Editor’s Note: This article is a response to Spectrum Danger Zones: How to Build and Employ a Grunt Friendly Analyzer. Have a response yourself on the topic or an even better idea? Email us and let us know.
Just because the GSB is built using commercial off the shelf equipment, does not necessarily mean Marines are authorized to employ the GSB globally.
This response will attempt to describe the nuances between Signature Management (SIGMAN) and Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations. My recommendations for the way forward are at the end.
To start, I completely agree with the author that “to excel in this domain, units must first understand their own electromagnetic signature and then detect that of the enemy.” Innovation and experimentation are critical to recognizing gaps in our equipment and processes, validating requirements, and finding solutions to enable the warfighter.
As MARADMIN 238/22 states, “Proper coordination is required to avoid information fratricide by ensuring focus, direction, and shared situational awareness. Coordination with MCIOC does not in any way restrict standalone tactics, techniques, and procedures development or a unit’s ability to experiment with SIGMAN as a part of their training and exercise plans.” In other words, experimentation during training and exercises requires coordination. In real-world operations, this coordination becomes critical.
I write this response to highlight a key area I believe that the author missed: permission and authorities. Just because the Grunt Spectrum Box (GSB) is built using commercial off the shelf equipment (COTS), does not necessarily mean Marines are authorized to employ the GBS globally. While the article focused on SIGMAN, I would like to highlight a few points for consideration.
Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations
SIGMAN allows units to “understand and mitigate the physical, technical, and administrative signatures produced by their units during typical operations” (1st MARDIV SIGMAN Course). The key aspect addressed in the original article is the technical signatures in the electromagnetic spectrum.
In the world of Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations (JEMSO) there are a multitude of activities. One key part of JEMSO is Electronic Warfare (EW), and specific to this response is Electromagnetic Support (ES). ES involves “actions tasked by, or under direct control of, an operational commander to search for, intercept, identify, and locate or localize sources of intentional and unintentional EM radiation for the purpose of immediate threat recognition, threat avoidance, homing, targeting, planning, and conduct of future operations” (JP 3-85, JEMSO, 2021). In other words, sense and make sense of the EMS to enable operations.
Now we get to the core of this response: permissions and authorities.
Determining the dividing line between Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and ES is articulated in publications, doctrine, orders, directives, and policy memos. However, it remains a challenge to navigate the required permissions and authorities, because they may differ in each Combatant Command. This challenge is particularly exposed in areas of data collection, storage, processing, direction finding, targeting, and exploitation. “ES is closely related to, but separate from, SIGINT. The distinction between an asset performing an ES mission or an intelligence mission is determined by who tasks or controls the collection assets, what they are tasked to provide, and for what purpose they are tasked. The distinction between ES and SIGINT is delineated by purpose, scope, and context” (JP 3-85, JEMSO, 2021).
As you can see, navigating the realm is challenging, but not impossible. Before we encourage service members to build and employ these COTS systems, it is on us as leaders to first, provide them with the education on what these operations are, how it impacts their operations, and how they can effectively maneuver in this space. Secondly, we must ensure we coordinate with the right Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), which include both the technical and legal professionals, who can ensure we are staying in the correct lanes.
Recommendations
I recommend anyone interested in this topic (which should be every warfighter) to reach out to the appropriate SMEs. These planners generally reside within the J/G/N/S-39’s, Fires and Effects Coordination Cell (FECC), or in the Marine Corps the MIGs. As a Technical Information Operations Officer, everyone I shared the original article with was excited that this is being discussed. Most of these SMEs are happy to help with experimentation, education, TTP development, and navigating the approval processes.
Build a baseline of your unit’s signature in accordance with local policy. These will vary between training areas and bases. The Marine Corps Information Operations Center’s website provides great references and handbooks to help small unit leaders plan their training.
Again, it is on leaders to foster critical experimentation and innovation, while ensuring their Marines remain within the bounds of permissions and authorities.
The author is Technical Information Operations Officer (8834) currently serving as the G-39 for a CTF. They encourage you to make friends with your local Tech IO and FECC to learn more.