See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327111113

Network Centric warfare - Concepts and challenges

Research · August 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 1,007

1 author:

D. Anand
Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Balloon Facility, Hyderabad
16 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

scientific ballooning in India View project

All content following this page was uploaded by D. Anand on 20 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

CiiT International Journal of Networking and Communication Engineering, Vol 3, No 14, November 2011
Network Centric Warfare- Concepts and Challenges
D. Anand, Ch. Raja and Dr.E.G. Rajan
Abstract---Technological advances made in Network computing,
Mobile computing, data transmissions, Sensors and integrated digital
technologies for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance have
led to development of highly advanced battlefield weapons. The pace
of the current and future battle is going to be so fast that there will be
no time to wait for instructions and advice from the Commanding
Officer. Added to this, is the complex nature of wars the defence
forces are asked to handle, world over. These factors put together have
revolutionized the way the wars are prosecuted. The shift clearly is
towards what is commonly called as Network-Centric Warfare
(NCW). This paper presents and comments on the concepts,
methodologies, prevailing technologies, potential benefits and the
challenges faced by NCW in modern warfare. The discussion in the
paper is purely theoretical and academic in nature, with an aim to
review and provide insight on this emerging field.
Keywords---C2, Course of Action, C4ISR, Speed of Command,
Situational Awareness.
I. INTRODUCTION
O VER the past few decades, Combat forces utilized large
formations of fighter aircrafts based on the complexity of
mission requirements, tactics and the doctrine of those times.
This is the concept of Platform-Centric Warfare (PCW). In
PCW the sensor, shooter and often the decision maker are the
same platform. And in some cases the decision maker is at a
place away from battlespace. The shooter has no situational
awareness (SA) about the battlespace and has to depend on the
Instructions issued the commander from time-to-time, by
voice communication as there is no provision for data
communication.
PCW was based upon overpowering and destroying enemy
forces with the aim of removing their courses of action due to
lack of material strength. [1].
On the other hand, NCW is an approach to warfare, which
focuses on the greater synergistic effect that can be created by
networking, and electronically linking geographically
separated forces into one sensor-to-shooter engagement grid.
The engagement grid is defined as the shared area of the
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance sensor grid and
the weapons grid.
NCW allows the force to achieve asymmetric information
advantage. This information advantage is achieved, to a large
extent, by allowing the force access to a previously unreachable
region of the information domain the network-centric region
that is broadly characterized by both increased information
richness and increased Information reach. [2].
In NCW actors do not inherently own sensors, and decision
makers do not inherently own shooters. All three types of
Manuscript received on October 12, 2011, review completed on October
24, 2011 and revised on October 29, 2011.
Digital Object Identifier No: NCE112011005.
0974-9713/CIIT–IJ-2448/05/$20/$100 © 2011 CiiT
898
entities sensors, shooters, and decision makers work
collaboratively in response to the dynamic battle space. [3].
NCW essentially focuses on using computers, high speed
data links, and networking software to link military personnel,
platforms, and formations in the battlespace, into highly
integrated local and global networks. Within these networks,
personnel will share large amounts of critical information on a
rapid and continuous basis with an aim to improve Command
and Control (C2) capability and efficiency down to the lowest
possible Command level.
C2 is defined to be “the exercise of authority and direction by
a properly designated commander over assigned forces in the
accomplishment of the mission. Command and control
functions are performed through an arrangement of personnel,
equipment, communications, facilities, and procedures
employed by a commander in planning, directing, coordinating,
and controlling forces and operations in the accomplishment of
the mission ”.[3].
Creating and operating a secure, resilient, and reliable
integrated network for Command, Control, Communications,
Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance
(C4ISR) to provide tactical edge over the adversary, is the key
to NCW.
II. NCW CONCEPTS AND TECHNOLOGIES
Four basic tenets of NCW and a set of governing principles
for a network-centric force have been identified. Together,
these tenets and principles comprise the core of NCW as an
emerging theory of war in the Information Age. The four tenets
of NCW help us understand the enhanced power of networked
forces as a source of war fighting advantage:
A robustly networked force improves information sharing.
Information sharing enhances the quality of information
and shared situational awareness.
Shared situational awareness enables collaboration and
Self-synchronization, and enhances sustainability and
speed of command.
These, in turn, increase mission effectiveness. [4].
These tenets form the conceptual framework of Network
Centric Operations (NCO) and is illustrated in fig. 1. [9].
A conceptual schematic of NCW is illustrated in Fig. 4,
where the sensor, shooter and the Commander are
geographically dispersed but are synchronized and networked.
In brief, NCW is about linking of people, platforms, weapons,
sensors and decision aids into a single network to dynamically
synchronize their actions in order to achieve C2 agility and
increase the speed of command over a robust networked grid in
order to achieve a strategic, operational, tactical mission
objective and unprecedented compressed so-called Boyd‟s
Observe, Orient, Decide and Act (OODA) loop. The enemy is
Published by the Coimbatore Institute of Information Technology
CiiT International Journal of Networking and Communication Engineering, Vol 3, No 14, November 2011 899

