oversight

Electronic Warfare: DOD Actions Needed to Strengthen Management and Oversight

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 2012-07-09.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

             United States Government Accountability Office

GAO          Report to the Committee on Armed
             Services, House of Representatives



July 2012
             ELECTRONIC
             WARFARE
             DOD Actions Needed
             to Strengthen
             Management and
             Oversight




GAO-12-479
                                               July 2012

                                               ELECTRONIC WARFARE
                                               DOD Actions Needed to Strengthen Management and
                                               Oversight
Highlights of GAO-12-479, a report to the
Committee on Armed Services, House of
Representatives




Why GAO Did This Study                         What GAO Found
DOD has committed billions of dollars          The Department of Defense (DOD) developed an electronic warfare strategy, but
to developing, maintaining, and                it only partially addressed key characteristics that GAO identified in prior work as
employing warfighting capabilities that        desirable for a national or defense strategy. The National Defense Authorization
rely on access to the electromagnetic          Act for Fiscal Year 2010 requires DOD to submit to the congressional defense
spectrum. According to DOD,                    committees an annual report on DOD’s electronic warfare strategy for each of
electronic warfare capabilities play a         fiscal years 2011 through 2015. DOD issued its fiscal year 2011 and 2012
critical and potentially growing role in       strategy reports to Congress in October 2010 and November 2011, respectively.
ensuring the U.S. military’s access to         GAO found that DOD’s reports addressed two key characteristics: (1) purpose,
and use of the electromagnetic
                                               scope, and methodology and (2) problem definition and risk assessment.
spectrum. GAO was asked to assess
                                               However, DOD only partially addressed four other key characteristics of a
the extent to which DOD (1) developed
a strategy to manage electronic
                                               strategy, including (1) resources, investments, and risk management and (2)
warfare and (2) planned, organized,            organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination. For example, the reports
and implemented an effective                   identified mechanisms that could foster coordination across the department and
governance structure to oversee its            identified some investment areas, but did not fully identify implementing parties,
electronic warfare policy and programs         delineate roles and responsibilities for managing electronic warfare across the
and their relationship to cyberspace           department, or link resources and investments to key activities. Such
operations. GAO analyzed policies,             characteristics can help shape policies, programs, priorities, resource allocation,
plans, and studies related to electronic       and standards in a manner that is conducive to achieving intended results and
warfare and cyberspace operations              can help ensure that the department is effectively managing electronic warfare.
and interviewed cognizant DOD
officials.                                     DOD has taken steps to address a critical electronic warfare management gap,
                                               but it has not established a departmentwide governance framework for electronic
What GAO Recommends                            warfare. GAO previously reported that effective and efficient organizations
                                               establish objectives and outline major implementation tasks. In response to a
GAO recommends that DOD should                 leadership gap for electronic warfare, DOD is establishing the Joint
(1) include in its future electronic
                                               Electromagnetic Spectrum Control Center under U.S. Strategic Command as the
warfare strategy reports to Congress
                                               focal point for joint electronic warfare. However, because DOD has yet to define
certain key characteristics, including
performance measures, key                      specific objectives for the center, outline major implementation tasks, and define
investments and resources, and                 metrics and timelines to measure progress, it is unclear whether or when the
organizational roles and                       center will provide effective departmentwide leadership and advocacy for joint
responsibilities; (2) define objectives        electronic warfare. In addition, key DOD directives providing some guidance for
and issue an implementation plan for           departmentwide oversight of electronic warfare have not been updated to reflect
the Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum             recent changes. For example, DOD’s primary directive concerning electronic
Control Center; and (3) update key             warfare oversight was last updated in 1994 and identifies the Under Secretary of
departmental guidance to clearly               Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as the focal point for
define oversight roles, responsibilities,      electronic warfare. The directive does not define the center’s responsibilities in
and coordination for electronic warfare        relation to the office, including those related to the development of the electronic
management, and the relationship               warfare strategy and prioritizing investments. In addition, DOD’s directive for
between electronic warfare and                 information operations, which is being updated, allocates electronic warfare
cyberspace operations. DOD generally           responsibilities based on the department’s previous definition of information
concurred with these                           operations, which had included electronic warfare as a core capability. DOD’s
recommendations, except that the               oversight of electronic warfare capabilities may be further complicated by its
strategy should include performance            evolving relationship with computer network operations, which is also an
measures. GAO continues to believe
                                               information operations-related capability. Without clearly defined roles and
this recommendation has merit.
                                               responsibilities and updated guidance regarding oversight responsibilities, DOD
View GAO-12-479. For more information,         does not have reasonable assurance that its management structures will provide
contact Brian J. Lepore at (202) 512-4523 or   effective departmentwide leadership for electronic warfare activities and
leporeb@gao.gov.
                                               capabilities development and ensure effective and efficient use of its resources.
                                                                                        United States Government Accountability Office
Contents


Letter                                                                                             1
                       Background                                                                  4
                       DOD Developed an Electronic Warfare Strategy, but Only Partially
                         Addressed Key Desirable Strategy Characteristics                          8
                       DOD Has Not Established an Effective Departmentwide
                         Governance Framework for Managing and Overseeing
                         Electronic Warfare                                                      14
                       Conclusions                                                               29
                       Recommendations for Executive Action                                      31
                       Agency Comments and Our Evaluation                                        32

Appendix I             Scope and Methodology                                                     34



Appendix II            Desirable Strategy Characteristics                                        38



Appendix III           Comments from the Department of Defense                                   39



Appendix IV            GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments                                     40



Related GAO Products                                                                             41



Tables
                       Table 1: Department of Defense Electronic Warfare
                                Responsibilities                                                 25
                       Table 2: Summary of Desirable Characteristics for a Strategy, Their
                                Description, and Benefit                                         38


Figures
                       Figure 1: Electromagnetic Spectrum and Uses                                 5
                       Figure 2: Examples of Electronic Warfare Capabilities                       6




                       Page i                                           GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
Figure 3: Extent to Which DOD’s Fiscal Year 2011 Electronic
         Warfare Strategy Report Addressed Key Desirable
         Strategy Characteristics Identified by GAO                                       10
Figure 4: Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Control Center under
         Strategic Command                                                                18




Abbreviations

DOD               Department of Defense
JEMSCC            Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Control Center




This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety
without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain
copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be
necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.




Page ii                                                     GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548




                                   July 9, 2012

                                   The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon
                                   Chairman
                                   The Honorable Adam Smith
                                   Ranking Member
                                   Committee on Armed Services
                                   House of Representatives

                                   The Department of Defense (DOD) is increasingly dependent on access
                                   to the electromagnetic spectrum—the full range of all possible
                                   frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, including frequency ranges such
                                   as radio, microwave, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma
                                   rays—for a variety of military uses, such as communicating, navigating,
                                   information gathering and sensing, and targeting. DOD has committed
                                   billions of dollars developing, maintaining, and employing warfighting
                                   capabilities that rely on access to the electromagnetic spectrum—
                                   including precision-guided munitions and command, control, and
                                   communications systems. DOD ensures control of the electromagnetic
                                   spectrum through the coordinated implementation of joint electromagnetic
                                   spectrum operations, which includes electronic warfare and spectrum
                                   management activities, with other lethal and nonlethal operations that
                                   enable freedom of action in the electromagnetic operational environment.
                                   Electronic warfare, which is the use of electromagnetic energy and
                                   directed energy to control the electromagnetic spectrum or to attack the
                                   enemy, is essential for protection of friendly operations and denying
                                   adversary operations within the electromagnetic spectrum throughout the
                                   operational environment. As we previously reported, DOD’s investments
                                   are projected to total more than $17.6 billion from fiscal years 2007
                                   through 2016 for the development and procurement of new and updated
                                   fixed-wing airborne electronic attack systems alone, which are one
                                   element of electronic warfare. 1

                                   According to DOD, the U.S. military’s access to and use of the
                                   electromagnetic spectrum is facing rapidly evolving challenges and
                                   increased vulnerabilities due to the increasing quality and availability of



                                   1
                                    GAO, Airborne Electronic Attack: Achieving Mission Objectives Depends on Overcoming
                                   Acquisition Challenges, GAO-12-175 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2012).




                                   Page 1                                                  GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
electronic warfare capabilities to both state and non-state actors. Also,
DOD has reported that electronic warfare capabilities, which play a critical
and potentially growing role as an enabler for military operations, are
currently stressed and will remain so in the future. Moreover, according to
DOD, near-peer competitors, primarily Russia and China, have fully
recognized the critical nature of electromagnetic spectrum control in
military operations. 2 There also has been recognition among near-peer
competitors of the relationship between electronic warfare and
cyberspace operations, which includes computer network operations. 3
For example, as noted in the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review
Commission’s 2009 report to Congress, China’s Integrated Network
Electronic Warfare concept incorporates elements of cyberspace
operations in tandem with elements of traditional electronic warfare, and
advocates for the employment of traditional electronic warfare
operations—such as the jamming of radars and communications
systems—in coordination with cyberspace attack operations.

DOD has identified persistent electronic warfare capability gaps, and
these shortfalls have been consistently highlighted by the combatant
commands as some of their highest warfighting priorities. According to a
Center for Strategic and International Studies report, the U.S. Strategic
Command identified 34 capability gaps affecting electronic warfare,
including a lack of leadership across the department. 4 This lack of
leadership was identified as the most critical gap. In our recent report on
DOD’s airborne electronic attack capabilities, we found that DOD is


2
 Potential near-peer adversaries include countries capable of waging large-scale
conventional war on the United States. These nation-states are characterized as having
nearly comparable diplomatic, informational, military, and economic capacity to the United
States.
3
  DOD defines cyberspace operations, which includes computer network operations, as
the employment of cyberspace capabilities where the primary purpose is to achieve
military objectives or effects in or through cyberspace. DOD documents that discuss the
relationship between electronic warfare and cyberspace operations use several different
cyber-related terms, including cyberspace, cyber operations, computer network
operations, and computer network attack. In addition, according to DOD, the definition of
information operations includes the term computer network operations because it is an
information operations-related capability. To provide clarity in this report, we generally use
the term cyberspace operations in our discussion of the relationship between electronic
warfare and cyberspace operations and computer network operations in our discussions
concerning information operations-related capabilities.
4
 Center for Strategic and International Studies, Organizing for Electro-Magnetic Spectrum
Control (Washington, D.C.: May 2010).




