Los adversarios de Estados Unidos han prestado mucha atenci\u00f3n a c\u00f3mo Estados Unidos luch\u00f3 en los \u00faltimos 30 a\u00f1os e invirtieron significativamente en soluciones tecnol\u00f3gicas para interrumpir las comunicaciones y crear confusi\u00f3n entre las unidades.\u00a0El ej\u00e9rcito de Estados Unidos debe integrar mejor las operaciones del espectro electromagn\u00e9tico en todas sus filas para tener \u00e9xito contra adversarios cercanos, en lugar de relegar las capacidades a un nicho de especialidad, dijo un panel de expertos al Congreso.<\/p>\n
WASHINGTON \u2014 The U.S. military must better integrate electromagnetic spectrum operations throughout its ranks to succeed against near-peer adversaries, rather than relegate the capabilities to a niche specialty, a panel of experts told Congress.<\/p>\n
America\u2019s adversaries have paid close attention to how the U.S. fought in the last 30 years and significantly invested in technological solutions to disrupt communications and create confusion among units.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile the United States focused on counterterrorism operations over the last 20-plus years, China and Russia were working to advance their peer-to-peer military capabilities. That includes the [electromagnetic] spectrum operations,\u201d Joseph Kirschbaum, director of defense capabilities and management at the Government Accountability Office, said at March 19 hearing before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Cyber, Innovative Technologies and Information Systems.<\/p>\n
The U.S., however, has not maintained this pace in kind, creating a capability gap relative to top enemies.<\/p>\n
Experts told members that the electromagnetic spectrum is a strategic asset that can prove decisive at all levels of conflict, especially right now in what officials call \u201ccompetition,\u201d or operations below the threshold of armed conflict.<\/p>\n
The U.S. has maintained electromagnetic warfare and spectrum management as capabilities to achieve a tactical outcome, said Bill Conley, formerly the Department of Defense\u2019s electronic warfare guru<\/a>, noting this is not how China has organized its military.<\/p>\n Rather, China created the Strategic Support Force<\/a> in 2015, which equally links electronic warfare, cyberspace operations and space, elevating them in strategic importance.<\/p>\n The combination is critically important to Chinese operations, said Conley, who is now at Mercury Systems. \u201cWhat they have achieved operationally is really pretty darn impressive.\u201d<\/p>\n Kirschbaum equated the U.S. posture to electromagnetic warfare to 1914 when armies segregated the machine gun to specialized units, only using them where needed.<\/p>\n However, it didn\u2019t take long to realize the entire force needed these new weapons for tactical operations. The German force did just that with its machine guns, gaining an immediate advantage.<\/p>\n \u201cRight now, we\u2019re kind of marching off the 1914: We think of these spectrum operations as enablers for existing operations, and in a lot of ways we still treat them that way. They\u2019re not as integrated as they need to be throughout the force,\u201d Kirschbaum said. \u201cThat\u2019s the hump we need to get over.\u201d<\/p>\n Commanders\u2019 ability to maneuver their forces in and through the electromagnetic spectrum freely in a coordinated manner could be one of the best enduring strategic offensive advantages for the U.S., Conley said.<\/p>\n However, the U.S. risks failing to realize this superiority because of a lack of governance over previous electromagnetic strategies and initiatives.<\/p>\n \u201cWe found that DoD had not fully implemented either the 2013 or 2017 strategies. This was not because they were bad strategies \u2026 but rather because of bureaucratic and organizational hindrances,\u201d said Kirschbaum, who lead a December 2020 GAO report<\/a> on such shortfalls. \u201cSpecifically, DoD did not take action to develop detailed implementation plans.\u201d<\/p>\n