Network-Centric Warfare

In the past Defence capability planning and development focussed on the introduction or replacement of major capital equipment and facilities. Requirements were defined considering the military platforms, equipment and infrastructure needed to undertake specified military operations. The number and training of personnel for, and the logistics needed to support, operations were also taken into account.

Concerns surfaced in the late-1980s over integration and interoperability of diverse military systems, particularly in light of the rapid advances in information and communications technologies (ICT). As a consequence the US developed the C4ISR Architecture Framework (AF) that has evolved into the US DoD AF.[1] Keeping in step with the US, Australia has developed the Defence Architecture Framework (DAF). These architectures may be labelled ‘(information) systems based’ as their structures were influenced by the need to incorporate new information technologies and manage the transition to new arrangements of military systems, units and forces that exploited those technologies.[2]

Owing to perceived limitations of systems-based architectures, the concept of service-orientated architectures (SOA) emerged. Other architecture approaches have been suggested and explored however the debate appears to have revolved around systems-based versus service-orientated architecture approaches and the extent to which existing systems-based architectures can be incorporated into a service-oriented approach.

It is worth noting that the US has recently adopted a SOA approach for NCW operations and sees it as an enabler for the Global Information Grid (GIG). Based on a SOA-approach, the ‘Net-Centric Operations and Warfare Reference Model (NCOW RM)’ has been introduced for capability development in the US. Details may be found at:

http://akss.dau.mil/dag/Guidebook/IG_c7.2.1.4.asp

http://akss.dau.mil/dag/Guidebook/IG_c7.2.7.asp

Of particular interest are the four key features of ‘net-centricity’ defined by the NCOW RM:

1. Reach: can be thought of in terms of distance and time. With modern ICT geographic distance is no longer the primary consideration, the dominant limitation being the integration of widely dispersed systems, units and forces to minimise time delays.
2. Richness: is a means of describing the total set of capabilities that can be brought to bear at a particular time to make a decision and then act upon it.
3. Agility: refers to the number of practicable options that can be generated and acted on within both the timescales available and the operational environment.
4. Assurance: can be thought of in general terms as achieving operational goals effectively within a specified context. This includes information assurance where both the veracity and security of information is taken into account.

These four features provide a means of evaluating and monitoring the development of a NCW force.

[1] The term ‘architecture’ has many meanings - unfortunately there is no universally agreed definition. Here, architecture may be thought of in a systems engineering sense as a means to illustrate and describe the overall structure of a system and the relationships between its constituent parts.

[2] Information systems based architectures are just a subset of system-based architectures. See: http://www.enterprise-architecture.info/Images/Defence%20C4ISR (and choose ‘enterprise architecture’, 29 April 2004)

Wednesday, 1 June 2005