Page 2                                                        GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
developing multiple systems which provide similar capabilities, and that
the lack of leadership may undermine DOD’s ability to consolidate these
systems. 5 Specifically, we found that all four military services within the
Department of Defense are separately acquiring new airborne electronic
attack systems, but that opportunities may exist to consolidate some
current service-specific acquisition efforts. With the prospect of slowly
growing or flat defense budgets for years to come, the department must
get better returns on its weapon system investments and find ways to
deliver more capability to the warfighter for less than it has in the past.
Therefore, we recommended that the Secretary of Defense conduct
program reviews for certain new, key systems; determine the extent to
which the most pressing capability gaps can be met and take steps to fill
them; align service investments in science and technology with the
departmentwide electronic warfare priority; and review the capabilities
provided by certain existing and planned systems to ensure investments
do not overlap. DOD generally concurred with our recommendations.

You requested that we examine several issues related to DOD’s
electronic warfare capabilities. In March 2012, we issued a report on
DOD’s current and planned airborne electronic attack capabilities and
investment strategies. 6 In this current review, we examined DOD’s
approach to governing electronic warfare and the relationship between
electronic warfare and cyberspace operations. Specifically, we examined
the extent to which DOD has (1) developed a strategy to manage
electronic warfare and (2) planned, organized, and implemented an
effective governance structure to oversee its electronic warfare policy and
programs, and their relationship to cyberspace operations.

To assess the extent to which DOD has developed a strategy to manage
electronic warfare, we compared information found in DOD’s two
electronic warfare strategy reports to Congress with key characteristics of
strategies identified by GAO in prior work, and interviewed relevant
officials. To assess the extent to which DOD has planned, organized, and
implemented an effective governance structure to oversee its electronic
warfare policy and programs and their relationship to cyberspace



5
 GAO-12-175. For additional information, see GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to
Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance
Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).
6
    GAO-12-175.




Page 3                                                   GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
                           operations, we reviewed DOD directives and policies, and the roles and
                           responsibilities of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; Under
                           Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and U.S.
                           Strategic Command. Additionally, we reviewed and analyzed information
                           found in policy documents along with information from relevant meetings
                           with DOD officials against DOD’s directives regarding electronic warfare.
                           We also interviewed cognizant officials and reviewed DOD policies,
                           doctrine, reports, plans, and concepts of operation, and outside studies
                           that discuss the relationship between electronic warfare and cyberspace
                           operations. See Appendix I for details on our scope and methodology.

                           We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 to July 2012 in
                           accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
                           Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
                           sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
                           findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
                           the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
                           conclusions based on our audit objectives.



Background
Control and Use of the     In modern warfare, military forces are heavily dependent upon access to
Electromagnetic Spectrum   the electromagnetic spectrum for successful operations. Communications
                           with friendly forces and detection, identification, and targeting of enemy
                           forces, among other tasks, are all reliant upon the ability to operate
                           unhindered in the spectrum. For this reason, control of the
                           electromagnetic spectrum is considered essential to carrying out military
                           operations. 7 Figure 1 illustrates the electromagnetic spectrum and some
                           examples of military uses at various frequencies. For example, infrared or
                           thermal imaging technology senses heat emitted by a person or an object
                           and creates an image. Sensor systems utilize this technology to provide




                           7
                             According to DOD, electromagnetic spectrum control is freedom of action in the
                           electromagnetic operational environment, which is achieved through the coordinated
                           implementation of joint electromagnetic spectrum operations, which includes electronic
                           warfare, with other lethal and nonlethal operations impacting the electromagnetic
                           operational environment. See Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 3-13.1, Electronic
                           Warfare (Feb. 8, 2012).




                           Page 4                                                       GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
                                       the advantage of seeing not only at night but also through smoke, fog,
                                       and other obscured battlefield conditions.

Figure 1: Electromagnetic Spectrum and Uses




Electronic Warfare                     DOD defines electronic warfare as any military action involving the use of
                                       electromagnetic and directed energy to control the electromagnetic
                                       spectrum or to attack the enemy. The purpose of electronic warfare is to
                                       secure and maintain freedom of action in the electromagnetic spectrum
                                       for friendly forces and to deny the same for the adversary. Traditionally,
                                       electronic warfare has been composed of three primary activities:

                                       •      Electronic attack: use of electromagnetic, directed energy, or
                                              antiradiation weapons to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment with
                                              the intent of degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy combat
                                              capability. Electronic attack can be used offensively, such as jamming
                                              enemy communications or jamming enemy radar to suppress its air
                                              defenses, and defensively, such as deploying flares.
                                       •      Electronic protection: actions to protect personnel, facilities, and
                                              equipment from any effects of friendly, neutral, or enemy use of the
                                              electromagnetic spectrum, as well as naturally occurring phenomena
                                              that degrade, neutralize, or destroy friendly combat capability.
                                       •      Electronic warfare support: actions directed by an operational
                                              commander to search for, intercept, identify, and locate sources of
                                              radiated electromagnetic energy for the purposes of immediate threat
                                              recognition, targeting, and planning; and conduct of future operations.




                                       Page 5                                               GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
Figure 2: Examples of Electronic Warfare Capabilities




Information Operations                   Electronic warfare is employed to create decisive stand-alone effects or to
                                         support military operations, such as information operations and
                                         cyberspace operations. According to DOD, information operations are the
                                         integrated employment, during military operations, of information-related
                                         capabilities in concert with other lines of operation to influence, disrupt,
                                         corrupt, or usurp the decision-making of adversaries and potential
                                         adversaries while protecting our own. Information-related capabilities can
                                         include, among others, electronic warfare, computer network operations,
                                         military deception, operations security, and military information support
                                         operations (formerly psychological operations). Electronic warfare


                                         Page 6                                            GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
                           contributes to the success of information operations by using offensive
                           and defensive tactics and techniques in a variety of combinations to
                           shape, disrupt, and exploit adversarial use of the electromagnetic
                           spectrum while protecting U.S. and allied freedom of action.


Cyberspace Operations      Since cyberspace requires both wired and wireless links to transport
                           information, both offensive and defensive cyberspace operations may
                           require use of the electromagnetic spectrum. According to DOD,
                           cyberspace operations are the employment of cyberspace capabilities
                           where the primary purpose is to achieve military objectives or effects
                           through cyberspace, which include computer network operations, among
                           others. Computer network operations include computer network attack,
                           computer network defense, and related computer network exploitation-
                           enabling operations. Electronic warfare and cyberspace operations are
                           complementary and have potentially synergistic effects. For example, an
                           electronic warfare platform may be used to enable or deter access to a
                           computer network.


U.S. Strategic Command     U.S. Strategic Command (Strategic Command) has been designated
Joint Electronic Warfare   since 2008 as the advocate for joint electronic warfare. Strategic
Activities                 Command officials stated that, in the past, the primary office for electronic
                           warfare expertise—the Joint Electronic Warfare Center—had several
                           different names and was aligned under several different organizations,
                           such as the Joint Forces Command and the U.S. Space Command.

                           According to Strategic Command officials, in addition to the Joint
                           Electronic Warfare Center, the command employs electronic warfare
                           experts in its non-kinetic operations staff and in the Joint Electromagnetic
                           Preparedness for Advanced Combat organization. According to Strategic
                           Command officials, the Joint Electronic Warfare Center is the largest of
                           the three organizations and employs approximately 60 military and civilian
                           electronic warfare personnel and between 15 and 20 contractors.
                           Strategic Command officials stated that the Joint Electronic Warfare
                           Center was created as a DOD center of excellence for electronic warfare
                           and has electronic warfare subject matter experts. The center provides
                           planning and technical support not only to Strategic Command but to
                           other combatant commands and organizations, such as U.S. Central
                           Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and the
                           Department of Homeland Security. The Joint Electronic Warfare Center
                           also provides assistance with requirements generation to the military
                           services.


                           Page 7                                             GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
                      DOD developed an electronic warfare strategy, but only partially
DOD Developed an      addressed key strategy characteristics identified as desirable in prior work
Electronic Warfare    by GAO. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010
                      requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense
Strategy, but Only    committees an annual report on DOD’s electronic warfare strategy for
Partially Addressed   each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015. 8 Each annual report is to be
Key Desirable         submitted at the same time the President submits the budget to Congress
                      and is to contain, among other things, a description and overview of
Strategy              DOD’s electronic warfare strategy and the organizational structure
Characteristics       assigned to oversee the development of the department’s electronic
                      warfare strategy, requirements, capabilities, programs, and projects. 9 In
                      response to this legislative requirement, the Office of the Under Secretary
                      of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics issued DOD’s 2011
                      and 2012 fiscal year strategy reports to Congress in October 2010 and
                      November 2011, respectively. 10

                      We previously reported that it is desirable for strategies to delineate six
                      key characteristics, including organizational roles and responsibilities for
                      implementing parties as well as performance measures to gauge




                      8
                          Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 1053 (a).
                      9
                        Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 1053 (b) delineates several other requirements for the strategy,
                      including a list of electronic warfare acquisition programs and research and development
                      projects with associated program or project information.
                      10
                         Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics,
                      Report to the Congressional Defense Committees. Electronic Warfare Strategy of the
                      Department of Defense (Washington, D.C.: October 2010). The fiscal year 2012 report is
                      classified. As of July 2012, the fiscal year 2013 electronic warfare strategy report was still
                      being drafted, according to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
                      Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.




