All posts by admin

中國軍事戰雲 ~ Chinese Military Use of the Battle Cloud

中國軍事戰雲 ~ Chinese Military Use of the Battle Cloud

“Cloud” is a metaphor of the network, the Internet, “cloud concept” is one of the hottest high-tech concept in recent years, its Internet, efficient, shared and other characteristics, not only profound impact and change our lives, Is also promoting major changes in the military field. In 2013, the US Air Force for the first time the “cloud concept” into the field of operations, put forward the “operational cloud” concept, and quickly get the US Department of Defense, Navy and other military recognition, and gradually become the US military response to the 21st century, a new information war Strategy.

Why –

Intended to build the new US military superiority

In the 21st century, the US military has launched a number of wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria in the name of anti-terrorism and the suppression of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Every time the war is almost entirely dominated by powerful information and firepower, Quickly won the war. But the US military has a clear sense of this: the above war a few US military did not encounter a truly strong opponent, the war in the United States to grasp the absolute air power and the right to information under the low confrontation environment, the future if the loss of absolute space and information advantages , The US military will be difficult to maintain control of the battlefield. The US military believes that if you want to maintain a sustained battlefield advantage in future wars, facing an unprecedented “threat and challenge”:

Rival strong “anti-entry / regional denial” threat. The US military believes that its information in previous local wars, the advantages of firepower, mainly rely on a strong space-based information systems, large-scale maritime combat platform, joint command and control center, etc., and in the “opponents into the area and the ability to continue Enhance the “background, especially in the face of a large number of” precision-guided long-range cruise missiles and ballistic missiles “threat, these traditional strengths and the strength of the US military to rely on these forces formed by the combat style” will not be renewed, “” opponents Can be a small number of key nodes through the attack quickly paralyzed US military combat power system.

The Challenges of Advanced Combat Weapons and Backward Combat. In the new century, after a large number of equipment F-22 advanced stealth fighters, the US military has ushered in F-35 fighters, DDG-1000 missile destroyers, Ford-class aircraft carrier and other highly informative weapons and equipment. But the appearance of the US military command and control, but also remain in the 2003 “free Iraq” action, highly dependent on satellite, early warning aircraft and other core equipment platform “network-centric war” era. Former US Air Force Secretary Mike Wayne exclaimed: “Just as the use of the 20th century mechanized forces in the First World War was fighting in the 19th century, we now have the danger of fighting in the twentieth century in the twentieth century. “The US military in urgent need of new operational theory to activate the new information technology equipment combat potential,” to regain the US military and rival superiority. ”

Combat power to maintain the challenges with the defense budget tightening. In the United States “financial crisis” “debt crisis” and “national security needs continue to grow” and other factors, the US military arms are also caught in financial dilemma. In the same report, the US Air Force is mainly from the old A-10, F-15/16, B-1, B-1, the first deputy chief of staff, 52 aircraft and B-2 and a small number of F-22, F-35, not enough to meet the opponent’s “anti-entry and regional denial” capabilities, and called to “change strategy” to deal with “available for defense resources The proportion of decline “challenge.

These “threats and challenges” that the US military consider themselves are the context of the concept of “operational cloud”.

Core concept –

To achieve a variety of platforms cross-domain joint operations

In the face of these new “threats and challenges”, in January 2013, the US Air Force Air Combat Command Commander Michael Ostić first proposed the “operational cloud” concept program. In 2014, David de Putura on its basis, the “operational cloud” concept of a comprehensive program, pointed out: “similar to the way cloud computing, ‘combat cloud’ is a kind of military air force use Decentralized air combat, in the evolution of the data chain, anti-jamming communication systems and new targeting tools to support the realization of the air, ground, sea and space field information sharing capabilities jump, and thus maximize the stealth aircraft, accurate Combat weapons, advanced command and control systems, and the combined use of unmanned systems to create large, modular and flexible combat capabilities to ensure that enemies’ attacks on single combat units will not paralyze US operations.

In the same year, the United States “Aviation Week” released a “operational cloud” concept map, described by the orbital space reconnaissance / communications / navigation satellites, airborne early warning aircraft, F-15/16 fighter, maritime aviation battle group, and in-depth integrated air defense system F-22/35 stealth fighter, RQ-180 unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, new long-range bomber (LRS-B) and other multi-dimensional combat unit, jointly build the “air superiority cloud” development prospects, more clearly show the US military “combat Cloud “concept of the whole picture.

From the above US military interpretation and description of the concept of “operational cloud”, we can roughly analyze the characteristics of the US military “operational cloud” and its basic ideas to deal with “threats and challenges”

Battlefield information cross – domain integration. “Combat cloud” relying on “evolving data link, anti-jamming communication system” and other advanced battlefield information network, and “new targeting tool” and other new battlefield sensor system, large data and cloud computing and other information network technology support , Will be widely distributed in space, near the space, air, ground, sea and underwater combat platform of the battlefield intelligence information integration, and real-time seamless operation in the various areas of the platform on-demand distribution. “Combat cloud” formed by the “information sharing capabilities”, both to ensure that the US military on the battlefield on demand is highly transparent, but also to avoid the “anti-entry / regional denial” ability of opponents, its space-based information system , Large-scale maritime combat platform, joint command and control center and other key information nodes “break a little, paralysis of a” situation. The US military envisages that in the “battle cloud” system, the absence of any one or more battlefield nodes will not decisively influence the sharing and distribution of information on the unity of its battlefield.

Group strength distribution operations. With the traditional combat forces of the air forces according to the platform attribute classification allocation, according to the administrative means of combining different ways, “combat cloud” through the “continuous evolution of the data chain, anti-jamming communication system”, the arms of the air force to ” Decentralized air combat form “, according to real-time task requirements, online optimization configuration combination, the formation of” modular “group strength. Each group of forces in a highly integrated cross-domain integration of information support, through the “operational cloud” system of efficient scheduling and control, distribution operations. This group of forces distribution mode of operation, not only inherited the “network-centric war” to obtain the advantages of information, and further developed from the information to the fire distribution, target damage transformation advantages, significantly reduced the combat ” – Review “cycle chain, comprehensively enhance the combat effectiveness of US military information equipment.

Cross – platform platform synergies. Through the “battle cloud” battlefield information cross-domain integration capabilities, three generations of four generations of combat platform to gain dive into the enemy of the five generations of stealth combat platform, unmanned combat platform target information, to achieve an effective blow to the depth of the battlefield; But also to get three generations of four generations of combat platform for long-range fire support, to make up for their own lack of volatility. “Combat cloud” of this inter-generation platform synergies, is considered the US military to deal with “power and financial dilemma” an important means. In September 2014, the outgoing Michael Ostić at the annual meeting of the American Air Force Association made it clear that the US Air Force did not have enough budget to form a full five fleet, to fulfill the role of the Air Force, the highest priority The task is to achieve the “four generations and five generations” of information fusion, collaborative operations.

Development status –

Is changing from concept to actual action

As soon as possible to the “operational cloud” concept program into a practical state, in the United States Department of Defense co-ordination and traction, the US military arms and arms are in line with their own military functions and equipment characteristics, to promote their own “combat cloud” project construction and experiment verification.

Ministry of Defense steadily traction “cloud” infrastructure and conceptual improvement. As early as 2009, the US Department of Defense proposed a concept of data sharing at sea, air and space, and tried to apply the increasingly sophisticated Internet technology to tactical intelligence. In July 2012, the US Department of Defense Chief Information Officer signed the “Ministry of Defense cloud computing strategy” to the military strategy in the form of advancing the process, and continued to carry out “cloud” related storage facilities, computing platform and software services. At present, the US Department of Defense has identified this concept as a “war cloud”, and from the arms and arms, industrial sector and academia deployed personnel, work together to create a perfect “combat cloud” concept program, the ultimate goal is to form an arch Data network, expansion and upgrading of the existing “global information grid” to achieve the maritime warships, combat aircraft, space satellite real-time data sharing.

Each army and arms competing to carry out “combat cloud” project construction. The Air Force is the pioneer of the concept of “operational cloud”, which argues that the key to achieving the “operational cloud” is information fusion and the focus of the “Sky Advantage Cloud” on F-15/16 and F-22/35 Five generations of information on the exchange of information. In 2014, the “Multi-Domain Adaptive System (MAPS) Program” was launched to attempt to integrate the F16-16 Link16 data link, the F-22 IFDL data link, and the F-35’s MADL data link to achieve battlefield data Real-time exchange. US Navy also through the “Naval Integrated Fire Control and Air Defense (NIFC-CA) program” to achieve its use of air E-2D early warning aircraft or sea “Aegis” ship and other combat platforms for the F / A-18E / F and F- 35C and other carrier-based aircraft and the “standard” series of ship-to-air missiles to provide targeted information, and even command the future of the sixth generation F / A-XX multi-purpose fighter aircraft to launch weapons vision. Although the Navy project is not called “combat cloud” due to military interests, the project emphasizes multi-platform information cross-domain integration has a typical “cloud” features. In addition, the US Marine Corps also launched the implementation of its “expeditionary combat sea tactical cloud” project construction.

“Combat cloud” combat mode test verification has been in full swing. September 23, 2014, the US Air Force F-22 for the first time led the joint air raid fleet, the Syrian territory of the “Islamic countries” extreme organizational goals of air strikes. After the completion of the task, when the US Air Operations Commander Mike Hustage in an interview with “defense headlines”, said, “generally believed that stealth is a symbol of the five generations of machines, in fact, the focus is on ‘integration’,” Fusion “makes the F-22 fundamentally different from other platforms,” ​​”Fusion” is the fundamental feature of the five generations of machines, “” Five generations of machines in front of reconnaissance detection targets, and then let four generations of machines in the area to fight it, you must have ‘combat Cloud ‘, which has the ability to transfer data back and forth. ” The position, but also directly proved that the US Air Force is actively against the “combat cloud” combat mode to carry out actual test verification.

(Author: Air Force Military Theory Institute)

Edit comments

Jump on the “cloud” end of the wind and thunder

Huyongbo

When we shop online, the website will be based on the previous shopping records to determine our purchase preferences, push a lot of commodity information; when we browse the news, the software will be based on our reading habits, “good” Directional push content topic … … these phenomena are that we have come to a cloud computing era.

“Combat cloud” reason to enter our topic vision, not only because it frequently appeared in the latest US combat theory, everywhere revealed against the “system of combat” thinking, more importantly, it represents the US military cloud computing used in the field of military the latest achievements, reflecting the US military use of scientific and technological achievements to maximize the effectiveness of combat a train of thought.

Like many high-tech, cloud computing first appeared in the commercial field. In August 2006, Google CEO Eric Schmidt first proposed the “cloud computing” concept. Soon, the US military on this new technology showed a strong interest. In 2008, the US Department of Defense and Hewlett-Packard Company to establish a cloud computing infrastructure. Then, the United States air, sea, land and other military services are signed with commercial companies related to cloud computing systems. The US military’s passion for cloud computing has a strong background in the field of information technology, but it also reflects their keen sense of smell and rapid transformation of the latest cutting-edge technology.

In attending the plenary session of the PLA delegation at the Second Session of the 12th National People’s Congress, the Chairman stressed that “it is necessary to take the initiative to discover, cultivate and use the cutting-edge technology that can serve the national defense and army building to capture the potential growth point of military capability development”. Obviously, to promote the field of cloud computing military and civilian collaboration innovation, we are promising. Because, compared to the United States and other developed countries in the field of cloud computing development, China is not backward, some domestic companies have a more mature use of experience. The key is how to combine our military reality, to achieve the transformation of cloud computing technology in the military field.

Of course, we develop the use of cloud computing technology, we must learn from the experience of foreign troops, but not step by step also cloning. The practice of the US military is only to provide a model used. In the era of information revolution boom, through the core key technological breakthrough is possible to achieve “corner overtaking”. Dare to hit the water flow, Fang Xian hero character.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

“雲”是對網絡、互聯網的一種比喻說法,“雲概念”則是近年來最火的高科技概念之一,其互聯、高效、共享等特質,不但深刻影響和改變著我們的生活,也正在推動軍事領域的重大變革。 2013年,美空軍首次將“雲概念”引入作戰領域,提出“作戰雲”概念,並迅速得到美國防部、海軍及其他軍種的認可,逐漸成為美軍應對21世紀下一場信息化戰爭的新方略。

緣何提出——

意在打造美軍新的跨代優勢

進入21世紀,美軍先後以反恐和製止大規模殺傷性武器擴散等名義在阿富汗、伊拉克、利比亞和敘利亞發動多場戰爭,每次戰爭美國幾乎都憑藉強大的信息、火力優勢,完全掌控戰場局面,快速取得戰爭勝利。但美軍高層對此有著清醒意識:以上幾場戰爭美軍並未遇到真正強大的對手,戰爭在美軍掌握絕對製空權和製信息權的低對抗環境下進行,未來倘若喪失絕對的空天和信息優勢,美軍將很難保持對戰場的控制。美軍認為,若想在未來戰爭中保持持續的戰場優勢,面臨著前所未有的“威脅和挑戰”:

對手強大“反進入/區域拒止”能力的威脅。美軍認為,其在歷次局部戰爭中所仰仗的信息、火力優勢,主要依托強大的天基信息系統、大型海上作戰平台、聯合指揮控制中心等獲得,而在“對手反進入與區域拒止能力不斷提升”的背景下,尤其是面對大量“精確制導遠程巡航導彈和彈道導彈”威脅,這些傳統的優勢力量,以及美軍依托這些優勢力量所形成的作戰樣式“都將不可續存”,“對手可以通過對少數關鍵節點的攻擊迅速癱瘓美軍的作戰力量體系”。

先進作戰武器與落後作戰方式的挑戰。進入新世紀,在大量裝備F-22先進隱身戰機後,美軍又先後迎來F-35戰機、DDG-1000導彈驅逐艦、福特級航母等高度信息化武器裝備。但綜觀美軍的作戰指揮與控制,還停留在2003年“自由伊拉克”行動時,高度依賴衛星、預警機等核心裝備平台的“網絡中心戰”時代。美國前空軍部長麥克·韋恩就驚呼:“正如第一次世界大戰使用20世紀的機械化部隊卻在以19世紀的方式作戰,我們現在同樣存在以20世紀的方式在21世紀作戰的危險。 ”美軍急需新的作戰理論來激活新型信息化裝備的作戰潛能,“重拾美​​軍與對手的跨代優勢”。

作戰力量保持與國防預算緊縮的挑戰。在美國“金融危機”“債務危機”和“國家安全需求不斷增長”等多重因素影響下,美軍各軍兵種也陷入財政窘境。美空軍前情報主管、第一副參謀長大衛·德普圖拉在一份報告中指出,目前美軍空中力量主要由老舊的A-10、F-15/16、B-1、B- 52飛機和B-2以及少量的F-22、F-35組成,不足以應對21世紀對手的“反進入與區域拒止”能力,並呼籲要“改變方略”以應對“可用於國防的資源比重下降”的挑戰。

美軍自認為的這些“威脅和挑戰”,正是其提出“作戰雲”概念的背景。

核心理念——

實現多種平台跨域聯合作戰

面對這些新的“威脅和挑戰”,2013年1月,美空軍空中作戰司令部司令邁克爾·奧斯蒂奇首次提出“作戰雲”概念方案。 2014年,大衛·德普圖拉在其基礎上,對“作戰雲”概念方案進行了全面闡述,指出:“類似於雲計算的方式,’作戰雲’是一種各軍種的空中力量採用分散的空中作戰形式,在不斷進化的數據鏈、抗干擾通信系統和新的瞄準工具等支持下,實現空中、地面、海上和太空領域信息共享能力的躍升,進而最大程度地發揮隱身飛機、精確打擊武器、先進指揮與控制系統以及有人與無人系統結合的優勢,創造出規模化、模塊化的靈活作戰能力,並以此確保敵人對單一作戰單元的攻擊不會癱瘓美軍的作戰行動。”

同年,美國《航空周刊》發布了“作戰雲”構想圖,描述了由在軌太空偵察/通信/導航衛星,空中預警機、F-15/16戰鬥機,海上航空戰鬥群,與深入對方綜合防空系統區的F-22/35隱身戰機、RQ-180無人偵察機、新型遠程轟炸機(LRS-B)等多維作戰單元,共同構建的“空中優勢雲”發展遠景,更加清晰地展現了美軍“作戰雲”概念全貌。

從以上美軍對於“作戰雲”概念的闡釋和描述,我們可以粗略探析美軍“作戰雲”的特徵和其應對“威脅和挑戰”的基本思路:

戰場信息跨域融合。 “作戰雲”依托“不斷進化的數據鏈、抗干擾通信系統”等先進的戰場信息網絡,和“新的瞄準工具”等新型戰場傳感系統,在大數據和雲計算等信息網絡技術的支撐下,將廣泛分佈於太空、臨近空間、空中、地面、海上和水下各域作戰平台的戰場情報信息一體融合,並實時無縫地在各域作戰平台按需分發。 “作戰雲”所形成的這種“信息共享能力”,既保證了美軍對戰場的按需高度透明,同時也避免了具備“反進入/區域拒止”能力的對手,對其天基信息系統、大型海上作戰平台、聯合指揮控制中心等關鍵信息節點“破一點、癱一片”的局面。美軍設想,在“作戰雲”體系中,任何一個和多個戰場節點的缺失,都不會決定性地影響其戰場統一態勢信息的共享和分發。

群組力量分佈作戰。與傳統作戰各軍兵種空中力量按平台屬性分類編配、按行政手段組合的方式不同,“作戰雲”通過“不斷進化的數據鏈、抗干擾通信系統”,將各軍兵種的空中力量以“分散的空中作戰形式”,根據實時任務需求,在線優化配置組合,形成“模塊化”的群組力量。各群組力量在高度一體跨域融合的信息支撐下,通過“作戰雲”體系的高效調度和管控,分佈實施作戰。這種群組力量分佈作戰的模式,既繼承了“網絡中心戰”獲取信息的優勢,又進一步發展了從信息向火力分配、目標毀傷轉化的優勢,大幅縮減了作戰的“偵-控-打-評”週期鏈,全面提升了美軍信息化裝備的作戰效能。

跨代平台協同增效。通過“作戰雲”的戰場信息跨域融合能力,三代四代作戰平台能夠獲得潛入敵縱深的五代隱身作戰平台、無人作戰平台的目標指示信息,實現對縱深戰場的有效打擊;五代隱身作戰平台也能夠獲得三代四代作戰平台的遠程火力支援,彌補自身載彈量不足的劣勢。 “作戰雲”的這種跨代平台協同增效,被認為是美軍應對“力量與財務困局”的重要手段。 2014年9月,即將離任的邁克爾·奧斯蒂奇在美國空軍協會年會上明確表示,美國空軍沒有足夠的預算來組建一支全五代機隊,要履行好空軍的職能,最優先的任務是實現“四代與五代”的信息融合、協同作戰。

發展現狀——

正在由概念向實戰行動轉變

為盡快地將“作戰雲”概念方案轉化到實用狀態,在美國防部的統籌和牽引下,美軍各軍兵種都在結合自身軍種職能和裝備特色,推進自己的“作戰雲”項目建設和實驗驗證。

國防部穩步牽引“雲”基礎建設和概念完善。早在2009年,美國防部就提出了覆蓋海上、空中、太空的數據共享概念,嘗試將日益成熟的互聯網技術應用到戰術情報領域。 2012年7月,美國防部首席信息官簽署了《國防部雲計算戰略》,以軍隊戰略的形式推進這一進程,並持續穩步開展“雲”相關的存儲設施、計算平台和軟件服務建設。目前,美國防部已將這一概念確定為“作戰雲”,並分別從各軍兵種、工業部門和學術界抽調人員,共同著力塑造完善“作戰雲”概念方案,最終目標是要形成一個拱形數據網絡,擴展升級現有“全球信息柵格”,實現海上戰艦、作戰飛機、空間衛星的實時數據共享。

各軍兵種爭相開展“作戰雲”項目建設。美空軍是“作戰雲”概念的先行者,其認為實現“作戰雲”的關鍵是信息融合,並將“空中優勢雲”的重點放在F-15/16等四代機與F-22/35五代機的信息互通上。 2014年啟動了“多域自適應系統(MAPS)計劃”,企圖將F-15/16的Link16數據鏈、F-22的IFDL數據鏈、F-35的MADL數據鏈有機融合,實現戰場數據的實時交換。美海軍也在通過“海軍綜合火控與防空(NIFC-CA)計劃”,實現其用空中E-2D預警機或海上“宙斯盾”艦等作戰平台,為F/A-18E/F和F- 35C等艦載機及“標準”系列艦空導彈提供瞄准信息,甚至指揮未來第六代F/A-XX多用途戰鬥機發射武器的願景。雖然由於軍種利益,海軍項目並不叫“作戰雲”,但其項目強調的多平台信息跨域融合具有典型的“雲”特徵。此外,美海軍陸戰隊也啟動實施了其“遠征作戰海上戰術雲”項目建設。

“作戰雲”作戰模式檢驗驗證已經全面展開。 2014年9月23日,美空軍F-22首次率領聯合空襲機群,對敘利亞境內的“伊斯蘭國”極端組織目標實施空襲作戰。任務完成後,時任美軍空中作戰司令部司令麥克·侯斯塔奇在接受《防務頭條》採訪時,表示“一般認為隱身是五代機的標誌,其實不然,重點在於’融合’”,“’融合’使得F-22與其他平台根本不同”,“’融合’是五代機的根本特徵”,“五代機在前方偵察探測目標,然後讓四代機在防區外打擊它,你必須擁有’作戰雲’,其擁有將數據來回傳輸的能力”。這次表態,也直接證明了美空軍正在積極針對“作戰雲”作戰模式開展實戰性檢驗驗證。

(作者單位:空軍軍事理論研究所)

編輯點評

躍上“雲”端觀風雷

侯永波

當我們在網上購物時,網站會根據以往的購物記錄來判斷我們的購買偏好,推送大量的商品信息;當我們在瀏覽新聞時,軟件同樣會根據我們的閱讀習慣,“投其所好”地定向推送內容話題……這些現像都說明,我們已經來到了一個雲計算時代。

“作戰雲”之所以進入我們的選題視野,不僅僅是因為它頻繁地出現於美軍最新的作戰理論中,處處透露著對抗消解“體系破擊戰”的思維,更重要的是它代表著美軍把雲計算運用於軍事領域的最新成果,反映出美軍運用科技成果最大限度提高作戰效能的一種思路。
像很多高新技術一樣,雲計算最早出現在民用商業領域。 2006年8月,谷歌首席執行官埃里克·施密特首次提出“雲計算”概念。很快,美軍就對這種新技術表現出濃厚興趣。 2008年,美國防部與惠普公司合作建立了一個雲計算基礎設施。緊接著,美國空、海、陸等各軍種都與商業公司簽約設計相關雲計算系統。美軍對雲計算技術的熱情擁抱,有其在信息技術領域處於領先地位的大背景,但同時也反映了他們對最新前沿科技的敏銳嗅覺以及迅速的轉化運用能力。

習主席在出席十二屆全國人大五次會議解放軍代表團全體會議時強調,“要主動發現、培育、運用可服務於國防和軍隊建設的前沿尖端技術,捕捉軍事能力發展的潛在增長點”。顯然,推進云計算領域的軍民協同創新,我們是大有可為的。因為,相比美國等發達國家在雲計算領域的發展,我國並不落後,國內一些公司已經有著較為成熟的運用經驗。關鍵是如何結合我軍實際,來實現雲計算技術在軍事領域的轉化運用。

當然,我們發展運用雲計算技術,須藉鑑外軍的經驗,但絕非亦步亦趨克隆。美軍的做法只是提供了運用的一種模式。在信息革命大潮雲湧的時代,通過核心關鍵性技術突破是有可能實現“彎道超車”的。敢於擊水中流,方顯英雄本色。

Original Source:

2017年03月21日09:52  来源:解放军报

中國軍方解釋了美軍演習在網絡戰中的作用 ~ China Military Explains Role of US Military Theater Operations in Network War

中國軍方解釋了美軍演習在網絡戰中的作用 ~ China Military Explains Role of US Military Theater Operations in Network War

Who is responsible for configuring the information resources owned by the United States? Who is responsible for assigning these resources to use the priority order? What measures have we taken to ensure that the Global Information Grid (GIG), the Independent Joint Service System, and the GCCs: Geographic Combatant Commanders (GCCs) and Global Network Associations (GCCs), which rely on information from them, Trojans (JTF-GNO: Joint Task Force-Global NetOps) security? In recent years, the entire network combat system on the discussion of these issues has not been suspended, the focus of debate is the theater operations in the network operations should play what role.

The US military has announced the deployment of the war command for each theater, and also announced that it would reduce military support in the cross-border areas. For each theater combat command, how to configure the information infrastructure to support the war in the theater has become very important. The enemy may be infiltrated into the critical network system area responsible for military power dispatch, which is often underestimated and even treated as an accident or incidental event, but these intrusion is virtually Made a connection request to block the normal operation of the commercial website, and even led to some of the military logistics business logistics company was marked as invalid. The theater warfare command should ensure that the information conditions of its zone are not affected by external invasions. Countless viruses are destroying the Internet, the Department of Defense system began to be attacked. It is now under discussion whether the Global Network Joint Task Force should be disconnected from the military network on the Internet, but the military is concerned that with the cooperation of commercial suppliers alone, the Department of Defense can not guarantee that all logistical support operations will continue without error To go on. Each theater combat command is not sure about the state of the theater itself, and they are skeptical about the security of the global information grid itself, and they are concerned about their ability to carry out the tasks assigned to it.

(STRATCOM) and the global network of joint contingents in the network operations in the dominant ideology of the impact of the theater operations headquarters of its command and control of the zone has a more global network of operations control institutions to strengthen the United States Strategic Command Weakened. The focus on the operational information grid to the global information grid has also affected, to a certain extent, the battlefield operations command of the global information grid is how to support the theater of the specific behavior of the understanding. This article will introduce the existing command relationship, the war between the theater operations command, the direct relationship between command and combat, the old and emerging joint operational principles of a special case analysis, and finally will be the theater combat command In the network operations should play the role of the proposed recommendations.

Network combat environment

The command and control in cyber warfare is a concept that appeared ten years ago, and its connotation has been evolving. Each of the relevant departments, the theater operations headquarters and the global network of joint contingents have carried out some organizational structure and work focus on the adjustment, but ultimately did not solve their respective roles should play this issue. To really understand why the role of theater warfare in cyber operations will be a problem, it is necessary to clarify the question: where is cyber warfare, what is real cyber warfare, and every What is the organizational structure and command and control structure of the department?

The first thing to explain is, what is the global information grid? According to the definition of Ministry of Defense No. 8100.1, it includes “global interconnection, terminal-to-terminal information transmission capability and joint processing capability.” Ability to collect, process, store, transmit and manage information according to the needs of warriors and policy makers ” This covers government and leased communications information systems and services, as well as other software, security and service support required for global information grids, as well as the Clinger- The National Security System, as defined in Section 5142 of the Cohen Act. According to this definition, the global information grid contains all levels of information systems from the Department of Defense and the national security system, from the tactical level to the strategic level, as well as the interconnected communication system.

Most of the discussion on the command and control of the Global Information Grid Network Operations Center focuses on the defense capabilities of the system, but the content of the network operations is far more than that. The tasks to be accomplished by the network operations include three: departmental management, Content management and network defense, whose purpose is to provide a lack of central support across the boundaries of strategic, tactical and operational concepts, and to support the Department of Defense’s full range of combat, intelligence and mission tasks.

1. Sector management is one of the specific tasks of the global information grid, which is the technology, process and policy management of systems and networks that make up the global information grid, including public sector management, systems management, network management, satellite communications management and Electromagnetic spectrum management of these aspects.

2. Content management refers to managing the information itself in the global information grid. It ensures that information is available to users, operators, and decision makers in real time. Content management includes the search, access, transmission, storage and integration of specific information content of the global information grid.

3. Network defense is the global information grid all the information, including additional information to protect, it mainly includes a number of policies, processes, projects and operations. If necessary, the task can be requested through cross-agency cooperation to complete. It is responsible for the global information grid information security, computer network defense, computer defense response capabilities and critical infrastructure protection.

Now we have learned about the basic organizational structure of the cyber warfare, the next step in the various organizations in the network operations and how they are performing the tasks, which are mainly composed of troops, theater warfare headquarters and global network joint contingents, all of which are With the changes in the battlefield requirements to improve their organizational structure.

The change in the organizational structure of the force is mainly to meet the requirements of the global information grid for information transmission, access, control and protection. Ten years ago, the troops had some changes to regional control in order to adapt to cyber warfare, but those measures eventually developed into centralized controls, and these measures were not preserved. Now it is necessary to understand the composition of the forces in order to better understand why the network operations command and control will become so full of controversy.

GEM: GIG Enterprise Management GCM: GIG Content Management GND: GIG network defense

Army ‘s network operations command and control

The army is the least of all the reforms in the service. The Army continues to hold the previous commander, now known as the Theater Network Operations and Security Centers (TNOSC), which is directly responsible for the various theater war operations. The Army maintains an independent global network operations and security center (GNOSC: Global NetOps and Security Center), all of the battlefield network operations and security centers are its affiliates. The Global Network Operations and Security Center has technical control over the Battlefield Network Operations and Security Center, but the Battlefield Operations and Security Center is also part of the Theater Command and is also managed by the Theater Network Command. A typical example is the Army’s battlefield signal The brigade is managed by the Army Service Component Command.

The Global Network Operations and Security Center provides technical guidance to the network operations forces in each theater. The US Army Network Command and the 9th Signal Command are responsible for the technical and management of the Global Network Operations and Security Center. But in wartime, the Global Network Operations and Security Center was also commanded by the Strategic Command (STRATCOM) as Army Element.

ACERT: Army Computer Emergency Response Unit

AGNOSC: Army Global Network and Security Center

ASCC: Army Army Command

ARSTRAT: Army Strategic Command (Missile Defense and Strategy)

CIO: Chief Information Officer

GCC: Theater Combat Command (Regional Joint Command, Six of the US Army’s Top Ten Command)

INSCOM: Intelligence and Security Command (one of the Army’s reporting units)

JTF-GNO: Joint Task Force – Global Network Operations Command

NETCOM: Army Network War Command

RCERT: Regional Computer Emergency Response Team

STRATCOM: US Strategic Command

TNCC: Theater Network Operations Control Center

TNOCC: Theater Network Operations and Security Center

G6: Army Command Department of Communications

G2 Army Command Information Department

Installation Network Provider

COMMAND – Strategic level operational command

OPCON: Battle (Battle) Command

TACON: tactical control

GS: Global Strike

TECHCON: echelon

ADCON: management control

Air Force ‘s Network Operations Command Control

The Air Force has chosen a different organizational approach to move the focus from the former headquarters of the Network Operations and Security Center (MAJCOM NOSCs) to the Integrated Network Operations and Security Centers (I-NOSCs: Integrated NetOps and Security Centers). Unlike the Army’s Battlefield Network Operations and Security Center, which is managed by the Theater Operations Command, the Air Force’s Integrated Network Operations and Security Center is not affiliated with any theater war command, but only by the Air Force Operations Center (AFNOC : Air Force NetOps Center), which is similar to the Army’s Global Network Operations and Security Center. The Air Force realizes that the Theater Command must have the power to direct direct operations in its zone, and it is necessary to establish a general support relationship between the Air Force Operations Center and the Theater Operations Command, establishing a dedicated link between the two departments unit. In addition, the Air Force has given a command to the establishment of a communications control center in their respective theater areas. These control centers can be used as a shortcut between the Air Force Operations Center and their respective theater operations.

ACC: Air Warfare Center

AFCHQ: Air Force Command

AFNETOPS: Air Force Network Operations Command

ARSTRAT: Air Force Strategic Command Theater Network Operations Control Center

CIO: Chief Information Officer

I-NOSC: Integrated Network Operations and Security Center

GCC: Ibid., Regional Joint Command

JFCC-NW: Network War Joint Function Composition Command

JTF-GNO: Ibid., Joint Task Force – Global Network Operations Command

NCC: Network Control Center

STRATCOM: Ibid., Strategic Command

TNOS: Ibid., Theater Network Operations and Security Center

Naval network operations command control

The Navy and the Air Force, no longer regard the theater as a unit of command. In order to better support global operations, they assisted two existing theater naval warfare centers (RNOSCs) affiliated with the Naval Global Network Operations and Security Center (NAVGNOSC) to assist the original two naval schools in Naples and Bahrain Communication master station (NCTMS: Navy Computer and Telecommunications Master Station). In addition, since most of the Navy’s cyber operations were carried out at sea, they also established Fleet NetOps Centers (FNOCs: Fleet NetOps Centers), echoing the theater and cyber warfare centers located in the United States. The fleet network operations center is the tactical entry point for the fleet to conduct cyber operations, providing network services for audio, video and data for the fleet of the zone, and can be provided when the fleet goes from another area of ​​the fleet network operations center into another area Smooth information transitions. Most unclassified networks are contracted by the US Navy Marine Corps Internet or the US Overseas Overseas Navy Enterprise Network (ONENET: Outside of CONUS Navy Enterprise Network). In order to meet the needs of the battlefield, the Navy established the Overseas Marine Corps Intranet Global Network Operations and Security Center to provide global combat support, as well as the establishment of a war zone network combat and security center of the theater network security center on each Specific battlefield support. There is no subordinate relationship between the Theater Network Operations and Security Center and the theater operations headquarters in the theater.

Fleet NOC: Fleet Network Operations Center

GCC: Ibid., Regional Joint Command

INSCON: Ibid., Army Intelligence and Security Command

JTF-GNO: Ibid., Joint Task Force – Global Network Operations Command

NAVGNOSC: Navy Global Network Operations and Security Center

NAVSOC: Navy Satellite Operations Center

NCC MHQ: Navy Network Operations Information Operations and Space Warfare Center

NMCI GNOC: Maritime Network Global Network Operations Center

RNOSC: ibid, regional network operations center

STRATCOM: Ibid., Strategic Command

TNCC: Ibid., Theater Network Operations Control Center

Navy Global Network Operations and Security Center (NAVGNOSC) and the East and West Regional Network Operations and Security Center (East and West RNOSCs), which support the most basic organization of global naval operations. The Naval Global Network Operations and Security Center brings together information from the Theater Network Operations and Security Center, the Overseas Marine Corps Intranet and the Naval Satellite Operations Center to provide global command and control information for the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force. Unlike the Navy and the Army, they did not maintain a body belonging to the Theater Command. The support relationship between the forces established by the Joint Operations Task Force of the Global Network Operations and the Theater Warfare Command did not give the theater war command the power to command the Naval Department’s global information grid. All command requests of the Theater Warfare Command must be approved by the Navy’s Global Network Operations and Security Center.

Command and Control of Theater Combat Command

Although each theater combat command in their respective jurisdictions for network operations are not the same way, but they have a common feature, that is, have established a theater network operations control center and a subordinate to the defense information system (DISA: Defense Information Systems Agency) of the theater network operations center. (CENTCOM) will be the theater network operations control center and the Defense Information Systems Agency’s theater network operations center known as the Central Theater Network Operations Center (Central Region Theater NetOps), the Central Commander of the Central Theater, Center, and the European Command (EUCOM) has established a Theater Communication Control Center (Theater Communication Control Center). Although there are some differences in the organization, but all the theater network operations control center are basically used by the theater combat command for the area of ​​the global information grid command control (area of ​​the global information grid is also known as the theater Information Grid TIG: Theater Information Grid).

