Director of Communications
Truth is, I became a writer because in high school, I couldn’t decide what I wanted to be when I grew up. I still don’t know. But I figured that, while I couldn’t commit to being a doctor or teacher for the rest of my life, I could write about doctors and teachers and cars and housework…oh, how the list goes on…and, OK, so Watergate was really big at the time.
But then, life happened. I met my husband during my first week at Marquette University and we married five years later. In 1983, we had our first of two sons, and I was fortunate enough to be able to be a stay-at-home mom. In 1992, I answered a classified ad for a publication assistant at AFCEA. I’d been out of the work force for nine years, and a “little thing” called personal computers had the nerve to move into offices while I wasn’t looking. But I couldn’t have landed in a better place. Rob Robinson, SIGNAL’s editor in chief at the time, allowed me to write for SIGNAL Magazine from time to time…and I learned. Since then, I’ve worked on a Mac at the office and a PC at home. I’ve had the opportunity to write about artificial intelligence, UAVs, satellites…oh how the list goes on.
Sometimes, people are impressed when I tell them I’m a journalist. I explain that, like most people, I hate to write…I like to have written. What I do enjoy is interviewing people who are passionate about what they do. And there are no more dedicated people in this world than members of the military.
My Recent Content:Multidomain Operations Challenge Traditional Strategies
The modernization, proliferation and commoditization of electronics make contending with peer and near-peer adversaries more difficult, according to Chuck Hoppe, director of science, technology and engineering at the U.S. Army’s Combat Capability Development Command C5ISR Center. “For every good thing we bring out of technology, someone inevitability wants to use it for nefarious purposes. That has been the biggest change in the past 20 years, and it’s what made things significantly more deadly and lethal,” he says.
For example, a recreational unmanned aerial system from a discount store accessorized with junkyard parts could arm a malevolent nonstate actor with an airborne chemical dispersal system for less than $400, he explains.
Hoppe says easy access to high-tech capabilities makes future battles with nonstate actors a “different kind of fight,” but the U.S. military also now must refocus on near-peer adversaries. Countries such as China and Russia can deploy similar capabilities and wreak more havoc than warfighters faced in counterinsurgency operations.
Citing recent tactics in Crimea, Hoppe describes how Russia used readily available technology for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). “In a period of about 15 minutes—the artillery barrage probably lasted less than six minutes—an entire Ukrainian motorized mechanized brigade just disappeared. The initial ISR for that was a small drone. By the time [the Ukrainian forces] saw the small drone, it was too late. They … didn’t realize what was happening. But then the Russians did what Russians do: They’re an artillery army, and they rained down a bunch of rocket-launched systems,” he related. Near-peer enemies using technologies in this way has changed the way the U.S. military has to fight and protect its forces, Hoppe adds.
Easy access to technologies isn’t the only new challenge the U.S. military faces. While air, sea, space, land and cyberspace are considered the traditional zones in multidomain operations, Hoppe says the electromagnetic spectrum is the most congested, contested environment within which the military must operate.
"Think of transmitting over free space—RF transmissions. There's only so much use of the spectrum available, and between friendly use of the spectrum, adversaries’ use of the spectrum and … the civilian and industries' use of the spectrum, everybody's using the same piece of the spectrum. Everybody's talking. Everybody brings their own set of waveforms and they’re stepping on each other. You do it inadvertently. This is not jamming.
“That's in the non-kinetic environment. … We go into a kinetic fight someplace where now we have the potential of electronic warfare assets, or people are deliberately trying to deny, degrade and disrupt the use of that RF spectrum, plus you still have everybody else transmitting, it gets very, very hard very quickly," Hoppe explains.
In addition to spectrum availability, the center also is examining new technologies on the horizon and how they could affect military operations. For example, 5G is coming on strong. "We are probably not going to take a 5G set of powers with us because we have to take our infrastructure with us. But there are pieces—millimeter wave, MIMO antenna technologies—we can take advantage of tactically and operationally and use them without going to a 5G solution,” he says.