                      Page 8                                                         GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
results. 11 The key characteristics of an effective strategy can aid
responsible parties in further developing and implementing the strategy,
enhance the strategy’s usefulness in resource and policy decisions, and
better ensure accountability. The six characteristics are: (1) purpose,
scope, and methodology; (2) problem definition and risk assessment;
(3) goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and performance measures;
(4) resources, investments, and risk management; (5) organizational
roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and (6) integration and
implementation.

As illustrated in Figure 3, we found that DOD’s reports addressed two key
characteristics, but only partially addressed four other key characteristics
of a strategy. For example, the strategy reports to Congress included
elements of characteristics, such as a goal and objectives, but did not
fully identify implementing parties, delineate roles and responsibilities for
managing electronic warfare across the department, or identify outcome-
related performance measures that could guide the implementation of
electronic warfare efforts and help ensure accountability. Similarly, the
reports provided acquisition program and research and development
project data, but did not target resources and investments at some key
activities associated with implementing the strategy. When investments
are not tied to strategic goals and priorities, resources may not be used
effectively and efficiently. Our past work has shown that such
characteristics can help shape policies, programs, priorities, resource



11
   See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National
Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004). This
testimony identified six characteristics of an effective strategy. While these characteristics
were identified in our past work as desirable components of national-level strategies, we
determined that they also are relevant to strategies of varying scopes, including defense
strategies involving complex issues. For example, identifying organizational roles,
responsibilities and coordination mechanisms is key to allocating authority and
responsibility for implementing a strategy. Further, goals, objectives, and performance
measures provide concrete guidance for implementing a strategy, allowing implementing
parties to establish priorities and milestones, and providing them with the flexibility
necessary to pursue and achieve those results within a reasonable timeframe. Full
descriptions of these characteristics are contained in appendix II. See also GAO, Influenza
Pandemic: DOD Has Taken Important Actions to Prepare, but Accountability, Funding,
and Communications Need to be Clearer and Focused Departmentwide, GAO-06-1042
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2006) ; GAO, Defense Space Activities: National Security
Space Strategy Needed to Guide Future DOD Space Efforts, GAO-08-431R (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 27, 2008); and GAO, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance: DOD
Needs a Strategic, Risk-Based Approach to Enhance Its Maritime Domain Awareness,
GAO-11-621 (Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2011).




Page 9                                                        GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
                                        allocations, and standards in a manner that is conducive to achieving
                                        intended results. 12

Figure 3: Extent to Which DOD’s Fiscal Year 2011 Electronic Warfare Strategy Report Addressed Key Desirable Strategy
Characteristics Identified by GAO




                                        Notes: Summary analysis information is provided only in cases where we have determined the
                                        strategy partially addressed a characteristic. The strategy “addressed” a characteristic when the
                                        strategy explicitly cited all elements of a characteristic, even if it lacked specificity and details and
                                        thus could be improved upon. The strategy “partially addressed” a characteristic when the strategy
                                        explicitly cited some, but not all, elements of a characteristic. Within our designation of “partially
                                        addressed,” there may be wide variation between a characteristic for which most of the elements
                                        were addressed and a characteristic for which few of the elements of the characteristic were
                                        addressed. The strategy “did not address” a characteristic when the strategy did not explicitly cite or
                                        discuss any elements of a characteristic, and/or any implicit references were either too vague or
                                        general.



                                        12
                                             GAO-04-408T.




                                        Page 10                                                                GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
DOD’s fiscal year 2011 report is described here because the fiscal year
2012 report, issued in November 2011, is classified. However,
unclassified portions of this document note that the fiscal year 2011 report
remains valid as the base DOD strategy and that the fiscal year 2012
report updates its predecessor primarily to identify ongoing efforts to
improve DOD’s electronic warfare capabilities and to provide greater
specificity to current threats. The fiscal year 2011 Electronic Warfare
Strategy of the Department of Defense report (electronic warfare strategy
report)—the base electronic warfare strategy—addressed two and
partially addressed four of six desirable characteristics of a strategy
identified by GAO. There may be considerable variation in the extent to
which the strategy addressed specific elements of those characteristics
that were determined by GAO to be partially addressed. Our analysis of
the fiscal year 2011 report’s characteristics is as follows.

•   Purpose, scope and methodology: Addressed. The fiscal year
    2011 electronic warfare strategy report identifies the purpose of the
    strategy, citing as its impetus section 1053 of the National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, and articulates a maturing,
    twofold strategy focused on integrating electronic warfare capabilities
    into all phases and at all levels of military operations, as well as
    developing, maintaining, and protecting the maneuver space within
    the electromagnetic spectrum necessary to enable military
    capabilities. The report’s scope also encompasses data on acquisition
    programs and research and development projects. Additionally, the
    report includes some methodological information by citing a principle
    that guided its development. Specifically the report states that a key
    aspect of the strategy is the concept of the electromagnetic spectrum
    as maneuver space.

•   Problem definition and risk assessment: Addressed. The fiscal
    year 2011 electronic warfare strategy report defines the problem the
    strategy intends to address, citing the challenges posed to U.S. forces
    by potential adversaries’ increasingly sophisticated technologies, the
    military’s increased dependence on the electromagnetic spectrum,
    and the urgent need to retain and expand remaining U.S. advantages.
    The report also assesses risk by identifying threats to, and
    vulnerabilities of critical operations, such as Airborne Electronic Attack
    and self-protection countermeasures.

•   Goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and performance
    measures: Partially Addressed. The fiscal year 2011 electronic
    warfare strategy report communicates an overarching goal of enabling



Page 11                                            GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
    electromagnetic spectrum maneuverability and cites specific
    objectives, such as selectively denying an adversary’s use of the
    spectrum and preserving U.S. and allied forces’ ability to maneuver
    within the spectrum. The report also identifies key activities
    associated with the strategy, including developing (1) coherent
    electronic warfare organizational structures and leadership, (2) an
    enduring and sustainable approach to continuing education, and (3)
    capabilities to implement into electronic warfare systems. The report
    does not identify performance measures that could be used to gauge
    results and help ensure accountability.

•   Resources, investments, and risk management: Partially
    Addressed. The fiscal year 2011 electronic warfare strategy report
    broadly targets resources and investments by emphasizing the
    importance of continued investment in electronic attack, electronic
    protection, and electronic support capabilities. The report also notes
    some of the associated risks in these areas, calling for new methods
    of ensuring U.S. control over the electromagnetic spectrum in light of
    the adversary’s advances in weapons and the decreasing
    effectiveness of traditional lines of defense, such as airborne
    electronic attack and self-protection countermeasures. The report
    identifies some of the costs associated with the strategy by providing
    acquisition program and research and development project and cost
    data, and notes that part of the strategy is to identify and track
    investments in electronic warfare systems, which often are obscured
    within the development of the larger weapons platforms they typically
    support. However, the strategy does not target investments by
    balancing risk against costs, or discuss other costs associated with
    implementing the strategy by, for example, targeting resources and
    investments at key activities, such as developing electronic warfare
    organizational structures and leadership and developing an enduring
    and sustainable approach to continuing education.

•   Organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination: Partially
    Addressed. The fiscal year 2011 electronic warfare strategy report
    provides an overview of past and ongoing electronic warfare activities
    within the military services and DOD, and identifies several
    mechanisms that have or could be used to foster coordination across
    the department. For example, it outlines the Army’s efforts to create a
    new career field for electronic warfare officers and the Office of the
    Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics’




Page 12                                           GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
     electronic warfare integrated planning team. 13 However, the report
     does not fully identify the departmental entities responsible for
     implementing the strategy, discuss the roles and responsibilities of
     implementing parties, or specify implementing entities’ relationships in
     terms of leading, supporting, and partnering. 14

•    Integration and implementation: Partially Addressed. The fiscal
     year 2011 electronic warfare strategy report describes the
     department’s approach to ensuring maneuverability within the
     electromagnetic spectrum, thus supporting National Defense Strategy
     objectives that rely on use and control of the spectrum. The strategy’s
     overarching aim of ensuring electromagnetic spectrum
     maneuverability also is consistent with concepts contained in the
     department’s electromagnetic spectrum strategy documents—which
     collectively emphasize the importance of assured spectrum access. 15
     The strategy does not, however, discuss the department’s plans for
     implementing the strategy.

DOD’s electronic warfare strategy reports were issued in response to the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and were not
specifically required to address all the characteristics we consider to be
desirable for an effective strategy. Additionally, DOD’s fiscal year 2011
report states that the strategy is still maturing and that subsequent reports
to Congress will refine the department’s vision. Nonetheless, we consider
it useful for DOD’s electronic warfare strategy to address each of the
characteristics we have identified in order to provide guidance to the
entities responsible for implementing DOD’s strategy and to enhance the
strategy’s utility in resource and policy decisions—particularly in light of
the diffuse nature of DOD’s electronic warfare programs and activities, as
well as the range of emerging technical, conceptual, and organizational
challenges and changes in this area. Further, in the absence of clearly



13
   According to DOD officials, the electronic warfare integrated planning team was
established by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics to develop guidelines for electronic warfare investment strategy.
14
  By “partnering,” we refer to shared, or joint, responsibilities among implementing parties
where there is otherwise no clear or established hierarchy of lead and support functions.
15
   See Department of Defense, Strategic Spectrum Plan (February 2008); and Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information Integration) Department of Defense Chief
Information Officer, Department of Defense Net-Centric Spectrum Management Strategy
(Aug. 3, 2006).