The Theater Operations Command has optimized the configuration and control of the information resources of the global information grid through the Theater Network Operations Control Center to enable them to better serve the battle, while the Theater Network Operations Control Center is also connected to the Defense Information Systems Authority, the regular forces and the global Joint Operations of the Network Operations Joint Task Force. They collaborated with the Theater Network Warfare Center, the Theater Network Operations and Security Center to monitor the status of the theater information grid, to decide on the proposed global operations of the Joint Operations Task Force, and to assess the impact of its actions. The Theater Network Warfare Control Center has the right to decide on the reduction and termination of combat operations and to adjust the priority of operations through the Theater Network Operations Center and the Theater Network Operations and Security Center. If there is no theater network operations and security center in the theater, the theater network operations control center under the Global Network Operations and Security Center tie is responsible for completing the mission required by the Theater Operations Command.

The North North Command (NORTHCOM) is a rather special sector, although it is a theater warfare command with a clear zone, but most of its troops in the zone – including cyber combat troops – are not affiliated with the commander , But belong to the United States Joint Forces Command (JFCOM: Join Forces Command). This deployment is intended to facilitate the global management of the force. The North Command, like several other theater warfare commanders, also set up a theater network operations control center, but did not establish a theater network operations and security center, which makes the North Command must rely on network operations and security centers and other departments for its Provide general support. In this case, the role of the North Command is to be responsible for the operations within its jurisdiction, but also the lack of understanding of the corresponding battlefield information grid, and no direct control of its power.

Strategic Command Network Operations Command Control

With the troops fighting command on the network combat structure to adjust the same, the Ministry of Defense departments are also undergoing reform. Over the years, the Department of Defense has not had a centralized control of the network operations. But in 1997 when the Department of Defense conducted this attempt to find some of the weaknesses of the network at that time, also came to the “combat command – troops – defense agencies,” this network mode of operation is not suitable for modern battlefield situation The That attempt has led to the formation of a Defense Force (IAA) bureau, which is part of today’s Global Network Operations Joint Task Force, which is responsible for the operation and defense of global information grids.

Global Network Operations Joint Task Force network operations command and control mechanism is also constantly evolving. Prior to the advent of the existing UCP: Unified Command Plan, the command and control of the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force was under the responsibility of the Theater Operations Command, but it proved that it was not conducive to managing all the components in the network, It is also difficult to provide enough information for the global information grid information. The original version of the operational concept of cyber warfare emphasizes the control of the theater operations of the theater in the theater, which was described as follows: “The combat command has the power to command the troops assigned to its zone, Is conducive to the completion of the task, when the combat command feel appropriate, or even adjust the priority of the global information grid.All of these activities should be through the theater network operations center to achieve. “In fact, even the global Event, the initial version of the network combat concept document also provides that the global network operations Joint Task Force needs to be in the theater combat command of the theater network operations control center under the command of combat.

The follow-up version of the operational concept has been adapted to this principle. The control of the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force was moved to a more global command and control structure, through which the overall role of the strategic headquarters, the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force and other forces involved in the network operations Has been strengthened. The operational concept of the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force is subdivided into three environmental operational concepts: global, theater and non-global. What kind of environmental concepts apply to different events depends on the actual impact of the events and the impact of the theater. This form of command and control structure is more suitable for the current network combat diversity characteristics, for different levels of events, theater combat command can take a more flexible response measures, and even at the same time to support and supportive action. In this system, sometimes the process of dealing with the event to go through a complete command system chain, and sometimes you can skip some steps.

Global events

Global events refer to activities or events that clearly affect the preparedness of the entire global information grid, which often requires the concordation of multiple theater combatants to be resolved. Commander of the Strategic Command must have the ability to quickly identify global events and to be able to determine which theater combat operations or other agencies of the Department of Defense will be affected. Global events include fast-spreading network malicious code attacks, satellite communications attacks, and enterprise application attacks that are not limited to single-theater network events.

The Global Strategic Command is a reliable command center with command and command for the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force and the Theater Command. The Global Network Operations Joint Task Force uses its own resources to execute the instructions of the Strategic Command, which can be quickly sent to troops around the world. It is noteworthy that this order is not in the event of transmission to the theater of combat operations.

Although the notion of operational concept conferred the command of the commander of the strategic command worldwide, it did not completely deny the right of the theater war command to be commanded by the assigned joint command. While the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force performs the operational command of the Strategic Command, the Theater Operations Command can also deploy its troops to carry out the corresponding activities. Of course, in accordance with the requirements of the operational concept, the forces under the leadership of the theater operations command must be consistent with the action guidelines of the Joint Operations Task Force under the leadership of the Strategic Command. In fact, according to the historical action log of the Joint Operations Task Force of the Global Network Operations, most of the cyber operations began at the beginning of a small theater, and the Theater Command was always the first unit to deal with these incidents, and If they are handled properly, these theater-level events will not develop into global events.

Theater events

Theater events are those that occur in a battlefield area, and its foreseeable range of influence does not go beyond the theater, and the biggest difference between theater and global events is that. In the event of such incidents, the theater operations headquarters played a leading role, while the strategic headquarters only take the support role. The Global Network Operations Joint Task Force can provide support to the Theater Command by its Theater Network Operations and Security Center. If the local forces do not have a theater network operations and security center, it can also provide general support for the Theater Network Operations Control Center through the Global Network Operations and Security Center. The Command of the Theater Combat Command to the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force is subordinate to the subordinate command, that is to say there is no right to direct the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force through its Global Network Operations and Security Center to operate in its area.

Non-global event

A non-global event is an event that only affects the functional warfare headquarters and a particular defense agency. Since such institutions do not have a clear zone, these events can neither be regarded as global nor can they be seen as theater. In dealing with non-global events, the Strategic Command plays the role of auxiliary command, and the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force provides general support for the operational operational warfare headquarters involved. Most of the non-global events generally occur in the northern command zone, since many of the relevant functional departments are subordinate to the Northern Command. In the case of command and control procedures, non-global events and global events are the same.

Contradictory command and control requirements

Tactical technical requirements

Although the positioning of the various forces are not the same, but in the pursuit of efficient network operations, reasonable combat methods are their common theme. Different forces shoulder different responsibilities, they established an independent combat network, application facilities and auxiliary tools to meet their own and global information grid to maintain connectivity needs. Each unit is responsible for operating part of the global information grid, which to some extent the need for combat operations between the various departments of the centralized management, so as to get the desired combat efficiency and return on investment.

The focus of the discussion on centralized control of global information grids is the global nature of cyber warfare. The only way for the Department of Defense to achieve a network-centric commanding mechanism, to enhance the Force’s awareness of the situation and to significantly shorten the decision-making cycle, is to integrate the network and the forces horizontally, which is a centralized control mechanism The The latest “four-year defense assessment report” mentioned in the “to simplify the current ‘chimney’ system structure, to achieve a network-centric command mechanism.”

In order to make better use of scarce resources, the Department of Defense must consider when and where to allocate resources from a global perspective. The allocation of essential resources for network operations such as satellite transmission bands, standard tactical entry network sites and bandwidth must have clear mission objectives and easy to understand global significance. From the perspective of the force, the centralized command is, to some extent, a reshuffle of the existing force institutions and operations, defense networks.

The combat operations led by the theater war command will no longer be strictly limited to its zone. Ground forces are re-starting to use aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles) to routinely fly in the United States to support their operations. With the development of the PGS: Prompt Global Strike project, the commander has the power to call for conventional strike assistance from weapons systems outside the theater.

On the Navy, they pointed out that one of the essential characteristics of the maritime forces was global mobility, and the naval forces were constantly interspersed between the various theater warheads. Especially as aircraft carrier battle group such units, once deployed, it can not stay in a small battlefield. In addition, even the theater-level operations taken by the theater war command may have a global impact. The adjustment of the network defensive posture may have a huge financial burden on the Internet sector, and the combat command may not be able to understand the specific details of the adjustment behavior.

For the Department of Defense’s network system, all attacks are essentially global in nature. The enemy can not easily from the other side of the Earth to the United States to attack the physical objectives, but in the field of computer network technology, such things happen often. Once such an attack is detected, the information about it must be communicated to all relevant departments in the shortest possible time to ensure that such attacks are identified from anywhere to protect the security of the global information grid. Every time a network intrusion – even if it does not seem to fail the invasion – is likely to give the global information grid content a huge potential harm, because they invade the system behind the back door will be in the future Attack to play a role. The outbreak of the virus is an undisputed global event, and if we do not realize this, we will suffer more losses.

The Navy emphasizes that the impact of no events will be limited to a theater area, and that all efforts to combat cyber operations must be global. Their defense is that there is no theater boundaries, the Department of Defense every battlefield combat headquarters are facing the same potential threat, in order to obtain information on the advantages of the Department of Defense must make full use of its large coverage of the network resources , Quickly share all useful information on a global basis.

In addition, the Air Force and the Navy have pointed out that their cyber warfare forces are not deployed by the Theater Warfare Command. The Air Force and the Navy have their own cyber warfare organizations (such as the Theater Network Operations and Security Center) in each zone of the Theater Command, and the Air Force and Navy’s cyber warfare forces are usually defender in the theater. Finally, the Air Force and the Navy believe that the Strategic Command is responsible for the Global Information Grid through the Theater Operations Command, based on the description of the official documents available for reference.

Theater war command

There are two issues that need to be concerned about the command and control of cyber warfare against the Theater Command. One is the need for timely control of the battlefield information grid, the second is the need to turn the network into a weapon system, so that commanders can be the same as the conventional weapon system to use the same network resources, the use of the full range of network advantages to conduct a comprehensive battle.

Those forces that have been assigned specific responsibilities have already deployed their own unique solutions, each of which is involved in a network operation or each institution believes that it already has the most effective allocation of scarce resources. But the global information grid is not exclusive to a particular department, but a joint structure. “Chimney” type system and the existing deployment of the troops is actually to reduce the efficiency of the battlefield information grid efficiency. For example, the Army developed a secure IP telephony solution before other departments in the Department of Defense to communicate with the secret voice. For security reasons, other departments usually do not use this program, but their own development of a set of the same function of the solution. So there will be two sets of independent, confidential IP voice schemes in the zone of the Combat Command, which can not be connected to each other. The theater warfare command had to be screened, leaving only a set of programs to ensure that all departments in their zones could cooperate with each other. But the solution is eliminated by the party can no longer with the theater outside the brother forces for confidential contact.

Some of the resources in the combat command zone can serve multiple forces and the public sector. However, there are many examples of the use of duplication of work for the establishment of their own can not be linked to each other independent systems, such as satellite terminals and some technical control equipment. Sometimes, to send a message, you need to send the signal back to the United States, and then sent from the local distance from the initial sender only two miles of the recipient there. All kinds of fibers are arranged one by one on the same route, but the data between them can not be exchanged directly because they belong to different forces or public departments. The theater operations command must take measures to address the interconnection between the troops or the civil service in the zone.

To solve this problem, you can use centralized control approach. The centralized command of the cyber warfare forces requires the theater war command to make some adjustments to its own organization, but at the same time it does not affect its power to direct action when there is a need for combat. Relevant forces must accept orders for multiple combat orders and effectively optimize and feedback battlefield information. At present, the troops sent to the front are becoming more and more independent, and through the help of the global information grid they can cross the border of the theater combat command back and forth, and the theater warfare command has been compromised by the support and confrontation of the cyber warfare , After the implementation of centralized command, the troops can not or do not want to respond to the requirements of the theater combat command.

The Pacific Command (PACOM: Pacific Command) first adopted a “joint attempt” approach in humanitarian aid operations when it participated in the Indonesian tsunami relief work in 2004. The Pacific Command issued instructions to the assigned troops to carry out special network defenses under the framework of the entire action plan. Many naval forces and Marine Corps units have established relatively direct network defenses under the centralized command of the Navy’s Global Network Operations Center, which goes beyond the mandate of the Pacific Command to the Navy and Marine Corps, which Posing a potential risk factor for the global operations of the Pacific Command.

The Combat Command is concerned that the idea of ​​centralizing control of global information grids will always reduce their grip on information and control of the global information grid. Under the existing command system, a unit will carry out training or perform other tasks under the command of its troops, and participate in the battle under the command of the theater combat command, and the rules of command and control are very clear. The command and control of the forces in the field of information is as important as their command and control in the air, land, sea and space fields. For the C3S system (control, communications and computer systems), under its command to combat and responsible for the protection of its forces are often in a double or even triple the report chain, the results can not tell who is responsible for the final battle. In a global or non-global event, the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force often conducts direct operations around the theater operations headquarters. Although the operational concept of joint cyber warfare specifically emphasizes the need for coordinated operations with the theater combat command, this requirement has become almost in the context of modern combat rapid changes. Information Security Weakness Alert System, Computer Task Sequence, and Information Condition Adjustment System Problems outside the jurisdiction of the Combat Command are typical examples of this requirement failure. These events directly affect the command of the Theater Command in the battlefield, when the troops want to directly use these mechanisms from the management level to strengthen their own control, they can not determine when and how in the implementation of these Operation, and do not know what impact this will have on the command of the theater combat command, because under current conditions, only the theater combat command has the ability to carry out these operations. When a threat event requires the Air Force’s Space Command to seek the cooperation of the Joint Operations Task Force of the Global Network Operations with Air Force forces, it would bring to the command of the North Command if it did not notify or obtain cooperation with the Northern Command Big trouble.

In the Central Command, due to the lack of adequate control of the network combat forces, resulting in the commander sometimes can not determine whether the network resources are available. The Navy is responsible for operating a large number of battlefield information grids. Navy network combat forces in the operational area are not responsible for the Central Command of the Navy, who only need to report to the Theater Network Operations and Security Center. The central theater’s central theater theater operations center, whose duty is to maintain and direct all the combat operations of the theater operations, but it is not in the naval network combat force report chain, so it is often impossible to get all the battlefield information grid Of the state of affairs, there are already alternatives to deal with this problem, but this can not be said to be a formal solution.

For the North Command, because of the lack of cyber warfare control, they encountered great trouble in the rescue work of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In that operation, the troops’ equipment was transported to the joint warfare zone without permission. Which makes the North Command can not grasp and guide the transfer of materials, but can not coordinate the actions of various forces, which is a multi-directional management and operational issues.

As the various forces advocate the implementation of a centralized command framework centered on the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force, it is necessary to emphasize the fact that the theater commanders are reluctant to see such changes, Some of them are responsible for the strategic headquarters, with the global information grid operating rights and defense rights mechanism. The presence of the Strategic Command has been instrumental in maintaining the command of the theater combat command in combat operations in theater and global events and in enhancing communication between the theater combat command and the Joint Staff.

Combat headquarters and troops want to focus on the network operations from the level of joint operations, but there are several issues that need to be discussed:

Who is responsible for the first leadership?

2. Network operations to focus on what the specific direction of the command to be reflected, the global level, the theater level or what other level?

3. What is the change brought about by this adjustment only when a part of the theater combat command sends a request to the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force or is the theater commander’s complete command and priority in the theater?

Finally, the Theater Command is the body that is ultimately responsible for the President’s mission to complete the military mission in the area, and the troops dispatched to the theater combat command need to complete their respective tasks under their jurisdiction. It is unquestionable that they will still be under the command of the strategic command when the troops advocate the implementation of a global centralized command. But the current global information grid is a key part of the command and control capability of the theater combat command and the commander’s ability to guide the troops. Without a global information grid, the plane can not fly, the ground forces can not move, the ships can not sail, even the satellite can not provide the signal. Commanders need to get the status of the global information grid and control, just as they need to master the position and status of the troops as important. They must grasp the scope, ability and status of the battlefield information grid, and must know how the situation outside the theater will affect the battlefield information grid in the area where the troops are located and must be able to command and optimize the troops to support operations. If we really believe that the speculation of the centralized command will have a better effect, it can not be ignored for the theater war command to retain the appropriate command and control.

Also, as long as the structure of the Theater Command is still preserved, all military missions, including those directed by the Functional Command Command, will inevitably occur in the theater of the Theater Command, as all networks Combat missions must be carried out by an entity unit. At the same time, centralized command is necessary to achieve a network-centric command model and to more effectively defend against attacks. The concept of this centralized command and the command of the theater war command to master and optimize the battlefield information grid is not mutually exclusive.

The way forward

To develop a viable network combat command and control framework, it is necessary to avoid extremes, taking into account the needs of theater warfare headquarters and the need to establish centralized control of global information grids. In the process of the development of the operational concept of joint network operations and the transformation process of network combat forces, the principle of organization needs to play the role of adjusting the interests of all parties. In order to achieve this goal, the Department of Defense should do the following:

1. Create a simple, clear network combat command chain, to ensure that the strategic headquarters of all network operations can be directed. This can solve the problem just mentioned “who is responsible for the first leadership”. Only when the event occurred in a rapidly changing environment, the theater command and control agencies began to play a role. Simple command chain can ensure that troops involved in network operations know who should listen to who should report to whom, in this command chain, must include the theater combat command.

2. The command of the theater war command in its zone can be given:

– to amend the Joint Command plan to clarify the responsibilities of the Theater Operations Command to operate the network in its zone.

– Revise the existing global information grid network operational concept, detailing that those outside the theater network operations and security centers can obtain direct assistance from the World Network Operations and Security Center of the Theater Operations Command.

– All orders for the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force shall be enforced through the Theater Operations Command.

These adjustments ensure that all units in the theater are acting under a single command chain, which is responsible for the strategic headquarters through the Theater Operations Command. This can also solve the North Command should be responsible for the area but did not command the power of the network fighting the embarrassing situation.

3. In each theater combat command, a joint network operations center under the jurisdiction of the Central Command shall be established to integrate the Theater Network Operations Control Center of the Theater Command Command and the Theater Network Operations Center of the Global Network Operations Joint Task Force. As a result, each theater war command will have a joint operations command in the field of computer space, just as in the battlefield of land, sea and air. Any troops outside the Theater Network Operations and Security Center can obtain direct assistance from the Global Network Operations and Security Center of the Joint Network Operations Center.

4. To consolidate the status of the global information grid, the highest control to the strategic headquarters. The development of centralized command is now focused on the command of the forces involved in the network operations, which runs counter to the network-centric command concept. The force-centric “chimney” command system is not conducive to the transmission and processing of information, let us from the “all users to provide the latest and most accurate information” goal farther and farther. In the previous “Goldwater Nichols Defense Ministry Reconstruction Law” report has made it clear that the organization and management and command and control should be controlled by a joint agency.

Concluding remarks

The current centralized command of network operations is an urgent need. Optimizing the network operational command mechanism can help the Department of Defense to improve efficiency, save costs and better allocate scarce resources. More importantly, this allows network combat troops to provide information more quickly and accurately to commanders, which is important in large-scale network operations. The process of centralized command can not affect the efficiency of network combat command and control. This depends on whether the global information grid can provide enough information for all participating units and whether the commander makes full use of the theater information grid to help command operations.

“We have to change the network combat problem discussion and thinking mode, we are in the network” combat “rather than the network” management “, all participating units must ensure that they are ready to war every time to ensure that the network system A decisive weapon system. ” Network operations are a key part of our country’s ability to win war, it can help us provide command and control, shorten the decision-making cycle and adjust the resources of the theater. The Strategic Command has taken a big step in strengthening the concept of cyber warfare, and these efforts need to be continued. The theater warfare command must be an important part of the control and protection of the global information grid to ensure that we can continue to win the network.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

是誰在負責配置美國所擁有的信息資源?誰在負責分配這些資源利用時的優先級順序?我們採取了哪些措施來保證全球信息柵格(GIG:Global Information Grid)、獨立聯合服務系統以及依靠從它們身上獲取信息來開展工作的戰區作戰司令部(GCCs:Geographic Combatant Commanders)和全球網絡聯合特遣部隊(JTF-GNO:Joint Task Force-Global NetOps)的安全?最近幾年以來,整個網絡作戰系統對這些問題的討論一直沒有停息過,人們爭論的焦點就是戰區作戰司令部在網絡作戰中應該扮演什麼樣的角色。

美國軍方公佈了對每個戰區作戰司令部的部署,同時還宣布將會減少跨戰區的軍事支持行動。對每個戰區作戰司令部來說,如何配置支持本戰區作戰的信息基礎設施就變得非常重要了。敵人有可能會滲透進負責軍事力量調度的關鍵網絡系統區域進行破壞,這些入侵的危害常常被低估,甚至被當作意外事件或者偶發事件輕描淡寫地處理掉,但是這些入侵行為實際上完全有可能濫發連接請求來阻塞商業網站的正常運行,甚至導致一些承擔軍隊後勤業務的物流公司被標為無效狀態。戰區作戰司令部應該保證其防區的信息條件不受外部入侵的影響。不計其數的病毒正在破壞著互聯網,國防部的系統也開始遭到攻擊。現在有人在討論是否應該讓全球網絡聯合特遣隊斷開互聯網上的軍事入網點,但軍方又擔心僅靠和商業供應商的合作,國防部不能保證所有的後勤支持行動都能繼續無差錯地進行下去。每個戰區作戰司令部對各自的戰區網絡狀態都不太確定,他們對全球信息柵格本身的安全持有懷疑態度,他們擔心其是否有能力執行分配給它的任務。

受到建立一個更全球化的網絡作戰控制機構、加強美國戰略司令部(STRATCOM)和全球網絡聯合特遣隊在網絡作戰中的主導地位思想的影響,戰區作戰司令部對其防區的指揮控制權有所削弱。將作戰信息集中到全球信息柵格的做法也在一定程度上影響了戰區作戰司令部對全球信息柵格是如何支持該戰區的作戰的具體行為的了解。本文將會介紹現有的指揮關係、戰區作戰司令部的職責、指揮和作戰之間的線性關係、舊有的和新興的聯合作戰原則一級特殊戰例分析,最後還將會對戰區作戰司令部在網絡作戰中所應扮演的角色提出建議。

網絡作戰的環境

網絡作戰中的指揮控制是一個在十年以前就出現了的概念,之後它的內涵一直處在演變之中。每個相關部門、戰區作戰司令部和全球網絡聯合特遣隊都為此進行過一些組織結構和工作重心上的調整,但是最終都沒有解決好各自應該扮演的角色這個問題。要想真正明白為什麼戰區作戰司令部在網絡作戰中的角色會成為一個難題,就必須先弄清楚這幾個問題:網絡作戰是在哪兒發生的、什麼是真正的網絡作戰、網絡作戰中的每個部門的組織結構和指揮控制結構是怎樣的。

首先需要解釋的是,什麼是全球信息柵格?按照國防部第8100.1號文件的定義,它包括“全球互聯的、終端到終端的信息傳輸能力和聯合處理能力。按照戰士、決策者的需要來進行信息採集、處理、儲存、傳播和管理的能力”。這就涵蓋了政府的和租用的通信信息系統及服務,以及全球信息柵格所需的其他軟件、安全和服務支持,還包括1996年3月頒布的《克林格-科恩法》(Clinger- Cohen Act)第5142節所定義的國家安全系統(National Security System)。按照這個定義,全球信息柵格包含了國防部和國家安全系統的所有級別的信息系統,從戰術層次到戰略層次,以及互聯通信系統。

大多數關於全球信息柵格網絡作戰中心的指揮控制的討論都在著重強調該系統的防禦能力,但是網絡作戰包含的內容其實遠不止這點,網絡作戰要完成的任務包括三項:部門管理、內容管理和網絡防禦,其工作目的是提供跨越戰略、戰術和作戰概念邊界的無中心式支持,為國防部的全方位的戰鬥、情報和考察任務提供支持。

1.部門管理是全球信息柵格的具體任務之一,它是對構成全球信息柵格的系統和網絡的技術、過程和政策管理,包括公務部門管理、系統管理、網絡管理、衛星通信管理和電磁光譜管理這幾個方面。

2.內容管理指的是管理全球信息柵格里的信息本身。它用即時的方式保證信息對使用者、操作者和決策者都是可用的。內容管理包括對全球信息柵格的具體信息內容的查找、訪問、傳輸、儲存和一體化。

3.網絡防禦就是對全球信息柵格所有的信息包括附加信息進行保護,它主要包括一些政策、過程、項目和操作。如果有必要的話,該任務可以請求通過跨機構合作來完成。它負責的是全球信息柵格的信息安全、計算機網絡防禦、計算機防衛反應能力和關鍵性基礎設施保護。

現在已經了解了網絡作戰的基本組織結構,下一步介紹網絡作戰中的各個組織和他們是如何執行任務的,需要介紹的主要是部隊、戰區作戰司令部和全球網絡聯合特遣隊,它們都在隨著戰場要求的變化而改進著各自的組織結構。

部隊在組織結構上的改變主要是為了滿足全球信息柵格對信息傳輸、訪問、控制和保護能力的要求。十年之前,部隊為了適應網絡作戰曾針對區域控制進行過一些變革,但那些措施最終發展成了集中化的控制,這些措施也沒有保留下來。現在我們有必要了解一下部隊的組織構成,以便更好地理解為什麼網絡作戰的指揮控制會變得如此充滿爭議。
GEM:GIG企業管理 GCM:GIG內容管理 GND:GIG網絡防禦
陸軍的網絡作戰指揮控制

陸軍是所有軍種中改革措施最少的。陸軍繼續保持著以前的指揮機構,現在叫做戰場網絡作戰與安全中心(TNOSC:Theater NetOps and Security Centers),該組織直接對各個戰區作戰司令部負責。陸軍維持著一個獨立的全球網絡作戰與安全中心(GNOSC:Global NetOps and Security Center),所有的戰場網絡作戰與安全中心都是其下屬機構。全球網絡作戰與安全中心對戰場網絡作戰與安全中心進行技術控制,但是戰場網絡作戰與安全中心同時又隸屬於戰區作戰司令部,也受到戰區網絡司令部的管理,典型的例子就是陸軍的戰場信號旅受陸軍服務組件指揮部的管理。

全球網絡作戰與安全中心對各個戰區的網絡作戰部隊提供技術指導。美國陸軍網絡司令部暨第9信號司令部對全球網絡作戰與安全中心的技術和管理負責。但是在戰時,全球網絡作戰與安全中心又作為陸軍的元素受戰略司令部(STRATCOM)的指揮。
ACERT:陸軍計算機應急響應分隊
AGNOSC:陸軍全球網絡和安全中心

ASCC:陸軍軍種組成司令部

ARSTRAT:陸軍戰略司令部(導彈防禦與戰略)

CIO:首席信息官

GCC:戰區作戰司令部(地區性聯合司令部,美軍十大司令部中的六個)

INSCOM:情報和安全司令部(陸軍直屬報告單位之一)

JTF-GNO:聯合特遣部隊-全球網絡作戰司令部

NETCOM:陸軍網絡戰爭司令部

RCERT:地區性計算機應急響應分隊

STRATCOM:美軍戰略司令部

TNCC:戰區網絡作戰控制中心

TNOCC:戰區網絡作戰和安全中心

G6:陸軍司令部通信部門

G2陸軍司令部情報部門

Installation Network Provider網絡施設提供商

COMMAND—戰略層面作戰指揮

OPCON:作戰(戰役)指揮

TACON:戰術控制

GS:全球打擊

TECHCON:梯隊

ADCON:管理控制

空軍的網絡作戰指揮控制

空軍選擇了一條不同的組織途徑,把重點從以前的一級司令部網絡作戰和安全中心(MAJCOM NOSCs)轉移到了一體化網絡作戰和安全中心(I-NOSCs:Integrated NetOps and Security Centers)。與陸軍的戰場網絡作戰與安全中心受戰區作戰司令部的管理不同的是,空軍的一體化網絡作戰和安全中心並不隸屬於任何一個戰區作戰司令部,而是只受空軍網絡作戰中心(AFNOC :Air Force NetOps Center)的管理,該中心與陸軍的全球網絡作戰和安全中心性質類似。空軍意識到了戰區作戰司令部必須擁有在其防區直接指揮網絡作戰行動的權力,有必要在空軍網絡作戰中心和戰區作戰司令部之間建立起一般支持的關係,建立兩個部門之間的專用聯絡單元。另外空軍方面還賦予了一級司令部在各自的戰區建立通信控制中心的自主權,這些控制中心可以當作空軍網絡作戰中心與各自戰區作戰司令部相互聯繫的快捷通道。
ACC:空戰中心
AFCHQ:空軍組成司令部

AFNETOPS:空軍網絡作戰司令部

ARSTRAT:空軍戰略司令部戰區網絡作戰控制中心

CIO:首席信息官

I-NOSC:集成網絡作戰和安全中心

GCC:同上,地區性聯合司令部

JFCC-NW:網絡戰聯合職能組成司令部

JTF-GNO:同上,聯合特遣部隊-全球網絡作戰司令部

NCC:網絡控制中心

STRATCOM:同上,戰略司令部

TNOS:同上,戰區網絡作戰與安全中心

海軍的網絡作戰指揮控制

海軍和空軍一樣,不再把戰區當作指揮的單位。為了更好地支持全球作戰,他們用隸屬於海軍全球網絡作戰與安全中心(NAVGNOSC)的兩個戰區網絡戰安全中心(RNOSCs)來協助原有的位於那不勒斯和巴林島的兩個戰區海軍計算機與通信主站(NCTMS:Navy Computer and Telecommunications Master Station)。另外,由於海軍的大多數網絡作戰是在海上進行,所以他們還建立了艦隊網絡作戰中心(FNOCs:Fleet NetOps Centers),與位於美國本土的戰區網絡戰安全中心互為呼應。艦隊網絡作戰中心是艦隊進行網絡作戰的戰術切入點,可以為本防區的艦隊提供音頻、視頻和數據等網絡服務,並且可以在艦隊從一個艦隊網絡作戰中心的轄區駛入另一個轄區的時候提供平滑的信息過渡。多數未分類的網絡都是由美國本土的海軍陸戰隊內聯網(NMCI:Navy Marine Corps Internet)或者美國海外的海外海軍企業網絡(ONENET:Outside of CONUS Navy Enterprise Network)負責承包運營的。為了適應戰場的需求,海軍建立了海外海軍陸戰隊內聯網全球網絡作戰與安全中心來提供全球性的作戰支持,同時也建立了隸屬於戰區網絡作戰與安全中心的戰區網絡戰安全中心對各個具體戰場提供支持。戰區網絡作戰與安全中心與所在戰區的戰區作戰司令部並沒有從屬關係。
Fleet NOC:艦隊網絡作戰中心
GCC:同上,地區性聯合司令部

INSCON:同上,陸軍情報和安全司令部

JTF-GNO:同上,聯合特遣部隊-全球網絡作戰司令部

NAVGNOSC:海軍全球網絡作戰和安全中心

NAVSOC:海軍衛星作戰中心

NCC MHQ:海軍網絡作戰信息作戰和太空戰中心

NMCI GNOC:海軍陸戰隊網全球網絡作戰中心

RNOSC:同上,地區性網絡作戰中心

STRATCOM:同上,戰略司令部

TNCC:同上,戰區網絡作戰控制中心

支持全球海軍作戰的最基本的組織的海軍全球網絡作戰與安全中心(NAVGNOSC)和東西部戰區網絡作戰與安全中心(East and West RNOSCs)。海軍全球網絡作戰與安全中心匯集了來自戰區網絡作戰與安全中心、海外海軍陸戰隊內聯網和海軍衛星作戰中心的信息,為全球網絡行動聯合特遣部隊提供全球性的指揮控制信息。海軍和陸軍不同的是,他們沒有維持一個隸屬於戰區作戰司令部的機構。全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊建立的部隊與戰區作戰司令部之間的支持關係並沒有賦予戰區作戰司令部在海軍部負責的全球信息柵格範圍內進行指揮的權力。戰區作戰司令部的所有指揮請求都必須先經過海軍全球網絡作戰與安全中心的批准。

戰區作戰司令部的網絡作戰指揮控制

儘管每個戰區作戰司令部在各自的轄區內針對網絡作戰的組織方式都不盡相同,但是他們卻有一個共同的特點,那就是都建立了一個戰區網絡作戰控制中心和一個隸屬於國防信息系統局(DISA:Defense Information Systems Agency)的戰區網絡作戰中心。各個戰區網絡作戰控制中心的組織結構並不完全相同,美國中央司令部(CENTCOM)將戰區網絡作戰控制中心和國防信息系統局的戰區網絡作戰中心合稱為中央戰區網絡作戰中心(Central Region Theater NetOps Center),而歐洲司令部(EUCOM)則建立了一個戰區通信控制中心(Theater Communication Control Center)。雖然在組織上有些差異,但是所有的戰區網絡作戰控制中心基本上都是被戰區作戰司令部用來對轄區內的全球信息柵格進行指揮控制(轄區內的全球信息柵格也被稱為戰區信息柵格TIG:Theater Information Grid)。

戰區作戰司令部通過戰區網絡作戰控制中心來優化配置和控制全球信息柵格的信息資源,以使它們更好地為戰鬥服務,同時戰區網絡作戰控制中心也是連接國防信息系統局、常規部隊和全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的戰區接口。他們與戰區網絡戰中心、戰區網絡作戰和安全中心合作來監控戰區信息柵格的狀態,對被提議的全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊相關行動作出決定,並評估其行動的影響。戰區網絡戰控制中心對作戰行動力度的減小和終止有決定權,並且通過戰區網絡作戰中心和戰區網絡作戰與安全中心來調整作戰的優先級。如果該戰區沒有戰區網絡作戰與安全中心,那麼就由全球網絡作戰與安全中心領帶下的戰區網絡作戰控制中心來負責完成戰區作戰司令部所要求的任務。

美國的北方司令部(NORTHCOM)是一個比較特別的部門,雖然它是一個有著明確防區的戰區作戰司令部,但是其防區內的大部分部隊——包括網絡作戰部隊——都不隸屬於該司令部,而是屬於美國聯合部隊司令部(JFCOM:Join Forces Command)。這樣的部署是為了便於部隊的全球性管理。北方司令部和其他幾個戰區作戰司令部一樣,也設立了戰區網絡作戰控制中心,但是卻沒有建立戰區網絡作戰與安全中心,這就使得北方司令部必須依靠網絡作戰與安全中心等部門為其提供一般支持。在這種情況下,北方司令部所扮演的角色就是需要負責其轄區內的作戰行動,但是又對相應的戰場信息柵格缺乏了解,更沒有直接控制它的權力。

戰略司令部網絡作戰指揮控制

與部隊戰鬥司令部對網絡作戰結構進行調整一樣,國防部的相關部門也在進行著改革。多年以來,國防部一直沒有一個集中控制的網絡作戰部。但是在1997年的時候國防部進行過這方面的嘗試,發現了一些當時網絡的弱點,也得出了“作戰司令部-部隊-國防機構”這種網絡作戰的模式已經不適合現代的戰場情況。那次嘗試促成了國防信息系統局最終組建了一支實體部隊,也就是今天的全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊來負責全球信息柵格的操作和防禦。