denied the operational pause as the time to execute OODA loop

is drastically reduced. The OODA loop is shown in Fig. 2.
A basic measure of one‟s command and control approach,
organization, and systems is speed of command, or the time it
takes to recognize and understand a situation (or change in the
situation), identify and assess options, select an appropriate
course of action, and translate it into actionable orders. [5].
In contrast PCW places an emphasis on the platform, or
weapons system, as the focal point of combat. A combat
platform can be any weapon or system that inflicts physical
damage upon an enemy (e.g., tanks, aircraft, artillery, units). Fig.3 A Formation of Three Aircrafts - Concept of PCW
Platforms generate combat power. The ability of this combat
power to inflict physical damage forms the basis for military
organization, doctrine, tactics, techniques and procedures.
PCW information architectures are characterized by
hierarchical information flows, voice communications, limited
interoperability, and stove-piped battle management systems
for fires, air defense, strike, intelligence, and combat support.
The emphasis in PCW is not temporal or positional advantages,
but sheer force. Fig. 3. shows a formation of 3 combat aircrafts
as a concept of PCW although huge formations were used in
practice.

Fig.4 Conceptual Diagram of NCW

Proof of the enormous potential of self-synchronization was

provided by Fleet Battle Experiment (FBE) Delta, conducted in
October 1998 in conjunction with Exercise Foal Eagle ‟98, as
shown in Fig. 5. [4].
By applying the NCW concept of interoperability to Radars,
several studies have shown that by using netted Radar system,
enhanced target detection capability (such as cruise missile
detection) is achieved due to increased area of coverage.

Fig.1 NCO Conceptual Framework

Fig.5 Fleet Battle Experiment Data-Potential of NCW

Fig. 6. illustrates how each Radar transmits and receives its

own echo and the echo‟s of other two radars. Three
transmissions result in nine receptions - in some kind of
multi-static configuration. Synchronization between radars is
Fig.2 Boyd‟s OODA Loop essential.

0974-9713/CIIT–IJ-2448/05/$20/$100 © 2011 CiiT Published by the Coimbatore Institute of Information Technology

