Electronic warfare and cyberspace operations are  complementary and have potentially synergistic effects. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010  requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense  committees an annual report on DOD’s electronic warfare strategy for  each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015. The key characteristics of an effective strategy can aid  As illustrated in Figure 3, we found that DOD’s reports addressed two key  characteristics, but only partially addressed four other key characteristics  of a strategy. For example, the strategy reports to Congress included  elements of characteristics, such as a goal and objectives, but did not  fully identify implementing parties, delineate roles and responsibilities for  managing electronic warfare across the department, or identify outcome- related performance measures that could guide the implementation of  electronic warfare efforts and help ensure accountability. Our past work has shown that such  characteristics can help shape policies, programs, priorities, resource  allocations, and standards in a manner that is conducive to achieving  intended results. Organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination: Partially  Addressed. DOD Has Not Established an Effective Departmentwide Governance Framework for Managing and Overseeing Electronic Warfare

DOD has taken some steps to address a critical leadership gap identified  in 2009, but it has not established a departmentwide governance  framework for planning, directing, and controlling electronic warfare  activities. DOD is establishing a Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Control  Center (JEMSCC) under Strategic Command in response to the  leadership gap for electronic warfare. In addition, DOD has not updated key guidance to reflect  recent policy changes regarding electronic warfare management and  oversight roles and responsibilities. However, because  DOD has yet to define specific objectives for the center, outline major  implementation tasks, and define metrics and timelines to measure  progress, it is unclear to what extent the center will address the identified  existing leadership deficiencies. DOD has yet to define objectives and issue an implementation plan for  the JEMSCC; however, officials from Strategic Command stated that they  anticipated continuity between the command’s previous role as an  electronic warfare advocate and its new leadership role, noting that  advocacy was, and remains, necessary because electronic warfare  capabilities are sometimes undervalued in comparison to other, kinetic  capabilities.Command’s previously assigned advocacy role, in part, by continuing to  advocate for electronic warfare via the Joint Capabilities Integration and  Development System process—DOD’s process for identifying and  developing capabilities needed by combatant commanders—and by   For example, the JEMSCC will likely build off Strategic  providing electronic warfare expertise. DOD Policy Documents Have Not Been Updated to Include All Oversight Roles and Responsibilities for Electronic Warfare

GAO-12-175 and GAO-12-342SP. DOD’s two primary directives that provide some guidance for  departmentwide oversight of electronic warfare are:
DOD Directive 3222.4 (Electronic Warfare and Command and Control  Warfare Countermeasures)—Designates the Under Secretary of  Defense for Acquisition (now Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics)  as the focal point for electronic warfare within the department. According  to cognizant DOD officials, electronic warfare capabilities may permit use  of the electromagnetic spectrum as a maneuver space for cyberspace  operations. Without additional steps to  define the purpose and activities of the JEMSCC, DOD lacks reasonable  assurance that this center will provide effective departmentwide  leadership for electronic warfare capabilities development and ensure the  effective and efficient use of its resources. Updating electronic warfare directives and policy documents to clearly  define oversight roles and responsibilities for electronic warfare— including any roles and responsibilities related to managing the  relationship between electronic warfare and information operations or  electronic warfare and cyberspace operations, specifically computer  network operations—would help ensure that all aspects of electronic  warfare can be developed and integrated to achieve electromagnetic  spectrum control. Resources and investments necessary to implement the strategy,  including those related to key activities, such as developing  electronic warfare organizational structures and leadership. Regarding our recommendation that DOD include in  future strategy reports for electronic warfare, at a minimum, information  on (1) performance measures to guide implementation of the strategy, (2)  resources and investments necessary to implement the strategy, and (3)  parties responsible for implementing the strategy, the department stated  that it continues to refine the annual strategy reports for electronic warfare  and will expand upon resourcing plans and organization roles; however,  the department stated that the strategy was not intended to be  prescriptive with performance measures. We therefore continue to believe this  recommendation has merit. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To assess the extent to which DOD has developed a strategy to manage  electronic warfare we evaluated DOD’s fiscal year 2011 and 2012  electronic warfare strategy reports to Congress against prior GAO work  on strategic planning, that indentified six desirable characteristics of a  strategy. The characteristics GAO previously identified are: (1) purpose,  scope, and methodology; (2) problem definition and risk assessment;   (3) goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and performance measures;  (4) resources, investments, and risk management; (5) organizational  roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and (6) integration and  implementation. In addressing both of our objectives, we obtained relevant documentation  from and/or interviewed officials from the following DOD offices,  combatant commands, military services, and combat support agencies:
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology,
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and  Integration/DOD Chief Information Officer  Joint Chiefs of Staff
U.S. Cyber Command, Fort Meade, Maryland
U.S. Pacific Command, Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii
U.S. Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska  Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Control Center, Offutt Air  Force Base, Nebraska  Joint Electronic Warfare Center, Lackland Air Force Base,  Texas
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Army for Operations,  Plans, and Training, Electronic Warfare Division
Training and Doctrine Command, Combined Arms Center  Electronic Warfare Proponent Office, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
U.S. Air Force—Electronic Warfare Division
U.S. Marines Corps—Headquarters, Electronic Warfare Branch
U.S. Navy
Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information  Dominance Electronic and Cyber Warfare Division
Naval Sea Systems Command, Naval Surface Warfare Center,
Naval Sea Systems Command, Program Executive Office for
Navy Fleet Forces Cyber Command, Fleet Electronic Warfare  Center, Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia
Defense Information Systems Agency—Defense Spectrum
National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Maryland  We conducted this performance audit from July 2011 to July 2012 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Why GAO Did This Study