全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的網絡作戰指揮控制機制同樣也在不斷發展。在現有的聯合司令部計劃(UCP:Unified Command Plan)出現之前,全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的指揮控制都是由戰區作戰司令部負責,但是事實證明這不利於管理網絡中的所有組件,也難以為全球信息柵格提供足夠的事態感知信息。最初版本的網絡作戰的作戰概念比較強調戰區作戰司令部對其防區的網絡作戰的控制,當時對處理戰區問題的描述是這樣的:“作戰司令部有權指揮被指派到其防區的部隊,只要是利於任務的完成,在作戰司令部覺得合適的時候,甚至可以調整全球信息柵格的優先級。所有的這些活動,都應該通過戰區網絡作戰中心來實現。”事實上,即使是全球性的事件,最初版本的網絡作戰概念文件也規定全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊需要在戰區作戰司令部的戰區網絡作戰控制中心指揮下進行作戰。
作戰概念的後續版本對這項原則進行了調整。對全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的控制被移到了一個更加全球化的指揮控制架構中,通過這樣的調整,戰略司令部、全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊和其他參與網絡作戰的部隊的整體角色都得到了加強。全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的作戰概念被細分成了三個環境作戰概念:全球性的、戰區性的和非全局性的。不同的事件適用何種環境概念取決於事件造成的實際影響和戰區影響。這種形式的指揮控制結構更加適用於目前網絡作戰多樣性特性,針對不同級別的事件,戰區作戰司令部可以採取更加靈活的應對措施,甚至可以同時展開支持性的和輔助性的行動。在這種制度下,有時候處理事件的過程要經過完整的指揮系統鏈,有時候可以跳過一些步驟。

全球性事件

全球性事件是指那些顯而易見會影響整個全球信息柵格的備戰度的活動或事件,這類事件通常需要多個戰區作戰司令部的協同處理才能得到解決。戰略司令部的指揮官必須要具備快速鑑別全球性事件的能力,並要能具體判斷出有哪些戰區作戰司令部或者國防部的其他機構會受到影響。全球性事件包括快速傳播的網絡惡意代碼攻擊、衛星通信攻擊、企業應用攻擊等不僅僅局限於單個戰區的網絡事件。

全球戰略司令部是一個可靠的指揮中心,它對全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊和戰區作戰司令部都有命令和指揮權。全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊利用自己的資源來執行戰略司令部的指示,作戰命令可以很快地發送到在全球各地的部隊中。值得注意的是,這種命令在傳遞時不經過事件發生地的戰區作戰司令部。

雖然作戰概念的原則賦予了戰略司令部指揮官全球範圍內的指揮權,但是這也並沒有完全否定戰區作戰司令部可以通過分配的聯合司令部計劃來進行指揮的權利。在全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊執行戰略司令部的作戰命令的同時,戰區作戰司令部也可以調遣其麾下的部隊進行相應的活動。當然,按照作戰概念的要求,戰區作戰司令部領導下的部隊的行動必須與戰略司令部領導下的全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的行動方針保持一致。事實上,據全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的歷史行動日誌記載,大多數的網絡作戰一開始都是在小範圍戰區開始出現的,戰區作戰司令部總是著手處理這些事件的第一單位,而且如果處理得適當的話,這些戰區級別的事件就不會發展成全球性事件。

戰區性事件

戰區性事件是指那些發生在某個戰場區域,其可預見的影響範圍不會超出該戰區的事件,戰區性事件與全球性事件的最大區別也就在於此。在處理這類事件的時候,戰區作戰司令部起著主導作用,而戰略司令部只承擔輔助的支持作用。全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊可以通過其戰區網絡作戰與安全中心對戰區作戰司令部提供支援。如果當地的部隊沒有戰區網絡作戰與安全中心,那也可以通過全球網絡作戰與安全中心為戰區網絡作戰控制中心提供一般支持。戰區作戰司令部對全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的指揮屬於次級指揮,也就是說沒有權利通過全球網絡作戰與安全中心來直接調動全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊到其所轄區域進行作戰。

非全局性事件

非全局性事件是指只對職能作戰司令部和特定的國防機構造成影響的事件。由於這類機構沒有明確的防區,所以這些事件既不能被看成全球性的也不能被看成戰區性的。在處理非全局性事件時,戰略司令部扮演輔助指揮的角色,全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊對所涉及到的職能作戰司令部提供一般支持。大多數的非全局性事件一般都發生在北方司令部的防區,因為很多相關的職能部門都隸屬於北方司令部。在指揮控制的程序方面,非全局性事件和全球性事件是相同的。

相互矛盾的指揮控制要求

戰術技術的要求

儘管各個部隊的定位不盡相同,但是在網絡作戰中追求高效、合理的作戰方法是他們共同的主題。不同的部隊肩負著不同的職責,他們建立了獨立的作戰網絡、應用設施和輔助工具來滿足自身與全球信息柵格保持聯通的需求。每支部隊都要負責操作一部分全球信息柵格,這在一定程度上需要各部隊間作戰鏈的集中化管理,這樣才能獲得所期待的作戰效率和投入回報率。

關於對全球信息柵格進行集中化控制討論的焦點是網絡作戰的全球性特質。國防部想要實現以網絡為中心的指揮機制、增強部隊的事態感知能力和顯著縮短決策週期的目標的話,唯一的方法就是將網絡和部隊進行橫向的融合,這是一種集中化的控制機制。最新的一份《四年防務評估報告》裡就提到過“要簡化目前的‘煙囪式’系統結構,實現以網絡為中心的指揮機制”。

為了更好地利用緊缺資源,國防部必須從全球性的角度來考慮何時何地調撥何種資源。對衛星傳輸波段、標準戰術入口網絡站點和帶寬等網絡作戰必需資源的分配必須要有明確的任務目標和易於理解的全球性意義。從部隊的角度來看,集中化指揮在某種程度上是對現有部隊機構和作戰、防禦網絡的一次重新洗牌。

由戰區作戰司令部領導的作戰行動將不再嚴格地限於其防區內。地面部隊重新開始利用飛機(包括無人機)例行地在美國本土飛行來支持他們的作戰。隨著快速全球打擊(PGS:Prompt Global Strike)項目的發展,指揮官已經有權力呼叫從戰區以外的武器系統發出常規打擊援助。

在海軍方面,他們指出海上部隊的一個本質性特點就是全球流動性,海軍部隊作戰時會不斷地在各個戰區作戰司令部之間穿插。尤其是像航母戰鬥群這樣的單位,一旦被部署出發,就不可能一直呆在一塊小範圍的戰場。另外,即使是戰區作戰司令部所採取的戰區級別的行動,也有可能產生全球性的影響。網絡防禦姿態的調整可能對互聯網部門帶來巨大的經濟負擔,而且作戰司令部還有可能無法了解到調整行為的具體細節結果。

對國防部的網絡系統來說,所有的攻擊本質上同樣都是全球性的。敵人不可能輕易地從地球的另一端對美國本土的實體目標進行攻擊,但是在計算機網絡科技領域,這樣的事情經常發生。一旦檢測到這種攻擊,關於它的信息必須要在最短的時間內傳遍全球所有的相關部門,以保證從任何地方都能識別出這樣的攻擊方式,從而保護全球信息柵格的安全。每一次網絡入侵——哪怕是看起來無關緊要的失敗的入侵——都有可能給全球信息柵格的內容帶來巨大的潛在危害,因為它們入侵時在系統中留下的後門會在以後的攻擊中發揮作用。病毒的爆發是毫無爭議的全球性事件,如果認識不到這一點的話,我們將會受到更大的損失。

海軍強調沒有任何事件的影響會僅限於某個戰區範圍,所有關於網絡作戰的努力都必須是全球性的。他們的理由是網絡作戰是沒有戰區界限的,國防部的每個戰區作戰司令部所面臨的潛在威脅都是相同的,為了獲得信息上的優勢,國防部必須要充分利用其大覆蓋面的網絡資源,快速地在全球範圍內分享所有的有用信息。

此外,空軍和海軍方面指出,他們的網絡作戰部隊都不是由戰區作戰司令部來負責部署的。在每個戰區作戰司令部的防區內,空軍和海軍都有自己的網絡作戰組織(例如戰區網絡作戰與安全中心),而且空軍和海軍的網絡作戰部隊在戰區內通常是扮演維護者的角色。最後一點,空軍和海軍都認為,根據可供參考的官方文件的描述,戰略司令部通過戰區作戰司令部對全球信息柵格負責。

戰區作戰司令部的要求

對戰區作戰司令部來說,在網絡作戰的指揮控制方面有兩個需要關心的問題。一是需要對戰場信息柵格進行及時的控制,二是需要把網絡變成一個武器系統,讓指揮官們可以像對常規的武器系統一樣共同利用網絡資源,利用網絡全方位的優勢來進行全面的戰鬥。

那些被分配了特定職責的部隊,已經部署好了各自唯一的解決方案,參與到網絡作戰中的每支部隊或者每個機構都相信自己已經擁有了最有效分配緊缺資源的辦法。但是全球信息柵格並不是專屬於某一個部門的,而是一個聯合結構。 “煙囪”式系統和現有的部隊部署方式實際上是降低了戰場信息柵格的利用效率。舉個例子來說,陸軍在國防部的其他部門之前研發出了一套安全的IP電話解決方案,可以進行保密語音的聯絡。出於安全考慮,其他部門通常不會再採用這套方案,而是自己再開發一套功能相同的解決方案。這樣在作戰司令部的防區內就有了兩套獨立的保密IP語音方案,它們相互之間不能進行聯通。戰區作戰司令部只得進行篩選,只保留一套方案,以保證在其防區內所有部門可以進行彼此協作。但是解決方案被淘汰的一方就不能再與該戰區以外的兄弟部隊進行保密聯絡了。

作戰司令部防區內的有些資源可以為多個部隊和公務部門服務。但是也有很多例子是使用者進行重複勞動為各自建立了不能相互聯絡的獨立系統,比如衛星終端和一些技術控制設備。有些時候,要傳遞一個信息的話,需要先把信號發回美國本土,然後再從本土發到距離初始發送者只有兩英里的接收者那裡。各種各樣的光纖一條挨一條地按照相同的路線排列著,但是它們之間的數據卻不能進行直接交換,因為它們分屬於不同的部隊或者公務部門。戰區作戰司令部必須採取措施來解決防區內的部隊或者公務部門之間的互聯性問題。

要解決這個問題,可以採用集中化控制的辦法。對網絡作戰部隊的集中化指揮需要戰區作戰司令部對自身的組織機構進行一定的調整,但是同時又不能影響其在有作戰需要時指揮行動的權力。相關部隊必須接受多個作戰司令部的命令,並且有效地優化和反饋戰場信息。目前,派往前線的部隊獨立性越來越高,通過全球信息柵格的幫助他們可以來回地越過戰區作戰司令部的邊界,戰區作戰司令部對網絡作戰的輔助和對抗作用因此而受到了損害,施行集中化指揮以後,部隊就不能或者說不願意響應戰區作戰司令部的要求了。

在2004年參與印尼海嘯救助工作的時候,太平洋司令部(PACOM:Pacific Command)首次在人道援助行動中採取了“聯合嘗試”的方式。太平洋司令部向被分派有任務的部隊發出指令,讓他們在整個行動計劃的框架之下進行特別的網絡防禦工作。很多海軍部隊和海軍陸戰隊的部隊在海軍全球網絡作戰中心的集中化指揮下,建立了一些相對直接的網絡防禦措施,這些措施超越了太平洋司令部給海軍和海軍陸戰隊分配的任務範圍,這就給太平洋司令部的全球網絡作戰帶來了潛在的危險因素。

作戰司令部很關心總是強調的對全球信息柵格進行集中化控制的思想會降低他們對全球信息柵格的信息掌握度和控制力度。在現有的指揮制度下,一個單位會在其所在部隊的指揮權下進行訓練或者執行其他任務,在戰區作戰司令部的指揮權下參加戰鬥,指揮控制的條理非常清晰。對部隊在信息領域的指揮控制與對其在空中、陸上、海上和空間領域的指揮控制同等重要。對C3S系統(control, communications and computer systems)來說,在其指揮下進行作戰並負責保護它的部隊常常要處於雙重甚至三重的報告鏈中,結果最後分不清到底是誰在負責指揮戰鬥。在全球性或者非全局性事件中,全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊經常繞開戰區作戰司令部直接展開行動。儘管聯合網絡作戰的作戰概念專門強調了與戰區作戰司令部進行協調作戰的要求,但是在現代作戰快速變化的環境中,這條要求幾乎成了擺設。信息保障弱點警報系統、計算機任務序列和信息條件調整系統在作戰司令部的轄區之外出現問題就是這條要求失效的典型例子。這些事件直接影響了戰區作戰司令部在戰場上的指揮,當部隊想要直接利用這些機制從管理級上加強自身的控制的時候,他們不能判斷應該在何時、以什麼樣的方式在執行這些操作,也不知道這樣做會對戰區作戰司令部的指揮產生什麼影響,因為在目前的條件下,只有戰區作戰司令部才有能力來進行這些操作。當一個威脅事件需要空軍太空司令部向空軍部隊尋求全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的協同配合的時候,如果不通知或者取得與北方司令部的合作的話,將會給北方司令部的指揮帶來極大的麻煩。

在中央司令部,由於對網絡作戰部隊缺乏足夠的控制,導致指揮官有時候也不能確定網絡資源是否可用。海軍負責操作大量的戰場信息柵格,在作戰區域的海軍網絡作戰部隊並不用對中央司令部的海軍部負責,他們只需要向戰區網絡作戰與安全中心報告。中央司令部的中央戰區戰區網絡作戰中心,其職責是維持和指揮所有戰區作戰司令部的網絡作戰,但是它也不在海軍網絡作戰部隊的報告鏈當中,所以也常常不能獲得所有戰場信息柵格上的事態感知,目前已經有替代辦法來處理這個問題了,不過這還不能說是正式的解決辦法。

對北方司令部來說,因為網絡作戰部隊的控制權的缺乏,他們在2005年“卡特琳娜”颶風的救援工作中遇到了極大的麻煩。在那次行動中,部隊的設備在未經許可的情況下就被運送到了聯合作戰區域。這使得北方司令部無法掌握和引導物資的調動情況,更無法協同各個部隊的行動,這是個多方位的管理和操作問題。

在各個部隊都主張施行在以全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊為中心的集中化指揮構架的時候,我們有必要強調一個事實,那就是戰區司令部並不願意看到這樣的變化,他們想保持原有的他們對戰略司令部負責,擁有全球信息柵格的操作權和防禦權的機制。戰略司令部的存在對保持戰區作戰司令部在戰區和全球性事件的作戰行動中的指揮地位以及增強戰區作戰司令部與聯合參謀部的溝通都有很大的幫助。

作戰司令部和部隊方面都想從聯合作戰的層面上對網絡作戰進行集中化指揮,但是其中有幾個問題還需要討論:

1.誰負第一領導責任?

2.網絡作戰進行集中化指揮具體在哪個層面上得到體現,全球層面、戰區層面還是其他什麼層面?

3.這種調整帶來的改變是僅僅體現在戰區作戰司令部的某個部門向全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊發出請求時還是戰區作戰司令部獲得戰區內的完全指揮權和優先權?

最後,戰區作戰司令部是最終對總統負責的以完成轄區內的軍事任務為目標的機構,被派遣到戰區作戰司令部的部隊需要在其管轄權之下完成各自的任務。因此在部隊方面主張實施全球性的集中指揮的時候,他們仍然會處於戰略司令部的指揮之下這一點是不容置疑的。但是目前全球信息柵格是影響戰區作戰司令部的指揮控制能力和指揮官對部隊的指導能力的關鍵一環。沒有全球信息柵格的話,飛機不能飛行、地面部隊無法移動、艦艇不能航行,連衛星都不能提供信號。指揮官們需要獲取全球信息柵格的狀態並進行控制,就像他們需要掌握部隊的方位和狀態一樣重要。他們必須要掌握戰場信息柵格的範圍、能力和狀態,必須知道戰區以外的情況會如何影響部隊所在區域的戰場信息柵格,還必須能夠指揮和優化部隊配置以支持作戰。如果我們真的相信被描述得天花亂墜的集中化指揮會有更好的效果,那也不能忽視為戰區作戰司令部保留適當的指揮和控制權。

還有,只要戰區作戰司令部這種結構還保留著,那麼所有的軍事任務,包括那些由職能作戰司令部指揮的作戰,都必然還是會發生在戰區作戰司令部的防區內,因為所有的網絡作戰任務都必定要由一個實體單位來執行。同時,集中化指揮對於實現以網絡為中心的指揮模式以及更加有效地防禦攻擊、傳遞信息都是必要的。這種集中化指揮的概念與戰區作戰司令部要求掌握和優化戰場信息柵格的願望是不互斥的。

前進之路

要想制定出一套可行的網絡作戰指揮控制框架,必須要避免走極端,既要考慮戰區作戰司令部的需要,也要考慮建立對全球信息柵格的集中化控制的需要。在目前聯合網絡作戰的作戰概念的發展過程和網絡作戰部隊的轉型過程中,組織原則需要發揮調整各方利益的槓桿作用。為了達到這樣的目標,國防部應該做到以下幾點:

1.創建一個簡單、明確的網絡作戰指揮鏈,保證戰略司令部可以對所有的網絡作戰行動進行指揮。這就可以解決剛才提到的“誰負第一領導責任”的問題。只有當事件發生在快速變化的環境中的時候,戰區指揮控制機構才開始發揮作用。簡潔的指揮鏈可以保證參加網絡作戰的部隊知道自己應該聽從誰的指揮、應該向誰報告,在這條指揮鏈中,必須包括戰區作戰司令部。

2.可以賦予戰區作戰司令部在其防區內的指揮權:

——修正聯合司令部計劃以明確戰區作戰司令部在其防區內對網絡作戰的職責。

——修正已有的全球信息柵格網絡作戰概念,詳細說明那些處在戰區網絡作戰與安全中心之外的部隊可以從戰區作戰司令部的全球網絡作戰與安全中心獲得直接援助。

——規定全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的所有命令都要通過戰區作戰司令部來執行。

這些調整可以保證戰區中的所有單位都在唯一的一條指揮鏈下行動,那就是通過戰區作戰司令部對戰略司令部負責。這也可以解決北方司令部應該對轄區負責但是又沒有指揮網絡作戰的權力的尷尬境地。

3.在每個戰區作戰司令部建立一個由中央司令部管轄的聯合網絡作戰中心,將戰區作戰司令部的戰區網絡作戰控制中心和全球網絡作戰聯合特遣部隊的戰區網絡作戰中心進行融合。這樣一來,每個戰區作戰司令部都將有一個在計算機空間領域的聯合作戰司令部,就像在海陸空的實體戰場上一樣。任何處在戰區網絡作戰與安全中心之外的部隊都可以從聯合網絡作戰中心的全球網絡作戰與安全中心獲得直接援助。

4.鞏固全球信息柵格的地位,將最高控制權交給戰略司令部。目前集中化指揮的發展偏重於對參與網絡作戰的部隊的指揮,這與以網絡為中心的指揮概念背道而馳。以部隊為中心的“煙囪”式指揮系統不利於信息的傳遞和處理,讓我們離“為所有使用者提供最新、最準確的信息”的目標越來越遠。在之前的《戈德華特·尼科爾斯國防部重構法》報告中已經明確提到,組織管理和指揮控制應該由一個聯合的機構來掌控。

結束語

目前對網絡作戰的集中化指揮是一個迫切的需要。優化網絡作戰指揮機制可以幫助國防部提高效率、節約成本以及更好地分配緊缺資源。更重要的是,這樣可以讓網絡作戰部隊更加快速、準確地為指揮官提供信息,這在大規模的網絡作戰中非常重要。集中化指揮的進程不能影響到網絡作戰指揮控制的效率。這取決於全球信息柵格能否為所有參戰的單位提供足夠的信息以及指揮官是否充分利用戰區信息柵格來幫助指揮作戰。

“我們必須改變對網絡作戰問題的討論和思考模式,我們是在進行網絡“作戰”而不是網絡“管理”,所有的參戰單位必須保證自己每時每刻都準備著開戰,以保證網絡系統這一決定性的武器系統的安全”。網絡作戰是我們國家能夠贏得戰爭的關鍵一環,它可以幫助我們提供指揮和控制、縮短決策週期以及調整各戰區的資源配備。戰略司令部已經在強化網絡作戰概念方面邁出了很大的一步,這些努力還需要繼續進行下去。戰區作戰司令部必須是掌控和防護全球信息柵格的重要一環,以保證我們可以繼續取得網絡作戰的勝利。

Reference URL:  http://www.china.com.cn/military

中國浅析伊拉克战争中美军网络中心战 ~ China Analysis of Analysis of the US Central Command Network War During Iraq War

China Analysis of Analysis of the US Central Command Network War During Iraq War

浅析伊拉克战争中美军网络中心战

 

The network center war was first proposed by the US Navy in 1997, initially reflected in the war in Afghanistan, it is the core of the future of US military joint operations.

As early as 1997, the Navy put forward the concept of network-centric warfare. In 2001, the Pentagon upgraded it into the war form of the information age. In 2002, the Bush administration regarded the network center warfare capability as the focus of the military transformation and the core of the future joint operations. In view of the network center war in the war in Afghanistan in the initial results, the US military in the Iraq war to further test the new concept of combat.

· Construction of the US military network centric warfare architecture

in the Iraq war, the US military stressed that network-centric warfare, and the prominence of the role of information, with an agile and efficient digital network structure information gathering, command and control and communications, firepower three systems integration, Shortened the time from the detection of the target, the formation of operational instructions to combat the destruction of the target. The networked combat structure can improve the level of information sharing, enhance situational awareness, speed up command and decision speed, achieve combat coordination, enhance the lethality, viability and responsiveness, thus greatly improving the combat effectiveness and shorten the war process. Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the network structure of the US military network structure and three-tier network structure diagram.

Full-dimensional detection network to seize the information advantage is to give full play to the network center war the first condition. The US military used almost all high-tech means of detection, the establishment of the days, air, sea and land integration of full-dimensional detection network. In addition to the outer space constitutes a huge satellite surveillance network, the air at the same time there are low altitude, hollow, high altitude three reconnaissance aircraft on the Iraqi military positions to scan, the ground also deployed a large number of sensors. It is with the full-dimensional detection network, the US military captured the asymmetric information advantage, and its conversion into asymmetric firepower advantage, arbitrary implementation of the long-range strike, not only makes the Iraqi air force can not fight, ground forces are not large-scale assembly , In a passive position. <A I = 5> flexible allegations In the Gulf War, the message in the chain after a few hours or days after the transfer, the commander to issue an attack command, so the US military even through the reconnaissance found a mobile missile launcher, can not Timely strike. In this Iraq war, the US military used a flexible allegation network to effectively integrate the allegation system, greatly reducing the combat preparation time. Through the network, the commander can at the same time with the subordinate forces at all levels to contact, while commanding scattered in the regional combat forces, the formation of the overall force.

Efficient combat network At present, the US military services are more than half of the equipment to achieve the information, these information equipment on the battlefield constitutes an interconnected, interoperable network environment, different services, deployed in different spaces of various weapons platforms and fire units Equivalent to a node in the network, you can exchange the battlefield information in a timely manner, indicating the target, in accordance with the unified fire plan to implement precision strike, more effective performance. In this battle, DDG-75 “Aegis” destroyers for the “Patriot” missiles to provide early warning information, the platform through the network to achieve an example of interoperability.

In the Iraq war, the US military with the network structure for the first time to achieve a real sense of the land, sea, air and marines combat operations. Soon after the war, the US military to effectively implement the space cooperation, air force in the use of precision guided weapons to combat the implementation of the enemy at the same time, the ground forces to provide effective close support.   Enhanced one-way transparency and situational awareness Since the war, the US military to use the most advanced and most powerful network technology, access to transparent and sustained battlefield charts. US Joint Operations Center is located in Qatar, is the command of the nerve center of war against Iraq. A variety of information after nearly 700 intelligence officers of the analysis, sent to the highest commander on the screen, six display battlefield information on a few minutes to update. Through the display can watch the battlefield situation, such as the movement of Iraqi tanks, deployed in Baghdad’s commando and in the flight section of the “Tomahawk” cruise missiles. <A I = 10> Realize the battlefield real-time Gulf War, the US air raid from the discovery to attack target takes 3 days, if the temporary target is difficult to adjust the air raid plan. In the Kosovo war, this time is shortened to 2h, making a considerable part of the air raid mission can be re-adjusted after the plane lift. Afghanistan war time to further shorten to 19min, the attack real-time greatly improved. In this war, this time control in 10min. The high-speed digital network system enables the US military to make faster and more responsive responses to the rapid changes in the battlefield, and to command and control the coordination of arms and operations efficiently and efficiently, which greatly improves the ability to respond quickly to changes in operational plans.

Try the effect-based operations and fast decisive combat Unlike the Gulf War, the US war in Iraq warn of information warfare using information-based weapons, not only to ensure victory, but also to achieve rapid decisive combat. To this end, the US military rely on the network of combat structure, the pursuit of effect-based operations, the target to combat more selective and targeted. US military straight to the goal of two: First, Saddam Hussein and other senior officials and the main defenders, “beheading action” from beginning to end throughout the war; the second is the Iraqi capital Baghdad, the US military did not like the traditional city war as the first to seize And occupation of the suburbs, and then step by step, layers of advance, but the first to capture the city’s strategic location.

Quickly hit time sensitive targets When time-sensitive targets appear on the battlefield, the time-sensitive targeting team within the Joint Air Combat Center of the Saudi Air Force Base will be able to identify the target in just a few minutes and determine the best attack. On 20 March, two mobile missile launchers in Iraq launched the “Abubel” -100 missile in Kuwaiti territory, which was discovered by the US airborne reconnaissance plane at a temporary US Air Force Base at 40 km from the launch site To fly the aircraft combat mission, the aircraft took off after the bombing of the missile launch vehicle bombing.

The first test of the digitalization of the United States after the Gulf War put forward the “digital network as the center of the war” concept, and at the end of the last century put forward the “digital battlefield and digital forces” concept. In 2001, the fourth machine division became the world’s first digital division, it can share the location and target information, has a unique battlefield access to tactical Internet capabilities, but has not yet been tested. April 13, the US military step 4 division vanguard arrived in Ticritt, to accept the actual test. <A (FBCB2)

The basic components of the system include the computer hardware / software, GPS receiver and communication interface, the main function is the main function of the system is the core of the war, To the commander, squad and individual show enemy position, send and receive combat command and logistical data, improve the battlefield situational awareness, target recognition. FBCB2 can provide e-mail service, connected with the Army’s high-level tactical communications system, allowing combatants to send a large number of news and digital reconnaissance reports to field commanders.

Tactical Internet Tactics The Internet is made up of three main tactical communications systems, namely, airborne radio systems, enhanced location reporting systems and mobile user equipment, including radio, communications satellites, mobile phones, fiber optic cables and switching facilities. Tactical Internet enables seamless connectivity between tactical users, voice, data, image and real-time video transmission, support for text, network management and security, and e-mail services, delivering fast and accurate information and instructions to each Combat unit.

“Global Command and Control System” (GCCS-J) to support the war against Iraq, the US military pre-war with the latest version of GCCS-J6. 0 The global command and control system enhances the intelligence capabilities so that the data from the common operations map can be better synchronized. GCCS-J combines the command and control systems of all arms and arms and correlates the data of unmanned aerial vehicles, terrestrial and satellite sensors to the integrated image and intelligence system, which can assist the commander in analyzing operational intelligence data, Generate target data and plan tasks.   ”Can be deployed joint command and control system” (DJCCS) In this war, the US military for the first time using the DJCCS. The system is a computer information sharing platform, with a video conference, Internet and send and receive e-mail function, the battlefield commander in the state of movement in an unprecedented way to monitor the progress of action, keep abreast of the arms and operations of the situation, the timely release of combat orders.

JFN is a network-centric combat system for the US Navy, consisting of the TES, the Global Command and Control System (GCCS) and the Joint Operations Image Processing System, (JSIPS) to provide real-time information interaction, sensor control, target generation, mission planning and combat damage assessment capabilities, can identify and attack target time from a few hours to 10nin, to combat time-sensitive targets. TES allows the theater command center to receive target information directly from the wu1 man-machine or U-2 reconnaissance platform, and the pilots of the attack aircraft can receive the target indication data from the theater command center. GCCS provides the commander with a command and control network to issue target attack orders. JSIPS for data processing. In the future, JFN will be able to process intelligence data into targeted data more quickly, to achieve the goal of moving all people in the network, sharing common operational charts and requesting fire support.

“Tactical Input System” (TIS) TIS has been installed on the “Nimitz” aircraft carrier, and is expected to deploy to other US Navy aircraft carrier and the main amphibious ship. The system can receive digital images via terrestrial and sea-based airborne sensor platform radio lines, including optoelectronic, infrared and synthetic aperture radar images. Navy intelligence personnel can click on the interface to analyze the image, get important information, mark the potential target. TIS gives the US Navy a complete, end-to-end electronic image that greatly enhances the ability to collect, identify and target targets throughout the battlefield, reducing sensor-to-shooter time. <A (CEC) system April 7, equipped with CEC system, the US Navy “Nimitz” aircraft carrier into the designated waters, which is the first time the actual deployment of the system. CEC system is mainly composed of data distribution system and collaborative combat processor, is a network center war concept more mature a system, will make the sea air defense combat revolution, it will be aircraft carrier battle group formation in the platform (including ships and early warning aircraft ) The target detection system, the command and control system and the weapon system are organically linked to allow the platform to share all the data acquired by the various detection devices in the formation with a very short delay, so that the combat system breaks through the single ship, Within the realization of integration.

Tactical data information chain In the network center war, the tactical data information chain is one of the important means for the US military and allied forces to realize the information superiority, mainly including Link-16 and Link-11. Link-16 can transmit all kinds of tactical data information between command and control system and aircraft, missile and other weapons system platform and between combat units, effectively connect information source, accusation center and weapon system platform to realize battlefield resource sharing. The tactical data information chain using time division multiple access technology, with relative navigation and anti-jamming capability to relay the way of communication, the working frequency band 960MHz-1215MHz, the data rate of 115.2lkbps-238kbps. Link-11 operates at high frequency / UHF band, data rate is 1.8kbps, can be used for real-time exchange of early warning information, air / ground / underwater target data, control instructions and the status of the unit weapons, and has a certain degree of confidentiality , The entire network under the control of the network control station network communication, the use of master-slave polling, can be over-the-horizon transmission.

The analysis of the characteristics of the US military development network center war shows that the concept of network-centric warfare has gradually become a new form of combat for the US military in the 21st century. In the development and application of network-centric warfare concept, the US military showed the following characteristics:

In the Iraq war, the US military uses a variety of detection and communication means to make the entire battlefield transparent, from beginning to end are information-led. This shows that in the future war who can have the advantage in the detection and communication, to seize the right to information, who will be able to achieve greater battlefield initiative.

Pay attention to the digitalization of weapons and equipment, information construction Digital is the basis of network-based warfare, is expected to US military services in 2010-2020 to achieve full digital. Weapon and equipment information is to achieve the network as the center of the joint operations of the core, the US military will be further in the world to take the lead in the information age of information technology.   To strengthen the network center warfare related equipment R & D The US military effective implementation of the network center war relies on in recent years targeted research and development of various related equipment, such as joint fire network, collaborative combat capability, tactical Internet, tactical input system, global command and control system, Data information chain and so on.

