Digitised battlefield
	Bruce Gilkes of Computing Devices Canada explores the advantages and the pitfalls of the rush to implement digitised systems onto the battlefield
			The past few years have heralded some marvellous technological advances on the battlefield. Soldiers are being connected with their weapons platforms to a degree thought impossible a few years back. And these weapons platforms are now interconnected so that crucial data can be exchanged automatically across the battlefield. Many countries have either fully embraced digitisation and are on the procurement path, or are considering it for their forces. Some have taken a piece-meal approach that will leave them with a variety of disparate, interconnected and complex systems. Others have attempted a big-bang approach to battlefield digitisation, while still others have adopted an incremental approach. However, there are several issues that the plan for digitisation should consider and address, perhaps the two most important being the utility and security of the deployed system.
	Secure digital communications on the battlefield have become a modern military necessity			The best digitisation plan would introduce a system that accounted for both humans and computers
			Utility This is the most important aspect of any system being introduced onto the digitised battlefield. If the system does not make the soldier’s life easier or help to make decisions faster and with greater accuracy, then it is not much use. At the lowest level, the acid test of utility is even simpler: would a dismounted soldier take the system and leave some ammunition and food behind? There are many examples of digital systems being introduced that have not helped overall. In the 1960s the effects of computerisation were predicted to bring a 10-hour work-week and free all workers from drudgery! Has this occurred? People are billing digitisation the same way, as the panacea for all that is wrong with the battlefield now. The truth is that battlefield digitisation is just another set of tools that the commander can use. To be of value, the system has to help solve existing problems, not create new ones. The best digitisation plan would study the operational planning process and introduce a system that accounted for both humans and computers. Computers would support people and help them to plan, decide and act faster and better. They would each reinforce their respective strengths. However, there are methods of digitisation that might be fraught with pitfalls. One example is the attempt to digitally duplicate the existing analogue system. It may be easy to computerise existing command-and-control procedures, although very little efficiency would be realised. In fact, it might be detrimental to the operational planning process. An analogy to this is the legend of when wireless communication was introduced to the army. The commanders continued to write their message down and pass it to the signaller who would repeat the message over the radio. Why didn’t the commander speak the message directly over the radio? Because that was the way it is was done before! It was several years before inefficiencies were determined and the process replaced. To avoid lengthy adaptation time required for the system to be used to full advantage, studies have first to be conducted. The way the operational planning process will function must be determined when the system is delivered. Time spent developing use cases and refining operational planning procedure for the system will not be wasted. Another pitfall is the lack of a system-wide approach. Each stakeholder in the operational planning process digitises their own little piece of the puzzle and leaves the overall architecture to someone else. This one-system-at-a-time approach results in an array of systems that inter-operate poorly and create a maintenance and training nightmare. It is also not correct to push the same tool into the hands of each user and expect them to use it for their own task. Again it comes down to utility, the urge to create a perfect system for one user has to be balanced against the needs for commonality within the system. Security One has to think back just a few years to realise the vulnerability of digitised systems and our reliance on their information. History has also shown how security can be vital. Witness the disruption of the Iraqi air defence system during the first days of Operation Desert Storm, and years earlier when accidental NORAD alerts were triggered by training data being transposed onto the real system. As armies rely more on digital information to deploy and co-ordinate forces, the enemy will attempt to disrupt and deny it. Security is essential to the digitised battlefield. Some countries are looking at ways to share the common operating picture across the entire battlefield. What if a node were captured? Would the enemy be able to figure out the entire picture from this piece of the puzzle? Perhaps only part of the information should be shared around, two levels up perhaps, so that if part of the system were compromised, only part of the plan would be revealed. But it’s not that simple, some systems span the entire battlefield and operate close to the front and compartmentalisation of information goes against manoeuverist doctrine. One must consider also data interchange and interoperability from a security standpoint. The thinking is to allow data to interchange at the lowest level possible within the programming. This might make exchange of data faster or more transparent, but it also leaves the digitised system open to information attack. The more access data is given to the system, the greater the chance the data can harm the system. What if a virus were disguised as data? Perhaps interoperability should be at the less dangerous text message level. Another weak area for security is the assessment and passage of source reliability and confirmation information for the data. If data is assessed for reliability, this information does not usually get passed between systems. This means that analysts are left to judge these pieces of information on face value that can yield dangerous results. The digitisation system must be able to create and pass meta-data that contains the details of who originated the information, how this was done and how it was confirmed. Perhaps there should be international standards adopted for this meta-data and for the data itself. Summary Battlefield digitisation has created tremendous opportunities. Forces could communicate with each other and co-ordinate on an unprecedented scale, but this potential is seldom realised when digitisation plans are put in place. Whatever the system it has to provide an increase in operational effectiveness to be useful on the battlefield. When procuring a digitisation capability, one has to be particularly careful to obtain a solution that will improve the operational planning process without compromising security. This sounds like a motherhood statement, but if these basic principles are ignored, the resulting system might be even detrimental to the force. © >>>>> www >>>>> Computing Devices Canada
	The acid test for a digitised system is whether it makes a soldier’s life easier by helping to make decisions faster and with greater accuracy