The commercial sector is integral to the C5ISR Center’s success, Hoppe maintains. “Industry and academia both are key partners for all of us. We cannot do this in a vacuum,” he states. The center is constantly determining the best ways to bring companies into the conversation to marry their solutions with the gaps it sometimes has difficulty articulating, Hoppe admits.
One way the center is addressing this challenge is by engaging industry on a continuous basis through long-standing Broad Area Announcements (BAAs) that can run for five to seven years. As a result, even if a company can solve only part of the problem a BAA describes, it can send a white paper to the center where personnel will evaluate it, and the conversation can begin.
Hoppe explains it’s acceptable to continue the exchange with the company because of the open BAA. “We’ve already met the competition and contract requirements, so we don’t have to put out another RFP [request for proposal] on it,” he expounds.
The center also has found other creative ways to discover solutions. For example, to address multiple needs from cross-functional teams, it developed the Radio Rodeo. Through requests for information, BAAs and cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs), the center brings together companies with solutions that are mature enough to solve current and quickly emerging problems in the weeklong event. The next event will take place in spring 2020.
The C5ISR Center also is a huge user of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, Hoppe relates. His advice to small companies is to watch the BAAs for opportunities because the center usually has at least 30 approved SBIR announcements posted and generally awards at least two Phase 1 small business contracts for each BAA it publishes.
Hoppe emphasizes that constant communication among military organizations and companies is key to ensuring research and development dollars and resources are spent in the right places. “It’s a kind of push and pull. The center lives in that space. Requirements can push the technology, but the technology can push the requirements,” he states.
Chuck Hoppe and other members of the C5ISR Center, which is located at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, will be discussing science and technology to ensure multidomain operational success at TechNet Augusta in Georgia on August 23.
First responders can’t always use the same apps the general public depends on to get to their destination by the fastest route. Commercial apps may not factor in delays such as weather events, traffic accidents or the size and weight of their vehicles.
To address first responders’ special needs, the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) and partner Azimuth1 LLC are developing QuickRoute, an app that uses GPS and routing data to provide turn-by-turn directions. Not only will the app warn responders of hazards along the route but also leverage additional data streams that will offer emergency personnel greater flexibility when time is of the essence.
QuickRoute takes into account the capabilities of different vehicle types such as required turn radius or bridge and tunnel clearance as well as their unique ability to use lights and sirens to clear paths and avoid signals. Other data sources, including weather patterns, traffic and transit schedules, and local jurisdiction rules such as right-of-way and private access roads, are also factored in, giving responders the quickest and safest route to the scene.
“There’s a tremendous need for an application like QuickRoute,” says Justin Green, battalion chief, special operations, Fire and Rescue, Loudoun County, Virginia. “It sounds very simple to go from point A to point B, but there are many factors that impact a first responder’s route. What we’re focusing on here is a lot of that information that we don’t have ready access to, such as traffic conditions, roadwork projects, weather impacts such as flooding or snow, or accidents that other agencies may report that we don’t hear about.”
In April 2019, S&T and Azimuth1 field-tested QuickRoute with first responders and transportation stakeholders at a DHS federal law enforcement training facility in Maryland. The test plan, designed by S&T’s National Urban Security Technology Laboratory, had participants evaluate QuickRoute in several staged response scenarios, including medical emergencies, accident response and fire calls. Hazards included weather events and roadway challenges placed along the routes.
During the trial, responders were tasked with using the app to navigate through simulated lane closures, drive the wrong way down a one-way road, cross over road dividers and enter a roadway via an exit ramp. Along each route, the app sent alerts about road or weather conditions that could hamper a timely response and suggested alternate routes to more immediately direct their specific vehicles to the simulated emergency scenes.
Evaluators provided valuable feedback about additional app features, integration with computer-aided dispatch systems, and alerts and notifications that Azimuth1 will soon integrate.
The QuickRoute team continues to refine the app’s back-end system, which features after-action reporting functions that display paths taken and other key routing data that agencies can use to calculate time saved and advantages and disadvantages of particular routes. Responders will be able to compare routes QuickRoute calculated with the routes civilians regularly take.