(Source: “National Defense Technology” 2003 the first 18)

Original Mandarin Chinese:

中国日报网站消息:网络中心战最早由美国海军于1997年提出,在阿富汗战争中初步体现出优越性,它是美军未来联合作战的核心。

海军早在1997年就提出网络中心战概念,2001年五角大楼将其提升为信息时代的战争形态,2002年布什政府将网络中心战能力视为军队转型的重点和未来联合作战的核心。鉴于网络中心战在阿富汗战争中初见成效,美军在伊拉克战争中进一步检验了这一全新的作战概念。


·美军构建网络化作战结构

在伊拉克战争中,美军强调网络中心战,突出信息的地位和作用,借助灵敏高效的数字化网络结构将信息收集、指挥控制与通信、火力打击三大系统融为一体,缩短了从侦察发现目标、形成作战指令到打击摧毁目标的时间。网络化的作战结构可提高信息共享水平,增强态势感知能力,加快指挥和决策速度,实现作战协同,增强杀伤力、生存能力和响应能力,从而极大地提高作战效能,缩短战争进程。图1和图2分别显示了美军构建的网络中心战的网络结构原理图和三层网络结构图。

全维的探测网 夺取信息优势是充分发挥网络中心战的首要条件。美军动用了几乎所有高技术探测手段,建立了天、空、海、陆一体化全维探测网。除在外层空间构成庞大的卫星监视网外,空中同时有低空、中空、高空三个层次的各种侦察飞机对伊军阵地进行扫描,地面上也部署了大量传感器。正是借助全维的探测网,美军夺取了不对称的信息优势,并将其转化为不对称的火力优势,随心所欲地实施远程打击,不但使得伊拉克空军无法作战,地面部队也不敢大规模集结,陷于被动境地。

灵活的指控网 在海湾战争中,信息在指控链中需经过数小时或数天的传递后,指挥官才能下达攻击命令,因此美军即使通过侦察发现了机动导弹发射车,也无法及时实施打击。这次伊拉克战争中,美军利用灵活的指控网有效整合了指控系统,大大缩短打击准备时间。通过网络,指挥官可以同时与下属各级部队进行联络,同时指挥分散在各地域的作战部队,形成整体合力。

高效的作战网 目前,美军各军种均有一半以上的装备实现了信息化,这些信息化装备在战场上构成互联、互通的网络环境,不同军种、部署在不同空间的各种武器平台和火力单元相当于网络中的一个节点,可以及时交换战场信息,指示目标,按照统一的火力计划实施精确打击,更有效地发挥效能。在这次作战中,DDG-75“宙斯盾”驱逐舰为“爱国者”导弹提供预警信息,是平台通过网络化途径实现互通的一个例证。

·伊拉克战争中网络中心战的具体应用

检验联合作战的协同性 伊拉克战争中,美军借助网络化结构首次实现了真正意义上的陆、海、空和海军陆战队协同作战。开战不久,美军就有效地实施空地协同,空中力量在使用精确制导武器对敌军实施打击的同时,对地面部队提供有效的近距离支援。

增强单向透明度和态势感知能力 自开战以来,美军运用最先进、最强大的网络技术,获取透明持续的战场态势图。美军联合作战中心位于卡塔尔,是指挥对伊作战的神经中枢。各种信息经过近700名情报人员的分析,传送到最高指挥官的显示屏上,6个显示屏上的战场信息几分钟就更新一次。通过显示屏可观察战场情况,如运动中的伊拉克坦克、部署在巴格达的突击队以及处于飞行段的“战斧”巡航导弹。

实现战场实时化 海湾战争中,美军空袭从发现到攻击目标需要3天,若临时发现目标时很难及时调整空袭计划。在科索沃战争中,这一时间缩短到2h,使得相当一部分空袭任务可以在飞机升空后重新调整。阿富汗战争时这一时间进一步缩短到19min,攻击的实时性大大提高。而在这次战争中,这一时间控制在1Omin内。高速数字化网络系统使美军能对战场瞬息变化作出更快、更灵敏的反应,及时高效地指挥、控制与协调各军兵种的行动,大大提高了临时改变作战计划时的快速反应能力。

尝试基于效果的作战和快速决定性作战 与海湾战争不同,此次伊拉克战争美军提出用信息化武器装备打信息化战争,不仅要求确保胜利,而且要求实现快速决定性作战。为此,美军依靠网络化作战结构,追求基于效果的作战,对目标打击更有选择性和针对性。美军直取的目标有两个:一是萨达姆和其他高官以及主要捍卫者,“斩首行动”由始至终贯穿整个战争;二是伊拉克首都巴格达,美军没有像传统的城市战那样首先夺取和占领市郊,然后步步为营,层层推进,而是首先夺取市内的战略要地。

快速打击时间敏感目标 当战场上出现时间敏感目标时,美军在沙特空军基地的联合空中作战中心内的时间敏感瞄准小组只用几分钟时间就可准确识别目标,决定最佳攻击行动。3月20日,伊拉克两辆机动导弹发射车刚向科威特境内发射“阿巴比尔”-100导弹,即被美国空中侦察机发现,在距发射地点40km的一个美空军基地立即临时调整了几架待飞飞机的作战任务,飞机起飞后投掷炸弹将导弹发射车炸毁。

首次检验数字化师 美国在海湾战争后提出了“以数字化网络为中心的战争”概念,并于上世纪末率先提出了“数字化战场和数字化部队”的构想。2001年,第4机步师成为世界上第一支数字化师,它可以共享位置和目标信息,具有独一无二的战场接入战术因特网的能力,但尚未经过实战检验。4月13日,美军第4机步师先头部队到达提克里特,接受实战检验。

·伊拉克战争中网络中心战的部分装备

“21世纪旅及旅以下作战指挥控制系统”(FBCB2) 该系统的基本组件包括计算机硬/软件、GPS接收机和通信接口,主要功能是向指挥官、小分队和单兵显示敌我位置、收发作战命令和后勤数据、提高战场态势感知能力、进行目标识别等。FBCB2可提供电子邮件服务,与陆军的高层战术通信系统相连接,允许作战人员向战地指挥官发送大量消息和数字化侦察报告。

战术互联网 战术互联网由陆军3个主要的战术通信系统,即机载无线电系统、增强型定位报告系统和移动用户设备互联而成,包括无线电、通信卫星、移动电话、光缆和交换设施。战术互联网能够实现战术级用户间的无缝连接,提供语音、数据、图像和实时视频传输,支持文电、网络管理和安全以及电子邮件业务,可快速、准确地将战地情报和指示传递给每个作战单元。

“全球指挥与控制系统”(GCCS -J) 为支持对伊作战,美军战前采用了最新版本的GCCS-J6.0全球指挥和控制系统,提高了情报能力,使通用作战图传来的数据可以更好地同步。 GCCS-J联合了所有军兵种的指挥与控制系统,并使无人机、地面和卫星传感器的数据相互关联并传递到图像与情报综合系统,后者能够帮助指挥官分析作战情报数据、管理和生成目标数据以及规划任务。

“可部署的联合指挥与控制系统”(DJCCS) 在这次战争中,美军首次实战使用了DJCCS。该系统是一个计算机信息共享平台,具有召开电视会议、上网和收发邮件功能,可使战场指挥官在运动状态下以前所未有的方式监控行动进展,随时了解各军兵种作战情况,及时下达作战命令。

“联合火力网”(JFN) JFN是美海军的一个以网络为中心的作战系统,由“战术利用系统”(TES)、“全球指挥与控制系统”(GCCS)和“联合作战图像处理系统”(JSIPS)组成,能够提供实时信息交互、传感器控制、目标产生、任务计划制定以及作战毁伤评估功能,可将识别和攻击目标的时间从数小时减少到10nin,打击时间敏感目标。TES可使战区指挥中心直接从wu1人机或U -2等侦察平台接收目标信息,攻击机的飞行员能从战区指挥中心接收目标指示数据。GCCS为指挥官提供下达目标攻击指令的指挥控制网络。JSIPS进行数据处理。未来,JFN将能更快地把情报数据处理成瞄准数据,用于打击移动目标,最终实现使所有人员都置身于网络中,共享通用作战态势图和请求火力支援。

“战术输入系统”(TIS) TIS已安装在“尼米兹”号航母上,并有望部署到美海军其他航母和主要两栖舰上。该系统可通过陆基和海基机载传感器平台的无线电线路接收数字式图像,包括光电、红外及合成孔径雷达图像。海军情报人员可通过点击界面分析图像,获得重要信息,标记潜在目标。TIS使美海军拥有了完整的、端对端的电子图像,极大地提高在整个战场上搜集、识别和打击目标的能力,减少传感器到射手的时间。

“协同作战能力”(CEC)系统 4月7日,装有CEC系统的美海军“尼米兹”号航母进入指定海域,这是该系统首次实战部署。 CEC系统主要由数据分发系统和协同作战处理器组成,是网络中心战概念比较成熟的一个系统,将使海上防空作战发生革命性变化,它将航母战斗群编队中各平台(包括舰艇和预警机等)所装载的目标探测系统、指挥控制系统和武器系统有机联系起来,允许各平台以极短的延时共享编队内各种探测设备获取的所有数据,使作战系统突破单舰的限制,在编队内实现集成。

战术数据信息链 在网络中心战中,战术数据信息链是美军及盟军实现信息优势的重要手段之一,主要包括Link-16和Link -11。Link-16可在指挥控制系统与飞机、导弹等武器系统平台之间以及在各作战单元之间传输各种战术数据信息,有效连接信息源、指控中心与武器系统平台,实现战场资源共享。该战术数据信息链采用时分多址技术,具有相对导航和抗干扰能力,以中继方式进行通信,工作频段为960MHz-1215MHz,数据速率为115.2lkbps-238kbps。Link-11在高频/特高频频段工作,数据速率为1.8kbps,可用于实时交换预警信息、空中/地面/水下目标数据、控制指令以及各单元武器状况信息,并具有一定的保密能力,整个网络在网络控制站的管制下组网通信,采用主从式轮询,可进行超视距传输。

·美军发展网络中心战的特点

分析表明,网络中心战概念已逐渐成为美军面向21世纪的新型作战形式。在发展和应用网络中心战概念上,美军表现出以下特点:

建立全维的探测网,夺取制信息权 伊拉克战争中,美军运用多种探测和通信手段使整个战场透明化,从始至终都以信息为主导。这说明在未来战争中谁能够在探测和通信上占有优势,夺取制信息权,谁就能够取得更大的战场主动权。

注重武器装备的数字化、信息化建设 数字化是网络中心战的基础,预计美国各军种将在2010-2020年间全面实现数字化。武器装备的信息化是实现以网络为中心的联合作战的核心,美军将进一步在世界上率先建成信息时代的信息化军队。

加强网络中心战相关装备研发 此次美军有效实施网络中心战依赖于近年有针对性地研发各种相关装备,如联合火力网、协同作战能力、战术互联网、战术输入系统、全球指挥与控制系统、数据信息链等。(来源:《国防科技》2003年第18期)

 

美國陸軍網空作戰力量演變與歷史 – US Army cyberspace combat force evolution & history

美國陸軍網空作戰力量演變與歷史 –

US Army cyberspace combat force evolution & history

With the rapid development of the global information grid system of the US military, the conceptual research based on the information technology system is becoming more and more thorough. Finally, the American combat theory establishes the cyberspace as a combat domain with land, sea, air and sky. In this context, the US Army will be the construction of cyberspace as a key factor in promoting the process of modernization of the army, determined to follow the formal militarization of the organization’s standards and structure of high-quality network combat forces. Since the establishment of the Army Network Command in 2010, the US Army has established a comprehensive network of operational forces based on the goal of combating the military forces of cyberspace through new means such as new construction, adjustment, transformation and integration.

The basic organizational structure under the guidance of the concept of network operations

From the 90s of the 20th century, in order to ensure the US military information grid system in the army part of the efficient and safe operation, the US Army under the guidance of the joint army, around the concept of network operations carried out a series of organizational restructuring, the dissolution of the information system commander And has set up the Army Signal Command and the network enterprise technology command and other institutions, and gradually formed based on technology, defense, focusing on the basic network of emergency operations organizational structure.

In 2005, the US Strategic Command issued the “Global Information Grid Collaborative Combat Concept”, which elaborated on the organizational structure of the US Army’s cyberspace forces during this period, dividing the Army’s network operations system into three Level: At the first level, under the command of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command / Army Strategic Command, the Army’s Global Network Operations and Security Center is responsible for situational awareness and command coordination as the only governing body for Army operations, In the US Army Joint Force Network Power System, the agency functions as a global network of operations and security centers. At the second level, the Theater Network Operations and Security Center is the supporting element of the operational headquarters, which is responsible for “guiding network operations, managing and defending the global information grid elements that are part of the Army’s jurisdiction.” The regional network operations and security centers in the theater constitute the third dimension of the Army’s network operations system. In addition, the Army Computer Emergency Response Unit is the disposal of the network emergency response, in the emergency can accept the global network operations task force tactical control, each theater network operations and security center also established a computer emergency response unit.

New Universal Military

Global military clean sweep, do in the public micro-signal “new global military”

Long press the next two-dimensional code can be concerned about

Set up Army Network Command

With the US military for the degree of dependence on cyberspace, control and weaken the threat of the Internet has continued to become the focus of US military tasks, the establishment of an independent network of space operations command of the voice of the growing US military. In 2008, “Yankee deer bomb action” directly under the impetus, the US military decided to end the unit of independent decentralization of the development of network combat capability of the situation, through the withdrawal, transfer, change and other measures to reorganize the relevant institutions, the establishment of a comprehensive network Space operations of the joint command agencies, the US Army network power organization construction has entered a stage of rapid development.

Through the global deployment of decentralized development of the formation of cyberspace combat organization of the backbone. As the awareness of the network operations will have a far-reaching impact on the military field, the US Army in the combat force level into a lot of resources, and gradually establish the backbone of the network operations. For example, the Army launched its first cyber warfare in July 2008, which provides tactical support, brigade combatant support, and strategic support to other service units, joint forces and even cross-agency partners; the Army also operates on cyber operations The upper-level command system to implement the adjustment, so that the relevant action to be appropriate authority to monitor. During this period, the Army’s future network combat forces were integrated in the form of units in the military and joint forces within the combat unit, including from the Defense Information Systems Agency, the global network operations joint contingent, the National Security Agency to the brigade combat team and other Level of strategic and tactical institutions.
The new core coordination agencies, straighten out the headquarters to the unit level of the command relationship. In June 2009, the US Department of Defense announced the establishment of the US Internet Command in the form of a memorandum to consolidate and promote the construction of cyberspace military forces through a dedicated subordinate joint command. At the same time, as a transitional measure for the formation of the Army Force Network Command in the future, the Army decided to retain the organizational structure of the Army Space and Missile Defense Command / Army Strategic Command and rename it as Army Force Network Command. February 2010, the US Army announced on this basis, the formal formation of the Army Network Force Command, its formation and initial construction phase of the work mainly around the three tasks: to achieve cyber space military forces combat, increase the Army network combat power Capacity and scale, the development of the Army network space professionals team. As the previous command system was disrupted, the newly established Army Network Space Operations and Integration Center under the Cyber ​​Command actually played a central role in command control and coordinated synchronization. The agency is similar to the previous Army Global Network Operations and Security Center, but in addition to “providing clear, concise and timely guidance in the implementation of full spectrum cyberspace operations,” the organization is also responsible for “with the Army’s other headquarters, Other units in the same type of institutions, the United States cyberspace joint operations center to share information. ” At the beginning of the establishment of the organization, some members of the cyberspace operations and integration center also joined the US Department of Network Command staff to better promote the unity of command and operation of the joint force and service units.

US Army Network Space Force Organizational Structure, 2005

The transformation of combat forces functions, to promote the traditional ability to network space combat capability development. At the level of the combat force construction, the field signal force as the main body of the network Enterprise Technology Command / 9 signal command to the Army Network Force Command, the Army Intelligence and Security Command of the cyberspace combat forces combat command by the army Network command. Through this organizational adjustment, the Army Network Command for the first time mastered the forefront of the deployment of combat forces, to form a global presence and have the expedition, you can combat commander to provide more comprehensive combat support capabilities. It is noteworthy that the network enterprise technology command and the intelligence and security commander in the Army Network Command as deputy commander, respectively, responsible for different types of network operations mission, the basic formation of the original signal forces in charge of network defense, the original military Intelligence forces in charge of the network attack mode, which will be previously discrete deployment, loosely combined network space related organizations into a complete army network strength. In addition, the Army Network Command in 2011 was also given the task of carrying out information operations, master the first information combat command of the operational command, intelligence and security headquarters under the 780 military intelligence brigade will also be transformed into Army Network Command Direct command of the network brigade.

Continuously optimize the Army cyberspace forces

After the establishment of the Army Network Command, cyber space military forces combat is always the center of its work, which in the Army Network Power Organization continue to optimize the integration process has been highlighted. For the current network operations have been formed, electronic warfare, information operations, military intelligence and even space combat capability, the US Army in the network of military organizational structure design also reflects the integration of a variety of capacity trends. The US Army is also actively promoting the overall military model in the construction of network forces, highlighting the development of the national guards and reserve forces. After years of construction, the US Army network power organization has been basically formed.
Army Network Combat Force Organizational Structure, 2011

Optimize the combat strength of the organizational structure, to adapt to operational support needs. At the headquarters level, in order to further improve the command and implementation of cyberspace operations, the Army approved the Network Command in March 2014 as the headquarters of the Army Force, and designated the 2nd Army as its immediate unit, and the network enterprise technology Command to become the second army direct command of the network combat troops, network enterprise technology command commander of the second group army deputy commander. And the previous year, the network command has been under the guidance of the US Internet Command and Army headquarters began to form a joint force network headquarters, which will be the implementation of the network space combat command command, and have direct support to the combat command of the network combat capability The At the combat forces and theater levels, the network command is trying to improve the global network defense situation through regional network centers. Based on the strength of the original Theater Network Operations and Security Center and Regional Computer Emergency Response Center, these regional cybersecurity centers streamline the operational plan of the network operations, and can play a strong planning, coordination and synchronization function to more effectively support geography Operation of the Combat Command.

To determine the development of the responsible institutions, improve the network to build military theory guidance. As the US Army Network Command merged with the original network operations, information operations and the strength of the signal forces, a large number of signal forces combat theory urgent need to be revised and translated into the network combat theory, in order to achieve a unified operational capability development model, to avoid the concept of guidance On the chaos. In March 2014, the US Training and Command Command, on the basis of the Center for Excellence, integrated other relevant professional elements to form the Army Network Center of Excellence, with the goal of providing guidance, network and signal The full ability of training. The cyberspace promotion office under the Cyber ​​Command is also incorporated into the Network Excellence Center to further enhance the advantages of the Network Excellence Center in summing up lessons learned from the construction of network forces. Through the implementation of the Ordinance to publish the project, the Network Excellence Center tried to merge the original signal and electronic warfare forces regulations, according to the Army “2015 order system” related requirements to develop new cyberspace operations, electronic warfare and signal forces regulations. At present, the Army has completed the revision of the field command FM6-02 “signal force support operations” to guide the signal forces to the network forces for functional transformation; the first release of the field order FM3-38 “network electromagnetic action”, clear “Army in the unified ground action to integrate the overall principles of network electromagnetic activity, tactics and procedures”; as the Army network army building a basic guidance document, field command FM3-12 “cyberspace combat” also basically completed the final approval process, Officially distributed within the Army in 2015. With the above documents as the main body, the Network Excellence Center will continue to improve the publication of dozens of related military ordinances publications, build a complete Army cyber space combat technology, tactics and procedures for the Army network forces to provide comprehensive theoretical guidance.
Army Network Combat Force Organizational Structure, 2015

Integration of cyberspace education and training strength, and promote the regular development of network forces. The US Army will promote the development of formal training as a fundamental way to improve the level of network operations and combat readiness. In the Army Network Center of excellence at the same time, the Army Network School as its affiliated institutions in the original electronic warfare school set up on the basis of the Army Signal School is also under the network center of excellence will continue to be retained, the Army on the regularization of the construction of cyberspace “Regulations – Organization – Training – Resources – Leadership and Education – Personnel – Facilities” model has been further refined. With the establishment of the Army Network Arsenal (“17-Series” Career Management), the Army requested new staff members to enter the network career field to complete the school’s school training program, from signal, intelligence and information operations forces and other units to the Corresponding to a large number of network operations staff also need to carry out new vocational education and training, the two schools will jointly set up the new Army network arms units officers, warrant officers and noncommissioned officers for individual personnel skills training. For example, the Army Leadership Foundation Training Program was officially launched at the online school in August 2015, and the 14-week Senior Officer Training Program was implemented in May 2016. For the first batch of network combatants recruited by the Army in October 2015, the senior personal training program that must be attended by the Army began in February 2016. As the cyberspace operations essentially have the characteristics of joint operations, the first phase of the 22-week training program will be the Naval Joint Network Analyst Course, the second phase of training for the same 22 weeks, training venues from the Navy The facility is transferred to the Army Network School.

Attention to the National Guard and reserve network strength, highlighting the support and coordination functions. In view of the development of the network combat force, the Army believes that the reserve department can assist the active forces to share some of the tasks and be able to provide reinforcements with high levels of training as quickly as necessary. Because of its unique dual legal position, the Army National Guard can play the role of state and federal government agencies, civil and military organizations, private and public sector convergence, “with the development of cyberspace capabilities of the natural advantages.” Therefore, the Army in the development of network combat forces also pay attention to the construction of the relevant reserve organizations. For example, the First Information Operations Command also includes four reserve forces theater information operations brigade, which has the ability to provide information operations and cyberspace planning, analysis and technical support. According to a memorandum signed by the Army National Guard in June 2014 with the Army Network Command, the Army National Guard transferred one of its network defenses in the previous year to the Army Network Command / 2nd Army. The cyber force, known as the 1636th Network Defense Unit, will be in Service No. 10 of the United States Code, which is a full-time service and will receive the same standard training with other active forces of the Army Network Command and jointly All types of tasks.

This article from the “Military Digest” December Editor: Zhang Chuanliang

Original Mandarin Chinese:

伴隨著美軍全球信息柵格系統的高速發展,基於信息技術系統作戰的概念研究不斷走向深入,最終美軍作戰理論將網絡空間確立為一種與陸、海、空、天並列的作戰域。在這種背景下,美國陸軍將網絡空間力量建設作為推進陸軍現代化進程的關鍵因素,決心按照正規軍事化組織的標準和結構高質量建設網絡作戰部隊。自陸軍網絡司令部於2010年成立以來,美國陸軍圍繞網絡空間軍事力量作戰化的目標,通過新建、調整、轉型和融合等手段逐步建立起完善的網絡作戰力量組織結構。

網絡作戰概念指導下的基本組織結構

從20世紀90年代開始,為確保美軍全球信息柵格系統中的陸軍部分高效安全運行,美國陸軍在聯合軍隊的指導下,圍繞網絡作戰行動概念進行了一系列組織結構調整,解散了信息系統司令部,並先後組建了陸軍信號司令部以及網絡企業技術司令部等機構,逐步形成基於技術、防禦為主、重在應急的網絡作戰基本組織架構。

2005年,美國戰略司令部發布了《全球信息柵格網絡作戰聯合作戰概念》,對這一時期美國陸軍網絡空間力量建設的組織結構進行了詳細說明,將陸軍網絡作戰體系組織架構劃分為三個層次:在第一個層面,在陸軍太空和導彈防禦司令部/陸軍戰略司令部的指揮下,作為陸軍網絡作戰行動唯一的領導機構,陸軍全球網絡行動和安全中心負責態勢感知和指揮協調工作,在美軍聯合部隊網絡力量體系中,該機構發揮軍種全球網絡作戰與安全中心的功能。在第二個層面,戰區網絡行動和安全中心是各作戰司令部的支持元素,負責“指導網絡作戰行動,管理和防禦屬於陸軍管轄的全球信息柵格元素”。戰區內各地區網絡行動和安全中心構成了陸軍網絡作戰體系的第三個層面。此外,陸軍計算機應急響應分隊是應對網絡突發事件的處置力量,在緊急情況下可以接受全球網絡作戰特遣部隊的戰術控制,每個戰區網絡行動和安全中心也都建立了計算機應急響應分隊。

新環球軍事

全球軍事一網打盡,盡在公眾微信號“新環球軍事”

長按下方二維碼即可關注

成立陸軍網絡司令部

隨著美軍對於網絡空間依賴程度的加深,控制和削弱網絡威脅持續成為美軍關注的重點任務,組建獨立負責網絡空間作戰指揮機構的呼聲在美軍內部日益高漲。在2008年“揚基鹿彈行動”的直接推動下,美軍決定結束軍種單位獨立分散發展網絡作戰能力的局面,通過並、撤、轉、改等措施對相關機構進行結構重組,成立全面負責網絡空間作戰的聯合指揮機構,美國陸軍網絡力量組織建設也進入快速發展階段。

通過全球部署分散發展的方式形成網絡空間作戰組織的基幹力量。由於意識到網絡作戰行動將對軍事領域產生更加深遠的影響,美國陸軍在作戰部隊層面投入大量資源,逐步建立起網絡作戰行動的基幹力量。例如,陸軍在2008年7月啟動了第一支網絡戰營,其能夠提供戰術支持、旅戰鬥隊支援以及向其他軍種單位、聯合部隊甚至跨機構夥伴提供戰略支援;陸軍還對網絡作戰行動的上層指揮體系實施調整,從而使相關行動得到適度權限的監管。在這個時期,陸軍未來網絡作戰力量都以分隊形式整合在軍種和聯合部隊架構下作戰單位的內部,包括從國防信息系統局、全球網絡作戰聯合特遣隊、國家安全局到旅戰鬥隊等各個級別的戰略和戰術機構。
新建核心協調機構,理順總部到分隊層面的指揮關係。 2009年6月,美國國防部通過發表備忘錄的形式宣佈建立美國網絡司令部,旨在通過一個專門的次級聯合司令部集中統籌和推進網絡空間軍事力量建設。與此同時,作為日後組建陸軍部隊網絡司令部的過渡性措施,陸軍決定保留陸軍太空和導彈防禦司令部/陸軍戰略司令部的組織架構,並將其重新命名為陸軍部隊網絡司令部。 2010年2月,美國陸軍宣佈在此基礎上正式組建陸軍網絡部隊司令部,其在組建和初始建設階段的工作主要圍繞三項任務展開:實現網絡空間軍事力量作戰化、增加陸軍網絡作戰力量的能力和規模、發展陸軍網絡空間專業人才隊伍。由於以往的指揮體係被打亂,網絡司令部下新成立的陸軍網絡空間作戰與整合中心實際上發揮了指揮控制和協調同步的核心作用。該機構與此前的陸軍全球網絡行動和安全中心功能類似,但是除了“在執行全譜網絡空間作戰行動過程中提供清晰、簡潔、及時的指導”以外,該組織還負責“與陸軍其他司令部、其他軍種單位中的同類機構、美國網絡空間聯合作戰中心共享信息”。在機構建立之初,網絡空間作戰與整合中心的部分人員還直接加入美國網絡司令部參謀機構,從而更好地促進實現聯合部隊與軍種單位網絡作戰行動的指揮統一。

美國陸軍網絡空間力量組織結構,2005年

轉型作戰部隊職能,促進傳統能力向網絡空間作戰能力發展。在作戰部隊建設層面,以野戰信號部隊為主體的網絡企業技術司令部/第9信號司令部轉隸陸軍網絡部隊司令部,陸軍情報和安全司令部所屬網絡空間作戰部隊的作戰指揮權也由陸軍網絡司令部掌握。通過這種組織調整,陸軍網絡司令部第一次掌握了前沿部署作戰力量,能夠形成全球存在態勢並具備遠征能力,可以向作戰指揮官提供更加全面的戰鬥支援能力。值得注意的是,網絡企業技術司令部以及情報和安全司令部指揮官都在陸軍網絡司令部擔任副司令,分別負責不同類型的網絡作戰行動任務,基本形成了原信號部隊主管網絡防禦、原軍事情報部隊主管網絡進攻的模式,從而將此前離散部署、鬆散聯合的網絡空間相關組織整合為一支完備的陸軍網絡力量。此外,陸軍網絡司令部在2011年還被賦予執行信息作戰的任務,掌握第1信息作戰司令部的作戰指揮權,情報和安全司令部下屬的第780軍事情報旅也將轉型為陸軍網絡司令部直接指揮的網絡旅。

持續優化陸軍網絡空間部隊

陸軍網絡司令部成立後,網絡空間軍事力量作戰化始終是其中心工作,這一點在陸軍網絡力量組織不斷優化整合的過程中得到突出體現。對於當前已經形成的網絡作戰、電子戰、信息作戰、軍事情報甚至太空作戰能力,美軍陸軍在進行網絡軍隊組織結構設計時也體現出融合多種能力的趨勢。美國陸軍還在網絡部隊建設中積極推進整體型軍隊模式,突出國民警衛隊和預備役網絡力量的發展。經過多年建設,美國陸軍網絡力量組織結構已經基本形成。
陸軍網絡作戰力量組織結構,2011年

優化戰鬥力量組織結構,適應作戰行動支援需求。在總部機構層面,為了進一步完善網絡空間作戰行動的指揮程序並實現意圖統一,陸軍在2014年3月批准網絡司令部為陸軍部隊組成總部,同時指定第2集團軍為其直屬單位,而網絡企業技術司令部成為第2集團軍直接指揮的網絡作戰部隊,網絡企業技術司令部指揮官兼任第2集團軍副軍長。而且在前一年,網絡司令部已經在美國網絡司令部和陸軍總部的指導下開始組建聯合部隊網絡總部,其將對網絡空間作戰部隊實施任務指揮,並且具備直接支持作戰司令部的網絡作戰能力。在作戰部隊和戰區層面,網絡司令部試圖通過地區網絡中心改善全球網絡防禦態勢。在原有戰區網絡作戰和安全中心、地區計算機應急響應中心力量基礎上,這些地區網絡安全中心對網絡作戰行動指揮程序進行精簡,能夠發揮較強的計劃、協調和同步功能,從而更加高效地支援地理作戰司令部的行動。

確定條令開發負責機構,完善網絡建軍理論指導。由於美國陸軍網絡司令部合併了原網絡作戰、信息作戰和信號部隊的力量,信號部隊的大量作戰理論迫切需要修訂並轉化為網絡作戰理論,從而實現協調統一的作戰能力發展模式,避免出現概念指導上的混亂。 2014年3月,美國訓練和條令司令部在原信號卓越中心的基礎上,整合其他相關專業力量元素,組建了陸軍網絡卓越中心,目標在2015年10月使其具備指導網絡、信號和電子戰部隊訓練的全面能力。網絡司令部下屬的網絡空間促進辦公室也被合併入網絡卓越中心,從而進一步增強網絡卓越中心在總結網絡部隊建設經驗教訓方面的優勢。通過實施條令出版項目,網絡卓越中心試圖合併原有的信號和電子戰部隊條令,根據陸軍“2015條令體系”的相關要求開發全新的網絡空間作戰、電子戰以及信號部隊條令。目前,陸軍已經完成了對野戰條令FM6-02《信號部隊支持作戰行動》的修訂,指導信號部隊向網絡部隊進行職能轉型;第一次發布了野戰條令FM3-38《網絡電磁行動》,明確了“陸軍在統一地面行動中整合網絡電磁活動的總體原則、戰術和規程”;作為陸軍網絡軍隊建設的根本性指導文件,野戰條令FM3-12《網絡空間作戰》也基本完成了最後的批准程序,於2015年正式在陸軍內部發行。以上述條令文件為主體,網絡卓越中心將繼續完善數十種相關陸軍條令出版物的編撰發布工作,構建完整的陸軍網絡空間作戰技術、戰術和規程體系,為陸軍網絡部隊建設提供全面理論指導。
陸軍網絡作戰力量組織結構,2015年

整合網絡空間教育訓練力量,促進網絡部隊正規化發展。美國陸軍將推進網絡訓練正規化發展視為提高網絡作戰和戰備水平的根本途徑。在陸軍網絡卓越中心組建的同時,陸軍網絡學校作為其下屬機構在原電子戰學校的基礎上成立,而且陸軍信號學校也在網絡卓越中心的建制下繼續得以保留,陸軍關於網絡空間力量正規化建設的“條令-組織-訓練-資源-領導力和教育-人員-設施”模型得到進一步完善。隨著陸軍網絡兵種(“17-系列”職業管理領域)的設立,陸軍要求進入網絡職業領域的新任職人員必須完成網絡學校的駐校訓練項目,從信號、情報和信息作戰部隊等單位調動到相應網絡作戰崗位的大量人員也需要進行新的職業教育訓練,上述兩所學校將共同對新成立的陸軍網絡兵種單位的軍官、準尉和士官進行單個人員技能訓練。例如,軍官領導力基礎訓練課程於2015年8月在網絡學校正式啟動,為期14週的準尉軍官高級訓練項目則在2016年5月開始實施。對於陸軍在2015年10月徵募的第一批網絡作戰士兵,其必須參加的高級個人訓練項目則在2016年2月開始。由於網絡空間作戰行動本質上具有聯合作戰的屬性,高級個人訓練項目為期22週的第一階段訓練內容將是海軍聯合網絡分析師課程,第二階段訓練同樣持續22週,訓練場地也會從海軍設施轉移到陸軍網絡學校。

重視國民警衛隊和預備役網絡力量,突出支援和協調功能。針對網絡作戰力量的發展問題,陸軍認為預備役部門可以協助現役部隊分擔部分任務,能夠在必要時迅速提供具備較高訓練水平的增援力量。因其獨特的雙重法律定位,陸軍國民警衛隊可以發揮各州與聯邦政府機構、民事與軍事組織、私營與公共部門之間的銜接作用,“具備發展網絡空間能力的天然優勢”。因此,陸軍在網絡作戰力量發展過程中也注重相關預備役組織的建設。例如,第1信息作戰司令部還包含4支預備役部隊戰區信息作戰大隊,其都具備提供信息作戰和網絡空間計劃、分析、技術支持能力。根據陸軍國民警衛隊2014年6月與陸軍網絡司令部簽署的一份備忘錄,陸軍國民警衛隊將其在此前一年組建的1支網絡防禦分隊轉隸於陸軍網絡司令部/第2集團軍。這支被稱為第1636網絡防禦分隊的網絡部隊將處於《美國法典》第10卷服役狀態,即全時服役狀態,將與陸軍網絡司令部其他現役部隊共同接受同等標準的訓練,並共同執行所有類型的任務。

本文轉自《軍事文摘》12月刊 責任編輯:張傳良

中國軍隊戰略層面的網絡空間特種作戰 China’s Strategic Level of Cyberspace Special Operations

战略层面的网络空间特种作战 –

China’s Strategic level of Cyberspace Special Operations

Editor’s Note: US Army Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Mitchell Dugen at the US Army War College during the fourth quarter of 2015, “Joint Force Quarterly” published “strategic level of cyberspace special operations,” a paper, the article was Chairman of the Association of the United Nations in 2008 Strategic Papers Competition Strategy Research Award.

In this paper, by reviewing the cyberspace special operations cases, this paper analyzes the potential power of using network tools in asymmetric conflicts, and points out that cyberspace special operations have become an effective strategic tool to achieve national goals. Become a regional power to avoid the US military dominance and to ensure that their strategic interests of the unconventional path. The author proposes three new options for integrating emerging technologies and special operations: “cloud-driven” foreign defense, network counter-insurgency and unconventional cyber warfare advance team. Designed to maintain the US network technology advantages, and to build an important partnership, shaping the full spectrum of the conflict environment has a revolutionary impact. Iran and Russia and other regional forces of cyberspace special combat readiness why more than the United States? How does Iran and Russia strengthen its power at the tactical level while the United States has assembled its network and network capabilities at the strategic level? The United States in more than 20 years ago issued a network of special operations related documents, but why the network of special operations policies, departments and regulations are still not mature enough? For the US military, the most basic question is: how will the United States build a strategic level of network special combat capability?

As early as 1993, Internet technology theorists John Achilla and David Lennfield in his book “cyber war is coming” a book has predicted the recent Iran and Russia to implement the cyberspace special operations. “A large number of scattered small groups around the use of the latest communications technology coordinated” control network, to obtain the decisive advantage of the opponent. In reality this scene has been staged again and again. “We are using the information and the more information we have, and the less demand for traditional weapons,” says Achilla and Lunfield. US military executives have also realized that with asymmetric network tools, unconventional tactics and a large number of false information armed, a small amount of special combatants can form a certain strategic impact. There is news that both Iran and Russia have succeeded in using cyberspace special operations as a strategic tool to achieve their national goals. Both countries have an integrated network of special operations forces that know how to exploit the potential power of network tools in asymmetric conflicts. The asymmetric approach of the two countries has become a strong and unconventional path for regional powers to circumvent US military superiority and to ensure their strategic interests. Low price Of the network of high-tech allows potential rivals can develop a strong network warfare capabilities. Therefore, the United States urgently need to make strategic choices, the development of cyberspace special operations, as a tool for the protection and projection of national interests.

Low-cost network of high-tech technology allows potential rivals to develop a strong network warfare capabilities In February 2013, the Russian chief of staff Grazimov in the Russian “military messenger” magazine published “science in the forecast value” article. In the paper, Gracimov predicted a new generation of war that could “change the rules of the game”, whose strategic value would exceed “the effectiveness of weapon forces.” He called for universal asymmetric action to counter the enemy’s strengths and create a permanent frontier in the territory of the enemy through “special forces and internal confrontation and continuous improvement of information operations, equipment and means.” In the spring of 2014, Western media reported that in the eastern part of Ukraine, a casual special operations squad from Russia through the Ukrainian border, occupation of government buildings and arsenal and transferred to the separatist armed. At the same time, the Ukrainian authorities claim that their digital, telephone and cyber communications are cut off, interfered or attacked. The Ukrainian government attributed the cyber attacks on information and logistics infrastructure, including Internet servers and railroad control systems, to the destruction of Russia, and argued that the implementation of information fraud in Russia was costly in important social media, blogs, and News website published 50 pro-Russian comments every day, inside and outside Ukraine to form a large number of false information flow, on the one hand to cover up its non-traditional military operations in cyberspace, on the other hand to create a political illusion. “Russia is not doing the usual information warfare about false information, lies, leaks or cyber sabotage, it reshapes reality, creates public illusions, and then translates them into political action,” said senior government officials. To this end, in September 2014 at the NATO security summit, the NATO Allied Supreme Commander, US Air Force Admiral Philip Bride Leaf pointed out that Russia in East Ukraine to implement the “mixed” non-traditional operations on behalf of the war The most amazing information in history is Blitzkrieg. Bride Leaf urges the Allies to immediately develop the ability to counter the Russian non-traditional warfare, propaganda and cyber attacks. Russia’s use of the “non-traditional Western as a war” non-traditional means to achieve its political purpose, which makes the Western and NATO countries by surprise. Russia is not a fragmented way to use special forces, information operations or network capabilities.

On the contrary, as General Glashimov said, “the war does not need to be publicly announced, when the special forces with advanced technology and a lot of information for the traditional forces in the maintenance of peace and crisis under the cover of strategic objectives to create good conditions, the war on “Cybercrime deception and cyber attacks are special forces in” war and peace ”

Network information spoofing and cyber attack action for special combat forces in the “war and peace” between the implementation of non-traditional warfare to win the time and space lessons learned from the Russian case can draw four major experience, for the United States special operations Action and network capacity integration to provide a viable theoretical framework. First, there are tactical and strategic differences in the offensive network tools used by the Russian Special Forces, targeting tactical “closed networks”, such as local communications, social media, regional networks and logistics infrastructure, while retaining Its more advanced open network tools as a backup. Second, the network special operations are primarily an agent behavior, emphasizing the minimization of the source tracking. As Gracimov described, “the long-distance, non-contact action against the enemy is becoming the primary means of the tactical battle.” Network special operations usually avoid direct contact with people, but in peace and war in the gray area to start action. Third, information and communication technology, network attacks and information operations in the network to form a non-conventional warfare play an important role. As long as the appropriate implementation, the traditional special operations can go far beyond its original function, “which involves the comprehensive application of a wide range of capabilities to achieve policy objectives.” To be effective, it must also be integrated to synchronize other areas of expertise. Fourth, the network special operations can both deter the conflict, can also be used to deal with the whole spectrum of conflict, because “it is suitable for all stages of action, from shaping the environment to the intense war to post-war reconstruction.” Although the network war to destroy the original intention, but also has a constructive side. The widespread dissemination of low-cost information and communication technologies is conducive to strengthening the security of partner countries and thus helping to prevent the occurrence of conflicts.