Page 13                                                      GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
                             defined roles and responsibilities, and other elements of key
                             characteristics, such as measures of performance in meeting goals and
                             objectives, entities responsible for implementing DOD’s strategy may lack
                             the guidance necessary to establish priorities and milestones, thereby
                             impeding their ability to achieve intended results within a reasonable time
                             frame. As a result, DOD lacks assurance that its electronic warfare
                             programs and activities are aligned with strategic priorities and are
                             managed effectively. For example, without an effective strategy, DOD is
                             limited in its ability to reduce the potential for unnecessary overlap in the
                             airborne electronic attack acquisition activities on which we have
                             previously reported.


                             DOD has taken some steps to address a critical leadership gap identified
DOD Has Not                  in 2009, but it has not established a departmentwide governance
Established an               framework for planning, directing, and controlling electronic warfare
                             activities. DOD is establishing a Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Control
Effective                    Center (JEMSCC) under Strategic Command in response to the
Departmentwide               leadership gap for electronic warfare. However, DOD has not
                             documented the objectives or implementation tasks and timeline for the
Governance                   JEMSCC. In addition, DOD has not updated key guidance to reflect
Framework for                recent policy changes regarding electronic warfare management and
Managing and                 oversight roles and responsibilities. For example, it is unclear what the
                             JEMSCC’s role is in relation to other DOD organizations involved in the
Overseeing Electronic        management of electronic warfare, such as the Office of the Under
Warfare                      Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
                             Moreover, we found that DOD may face challenges in its oversight of
                             electronic warfare as a result of the evolving relationship between
                             electronic warfare and cyberspace operations.


DOD Actions Have Not         DOD has taken some steps to address a critical leadership gap by
Fully Addressed a Critical   establishing the JEMSCC under Strategic Command. However, because
Leadership Gap               DOD has yet to define specific objectives for the center, outline major
                             implementation tasks, and define metrics and timelines to measure
                             progress, it is unclear to what extent the center will address the identified
                             existing leadership deficiencies. The Center for Strategic and
                             International Studies reported insufficient leadership as the most critical
                             among 34 capability gaps affecting electronic warfare. As a result of the
                             absence of leadership, the department was significantly impeded from
                             both identifying departmentwide needs and solutions and eliminating
                             potentially unnecessary overlap among the military services’ electronic
                             warfare acquisitions. Specifically, the department lacked a joint leader


                             Page 14                                             GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
and advocate with the authority to integrate and influence electronic
warfare capabilities development, to coordinate internal activities, and to
represent those activities and interests to outside organizations.
Mitigating the leadership gap was identified not only as the highest
priority, but also a prerequisite to addressing the other 33 gaps.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies report was one of two
parallel studies commissioned by the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council 16 to assess potential organizational and management solutions to
the leadership gap. 17 These studies considered a number of options,
including an organization under the Deputy Secretary of Defense, an
activity controlled by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and an
organization at Strategic Command. As a result of these studies, in
January 2011, DOD initiated efforts to establish the JEMSCC under
Strategic Command as the focal point of joint electronic warfare
advocacy. This solution was chosen, in part, in recognition of Strategic
Command’s resident electronic warfare expertise as well as its already
assigned role as an electronic warfare advocate. 18

In January 2011, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council directed
Strategic Command to develop an implementation plan for the electronic


16
   The Joint Requirements Oversight Council, among other things, assists the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in (1) identifying, assessing, establishing priority levels for, and
validating joint military requirements, including existing systems and equipment, to meet
the National Military Strategy; (2) considering trade-offs among cost, schedule, and
performance objectives for joint military requirements; and (3) reviewing the estimated
level of resources required to fulfill each joint military requirement, and establishing an
objective for the overall period of time within which an initial operational capability should
be delivered to meet each joint military requirement.
17
   Specifically, in October 2009, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council tasked
Strategic Command and the now disestablished U.S. Joint Forces Command to assess
both the technical issues related to the electronic warfare problem and the organizational
structure and management approach required to respond to emerging electromagnetic
spectrum threats. In response, Strategic Command and U.S. Joint Forces Command
produced a classified report providing potential organizational solutions. As part of this
process, the Center for Strategic and International Studies conducted its review as an
independent analysis that also provided organizational alternatives. See Center for
Strategic and International Studies, Organizing for Electro-Magnetic Spectrum Control
(Washington, D.C.: May 2010).
18
   See DOD, Unified Command Plan (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2008), which
establishes the missions, responsibilities, and geographic areas of responsibility among
the combatant commanders. This plan also tasks the Commander of Strategic Command
with advocating for electronic warfare capabilities.




Page 15                                                          GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
warfare center to be submitted for council approval no later than May
2011. The plan was to delineate (1) the center’s mission, roles, and
responsibilities; (2) command and control, reporting, and support
relationships with combatant commands, military services, and U.S.
Government departments and agencies; and (3) minimum requirements
to achieve initial operational capability and full operational capability. The
Joint Requirements Oversight Council subsequently approved an
extension of the center’s implementation plan submission to August 2011.
Subsequently, in December 2011, the oversight council issued a
memorandum that closed the requirement to submit an implementation
plan to the council and stated that Strategic Command had conducted an
internal reorganization and developed a center to perform the functions
identified in the internal DOD study.

In December 2011, Strategic Command issued an operations order that
defined the JEMSCC as the primary focal point for electronic warfare,
supporting DOD advocacy for joint electronic warfare capability
requirements, resources, strategy, doctrine, planning, training, and
operational support. This order provided 22 activities that the center is to
perform. Federal internal control standards require that organizations
establish objectives and clearly define key areas of authority and
responsibility. 19 In addition, best practices for strategic planning have
shown that effective and efficient operations require detailed plans
outlining major implementation tasks and defined metrics and timelines to
measure progress. 20 Moreover, the independent study prepared for DOD
similarly emphasized the importance of clearly defining the center’s
authorities and responsibilities, noting that the center’s success would
hinge, in part, on specifying how it is expected to relate to the department
as a whole as well as its expected organizational outcomes. However, as
of March 2012, Strategic Command had not issued an implementation
plan or other documentation that defines the center’s objectives and
outlines major implementation tasks, metrics, and timelines to measure
progress. Strategic Command officials told us in February 2012 that an
implementation plan had been drafted, but that there were no timelines



19
  GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).
20
   For example, see GAO, Reserve Forces: Army Needs to Finalize an Implementation
Plan and Funding Strategy for Sustaining an Operational Reserve Force, GAO-09-898
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 17, 2009).




Page 16                                                 GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
for the completion of the implementation plan or a projection for when the
center would reach its full operational capability. As a result, it remains
unclear whether or when the JEMSCC will provide effective
departmentwide leadership and advocacy for electronic warfare, and
influence resource decisions related to capability development.

According to officials from Strategic Command, the JEMSCC will consist
of staff from Strategic Command’s Joint Electronic Warfare Center at
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, and the Joint Electromagnetic
Preparedness for Advanced Combat organization, at Nellis Air Force
Base, Nevada. 21 These officials stated that while each of JEMSCC’s
component groups’ missions will likely evolve as the center matures, the
JEMSCC components would continue prior support activities, such as the
Joint Electronic Warfare Center’s support to other combatant commands
through its Electronic Warfare Planning and Coordination Cell—a rapid
deployment team that provides electronic warfare expertise and support
to build electronic warfare capacity. Figure 4 depicts the JEMSCC’s
organizational construct.




21
   The Joint Electronic Warfare Center, prior to incorporation in the JEMSCC, was tasked
with integrating current and emerging joint electronic warfare effects to ensure spectrum
control for global military operations. The center provided near-term operational solutions
and advocated for long-term electromagnetic capabilities. The Joint Electromagnetic
Preparedness for Advanced Combat organization was charged with advancing and
improving joint warfighter effectiveness and combat capability by conducting vulnerability
assessments of electromagnetic spectrum dependent capabilities, architectures,
technologies, and tactics, techniques, and procedures.




Page 17                                                      GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
Figure 4: Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Control Center under Strategic Command




DOD has yet to define objectives and issue an implementation plan for
the JEMSCC; however, officials from Strategic Command stated that they
anticipated continuity between the command’s previous role as an
electronic warfare advocate and its new leadership role, noting that
advocacy was, and remains, necessary because electronic warfare
capabilities are sometimes undervalued in comparison to other, kinetic
capabilities. 22 For example, the JEMSCC will likely build off Strategic
Command’s previously assigned advocacy role, in part, by continuing to
advocate for electronic warfare via the Joint Capabilities Integration and
Development System process—DOD’s process for identifying and
developing capabilities needed by combatant commanders—and by




22
   Kinetic capabilities focus on destroying forces through the application of physical
effects.




Page 18                                                       GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
providing electronic warfare expertise. 23 Specifically, Strategic Command
officials stated that the JEMSCC, through Strategic Command, would
likely provide input to the development of joint electronic warfare
requirements during the joint capabilities development process. However,
combatant commands, such as Strategic Command, provide one of many
inputs to this process. Further, as we have previously reported, council
decisions, while influential, are advisory to acquisition and budget
processes driven by military service investment priorities. 24 As a result,
the JEMSCC’s ability to affect resource decisions via this process is likely
to be limited.