A report of the findings from the April 2019 QuickRoute operational field assessment will be posted to the S&T website, and the QuickRoute system itself—the app and a desktop version—will be available for purchase during the second quarter of 2020.
The U.S. Navy is working to keep pace with its land counterparts by providing the right information, software updates and new technical capabilities to its sailors at the right place and the right time. In the case of the sea service, the right place is often out at sea and under suboptimal conditions for satellite transmissions. The right time is every moment they need it.
The Navy’s new Combat to Connect in 24 Hours (C2C24) program aims to achieve this goal, and the service is looking to industry for assistance with addressing this and other challenges. To this end, AFCEA International’s Intelligence department is hosting the Navy Information Warfare Industry Day, a classified (Secret/NOFORN) event that takes place on June 21 at the NGA Campus East in Springfield, Virginia.
Joseph Gradisher explains the Navy’s focus, strategy and requirements have shifted for several reasons. Gradisher, who is the strategic engagement director, deputy chief of naval operations information warfare, admits that the first challenge is the reappearance of threats from great powers.
After the 9/11 terrorists attacks on the United States, the U.S. Defense Department turned its attention toward developing ways to fight small groups and rogue nation-states. These operations primarily took place on land against terrorist cells and groups like al-Qaida and the Taliban, so the focus on the “blue water force” declined, he explains.
Today’s threat environment demands different capabilities, and the emphasis of the Chief of Naval Operations’ (CNO) strategy as well as A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority Design 2.0, an unclassified version of the strategy, and the National Defense Strategy, Gradisher explains, is a return to protecting against attacks from Russia and China primarily, and to a lesser degree North Korea and Iran, and will require more of the maritime services.
Another motivation for boosting the speed at which ships can obtain the most recent information and intelligence is how quickly technology itself is changing, he says. Adversaries are developing new ways to attack information systems as fast as—and sometimes faster than—any large military or nation. As a result, ship systems must be protected against the latest cybersecurity hacks at the speed of technology change.
One way the Navy confronted this challenge occurred over the past decade as individual naval departments melded their previously stovepiped sections, combining their capabilities and supporting each other’s missions. For example, by combining the N2, which focused on intelligence, and the N6 that concentrated on information technology, the service brought together a corps of professionals dedicated to harnessing the power of the whole force, Gradisher relates.
Another way the sea service has attacked the cybersecurity challenges that top-speed changes pose is by working with industry. “We’ve had these industry days every year because we recognize we can’t do this on our own,” he says. “We need industry’s participation in preparations for and in the fight we’re in today. Industry plays a crucial role. If you look at the CNO’s Design 2.0, one of the things he stresses in there are partnerships with our foreign allies, with our other services, in the joint world but also very specifically with our industry and academia partners. We need the talent and skills they bring and the capabilities they bring to give us the tools we need to succeed,” Gradisher states.
The IW Industry Day has been designed to facilitate this conversation. It begins with a high-level explanation of the Navy’s overall strategy and throughout the day narrows the focus to how the service currently fights. Next, the N2N6 perspective will be discussed, which will lead to an explanation of budget restraints and how they may affect the technical solutions the service considers. The afternoon sessions are dedicated to C2C24, the defense industrial base and acquisition.
This last item is particularly important, Gradisher says, because the service must find ways to work within the procurement system, which can be lengthy, yet obtain state-of-the-art technologies. Company and academia participants are invited to speak one-on-one with naval information warfare leaders at the conference to help find a solution to this challenge, he points out. Register for the event online. Registration is free for military and federal civilian personnel.
Artificial intelligence and machine learning techniques could help information and network defenders recognize patterns of potential attackers so their next moves can be proactively blocked. In addition, cyber tools enhanced with these capabilities could provide a much more detailed picture of the cyber battlefield and increase the potential of success in a cyber campaign. This knowledge would complement the kinetic battlefield and could permit war planners to choose the appropriate mix of cyber and kinetic operations.