“‘Foreign help defense’ (FID) under ‘cloud drive’ is both a concept of cloud computing and a metaphorical description of partnering and trust through virtual means. “The concept of” cloud-driven “FID” has not yet been clearly defined, but it can be integrated into an interdisciplinary field to better understand people, geography and virtual worlds and to act together on related goals. Technically, the “cloud-driven” FID “strengthens the partnership, consolidates data through the federated facilities, enhances automation, and disseminates the analysis process. “Cloud-driven” is flexible and can be developed in private, public, community, or mixed form, using different software, platforms, and infrastructure. Security personnel use intelligent technology to drive confidential mobile applications, analyze tools and share data through “cloud-driven” FIDs. Although the data associated with the virtual cloud, but its real value is to make the timely dissemination of information to the hands of tactics. “The cloud-driven” FID “can also be likened to a persistent, active partnership, the data never stops, the network has been busy. Technology is only a tool to drive deeper, extensive socio-cultural, political and historical factors that are often prone to conflict. “Cloud-driven” FID “can build more sustainable competencies and trust with partner countries. “The cloud-driven” FID “lay a virtual foundation for the future establishment of various institutions, centers and laboratories to bridge the benefits of inter-agency across the United States. From the strategic point of view of the US government, “cloud-driven” FID “is a pragmatic” partnership-centered approach designed to target the core interests of partner countries rather than to Way to change the partner country “. “The cloud-driven” FID “is also a prudent strategic move to” prevent the US partner countries from becoming a public relations crisis due to domestic political problems. ” “The cloud drive ‘FID’ also offers other opportunities. The technology and networks it forms can react quickly to emergencies, such as humanitarian relief or relief operations, prevent mass killings, or evacuate personnel from non-combatants. This saves time, money and manpower by providing information for the decision-making process. For the construction of the partnership, the cloud-driven FID can store local non-US social media information, rich social network analysis, social network maps, and behavioral and opinion trends analysis. Most importantly, the “cloud drive ‘FID” builds trust in an innovative and extremely powerful way to build lasting influence on allies and partners.

Today’s global environment drives the United States to use cyber special operations as a strategic tool network for national military strategies Anti-riot counterintelligence network Anti-riot operations (CNCOIN) aims to use social media networks to achieve the purpose of rebellion. To break the asymmetric information superiority of the enemy, CNCOIN uses non-technical means to combat the relevant crowd and control its perception, behavior and action. It adds a military color to the cyber space’s ubiquitous anti-social network. Although these means are not clearly defined, this article believes that it actually refers to the manipulation of social media, cover up the true identity, to achieve ulterior motives. While social media provides a wide range of opportunities for anti-social networks, such as malicious use, intentional misconduct, but from the military point of view, social media provides a wealth of information resources to affect the psychological vulnerability, but also an ideal attack platform. There are several technologies that contribute to its implementation in each functional category. The scope of action includes, but is not limited to, cyber-pseudo operation and cyber-herding operation. Network fraud is a classic counter-insurgency strategy, “government forces and technical staff will pretend to be insurgents, into the enemy network after the use of advanced intelligence technology in the network within the implementation of the destruction.” Internet expulsion means that “individuals, groups, or organizations deport other individuals, groups, or organizations to the default network area.” The magic of the two technologies is the expulsion of insurgents in the virtual network by exploiting the inherent flaws of the communication technology and communication platform. The two tactics are aimed at rebel activist online communities, manipulating or disrupting them, and ultimately providing more opportunities for cyberbullying. The virtual world magnifies the environmental factors, because the characters in the network are more difficult to determine their authenticity. Planning command control, communication frequency and equipment platform and other elements will become the key to the implementation of network fraud or network expulsion operations to manipulate, mislead or expel the target group to the desired results. The scope of information includes, but is not limited to, Crowdsourcing and Social Networking Analysis, SNA). Crowdsourcing is the use of large-scale knowledge base, provided by the participants voluntarily, to solve the problem to provide new ideas, services or observation, you can quickly expand the organizers of the field of vision. Social network analysis depicts and measures the relationships, strengths, and cores of social links in a visual way to illustrate the social network structure. Social network visualization or social networking maps can provide a unique window for assessing, depicting and even predicting the intensity, time, space, and relationship dimensions of relationship events. In September 2013, during the crisis in the Philippines, the anti-government armed Moro National Liberation Front (hereinafter referred to as “the dismount”) was dissatisfied with the situation of national reconciliation, hijacked more than 200 civilians as hostages, attacked commercial shops and burned urban buildings. Throughout the crisis, crowdsourcing and social network analysis are very successful non-traditional tactical means. The Philippine security forces use crowdsourcing tactics to encourage Zamboang residents to discover and report on the “melodic” members of the hiding place. FEI security forces, together with crowdsourcing information and intelligence analysis, provide information for security operations and humanitarian operations. The use of social network analysis to assess the “Mobility” of the public support, and in the social media against the “interpretation” declaration, to ban the violation of social media user agreement propaganda site, but also the use of crowds of information blockade ” Troops, attacking their temporary command post. The Philippine security forces used solid media to track the key information and lead the use of social media, and then use the solid forces to defeat the “interpretation” of the asymmetric advantage. The information warfare category includes but is not limited to cyber intrusion (cyber Aggression, forum vest (sock-puppeting), astro-turfing and so on. Three tactics are anonymous use of social media to implement misleading, false information to manipulate behavior, public opinion and action. The cyber-invasion is proposed by Teanna Felmyr, which refers to “an electronic or online act that is intended to cause psychological harm to others or damage its reputation by using e-mail, instant messaging, cell phones, digital information, chat rooms

As well as social media, video, game sites, etc. “. It is much broader than the range of ordinary cyber-aggressive behavior. Its anonymity may cause substantial psychological harm and negative consequences, as the relevant information will be repeatedly sent to the target or published in the social media. Its value to CNCOIN is that it can use sensitive digital information to humiliate, defame or hurt the target, causing psychological barriers. This powerful cyber-invading action can reduce the credibility, influence and power of the target, and ultimately lose the power of the target or other insurgents. The other two tactics, the forum vest and the fake are all fictitious online propaganda tools used to spread distorted views to create a wider range of support or opposition to the illusion. In fact, with the forum vest is the same concept, but more complex, more organized, larger. Both tactics use virtual characters to distribute false information in cyberspace, with the aim of initiating group reactions or actions. Combining massive amounts of text, images, and video with a planned misleading network activity will significantly enhance the effectiveness of CNCOIN’s action. The third way to advance the US network’s special operations is the unconventional cyber warfare team (cyber-UW Pilot Team, using social media networks to shape the physical environment, the establishment of regional mechanisms, in the implementation of non – conventional war before the regional connectivity. The core of the unconventional network warfare team is the special forces, with a number of professional organizations to provide technical support, its task is in the field of network security for the preparation of unconventional operations. The penetration of the traditional advance team is the target of enemy territory, military facilities and other entities, rather than the conventional advance team is through the virtual means of infiltration, and then into the sensitive, hostile or refused to area. Through the virtual means, can reduce the United States and partner countries armed forces in time, risk, equipment and other aspects of the loss and risk. Conceptually, unconventional cyber warfare teams use web tools and advanced technology to build people, entities, intelligence, and information infrastructures on social media. While deepening understanding of the local human terrain, the team can strengthen its local language and cultural skills, as well as identify resistance leaders, assess motivation and resistance, and overall support for US government goals, while at the same time understanding Informal hierarchical distribution, psychology and behavior. In addition, you can also incorporate the Internet’s white noise into the social media network to “improve the cultural understanding of potential collaborators in the United States and the local situation before action.” While the US national security strategy has long recognized the strategy of cyber warfare Role, but this understanding is not fully translated into a clear strategic level of thinking and combat capability. For example, the US Department of Defense cyberspace action strategy did not give much solution or specific measures, only from five aspects of the previous repeated network ideas. Lack of clear ideas lead to our network strategy is flawed, making the United States advanced network technology advantages to hand over to the potential rival risk. In contrast, Iran and Russia’s asymmetric innovation modeled other regions and global forces, trying to circumvent the US military advantage by unconventional means to ensure their strategic interests. Cyberspace special operations are a must to fill the strategic level of the blank. Obviously, the United States must actively seek a tactical level of unconventional combat into the cyber space operations in the form of special operations. Rand’s recent study of special operations concluded that “the United States needs to use a more advanced form of special operations to ensure national interests, taking into account the recent US and its interests facing the security threat situation, special operations

Become the most appropriate form of ensuring national interests “. In an increasingly interconnected global environment, the physical infrastructure is quickly allocated Internet protocol addresses, accessory networking. By 2020, there will be 50 billion “machine-to-machine” equipment (currently 1 3 billion units) will be through the “embedded computer, sensor and Internet capabilities” access to network space. Cyberspace special operations Unicom virtual and reality, through the modern information network and with the traditional face-to-face combination of special operations partnership. Today’s global environment has prompted the United States to use cyber special operations as a strategic tool for national military strategies. Potential rivals combine offensive network capabilities with unconventional tactics to set a terrible example for other enemies in the United States, and they will follow suit quickly. This paper presents three new options for integrating emerging technologies and special operations: foreign-assisted defense under “cloud-driven”, anti-riot operations in the network, and non-conventional cyber warfare advance teams. Full play of these three tactics will not only maintain the advantages of the US network technology, but also to build an important partnership, shaping the whole spectrum of combat environment have a revolutionary impact. If successful implementation, network special operations will become the United States a strong new strategic options

Original Mandarin Chinese:

编者按:美国陆军中校帕特里克·米歇尔·杜根在美陆军战争学院就读期间,于2015年第4季度《联合部队季刊》发表《战略层面的网络空间特种作战》一文,该文曾获得2015年度参联会主席战略论文竞赛战略研究类奖。本文通过回顾网络空间特种作战案例,分析了在非对称性冲突中利用网络工具的潜在力量,指出网络空间特种作战已经成为达成国家目标的有效战略工具。成为地区强国用以规避美国军事主导权以及确保本国战略利益的非常规性路径。作者提出了融合新兴技术与特种作战的三种新选项:“云驱动”下的国外协助防御,网络反暴乱平叛行动与非常规网络战先遣队。旨在维持美国的网络技术优势,并对构建重要伙伴关系、塑造全频谱冲突环境产生革命性影响。伊朗和俄罗斯等地区力量的网络空间特种作战战备为何比美国更为充分?

美国在战略层面集结其网络部门和网络能力的同时,伊朗和俄罗斯又是如何在战术层面强化其力量的呢?美国在20多年前就发布了网络特种作战的相关文件,但为何其网络特种作战的政策、部门和条令仍然不够成熟呢?对于美军而言,最基本的问题是:美国将如何打造战略层面的网络特种作战能力?早在1993年,互联网技术理论家约翰·阿奇拉和大卫·伦菲尔德在其著作《网络战争即将来临》一书中就已经预言了最近伊朗和俄罗斯所实施的网络空间特种作战行动。“大量分散各地的小规模团体利用最新的通信技术协调一致”控制网络,取得对对手的决定性优势。现实中这一情景一再上演。阿奇拉和伦菲尔德认为,“战争中我们投向敌人的不再是质量和能量;如今我们使用的是信息,掌握的信息越多,对传统武器的需求就越少”。

美军高层也已经意识到,有了非对称性网络工具、非常规战术以及大量虚假信息的武装,少量的特种作战人员就可以形成一定的战略影响。目前有消息表明,伊朗和俄罗斯均已成功地将网络空间特种作战作为一种战略工具来达成其国家目标。两国都拥有一体化的网络特种作战部队,知道如何在非对称性冲突中利用网络工具的潜在力量。两国的非对称性手段成为地区强国用以规避美国军事优势以及确保本国战略利益的强大非常规性路径。价格低廉的网络高新技术使得潜在对手可以发展出强大的网络战能力。因此,美国亟需做出战略选择,发展网络空间特种作战,作为保护和投射国家利益的工具。

价格低廉的网络高新技术使得潜在对手可以发展出强大的网络战能力2013年2月,俄罗斯总参谋长格拉西莫夫在俄《军工信使》杂志发表了《科学在预测中的价值》一文。文中,格拉西莫夫预测了能够“改变游戏规则”的新一代战争,其战略价值将超过“武器力量的效能”。他号召普遍开展非对称性行动,以抵消敌方的优势,通过“特种作战力量和内部对抗以及不断完善的信息行动、装备和手段,在敌国的领土中创造一个永久活动的前线”。2014年春,有西方媒体报道,在乌克兰东部的乱局中,一支便装的特种作战小分队从俄罗斯境内穿越乌克兰边界,占领政府建筑和武器库并转交给分裂主义武装。与此同时,乌克兰当局声称,其全境的数字、电话及网络通信均遭到切断、干扰或攻击活动。乌克兰政府将信息和物流基础设施(包括互联网服务器和铁路控制系统)遭受的网络攻击归因于俄方的破坏,同时还认为,俄罗斯实施信息欺骗行动,花费巨资在重要的社交媒体、博客以及新闻网站每天发布50条亲俄评论,在乌克兰内外形成大量的虚假信息流,一方面掩盖其在网络空间的非传统军事行动,另一方面制造了政治假象。乌政府高级官员表示,“俄罗斯所做的并不是通常的信息作战所涉及的虚假信息、谎言、泄漏机密或网络破坏活动,它重新塑造现实,造成大众幻象,然后将之转化为政治行动”。为此,在2014年9月召开的北约安全峰会上,北约盟军最高司令、美国空军上将菲利普·布里德莱弗指出,俄罗斯在东乌克兰实施的“混合型”非传统作战代表了战争史上最惊人的信息闪电战。布里德莱弗敦促盟军立即发展相应的能力以反制俄罗斯的非传统战、宣传战及网络攻击行动。俄罗斯使用“根本不被西方视为战争的”非传统手段达成其政治目的,这使得西方及北约国家措手不及。俄罗斯并不是以碎片化的方式来使用特种力量、信息作战或网络能力。相反,正如格拉西莫夫将军所言,“发动战争不再需要公开宣布,当配备先进技术和大量信息的特种力量为传统部队在维持和平与危机的掩护下达成战略目标创造好条件,战争就发生了。”言外之意,网络信息欺骗和网络攻击行动为特种作战力量在“战争与和平之间”实施非传统战赢得了时间和空间。俄罗斯的网络赋能非传统战极为成功,不仅是其网络特种力量的混成,而且还成功地侵入欧盟成员国,甚至没有引起西方有效的军事反应。

网络信息欺骗和网络攻击行动为特种作战力量在“战争与和平之间”实施非传统战赢得了时间和空间 经验教训从俄罗斯的案例中可以得出四个方面的主要经验,可为美国特种作战行动与网络能力整合提供一个可行的理论框架。第一,俄罗斯特种部队所使用的进攻性网络工具存在战术和战略层面的差别,主要以战术层面的“封闭网络”为目标,如本地通讯、社交媒体、区域网络和后勤基础设施等,同时保留其更为先进的开放网络工具作为备用。第二,网络特种作战主要是一种代理人行为,强调最小化的来源跟踪。正如格拉西莫夫所描述的那样,“对敌方的远距离、无接触行动正在成为战术战役目标的主要手段”。网络特种作战通常避免人员的直接接触,而是在和平与战争的灰色地带展开行动。第三,信息与通信技术、网络攻击及信息作战等在网络赋能的非常规战中发挥着重要作用。只要恰当的实施,传统的特种作战可以远远超出其原有的功能,“这涉及到对广泛能力的综合运用,以达成政策目标”。要发挥效能,还必须整合同步其他领域的专门知识。第四,网络特种作战既可以慑止冲突,也可用于应对全频谱冲突,因为“它适合行动的各个阶段,从塑造环境到剧烈战争再到战后重建等”。虽然网络战以破坏为初衷,但也具有建设性的一面。低成本的信息和通信技术的广泛传播有利于强化伙伴国安全,从而有助于阻止冲突的发生。

网络空间特种作战是一种必须填补的战略层面的能力空白,美国必须积极寻求一种在战术层面的非常规作战中融入网络空间作战的特种作战形式 “‘云驱动’下的‘国外协助防御’(FID)”既是一种云计算概念,也是通过虚拟手段增强伙伴能力和信任的一种比喻性描述。“‘云驱动’FID”概念虽然还未经明确界定,但是它却可以联接整合跨学科领域,以更好地理解人员、地理及虚拟世界,并对相关目标展开共同行动。从技术上而言,“‘云驱动’FID”可以强化伙伴关系,通过联合设施,实时共享数据,增强自动化,传播分析过程。“云驱动”是灵活多变的,能够以私人、公共、社区或混合形式出现,各自使用不同的软件、平台和基础设施等。安全人员通过“‘云驱动’FID”使用智能技术驱动保密的移动应用软件、分析工具和共享数据。虽然数据与虚拟云相联,但其真正价值在于使信息及时传播到战术人员手中。“‘云驱动’FID”也可比喻为一种持续的、活跃的伙伴关系,数据永不停止,网络一直忙碌。技术仅仅是一种工具,用以驱动更深入、广泛的社会文化、政治和历史因素的理解,这些往往是容易造成冲突的因素。“‘云驱动’FID”可以与伙伴国构建更具持续性的能力和信任。“‘云驱动’FID”为未来建立各种机构、中心和实验室弥合美国各跨机构间的利益打下一个虚拟的基础。从美国政府的战略视角而言,“‘云驱动’FID”是一种实用主义的“以伙伴国为中心的方式,旨在围绕伙伴国的核心利益设计行动,而不是寄希望于以短视的方式来改变伙伴国”。“‘云驱动’FID”还是一种审慎的战略举措,“以防美国的伙伴国由于国内政治问题出现公共关系危机”。“‘云驱动’FID”也提供了其他的机会。它所形成的技术和关系网络可以迅速对紧急事件做出反应,如人道主义救援或救灾行动、阻止大规模屠杀,或者非战斗人员撤离任务等。这样可以通过为决策过程提供信息而节约时间、金钱和人力等。对于伙伴关系的构建而言,“‘云驱动’FID”可以存储当地的非美国社交媒体信息、丰富的社交网络分析、社会网络地图以及行为和舆论趋势分析等信息。最为重要的是,“‘云驱动’FID”以富有创新性和极为有力的方式构建信任,打造对盟友及伙伴国的持久影响力。

当今的全球环境促使美国采用网络特种作战作为国家军事战略的战略性工具 网络反暴乱平叛行动网络反暴乱平叛行动(CNCOIN)旨在利用社交媒体网络达成平叛的目的。为打破敌人的非对称性信息优势,CNCOIN使用非技术手段打击相关人群,控制其感知、行为和行动。它为网络空间无处不在的反社交网络手段增添了军事色彩。虽然这些手段没有明确界定,本文认为,它实际上就是指操纵社交媒体,掩盖真实身份,达成不可告人的目的。虽然社交媒体为反社交网络提供了广泛的机会,如恶意利用、有意误导等,但从军事角度而言,社交媒体提供了丰富的信息资源以影响心理脆弱性,也是一个理想的攻击平台。每种功能性范畴中都有几种有助于其实施的技术。行动范畴包括但不局限于网络欺骗行动(cyber-pseudo operation)和网络驱逐行动(cyber-herding operation)。网络欺骗行动是一种经典的平叛策略,“政府军和技术人员将自己假扮为叛乱分子,渗入敌方网络后使用先进的谍报技术在该网络内部实施破坏”。网络驱逐行动就是指,“个人、团体或组织把其他的个人、团体或组织驱逐到预设的网络区域”。两种技术的奇妙之处在于,通过利用通信技术与通信平台的内在缺陷来驱逐虚拟网络中的叛乱分子。两种战术以叛乱分子活跃的网络社群为目标,对其进行操控或者瓦解,最终为网络平叛提供更多的机会。虚拟世界放大了环境因素,因为网络中的人物更难确定其真实性。规划指挥控制、通信频率以及设备平台等要素将成为网络欺骗行动或网络驱逐行动实施的关键点,用以操纵、误导或者驱逐目标群走向预想的结果。情报范畴包括但不局限于众包(Crowdsourcing)和社交网络分析技术(Social Networking Analysis, SNA)。众包就是利用大规模的知识库,由参与者自愿提供的,为解决问题提供新思路、服务或观察,可以迅速扩展组织者的视野。社交网络分析以可视的方式描绘和测量社交链接的关系、强度及核心性以说明社会网络结构。社交网络可视化或者社网图可以提供独特的窗口用以评估、描绘甚至预测关系事件的强度、时间、空间和关系维度。2013年9月,菲律宾三宝颜危机期间,反政府武装摩洛民族解放阵线(以下简称“摩解”)对民族和解状况感到不满,挟持200多名平民为人质,袭击商业店铺,烧毁城市建筑。整个危机期间,众包和社交网络分析都是非常成功的非传统战术手段。菲律宾安全部队使用众包战术鼓励三宝颜居民发现并报告“摩解”成员的藏身地点。菲安全部队结合众包信息和情报分析,为安全行动和人道主义行动提供信息。使用社交网络分析来评估“摩解”的民众支持度,并在社交媒体上反制“摩解”宣言,封禁违反社交媒体用户协议的宣传网站,还使用众包信息封锁“摩解”小股部队,攻击其临时指挥哨所。菲安全部队通过使用社交媒体跟踪关键信息和领导节点,随后使用实体部队挫败了“摩解”的非对称性优势。信息作战范畴包括但不局限于网络入侵(cyber aggression)、论坛马甲(袜子手偶sock-puppeting)、以假乱真(Astro-turfing)等。三种战术都是匿名利用社交媒体实施误导、假信息等来操纵行为、舆论及行动。网络入侵是由蒂安娜·菲尔姆利提出,是指“一种电子或在线行为,旨在对他人实施心理伤害或损毁其名誉,通过使用电子邮件、即时信息、手机、数字信息、聊天室以及社交媒体、视频、游戏网站等”。它比普通的网络攻击性行为的范围要广泛得多。它的匿名性可能会引起实质性的心理伤害和负面后果,因为相关信息会被重复发送给目标或者在社交媒体发布。它对CNCOIN的价值在于,可以利用敏感的数字信息来羞辱、诽谤或伤害目标,造成心理障碍行为。这种强大的网络入侵行动可以降低目标的可信度、影响力和权力,最终使目标或其它叛乱分子丧失实力。其它两种战术,论坛马甲和以假乱真都是虚构的在线宣传工具,用来散布扭曲的观点,以制造更广范围的支持或者反对的假象。以假乱真实际上跟论坛马甲是同一个概念,只不过更为复杂、更有组织、规模更大。两种战术都使用虚拟人物在网络空间散布虚假信息,目的是引发群体反应或行动。以假乱真的网络信息作战行动包含海量文字、图片和视频,与有计划的误导性网络活动相结合,将显著增强CNCOIN行动的效果。 非常规网络战先遣队推进美国网络特种作战的第三种方式是非常规网络战先遣队(cyber-UW Pilot Team),利用社交媒体网络塑造实体环境,建立区域机制,在实施非常规战之前将各区域联通起来。非常规网络战先遣队的核心是特种部队,拥有多个专业机构提供的技术支持,其任务是在网络安全领域进行非常规作战的准备。传统先遣队的渗透目标是敌方领土、军事设施等实体目标,而非常规先遣队则是通过虚拟手段进行渗透,再潜入敏感、敌对或拒止区域。通过虚拟手段,可以减少美国及伙伴国武装力量在时间、风险、装备等方面的损失和风险。从概念上讲,非常规网络战先遣队利用网络工具和先进技术在社交媒体上打造人员、实体、情报以及信息基础设施。在加深对当地人文地形理解的同时,小组可以强化其本地语言和文化技能,还可识别抵抗活动领导者、评估动机和抵抗能力以及对美国政府目标的总体支持度,与此同时,还可以了解非正式的层级分布、心理及行为等。此外,还可以通过接入社交媒体网络混入互联网白噪音,以“提高美国对潜在合作者的文化理解以及在采取行动之前的当地形势。”虽然美国国家安全战略中早就承认了网络作战的战略作用,但是这种认识并没有完全转化成明晰的战略层面的思维和作战能力。例如,美国《国防部网络空间行动战略》中并没有给出多少解决方案或具体措施,仅仅从五个方面重复了先前的网络思路。缺乏明确的思路导致我们的网络战略存在缺陷,使得美国先进的网络技术优势有拱手让给潜在对手的风险。对比之下,伊朗和俄罗斯的非对称性创新为其他地区和全球力量树立了模仿的样板,都试图以非常规手段规避美国的军事优势,确保各自的战略利益。网络空间特种作战是一种必须填补的战略层面的能力空白。很显然,美国必须积极寻求一种在战术层面的非常规作战中融入网络空间作战的特种作战形式。兰德公司最近的一份研究特种作战的报告得出结论,称“美国需要运用一种更为先进的特种作战形式来确保国家利益,考虑到近来美国及其利益面临的安全威胁形势,特种作战成为确保国家利益的最合适的形式”。在一个日益互联的全球环境中,实体性基础设施快速被分配互联网协议地址,接入物联网。到2020年,将有500亿台“机器对机器”设备(目前为130亿台)会通过“嵌入计算机、传感器和互联网能力”接入网络空间。网络空间特种作战联通了虚拟与现实,通过现代的信息网络并与传统的面对面的特种作战伙伴关系相结合。当今的全球环境促使美国采用网络特种作战作为国家军事战略的战略性工具。潜在对手将进攻性网络能力与非常规战术相结合为美国的其他敌人树立了可怕的榜样,他们必将快速跟进。本文提出了融合新兴技术与特种作战的三种新选项:“云驱动”下的国外协助防御、网络反暴乱平叛行动以及非常规网络战先遣队。充分发挥这三种战术将不仅仅能维持美国的网络技术优势,还可对构建重要伙伴关系、塑造全频谱作战环境产生革命性影响。如果能成功实施,网络特种作战必将成为美国强有力的新战略选项。

 

2016-08-22 17:42现代军事

中國軍隊信息戰裝備的作戰運用 – Chinese Military Operation of Information Warfare Equipment

中國軍隊信息戰裝備的作戰運用

Chinese Military Operation of Information Warfare Equipment

Information warfare is the C4ISR system and C4ISR system of confrontation, is the advantage of information contention, the main purpose is to ensure that their own information system to run properly, from the enemy use, paralysis and destruction; the same time, trying to use, paralyzed and destroy the enemy’s information system, So that in a paralyzed, confused state. Information warfare includes two parts: strategic information warfare and battlefield information warfare.

Strategic information warfare and information warfare battlefield

strategic information warfare is mainly characterized by a wide range of sectors covering all key political, economic, technological, and military and other special areas; special way, relates to psychological warfare, media warfare, deception warfare, media warfare and other special Means that the target is special, mainly through the decadence war, psychological warfare, information deterrence attack the enemy’s understanding system and thinking system; great harm, can make the whole country’s economic, political or military paralyzed, and even make it happen alternately; Personnel special, the war is not necessarily military personnel, computer experts, international criminal groups, ulterior motives of hackers or terrorist organizations and so may become war personnel.

Battlefield information warfare is the information warfare in the battle space, refers to the preparation and conduct of a campaign, the integrated use of information technology and a variety of information technology weapons, information combat platform and C4ISR system, in reconnaissance detection and early warning, information processing and Transmission, weapons control and guidance, operational command and control, camouflage deception and interference, as well as military strategy and other aspects of the comprehensive confrontation and struggle. Battlefield information warfare is through the interference or disrupting the enemy decision-making process, so that the enemy can not effectively take concerted action. Therefore, we must first affect the enemy decision-making, and then affect its actions, that is, to win the air electromagnetic advantage, and then made the air superiority, and finally the use of conventional forces to take combat operations. To seize the right to information system, to seize the initiative to fight the space, but also for the fight for land rights, air supremacy, sea power and the system of the right to lay a good foundation and necessary conditions.

A The basic combat forces and means are digital forces and information weapons equipment, the main contents include combat confidentiality, military deception, electronic warfare, psychological warfare and fire destroyed, the core purpose is to compete for the battle space information access , Control and use rights. Battlefield information warfare is the confrontation of the information system, it directly affects the entire battle space, the whole process of war and success or failure. Battlefield information warfare The main combat style is the electronic warfare and cyber warfare. Electronic warfare is an important part of the battlefield information warfare, mainly for the enemy communications, radar and other electromagnetic radiation source for the lure, interference, destruction and destruction activities. In the Gulf War, the electronic warfare was not only for the first time on a large scale, but also as a campaign stage and a specific campaign in war. In the Kosovo war, NATO used a lot of electronic warfare equipment, and the first use of electromagnetic pulse bombs and the first time a network war. Network warfare is a cyber-confrontational activity in computer cyberspace, using the Internet, and is being used for the first time in the Kosovo war. NATO network warfare measures include: network advertising; hacker attacks; attacks on financial networks. The main feature of the network war in the Southern Alliance is the people’s war mode, fans, computer fans and computer enthusiasts spontaneously carried out a large number of network operations, such as online publicity, attack NATO website, the use of network transmission of information.

Information warfare equipment in war equipment electronic warfare equipment the trend of electronic warfare equipment increasingly integrated and universal, under the conditions of information technology in the local war, the battlefield of the electromagnetic environment is increasingly complex, the past that the separation of each other, a single function of electronic warfare equipment is far from Adapt to combat needs. Integration and generalization has become the focus of the development of electronic warfare equipment and future electronic warfare equipment overall development direction. In order to deal more effectively with the complex and volatile electromagnetic threat in the information warfare, the future of the new generation of electronic warfare equipment, will be widely used advanced computer technology, greatly improve the automation of the entire system to have better real-time capabilities, since Adaptability and full power management capability. Electronic warfare equipment, work areas continue to widen, increasing the transmission power, millimeter-wave technology and the development of optical technology, the modern electronic warfare equipment, the frequency of continuous development to a wider band. On the whole, the future range of electronic warfare equipment will be extended to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. GPS interference and anti-interference will be concerned about the practice of war has shown that if the loss of GPS support, it will greatly weaken the information advantage, so that command, control, reconnaissance, combat, military and other military aspects are facing severe tests, Combat effectiveness. Focusing on the development of anti-radiation and new electronic warfare jets, attention to the development of new, special electronic warfare technology and equipment, such as anti-satellite laser weapons, high-energy particle beam weapons, and meteor communication, neutrino communication and so on.

Computer virus weapon <a In the military information system, the battlefield information acquisition, transmission, processing and other functions need to complete the computer and network, computer network is the basis and pioneer of information warfare. The use of software-driven sniffers and hardware magnetic sniffers and other sniffing network is an important way to attack the network. These sniffing tools were originally a test device used to diagnose and assist in repairing the network, so it was a powerful tool for network management personnel to manage the network, but it was a terrible computer virus weapon in information warfare. It can make the network “service denied”, “information tampering”, information “halfway steal” and so on. In addition, will also focus on design “portal trap”. “Portal trap”, also known as “back door”, is a computer system designer in the system in advance of a structure, in the application appears or operating system, the programmer to insert some debugging agencies. System programmers in order to achieve the purpose of the attack system, deliberately left a small number of portal traps for familiar with the system staff to go beyond the normal system protection and sneak into the system. Network is an important infrastructure for information warfare, network-based warfare is mainly based on the network and the network is reliable to determine the outcome of the war. Therefore, to strengthen the network of offensive and defensive combat research, to win the future of information war is essential.   Electromagnetic pulse bombs

Iraq war, the US military used a lot of electronic warfare equipment, and the use of electromagnetic pulse bombs attacked the Iraqi radio and television system and the Iraqi military various types of electronic radiation source. Electromagnetic pulse bomb, also known as microwave pulse bomb, is through the micro-beam into electromagnetic energy, damage to each other’s electronic facilities and personnel of a new directional energy weapons. Its working principle is: high-power microwave through the antenna gathered into a very narrow, very strong electromagnetic waves fired at each other, relying on this beam of electromagnetic waves generated by high temperature, ionization, radiation and other integrated effects in the target internal electronic circuit to produce fatal voltage And the current, breakdown or burn the sensitive components, damage to the computer stored in the data, so that the other side of the weapons and command system paralyzed, loss of combat effectiveness. According to the test, a briefcase size of the microwave bomb, can produce power of 300 million watts of pulse waves. Will be more than one connection, it can become an adjustable radiation source, resulting in more than 2 billion watts of pulse waves. This pulse wave is somewhat similar to the nuclear pulse generated when the nuclear explosion can easily from the power and communication pipes into the underground bunker, which rely on radio, radar, computers, power grids and telephone modern weapons systems, chemical and biological arsenal and its production The shop was paralyzed in an instant.

GPS interference device <a I = 13> Iraq war, the Iraqi military use of GPS interferometer on the Tomahawk cruise missiles for effective interference, which is the first time in combat in the GPS guidance system interference. GPS signal is very weak, very easy to interfere. A Russian company offers a 4-watt power handheld GPS jammers that can be bought for less than $ 4,000. If you buy parts from a retail e-store, spend $ 400 to create a GPS jammer with a radius of 16 km or more. Before the war in Iraq, the United States had expected the Iraqi side to interfere with GPS signals. The United States has already been equipped with anti-jamming technology for its GPS bombs and missiles so that these GPS-guided weapons can continue to use GPS signals in the event of interference; even if the GPS signal is lost, these weapons can also use their own other guidance system Such as inertial navigation, laser guidance, etc., so that they reach the target. Nevertheless, the early Iraq war, the US military more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles or because of interference from the scheduled route, falling in Turkey, Syria and Iran. Small GPS jitter problem alerted the US government, Powell personally come forward to investigate the source of Iraqi GPS jammers, Russia and other countries imposed no small pressure.

Gulf War, GPS navigator as a trial for the first time issued to the use of desert combat personnel, the effect is obvious. At that time, including cruise missiles, including all the weapons are not using GPS navigation device. During the war in Iraq, we saw almost all of the combat platforms, and every soldier, almost all of the missiles and bombs used this kind of navigation device, so that the tanks, planes, ships were more mobile so that the missiles and bombs were The probability error is reduced to 1-3 m, within a maximum of 10 m. <A I = 15> everything has a disadvantage. GPS navigation defects and information technology weapons and equipment of the drawbacks is the same, that is, electronic interference. From the perspective of the development of weapons and equipment, the purchase of a cruise missile needs more than 100 million dollars, and manufacturing a GPS jammers only a few hundred dollars, as a strategic defense side, if a large number of development and development of GPS jammers, not only for US missiles And bombs are a threat to their tanks, planes, ships and personnel navigation and positioning will also have a huge impact. Of course, you should also see the US military fight, further, after the end of the war in Iraq will be based on the lessons of the war to improve the GPS system. Is expected to be improved in three areas: First, GPS satellites, mainly to enhance the satellite launch signal, and as much as possible to launch GPS satellites; Second, improve the guidance system, mainly to increase the composite guidance device, after the GPS guidance is disturbed, Automatic recovery or transfer to inertia and other navigation methods to ensure the normal operation of the platform and weapons; Third, GPS anti-interference, mainly to improve the GPS receiver anti-jamming capability, the development of new GPS receiver, Machine and jamming machine for electronic suppression and interference.