DOD has committed billions of dollars to developing, maintaining, and employing warfighting capabilities that rely on access to the electromagnetic spectrum. According to DOD, electronic warfare capabilities play a critical and potentially growing role in ensuring the U.S. militarys access to and use of the electromagnetic spectrum. GAO was asked to assess the extent to which DOD (1) developed a strategy to manage electronic warfare and (2) planned, organized, and implemented an effective governance structure to oversee its electronic warfare policy and programs and their relationship to cyberspace operations. GAO analyzed policies, plans, and studies related to electronic warfare and cyberspace operations and interviewed cognizant DOD officials.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense (DOD) developed an electronic warfare strategy, but it only partially addressed key characteristics that GAO identified in prior work as desirable for a national or defense strategy. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 requires DOD to submit to the congressional defense committees an annual report on DODs electronic warfare strategy for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2015. DOD issued its fiscal year 2011 and 2012 strategy reports to Congress in October 2010 and November 2011, respectively. GAO found that DODs reports addressed two key characteristics: (1) purpose, scope, and methodology and (2) problem definition and risk assessment. However, DOD only partially addressed four other key characteristics of a strategy, including (1) resources, investments, and risk management and (2) organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination. For example, the reports identified mechanisms that could foster coordination across the department and identified some investment areas, but did not fully identify implementing parties, delineate roles and responsibilities for managing electronic warfare across the department, or link resources and investments to key activities. Such characteristics can help shape policies, programs, priorities, resource allocation, and standards in a manner that is conducive to achieving intended results and can help ensure that the department is effectively managing electronic warfare.
DOD has taken steps to address a critical electronic warfare management gap, but it has not established a departmentwide governance framework for electronic warfare. GAO previously reported that effective and efficient organizations establish objectives and outline major implementation tasks. In response to a leadership gap for electronic warfare, DOD is establishing the Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Control Center under U.S. Strategic Command as the focal point for joint electronic warfare. However, because DOD has yet to define specific objectives for the center, outline major implementation tasks, and define metrics and timelines to measure progress, it is unclear whether or when the center will provide effective departmentwide leadership and advocacy for joint electronic warfare. In addition, key DOD directives providing some guidance for departmentwide oversight of electronic warfare have not been updated to reflect recent changes. For example, DODs primary directive concerning electronic warfare oversight was last updated in 1994 and identifies the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as the focal point for electronic warfare. The directive does not define the centers responsibilities in relation to the office, including those related to the development of the electronic warfare strategy and prioritizing investments. In addition, DODs directive for information operations, which is being updated, allocates electronic warfare responsibilities based on the departments previous definition of information operations, which had included electronic warfare as a core capability. DODs oversight of electronic warfare capabilities may be further complicated by its evolving relationship with computer network operations, which is also an information operations-related capability. Without clearly defined roles and responsibilities and updated guidance regarding oversight responsibilities, DOD does not have reasonable assurance that its management structures will provide effective departmentwide leadership for electronic warfare activities and capabilities development and ensure effective and efficient use of its resources.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD should (1) include in its future electronic warfare strategy reports to Congress certain key characteristics, including performance measures, key investments and resources, and organizational roles and responsibilities; (2) define objectives and issue an implementation plan for the Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Control Center; and (3) update key departmental guidance to clearly define oversight roles, responsibilities, and coordination for electronic warfare management, and the relationship between electronic warfare and cyberspace operations. DOD generally concurred with these recommendations, except that the strategy should include performance measures. GAO continues to believe this recommendation has merit.