Sessions & Jones
To continue a discussion of contemporary changes while on the blue waters, the Navy's Vice Admiral Jerry O. Tuttle maintains:
Ultra high frequency communications (UHF) are the weak link in the command, control and communications chain. In future conflicts, the Navy must possess super high frequency (SHF) satellite communications for its theater and global communications requirements.(Note 1)
Tuttle's main concern is about jamming. He insists that Saddam's jamming of the UHF satellite communications would have created a difficult situation.
A possible future trend was signaled with the Marine's use of commercial main frame computers and local area networks (LAN) to handle the vast amount of data in Desert Storm. From their force automated services center in Jubail, Saudi Arabia, the Marine expeditionary force command arranged a file transfer of the ATO from Riyadh to Jubail. Then, the air tasking orders were distributed to its units via LAN, often in less than an hour. Similarly, Marine units requested air missions through their air tasking officer who would in turn, validate them and then send the requests to CENTCOM. As to the extent and robustness of LAN during the first 36 hours of the ground war, the Marine's local area networks processed 1.3 million electronic mail messages with no delays, outages, or system degradation.(Note 2)
Local area networks are also part of the Army's future plans. By using fiber optics, millimeter wave radio, and antenna multiplexing, LAN networks will be protected against electronic and visual interception. The networks will possess multiple attributes including voice, digital data, facsimile, graphics, and video imagery.(Note 3)
Many of the newer developments relate to a joint interoperability standard which is currently being established by and for the Department of Defense. Once there is a standard that qualifies and defines data elements, data base, and communication protocols, information can be exchanged among machines. Such an exchange will allow machines "to perform totally different functions in totally different ways using totally different software and lan-
guages."(Note 4) This situation represents interface commonality as determined by the joint interoperability standard. As a consequence the electronics industry is searching for systems and techniques to:
Provide inexpensive interchanges (via translators) among command and control systems . . . to achieve over the longer term an integrated and interoperable command and control system to support combat commanders.(Note 5)
It is evident from this approach that the objectives and general directions of CIM are compatible with the Joint Chief's attempt to enhance interoperability through C4I for the Warrior. An illustration of how far both entities have proceeded along a common path is JOTS (Joint Operations Tactical Systems) in regard to geographical position reporting (GPS). This system and its instrumentation is valid for many functions within DOD; some apart from direct military consequence. A similar joint use of an information system by combined forces in South Korea was TACCIMS (Theater Automated Command and Control Information Management System).
Standards alone, of course, will not assure interoperability; they are merely a beginning. A much broader framework exists and will exist on the assumption that:
Each Service will bring its own command and control system to the fray including the Army tactical command and control system (ATCCS), the Navy's Copernicus architecture, the Marine Corps tactical command and control system and the Air Force contingency tactical air control planning system (CTAPS). . . . Each Service brings unique capabilities that make joint warfare effective.(Note 6)
| Return to Top | Return to Contents | Next Chapter | Previous Chapter |