 

Original Mandarin Chinese:

信息戰是C4ISR系統與C4ISR系統的對抗,是信息優勢的爭奪,主要目的是確保己方信息系統正常運行,免遭敵方利用、癱瘓和破壞﹔同時,設法利用、癱瘓和破壞敵人的信息系統,使之處於癱瘓、迷茫狀態。信息戰包括戰略信息戰和戰場信息戰兩大部分。

戰略信息戰和戰場信息戰

戰略信息戰主要特征是范圍廣泛,涉及國家政治、經濟、科技、軍事等各個要害部門和特殊領域﹔方式特殊,涉及心理戰、輿論戰、欺騙戰、媒體戰等特殊手段﹔目標特殊,主要是通過誘騙戰、心理戰、信息威懾等攻擊敵人的認識體系和思維體系﹔危害巨大,能使整個國家的經濟、政治或軍事陷入癱瘓,甚至能使其發生政權交替﹔人員特殊,參戰人員不一定軍人,計算機專家、國際犯罪集團、別有用心的黑客或恐怖組織等都可能成為參戰人員。

戰場信息戰是發生在戰斗空間內的信息戰,是指為准備和進行一場戰役,綜合運用信息技術手段和各種信息化武器、信息化作戰平台和C4ISR系統,在偵察探測及預警、信息處理與傳遞、武器控制和制導、作戰指揮與控制、偽裝欺騙與干擾以及軍事謀略等方面展開的全面對抗和斗爭。戰場信息戰是通過干擾或打亂敵方決策程序,使敵方無法有效採取協調一致的行動。因此,要先影響敵人決策,然后再影響其行動,即先贏得空中電磁優勢,再取得空中優勢,最后使用常規部隊採取作戰行動。奪取了制信息權,就奪取了戰斗空間的主動權,而且為爭奪制陸權、制空權、制海權和制天權奠定一個良好基礎和必要條件。

戰場信息戰的基本作戰力量和手段是數字化部隊及信息化武器裝備,主要內容包括作戰保密、軍事欺騙、電子戰、心理戰和火力摧毀,核心目的是爭奪戰斗空間的信息獲取權、控制權和使用權。戰場信息戰是信息體系的對抗,它直接影響到整個戰斗空間、整場戰爭的進程和成敗。戰場信息戰的主要作戰樣式是電子戰和網絡戰。電子戰是戰場信息戰的一個重要組成部分,主要是針對敵人通信、雷達等電磁輻射源進行的誘騙、干擾、破壞和摧毀活動。海灣戰爭中,電子戰不僅首次大規模使用,而且正式作為戰爭中的一個戰役階段和特定戰役行動。科索沃戰爭中,北約使用了大量電子戰裝備,並首次使用了電磁脈沖炸彈並首次進行了網絡戰。網絡戰是在計算機網絡空間,利用因特網進行的一種網絡對抗活動,並在科索沃戰爭中首次使用。北約網絡戰的措施包括:網絡宣傳﹔黑客攻擊﹔襲擊金融網絡等。南聯盟網絡戰的主要特征是人民戰爭模式,網迷、電腦迷和計算機愛好者自發地進行了大量網絡作戰行動,如開展網上宣傳、攻擊北約網站、利用網絡傳遞情報等。

戰爭中的信息戰裝備

電子戰裝備

電子戰裝備的發展趨勢日趨一體化和通用化,信息化條件下的局部戰爭中,戰場上的電磁環境日益復雜,以往那種彼此分立、功能單一的電子戰裝備已遠遠不能適應作戰需要了。一體化和通用化已成為當前電子戰裝備發展的重點和未來電子戰裝備總的發展方向。為了更有效地對付信息化戰爭中復雜多變的電磁威脅,未來新一代的電子對抗裝備,將廣泛採用先進的計算機技術,大幅度提高整個系統的自動化程度,以具備更好的實時能力、自適應能力和全功率管理能力。電子戰裝備的工作頻段不斷拓寬,發射功率不斷增大,毫米波技術和光電技術的發展,使現代電子戰裝備的工作頻率不斷向更寬的頻段發展。從整體上看,未來電子戰裝備的工作范圍必將擴展到整個電磁波頻譜。GPS干擾與反干擾將受到關注,戰爭實踐已經表明,如果失去GPS的支持,就會極大地削弱信息優勢,使指揮、控制、偵察、打擊、部隊機動等各個軍事環節都面臨嚴峻考驗,嚴重降低戰斗力。重點發展反輻射和新型電子戰干擾機,重視發展新型、特殊的電子戰技術裝備,如用於反衛星的激光武器、高能粒子束武器,以及流星余跡通信、中微子通信等等。

計算機病毒武器

在軍事信息系統中,戰場信息的獲取、傳遞、處理等功能需要計算機及網絡來完成,計算機網絡是進行信息戰的基礎和先鋒。利用軟件驅動嗅探器和硬件磁感應嗅探器等對網絡進行嗅探是進攻網絡的重要方法。這些嗅探工具原本是一種測試設備,用來診斷和協助修理網絡,因此它是網管人員管理網絡的一種得力工具,但在信息戰中卻是一種可怕的計算機病毒武器。它能使網絡“服務否認”、“信息篡改”、信息“中途竊取”等。另外,也將重視設計“門戶陷阱”。“門戶陷阱”又稱“后門”,是計算機系統設計者預先在系統中構造的一種機構,在應用出現或操作系統期間,程序員插入一些調試機構。系統程序員為了達到攻擊系統的目的,特意留下少數門戶陷阱,供熟悉系統的人員用以超越對方正常的系統保護而潛入系統。網絡是信息化戰爭的重要基礎設施,網絡中心戰主要是基於網絡而進行的,網絡是否可靠決定戰爭的勝負。因此,加強網絡攻防作戰的研究,對於贏得未來信息化戰爭至關重要。

電磁脈沖炸彈

伊拉克戰爭中,美軍使用了大量電子戰裝備,並使用電磁脈沖炸彈襲擊了伊拉克廣播電視系統及伊軍各類電子輻射源。電磁脈沖炸彈也稱微波脈沖炸彈,是通過把微波束轉化為電磁能,毀傷對方電子設施和人員的一種新型定向能武器。其工作原理是:高功率微波經過天線聚集成一束很窄、很強的電磁波射向對方,依靠這束電磁波產生的高溫、電離、輻射等綜合效應,在目標內部的電子線路中產生致命的電壓和電流,擊穿或燒毀其中的敏感元器件,毀損電腦中存貯的數據,從而使對方的武器和指揮系統陷於癱瘓,喪失戰斗力。據測試,一枚公文包大小的微波炸彈,可產生功率達3億瓦的脈沖波。將其多個聯接后,則能成為可調整的輻射源,產生20億瓦以上的脈沖波。這種脈沖波有點類似核爆炸時產生的電磁脈沖,可以輕易地從電力和通訊管道進入地下掩體,使其中依賴無線電、雷達、計算機、電網和電話等的現代化武器系統、生化武器庫及其生產車間在瞬間癱瘓。

GPS干擾設備

伊拉克戰爭中,伊軍利用GPS干擾儀對戰斧巡航導彈進行了有效的干擾,這是第一次在實戰中對GPS制導系統進行干擾。GPS信號很弱,很易於干擾。一家俄羅斯公司提供的一種4瓦功率的手持GPS干擾機,不到4000美元就能買到。如果從零售電子商店購買部件組裝,花400美元就可以制造一個干擾半徑16公裡以上的GPS干擾機。伊拉克戰爭開戰之前,美國就已經預料到伊拉克方面會干擾GPS信號。美國其實早已經給其GPS炸彈和導彈裝載了抗干擾技術,使這些GPS導引的武器能夠在干擾的情況下繼續使用GPS信號﹔即使GPS信號丟失,這些武器還可以使用自身的其他導引系統如慣性導航、激光制導等,使自己到達目標。盡管如此,伊拉克戰爭初期,美軍十幾枚戰斧式巡航導彈還是因受干擾偏離預定航線,落在土耳其、敘利亞和伊朗境內。小小的GPS干擾機問題驚動了美國朝野,鮑威爾親自出面調查伊拉克GPS干擾機的來源,對俄羅斯等國施加了不小的壓力。

海灣戰爭中,GPS導航儀作為試用品首次發放給沙漠作戰人員使用,效果明顯。當時,包括巡航導彈在內的所有武器都沒有採用GPS導航裝置。伊拉克戰爭中,我們看到幾乎所有的作戰平台,每一個單兵,幾乎全部的導彈和炸彈都採用了這種導航裝置,從而使坦克、飛機、艦艇的機動更加精確,使導彈和炸彈的原概率誤差縮小到1—3米,最大10米范圍之內。

凡事有一利必有一弊。GPS導航的弊端與信息化武器裝備的弊端是一樣的,就是電子干擾問題。從武器裝備發展角度來看,購買一枚巡航導彈需要100多萬美元,而制造一部GPS干擾機才幾百美元,作為戰略防御一方,如果能夠大量發展和研制GPS干擾機,不僅對於美軍導彈和炸彈是一種威脅,對其坦克、飛機、艦艇和人員的導航定位也將產生巨大影響。當然,也應看到美軍打一仗、進一步,伊拉克戰爭結束后必將根據戰爭中的教訓,改進GPS系統。預計將在三個方面進行改進:一是GPS衛星,主要是增強衛星發射信號,並盡可能多的發射GPS衛星﹔二是改進制導系統,主要是增加復合制導裝置,在GPS指導受到干擾之后,自動恢復或轉入慣性等其他導航方式,以保証平台和武器的正常運行﹔三是GPS反干擾,主要是提高GPS接收機抗干擾能力,研制新型GPS接收機,在戰區對地方軍民用GPS接收機和干擾機進行電子壓制和干擾等。

China Military Interpretation of information warfare, cyber warfare, cyber – centric warfare 中國軍隊解读信息战、网络战、网络中心战

中國軍隊解读信息战、网络战、网络中心战

China Military Interpretation of information warfare, cyber warfare, cyber – centric warfare

With the rapid development of information technology and its extensive application in the military field, some new operational concepts and operational styles came into being. Such as information warfare, cyber warfare, cyber-centric warfare, in recent days local war has demonstrated a powerful power, has become the topic of the current officers and men to explore. Then this new “war” in the end what is the difference and contact? How do you understand it? I have the following views.

The so-called information warfare, refers to the hostile parties in the field of information struggle and confrontation activities. Specifically, it is based on the digital forces as the basic strength to compete, control and use of information as the main content of a variety of information weapons and equipment as the main means of confrontation and struggle, with a transparent battlefield, real-time action, The overall coordination and the higher degree of intelligence. From the point of view of combat, information warfare is to control the “energy flow” and “material flow” with “information flow”, gain the advantage of decision-making and the advantage of action, and then end confrontation or reduce confrontation and realize ” Soldiers “. From the content and form of combat, information warfare is different from information warfare and information warfare. Information operations are specific actions of information warfare, can be divided into electronic warfare, intelligence warfare and network warfare. The information war is relative to the mechanized war, refers to a form of war. Information warfare is the main battlefield and core of information war.

The so-called network warfare refers to the information and network environment which the enemy and the enemy can use for the war, and surrounds the “system of information right” to compete, through the computer network to ensure that their own information and network system security at the same time, disrupt, destroy and threaten each other’s information and Network Systems. In essence, cyber warfare is a special form of information warfare, a kind of combat action carried out in cyberspace. Compared with the traditional war, the network war has a sudden, hidden, asymmetric and low cost, strong participation and so on. Network-centric warfare, whose English name is “NetworkCentricWarfare”, is a new concept of warfare relative to the traditional platform-centric warfare. The so-called platform center warfare, refers to the platform mainly rely on their own detectors and weapons to combat, its main feature is the platform between the information sharing is very limited. The network center war is through the network of the combat unit, the information advantage into the combat action advantage, so that the scattered configuration of the common sense of the battlefield situation, so as to coordinate their own actions to play the largest overall combat effectiveness of the combat style, it So that the focus of combat from the past platform to the network. It goes without saying that cyber-centric warfare can help combat forces create and exploit information superiority and dramatically improve combat effectiveness. It has the battlefield situation full-dimensional perception ability, the combat power integration, the combat action real-time, the army coordination synchronism and so on the characteristic.

In short, information warfare is the core of information war. Network warfare is a special form of information warfare, belonging to the category of information warfare. Network-centric warfare is the product of the transition from mechanized war form to informational warfare because the development of the network is the regeneration of the operational form of the mechanized forces of the industrial age. Therefore, whether it is information warfare or network warfare and network-centric warfare, are inseparable from the rapid development of information technology, but also inseparable from the application and popularization of network technology.

中國軍隊解读信息战、网络战、网络中心战

隨著信息技術的迅速發展及其在軍事領域的廣泛應用,一些新的作戰理念和作戰樣式應運而生。如信息戰、網絡戰、網絡中心戰,在近幾場局部戰爭已彰顯出強大威力,也成為當前官兵廣為探討的話題。那麼這新的“戰”到底有何區別和聯繫?怎樣理解把握才對呢?筆者有如下看法。
所謂信息戰,是指敵對雙方在信息領域的鬥爭和對抗活動。具體說來,是以數字化部隊為基本力量,以爭奪、控制和使用信息為主要內容,以各種信息武器和裝備為主要手段而進行的對抗和鬥爭,具有戰場透明、行動實時、打擊精確、整體協調和智能化程度高等特徵。從作戰目的上看,信息戰是以“信息流”控制“能量流”和“物質流”,以信息優勢獲得決策優勢和行動優勢,進而結束對抗或減少對抗,實現“不戰而屈人之兵”。從作戰內容與形式來看,信息戰不同於信息作戰和信息化戰爭。信息作戰是信息戰的具體行動,可分為電子戰、情報戰和網絡戰等。而信息化戰爭是相對於機械化戰爭而言,指一種戰爭形態。信息戰是信息化戰爭的主戰場和核心。
所謂網絡戰,是指敵對雙方針對戰爭可利用的信息和網絡環境,圍繞“制信息權”的爭奪,通過計算機網絡在保證己方信息和網絡系統安全的同時,擾亂、破壞與威脅對方的信息和網絡系統。從本質上講,網絡戰是信息戰的一種特殊形式,是在網絡空間上進行的一種作戰行動。與傳統戰爭相比,網絡戰具有突然性、隱蔽性、不對稱性和代價低、參與性強等特點。網絡中心戰,其英文名稱為“ NetworkCentricWarfare”,是相對於傳統的平台中心戰而提出的一種新作戰概念。所謂平台中心戰,是指各平台主要依靠自身探測器和武器進行作戰,其主要特點是平台之間的信息共享非常有限。而網絡中心戰是通過各作戰單元的網絡化,把信息優勢變為作戰行動優勢,使各分散配置的部隊共同感知戰場態勢,從而自主地協調行動,發揮出最大整體作戰效能的作戰樣式,它使作戰重心由過去的平台轉向網絡。不言而喻,網絡中心戰能夠幫助作戰部隊創造和利用信息優勢並大幅度提高戰鬥力。它具有戰場態勢全維感知能力,作戰力量一體化,作戰行動實時性,部隊協調同步性等特點。
總之,信息戰是信息化戰爭的核心。網絡戰是信息戰的特殊形式,屬於信息戰範疇。網絡中心戰是機械化戰爭形態向信息化戰爭形態過渡的產物,是因為網絡的發展為工業時代機械化部隊注入活力而帶來作戰形態的更新。因此,無論是信息戰還是網絡戰和網絡中心戰,都離不開信息技術的迅速發展,也離不開網絡技術的應用與普及。
《中國國防報》

Using Psychological Warfare in Information War China’s Military Advantage ~ 信息戰爭中使用心理戰爭中國的軍事優勢

信息戰爭中使用心理戰爭中國的軍事優勢

Using Psychological Warfare in Information War China’s Military Advantage

Since the eighties of the 20th century, with the development of science and technology and the evolution of war forms, so that the psychological war plug in the high-tech wings. In the information war, the psychological warfare fully demonstrated a series of distinctive features, its status, domain objects and methods of means have undergone major changes, the impact of the war far more than any period in history.

Status is strategic

Psychological warfare has been incorporated into the national strategic areas, to achieve the national strategic objectives of the important form of struggle. At the end of the twentieth century, the drastic changes in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union showed the success of the “peaceful evolution” strategy pursued by the Western capitalist countries headed by the United States. “Peaceful evolution” can be said to be synonymous with “psychological warfare.” Its success has made it more strongly aware that psychological warfare is no longer an adjunct to military struggle, but an important battlefield of strategic importance in international struggle The In view of this, the world in the strategic thinking, all the psychological warfare into the overall strategic structure. In the information war, the psychological war has become the country’s strategic behavior and basic tactics, not only troops and horses did not move, heart war first, and psychological attack and psychological defense throughout the whole, as all-round, all time and space, Level of strategic action, so that the psychological battle to become an important factor leading the war situation.

Psychological warfare of the macro-level has risen to the highest strategic decision-making level of the state and the army, and the psychological attack of the primary target directly to each other’s top strategic decision-makers. After the September 11 incident, under the instigation of the National Security Council, Bush decided to make a public opinion in the international community, the Iraqi as “evil axis”, for its military strike for political pave the way. In this overall decision-making traction, the United States Department of Psychology and Strategy and the control of the “Voice of America”, newspapers, publications, film, television, the International Exchange Department, are their responsibilities, from the strategic psychological war straight Refers to the Saddam regime, with a view to leading international public opinion, for the military action to create a suitable environment.

Psychological warfare has become an important factor in leading the war situation, the outcome of the war has a pivotal role. The most representative of the recent information war mainly four: 1991 Gulf War, the 1999 war in Kosovo, the 2001-2002 war in Afghanistan and the 2003 war in Iraq. The four wars are exactly the same in the strategic use of the psychological warfare. The United States is an important part of the military’s high-intensity psychological warfare as an indispensable part of the military strategy. The intensity, scope and time of the military strike are as limited as possible within the limits of politics, and even every military action Not only to consider the military value, but also to consider the political and psychological values, every stage of the war, to assess the psychological effects of the enemy, and then decide the next stage of military strike to achieve the military goals and political and psychological goals coincide. These four wars, not only to show people the psychological war is “war before the war, after the war of war”, but also to fully demonstrate the great power of psychological warfare and to play a major role in the war.

The field is broad

The psychological warfare in the information war has transcended the boundaries of military struggle and has become a well-planned and comprehensive strategic action in various fields such as politics, economy, military affairs, diplomacy, culture and religion.

Looking at the information war in recent years, we can clearly see that the United States is not political, economic, diplomatic, military, cultural and religious and other areas of the psychological war as a whole, so that the psychological battle became a veritable “psychological encirclement and suppression ”

The object of the war of information warfare has also completely broken through the scope of the traditional warfare against the military. “The whole purpose of mental warfare is to encourage emotions in foreign groups and people to influence their attitudes or behavior in order to support the goals of the United States.” That is to say, the psychological warfare of information war Object range, has been extended to both the enemy combat forces, but also against the enemy of the people, and even the psychological warfare to the war with the object of friendly countries and regions, pointing to neutral countries and neighboring countries and neighboring countries and the entire international community. Information war in the psychological war also bear the education of their own military and civilian, to maintain the heart to the same and psychological stability of the task.

Methods show diversity

From the Gulf War, the Kosovo War, the war in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq, the United States not only attached great importance to “heart war” and “war” closely, but also in the psychological warfare will be used in a variety of ways to complement each other, complement each other , Thus greatly enhancing the effectiveness of psychological warfare. 9.11 after the incident, the United States to fight the psychological war, for the war on terror to lay the foundation of public opinion. The United States on the day of making a decision to send troops in Afghanistan, the State Council set up a “propaganda group”, the use of domestic major media, repeated rendering of the United States in the “9.11” loss, widely for the people to form a terrorist The On the eve of the military strike, the US Department of State has set up a “public relations team”, responsible for the full implementation of national propaganda strategy. After the war began, for the support of international public opinion, the United States in Washington, London and Islamabad established three “wartime press room”, the timely release of the so-called “real and reliable” battlefield information, and the Taliban propaganda to compete. The US Department of Defense has also set up a “strategic information office”, specifically concocted false information, through a variety of ways to pass abroad. In the implementation of military strikes, strengthen the deterrence of the enemy. First to deploy troops to push to change. In a short period of 20 days, within 500 km of Afghanistan, the assembly of five aircraft carrier formation, 18 million combat troops, 550 combat aircraft, from the air, the ground basically blocked the whole territory of Afghanistan, its intention is to Strong military pressure to force the Taliban unconditionally to meet the demands of the United States. Then, continuous blow to fried change. The US military every day out of hundreds of fighters on the Taliban strategy and tactical goals for continuous bombing. In the air raid, the US military intends to use a variety of powerful psychological deterrent effect of new weapons, such as AC-130 laser attack aircraft, this aircraft carrying a new laser weapons, it can be said that the light flash, that is, ashes, The Afghan army is called “the light of death”. US Department of Defense officials have made no secret that the main intention is not to completely eliminate the Taliban military forces, but to strive to defeat its morale, weaken its psychological affordability, triggering “internal chaos and fission.”

Means to show high technology

High-tech makes the psychological warfare endless. In the recent wars, the United States has made use of satellite positioning and direction finding, television broadcasting technology, computer information processing technology, network technology, signal simulation and distortion technology, audio and video technology and other high-tech means to improve the psychological warfare comprehensive combat effect The According to incomplete statistics, in the Iraq war, the United States used military and civilian satellites up to 160, compared with the Gulf War increased by 23. The US news media is through these communications satellites to the domestic and the world launched a large number of favorable to the enemy is not conducive to the enemy’s war information and images. Now, people can use computer graphics synthesis technology, easy to create such as “a country army in the enemy capital square lined up”, “a country leader and the enemy leaders secret talks, shake hands” and other fictional photos or television pictures, to Suddenly these “information bomb” fired at each other’s military and civilian, to destroy the other side of the military and civilian defense line. People can use the audio and video technology to simulate the voice of the head of the enemy and battlefield commander, issued a wrong command of the war, so that the enemy decision-making mistakes, command into chaos, and can use these high-tech means to adjust their military and civilian psychology, inspire morale. In 1993, the United States in the Somali Marine Corps in the implementation of peacekeeping missions, suffered some setbacks. Once, the wind, the dust storm suddenly, the troops suddenly chaos up. At this critical moment, the American Army forces suddenly appeared on a head of up to 150 meters of Jesus image, the US soldiers saw after kneeling, and some frightened, and some burst into tears, that God is really with them, they Somali warfare is “the will of God” and is “fighting for God”. Later, this image exists for a full five minutes to disperse. It is said that this is the United States psychological warfare forces with laser holographic imaging system projection to the air image, to improve the morale of the troops. The United States also attaches great importance to the use of network technology, network infiltration, information and psychological attacks. Network transmission speed, in a very short period of time, heart war information up to front-line officers and men, up to the warrior family, can affect the highest decision-making body, under the ordinary people, its influence is self-evident. In the Iraq war, the United States even organized “hackers” experts to crack the Iraqi military high-level characters e-mail password, send a large number of e-mail, but also directly call the Iraqi high-level mobile phone, the implementation of psychological deterrence and inducement. There is a recent report that the US military engaged in a “666” computer virus, the virus into the computer, you can make the screen repeated an image, people repeatedly see this image, will produce some inexplicable potential awareness, leading to nerve Disorder, hallucinations and even death.

Power show professional

In contemporary times, the developed countries in the world not only attach great importance to the use of psychological warfare, but also pay special attention to strengthening the psychological warfare from all levels.

First, the establishment of a scientific and effective organization and leadership institutions. Now, many countries in order to effectively carry out psychological defense and external implementation of psychological operations, have established a corresponding psychological warfare organizational system. The United States is the most complete system of psychological warfare, the commander of the body by the President of the psychological warfare counsel, chief of staff of the joint meeting of the psychological warfare, the Ministry of Defense of the General Office of the Department of psychological operations; middle institutions by the Joint Command and the theater headquarters of the psychological war department; The lower body consists of psychological war camps and psychological warfare groups. The state and the armed forces have unified their organization and coordinated mental warfare work from top to bottom, serving not only for military struggle but also for international and domestic political struggle.

Second, the establishment of psychological warfare research and think tank institutions. The United States and some Western countries and military personnel attach great importance to the study of psychological warfare, and the establishment of research institutions, specializing in psychological warfare theory and technology research. But also pay attention to play the role of civil “think tank”, the use of universities, research institutions and a variety of senior specialized personnel for the psychological warfare service.

Third, the establishment of professional psychological warfare forces and training of psychological warfare professionals. The US military has a large number of psychological warfare troops, allocated in the land and sea and air forces, including the army has four psychological battle groups, 12 psychological war camps, 22 psychological warfare, the Navy has a psychological warfare brigade, the Air Force has a special operations The wing is used to support the psychological warfare. At the same time, also set up a special psychological warfare institutions or professional, training professional psychological warfare talent. In the war in Afghanistan, the US military to the two most combat capability of the psychological warfare force – Air Force 193 Special Combat Wing and the Army 4th psychological war brigade, deployed in Uzbekistan and Pakistan, the use of various means to start the Taliban The battlefield psychological attack, such as flight radio, cast leaflets, block the Taliban news channel. Iraq war, the US military used almost all of the current psychological warfare forces, but also mobilized and organized a folk psychological strength. The Air Force Psychological Warfare Force is equipped with EC-130E psychological warfare aircraft, from time, space, audio-visual, electromagnetic and other dimensions of the release of psychological warfare information; the Army psychological warfare forces are mostly proficient in Arabic, by telephone, e-mail, And so on to lobby the Iranian specific figures, but also with the Iraqi people and soldiers in general face to face dialogue and exchange.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

20世紀八十年代以來,隨著科學技術的發展和戰爭形態的演變,使心理戰插上了高技術的翅膀。在信息化戰爭中心理戰充分展示出一系列鮮明的特點,其地位作用、領域對象和方法手段等都發生了重大變化,對戰爭的影響遠超過歷史上任何一個時期。
地位顯現戰略性
心理戰已被納入國家戰略範疇,成為實現國家戰略目標的重要鬥爭形式。 20世紀末期,東歐劇變和蘇聯解體,顯現了以美國為首的西方資本主義國家推行的“和平演變”戰略取得成功。 “和平演變”可以說是“心理戰”的代名詞,它的成功,使人們更加強烈地認識到,心理戰已不再是軍事鬥爭的輔助性手段,而是國際鬥爭上具有戰略意義的重要戰場。有鑑於此,世界各國在戰略思維中,無不把心理戰納入整體戰略結構之中。在信息化戰爭中,心理戰已成為國家的戰略行為和基本戰法,不僅兵馬未動,心戰先行,而且把心理進攻和心理防禦貫穿全程,作為全方位、全時空、多領域、多層次的戰略行動,使心理戰成為主導戰局走向的重要因素。
心理戰的宏觀策動層次已上升為國家和軍隊的最高戰略決策層,並將心理戰的首要攻擊目標直接指向對方的最高戰略決策者。 9·11事件之後,布什在國家安全委員會的策動下,決定在國際進行輿論布勢,將伊拉克列為“邪惡軸心”,為其進行軍事打擊作政治鋪墊。在這一總的決策牽引下,美國務院心理戰略局和控制“美國之音”、報紙、出版物、電影、電視的國際交流署,都各司其責,從戰略上將心理戰的鋒芒直指薩達姆政權,以期主導國際輿論,為軍事行動營造適宜的環境。
心理戰已成為主導戰局走向的重要因素,對戰爭結局具有舉足輕重的作用。近期最具代表性的信息化戰爭主要有四場:1991年的海灣戰爭、1999年的科索沃戰爭、2001—2002年的阿富汗戰爭和2003年的伊拉克戰爭。這四場戰爭在心理戰的戰略運用上如出一轍。美國都是把對敵的高強度心理戰作為軍事戰略中不可或缺的重要組成部分,將軍事打擊的力度、範圍、時間等盡可能限制在政治允許的範圍之內,甚至每個軍事行動都不僅要考慮軍事價值,而且要考慮政治心理價值,戰爭每進行一階段,都要評估對敵所取得的心理效果,爾後再決定下一階段軍事打擊力度,以實現軍事目標與政治心理目標的高度重合。這四場戰爭,不僅向人們充分展示了心理戰是“戰爭之前的戰爭,戰爭之後的戰爭”,而且更是向人們充分展示了心理戰的巨大威力和為贏得戰爭所發揮的重大作用。
領域顯現廣闊性
信息化戰爭中的心理戰,已逾越了軍事鬥爭的界限,成為一種精心策劃的,在政治、經濟、軍事、外交、文化、宗教等各個領域進行的全方位戰略行動。
縱覽近些年的幾場信息化戰爭,可以清楚地看到,美國無不融政治、經濟、外交、軍事、文化和宗教等各個領域的心理戰為一體,使心理戰成了名副其實的“心理圍剿”。
信息化戰爭中心理戰的對像也已完全突破了主要是針對軍人的傳統戰爭範圍。美國《心理作戰條令》提出:“心理作戰的全部目的在於,在國外團體和民眾中鼓動情緒,影響其態度或行為,以此支援美國的目標。”這就是說,信息化戰爭中心理戰的對象範圍,已擴大到既針對敵國作戰部隊,也針對敵國的民眾,甚至將心理戰指向與作戰對象友好的國家和地區,指向中立國和與敵國相鄰的周邊國家及整個國際社會。信息化戰爭中的心理戰還擔負著教育本國軍民,使其保持心向一致和心理穩定的任務。
方法顯現多樣性


從海灣戰爭、科索沃戰爭、阿富汗戰爭到伊拉克戰爭,美國不僅高度重視“心戰”與“兵戰”的緊密結合,而且在心理戰中還將各種方法綜合運用,使之互為補充,相得益彰,從而大大地增強了心理戰的功效。 9·11事件以後,美國大打宣傳心理戰,為反恐戰爭奠定輿論基礎。美國在做出對阿富汗出兵決策的當天,國務院即成立“宣傳小組”,利用國內各主要媒體,反复渲染美國在“9·11”中的損失,廣泛爭取民心,以形成對恐怖主義的輿論圍剿。軍事打擊前夕,美國務院又成立了“公關小組”,負責全面執行國家宣傳戰略。戰爭開始後,為爭取國際輿論的支持,美國在華盛頓、倫敦和伊斯蘭堡建立了三個“戰時新聞發布室”,及時發布所謂“真實可靠的”戰場信息,與塔利班的宣傳相抗衡。美國防部還成立了“戰略新聞辦公室”,專門砲制虛假信息,通過各種途徑向國外傳遞。在實施軍事打擊中,強化對敵心理威懾。先是調兵遣將,以壓促變。在短短的20天內,在阿富汗周邊500公里的範圍內,集結了5個航母編隊、18萬軍作戰部隊、550架作戰飛機,從空中、地面基本封鎖了阿富汗全境,其意圖是,以強大的軍事壓力威逼塔利班無條件滿足美國的要求。接著,連續打擊,以炸促變。美軍每天均出動上百架戰機對塔利班戰略與戰術目標進行連續轟炸。在空襲中,美國軍有意使用多種具有強大心理震懾作用的新式武器,如AC—130激光攻擊機,這種飛機載有新型激光武器,可以說是光閃之處,即化為灰燼,被阿富汗軍隊稱為“死亡之光”。美國防部官員曾毫不掩飾地說,主要意圖不在於完全消滅塔利班軍事力量,而是力求打垮其士氣,削弱其心理承受能力,引發“內部混亂與裂變”。
手段顯現高技術性
高新技術使心理戰手段層出不窮。在近期的幾場戰爭中,美國均利用了衛星定位測向、電視轉播技術、計算機信息處理技術、網絡技術、信號模擬和失真技術、聲像技術等高新技術手段,努力提高心理戰綜合作戰效果。據不完全統計,在伊拉克戰爭中,美國使用的軍用和民用衛星達160顆,比海灣戰爭時增加了23顆。美國的新聞媒體就是通過這些通信衛星向國內和世界發播了大量有利於己、不利於敵的戰爭信息和圖像。現在,人們可以利用計算機圖像合成技術,輕鬆地製造出諸如“某國軍隊在敵國首都廣場上列隊前進”、“某國領導人與敵國首腦秘密會談,握手言和”等虛構的照片或電視畫面,到時突然將這些“信息炸彈”射向對方軍民,以摧毀對方軍民的心理防線。人們可以利用聲像技術模擬敵方國家元首和戰場指揮員的聲音,下達錯誤的作戰命令,使敵方決策失誤、指揮陷入混亂,並可以利用這些高技術手段調節本國軍民心理,鼓舞己方士氣。 1993年,美國駐索馬里海軍陸戰隊在執行維和任務中,受到一些挫折。一次,狂風大作,沙塵暴驟起,部隊一下子混亂起來。在這個關鍵時刻,美軍部隊頭頂上突然出現了一個高達150米的耶穌圖像,美軍士兵見到後紛紛跪下,有的大驚失色,有的痛哭流涕,認為上帝確實與他們同在,他們來索馬里作戰更是“上帝的旨意”,是“為上帝而戰”。後來這個圖像存在了足足五分鐘才散去。有資料說,這是美國心理戰部隊用激光全息成像系統投影到空中的圖像,用以提高部隊的士氣。美國還十分重視利用網絡技術,進行網絡滲透、信息恐怖和心理攻擊。網絡傳播速度快,在極短的時間內,心戰信息前可達前線官兵,後可達參戰者家庭,上可影響最高決策機構,下可及普通民眾,其影響力不言而喻。伊拉克戰爭中,美國甚至組織“黑客”專家,破解伊軍方高層人物的電子郵箱密碼,發送大量電子郵件,還直接撥打伊拉克高層人物的手機,實施心理威懾和誘降。近期有一則報導,稱美軍搞了一個“666”計算機病毒,這種病毒進入電腦後,可以使屏幕反復出現一種圖像,人們反复看到這一圖像,會產生一些莫名其妙的潛在意識,導致神經錯亂、幻覺甚至死亡。
力量顯現專業性
在當代,世界各發達國家不但高度重視心理戰的運用,而且特別重視從各個層面加強心理戰的力量建設。
一是建立科學有效的組織領導機構。現在,許多國家為了有效地進行心理防禦和對外實施心理作戰,都建立了相應的心理戰組織系統。美國的心理戰體系最為完備,其統帥機構由總統心理戰顧問、參謀長聯席會議心理戰處、國防部辦公廳心理作戰部組成;中層機構由聯合司令部和戰區司令部的心理戰部門組成;下層機構由心理戰營連和心理戰小組組成。國家和軍隊自上而下統一組織和協調心理戰工作,不僅為軍事鬥爭服務,而且為國際國內政治鬥爭服務。
二是建立心理戰的科研和智囊機構。美國和一些西方國家及軍人都非常重視心理戰的研究工作,並建立研究機構,專門從事心理戰的理論和技術研究。同時還重視發揮民間“思想庫”的作用,利用各大學、科研機構和各種高級專門人才為心理戰服務。
三是建立專業化的心理戰部隊和培養心理戰專門人才。美軍有一支人數眾多的心理戰部隊,編配在陸海空部隊,其中陸軍有4個心理戰群、12個心理戰營、22個心理戰連,海軍有一個心理戰欺騙大隊,空軍有一個特種作戰聯隊用於支援心理戰活動。同時,還設立了專門的心理戰院校或專業,培養專業化的心理戰人才。在阿富汗戰爭中,美軍把兩支作戰能力最強的心理戰部隊——空軍第193特種作戰聯隊和陸軍第4心理戰大隊,部署在烏茲別克斯坦和巴基斯坦兩國,運用多種手段對塔利班展開了戰場心理進攻,如飛行廣播、投撒傳單、封鎖塔利班新聞傳播渠道等。伊拉克戰爭,美軍動用了幾乎全部現役心理戰力量,還動員和組織了民間的心理戰力量。其空軍心理戰部隊裝備有EC—130E心理戰專用飛機,能夠從時間、空間、視聽、電磁等各個維度發布心理戰信息;其陸軍心理戰部隊大多精通阿拉伯語,能夠通過電話、電子郵件、信函等遊說伊方特定人物,也能與伊拉克普遍民眾和軍人進行面對面的對話和交流。

China’s “Network-centric warfare”: let the future battlefield dominate ~ 中國“網絡中心戰”:讓未來戰場占主導地位

中國“網絡中心戰”:讓未來戰場占主導地位

China’s “Network-centric warfare”: let the future battlefield dominate

“Network-centric warfare” is an important symbol in the process of the evolution of the mechanized war form to the information war form. It is the advanced form of the joint operation of the information age. It is a new mode of warfare on the information warfare platform which is relatively “platform center war” At present, from the “network-centric warfare,” the real arrival, although there is a long distance, but with its gradual maturity and rise, will inevitably lead to revolutionary changes in the future battlefield.

