Lundquist: CANES is the onboard network for ships. Will every ship have CANES and will that have an impact on how you protect the ships?
Neagley: CANES is a way to introduce some networks across the fleet, and it’s going to be instantiated on most of the ships out there. Our approach to protecting networks will be similar, whether it’s CANES or TSCE, or something similar. The principles for identifying how you approach that would apply to any network. It’s about putting those processes in place to do that. If we develop a set of technical standards that everyone has to adhere to, that drives standardization of process, and our ability to protect those systems is better. The DDG 1000 is one of the exceptions, however, because it has been designed with the Total Ship Computing Environment (TSCE) from the very beginning.
BAE pier drydock coordinator Eddie communicates with a crane operator while lifting a Consolidated Afloat Ships Network Enterprise Services (CANES) rack to the guided-missile destroyer USS Milius (DDG 69), May 21, 2013. Milius was in BAE shipyard receiving the Navy’s first installation of CANES, the Navy’s next-generation tactical afloat network. As the Navy’s Information Dominance systems command SPAWAR provides the tactical networks, space systems, and information technology assets and services to enable the critical command, control, and coordination required by the U.S. Navy’s fleet operators. U.S. Navy photo by Rick Naystatt
Lundquist: Is SPAWAR FRD where the Navy’s cyber expertise resides?
Neagley: We certainly have the technical expertise for Navy cyber here at SPAWAR. We’re in a unique position in that regard, because we stretch across all the platform TYCOMs—surface ships, aviation, submarines and the shore establishment, you name it. We touch all those areas from a technical standpoint. We also work closely with the other SYSCOMs, because we all have a piece of it. I think we’re certainly the lead with regard to the technical piece of Navy cyber.
I think cyber is going to be a big part of where our effort will be and SPAWAR Commander Rear Adm. Dave Lewis is aligning the organization to be responsive to those challenges.
Lundquist: What are some examples of the technical support you provide to the fleet?
Neagley: I think I’m pretty well plugged in to the fleet, both on the surface ship and air side. I’m part of the Surface Warfare Enterprise (SWE) and Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE), so from an enterprise view, the Systems Commands (SYSCOMS) are represented by FRD in those forms.
Our Fleet Response Team might get called by an RMC with a C4I technical issue. Maybe they don’t have the skill sets, but they can reach back to us to get advice or have us get them the right expert on station. Capt. J.R. Robey heads up the team and he’s always talking to strike group commanders, COs of ships, or TYCOM staffs if there is a problem out there that we’re wrestling with, or a CASREP we’re trying to resolve.
On the installation side, Capt. Alan Walters is embedded with TYCOM staffs and the modernization teams. He’s talking to them regularly about planning and preparing for C4I installations and making sure that we’ve got everything lined up with the ship availabilities.
The people in the fleet who are maintaining our IT systems onboard ships learn a lot from our guys when they go out there; and we have people assigned to our Fleet Systems Engineering Teams (FSETs) permanently embedded in the strike group staffs for their deployments. They are SPAWAR civilian employees—there are about 120 of them altogether, afloat and ashore, with about 45 who are deployed cadre—who are experts in their field. They provide the strike group commander with someone who can reach back to SPAWAR and get the right person to respond, and they do some onsite casualty correction. They also provide training, because they’re there working with the ship’s company and can share their knowledge, experience and expertise. Some are ashore at the major communication sites, so the fleet can talk to someone directly when they’re having connectivity issues.
The FSETs debrief all the returning strike groups and compile the C4I lessons learned. We can then brief the commanders of the next strike group before it deploys. We’re a conduit to help pass that information along.
During a typical installation, we’ll do a Systems Operational Verification Test (SOVT) to make sure the gear works in port and at sea. Now we’ve started also conducting post-installation Systems Operational Tests (SOT), which is an expansion of the SOVT, and looking more holistically across the platform. We check each mission thread and a complete an end-to-end test of all those systems. So if you have a piece of equipment that is a part of an ASW mission thread, then you would check it against that particular mission. That’s been very successful for identifying any potential material problems and as a good training event.
CANES technicians at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command prepare the system for installation on board the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Milius (DDG 69). U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Karolina A. Martinez
As we manage that baseline going forward, based on vulnerabilities that are identified in the patches, we’re doing a number of things to try to make that process easier, such as automating patching so sailors don’t need to touch them and knowing when the patch is installed and baseline updated. For the manual patches, we’re trying to put them all in the Sailor 2.1 website, so our sailors know where to go get them.
Lundquist: Almost like an app store type of thing?
Neagley: Exactly. Sailor 2.1 is the portal they can use to reach back to us. There’s a lot of great information on that website, including the technical documentation, manuals and drawings, and the baseline configuration data so the ship knows exactly what their baseline is, what it should be, and how to get it up to date. Ships of the same class may have a different set of equipment on board or different versions of equipment, so the baseline is almost platform-unique.
The TYCOMs also have visibility to the database and can see what the ships have. It’s not just something they find out about when there’s an inspection. There’s interest in a real-time understanding what that posture is.
Lundquist: How do you interact with the Navy Information Dominance Force?
Neagley: Cyber isn’t just a Navy problem. Corporations are protecting their data, too. There’s a tremendous amount of intellectual capital that gets compromised or stolen, and recognition that this is an area we all need to deal with in a systematic and disciplined way. The Navy, I think, is taking all the right steps. Setting up Navy Information Dominance Force (NAVIDFOR) as a TYCOM gives us a command that’s operationally focused on how to work that problem. TYCOMS are responsible for “man, train and equip,” and that’s what NAVIDFOR is going to do. Having SPAWAR and our technical expertise in this area can help shape the organization to be responsive to that threat. We can be that technical authority for IT.
Courtesy of Surface SITREP. Republished with the permission of the Surface Navy Association.