Officials we spoke with across DOD, including those from the military
services and Strategic Command, recognized this challenge. Specifically,
Strategic Command officials told us that for JEMSCC to influence service-
level resource decisions and advocate effectively for joint electronic
warfare capabilities, the JEMSCC would need to not only participate in
the joint capabilities development process, but would also need
authorities beyond those provided by the Unified Command Plan, such as
the authority to negotiate with the military services regarding resource
decisions. Similarly, we found that while the officials we spoke with from
several DOD offices that manage electronic warfare, including offices
within the military services, were unaware of the center’s operational
status and unclear regarding its mission, roles, and responsibilities, many
also thought it to be unlikely that the JEMSCC—as a subordinate center
of Strategic Command—would possess the requisite authority to
advocate effectively for electronic warfare resource decisions. These


23
   In 2003, DOD created the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System to
guide the development of capabilities from a joint perspective. This system was
established to provide the department with an integrated, collaborative process to identify
and guide development of new capabilities that address the current and emerging security
environment. DOD’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council oversees the joint capabilities
development process and participates in the development of joint requirements, which
includes the identification and analysis and synthesis of capability gaps and the council’s
subsequent validation of capability needs. The council makes recommendations to the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who advises the Secretary of Defense about what
capabilities to invest in as part of DOD’s budget process. Before making investment
decisions, the military services consider the validated capabilities during their planning,
programming, and budgeting processes and make decisions among competing
investments.
24
   See GAO, Defense Management: Perspectives on the Involvement of the Combatant
Commands in the Development of Joint Requirements, GAO-11-527R (Washington, D.C.:
May 20, 2011).




Page 19                                                     GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
                              concerns were echoed by the independent study, which noted that the
                              center would require strong authorities to substantially influence the
                              allocation of other DOD elements’ resources. 25

                              Additionally, limited visibility across the department’s electronic warfare
                              programs and activities may impede the center’s ability to advocate for
                              electronic warfare capabilities development. Specifically, Strategic
                              Command officials told us that they do not have access to information
                              regarding all of the military services’ electronic warfare programs and
                              activities, particularly those that are highly classified or otherwise have
                              special access restrictions. In addition, Strategic Command officials told
                              us that they do not have visibility over or participate in rapid acquisitions
                              conducted through the joint capabilities development process. In our
                              March 2012 report on DOD’s airborne electronic attack strategy and
                              acquisitions, we reported that certain airborne electronic attack systems
                              in development may offer capabilities that unnecessarily overlap with one
                              another—a condition that appears most prevalent with irregular warfare
                              systems that the services are acquiring under DOD’s rapid acquisitions
                              process. 26 The JEMSCC’s exclusion from this process is likely to limit its
                              ability to develop the departmentwide perspective necessary for effective
                              advocacy. Moreover, in the absence of clearly defined objectives and an
                              implementation plan outlining major implementation tasks and timelines to
                              measure progress, these potential challenges reduce DOD’s level of
                              assurance that the JEMSCC will provide effective departmentwide
                              leadership for electronic warfare capabilities development.

DOD Policy Documents          DOD issued two primary directives that provide some guidance for
Have Not Been Updated to      departmentwide oversight of electronic warfare. However, neither of these
Include All Oversight Roles   two directives has been updated to reflect changes in DOD’s leadership
                              structures that manage electronic warfare. Federal internal control
and Responsibilities for      standards require that organizations establish objectives, clearly define
Electronic Warfare            key areas of authority and responsibility, and establish appropriate lines
                              of reporting to aid in the effective and efficient use of resources. 27
                              Additionally, those standards state that management must continually



                              25
                                Center for Strategic and International Studies, Organizing for Electro-Magnetic
                              Spectrum Control (Washington, D.C.: May 2010).
                              26
                                   GAO-12-175 and GAO-12-342SP.
                              27
                                   GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.




                              Page 20                                                     GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
assess and evaluate its internal control to assure that the actions in place
are effective and updated when necessary.

DOD’s two primary directives that provide some guidance for
departmentwide oversight of electronic warfare are:

•    DOD Directive 3222.4 (Electronic Warfare and Command and Control
     Warfare Countermeasures)—Designates the Under Secretary of
     Defense for Acquisition (now Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics)
     as the focal point for electronic warfare within the department.
     However, the directive was issued in 1992 and updated in 1994, and
     does not reflect subsequent changes in policy or organizational
     structures. For example, the directive does not reflect the
     establishment of the JEMSCC under Strategic Command.

•    DOD Directive 3600.01 (Information Operations)—Issued in 2006 and
     revised in May 2011, this directive provides the department with a
     framework for oversight of information operations, which was defined
     as the integrated employment of the core capabilities of electronic
     warfare, computer network operations, military information support
     operations (formerly referred to as psychological operations), military
     deception, and operations to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp
     adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting
     that of the United States. However, the definition of oversight
     responsibilities for information operations has changed, and these
     changes have not yet been reflected in DOD Directive 3600.01. 28
DOD Directive 3222.4 has not been updated to reflect the responsibilities
for electronic warfare assigned to Strategic Command. Both the
December 2008 and April 2011 versions of the Unified Command Plan
assigned Strategic Command responsibility for advocating for joint
electronic warfare capabilities. 29 Similarly, the directive has not been
updated to reflect the establishment of the JEMSCC and its associated
electronic warfare responsibilities. Specifically, the directive does not
acknowledge that JEMSCC has been tasked by Strategic Command as
the primary focal point for electronic warfare; rather, the directive



28
  Secretary of Defense, Memorandum: Strategic Communication and Information
Operations in the DOD (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2011).
29
  Department of Defense, Unified Command Plan (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2008) and
Department of Defense, Unified Command Plan (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 6, 2011).




Page 21                                                GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
designates the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
and Logistics as the focal point for electronic warfare within DOD. As a
result, it is unclear what JEMSCC’s roles and responsibilities are in
relation to those of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics. For example, it’s unclear what JEMSCC’s role
will be regarding development of future iterations of the DOD’s electronic
warfare strategy report to Congress, which is currently produced by the
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics. Also it is unclear what role, if any, the JEMSCC will have in
prioritizing electronic warfare investments. Moreover, the directive has not
been updated to reflect the Secretary of Defense’s memorandum issued
in January 2011, which assigned individual capability responsibility for
electronic warfare and computer network operations to Strategic
Command.

DOD Directive 3600.01 provides both the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the Under Secretary of
Defense for Intelligence with responsibilities that aid in the oversight of
electronic warfare within DOD. However, pursuant to the Defense
Secretary’s January 2011 memo, the directive is under revision to
accommodate changes in roles and responsibilities. Under the current
version of DOD Directive 3600.01, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence is charged with the role of Principal Staff Advisor to the
Secretary of Defense for information operations. The Principal Staff
Advisor is responsible for, among other things, the development and
oversight of information operations policy and integration activities as well
as the coordination, oversight, and assessment of the efforts of DOD
components to plan, program, develop, and execute capabilities in
support of information operations requirements. 30 Additionally, the current
Directive 3600.01 identifies the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as responsible for establishing
specific policies for the development of electronic warfare as a core
capability of information operations.

Under the requirements of DOD acquisition policy, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics regularly collects cost,


30
   DOD Directive 3600.01 refers to the Principal Staff Assistant position while the
Secretary’s January 2011 memorandum refers to the Principal Staff Advisor position.
According to DOD officials, these terms refer to the same position. We use the term
Principal Staff Advisor in this report.




Page 22                                                   GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
schedule, and performance data for major programs. 31 In some cases,
the cost information of electronic warfare systems are reported as distinct
programs, while in other cases, some electronic warfare systems are
subcomponents of larger programs, and cost information is not regularly
collected for these separate subsystems. Additionally, the Under
Secretary—in coordination with the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force—is
developing an implementation road map for electronic warfare science
and technology. The road map is supposed to coordinate investments
across DOD to accelerate the development and delivery of capabilities.
The road map is expected to be completed in late summer of 2012.

The Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum in January 2011 that
prompted DOD officials to begin revising DOD Directive 3600.01. The
memorandum redefined information operations as “the integrated
employment, during military operations, of information-related capabilities
in concert with other lines of operation to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or
usurp the decision-making of adversaries and potential adversaries while
protecting our own.” Previously, DOD defined information operations as
the “integrated employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare,
computer network operations, psychological operations, military
deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting
and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp adversarial
human and automated decision making while protecting our own.”
According to DOD officials, the revised definition removed the term core
capabilities because it put too much emphasis on the individual core
capabilities and too little emphasis on the integration of these capabilities.

Additionally, the memorandum noted that the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy began serving as the Principal Staff Advisor for information
operations as of October 1, 2010, and charged the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy with revising DOD Directive 3600.01 to reflect these
responsibilities. According to the memorandum, the Principal Staff
Advisor is to serve as the single point of fiscal and program accountability
for information operations. However, according to DOD officials, this
accountability oversight covers only the integration of information
operations-related capabilities and does not cover the formerly defined
core capabilities of information operations, including electronic warfare


31
   See DOD Directive 5000.01The Defense Acquisition System (Washington, D.C.:
certified current as of Nov. 20, 2007) and DOD Instruction 5000.02 Operation of the
Defense Acquisition System (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 8, 2008).




Page 23                                                    GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
and computer network operations. For example, DOD officials stated that
the Principal Staff Advisor for information operations would maintain
program accountability where information operations-related capabilities
were integrated but would not maintain program accountability for all
information-related capabilities. However, the memorandum does not
clearly describe the specific responsibilities of the Principal Staff Advisor
for information operations.

The Secretary’s memorandum directed the Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy, together with the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) and
Director of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation, to continue to work to
develop standardized budget methodologies for information operations-
related capabilities and activities. However, these budget methodologies
would capture only data related to information operations. For example,
according to Under Secretary of Defense for Policy officials, they do not
collect or review electronic warfare financial data, but may review this
data in the future to determine if it relates to integrated information
operations efforts. Officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Policy stated that DOD Directive 3600.01 was under revision
to reflect these and other changes as directed by the Secretary’s
memorandum. Until the underlying directive is revised, there may be
uncertainty regarding which office has the authority to manage and
oversee which programs. Moreover, until this directive is updated, it is not
clear where the boundaries are for oversight of electronic warfare
between the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

Table 1 compares the oversight roles and responsibilities for electronic
warfare as described in the two DOD directives and the Secretary’s 2011
policy memorandum.




