Are you looking for the Navy Information Warfare Community’s mission, specialities, and warfighting impacts? Check out this new tri-fold!
12 January 2017 at 01:43
Reference the definition of Information Warfare: “The integrated employment of Navy’s information-based capabilities (Communications, Networks, Intelligence, Oceanography, Meteorology, Cryptology, Electronic Warfare, Cyberspace Operations, and Space) to degrade, deny, deceive, or destroy an enemy’s information environment or to enhance the effectiveness of friendly operations.”
Why coin the new term “Information-based Capabilities”. Why not use the approved term “Information Related Capabilities (IRCs)”, a term defined in JP 1-02 as: “a tool, technique, or activity employed within a dimension of the information environment that can be used to create effects and operationally desirable conditions”.
Why just Navy’s information-based capabilities? Cryptologic, cyber and space capabilities certainly extend beyond Navy.
Reference the Information Warfare Mission: “Defeat any enemy by using Assured Command and Control, Battlespace Awareness, and Integrated Fires to achieve Freedom of Maneuver across all warfighting domains”
The integrated employment of Navy Communications, Networks, Intelligence, Oceanography, Meteorology, Cryptology, Electronic Warfare, Cyberspace Operations, and Space will support, but not be sufficient to degrade, deny, deceive, or destroy an enemy’s information environment or to enhance the effectiveness of friendly operations. For example, while they are certainly important, they are insufficient for achieving the stated Navy Information Warfare mission of defeating any enemy using, among other things, battlespace awareness. Battlespace awareness requires information from other IRCs such as broadcast dissemination, EO/IR imagery, AIS, RADAR, IFF, SAR, ISAR, MTI, Non imaging IR, HUMINT, ACINT, human observation, automated correlation and fusion, and combat system functionality for mission planning and execution. To quote JP 3-13 Information Operations: “IO is not about ownership of individual capabilities but rather the use of those capabilities as force multipliers to create a desired effect.”
Reference the Information Warfare (IW) Strategy Framing Concept: “Provide context for understanding the roles and mission of the Information Warfare Commander”.
Did the author mean the Information Operations Warfare Commander (IWC) whose functions are delineated in NWP 3-56 and NWP 3-13?
In summary, the Navy definition of Navy Information Warfare is driven by N2/N6 “ownership” of IRCs. While these IRCs clearly support combat operations, Navy Information Warfare is not the same as Information Operations/Information Operations Warfare as defined by OSD, JCS, and the Fleet in NWPs. One can only conclude that the DCNO for Information Warfare is not responsible for structuring, training, and equipping the fleet for the successful planning and conduct of Information Operations Warfare functions such as counter –targeting and counter surveillance, and deception. No element of the OPNAV staff appears to be assigned responsibility for Information Operations Warfare. This is not a recipe for success in modern warfare.
LikeLiked by 1 person
12 January 2017 at 15:00
Certainly, the definition of Information Warfare in the Navy is different than that of IO/IO Warfare as found in the joint world and elsewhere in our maritime service (same gist, just narrower in scope naming a few specific IRCs). Should it be?
With DCNO not responsible for IO Warfare in Naval componency – who is? Put another way- who in the Navy oversees IO and determines where and when the IWC’s specific information related capabilities will be exercised (knowing they are part of a larger plan)?
12 January 2017 at 16:12
One might observe that there is no agreement within the US Navy that Information Operations Warfare is a warfare area on a par with expeditionary warfare, surface warfare, undersea warfare and air warfare.
On one hand, Information Operations Warfare functions are described in detail in NWP 3-13 and 3-56, and personnel are detailed to Information Operations Warfare Commander billets suggesting that some elements of the Navy are convinced it is a warfare area that is essential to wartime mission success.
On the other hand, in his OPNAV realignment message (NAVADMIN 83-12) the CNO provided the following direction:
“DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS FOR WARFARE SYSTEMS (N9). THIS NEW THREE-STAR POSITION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INTEGRATION OF MANPOWER, TRAINING, SUSTAINMENT, ODERNIZATION, AND PROCUREMENT READINESS OF THE NAVY’S WARFARE
SYSTEMS RESOURCED BY THE DIRECTORS OF EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE (N95), SURFACE WARFARE (N96), UNDERSEA WARFARE (N97), AND AIR WARFARE (N98).”
The CNO did not include Information Operations Warfare/Information Warfare as a warfare area that requires manpower, training, sustainment, and modernization resourced by an element of the N9 or the N2/N6. Moreover, the N9 is not responsible for the integration of warfare system capabilities required to support Information Operations Warfare with the combat system capabilities of the other warfare areas.