The invisible nature of cyber operations makes it a powerful weapon. Unlike its kinetic counterpart, victims usually aren’t aware of an attack until they experience the effects. As a result, much of the most important discussions about U.S. cyber activities must take place behind closed doors in a classified environment. This is one of the reasons AFCEA International is hosting the association’s fourth Classified Cyber Forum.
Jim Richberg, one of the forum’s organizers, says the event aims to address several emerging implications of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML). Among the topics, event presenters will discuss the prognosis for near-, mid- and long-term development and adoption of AI/ML; adversarial machine learning; and the interaction between defensive and offensive cyber use of AI/ML.
Richberg, who has more than 30 years of experience in the U.S. government leading and driving innovation in cyber intelligence, policy and strategy, says, “The long term development of AI/ML and its impact on cybersecurity are worth examining since it's unlikely to play out in a simple or predicable manner.”
John Gilligan, CEO, Center for Internet Security, agrees that AI/ML in adversaries’ hands will pose challenges unlike those seen today. “Using AI/ML, attackers can refine their methods of attack more rapidly by ‘learning’ about the defenses of a target and quickly turning to other methods of attack that might be more successful,” he says.
AI/ML also may affect kinetic warfare strategic planning, Gilligan adds. “There is the potential that AI/ML cyber tools could provide a much more detailed picture of the cyber ‘battlefield’ and increase the potential of success in a cyber campaign. This knowledge would complement that knowledge of the kinetic battlefield to permit war planners to choose the appropriate mix of cyber and kinetic operations,” he explains.
While cyber and kinetic capabilities may complement each other in the battlespace, Richberg points out several other issues still must be addressed regarding how artificial intelligence and machine learning fit into industry planning when it comes to the government and military environment. For example, he points out developers must still determine where cybersecurity ranks when compared to more readily monetized areas for AI/ML investment.
Richberg also asks, “Are we doing things in AI/ML that may make sense in the near term or from a narrow organizational perspective, but that are suboptimal from strategic/whole-of-nation perspective activities? Are we 'eating our seed corn' as a nation and picking 'winners' prematurely instead of hedging our bets? For instance, many early adapters are making their efforts proprietary and academic research is becoming commercialized. [Do] we lack an adequate academic or commercial training pipeline, etc.?”
These and several other topics about how the future of artificial intelligence and machine learning fit into cyberspace will be explored during the AFCEA Classified Cyber Forum, which takes place on June 12 in Chantilly, Virginia. A detailed agenda and registration is available online.
Threats to U.S. homeland security are more numerous, more complex and evolving more rapidly. This accelerated threat environment is enabled in great part by emerging technology that has emboldened adversaries to doggedly evade defensive barriers.
Defeating these hostile threat attempts depends on building effective private-public partnerships, says John M. Kreger, vice president, public sector programs, Center for Programs and Technology, The MITRE Corporation. “Successful private-public partnerships can enhance the technological impact and achieve efficiencies to help further our homeland security mission,” he states.
Kreger explains connections must be established not only between organizations but also across agencies, states and critical infrastructure owners and operators. Sharing information will ensure the coordination of threat-related advisories and materials that are designed to safeguard critical sectors and infrastructure, he relates.
“To foster private-public partnerships, we [first] need to work together and overcome obstacles such as regulatory and policy constraints as well as challenging contract and procurement requirements,” he says.
One reason quick coordination among organizations is crucial is that, like allies, adversaries are increasingly using emerging capabilities such as artificial intelligence and machine learning as part of their strategies and subversive attacks.
For example, deepfake creates realistic depictions of situations that never occurred by employing deep learning algorithms and almost seamlessly mapping target images, video or audio content into other media content, Kreger observes. “For example, threat actors could map real digital facial portraits or video of one person onto a person in another image or video and, voice mimicking the original person, attribute a fake message from a reliable, credible source,” he says.
To combat these types of misuse of emerging capabilities, organizations that link homeland security stakeholders to create effective alliances can increase and improve the quality of information sharing.
More information about how adversaries are employing the latest technologies to threaten homeland security will be discussed at the 2019 AFCEA Homeland Security Conference in Washington, D.C.