CiiT International Journal of Networking and Communication Engineering, Vol 3, No 14, November 2011
Another technology that applies the NCW concept is the
Software Defined Radios (SDR). SDR for tactical
communications currently under development will provide a
common platform for wireless applications, with multi-band
and multi-mode capabilities and will be capable of transmitting
voice, video and high-speed data- essentially a solution to the
data fusion problem. SDR will use a common core
programmable radio, which will be able to communicate with
existing wireless systems, as well as new and enhanced
systems. One of the main advantages of these new systems is
their ability to be programmed to link with other
communications systems, such as commercial radios, cellular
systems, wireless phones and standard telephones. The latest
arsenal to the soldier is the Cognitive Radio that is intelligent
and capable of altering by itself its frequency, power,
modulation technique and various other parameters to counter
interference and interception from enemy forces.
Fig.6 Netted Radar Enhances Target Detection Capability
A conceptual diagram of the conduct of tactical
communication between various entities in an Offensive
Counter Air mission is illustrated in Fig. 7 [6].
Fig.7 Over the Horizon Networked Tactical Communication
0974-9713/CIIT–IJ-2448/05/$20/$100 © 2011 CiiT
900
The Tanker aircraft which is air-borne acts as a Relay
platform for over the horizon communications. The
communication protocol used is known as Link 16, which is a
type of military tactical data exchange network used by
aircrafts, ships and ground forces to exchange their tactical
picture- text messages, imagery data and digital voice- in
near-real time. Link 11 and link 22 are other tactical data links
in addition to numerous others that fall under the Joint Tactical
Radio system (JTRS) currently used by NATO (North Atlantic
Treaty Organization) countries to connect tactical vehicles and
communication systems across air, sea and land.
Ethernet and Gigabit Ethernet due to its backward
compatibility, is considered a key technology and is
implemented in many Defense systems to make them
net-centric. Some Military Avionics systems cannot tolerate the
latency that exists in Ethernet. Such systems that require rapid
recovery techniques to prevent data loss are based on
ARINC-664, which is nothing but a variant of Ethernet.
Other avionics interfaces are ARINC-429, MIL-STD-1553,
to name a few. The aircraft Telemetry is based on IRIG-106
chapter 4, 8 and 10. The sensors operate in Infra-red, Visible or
RF spectra. Integrating these different complex technologies
for seamless data transmission through multiple systems, which
is Central to NCW concept of interoperability and
compatibility, is a daunting task, nevertheless, accomplished to
a moderate level under the JTRS enterprise and the Multi
Information Distribution system (MIDS) framed by the US
military.
III. NCW STUDY- METHODOLOGIES AND ISSUES
In general there are four different ways of studying any
system and its properties.
Direct, empirical Measurement or observation of system
behaviour.
Mathematical Modelling – analytical modelling to model
the system.
Expert Judgment
Simulation – Typically computer simulation of the
system.
The PCW has been studied through simulations,
mathematical modelling, direct historical analysis of past data,
expert judgment etc. However, in the NCW study, neither the
experts are available nor enough historical data, therefore
simulations and modelling are the best available options.
Network simulation, models very complex networked Military
systems, resulting in many solutions, most of which are abstract
or simplify the system. Abstraction (or negligible amounts) is
practiced in network simulations because complex networks
can take a prohibitively long time to generate simulation
results, even on fast computing platforms. Much of the
challenge in network modelling resides in building high fidelity
efficient radio, channel and mobility models. Network models
that fail to take into consideration details like Radio Frequency
propagation, channel interference and precise node location
may make experimental results meaningless. Generally a
combination of simulation and emulation gives a better
Published by the Coimbatore Institute of Information Technology
CiiT International Journal of Networking and Communication Engineering, Vol 3, No 14, November 2011
understanding of a model. Simulations are also used to make
strategic level decision-making- where the problems are not
well defined and are uncertain and fuzzy. An example of one
such problem is to determine the factor that greatly influences
the outcome of the battle in a given scenario. Several simulation
and emulation softwares developed by reputed companies, are
available in the market that make studying NCW systems easier
and quicker.
The U.S. Navy has incorporated Bayesian Data Reduction
Algorithm (BDRA) into the software for many NCW
applications. BDRA assigns a value to each piece of
information and then prioritizes the information based on those
values, which are related to what the decision maker is looking
for [8].
Several models and Algorithms have been developed and
implemented and are in use, however significant challenges