At this point, no element of OPNAV is responsible for requirements and resource sponsorship or for manning, training, sustaining, modernization, and procurement of capabilities required for Information Operations Warfare mission success. The success of concepts such as Distributed Lethality depend on being hard to find, e.g. succeeding at deception, and counter-surveillance and counter-targeting to achieve surprise. Given the OPNAV organizational void it won’t happen.
13 January 2017 at 02:42
I wonder if the CNO thinks/assumes IWC is on the hook to satisfy Information Operations requirements for the Navy. What would he say if asked by CJCS – “I understand the IWC in the Navy provides a few pieces under IO, but who manages all Navy IO requirements and efforts and controls its joint contributions?” I doubt CNO would respond with, “no one”.
The previous question still remains: If it isn’t the CWO community or IWC, who in the Navy oversees and determines where/when/which IWC-specific information related capabilities will be exercised (knowing they are part of a larger plan)? We need to identify this person/community/organization and work closely with them to make our stuff valuable and sensible for the COCOMs, their components, and their plans.
Our operational success with the COCOMs hinges on that person sitting in, participating in, informing, and fighting the J39 (and other) sessions. That fight vets and assigns value to our contribution in the COCOM’s plan. Personally, I prefer we represent our capabilities in person, and at the appropriate level (not an O5, for sure not O4). I believe our operational success at the COCOMs requires it. I don’t think we have too many O6s at the COCOMs, maybe at PACFLT. We do have a lot of O6s in the Baltimore area, though. Many of them would undoubtedly do an admirable job representing our operational efforts at the COCOMs, given some operational exposure (to a given COCOM and component efforts). But, if the CWO community and/or IWC aren’t responsible for representing our functions (and the other IO IRCs) at the COCOMs, we need to find whoever is and make darn sure they represent those functions to the COCOM Commander as vigorously as the other IRCs are represented.
This is not a technical, resource, or training question/issue. More people, more money does not generate more value here, only more inefficiency. OPNAV needn’t “fix” anything. This is an organizational issue which will be resolved by understanding and practicality.
17 January 2017 at 01:17
The Navy IO Capabilities are integrated into the CCDR plan by the CCDR’s Naval Component (JFMCC). The JFMCC’s N39 normally participates in the CCDR J39 OPTs during planning development or they’re presented as part of the overall JFMCC plan. We don’t need O-6’s at the JFMCC level (it would be nice but not a necessity) since the JFMCC N3/J3 is usually an O-6/O-7 and presents the overall plan. Each Component is responsible for integrating their capabilities into the overall plan and provides support to other Components as outlined in the PLANORD/EXORD. While having IWC Community representation at the CCDR level would be beneficial in learning the Joint Planning Process, etc. it’s not a requirement.
13 January 2017 at 18:27
From all indications, no element of OPNAV is assigned or has accepted responsibility for requirements and resource sponsorship for Information Operations warfare. Until this fundamental issue is resolved, expect little progress for this warfare area.
With regard to who in the Navy oversees and determines where/when/which IWC-specific information related capabilities will be exercised, NWP 3-13 provides a pretty comprehensive explanation, addressing not only the “IWC” specific capabilities, but the full range of IRCs that can be brought to bear in support of IO.
14 January 2017 at 03:59
Indeed, nothing at OPNAV related to IO. But, as IO isn’t a capability owner (per doctrine), there isn’t much to be owned and not much money needed. If IO had a defensible portfolio need, a beltway champion would have long since had hands outstretched. Don’t believe progress necessarily requires resources and requirements. Certainly, there is a practical element for which one must account, but conflating resources with progress is an affliction which distorts the understanding of value and produces catastrophic waste. In this case, the Navy simply need assign responsibility and maintain accountability for IO. We can say no one has it right now, but again – how would we answer a question from the CJCS or SECDEF on the same? We aren’t going to say “no one”.
NWP 3-13 does cover IO/IRCs – in the Navy. We need to figure that out for the joint world, as well. Most of the IOWCs (DIWC) are still from the CWO community. Many officers in the CWO community believe we have divested or are in the process of divesting ourselves of IO. If recalled correctly, the INTEL and IP community listed the O6 IWC on their community brief to the board as a career path billet for CAPTs. CWO community did not. If such an expression of self determination holds through the passage of time, those two communities will become the brokers of the Navy’s information related capabilities – all of them – for military commanders at the joint and Navy level. CWOs, as technical specialists, will support those brokers when asked.
17 January 2017 at 16:34
Ah, a Tri-fold that will answer all your questions about the future of the IWC from vision to, implementation.
I jest – a tri-fold does not equate to a strategy, vision, or anything else…it is a quick tool to provide information.
The Cryptologic Community has a vision that was written, signed, and distributed already. So, who is writing the IWC vision/strategy and subsequent implantation plan? Sounds like N2N6 and/or IFOR have work to do…
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 3,417 other followers
Like Us on Facebook
Powered by WordPress.com.