of such independent thinkers for specific ends. They get small budgets and, of course, widdled on from a great height by “muddy boots” generals, but have produced results. (Your beloved “Funnies” — also beloved by me — had not just Hobart but an R&D team, training structure, volunteers, etc. going for them.)
Jed,
Can I borrow from my kids again and just say, ZOMG, you’re spot on with the Cylon onslaught. Two civvy scifi writers managed to make a disturbing strategic point. For example: one of the best cases for F35 (I’ll leave aside the gesticulating while you shout “STEALTHY!” from the fanboys) is that they run a deeply integrated commlink/sensor system, so a handful of jets can (if it works right) process and engage a wide range of targets. What happens if some crafty bastard figures out how to stage what amounts to a wifi hack of that system? Very bad things, is what. We’re right to be thinking in terms of “nonlinear/nontraditional” military and quasi-military applications for this kind of work. But even in old-fashioned conventional bar fights, just as your RN instructors taught you, this needs dealt with.
Thanks for the post. Off to do my homework
Important to note the overlap here with what will be going on in the security services (especially GCHQ). That massive investment like the US cyber command would more likely and probably more usefully be spent on them.
These services are rarely covered on this blog so it’s just good to point out that their work will overlap in areas like this, as it will between the services.
And while it’s always nice to have the ability to fight back in cyberspace etc. a bomb or bullet will probably do a more effective job against the oppositions computers and EW gear than having the same stuff on your end would.
In response to some of the comments:
Admin – join mil-civ capabilities – yes, this already happens, but below the radar (so to speak). For example the first time I went to an IT conference and saw GCHQ touting its wares to civvy companies was a bit of a shock. The GCHQ Centre for Electronic and Computer Security, a group which used to do TEMPEST audits of warships was there selling its expertise to the civvy IT sector – which is both good and necessary. (TEMPEST is about checking for ‘electronic leaks’ etc, making sure information does not radiate from vessels for bad guys to receive).
So GCHQ is very important in this field
Another aspect though is the use of “Specialist” TA units and other reservists. IT geeks, network specialists, mass media types etc etc who are serious professionals during the week, and make themselves and their expertise available as reservists. Of course this has the usual issues with calling them up for use, and I have to say in my experience, there needs to be some thought about bumping up the rank of such individuals at an accelerated rate so that others in the forces take them seriously as experts.
Grim – kinetics has its place, such as the Challenger regiment that shot down the radio / TV mast as they moved into Basra etc but kinetic targeting is not always an option in asymmetric operations – but covertly subverting the other teams comms / command and control can be a great idea. Just how much did the Taliban achieve in local superiority in the occasional ambush because they could receive the unencrypted downlink video from US drones (unencrypted – seriously !) ??? Another element of InfoOps is deception ops and what the Russians call “maskirovka” – so if we have military personnel who can crack the enemies network on a tactical level, and spoof and subvert their C2 that is also a very good thing.
I think two different issues are being conflated here, and they just are not the same.
The First, is military communications.
Shoot your enemies messengers and if possible steal the letters he carries.
Dont let the enemy shoot your messengers and make damned sure he cant read the letters.
“Messengers” are now radio waves, but they’re just as possible to block, intercept and hide.
It is a military matter to bomb your enemies communications hubs.
The Second, is propaganda.
“Get your message across” and stop the enemy getting his message across, and this is an intelligence/civillian matter, not a military one.
A Brigadiers staff should be worrying about using intercepts to locate and destroy enemy targets.
They shouldnt be trying to figure out Youtube.
As for CYLONS.
I have no special knowledge of the F35 comm system, but even the CYLONS didnt hack the Colonial Fleet on the fly, they wrote the software.
I’d wager the best your going to do, even with advance knowledge, is shut down comms between platforms.
I spent time in the RNR IO branch, and would say that it is a critical area worthy of further funding. The advantage of having it housed in the reserves is that it brings outsiders, who often ‘think outside the box’ when it comes to IO to bear, and enables them to come up with some excellent solutions to problems.
I would suggest one main development is required – namely the adaptation to a tri-service IO community, in which staff, both regular and reserve can work together in one area, and regular staff are able to stay long enough with opportunities for promotion, without being seen to have ‘career fouled’.
15 POG is a good start, but there is a danger that IO remains the preserve of reservists and a small group of jolly nice, but ultimately passed over officers who work in this area.
