The key to NCW lies in communication infrastructure. For a BMS to be successful there is a need for a reliable, robust, resilient and efficient communication system that assures that the network is always functional.

Future wars will be fast paced and essentially technology driven, and technology is changing very fast. The Army is aware about this and is aiming at the network-centric warfare (NCW) capabilities. A few projects are already ongoing that will enable the commanders at higher level and staff officers with capabilities, and will facilitate efficient decision-making and situational awareness. But at the cutting edge there is lack of such tool that leaves the commanders and men at battalion/regiment and below to depend on their training, experience and intuition to take decisions that can at times be critically delayed. This is even more relevant to manoeuvre operations because of the need for an accelerated decision-action cycle and an ability to conduct operations simultaneously within an all arms group. To fill this void, the Army is going in for a battlefield management system (BMS) by harnessing information technology that will act as a force multiplier to enhance operational effectiveness of commanders and troops at all levels, enabling exchange, filtering and processing of ever increasing amounts of digital information already available but not integrated.

Communication is vital in every type of warfare and is an essential component of any BMS. Throughout history, the success of a battle has depended on the ability of the fighting components to communicate with each other in an effective manner. Communication ensures awareness and increased awareness increases the chances of winning. This is more applicable in today’s warfare because of large and varied forces that have the ability to strike over long distances. Convergence of such forces at a place and time can multiply the effect.

The concept

The BMS (planned at battalion/regiment and below level for all arms and services of the Army) will comprise a tactical hand-held computer with individual soldiers and tactical computers at battle group headquarters and combat vehicles. Computers will be integrated employing application and database servers connected on a data enabled communication network. The system will enable generation of common operational picture by integrating inputs from all relevant sources within a battle group by the integrated use of GIS and GPS. The BMS will be a highly mobile system which is able to network itself by integration of components and provide a high data rate. The communications should not interfere with the legacy communication equipment and should easily be retrofitted into combat platform. The communications system should optimally utilise the bandwidth available for military communications involving voice and data including video streaming and imageries. It should be scalable to ensure availability to all elements and range from being man-portable to being fitted in combat vehicles.

Concerns

Considerable ground has been covered for identifying suitable technologies, hardware and system requirements for the BMS. However, one issue that has come under a lot of debate is the communication requirement for BMS and the debate is very fair as the Army has a baggage of legacy communication system. When pitted against the future requirements, unfortunately, the legacy communication devices are physically incompatible, follow different link protocols, have issues of address, reach and quality of service (QoS). In effect, the present family of radio sets do not meet the requirements of a network-centric force that would facilitate transmission of voice, video and data simultaneously. For a BMS to be successful there is a need for a reliable, robust, resilient and efficient communication system that assures that the network is always functional.

Understandably, such networks are spectrum hungry and with commercial interests looming over this scarce resource, it is a tug of war between national security and commercial interests. The answer lies in speedy projection of requirements and optimisation of the spectrum ensuring protection of all security concerns without losing any more time and also identifying such technologies which exploit emerging technologies for efficient use of available spectrum. It is also important to ensure that the defence band, which should be dedicated, is one single entity, securing of which is easier than the current arrangement of varied bands for defence use entwined with interjected commercial bands.

The following issues should also be of concern to the Army:

• The last mile connectivity at the cutting edge, where the soldier’s main energy is directed towards fighting; will communication act as a force multiplier and make him more surgical or will he be overburdened?
• How can technology help in overcoming the limitations imposed by environmental conditions in terrestrial communications?
• In a network agnostic environment, what are the options available for ensuring effectiveness with wide spread dispersion and communication on the move?
• What should be the approach while addressing a network management system? What should be the additional capabilities that can be expected from a management system?
• What should be the appraoch towards handling security issues? Is the current security policy which is meant for point to point networks suitable for a network where users at different levels of security classifications have to function together.
• While it is certain that the legacy radios do not support a networked environment, how should the changeover from legacy to new generation radios be handled considering the massive quantities and the expenditure involved?