that confront the NCW mission is the model verification and
validation. A model that suits for one battlefield scenario may
not be best for other.
IV. NCW ARCHITECTURES
Network-centric computing is governed by Metcalfe‟s
fundamental Law, which asserts that the Power of a network is
proportional to the square of the number of nodes in the
network [7].
Historically military structures are hierarchical in nature and
are now beginning to shift towards the network form of
organizations to take care of increasingly complex situations
that these forces are expected to tackle. Literatures describe
different forms of NCW architectures that are possible. These
architectures vary from centralized, where a central hub
controls the network, to a loosely coupled network structure
where the elements or nodes come together to solve a problem
and then go back or move to next problem, through the process
of swarming. And then, there is situational aware swarming
where Nodes share information to build up situational
awareness picture. Distributed types too are quite common due
to its nature of having no Leader or hierarchy.
V. NCW CHALLENGES
All said and done, NCW is not an ordinary task. Sharing the
right information with the right person at the right time in right
form and ultimately for right use is a tough challenge. There is
every possibility that geographically distributed teams sharing
information can act without prior authorization from command.
Therefore NCW calls for a well laid down rules of engagement
and a comprehensive Doctrine. NCW requires a complex set of
expertise on several concepts and technologies. It may,
therefore, become necessary to build an exclusive Network
centric combat force to handle NCW. Another challenge the
defense forces are facing world over is the Conflicts of
moderate intensity against terrorism. Conduct of NCW against
such elements requires separate combat models, performance
models and Course of action analysis.
0974-9713/CIIT–IJ-2448/05/$20/$100 © 2011 CiiT Published by the Coimbatore Institute of Information Technology
901
With the increasing prevalence of numerous tactical data
links and some non-traditional data links, interoperability can
be a serious issue, especially during Coalition operations.
The financial implications are going to be enormous in fully
implementing NCW. For example, an unmanned Aerial
Vehicle (UAV) with NCW capability is estimated to be 2 to 3
times more expensive than an UAV without NCW.
Net-centric tactical vehicles have to be designed to have
more ruggedized sensors, networks, weapons and
communication equipment to withstand the harsh terrain and
environment of battlespace.
Application softwares developed by various vendors require
extensive testing under a trial battlefield scenario. A dress
rehearsal may have to be conducted before every mission.
VI. CONCLUSION
Just as the need to have complete dominance over the entire
Electromagnetic spectrum led to the evolution of Electronic
Warfare, the need to have Shared Situational Awareness of the
battlespace led to the evolution of NCW. NCW has almost
evolved and its effectiveness has amply been demonstrated by
the United States and its allies in their operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. NCW technology has made such advancements
that a soldier in a desert can now have complete knowledge in
their portable computer, about the friendly and hostile forces
and the targets in the battlespace even if they do not possess any
sensor.
There are divergent views on NCW. While the proponents
vouch for NCW implementation, the opponents are wary about
its vulnerabilities to exploitation.
The authors take a balanced view and opine that a well laid
down comprehensive doctrine, cost-effective technology and
resilient information security will make NCW implementation
successful as well as prevent adversaries from exploitation.
Future Combat system designers should adopt a build for today
but design for tomorrow approach to avoid Obsolescence.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors express their sincere thanks to the administration
of Pentagram Research Centre Pvt Limited, Hyderabad, India
for providing technical and logistic support to carry out
research in this field.
REFERENCES
[1] Command and Control Warfare (C2W), CJCS Memorandum of policy
(MOP) 30, Revision 1, 8 March 1993.
[2] John J. Garstka, “Network Centric Warfare: An Overview of Emerging
Theory,” PHALANX, December 2000, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.1, 28-33.
[3] JCS Publication 1-02.
[4] Alberts, David S, Garstka, John J., Stein, Frederick P., Network Centric
Warfare: Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority,” CCRP,
2nd Edition, July 2002, pp.178-179.
[5] Alberts, David S, Garstka, John J., Stein, Frederick P., “Network Centric
Warfare: Developing and Leveraging Information Superiority,” CCRP,
2nd Edition, July 2002, pp. 89 & 163.
[6] Carlo Kopp, “Understanding Network Centric Warfare”, Australian
aviation, January/February 2005. [Online] Available:
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-NCW-JanFeb-05.html/.
[7] George Gilder, “Metcalfe‟s Law and Legacy,” Forbes ASAP, 13
September 1993.
CiiT International Journal of Networking and Communication Engineering, Vol 3, No 14, November 2011 902