Page 24                                            GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
Table 1: Department of Defense Electronic Warfare Responsibilities

                                                                                                      Secretary of Defense,
                                                                DOD Directive 3600.01,                Memorandum: Strategic
                                                                Information Operations, August        Communication and
                                                                14, 2006 (Incorporating Change        Information Operations in the
                           DOD Directive 3222.4,                1, May 23, 2011)                      DOD, January 25, 2011
Organizations assigned     Electronic Warfare, July 31,         (Electronic warfare defined as one    (Electronic warfare defined as
electronic warfare         1992 (Incorporating Change 2,        of the core capabilities of           an information operations-
responsibilitiesa          January 28, 1994)                    information operations)               related capability)
Office of the Under        •   No responsibility assigned.      •   Provide oversight of              •    Assigned the Principal Staff
Secretary of Defense for                                            information operations                 Advisor function and
Policy                                                              planning, execution, and               responsibility for
                                                                    related policy guidance,               information operations
                                                                    including the establishment of         oversight and
                                                                    an Office of the Secretary of          management.
                                                                    Defense review process to         •    Tasked to revise DOD
                                                                    assess information operations          Directive 3600.01 and DOD
                                                                    plans and programs submitted           Directive 5111.1, and other
                                                                    by combatant commanders.               relevant policy and doctrine
                                                                                                           documents to reflect a new
                                                                                                           definition of information
                                                                                                           operations.
                                                                                                      •    Assigned as the single
                                                                                                           point of fiscal and program
                                                                                                           accountability for
                                                                                                           information operations.
Office of the Under        •   Focal point for electronic       •   Establish specific policies for   •    No responsibility assigned..
Secretary of Defense for       warfare within DOD.                  the development and
Acquisition, Technology,   •   Provide guidance on                  integration of electronic
and Logistics                  electronic warfare policy.           warfare.
                           •   Provide oversight for            •   Develop and maintain a
                               development and acquisition          technology investment
                               of tactical land, sea, air,          strategy to support the
                               space, or undersea                   development, acquisition, and
                               electronic warfare systems.          integration of electronic
                                                                    warfare capabilities.
                           •   Review electronic warfare
                               programs for duplication and     •   Invest in and develop the
                               maximum multi-service                science and technologies
                               applications.                        needed to support information
                                                                    operations capabilities.
                           •   Provide matrix electronic
                               warfare technical and/or
                               management support within
                               the Office of the Secretary of
                               Defense on request.
                           •   Ensure that adequate
                               science and technology
                               programs exist for
                               development and acquisition
                               of electronic warfare
                               systems.




                                          Page 25                                                         GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
                                                                                                            Secretary of Defense,
                                                                   DOD Directive 3600.01,                   Memorandum: Strategic
                                                                   Information Operations, August           Communication and
                                                                   14, 2006 (Incorporating Change           Information Operations in the
                           DOD Directive 3222.4,                   1, May 23, 2011)                         DOD, January 25, 2011
Organizations assigned     Electronic Warfare, July 31,            (Electronic warfare defined as one       (Electronic warfare defined as
electronic warfare         1992 (Incorporating Change 2,           of the core capabilities of              an information operations-
responsibilitiesa          January 28, 1994)                       information operations)                  related capability)
Office of the Under        •   No responsibility assigned.         •    Serve as the Principal Staff        •    Relieved of role as the
Secretary of Defense for                                                Advisor for information                  Principal Staff Advisor
Intelligence                                                            operations.                              function and responsibility
                                                                   •    Develop and oversee DOD                  for information operations
                                                                        information operations policy            oversight and
                                                                        and integration activities.              management.
                                                                   •    Coordinate, oversee, and
                                                                        assess the efforts of the DOD
                                                                        components to plan, program,
                                                                        develop, and execute
                                                                        capabilities in support of
                                                                        information operations
                                                                        requirements.
                                                                   •    Establish specific policies for
                                                                        the development and
                                                                        integration of computer
                                                                        network operations, military
                                                                        deception and operational
                                                                        security.
Strategic Commandb         NAc                                     •     Shall integrate and coordinate     •    Assigned individual
                                                                         DOD information operations              capability responsibilities
                                                                         core capabilities (including            for electronic warfare and
                                                                         electronic warfare and                  computer network
                                                                         computer network operations)            operations.
                                                                         that cross geographic areas of
                                                                         responsibility or across the
                                                                         core information operations
                                                                         areas.
                                         Source: GAO analysis of DOD documents.

                                         Note: This table presents only those responsibilities that pertain to electronic warfare management
                                         and oversight within DOD, including those that relate to electronic warfare as a core or related
                                         capability of information operations. The table excludes, for example, responsibilities related to
                                         electronic warfare training and intergovernmental coordination, and the entities assigned such
                                         responsibilities.
                                         a
                                         These organizations may be assigned non-electronic warfare capabilities in the listed documents.
                                         Here we only include those responsibilities that are related to electronic warfare, including electronic
                                         warfare as a core capability or related capability of information operations.
                                         b
                                          Figure only provides Strategic Command responsibilities unique from those assigned to all
                                         combatant commands.
                                         c
                                             DOD Directive 3222.4 predates the creation of Strategic Command in 2002.




                                         Page 26                                                                GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
DOD May Face Challenges    DOD may face challenges in its oversight of electronic warfare because
in Its Oversight of the    of the evolving relationship between electronic warfare and cyberspace
Evolving Relationship of   operations, specifically computer network operations; both are information
                           operations-related capabilities. According to DOD, to ensure all aspects
Electronic Warfare and     of electronic warfare can be developed and integrated to achieve
Cyberspace Operations      electromagnetic spectrum control, electronic warfare must be clearly and
                           distinctly defined in its relationship to information operations (to include
                           computer network operations) and the emerging domain of cyberspace.
                           In the previous section, we noted that DOD’s directives do not clearly
                           define the roles and responsibilities for the oversight of electronic warfare
                           in relation to the roles and responsibilities for information operations. The
                           current DOD Directive 3600.01 does not clearly specify what
                           responsibilities the Principal Staff Advisor has regarding the integration of
                           information operations-related capabilities—specifically the integration of
                           electronic warfare capabilities with computer network operations. 32

                           Further, DOD’s fiscal year 2011 electronic warfare strategy report to
                           Congress, which delineated its electronic warfare strategy, stated that the
                           strategy has two, often co-dependent capabilities: traditional electronic
                           warfare and computer network attack, which is part of cyberspace
                           operations. Moreover, according to DOD officials, the relationship
                           between electronic warfare and cyberspace operations—including
                           computer network attack—is still evolving, which is creating both new
                           opportunities and challenges. There will be operations and capabilities
                           that blur the lines between cyberspace operations and electronic warfare
                           because of the continued expansion of wireless networking and the
                           integration of computers and radio frequency communications. According
                           to cognizant DOD officials, electronic warfare capabilities may permit use
                           of the electromagnetic spectrum as a maneuver space for cyberspace
                           operations. For example, electronic warfare capabilities may serve as a
                           means of accessing otherwise inaccessible networks to conduct
                           cyberspace operations; presenting new opportunities for offensive action
                           as well as the need for defensive preparations.

                           Current DOD doctrine partially describes the relationship between
                           electronic warfare and cyberspace operations. Specifically, current joint
                           doctrine for electronic warfare, which was last updated in February 2012,


                           32
                              DOD Directive 5143.01 Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (Washington, D.C.:
                           Nov. 23, 2005) provides the responsibilities of the Under Secretary and restates the
                           Principal Staff Advisor duties stated in DOD Directive 3600.01.




                           Page 27                                                   GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
states that since cyberspace requires both wired and wireless links to
transport information, both offensive and defensive cyberspace
operations may require use of the electromagnetic spectrum for the
enabling of effects in cyberspace. Due to the complementary nature and
potential synergistic effects of electronic warfare and computer network
operations, they must be coordinated to ensure they are applied to
maximize effectiveness. 33 When wired access to a computer system is
limited, electromagnetic access may be able to successfully penetrate the
computer system. For example, use of an airborne weapons system to
deliver malicious code into cyberspace via a wireless connection would
be characterized as “electronic warfare-delivered computer network
attack.” In addition, the doctrine mentions that electronic warfare
applications in support of homeland defense are critical to deter, detect,
prevent, and defeat external threats such as cyberspace threats.

DOD has not yet published specific joint doctrine for cyberspace
operations, as we previously reported. 34 We recommended, among other
things, that DOD establish a time frame for deciding whether to proceed
with a dedicated joint doctrine publication on cyberspace operations and
update existing cyber-related joint doctrine. 35 DOD agreed and has
drafted, but not yet issued, the joint doctrine for cyberspace operations.
According to U.S. Cyber Command officials, it is unclear when the
doctrine for cyberspace operations will be issued.

The military services also have recognized the evolving relationship
between electronic warfare and cyberspace operations. For example, to
address future challenges, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine
Command conducted an assessment on how the Army’s future force will
leverage cyberspace operations and found that the Army’s current
vocabulary—including terms such as computer network operations,
electronic warfare, and information operations—will become increasingly
inadequate. According to the Army, these terms are becoming outdated
as the operational environment rapidly changes due to factors such as
technologic convergence of computer and telecommunication networks,
astonishing rates of technologic advancements, and the global


33
     Joint Publication 3-13.1.
34
   See GAO, Defense Department Cyber Efforts, DOD Faces Challenges in Its Cyber
Activities, GAO-11-75 (Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2011).
35
     GAO-11-75.




Page 28                                                GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
              proliferation of information and communications technology. According to
              a Navy official, the Navy recognizes the evolving relationship between
              electronic warfare and cyberspace operations and is moving toward
              defining that relationship. However, the Navy first is working to define the
              relationship between electronic warfare and electromagnetic spectrum
              operations. In addition, Air Force Instruction 10-706, Electronic Warfare
              Operations, 36 states that traditional electronic warfare capabilities are
              beginning to overlap with cyberspace areas, which is resulting in an
              increased number of emerging targets such as non-military leadership
              networks and positioning, navigation, and timing networks.

