Redefining Disputed Dialogues
In the ever-evolving world of warfare, the importance of effective communication in contested environments has never been more crucial. The first step towards improving our collective understanding of this specific challenge is a refinement of the language and terminology used in tactical communications.
Recognizing the electromagnetic spectrum and cyber domain as key terrain on the modern battlefield, the concept of a "contested communications environment" has emerged. This acknowledges the reality that our adversaries are actively jamming every system in the joint task force's inventory across the entire area of operations, leading to exercises control groups announcing that all communications are down.
To better prepare commanders and their staffs for such situations, several key improvements have been identified. First and foremost, training should emphasize using precise, unambiguous terminology related to tactical communications to avoid misunderstandings in high-pressure environments. This includes standardizing communications protocols and jargon that closely match what will be used in the field, reducing confusion when coordinating under stress or degraded conditions.
Moreover, training must move beyond theoretical knowledge to hands-on, technical competence with communication systems such as High Frequency (HF) radios, which are vital in contested environments. Operators and commanders should understand how physical and environmental factors influence system performance and develop troubleshooting skills for system failures or degradations.
Training environments should mimic contested operational conditions, incorporating degraded or denied communication states, complex threat environments, and adversarial tactics that continuously evolve. This can be achieved through a combination of live, virtual, and constructive simulation environments interconnected across domains to test interoperability and resilience under adversarial conditions.
In addition, training scenarios and testing environments should allow for the integration of the latest threat intelligence and technology advancements. This ensures forces are not only tested against current threats but also prepared for emerging challenges, allowing tactical communication systems and command decisions to be stress-tested against state-of-the-art adversary capabilities.
Exercises should also emphasize developing the command staff’s and operators’ abilities to identify, diagnose, and rapidly recover communications capabilities under stress. Competitions and practical training, such as HF radio contests, help hone these essential skills.
Integrating training with real-world software and systems operations ensures commanders and their staffs become proficient in ongoing maintenance, software updates, and adaptation to changing network conditions as they develop operational plans. This continuous skill development counters the shortfall of training solely dependent on external programs or theoretical lessons.
Lieutenant Colonel Tom Gaines, currently assigned as the ACoS G6 at 1st Special Forces Command (Airborne), Fort Liberty, North Carolina, and Captain Alex Suh, the communications OIC for the Special Operations Joint Task Force, Fort Liberty, North Carolina, are spearheading these efforts to refine tactics, techniques, and procedures for contested communications.
It is crucial to note that the realignment of the approach to contested communications is not a simple task and will not come overnight. The need for reevaluating existing policies for how and when technological solutions should be employed has been identified, as large-scale combat operations preparation reveals a keen awareness that technological dominance may not be maintained.
The need for improved training for contested communications environments is more important than ever, as the situation in operations centers resembles people working through the stages of grief rather than coordinated staffs fighting through the situation. A new acronym, DDIL, is used to describe the challenge in contested communications, representing denial, disconnection, intermittency, or limitations.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense. Maj. Brian Sutherland is credited for the image used in the article.
The final change to our approach to contested communications is a recognition that it is not solely, or perhaps even primarily, a technological challenge. Instead, it is a recognition that this is a complex problem that requires a holistic solution, encompassing improved language, deepened understanding of equipment, and more realistic and challenging exercises.
- To handle the complexity of a contested communications environment in modern warfare, the need for a holistic solution is recognized, incorporating improvements in language, understanding of equipment, and realistic training exercises.
- The active jamming of systems in the joint task force's inventory across operations areas necessitates the use of precise and unambiguous tactical communication terminology, alongside standardization of protocols and jargon.
- The military should focus on hands-on, technical competence with communication systems like High Frequency (HF) radios, emphasizing physical and environmental factors impacting system performance, as well as troubleshooting skills for system failures or degradations.
- Advanced cybersecurity training environments are crucial, requiring simulation of degraded or denied communication states, complex threat environments, and adversarial tactics that continually evolve, to better prepare military personnel for evolving challenges.