Combat operations from “asynchronous” to “synchronization”

The operations of the mechanized era are the same as the production lines of the industrial age, and there is usually a clear sequence of stages, such as firepower preparation, assembly and entry, and the first echelon attack. In the sequence of operations, due to the lack of real-time information can not grasp the battlefield, let alone the information sharing between the various forces, so the process of combat, mutual action can only be pre-planned asynchronous collaboration. In the “network center war”, the entire battlefield is a “information grid”, “sensor network” and “war network” composed of interconnection, seamless connection, dynamic open integrated network, commanders at all levels through The network can continue to perceive the entire battlefield situation, the full access to the battlefield information, and the use of the network to obtain information on the rapid processing, the development of operational plans and the issuance of operational orders, combat operations at all levels of the network at the same time almost at the same time get the same information, The command and order of the superior commander, according to the “network” to act, thus a high degree of autonomy to implement operations, to achieve operational synergy with self-synchronization.

Power concentration from the “quantity” to “system”

Since ancient times, the principle of concentrated forces has been regarded as the combat power of the military forces of the golden rule. The history of large-scale naval warfare, air combat and land brigade combat, concentrated tens of thousands of troops to fight the battlefield battle case too numerous. However, in the information age, the use of combat forces will be a series of major changes. In the “network-centric warfare”, the army became a complex and large-scale integrated system consisting of a number of command and control systems, battlefield awareness systems and weapons systems, in order to manage such a system and make it most efficient And give full play to the power and potential of the system, it must be information network technology as a link to the battlefield operation of the various functional systems highly integrated, into an organic whole, the formation of a high-performance war power system. This is by the traditional number of concentration can not be achieved, we must rely on the highly integrated system. Highly integrated combat system can make the theater, battlefield, warriors at all levels through the digital network, linked into a string of closely related chain, so that a general through the screen to see the fighting scene, a soldier can also see from his monitor , And thus achieve different combat forces, different levels of command of the real joint.

Combat group from “hard link” to “soft connection”

The general joint operations, to achieve only the combat entities of the “hard” connection, and “network-centric” approach, through the computer network as the core of the wide-area distribution, seamless connection, dynamic open integrated network system, not only To achieve combat entities “hard” connection, but also to achieve “combat procedures”, “operating mechanism” of the soft connection. Therefore, the “network-centric warfare” is a high-level form of joint operations in the information age, in this battlefield, land, sea, air and other military (soldiers) kind of block-like division of the group has no practical significance, the battlefield all combat units Are integrated network system in an equivalent cell, while the perception of the various states of the battlefield. Therefore, in the “network-centric warfare” approach, the combat group structure will be more grouped by ability, according to the need for joint “useful” combination. The so-called grouping by ability, that is, to break the boundaries of military and civilian forces will have the same combat capability of the unified grouping, thus greatly reducing the arms and arms between the overlap and waste; the so-called joint need, is based on the actual needs of combat, to have different Combat capability of the troops together, the joint operations.

Logistics support from “build” to “focus”

“Network-centric warfare” under the battlefield, will show a typical multi-dimensional, non-linear and non-contact characteristics. Logistics forces to build a large number of traditional means of protection, in this battlefield environment, will appear extremely cumbersome and discomfort. And the information, materials and transportation technology into one, through the automated supply network system to track and master the flow of a variety of materials and the demand situation of the troops, the required logistical supplies in a timely manner to the strategy, campaign and tactical units of the ” Focus “logistics, will become” network-centric warfare “in the logistics of the inevitable choice.

“Network center war” mode, the entire battlefield is a computer network technology as the core of the intelligent integrated system, through a highly integrated and highly intelligent information network, can achieve information, materials and transportation technology integration; through the combat Troops on the various sites to access the computer system, the security sector can grasp the needs of combat forces in real time, the combat forces can also real-time understanding of combat materials consumption and supplement the situation, so that real-time as needed to the required direction Materials, and to keep track of the material throughout. To ensure that logistical support is more accurate, flexible and accurate in terms of time, location and quantity.

Combat mission from “stability” to “change”

On the traditional battlefield, due to the weak sense of the battlefield, from the discovery of the target to attack the target reaction is slow, combat mission allocation is mostly planned, the middle rarely change. In the “network-centric warfare” approach, due to the battlefield perception, command and control and fire strike has become a whole, from the discovery of the target to the implementation of the attack time difference is getting smaller, near real time, the commander can change the battlefield situation, at any time To carry out dynamic adjustment and redistribution of the tasks of the troops, so as to maximize the operational potential of combat troops. In the Iraq war, the US military used its advanced and powerful information and network technology to reduce the time from the discovery of the target to the completion of the attack from the Gulf War 3 days, 2 hours of the Kosovo war to tens of minutes. And the real realization of the “network-centric warfare”, the reaction time will be further reduced or even reached in seconds to calculate, which makes the commander of the battlefield can make a quick change, more sensitive response, timely and efficient command, Control and coordination, greatly improving the ability to temporarily change the operational response to the rapid response. (Liu Yushan)

“China Defense News” July 1, 2004

Original Mandarin Chinese:

“網絡中心戰”是機械化戰爭形態向信息化戰爭形態演變過程中的一個重要標誌;是信息時代聯合作戰的高級形態;是相對“平台中心戰”的信息化戰場上的一種新型作戰模式,目前,離“網絡中心戰”的真正到來雖然還有較長距離,但隨著它的逐漸成熟和崛起,必將引起未來戰場的革命性變革。
作戰行動由“異步”轉向“同步”
機械化時代的作戰行動與工業時代的流水線生產一樣,通常是有明顯階段性的順序,如依次進行火力準備、集結與開進、第一梯隊發起攻擊等。在順序作戰中,由於無法掌握戰場實時信息,更談不上各部隊之間信息共享,因而作戰過程中,相互之間的行動只能按預先計劃進行異步協同。而在“網絡中心戰”中,整個戰場是一個由“信息柵網”、“傳感器網”和“交戰網”組成的互連互通,無縫連接,動態開放的綜合網絡,各級指揮員通過網絡能夠持續不斷地感知整個戰場態勢,全面獲取戰場信息,並利用網絡對獲取的信息進行快速處理,制定作戰計劃和發布作戰命令,各級作戰部隊通過網絡幾乎可在同時獲得同樣的信息,了解上級指揮員的意圖和指令,依“網”行事,從而高度自主地實施作戰,實現作戰協同自我同步。
力量集中由“數量”轉向“系統”
自古以來,集中兵力原則一直被兵家奉為作戰力量運用的金科玉律。歷史上大規模海戰、空戰和陸上大兵團作戰,集中成千上萬部隊進行戰場廝殺的戰例不勝枚舉。然而,在信息時代,作戰力量的運用將發生一系列重大變化。在“網絡中心戰”中,軍隊成為了一個由眾多指揮控制系統、戰場感知系統和打擊武器系統等構成的複雜而又龐大的綜合體系,要想駛馭這樣一個體系,使之最有效地運轉並充分發揮各系統的威力和潛能,就必須以信息化網絡技術為紐帶,把戰場運行中的各個功能係統高度集成,聯結成一個有機的整體,形成一種高效能的戰爭力量體系。這一點靠傳統的數量集中是無法實現的,必須依靠系統的高度集成。高度集成化的作戰系統可使戰區、戰場、戰士各個層面通過數字化網絡,聯結成一串息息相關的鏈條,使一個將軍通過視屏所看到的戰鬥景象,一個士兵也同樣能從他的顯示器中看到,進而實現不同作戰力量、不同指揮層次的真正聯合。
作戰編組由“硬聯接”轉向“軟聯接”
一般的聯合作戰,實現的只是各作戰實體的“硬”連接,而“網絡中心戰” 方式下,通過以計算機網絡為核心的廣域分佈,無縫連接,動態開放的綜合網絡系統,不僅可實現作戰實體的“硬”連接,而且可實現“作戰程序”、“運行機制”的軟連接。因此,“網絡中心戰”是信息時代聯合作戰的高級形態,在這種戰場上,陸、海、空等各軍(兵)種條塊式的區分編組已無實際意義,戰場上所有作戰單元都是綜合網絡系統裡的一個等同的細胞,同時感知著戰場的各種狀態。因此,在“網絡中心戰”方式下,作戰編組結構更多的將是按能力編組、按需要聯合的“有用”組合。所謂按能力編組,就是打破軍兵種界限將具備同樣作戰能力的部隊統一進行編組,從而大大減少各軍兵種力量之間的重疊和浪費;所謂按需要聯合,就是根據作戰的實際需要,把具備不同作戰能力的部隊組合起來,進行聯合作戰。
後勤保障由“集結”轉向“聚焦”

“網絡中心戰”下的戰場,將呈現出典型的多維性、非線性和非接觸性特點。後勤部隊大量集結進行保障的傳統方式,在這種戰場環境下,將顯得極為笨重和不適。而將信息、物資和運輸技術融為一體,通過自動化補給網絡系統,跟踪和掌握多種物資的流動和部隊的需求狀況,將所需的後勤物資及時發放到各戰略、戰役及戰術單位的“聚焦”式後勤,將成為“網絡中心戰”中後勤保障的必然選擇。
“網絡中心戰”方式下,整個戰場是一個以計算機網絡技術為核心的智能化的綜合系統,通過高度集成和高度智能化的信息網絡,可實現信息、物資和運輸技術一體化;通過在作戰部隊機動的各個站點上接入計算機系統,可使保障部門實時掌握作戰部隊的需要,作戰部隊也能實時了解作戰中物資的消耗和補充情況,從而做到實時按需要向多個所需方向運送物資,並保持對物資的全程跟踪。確保後勤保障在時間上、地點上和數量上的精確,使後勤保障更加及時、靈活和準確。
作戰任務由“穩定”轉向“多變”
傳統戰場上,由於戰場感知能力弱、從發現目標到攻擊目標反應慢,作戰任務分配多是預先計劃,中間很少有變。而在“網絡中心戰”方式下,由於戰場感知、指揮控制和火力打擊已成為一個整體,從發現目標到實施攻擊的時差越來越小,近乎實時,指揮員可以根據戰場態勢的變化,隨時對部隊的任務進行動態的調整和重新分配,從而最大限度地發揮作戰部隊的作戰潛能。伊拉克戰爭中,美軍運用其先進和強大的信息及網絡技術,使戰場上從發現目標到完成攻擊的時間從海灣戰爭時的3天,科索沃戰爭時的2小時縮短至幾十分鐘。而真正實現“網絡中心戰”後,這一反應時間還會進一步縮短甚至達到以秒來計算,這使得指揮員可對戰場的瞬息變化作出更快、更靈敏的反應,及時高效地進行指揮、控制與協調,大大提高臨時改變作戰計劃的快速反應能力。 (劉玉山)
《中國國防報》 2004年07月01日

互聯網”的混沌與網絡空間的迷茫 ~ China’s Internet – creating chaos and confusion in cyberspace

互聯網”的混沌與網絡空間的迷茫

China’s Internet – creating chaos and confusion in cyberspace

One, chaotic “internet”

1 , from the Apache network to the “Internet”

“Internet” What is the network? China has no “Internet”? The world whether there is no “Internet”? This is not a problem, due to language and cultural expression and understanding of different interests due to the scope and purpose of the different Academic research conditions and the different atmosphere, and so on, these years more and more chaotic. “Internet”, “Internet”, “Internet”, “Mobile Internet”, “Internet Finance”, “Internet +” … … and so on, what are linked to a “Internet”, “Internet” has become a fashion term.

Today’s world has become the “Internet” encompasses the world of the world, in addition to what are “the Internet” that an “Internet”, many people do not know there is no other network, but also can not have other networks, why There are other networks. “Internet” in the end is a network or should be more than one network? Recognize the chaos, chaos awareness, are derived from this.

In 1969, Dr. Xu became the first member of the internetwork at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and later became the only senior vice president of Chinese lab in the history of Bell Labs, Institute of Engineers (IEEE) academician, has been known as the US network communications industry, “the first Chinese.” In 2004, Mr. Xu told me that people today are keen on the “Internet”, the predecessor of the ARPANET (ARPANET), the US government based on the defense considerations to the university to study the large computer mutual communication of an experimental network, 20 years of innovation and improvement from a network.

In 1970, the American Information Processing Association defined the computer network as “a collection of computer systems with separate functions that could be shared in a way that shared resources (hardware, software, data, etc.).” The definition of this computer network in the United States, perhaps regarded as the earliest from the United States “Internet” definition?

2 , two network architecture

In the 1950s, the United States established a semi-automatic ground air defense system (SAGE, Chinese translation “赛 Qi”), the computer technology and communication technology combined application attempt. In the early 1960s, the American Air Ticket Booking System (SABRE-1) consisted of a central computer and more than 2,000 terminals distributed across the United States to form a computer communication network, enabling the terminals to connect to the central computer via telephone lines on a larger scale Of the typical application. This is a single computer-centric, through the multi-line controller and remote terminal connected to the online system, known as the terminal-based remote online system, that is, early computer network.

At the end of the 20th century, the International Organization for Standardization ISO standardization of computer and information processing technology committee to study and develop network communication standards to achieve the international standardization of network architecture. In 1984, ISO formally promulgated the International Standard ISO 7498, referred to as the “Open System Interconnection Basic Reference Model”, referred to as the OSI RM (Open System Interconnection Basic Reference Model), the famous OSI seven-layer model. OSI RM and standard protocol development and improvement to promote a unified, open network architecture, greatly accelerating the development of computer networks.

However, the United States does not put ISO in the eyes, insist on arbitrary. In 1983, the United States in the Apache network officially launched TCP / IP protocol to replace the original NCP network control protocol, and then the formation of the Internet (Internet). For more than 30 years, the United States has used its technology, economy and military advantages to implement the Internet’s Internet-wide network strategy. The Internet Task Force (ICANN) is naked to put forward the slogan of “the same world, the same Internet”. The Obama administration is also praised “the Internet is unique in the international environment.” As a result, the Internet by the United States and its dormant countries in the iron powder are relish for the “Internet”.

In fact, the Internet is the United States to develop rules, control the exchange, monitoring information of a computer network architecture, does not fully comply with the International Organization for Standardization ISO officially issued OSI RM requirements. In other words, there are two dominant network architectures in the world: one is the OSI RM (open system interconnection reference model) proposed by the ISO, and the other is the use and pushing of the Internet. TCP / IP RM (TCP / IP reference model). The fundamental difference between the two models is that OSI RM to promote the global computer network open system interconnection, TCP / IP forced all the world’s computer terminals are connected to the Internet one network; ISO is committed to all countries, various types of computer network system The interconnection between the United States stressed that the computer between the end of the exchange of information between the end.

3 , “Internet” definition

So far, the scientific and technological circles, academia, education, industry and commerce, there is no uniform, clear, accurate and standardized Internet definition. Here the Chinese Internet, referring to the Internet as early as July 18, 1997 by the State Council authorized by the National Science and Technology Nomenclature Committee clear English internetwork, rather than the Internet.

Some people following the US Internet strategy insist that “the Internet is the Internet,” “China is the Internet translated into the Internet.” This is not a scientific, academic definition, nor is it from the academicians and “authority” of the mouth, more like an unidentified “Ah Q” said.

Or Obama frankly. “Through the Internet connection, the US company’s business can be extended to any place in the world to create countless jobs and opportunities for the American people,” he said in the preface to the International Strategy for cyberspace, published in the White House, “The Internet itself can not open a new era of international cooperation.”

Internet, Internet from English. As a proper noun, it refers to the use of TCP / IP communication protocol of a computer system, and the system provides information, services and users. The Internet requires that the user (the terminal) use the specified domain name and address for information exchange within the defined Internet framework in accordance with its specific rules, which is excluded and closed to the network using other communication protocols, or simply replace it.

Some people say that the definition of the Internet, English should be “a computer network forming of a worldwide network of computer networks that use the TCP / IP network protocols to facilit data transmission and exchange.” Translated into Chinese, is “by a use of TCP / IP Network protocol to promote data transmission and exchange of computer networks composed of a global network. “Please note that this” definition “is very clear:

First, you must use the TCP / IP protocol;

Second, must be the same use of TCP / IP protocol composed of computer networks;

Third, must be in the TCP / IP protocol on the basis of a global network.

Around a long circle around the same circle, or “use TCP / IP protocol computer network”! Can only accept and use TCP / IP with a protocol, the same type of rules, in the same network space for transmission and exchange Of the network, which is not the Internet? How to become the “Internet” in the end is a dull chaos, or chaos led to a dull?

It is said that in the foreign literature, the Internet is described as “no leadership, no law, no political, no army … … incredible social organizational structure.” Dare to ask the US government to the global implementation of such a network structure is what is it? Is to ensure that to induce or force countries, regions, organizations and each use of computers around the world users have succumbed to the Internet, subject to, The United States?

It was argued that, from a general point of view, the definition of the Internet should include three aspects, namely:

– is a TCP / IP protocol based on the network;

– is a computer users of the network group, the user in the use of network resources at the same time, but also for the development and expansion of the network contribute;

– is a collection of all the information resources that can be accessed and used.

The question is whether or not the other computer networks that do not use or do not apply the TCP / IP protocol exist. Is it allowed to exist? Should it exist? Use different protocols The interconnection, convergence, exchange between networks is not the Internet, is it interconnected? Even if the same from the TCP / IP protocol network, IPV6 and IPV4 network is the relationship between the interconnection, or the upgrading of the relationship between China’s national intellectual property rights of IPV9 and the United States have intellectual property IPV6, IPV4 network, is the sovereign equality of network interconnection, or technology-compatible coverage of the alternative relationship? If the realization of IPV9, V6, V4 technology system network of mutual integration and sharing co-governance, which is the Internet? It is only the Internet To the future of the network of technological progress?

According to the above Internet, the definition and statement of the Internet, China only has a network within the Internet framework, there is no consistent with the national sovereignty, consistent with the public network, there is no interconnection with non-sovereign public Internet (internetwork).

The concept of “the Internet is the Internet” that the Americans themselves can not say clearly define, in recent years, have appeared in China’s strategic, planned, decision-making documents and media coverage. Some “authorities” who take the opportunity to hustle and dust, constantly extending, expanding, distorting, fabricating its connotation and extension, it is chilling. If only by the United States 忽悠, but also not detained our independent innovation thinking, and will not be able to reverse and adjust the decision-making mistakes and mistakes strategy. If we themselves fool yourself, self-deception, does not mean that we know the chaos has been deep mud, it is difficult to extricate themselves?

Second, the confusion and confusion of cyberspace

U = 590280692, 1668539107 & fm = 21 & gp = 0.jpg

1 , the Internet constitutes the network space

With the approval of the Central Network Security and Information Leading Group, the National Internet Information Office published the “National Network Space Security Strategy”, which was first published by “Internet, Communication Network, Computer System, Automated Control System, Digital Equipment and Its Bearer Which is “a new area of ​​human activity that is important to land, sea, sky and space. National sovereignty extension extends to cyberspace, and cyberspace sovereignty becomes An important part of national sovereignty.

What is the “Internet” mentioned above? Refers to the network of Internet coverage of a global network of space or the world’s multiple sovereign network interconnection of the network space formed? This problem is not clear, people’s cyberspace awareness, Recognize and identify the ability to distinguish still deep chaos, confusion and confusion.

The Internet is the Internet, in order to achieve the exchange of information between the terminal and the terminal in a network within the framework of the formation of a joint network of space; the Internet is the Internet, is a number of different types of networks in order to share the purpose of mutual benefit Interconnected network space. The Internet and the Internet constitute the integration of the network space, inclusive of common, but also the existence of their own specific and specific rules, categories, ecological and other characteristics. Different cyberspace can not be generalized, confused. Our knowledge should not be disturbed more and more chaos.

Different network space is the most fundamental, the most typical characteristic difference is that countries in the Internet (internetwork) under the framework of sovereignty can not be changed, can not cover up, irreversible, can only be between the sovereignty of the handshake, shake hands, In contrast, bullying. The sovereignty of the Internet is only one, that is, the United States a unique sovereignty, or hegemony. Within the framework of the Internet, any country’s sovereignty has been unilaterally formulated and closely governed by the United States, the scope and the shackles and shackles of ecology, and have to let the United States and its allies (such as Japan) violate, penetrate, , To play, to play in the applause.

In particular, the need for deep and clear, highly important is the dissemination of information, economic development, prosperity, culture, governance, cooperation and exchanges, not the Internet patent, the national sovereign network can also be implemented and implemented, based on national sovereign cyberspace Internet interconnection may do better. The use of the Internet in the United States a network of technical systems and means to bypass the national network of sovereignty, governance and legal rights, is leading to the sovereign cyberspace security is the biggest source of security, is the sovereign state of the greatest threat to security, The most destabilizing factors that endanger the peace, stability and national unity of the sovereign states. In the Internet, there is no country with the country’s diplomacy, there is no equal and mutual respect for international cooperation, only the United States a dominance, a strong, one dominate, one of the words have the final say. In the framework of such a network, with the United States to talk about the rules, stresses the principle of governance, on the Pratt & Whitney, not with the tiger skin, dance with the wolf? How can the United States take their own national interests to share with other countries, to sell their own network sovereignty To allow other countries to rival the country’s cyberspace “sovereignty in me, not subject to people”, if subject to the people, will be subject to chaos, will suffer! The truth, Iran understand, Germany understand that Russia understands that many countries understand. Over the years, from Asia, the Americas, the Middle East to the EU lessons one by one, we have no reason not to understand, do not accept the lesson?

2 , cyber space sovereignty belongs to the United States

Some people say that cyberspace is cyberspace, that the English Cyberspace is internetwork. If the two English words is entirely a meaning, pointing to the same category of words, why have to be divided into how to see, how to read, how to write can not stand on the two words, speak English foreigners tired tired!

It is said that Cyberspace translated into Chinese cyberspace is more meaningful. Some people say that the US Presidential Decree on Cyberspace’s definition shows that “the Internet is an important infrastructure for cyberspace,” “Internet computers are the most basic elements of Cyberspace,” “Internet + is the Internet’s most important move to cyberspace ”

Here the “Internet”, obviously refers to the Internet that Internet, “Internet +” is the Internet +. There is also a dizzy chaos: the Internet or “Internet” does not constitute cyberspace, the Internet or “Internet” is only Cyberspace this cyberspace infrastructure? “Internet +” is only the Internet to Cyberspace this Network space expansion of an important action, but also does not belong to the network space?

English Cyberspace Chinese literal translation, is cyberspace. 2008 President of the United States President Bush issued the Presidential Decree No. 8 (NSPD) / 23 Homeland Security Presidential Decree, the Chinese translation of cyberspace definition is: “a global domain in the information environment, by independent and interdependent information Technology infrastructure network, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems and embedded processors and controllers, etc. “This seemingly rigorous definition defines cyberspace as a global information environment, encompassing all of the world’s” information technology Infrastructure network “. US Air Force Chief of Staff said the cyber space encompasses everything from “direct current to visible light”. To say that, or the Internet a network of the world that the concept of a replica, for a noun, changed the argument only, not the right.

This definition can be seen almost as an American imperial edict to declare war on all sovereignty over the world. The definition does not recognize the resources, conditions and foundations of countries to build and develop sovereign cyberspace, and first incorporate all kinds of network infrastructures into the category of cyber cyberspace. The definition is preemptively bundled with political, economic, military and cultural Hands and feet of the “certain rules”, thrown out of the national scientists, strategists in the future development of the field of network innovation voyage cable; the definition of only state officials set fire to the people not allowed to light, domineering, ambition, aggressive.

3 , Internet sovereignty and power confused

Although the OSI RM (Open Systems Interconnection Reference Model) proposed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is one of the two dominant network architectures in the world, these years have not resulted in large-scale market applications. Some people think that the model exists level and content is not the best, the session layer and presentation layer is almost empty, the corresponding service definition and protocol complexity and other technical shortcomings.

And the obvious and unsafe problems caused by the inherent lack of Internet technology have been widely concerned by countries and international organizations. Fundamentally change the Internet’s single control center framework, TCP / IP protocol, identity and security authentication mechanism, has become a major global key core technology innovation research topics.

Perhaps because of this, the current countries have not yet formed in the sovereign cyberspace based on the construction of the global Internet (internetwork) conditions, resources and support, not the ability and the Internet “zhongjiang governance”, “equally”, “shared peace” Can only “send people”, in access to the Internet, rent Internet services, to prevent excessive penetration of the Internet and so on, put huge costs and bargaining with the United States to try to minimize harm and loss. Countries are equally involved in Internet governance, equitable distribution of Internet infrastructure resources, common management of Internet root servers and other key information infrastructure, to strengthen the representation and voice of developing countries, like slogans, and like a mirage, shouting fills, and can not reach.

In the framework of the United States Internet within a network, in the United States cyberspace sovereignty and security under the serious deterrence, the peaceful development of the theme of cyberspace international cooperation strategy is likely to only wishful thinking, the premise and the foundation is wrong, direction and route Biased The United States and the rest of the world continue to lag behind the United States in the network space, subject to the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, the United States, Succumbed to the United States, and will actually lose cyberspace sovereignty, loss of development opportunities and strategic opportunities, more harm than good, regret not the beginning.

4 , cyberspace international cooperation trade-offs

Z (8) .jpg

Corresponding to the Chinese cyberspace English is Net Space, the scientific definition is: information infrastructure to connect, cover and carry information processing space-time domain.

This definition specifies the most common commonality of the Internet, the Internet, cyberspace, and any other cyberspace, not to the will of a particular country or interest, not limited to a particular network, Country to build the network space.

With this definition as a prerequisite to support countries to strengthen the construction and development of sovereign cyberspace, to promote the international community in a spirit of mutual respect for dialogue and cooperation, have the resources to protect the public in the cyberspace of the right to know, participation, expression, supervision Rights and conditions to build a multilateral, democratic and transparent global network space management system, it is possible to achieve scientific and rational, fair and orderly, equal and reciprocal, security checks and balances of international cooperation in cyberspace.

China in the supercomputer development, aerospace computer system applications, etc. has been rushed in the forefront of the world, can be compatible with IPV6 and IPV4 IPV9 technical system test run test is satisfactory. Russia in the domestic network information control and prevention of foreign network invasion and so has accumulated a good experience, the establishment of a good system. The EU has embarked on a potential threat to the Internet and is committed to building an autonomous cyberspace system. More and more countries put forward cyber space sovereignty demands, in favor of Xi Jinping President “jointly build cyberspace fate community” claims.

In the current limited conditions, the basis and the expected prospects, China’s international cooperation in cyberspace initiatives should be able to assess the situation, do what, careful operation, not rushed into the routines of other countries. Should be single-handedly with the United States and other countries to negotiate international Internet space governance diplomacy, a rainy day, one hand to build the power of the United States enough to balance the US Internet and cyberspace of China’s sovereign public network system. At the same time, take decisive and resolute measures to resolutely deal with domestic and foreign network security risks and threats, and resolutely punish the network of criminal activities, and resolutely crack down on China’s cyberspace sovereignty, betrayal of national and national interests, resolutely correct long passive Cyberspace following strategy and strategy.

Third, the world cyberspace security situation

U = 2873491118, 2968306817 & fm = 11 & gp = 0.jpg

The US Internet-dominated world cyberspace security situation is increasingly grim. Wearing the “Internet” caps of the Internet security problems riddled with more and more countries to become difficult to save the network of ills and long-lasting “heart disease.”

According to the “China cyberspace security report (2016)” Blue Book, since 2015, based on the Internet and cyber space network conflict and attack, become the main form of confrontation between countries. Russia Kaspersky accused the United States “Formula Group” through the implantation of spyware, infected Iran, Russia, China, more than 30 countries such as military, financial, energy and other key sectors of the tens of thousands of computers. Iran says it has thwarted the United States’ cyber attacks on its oil sector. Italy “Hacking Team” more than 400G of the company’s data was open and found that the United States, Morocco, Ethiopia and other institutions in more than 20 countries to buy a network of spy and vulnerability tools. The company blames Russia’s “APT28” organization for exploiting zero-day vulnerabilities to attack NATO and US defense agencies.

Blue Book Disclosure, the United States set up “Network Threat Intelligence Integration Center”, and expand the State Council “Anti-Terrorism Strategy Information Center” scale, the CIA set up “Digital Innovation Department” to strengthen the network intelligence gathering capacity. The US Department of Defense launched a network security incubator program, the British government to expand its network security research capabilities, the US Navy prepared offensive network action, NATO announced the preparation of mixed network warfare, countries focus on network attack and defense and hard and soft strength, and strive to security and attack Ability to enhance the two-way. Media disclosure, the world has more than 50 countries set up a network warfare forces, the global cyberspace “military race” escalating.

According to the disclosure, relying on the United States Internet technology, agreements and infrastructure development developed “China Internet”, government, banking, energy and other vital departments of the network information system generally can not achieve safe and controllable, the domestic industrial control system is ” Security loopholes. ” 2015 appears Alipay, Ctrip data loss, Netease e-mail leakage and other troubles, in recent years through SMS, WeChat implementation of financial fraud every day in a large number of occur. Minister of Industry and Trade Miao Wei told reporters that now an average of one month to search for 173 million telecommunications fraud information.

According to the “National Internet Information Center”, “Network Security Information and Dynamic Weekly”, February 13, 20-19, the number of domestic infected network virus host 400,000 units, up 6.6% over last week; territory was implanted back door Of the government website rose 47.1%; for the domestic website of the number of counterfeit pages increased by 165.2%; new information security high-risk loopholes rose 26.2%. Monitoring found that the source of network virus transmission to the site of the horse, involving 68 domain names in 30.9% for overseas registration, and the top domain for the .com about 83.8%, most of the horse site through the domain name to visit the implementation of the virus spread.

National Defense University professor Dai Xu pointed out that today’s world has been in a “network”. Changes in the military field have taken place. From the sensor as the core, to electromagnetic space as the boundary of the electronic information warfare (which can be called “telecommunications war”), to the network as the core, to the psychological space for the characteristics of the network, psychological warfare (can be called “network Heart war “),” network “into the basic characteristics of the seventh generation of war, is becoming the main battle of the big country game. China’s traditional strategic advantage is becoming the focus of opponents crack, China once again in a natural barrier can rely on the dangerous situation, the face of being blackmail the state of the network. The traditional cognitive system of war and anti-war requires urgent upgrading. In the new era of mixed warfare of the network, China must also have the ability to hold the “bull nose” of the times.

Fourth, the history of sovereign cyberspace

1 , “cyber space” alert the world

The United States carefully thrown out the “cyberspace” theory, self-righteous, and then without hesitation in its delineation of the “cyber space that cyberspace” large-scale global information monitoring, network war deployment and network information intelligence collection And plunder, etc., alert the world’s scientists, economists, military scientists, socialists and businessmen, politicians, people and so on. People suddenly realized that “the Internet is the Internet” and “cyber space is cyberspace” exactly the same. In the final analysis, the superpower capitalist hegemony of the United States regarded himself as the head of the “global village” and regarded “economic globalization” as “selfish”. “I am my, you or my, this earth on the land and sea sky all everything is my” – this is the real United States, which is all the interests of the United States. The United States, is so arrogant unreasonable.

However, reality and science have repeatedly verified that cyberspace is only a type of network that exists in a variety of independent runs, and is part of a space for different types of networks that are different in technology, different in purpose, and for different purposes. Cyberspace is not equal to cyberspace, cyberspace covers cyberspace, cyberspace is a subset of cyberspace.

Since the performance of the United States sovereignty and interests of cyber space, indicating that all constitute a subset of cyberspace, all countries and areas of the network space, have their sovereignty and interests of the demands. Iran, Russia, Germany, China and so on the EU and so on, should have, there must be, otherwise there is no construction of “cyberspace fate community,” the basic conditions and the necessary basis for peace, sharing, co-governance, win-win International cyberspace is out of the question.

In this way, to strengthen the national sovereignty network construction and development, build and maintain their own security and stability, national unity, and promote the prosperity of the domestic community of sovereign cyberspace, become a sovereign state important event. This is the common responsibility of the United Nations, the United States and the world’s sovereign States. “Cyber ​​space” deter the world, is the United States contempt for the world’s cyberspace strategy of the major errors; any follow the US Internet, cyber space strategy decisions and initiatives, will be lost in the direction of major mistakes.

2 , Internet space strategy has been put on the agenda

U = 2559533438,1219077096 & fm = 23 & gp = 0.jpg

Network space (Net Space), is the space-time system created by mankind, is the generic name of the concept, is the information processing and exchange of bearing space. It summarizes the three elements that make up the cyberspace: attributes, connection coverage, and the ability to carry processing information. Regardless of the financial network, enterprise network, government network, regardless of the Internet, Internet, Internet, regardless of land-based network, aviation network, space network, regardless of cable network, wireless network, quantum network, regardless of public or private network related services Providers and operators of private access networks, and so on, there are independent connections to cover the space-time domain and bearer processing exchange of different information on the network space.

The cyberspace has not been able to rigorously, regulate and accurately reflect and embrace all of its inherent characteristics, and extend the scope of the cyber space in the new network space. The conditions and the basis for the development of the law of change. This network and the network between the super network space, inspired the “Internet space” (Nets Space) doctrine. Internet space is an integrated domain of cyberspace.

Standing in the Internet space height, depth and breadth of the full dimension, full view of cyberspace, our vision will be wider and farther and clearer, our thinking will be easier to jump out yesterday and today, looking to tomorrow, we will from the Internet , “Internet”, cyber space caused by chaos in the liberation of ideas, out of a computer network era beyond the new path of the human information society.

A network space, wireless networks, quantum communication, space networks and other interconnected, interactive, interdependent constitute the era of Internet space, has come and is entering a more advanced stage. The rise of China’s cyberspace strategy will inevitably lead to the rise of revolutionary thought, the rise of science and technology, the rise of economy, the rise of the nation, the rise of the country, the benefit of future generations, the impact and drive the global human society by leaps and bounds.

Internet space strategy and technical preparation has been put on the agenda, the best time may be in front of and in the next few years. China can not seize the opportunity to seize the opportunity to go beyond the United States to lead the new super cyberspace – Internet space era, to seize the day and night, to now move from scratch, to the number of romantic figures, but also to see the current.

3 , the development of Internet space to be the power of the whole country

The United States to push the country to push the Internet, push IPV6, push the Bo space, leading to chaos in the country and confused at the same time, but also indeed created a remarkable network technology, network economy and network military glory.

China has become the world’s second largest economy. China is fully capable, conditional and confident to develop the international space strategy and technology with the power of the whole country.