              According to U.S. Cyber Command officials, it is important to understand
              how electronic warfare and cyberspace operations capabilities might be
              used in an operational setting. Such information could then inform the
              further development of doctrine. U.S. Cyber Command officials stated
              that they have participated in regular meetings with representatives from
              the military services, the National Security Agency, defense research
              laboratories, and others, to discuss the relationship of electronic warfare
              and cyberspace operations. Moreover, the Under Secretary for
              Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, has established steering
              committees that are developing road maps for the Secretary of Defense’s
              seven designated science and technology priority areas—one of which is
              cyberspace operations and another is electronic warfare.


              DOD faces significant challenges in operating in an increasingly complex
Conclusions   electromagnetic environment. Therefore, it is important that DOD develop
              a comprehensive strategy to ensure departmental components are able
              to integrate electronic warfare capabilities into all phases of military
              operations and maintain electromagnetic spectrum access and
              maneuverability. DOD would benefit from a strategy that includes
              implementing parties, roles, responsibilities, and performance measures,
              which can help ensure that entities are effectively supporting such
              objectives, and linking resources and investments to key activities
              necessary to meet strategic goals and priorities. In the absence of a
              strategy that fully addresses these and other key elements, the DOD
              components and military services responsible for implementing this



              36
                Air Force Instruction, 10-706, Electronic Warfare Operations (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 3,
              2010).




              Page 29                                                    GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
strategy, evaluating progress, and ensuring accountability may lack the
guidance necessary to prioritize their activities and establish milestones
that are necessary to achieve intended results within a reasonable time
frame. Moreover, as a result, DOD may not be effectively managing its
electronic warfare programs and activities or using its resources
efficiently. For example, an effective strategy could help DOD reduce the
potential for unnecessary overlap in the airborne electronic attack
acquisition activities on which we have previously reported.

The military’s increasing reliance on the electromagnetic spectrum—
coupled with a fiscally constrained environment and critical gaps in
electronic warfare management—highlights the need for an effective
governance framework for managing and conducting oversight of the
department’s electronic warfare activities. The absence of such a
framework can exacerbate management challenges, including those
related to developing and implementing an effective strategy and
coordinating activities among stakeholders. Without additional steps to
define the purpose and activities of the JEMSCC, DOD lacks reasonable
assurance that this center will provide effective departmentwide
leadership for electronic warfare capabilities development and ensure the
effective and efficient use of its resources. As we previously reported,
DOD acknowledges a leadership void that makes it difficult to ascertain
whether the current level of investment is optimally matched with the
existing capability gaps. Leveraging resources and acquisition efforts
across DOD—not just by sharing information, but through shared
partnerships and investments—can simplify developmental efforts,
improve interoperability among systems and combat forces, and could
decrease future operating and support costs. Such successful outcomes
can position the department to maximize the returns it gets on its
electronic warfare investments. In addition, multiple organizations are
involved with electronic warfare and outdated guidance regarding
management and oversight may limit the effectiveness of their activities.
Both the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics and the JEMSCC have been identified as the focal point for
electronic warfare within the department, yet it is unclear what each
organization’s roles and responsibilities are in relation to one another.
Further, each organization’s management responsibilities related to future
iterations of the electronic warfare strategy report to Congress and
working with the military services to prioritize investments remain unclear.
Updating electronic warfare directives and policy documents to clearly
define oversight roles and responsibilities for electronic warfare—
including any roles and responsibilities related to managing the
relationship between electronic warfare and information operations or


Page 30                                           GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
                      electronic warfare and cyberspace operations, specifically computer
                      network operations—would help ensure that all aspects of electronic
                      warfare can be developed and integrated to achieve electromagnetic
                      spectrum control.


                      To improve DOD’s management, oversight, and coordination of electronic
Recommendations for   warfare policy and programs, we recommend that the Secretary of
Executive Action      Defense take the following three actions:

                      •   Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
                          and Logistics, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense for
                          Policy and Strategic Command, and others, as appropriate, to include
                          at a minimum the following information in the fiscal years 2013
                          through 2015 strategy reports for electronic warfare:
                          •   Performance measures to guide implementation of the strategy
                              and help ensure accountability. These could include milestones to
                              track progress toward closing the 34 capability gaps identified by
                              DOD studies.
                          •   Resources and investments necessary to implement the strategy,
                              including those related to key activities, such as developing
                              electronic warfare organizational structures and leadership.
                          •   The parties responsible for implementing the department’s
                              strategy, including specific roles and responsibilities.

                      •   Direct the Commander of Strategic Command to define the objectives
                          of the Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Control Center and issue an
                          implementation plan outlining major implementation tasks and
                          timelines to measure progress.

                      •   Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in concert with the
                          Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
                          Logistics, as appropriate, to update key departmental guidance
                          regarding electronic warfare—including DOD Directives 3222.4
                          (Electronic Warfare and Command and Control Warfare
                          Countermeasures) and 3600.01 (Information Operations)—to clearly
                          define oversight roles and responsibilities of and coordination among
                          the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; the Under Secretary of
                          Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; and the Joint
                          Electromagnetic Spectrum Control Center. Additionally, the directives
                          should clarify, as appropriate, the oversight roles and responsibilities
                          for the integration of electronic warfare and cyberspace operations,
                          specifically computer network operations.



                      Page 31                                            GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
                     In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with
Agency Comments      our first recommendation and concurred with our other two
and Our Evaluation   recommendations. Regarding our recommendation that DOD include in
                     future strategy reports for electronic warfare, at a minimum, information
                     on (1) performance measures to guide implementation of the strategy, (2)
                     resources and investments necessary to implement the strategy, and (3)
                     parties responsible for implementing the strategy, the department stated
                     that it continues to refine the annual strategy reports for electronic warfare
                     and will expand upon resourcing plans and organization roles; however,
                     the department stated that the strategy was not intended to be
                     prescriptive with performance measures. As we have previously stated,
                     the inclusion of performance measures can aid entities responsible for
                     implementing DOD’s electronic warfare strategy in establishing priorities
                     and milestones to aid in achieving intended results within reasonable time
                     frames. We also have noted that performance measures can enable more
                     effective oversight and accountability as progress toward meeting a
                     strategy’s goals may be measured, thus helping to ensure the strategy’s
                     successful implementation. We therefore continue to believe this
                     recommendation has merit.

                     DOD concurred with our remaining two recommendations that (1) the
                     Commander of Strategic Command define the objectives of the JEMSCC
                     and issue an implementation plan for the center and (2) DOD update key
                     departmental guidance regarding electronic warfare. These steps, if
                     implemented, will help to clarify the roles and responsibilities of electronic
                     warfare management within the department and aid in the efficient and
                     effective use of resources. DOD’s written comments are reprinted in their
                     entirety appendix III.


                     We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional
                     committees; the Secretary of Defense; and the Commander, U.S.
                     Strategic Command. In addition, this report will be available at no charge
                     on GAO’s web site at http://www.gao.gov.

                     If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
                     me at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices




                     Page 32                                             GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix
IV.




Brian J. Lepore
Director, Defense Capabilities
and Management




Page 33                                            GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
             Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




             To assess the extent to which DOD has developed a strategy to manage
             electronic warfare we evaluated DOD’s fiscal year 2011 and 2012
             electronic warfare strategy reports to Congress 1 against prior GAO work
             on strategic planning, that indentified six desirable characteristics of a
             strategy. 2 The characteristics GAO previously identified are: (1) purpose,
             scope, and methodology; (2) problem definition and risk assessment;
             (3) goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and performance measures;
             (4) resources, investments, and risk management; (5) organizational
             roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and (6) integration and
             implementation. While these characteristics were identified in our past
             work as desirable components of national-level strategies, we determined
             that they also are relevant to strategies of varying scopes, including
             defense strategies involving complex issues. For example, identifying
             organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination mechanisms is key
             to allocating authority and responsibility for implementing a strategy.
             Further, goals, objectives, and performance measures provide concrete
             guidance for implementing a strategy, allowing implementing parties to
             establish priorities and milestones, and providing them with the flexibility
             necessary to pursue and achieve those results within a reasonable time
             frame. Full descriptions of these characteristics are contained in appendix
             II.

             We determined that the strategy “addressed” a characteristic when it
             explicitly cited all elements of a characteristic, even if it lacked specificity
             and details and could thus be improved upon. The strategy “partially
             addressed” a characteristic when it explicitly cited some, but not all,
             elements of a characteristic. Within our designation of “partially
             addressed,” there may be wide variation between a characteristic for
             which most of the elements were addressed and a characteristic for
             which few of the elements of the characteristic were addressed. The
             strategy “did not address” a characteristic when it did not explicitly cite or
             discuss any elements of a characteristic, and/or any implicit references
             were either too vague or general. To supplement this analysis and gain
             further insight into issues of strategic import, we also reviewed other



             1
               Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics,
             Report to the Congressional Defense Committees. Electronic Warfare Strategy of the
             Department of Defense (Washington, D.C.: October 2010). The fiscal year 2012 report is
             classified.
             2
                 GAO-04-408T.




