The multi multi dilemma

Traditionally, military operations have been conducted in the Joint Environment with components from Land, Sea and Air. But as we move further into the 21^st century, increasingly we see operations being conducted in the ‘new domains’ of space and cyber, working across other government agencies, nations and civilian organisations.

The future battlespace is a complex place and is not bound by traditional boundaries and borders, more so when we consider ‘sub-threshold’ activities. This creates all sorts of challenges and dilemmas not least of which is how to connect a multi-dimensional environment with multi-network requirements. 

In a dynamic battlefield mobility will be key. Not just in terms of enabling fire and movement (manoeuvre), but, from a connectivity perspective, the ability to enable C2 and disseminate ISR product effectively. This ability of transferring information from anywhere in the world, without necessarily knowing in advance where you are going to be, will likely decide the winner of the information battle. 

Information manoeuvre is now more than ever a constituent part of Theatre Enablement. Key to synchronising the information capabilities of manoeuvre is having access to multiple bearers and networks that can provide ‘reach’ from the tactical edge to the strategic HQs.

Reach requires agility

Not just to satisfy PACE (primary, alternate, contingency, emergency), but also to support the multitude of applications that will have varying network needs in terms latency, bandwidth, mobility, assurance. Reach will require over the horizon connectivity; SATCOM will be a necessity and serves to highlight the importance of maintaining freedom of action in the space domain.

It is no surprise then, that commanders are increasingly having conversations around multi-orbit and multi-band needs. No one orbit or band can be all things to all users in all domains. 

Consideration also needs to be given to the ground network. Where is the traffic landed? Is there resilience? Does the user have agility within the ground network to adapt? Non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) constellations may only be able to land traffic in field of view if they have inter-satellite connectivity; but what impact does that have on the latency, is there still an advantage?

If the user has multi-network operators providing GEO and NGSO services, does this increase the number of threat vectors and how easily can the user integrate these networks? Does the user understand who owns and operates all the constituent parts of the network(s) and know what the specific security vulnerabilities are?

Turning the multi domain dilemma into success

In a multi-domain environment, with multi-application requirements, and multi-orbit and multi-band networks to choose from, how does the user ensure success?

The answer is of course not straightforward and requires multi-layered consideration. Some applications, for example those delivering targeting and acquisition data, may be very sensitive to latency. Ideally the user may want to disseminate this data over a terrestrial network, with alternate routing over NGSO. Contingency over GEO may be an option if latency is within acceptable limits, but if not, this traffic must not be routed that way. What rules and tools are needed to ensure that doesn’t happen? Does the user understand the onward terrestrial routing?

Large data transfers, containing ISR information, could be routed over GEO but perhaps should not route over NGSO networks, to reserve that capacity for applications that need a lower latency bearer. This is not easy to manage across physically separate network architectures.

In the commercial world, we see hotspots and choke points in high density areas such as shipping lanes and airports. In the military domain we see them on main supply routes and large headquarters. A multi layered approach to servicing these hotspots provides resilience in the bearer network and reduces the traffic density on a single bearer.