In a previous article I referred to the operational deployment of naval and naval auxiliary forces in "non-conflict" roles and within "non-conflict" environments – across multiple and varied geographic theatres – particularly during times, and against a general backdrop, of "international peace." Specifically, such deployments include fisheries and oil/gas installation protection; human trafficking and narcotics trade interdiction in home waters; international sea lanes security; emergency food aid distribution in drought/famine-struck regions; and, similar types of task for which naval resources are particularly suited. It is in the context of such deployments that, once again, the fundamentally mission critical role of satellite-based communications – as characterized by some of its most crucial features of flexibility, reliability, rapidity of deployment, footprint ubiquity, and cost-effectiveness – becomes evidently clear.
"International peace". What? When? OK, so, as has been pointed out to me, we have never really had that. But, I am nevertheless drawing a distinction between instances where naval forces are engaged in state actor-versus-state actor situations (a.k.a. wars), and other instances where the nature of force deployment is prompted neither by aggressive intent, nor, primarily, by an imperative defensive preparation. The "soft" engagement of naval resources is one way to describe it, though this should not be taken to mean easy or imply the absence of potential dangers.
It is in the context of such "soft" deployments that international, and cross-sector/inter-agency, communications at sea which encompass the networking technologies and capabilities of various national naval forces – that are deployed in addition to air-sea rescue services, border protection patrols, coast guard, police forces, civilian rescue organizations, the commercial maritime sector, and the authorities governing marine navigational safety and vessel identification in coastal and international waters – are illustrated to be just as much of an essential support to all types of joint operation (see above, paragraph 1), as to times of actual conflict in the state actor-versus-state actor mould.
In this, and in the next following column, I want to look at three facets of this networking communications environment. Here I will characterize Network Enabled Capabilities and communications system resilience now and in the future; next time I will deal with the application of ICT solutions to the fields of Complex Humanitarian Disasters/Complex Humanitarian Emergencies (as defined by the UN and other international organizations); and, their role in enhancing Maritime Domain Awareness/Maritime Domain Protection.
Unsurprisingly, Network Enabled Capabilities focuses on the ‘network’ and on a core of communications network interoperability. Unfortunately, it is exactly during times and within theatres of actual conflict that we are often forced to realize the lack of interoperability that can maintain between the communications systems of the different arms of the military of a single nation, let alone the militaries of different nations. And yet, what is required, what is needed, for the types of situation under discussion here is a degree of network integrity and resilience that spans not only different militaries, but also a non-military, and a multi-agency, environment.
Beyond even this, what is required are Network Enabled Capabilities that are robust enough to survive extremely challenging environments. For example, naval vessels and civilian ships, deployed to deal with such widespread disasters as exemplified in the Indian Ocean tsunami, would be spread over a large geographic region. In sharing the same satellite capacity, but connecting at varying transmission rates as dictated by local conditions – for example, atmospheric interference – these ships must communicate within the network without negatively affecting the communications functionality of the other vessels in the same network. Put another way, a single ship experiencing tropical latitude rain-fade must not bring down the data rate of other sites on the same satellite segment. It must clearly be recognized that there are readily available satellite technologies that overcome this problem and maximize network functionality.
The most effective networks in these types of situation are mobile networks. COTM/SOTM – or Communications on the Move/Satellite on the Move – will increasingly become a functional imperative for naval, auxiliary, and multi-agency force deployments, where operations must extend deeper into a territory than its coastal waters, perhaps a significant distance into its interior. Seaborne communication can be greatly enhanced by extension to the land interior using cutting-edge versions of platforms designed for the simultaneous transfer of voice, video and data traffic, for example, by using DVB-S2 over the newest Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) technologies.
Underpinning the practical effectiveness of the inter-relationship of military and non-military maritime forces is the core resource of the collective naval communications asset base, which at any one time is the result of the ad hoc tactical, and long-term strategic, merging of communications infrastructures that are products of domestically-orientated defence concerns and the vagaries of changing government budgetary policy considerations. This asset core is itself determined by quality of service configurations or profiles which at the outset must be designed to ensure that (a) when required, all remotes within a deployed naval network have access to an aggregate of an absolute minimum amount of bandwidth as well as a share of unused bandwidth; and (b) when required, specific sites have their traffic prioritized to facilitate, for example, guaranteed performance of real-time services, such as voice over IP.
Then, over and above this, the satellite technologies used in maritime contexts must inter-relate with, and complement, other wireless technologies such as WiFi and WiMax. There are precedent examples for this particular aspect of interoperability in other "vertical market" contexts, for example, in the exploration and production segment of the oil and gas industry.
------------------------------
Martin Jarrold is the Chief of International Program Development of the GVF. He can be reached at: martin.jarrold@gvf.org
