Cyber and Electromagnetic competition: A brave new world

As the modern battlespace continues to become increasingly connected and complex in the digital environment, the Cyber and Electromagnetic (CyberEM) domain is evolving rapidly. Technological advancements have enabled new capabilities – both offensive and defensive, for us and our adversaries – thereby changing the way militaries approach CyberEM.

From a UK perspective, the MOD’s Joint Doctrine Note 1/18 marked the first time that Cyber and Electromagnetic Activities (CEMA) was formally recognised in doctrine, drawing together elements of existing doctrine and best practice to describe the framework used by Defence to synchronise and coordinate CEMA at the operational level. The key objective: to coalesce multiple different entities and activities within the electromagnetic environment to ultimately improve targeting, force protection and decision advantage.

So, how has this doctrine combined with ongoing technological evolution shaped how the UK approaches the Cyber and Electromagnetic domain? And what challenges are militaries looking to solve? With 23 years of British Army experience behind him, where he worked on CyberEM operations from the tactical all the way up to the strategic, Kirintec’s Tech Support Director Si Timewell is ideally placed to answer these questions.

Here, he offers his perspective on these areas, along with the role CyberEM is playing in today’s battlespace and how its influence is likely to evolve in the future.

Moving beyond force protection

While we may think of CyberEM as a relatively new phenomenon, it has actually been ingrained in military thinking for several decades. Counter-IED (Improvised Explosive Device) force protection in particular increased in prominence from the 1970s, and it’s largely a given today that any country entering an area with an insurgent-type threat will require counter-IED force protection capability. Indeed, this is where Kirintec started as a business in 2009.

It's therefore no surprise that force protection has traditionally received the majority of the prioritisation and investment from militaries within what was known as the CEMA domain. But times are changing. Threats are coming from a wider range of avenues and are increasingly dynamic in their delivery. As such, while not new at the strategic level, we’re seeing the broader sensing and intelligence aspects of CyberEM becoming increasingly critical to the modern tactical defence environment.

“When we started in this space, Kirintec originally looked at it from a force protection C-IED mindset. However, people have to now be thinking about counter threat in order to provide force protection,” Si explains. “With unmanned aerial systems such as drones and other autonomous vehicles playing growing roles in warfare, being able to understand what adversaries are up to through sensing capabilities and then deliver immediate effects is more important than ever.”

This also goes a step further to being able to deny adversaries use of electronic and communication networks, all pointing to the need for a counter threat mindset. As Si says, “Most UxS systems employ the same RF links as IEDs, so therefore they can be defeated. This provides force protection advantages using minimal equipment and capabilities. Additionally, the line between CyberEM effects and kinetic response changes faster than ever, therefore effective co-ordination and synchronisation with CyberEM, air defence and ground-based air defence is key.”

It's this dynamic and fast-paced nature of modern warfare that has led to one of the biggest shifts in CEMA’s evolution over recent years and a key focus area for Kirintec: software defined capabilities.

All in on software defined

Today’s militaries need to be able to meet multiple needs simultaneously. But how do you deliver more capability while reducing the amount of hardware required? You take a software defined approach, thereby ensuring that the likes of counter-IED force protection can be combined with a range of other CyberEM capabilities within a single hardware platform.

This isn’t the way it has always been done. Si explains: “Traditionally you’ve had different CyberEM stovepipes trying to operate capability in the same environment and then not being able to because they weren’t interoperable. Militaries end up investing in multiple ‘boxes’ that all do different things and interfere with each other as soon as they are switched on.”

This is exactly the situation that defence is trying to get away from with a software defined or ‘multi-role’ approach. Rather than having separate hardware for sensing, comms, force protection etc. that all have to be transported and maintained, you invest in a single piece of hardware that can meet multiple needs and is future proofed as threats evolve.

Si continues: “We often use the smartphone analogy. I used to have to carry a phone, a GPS and an SLR camera in my pocket, but now that’s all on one common hardware platform (i.e. a smartphone). The same is true for CyberEM. We can now provide one common hardware platform that you add applications to depending on your operational requirements.”

This software defined approach is what has driven Kirintec’s growth over recent years. Having software at the core of any solution allows users to rapidly change their capabilities and add new counter measures as threats evolve. This enables greater operational flexibility while future-proofing solutions in a way that isn’t possible by relying on hardware. That’s why the big opportunity for the CyberEM domain lies in software defined.

“We’re seeing customers keen to invest in app development to enable a wider set of sensing and effects on their hardware platforms,” Si explains. “They want to be able to integrate more sensors into their networks, deliver more effects and add more apps onto the hardware they’ve already purchased, so the appetite is certainly there.”

Embracing open architectures

Linked to the software-defined approach is the growth of open architectures, which is an important part of enabling collaboration across defence. The fact is that no single company will ever be able to own the whole CyberEM domain in a way that it might have done previously as a prime integrator, putting collaboration at the heart of future innovation.

One of the best ways to enable this is through open architectures that enable integration between solutions from different vendors – a key feature in the product sets that Kirintec and BAE Systems are currently developing.

Although, as Si highlights, this has so far been an evolutionary change rather than a big bang across the industry: “When we were developing our K-CEMA system, we agonised about OpenVPX vs non-OpenVPX and we came to the conclusion, in 2019, that end users weren’t quite ready for it yet. But this is changing, particularly in the UK and the US. As a modular form factor, OpenVPX is becoming more popular and more countries around the world are recognising the benefit.”

It’s important to remember that there will always be a place for more bespoke systems that are engineered for cost or SWaP (Size, Weight and Power). There will always be optimisations needed for certain markets or customers. The fact is that the open architecture trend is growing and is unlikely to disappear as integration and flexibility become the orders of the day.

Overcoming industry challenges

Finally, we discussed some of the blockers that have hindered the adoption and exploitation of CyberEM capabilities. Si started with a technical perspective, outlining a challenge that many countries are still struggling to solve: battlefield communications networks.

“If you're collecting data and need to get it off the battlefield to somewhere else like an operating base, then you need a very good comms architecture that's got to be able to work in a congested or denied environment. Nobody has fixed that problem yet, making it a real technical issue that needs resolving.”

There are also organisational issues to consider within defence, specifically around prioritisation and procurement processes. While plenty of work is being done around planning architectures and technical approaches that allow multi-role capabilities, it’s urgent operational requirements that have typically received funding priority. Procurement has often focused on tactical rather than strategic requirements, to the detriment of the long-term play.

This is an issue Si recognised from his British Army days, but he believes there’s reason to be optimistic: “Often, even when people were trying to do something strategic, they’d be looking at it from a close-up budgetary perspective rather than the technical requirements that will be needed in five- or ten-years’ time. While that’s still an issue, mindsets are shifting. 

“The UK MoD announced a more agile procurement model in 2024, so we’re now seeing more strategic procurement activities using a more flexible and adaptable procurement process. Assuming this model is successful, this is good news for the industry and our military.” A brave new world of CyberEM competition indeed.