[8] The global report on network-centric operations for defense and security
leaders in Aviation Week‟s NetDefense, Navy, p.1,Volume 1, No. 24, Dr. E. G. Rajan was an Electronic Warfare Officer and
June 24, 2004. later professor of signal processing in various institutes
[9] Rafael Collado, “Examining the transformation to Net Centric Warfare”. of national importance. He received his PhD degree in
[Online]Available: Electrical Engineering, from Indian Institute of
http//.www.phacil.com/cases-papers/WPI_Implementing-NCW-final.pdf Technology (IIT), Kanpur. He has supervised a number
[10] Grace, Thomas and Hodack, David, “Vehicle Network Technology of research scholars.
Demonstration”, Proceedings of International Telemetry Conference,
2007.
[11] Corry, Diarmuid, “System Wide Synchronization in Distributed Data
Acquisition Networks”, Proceedings of European Telemetry Conference,
Munich, Germany, 2008.
[12] J.D. Zimmerman (2002) “Net-centric is about choices”, Proc. U.S. Naval
Inst. 129(1)52-7.
[13] L3 Communications, “Tactical common data link of airborne data
terminal”, December, 2002. Available online:
http://www.l-3com.com/csw/product/airborne.asp.
[14] J. A. Boyd, “Electronic Countermeasures”, Peninsula Publishing, Los
Altos, California, 1978.
[15] Office of Force Transformation, The Implementation of
Network-Centric Warfare, January 2005.
[16] D. J. Patel, „„ Clustering sensors in wireless ad hoc networks using a
dynamic expected coverage Model‟‟, Master‟s Thesis, department of
Industrial Engineering, University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260, 2002
[17] Robert Joshua Steel, „„ Determining Communication Resource
Feasibility in a Tactical Communication Network ‟‟, M.S. Thesis,
Department of Computer science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA, 2002.
[18] A. Stelzer, A. Fischer, F. Weinberger, and M. Vossiek, “RF-Sensor for a
Local Position Measurement System,” in Proc. 8th NDE Symposium:
Nondestructive Detection and Measurement for Homeland Security
Conference, SanDiego, CA, USA, March 2–6, 2003, pp. 136–144.
[19] P. Scherz, A. Haderer, K. Pourvoyeur, and A. Stelzer, “Embedded sensor
fusion system for unmanned vehicle navigation,”in Mechtronic and
Embedded Systems and Applications, 2008. MESA 2008. IEEE/ASME
International Conference on, 2008, pp. 192–197.
[20] Chad M. Smith, „„ Optimizing Navy Information Warfare: A systems
engineering approach ‟‟, Master‟s Thesis in Information Warfare Systems
Engineering, Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California.
[21] Canan, James W, „„The T-sat edge‟‟, Aerospace America, Jan. 2006,
pp.39-43.
[22] F. M. Ling, T. Moon and E. Kruzins, “Proposed Network Centric Warfare
Metrics: From Connectivity to the OODA Cycle,” Military Operations
Research, Vol.10, No.1, pp. 5-13, 2005.
[23] Pace Phillip, “Military Sensor Weapons Network for Electronic
Warfare,” in Course EC3700: Introduction to Joint Services Electronic
Warfare, Naval Postgraduate School, 2006.
[24] C. Karlof and D. Wagner, “Secure routing in wireless sensor networks:
Attacks and countermeasures”, Elsevier‟s AdHoc Networks Journal,
Special Issue on Sensor Network Applications and Protocols,
1(2–3):293–315, September 2003.
[25] A. Yang, H. A. Abbass, R. Sarker, and M. Barlow, "Network centric
multi-agent systems: A novel architecture," The Artificial Life and
Adaptive Robotics Laboratory (ALAR) Technical Report Series, pp. 1–13,
ALAR, Canberra, Australia, Pub. No. TR-ALAR-200504004, 2008.

D. Anand obtained his B.Tech in electronics and

communication engineering and is a research scholar of
Anna University of Technology, Coimbatore working on
his PhD. He is working for Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research, Hyderabad, as Scientific Officer-D and is
working on Telemetry, Telecommand, Tracking and
GPS systems for balloon-borne Astronomy and
Atmospheric science payloads.

Ch. Raja obtained his M.Tech in electronics and

communication engineering and is a research scholar of
JNT University, Hyderabad. His specialization is on
Electronic Warfare, Security Systems. He is an
Asstistant Professor and teaches courses on signal
processing and Electronics Engineering at MGIT,
Hyderabad.

0974-9713/CIIT–IJ-2448/05/$20/$100 © 2011 CiiT Published by the Coimbatore Institute of Information Technology

View publication stats