             Page 34                                                   GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




relevant strategic planning documents—such DOD’s National Defense
Strategy, 3 Strategic Spectrum Plan, 4 and Net-Centric Spectrum
Management Strategy 5—and interviewed cognizant officials from
organizations across the department, including the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; U.S.
Strategic Command; and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

To determine the extent to which DOD has planned, organized, and
implemented an effective governance structure to oversee its electronic
warfare policy and programs and their relationship with cyberspace
operations, we reviewed and analyzed relevant DOD policies, doctrine,
plans, briefings, and studies. Specifically, to determine how DOD has
allocated electronic warfare authorities and responsibilities across the
department, we reviewed and analyzed DOD policy, including DOD
Directive 3222.4, Electronic Warfare and Command and Control Warfare
Countermeasures; 6 DOD Directive 3600.01, Information Operations; 7
and the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum: Strategic Communication
and Information Operations in the DOD. 8 We also reviewed relevant joint
doctrine publications, such as Joint Publications 3-13, Information
Operations 9 and 3-13.1, Electronic Warfare; 10 plans, including the 2008
and 2011 Unified Command Plans; 11 strategic documents, such as DOD’s


3
    Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy (Washington, D.C.: June 2008).
4
    Department of Defense, Strategic Spectrum Plan (Washington, D.C.: February 2008).
5
  Department of Defense Chief Information Officer, Department of Defense Net-Centric
Spectrum Management Strategy (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 3, 2006).
6
 DOD Directive 3222.4, Electronic Warfare and Command and Control Warfare
Countermeasures (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 1992, Incorporating Change 2, Jan. 28,
1994).
7
  DOD Directive 3600.01, Information Operations (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 14, 2006,
Incorporating Change 1, May 23, 2011).
8
 Secretary of Defense, Memorandum: Strategic Communication and Information
Operations in the DOD (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2011).
9
 Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 3-13, Information Operations
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 2006).
10
  Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 3-13.1, Electronic Warfare
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 8, 2012).
11
  Department of Defense, Unified Command Plan (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 17, 2008) and
Department of Defense, Unified Command Plan (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 6, 2011).




Page 35                                                     GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




fiscal year 2011 and 2012 electronic warfare strategy reports to
Congress; 12 and classified and unclassified briefings, and studies related
to DOD’s identification of and efforts to address electronic warfare
capability gaps, including DOD’s 2009 Electronic Warfare Initial
Capabilities Document. 13 We also reviewed DOD and military service
reports, plans, concepts of operation, and outside studies that discuss
DOD’s definitions of electronic warfare and cyberspace operations. In
addition, we interviewed cognizant DOD officials to obtain information and
perspectives regarding policy, management, and technical issues related
to electronic warfare, information operations, electromagnetic spectrum
control, and cyberspace operations.

In addressing both of our objectives, we obtained relevant documentation
from and/or interviewed officials from the following DOD offices,
combatant commands, military services, and combat support agencies:

•    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
•    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
•    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
     and Logistics
•    Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and
     Integration/DOD Chief Information Officer
•    Joint Chiefs of Staff
•    Combatant Commands
     •   U.S. Cyber Command, Fort Meade, Maryland
     •   U.S. Pacific Command, Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii
     •   U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska
         •   Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Control Center, Offutt Air
             Force Base, Nebraska
         •   Joint Electronic Warfare Center, Lackland Air Force Base,
             Texas
•    U.S. Army
     •   Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army for Operations,
         Plans, and Training, Electronic Warfare Division



12
   Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics,
Report to the Congressional Defense Committees. Electronic Warfare Strategy of the
Department of Defense (Washington, D.C.: October 2010). The fiscal year 2012 report is
classified.
13
  Department of Defense, Electronic Warfare Initial Capabilities Document Unclassified
Extract (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 22, 2009). The full version of this report is classified.




Page 36                                                      GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology




    •  Training and Doctrine Command, Combined Arms Center
       Electronic Warfare Proponent Office, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
•   U.S. Air Force—Electronic Warfare Division
•   U.S. Marines Corps—Headquarters, Electronic Warfare Branch
•   U.S. Navy
    •  Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information
       Dominance Electronic and Cyber Warfare Division
    •  Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Surface Warfare Center,
       Crane, Indiana
    •  Naval Sea Systems Command, Program Executive Office for
       Integrated Warfare Systems
    •  Navy Fleet Forces Cyber Command, Fleet Electronic Warfare
       Center, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia
•   Combat Support Agencies
    •  Defense Information Systems Agency—Defense Spectrum
       Organization
    •  National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Maryland
We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 to July 2012 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.




Page 37                                           GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
Appendix II: Desirable Strategy
                                           Appendix II: Desirable Strategy Characteristics




Characteristics

                                           We previously identified a set of desirable strategy characteristics to aid
                                           responsible parties in implementation, enhance the strategies’ usefulness
                                           in resource and policy decisions, and to better ensure accountability. 1
                                           Table 2 provides a brief description of each characteristic and its benefit.

Table 2: Summary of Desirable Characteristics for a Strategy, Their Description, and Benefit

Characteristic                Summary description                        Benefit
Purpose, scope, and           Addresses why the strategy was             A complete description of the purpose, scope, and
methodology                   produced, the scope of its coverage,       methodology in a strategy could make the document more
                              and the process by which it was            useful to the entities it is intended to guide, as well as to
                              developed.                                 oversight organizations, such as Congress.
Problem definition and risk   Addresses the particular problems          Use of common definitions promotes more effective
assessment                    and threats the strategy is directed       intergovernmental operations and more accurate monitoring of
                              toward.                                    expenditures, thereby eliminating problematic concerns.
                                                                         Comprehensive assessments of vulnerabilities, including risk
                                                                         assessments, can help identify key factors external to an
                                                                         organization that can significantly affect that organization’s
                                                                         attainment of its goals and objectives and can help identify risk
                                                                         potential if such problem areas are not effectively addressed.
Goals, subordinate            Addresses what the strategy is trying      Better identification of priorities, milestones, and performance
objectives, activities, and   to achieve, steps to achieve those         measures can aid implementing entities in achieving results in
performance measures          results, as well as the priorities,        specific time frames—and could enable more effective
                              milestones, and performance                oversight and accountability.
                              measures to gauge results.
Resources, investments, and   Addresses what the strategy will cost,     Guidance on resource, investment, and risk management
risk management               the sources and types of resources         could help implementing entities allocate resources and
                              and investments needed, and where          investments according to priorities and constraints, track costs
                              resources and investments should be        and performance, and shift such investments and resources as
                              targeted based on balancing risk           appropriate. Such guidance could also assist organizations in
                              reductions with costs.                     developing more effective programs to stimulate desired
                                                                         investments and leverage finite resources.
Organizational roles,         Addresses who will be implementing         Inclusion of this characteristic in a strategy could be useful to
responsibilities, and         the strategy, what their roles will be     organizations and other stakeholders in fostering coordination
coordination                  compared to others, and mechanisms         and clarifying specific roles, particularly where there is overlap,
                              for them to coordinate their efforts.      and thus enhancing both implementation and accountability.
Integration and               Addresses how a strategy relates to        Information on this characteristic in a strategy could build on
implementation                other strategies’ goals, objectives and    the aforementioned organizational roles and responsibilities—
                              activities, and to subordinate levels of   and thus further clarify the relationships between various
                              government and their plans to              implementing entities. This, in turn, could foster effective
                              implement the strategy.                    implementation and accountability.
                                           Source: GAO.




                                           1
                                            GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National
                                           Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004).




                                           Page 38                                                          GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
Appendix III: Comments from the
              Appendix III: Comments from the Department
              of Defense



Department of Defense




              Page 39                                      GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff
                  Acknowledgments



Acknowledgments

                  Brian J. Lepore, Director, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov
GAO Contact
                  In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report
Staff             were Davi M. D’Agostino, Director (retired); Mark A. Pross, Assistant
Acknowledgments   Director; Carolynn Cavanaugh; Ryan D’Amore; Brent Helt; and Richard
                  Powelson.




                  Page 40                                          GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
Related GAO Products
             Related GAO Products




             Airborne Electronic Attack: Achieving Mission Objectives Depends on
             Overcoming Acquisition Challenges. GAO-12-175. Washington, D.C.:
             March 29, 2012.

             2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and
             Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue.
             GAO-12-342SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.

             Defense Department Cyber Efforts: Definitions, Focal Point, and
             Methodology Needed for DOD to Develop Full-Spectrum Cyberspace
             Budget Estimates. GAO-11-695R. Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2011.

             Defense Department Cyber Efforts: DOD Faces Challenges in Its Cyber
             Activities. GAO-11-75. Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2011.

             Defense Department Cyber Efforts: More Detailed Guidance Needed to
             Ensure Military Services Develop Appropriate Cyberspace Capabilities.
             GAO-11-421. Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2011.

             Defense Management: Perspectives on the Involvement of the
             Combatant Commands in the Development of Joint Requirements.
             GAO-11-527R. Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2011.

             Electronic Warfare: Option of Upgrading Additional EA-6Bs Could Reduce
             Risk in Development of EA-18G. GAO-06-446. Washington, D.C.: April
             26, 2006.

             Electronic Warfare: Comprehensive Strategy Still Needed For
             Suppressing Enemy Air Defenses. GAO-03-51. Washington, D.C.:
             November 25, 2002.

             Electronic Warfare: The Army Can Reduce Its Risk in Developing New
             Radar Countermeasures System. GAO-01-448. Washington, D.C.: April
             30, 2001.




(351631)
             Page 41                                        GAO-12-479 Electronic Warfare
GAO’s Mission         The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
                      investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
                      constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
                      accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
                      examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
                      policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
                      to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions.
                      GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
                      accountability, integrity, and reliability.

                      The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
Obtaining Copies of   cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon,
GAO Reports and       GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and
                      correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products,
Testimony             go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

Order by Phone        The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
                      production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
                      publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
                      white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website,
                      http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.
                      Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
                      TDD (202) 512-2537.
                      Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
                      MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
                      Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.
Connect with GAO      Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
                      Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.
                      Contact:
To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse in   Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
                      E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Federal Programs      Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

                      Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-
Congressional         4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room
Relations             7125, Washington, DC 20548

                      Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs        U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
                      Washington, DC 20548




                        Please Print on Recycled Paper.