An ideal solution would be to take the TIO directorate in the MOD and make it a much higher profile organisation, with a clear career profile for people coming through it. At present, despite efforts to improve the IO profile, it sometimes feels that commanders ‘want to sprinkle IO fairy dust’ over the completed plan, and not integrate IO from the word go.
Dom
Go read the links – your over simplifying the issues – which are not ‘conflated’ but intrinsically linked.
If your brigade staff are fighting GW1 – armour on armour “conventional conflict” then fair enough. If yoru brigade staff are running Basra post GW2 then they absolutely need to pay attention to YouTube, and other similar channels, that is the point I was trying to make. If you can trace said YouTube video back to a certain place via IT forensics, image analysis, tying it to other intel, then you can raid the place and kill / arrest the bad guys etc.
As for Cylons – well Dr Baltazar helped them by coding in a ‘back door’ into their integrated defence systems – who says we don’t have the same vulnerabilities ? If what the USAF is discussing in public includes using AESA for “electronic attack” then you can bet that what is going on in private is above the ability of most Sci-Fi readers to comprehend !
Jim30 – hail fellow ex Matelot !
I agree entirely. I was recruited directly by 15 POG, RNR would not agree to me remaining in navy blue, so had to join the Signals. TA Signals wanted to advance me immediately to Corporal or even Sgt due to both my military comms experience and my civvy IT experience – regular army would not hear a word of it. Mind you Psyops saw a relatively massive influx of regular army while I was there, while reservist numbers were only slightly increased.
However the down side of that is the officers career and posting system. You get someone who is good, who really groks psyops, and after 2 years getting comfortable in they role they are gone. The guys at Information Dissemination have recently been highly critical of the USN, mainly the ‘tick box advancement’ ethos – perhaps we have the same issue ? Perhaps an army Captain who is missing some tick boxes should still get a shot at Major because he did an outstanding four years in Psyops / IO ???
Jed
“If you can trace said YouTube video back to a certain place via IT forensics, image analysis, tying it to other intel, then you can raid the place and kill / arrest the bad guys etc.”
I admit I hadnt thought of that, but I still thinks its a “back office” task, the location can always be passed forward.
“As for Cylons – well Dr Baltazar helped them by coding in a ‘back door’ into their integrated defence systems – who says we don’t have the same vulnerabilities ?”
Nar, Blondie did that, was she number 6? Not watched it in a while, kinda tailed off when the “new” Cylons were introduced.
There could be a back door, but you’d have to know about, and the Chinese cant make it if it doesnt exist already.
Its possible the Americans have made one, but I doubt it, its a one shot wonder weapon to win a tidgey war, and then no one buys US kit again, ever.
” If what the USAF is discussing in public includes using AESA for “electronic attack” then you can bet that what is going on in private is above the ability of most Sci-Fi readers to comprehend !”
I figured that was just clever jamming, but you may be right.
“You get someone who is good, who really groks psyops,”
Dodgey canibalistic sex cults run our psyops campaign?
Crikey
Dom – you just made me spray diet coke on my keyboard (again…)
“You get someone who is good, who really groks psyops,” -
Dodgey canibalistic sex cults run our psyops campaign?
Crikey
Erm, to ‘grok’ means to understand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok
Not sure where the cannibalistic sex cult comes into the picture, I must have been reading the wrong books (again….)
Jed
“Grok” was a word invented by Heinlein in Stranger in a Strange Land, and yes, it means “understand” in a possess sentience sort of way.
In the book, the people who “groked” were members of a cult/religion that was into communal ownership / charing in a big way, and also ate the dead members of the cult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land
A topical link from Defense Tech: “Jihadist makes cyber attack”
http://defensetech.org/2010/09/13/8930/
Another link – from The Register:
“Britain will have no option but to invest in better cyber-security, the Defence Secretary told MPs this week.”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/14/cyber_security_defense/
Dr Fox went on: “Investing in better cyber-security will not be an option for the United Kingdom. What is being considered under the National Security Council as part of the SDSR is how that occurs”
Perhaps he reads this blog ?
Interesting spin on Cyber Defence from Liam Fox
http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=14161
Guys,
If the powers that be have anything about them post SDSR they will not only invest in the UK’s PSYOP capability but enhance the unit to a size that can not only sustain current operations but can also have a major R & D planning capability to cover the rest of the world.
Having said that when they let go experienced operators there’s not much chance of that happening.
Tim – great to hear from you ! Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment – drop me a line via different channel with the latest gossip …..
I helped design the 670 Jammer, hope it was reliable
??
Welcome to TD Phillip