Ideological emancipation, institutional reform is China’s reform and opening up since the two initiatives complement each other. From this start, it is recommended:

⑴ the establishment of the CPC Central Committee, the National People’s Congress, the State Council and the CPPCC under the leadership and under the constraints of a highly authoritative, rule of law and error correction mechanism and error correction mechanism, and resolutely put an end to the confusion and decision-making road.

A small number of follow the United States, “experts”, “authority” long-term impact and intervention in the national network of information authorities who also a number of “one speech” strange thing, no longer allow, exist and continue, and must be resolutely reversed and broken.

Should immediately resolutely correct the “comprehensive introduction, upgrading, the deployment of IPV6” major strategic decision-making and planning mistakes, abolished with the United States signed all the hazards and endanger China’s cyberspace sovereignty and security of the unequal agreement; cyberspace field investment projects one by one The implementation of the audit and post-evaluation, obviously “for others to marry clothes,” all shut down and turn.

(2) The State encourages and supports the construction, development and maintenance of a sovereign public network on the basis of the premise and national ownership of intellectual property rights.

Should be clearly in the United States based on the current “Internet”, the construction of independent development of the Chinese public network and other sovereign public network and provide services, the people have the right to use the sovereign public network and non-sovereign public network rights. The state should introduce the tendency of the incentive policies and measures to allow the sovereign public network using IPV9, Zheng code, Tao Chen code, CFL safety certification, MISC, and so on with national independent intellectual property rights technology. Actively build, develop and maintain the domestic independent operation of the multi-network constitute the Internet, can build a global network space fate community to explore the model, the accumulation of experience and create the conditions.

(3) to seize the opportunity to create a national-led, social participation, private operation of the “Internet Space Research Institute”, all-round, multi-dimensional, deep-level research and development of Internet space technology and development of development strategies and strategies to create a world-class training of Internet space talent base , Build the sovereign network / future network / Internet space experiment, test the system application environment, explore and solve the sovereign network, cyberspace and the development of Internet space in various problems, strides in the lead in the forefront of the development of Internet space.

(4) First of all, with Russia, Iran, Germany, the European Union and other countries committed to the development, development and maintenance of their own sovereign cyberspace and actively organize the construction of cyberspace destiny community communication, exchange, negotiation and cooperation, joint multi- The United States is the main negotiator.

Clear the chaos, swing confused, we will no longer be subject to the people, let the mercy, we will be firmly into the era of cyberspace, we will be far-sighted toward the future of Internet space.

Original Mandarin Chinese:

一、混沌的“互聯網”

1、從阿帕網到“互聯網”

“互聯網”究竟是什麼網?中國究竟有沒有“互聯網”?世界究竟有沒有“互聯網”?這本不是問題的問題,由於語言文化表達和理解的不同,由於利益追求範圍和目的的不同,由於學術研究條件和氛圍的不同,等等,這些年越來越顯得混沌不清。 “互聯網”、“中國互聯網”,“國際互聯網”、“移動互聯網”、“互聯網金融”、“互聯網+”……等等,什麼都掛上個“互聯網”,“互聯網”竟成為時尚用語。

今天的世界儼然成了“互聯網”囊括天下的世界,除了什麼都是“the Internet”那一張“互聯網”,許多人都不知道還有沒有其它網,還能不能有其它網,為什麼還會有其它網?。 “互聯網”到底是一張網?還是應該不止一張網?認識的混沌,混沌的認識,皆源於此。

1969年,許浚博士成為在美國加州大學洛杉磯分校(UCLA)實驗室誕生的第一個互聯網絡(internetwork)的研究成員,他後來成為貝爾實驗室歷史上唯一的華裔高級副總裁,美國電子電氣工程師學會(IEEE)院士,曾被譽為美國網絡通信界“第一華人”。 2004年,許先生告訴我,人們今天熱衷的“互聯網”,前身是阿帕網(ARPANET),是美國政府基於國防上的考量出錢給高校研究的大型計算機互相通信的一個實驗網,又經過20多年的創新和改進而來的一張網。

1970年,美國信息處理協會將計算機網絡定義為“以能夠共享資源(硬件、軟件和數據等)的方式連接起來,並且各自具備獨立功能的計算機系統之集合”。這個計算機網絡的美國定義,也許算是最早來自美國的“互聯網”定義?

2、兩張網絡體系結構

20世紀50年代,美國建立了一個半自動的地面防空系統(SAGE,中文譯作“賽琪”),進行了計算機技術與通信技術相結合的應用嘗試。 60年代初,美國航空訂票系統(SABRE-1)由一台中心計算機和分佈在全美範圍內的2000多個終端組成計算機通信網絡,更大規模地實現了各終端通過電話線連接到中心計算機的典型應用。這種以單個計算機為中心、通過多重線路控制器與遠程終端相連接的聯機系統,被稱做面向終端的遠程聯機系統,即早期的計算機網絡。

20世紀70年代末,國際標準化組織ISO的計算機與信息處理標準化技術委員會著手研究和製定網絡通信標準,以實現網絡體系結構的國際標準化。 1984年,ISO正式頒布了稱為“開放系統互連基本參考模型”的國際標準ISO 7498,簡稱OSI RM(Open System Interconnection Basic Reference Model),即著名的OSI七層模型。 OSI RM及標準協議的製定和完善推動了統一、開放的網絡體系結構,大大加速了計算機網絡的發展。

但是,美國並不把ISO放在眼裡,堅持獨斷專行。 1983年,美國在阿帕網中正式推出TCP/IP協議取代原有的NCP網絡控制協議,進而形成因特網(Internet)。 30多年來,美國利用其科技、經濟和軍事優勢,以舉國之力推行因特網一張網連接覆蓋全球的戰略。美國因特網任務工作組(ICANN)赤裸裸地提出“同一個世界,同一個因特網”的蠱惑人心口號。奧巴馬政府更是讚譽“因特網在國際環境中獨樹一幟”。由此,因特網被美國及其蟄伏在各國的鐵粉們津津樂道為“互聯網”。

實際上,因特網就是美國製定規則、控制交換、監控信息的一種計算機網絡體系結構,並不完全符合國際標準組織ISO正式頒布的OSI RM的要求。也就是說,目前世界上存在著兩種占主導地位的網絡體系結構:一種是國際標準化組織ISO提出的OSI RM(開放式系統互連參考模型);另一種是因特網使用和力推的TCP/IP RM(TCP/IP參考模型)。兩種模型的根本區別在於,OSI RM推動全球計算機網絡開放式系統互連,TCP/IP迫使世界所有計算機終端都接入因特網一張網之中;ISO致力於各國、各種類型的計算機網絡系統之間的相互連接,美國強調的是計算機端對端之間的信息互通。

3、“互聯網”的定義

迄今,各國科技界、學術界、教育界、工商界,沒有統一、清晰、準確、規範的互聯網定義。這裡的中文互聯網,指的是早在1997年7月18日就經我國國務院授權的全國科學技術名詞審定委員會明確的英文internetwork,而不是Internet。

追隨美國因特網一張網戰略的某些人堅持說,“因特網就是互聯網”,“中國就是將因特網翻譯成互聯網”。這不是科學的、學術的定義,也不像是出自院士和“權威”之口,更像是不明事理的“阿Q”之說。

還是奧巴馬坦誠。他在白宮發表的《網絡空間國際戰略》的序言裡說,“通過因特網連接,美國公司的業務可以延伸至全球任何一個地方,為美國民眾創造無以計數的就業崗位和機會”,他承認, “因特網本身無法開啟國際合作的新紀元。”

因特網,源自英文的Internet。作為專有名詞,它所指的是使用TCP/IP通訊協議的一種計算機系統,以及這個系統所提供的信息、服務與用戶。因特網要求用戶(終端)按照其特定的規則在限定的因特網框架內使用指定的域名和地址進行信息交換,它對採用其它通訊協議的網絡是排斥和封閉的,或者乾脆越俎代庖、取而代之。

有人說,因特網的定義,英文應該是“a computer network consisting of a worldwide network of computer networks that use the TCP/IP network protocols to facilitate data transmission and exchange.”翻譯成中文,就是“一個由使用TCP / IP網絡協議促進數據傳輸和交換的計算機網絡組成的全球網絡。”請注意,這個“定義”說得很明確:

第一,必須使用TCP/IP協議;

第二,必須是同樣使用TCP/IP協議的計算機網絡組成;

第三,必須是在TCP/IP協議基礎上構成的全球一張網絡。

繞了這麼長一個繞口令一般的圈子,歸齊還是“使用TCP/IP協議的計算機網絡”!只能接受和使用TCP/IP同一種協議、同一類規則、在同一個網絡空間內進行傳輸與交換的網絡,這不還是因特網嗎?怎麼就成了“互聯網”了?到底是愚鈍產生了混沌,還是混沌導致了愚鈍?

有人說,在國外的文獻中,因特網被描述成“沒有領導、沒有法律、沒有政治、沒有軍隊……的不可思議的社會組織結構”。敢問,美國政府向全球推行這樣的網絡結構是何居心呢?是確保、誘導或迫使各國、各地區、各組織以及每個使用計算機的世界各地用戶都通過因特網屈從於、受制於、聽命於美國嗎?

有人說,從一般的角度認為,因特網的定義應包括三個方面內容,即:

——是一個基於TCP/IP協議的網絡;

——是一個計算機用戶的網絡集團,用戶在使用網絡資源的同時,也為網絡的發展壯大貢獻力量;

——是所有可被訪問和利用的信息資源的集合。

問題在於,不使用或者不適用TCP/IP協議的其它計算機網絡是否存在?是否允許存在?是否應該存在?使用不同協議網絡之間相互連接、融合、交換構成的是不是互聯網、是不是互連互通的網絡空間?即便同樣源於TCP/IP協議的網絡,IPV6與IPV4網絡之間是互連互通的關係,還是升級換代的關係?具有我國民族自主知識產權的IPV9與美國擁有知識產權的IPV6、 IPV4網絡之間,是主權平等的網絡互連關係,還是技術兼容的覆蓋替代關係?如果實現IPV9、V6、V4技術體系網絡的相互融通與共享共管共治,這是互聯網呢?還僅僅是因特網走向未來網絡的技術進步?

按照以上的因特網、“互聯網”定義和說法,中國祇有因特網框架內的一張網,沒有與國家主權相吻合、相一致的公眾網絡,沒有與非主權公眾網絡互聯互通的互聯網(internetwork)。

一個連美國人自己都說不清定義的“因特網就是互聯網”的概念,近些年來,接二連三地出現在我國戰略性、規劃性、決策性的文件和媒體連篇累牘地報導渲染之中。某些“權威”人士藉機喧囂塵上,不斷延伸、膨脹、曲解、編造其內涵和外延,實在令人不寒而栗。如果僅僅被美國忽悠,還不至於禁錮我們的自主創新思維,不至於不能扭轉和調整決策的失誤和失誤的策略。如果我們自己一個勁地忽悠自己,自欺欺人,難道不是意味著我們認識的混沌已經深陷泥沼、難以自拔了嗎?

二、網絡空間的迷茫與錯亂

1、因特網構成的網絡空間

經中央網絡安全和信息化領導小組批准,國家互聯網信息辦公室首次發布的《國家網絡空間安全戰略》中表述,網絡空間是由“互聯網、通信網、計算機系統、自動化控制系統、數字設備及其承載的應用、服務和數據等組成的”,是“國家主權的新疆域”,是“與陸地、海洋、天空、太空同等重要的人類活動新領域,國家主權拓展延伸到網絡空間,網絡空間主權成為國家主權的重要組成部分。”

以上述及的“互聯網”是指什麼?是指因特網一張網覆蓋全球構成的網絡空間?還是世界多張主權網互連互通構成的網絡空間?這個問題不搞清楚,人們的網絡空間意識、認識和識別辨析能力仍然深陷混沌、迷茫和錯亂之中。

因特網就是因特網,是為了實現終端與終端之間的信息交換而在一張網框架之內形成聯合的網絡空間;互聯網就是互聯網,是多個不同類型的網絡為了共享共治共贏的目的構成互連互通的網絡空間。因特網與互聯網各自構成的網絡空間存在融合、包容的共性,更存在各自專有與特定的規則、範疇、生態等特性。不同的網絡空間不能一概而論、混為一談。我們的認識不應該被攪和得越來越混沌不清。

不同的網絡空間最根本、最典型的特性區別在於,各國在互聯網絡(internetwork)框架下的主權不可改變,不可掩蓋,不可逆襲,只能是主權之間的握手言歡、握手言和,不可刀槍相向、恃強凌弱。因特網的主權只有一個,即美國一家獨有的主權,或者說是霸權。在因特網一張網的框架內,任何國家的主權都被美國單方面製定和嚴密掌控的規則、範疇和生態束縛、捆綁、桎梏,不得不任憑美國及其盟國(例如日本)侵犯、滲透、改變、驅使,把玩於鼓掌之中。

特別需要深度明晰、高度重視的是,傳播信息、發展經濟、繁榮文化、治理社會、合作交流等,不是因特網的專利,各國的主權網絡同樣可以實施和實現,建立在各國主權網絡空間基礎上的網絡互聯可能會做得更好。美國利用因特網的一張網技術體系和手段,繞開各國網絡空間的主權、治權和法權,是導致各主權網絡空間不安全的最大根源,是對各主權國家安全最大的威脅,是長期危害各主權國家和平穩定、民族團結的最不安定因素。在因特網內,沒有國與國的外交,沒有平等與相互尊重的國際合作,只有美國一家獨大,一家獨強,一家獨霸,一家之言說了算。在這樣的一張網框架內,同美國談規則、講原則、說治理、論普惠,豈非與虎謀皮、與狼共舞?美國怎麼可能拿自己的國家利益讓其他國家分享,出讓自己的網絡主權允許其他國家分庭抗禮呢?各國的網絡空間“主權在我、不受制於人”,倘若受制於人,必受其亂、必受其害!這個道理,伊朗明白、德國明白、俄羅斯明白,許多國家都明白。這些年來,從亞洲、美洲、中東到歐盟的教訓一個接一個,我們有什麼理由不明白、不接受教訓嗎?

3、“互聯網”的定義

迄今,各國科技界、學術界、教育界、工商界,沒有統一、清晰、準確、規範的互聯網定義。這裡的中文互聯網,指的是早在1997年7月18日就經我國國務院授權的全國科學技術名詞審定委員會明確的英文internetwork,而不是Internet。

追隨美國因特網一張網戰略的某些人堅持說,“因特網就是互聯網”,“中國就是將因特網翻譯成互聯網”。這不是科學的、學術的定義,也不像是出自院士和“權威”之口,更像是不明事理的“阿Q”之說。

還是奧巴馬坦誠。他在白宮發表的《網絡空間國際戰略》的序言裡說,“通過因特網連接,美國公司的業務可以延伸至全球任何一個地方,為美國民眾創造無以計數的就業崗位和機會”,他承認, “因特網本身無法開啟國際合作的新紀元。”

因特網,源自英文的Internet。作為專有名詞,它所指的是使用TCP/IP通訊協議的一種計算機系統,以及這個系統所提供的信息、服務與用戶。因特網要求用戶(終端)按照其特定的規則在限定的因特網框架內使用指定的域名和地址進行信息交換,它對採用其它通訊協議的網絡是排斥和封閉的,或者乾脆越俎代庖、取而代之。

有人說,因特網的定義,英文應該是“a computer network consisting of a worldwide network of computer networks that use the TCP/IP network protocols to facilitate data transmission and exchange.”翻譯成中文,就是“一個由使用TCP / IP網絡協議促進數據傳輸和交換的計算機網絡組成的全球網絡。”請注意,這個“定義”說得很明確:

第一,必須使用TCP/IP協議;

第二,必須是同樣使用TCP/IP協議的計算機網絡組成;

第三,必須是在TCP/IP協議基礎上構成的全球一張網絡。

繞了這麼長一個繞口令一般的圈子,歸齊還是“使用TCP/IP協議的計算機網絡”!只能接受和使用TCP/IP同一種協議、同一類規則、在同一個網絡空間內進行傳輸與交換的網絡,這不還是因特網嗎?怎麼就成了“互聯網”了?到底是愚鈍產生了混沌,還是混沌導致了愚鈍?

有人說,在國外的文獻中,因特網被描述成“沒有領導、沒有法律、沒有政治、沒有軍隊……的不可思議的社會組織結構”。敢問,美國政府向全球推行這樣的網絡結構是何居心呢?是確保、誘導或迫使各國、各地區、各組織以及每個使用計算機的世界各地用戶都通過因特網屈從於、受制於、聽命於美國嗎?

有人說,從一般的角度認為,因特網的定義應包括三個方面內容,即:

——是一個基於TCP/IP協議的網絡;

——是一個計算機用戶的網絡集團,用戶在使用網絡資源的同時,也為網絡的發展壯大貢獻力量;

——是所有可被訪問和利用的信息資源的集合。

問題在於,不使用或者不適用TCP/IP協議的其它計算機網絡是否存在?是否允許存在?是否應該存在?使用不同協議網絡之間相互連接、融合、交換構成的是不是互聯網、是不是互連互通的網絡空間?即便同樣源於TCP/IP協議的網絡,IPV6與IPV4網絡之間是互連互通的關係,還是升級換代的關係?具有我國民族自主知識產權的IPV9與美國擁有知識產權的IPV6、 IPV4網絡之間,是主權平等的網絡互連關係,還是技術兼容的覆蓋替代關係?如果實現IPV9、V6、V4技術體系網絡的相互融通與共享共管共治,這是互聯網呢?還僅僅是因特網走向未來網絡的技術進步?

按照以上的因特網、“互聯網”定義和說法,中國祇有因特網框架內的一張網,沒有與國家主權相吻合、相一致的公眾網絡,沒有與非主權公眾網絡互聯互通的互聯網(internetwork)。

一個連美國人自己都說不清定義的“因特網就是互聯網”的概念,近些年來,接二連三地出現在我國戰略性、規劃性、決策性的文件和媒體連篇累牘地報導渲染之中。某些“權威”人士藉機喧囂塵上,不斷延伸、膨脹、曲解、編造其內涵和外延,實在令人不寒而栗。如果僅僅被美國忽悠,還不至於禁錮我們的自主創新思維,不至於不能扭轉和調整決策的失誤和失誤的策略。如果我們自己一個勁地忽悠自己,自欺欺人,難道不是意味著我們認識的混沌已經深陷泥沼、難以自拔了嗎?

二、網絡空間的迷茫與錯亂

1、因特網構成的網絡空間

經中央網絡安全和信息化領導小組批准,國家互聯網信息辦公室首次發布的《國家網絡空間安全戰略》中表述,網絡空間是由“互聯網、通信網、計算機系統、自動化控制系統、數字設備及其承載的應用、服務和數據等組成的”,是“國家主權的新疆域”,是“與陸地、海洋、天空、太空同等重要的人類活動新領域,國家主權拓展延伸到網絡空間,網絡空間主權成為國家主權的重要組成部分。”

以上述及的“互聯網”是指什麼?是指因特網一張網覆蓋全球構成的網絡空間?還是世界多張主權網互連互通構成的網絡空間?這個問題不搞清楚,人們的網絡空間意識、認識和識別辨析能力仍然深陷混沌、迷茫和錯亂之中。

因特網就是因特網,是為了實現終端與終端之間的信息交換而在一張網框架之內形成聯合的網絡空間;互聯網就是互聯網,是多個不同類型的網絡為了共享共治共贏的目的構成互連互通的網絡空間。因特網與互聯網各自構成的網絡空間存在融合、包容的共性,更存在各自專有與特定的規則、範疇、生態等特性。不同的網絡空間不能一概而論、混為一談。我們的認識不應該被攪和得越來越混沌不清。

不同的網絡空間最根本、最典型的特性區別在於,各國在互聯網絡(internetwork)框架下的主權不可改變,不可掩蓋,不可逆襲,只能是主權之間的握手言歡、握手言和,不可刀槍相向、恃強凌弱。因特網的主權只有一個,即美國一家獨有的主權,或者說是霸權。在因特網一張網的框架內,任何國家的主權都被美國單方面製定和嚴密掌控的規則、範疇和生態束縛、捆綁、桎梏,不得不任憑美國及其盟國(例如日本)侵犯、滲透、改變、驅使,把玩於鼓掌之中。

特別需要深度明晰、高度重視的是,傳播信息、發展經濟、繁榮文化、治理社會、合作交流等,不是因特網的專利,各國的主權網絡同樣可以實施和實現,建立在各國主權網絡空間基礎上的網絡互聯可能會做得更好。美國利用因特網的一張網技術體系和手段,繞開各國網絡空間的主權、治權和法權,是導致各主權網絡空間不安全的最大根源,是對各主權國家安全最大的威脅,是長期危害各主權國家和平穩定、民族團結的最不安定因素。在因特網內,沒有國與國的外交,沒有平等與相互尊重的國際合作,只有美國一家獨大,一家獨強,一家獨霸,一家之言說了算。在這樣的一張網框架內,同美國談規則、講原則、說治理、論普惠,豈非與虎謀皮、與狼共舞?美國怎麼可能拿自己的國家利益讓其他國家分享,出讓自己的網絡主權允許其他國家分庭抗禮呢?各國的網絡空間“主權在我、不受制於人”,倘若受制於人,必受其亂、必受其害!這個道理,伊朗明白、德國明白、俄羅斯明白,許多國家都明白。這些年來,從亞洲、美洲、中東到歐盟的教訓一個接一個,我們有什麼理由不明白、不接受教訓嗎?

2、賽博空間主權屬於美國

有些人硬說賽博空間就是網絡空間,說英文的Cyber​​space就是internetwork。如果這兩個英文單詞完全是一個意思、指向同一個詞語範疇,為什麼非要分成怎麼看、怎麼讀、怎麼寫也挨不上的兩個單詞呢,說英語的外國人累不累呀!

有人說,Cyber​​space翻譯成中文的網絡空間意義更寬。有人說,美國的總統令關於Cyber​​space的定義表明,“互聯網是網絡空間重要的基礎設施”,“互聯網計算機是Cyber​​space最基本的元素”,“互聯網+才是互聯網向網絡空間擴展最重要的一個動作”。

此處的“互聯網”,明顯指的是因特網即Internet,“互聯網+”也就是Internet+。這裡又出現了令人頭暈眼花的混沌:因特網亦或“互聯網”不構成網絡空間,因特網亦或“互聯網”只不過是Cyber​​space這個網絡空間的基礎設施?“因特網+”只不過是因特網向Cyber​​space這個網絡空間擴展的一個重要動作,也並不歸屬於網絡空間?

英文Cyber​​space的中文直譯,就是賽博空間。 2008年美國總統布什發布的54號國家安全總統令(NSPD)/23號國土安全總統令,對賽博空間定義的中文翻譯是:“信息環境中的一個全球域,由獨立且相互依存的信息技術基礎設施網絡組成,包括因特網、電信網、計算機系統以及嵌入的處理器和控制器等。”這個看上去嚴謹的定義,將賽博空間圈定為全球信息環境域,囊括世界所有的“信息技術基礎設施網絡”。美國空軍參謀長說,賽博空間囊括了從“直流電到可見光波”的一切東西。說來說去,還是因特網一張網網羅天下的那一套概念的翻版,換了個名詞、換了個說法而已,不出其右。

這個定義,幾乎可以被看作是向世界所有網絡空間主權宣戰的美國總統詔書。該定義不承認各國建設和發展主權網絡空間的資源、條件和基礎,先入為主地將各國各種網絡基礎設施統統納入美國賽博空間的範疇;該定義搶先拋出捆綁他國政治、經濟、軍事、文化手腳的“一定之規”,甩出了束縛各國科學家、戰略家在未來網絡發展領域創新遠航的纜繩;該定義只許州官放火,不許百姓點燈,霸氣十足、野心昭彰、咄咄逼人。

3、互聯網主權與治權迷茫

儘管國際標準化組織ISO提出的OSI RM(開放式系統互連參考模型)是目前世界上兩種占主導地位的網絡體系結構之一,但這些年並沒有形成規模化的市場應用。有人認為,該模型存在層次數量與內容不是最佳、會話層和表示層幾乎為空、相應的服務定義和協議複雜等技術缺點。

而因特網技術先天不足導致的諸多顯而易見的不安全問題,已為各國和各國際組織普遍關注。從根本上改變因特網的單一控制中心框架結構、TCP/IP協議、標識與安全認證機制等,已經成為全球重大的關鍵核心技術創新攻關課題。

也許正因為此,目前各國還沒有形成在主權網絡空間基礎上構建全球互聯網(internetwork)的條件、資源和依托,還沒有能力與因特網“劃江而治”、“平分秋色”、“共享太平”,只能“寄人籬下”,在接入因特網、租用因特網服務、防止因特網過分滲透等方面,投入巨大成本與美國討價還價地周旋,試圖盡量減少危害和損失。各國平等參與互聯網治理、公平分配互聯網基礎資源、共同管理互聯網根服務器等關鍵信息基礎設施、加強發展中國家的代表性和發言權等,好像口號,又好像海市蜃樓,喊喊罷了,觸不可及。

在美國因特網一張網的框架內、在美國賽博空間主權和安全的嚴重威懾下,和平發展為主題的網絡空間國際合作戰略很可能只是一廂情願的奢談,前提和基礎錯了,方向與路線偏頗。耗費巨大的人力物力財力追隨美國的因特網升級部署及賽博空間戰略,拼精力、拼時間、拼智商、磨牙口,終將導致我國及世界各國繼續在網絡空間長期落後於美國、受制於美國、屈從於美國,並將實際上喪失網絡空間主權、痛失發展良機和戰略契機,得不償失,悔不當初。

4、網絡空間國際合作權衡

與中文網絡空間對應的英文是Net Space,科學的定義是:信息基礎設施連接、覆蓋及承載信息處理的時空域。

這個定義,指明了因特網、互聯網、賽博網絡空間以及其它任何網絡空間最基本的共性,不以某個國家、某個利益集團的意志為轉移,不局限於專指某一張網、某一個國家構建的網絡空間。

以這個定義為前提,支持各國加強主權網絡空間的建設與發展,推動國際社會本著相互尊重的精神開展對話與合作,才有資源保障公眾在網絡空間的知情權、參與權、表達權、監督權,才有條件構建多邊、民主、透明的全球網絡空間治理體系,才有可能實現科學合理、公平有序、平等互惠、安全制衡的網絡空間國際合作。

我國在超級計算機研製、航天計算機系統應用等方面已經沖在了世界的前列,可以兼容覆蓋IPV6和IPV4的IPV9技術體系試運行測試令人滿意。俄羅斯在國內網絡信息控制和防範外來網絡侵襲等方面積累了很好的經驗、建立了良好的系統。歐盟已經著手製衡因特網的潛在威脅,致力於打造獨立自主的網絡空間體系。越來越多的國家提出網絡空間主權訴求,贊成習近平主席“共同構建網絡空間命運共同體”的主張。

在當前有限的條件、基礎和可預期的前景下,我國的網絡空間國際合作舉措應當審時度勢、量力而行、精心運籌操作,不可貿然鑽進他國的套路里。應當一手搶占與美國及他國談判國際網絡空間治理的外交先機、未雨綢繆,一手以舉國之力打造足以製衡美國因特網和賽博空間的我國主權公眾網絡體系。同時,採取果斷有力的措施,堅決處置來源於境內外的網絡安全風險和威脅,堅決懲治網絡違法犯罪活動,堅決打擊危害我國網絡空間主權、出賣國家和民族利益的行為,堅決糾正長期被動受制的網絡空間追隨戰略和策略。

三、世界網絡空間安全態勢

美國因特網主導下的世界網絡空間安全形勢日益嚴峻。穿戴“互聯網”衣帽的因特網安全問題千瘡百孔,越來越成為各國網絡空間難以救藥的頑疾和久治不癒的“心病”。

據《中國網絡空間安全報告(2016)》藍皮書,2015年以來,基於因特網和賽博空間的網絡衝突和攻擊,成為國家間對抗的主要形式。俄羅斯卡巴斯基公司指責美國“方程式小組”通過植入間諜軟件,感染伊朗、俄羅斯、中國等30多個國家的軍事、金融、能源等關鍵部門的上萬台電腦。伊朗稱挫敗了美國對其石油部門的網絡攻擊。意大利“Hacking Team”公司逾400G的數據被公開後發現,美國、摩洛哥、埃塞俄比亞等20多個國家的機構向其購買了網絡間諜和漏洞工具。美國火眼公司指責俄羅斯“APT28”組織利用零日漏洞,攻擊北約和美國國防機構。

藍皮書披露,美國設立“網絡威脅情報整合中心”,並擴大國務院“反恐戰略信息中心”的規模,中情局設立“數字革新部”加強網絡情報蒐集能力。以色列國防部啟動網絡安全孵化器計劃,英國政府拓展其網絡安全研究能力,美國海軍籌備攻擊性網絡行動,北約宣布進行網絡混合戰準備等,各國註重網絡攻防與軟硬實力建設,力求安全保障與攻擊能力雙向提升。媒體披露,全球已經有50多個各個國家組建的網絡戰部隊,全球網絡空間“軍備賽”不斷升級。

另據披露,依托美國因特網技術、協議和基礎設施建設發展起來的“中國互聯網”,政府、銀行、能源等機要要害部門的網絡信息系統普遍無法實現安全可控,國內工業控制系統更是“安全漏洞百出”。 2015年出現的支付寶、攜程網數據丟失,網易郵箱信息洩漏等鬧得沸沸揚揚,近年來通過短信、微信實施的金融詐騙每天都在大量發生。工信部長苗圩告訴記者,現在平均一個月能夠搜索到1.73億條電信詐騙的信息。

據“國家互聯網信息中心”《網絡安全信息與動態週報》,2017年2月13日-19日,境內感染網絡病毒的主機數量為40萬台,比上週上升6.6%;境內被植入後門的政府網站上升47.1%;針對境內網站的仿冒頁面數量上升165.2%;新增信息安全高危漏洞上升26.2%。監測發現,網絡病毒傳播的源頭放馬站點,涉及的68個域名中30.9%為境外註冊,且頂級域為.com的約佔83.8%,大部分放馬站點通過域名訪問實施病毒傳播。

國防大學教授戴旭指出,今天的世界已在一張“網”中。軍事領域的變化已經發生。從以傳感器為核心、以電磁空間為邊界的電子信息戰(可稱之為“電信戰”),到以網絡為核心、以心理空間開闢為特徵的網絡、心理戰(可稱之為“網心戰”),“網絡”化為基本特徵的第七代戰爭,正在成為大國博弈的主戰場。從攻城略地到攻心掠民,中國的傳統戰略優勢正成為被對手破解的重點,中國又一次處於無自然屏障可以依賴的危險境地,面對被網絡訛詐的狀態。關於戰爭和反戰爭的傳統認知體系,亟須升級換代。在網絡化多形態混合戰爭的新軍事時代,中國必須也有能力牽住時代的“牛鼻子”。

2、網際空間戰略已提上日程

網絡空間(Net Space),是人類創造的時空體系,是泛指的名稱概念,是信息處理與交換的承載空間。它概括了構成網絡空間的三大要素:屬性、連接覆蓋範圍和承載處理信息的功能。無論金融網、企業網、政府網,無論因特網、互聯網、網間網,無論陸基網、航空網、太空網,無論有線網、無線網、量子網,無論公網或私網涉及的相關服務提供商和運營商的專用接入網絡,等等,都有自主連接覆蓋的時空域和承載處理交換不同信息的網絡空間。

地球各種網絡空間並存構成的集合體,已經大大超出了網絡空間泛指的概念和定義,“網絡空間”已不能嚴謹、規範、準確地反映和包容其全部的內在特徵、延伸範疇與在全新的條件和基礎上發展變化的規律。這種網絡與網絡之間構成的超級網絡空間,喚生了“網際空間”(Nets Space)的學說。網際空間是網絡空間的集成域。

站在網際空間的高度、深度和廣度全維度、全視角地審視網絡空間,我們的視野將更寬更遠更清晰,我們的思維將更加容易跳出昨天和今天、展望明天,我們將會從因特網、“互聯網”、賽博空間造成的混沌中解放思想,走出一條超越計算機網絡時代的人類信息社會的全新道路。

一個由有線網絡、無線網絡、量子通訊、太空網絡等相互聯繫、相互作用、相互依托構成的網際空間時代,已經來臨並正在進入更加高級的階段。中國網際空間戰略的崛起,必將引起革命性的思想崛起、科技崛起、經濟崛起、民族崛起,國家崛起,惠及子孫後代,影響和帶動全球人類社會的跨越式進步。

網際空間戰略和技術準備已經提上日程,最佳時機也許就在眼前和今後的幾年之中。中國能不能搶占先機、把握良機,超越美國引領全新的超級網絡空間——網際空間時代,須只爭朝夕,須而今邁步從頭越,須數風流人物、還看今朝。

3、網際空間發展須舉國之力

美國以舉國之力推因特網、推IPV6、推賽博空間,在導致他國混沌和迷茫的同時,也確實創造了令人矚目的網絡科技、網絡經濟和網絡軍事輝煌。

我國已經成為世界第二大經濟體。我國完全有能力、有條件、有信心以舉國之力發展網際空間戰略和技術。

思想解放、體制改革是我國改革開放以來相輔相成的兩大舉措。由此出發,建議:

⑴ 建立黨中央、全國人大、國務院和全國政協共同領導和約束下的具高度權威性、法治化的決策糾錯機構和糾錯機制,堅決杜絕借混淆視聽左右決策之路。

少數追隨美國的“專家”、“權威”長期影響和乾預國家各網絡信息主管部門的身兼數職“一言堂”的怪事,再也不能允許發生、存在和繼續下去了,必須堅決扭轉和破除。

應當立即堅決糾正“全面引進、升級、部署IPV6”的重大戰略決策和規劃失誤,廢除與美國簽署的所有危害和危及我國網絡空間主權與安全的不平等協議;對網絡空間領域的國家投資項目逐一實施審計與後評價,明顯“為他人作嫁衣裳”的一律關停並轉。

⑵ 國家鼓勵和支持在民族自主知識產權前提和基礎上建設、發展與維護主權公眾網絡。

應當旗幟鮮明地允許在目前基於美國因特網的“中國互聯網“之外,建設發展獨立運行的中華公網等其它主權公眾網絡並提供服務,國民有選擇使用主權公眾網絡和非主權公眾網絡的權利。國家應出台傾向性的激勵政策和措施,允許主權公眾網絡採用IPV9、鄭碼、陶陳碼、CFL安全認證、MISC等等具有民族自主知識產權的技術。積極建設、發展與維護國內獨立運行的多網構成的互聯網,可以為構建全球網絡空間命運共同體探索模式、積累經驗、創造條件。

⑶ 不失時機地創建國家主導、社會參與、民間操作的“網際空間研究院”,全方位、多維度、深層次研究開發網際空間技術並製訂發展戰略和策略,打造世界一流的培養鍛煉網際空間人才基地,構建主權網絡/未來網絡/網際空間實驗、測試架構系統應用環境,探索與解決主權網絡、網絡空間和網際空間發展中的各種問題,大踏步地走在引領網際空間發展的世界前列。

⑷ 首先與俄羅斯、伊朗、德國、歐盟等致力於建設、發展、維護各自主權網絡空間的國家和國際組織積極進行構建網絡空間命運共同體的溝通、交流、洽談與合作,聯合多國積蓄力量,不以美國為主要談判對手。

掃清混沌,蕩滌迷茫,我們將不再受制於人、任其擺佈,我們將穩健地步入嚮往的網絡空間時代,我們將高瞻遠矚地奔向網際空間的未來。