48 · MT 2/2022 C4ISR Forum How CESMO Operates The CESMO Fusion and Coordination (CFC) function shares details about threat location and type. In general, the CFC operator periodically sends a request list to every CESMO Collector Asset (CCA) on the network containing emitters of interest on which to report when detected. When a CCA detects an RF signal of interest, it sends a message to the CFC indicating the identification, line of bearing, and parameters of the signal. The CFC fuses the signal information from many collector assets (unlike triangulation approaches that use just one or two assets), determines a high precision location, identifies the emitter based on predefined EW parameters, and then shares that information with everyone on the CESMO network. If a CCA detects a signal not requested by the CFC, the CCA can send the signal information to the CFC. The CFC may update the request list if the signal is of interest. With its ability to almost instantly geolocate RF-emitting assets, CESMO can be used to detect a variety of EW threats, including: • Radar: geolocating surface-to-air missile sites • Navigational warfare: geolocating GPS jammers • Communications: geolocating VHF and UHF radio signals • Electro-optical and infrared (EO/IR): geolocating infrared target illuminators CESMO and Link 16 Working Together Because Link 16 is also often used to enhance situational awareness in US and joint missions, it’s particularly important to share the CESMO information about these threats on the Link 16 network. CESMO and Link 16 can be used together (Figure 1) to increase situational awareness. The platforms receiving both message types have precise geolocation information from the CESMO network as well as EW product information, parameters, and land point or track information from the Link 16 network. When CESMO information is translated and provided to EW systems on platforms that use Link 16, those systems automatically display the details of the detected tracks including the presence and positions of hostile and friendly forces the aircrew did not know about. The crew can now quickly and precisely evade threats, make more informed decisions, and more effectively interoperate with coalition forces on the CESMO network. Similarly, warfighters from ground vehicles are also now aware of friendly and hostile threat positions they could not see or detect due to topography or other physical barriers. The Benefits of a TDL Gateway for CESMO As US Forces evaluate CESMO solutions, it’s important to understand the full value that CESMO provides and how that value can be enhanced and extended through use of an intelligent gateway that can translate between CESMO and Link 16 and other TDL types. An intelligent gateway provides warfighters with access to information that comes in on all communications networks so that all networks behave like one. The warfighter does not need to know that some of the assets and information may not be native to their employed data link. Without In situations with no access to Link 16, CESMO enables the use of much more inexpensive processing software, making the barrier of entry to communication very low. For example, an airborne participant with just a laptop and a walkie-talkie can connect digitally, with no need for any sensor integration to participate in information sharing. At the most basic level, a person might be looking out the window of a civilian aircraft, see something of interest in a particular direction, and simply type it manually into the system and send it out. At the other end of the spectrum, CESMO can be implemented as a fully integrated system. In one example, the German Tornado has had Link 16 onboard for some time, but the additional coordination of CESMO enabled the platform to greatly augment its capabilities. Another advantage of CESMO is its simplicity. CESMO uses a dedicated network whose only function is the coordination of EW information. Other than the ability to chat and send position data, the bulk of the data carried on the CESMO network is dedicated to exchanging lines of bearing, geolocation and emissions. In comparison, Link 16 must support many different roles simultaneously and cannot always be relied upon to support high rates of EW information exchange. To help drive widespread adoption, the CESMO protocol is designed from the ground up for ease of integration, ease of use, low cost, and broad applicability across a wide range of electromagnetic operations. • CESMO procedures are developed in a way that ensures minimal disruption of the warfighters’ normal mode of operation. • CESMO can operate on low-bandwidth, bearer-agnostic radio networks by employing the same variable message principles as the Variable Message Format (VMF) protocol to minimize message size. • CESMO can be easy to implement on existing (in service) ground, air, and sea platform using existing radios in a peer-to-peer architecture. Getting the Big Picture While every NATO member country has its own threat detection and geolocation technologies, it is a challenge for any single country to gather enough information to enable a complete tactical picture that covers large areas. The only way to resolve this challenge is the rapid exchange of standardized information about emissions on the battlefield. While U.S. forces already use TDLs, such as Link 16, Link 11, and soon Link 22, to securely share information across platforms and EW assets, many platforms and EW assets used in ESM operations don’t support Link 16 communications. That’s because Link 16 (and even Link 22) is simply too time-consuming, complex, and expensive to implement across all EW assets. By using CESMO in combination with other TDL types, the U.S. Navy and Air Force can extend situational awareness and enhance time- sensitive targeting decisions. For example, in addition to improving tactical situational awareness and survivability, CESMO enables naval forces to increase their exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum by contributing to the Electronic Order of Battle (EOB) and Joint Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (JISR). Single vs multi-sensor geolocation.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM5Mjg=