When, How and How Many?

In my previous blog I discussed the importance of the initial call to emergency responders and how the reliability of the information received provides the right resources in a timely manner. Critically it also provides those who attend the scene first, the ability to work safely by initially having the requisite amount of resources to carry out risk critical tasks. But what if additional resources are required? 

The Importance of Reliable Initial Information to Emergency Responders

Getting the right people, with the right skills and the right equipment to the right place at the right time, is the foundation of any effective emergency response system. This simple premise relies (in the first instance) on a reliable communication network and operators who can interrogate the initial call to ensure the resources dispatched are relevant and timely.  

For most developed countries, this is a system that is well established, including the UK where I have spent my career as a fire and rescue officer. As well established as it may 

Originally published by Adam Stone in C4iSR magasine

Originally published by Adam Stone in C4iSR magasine and underwritten by REDCOM

Advances in technology are helping to break down the barriers to telecommunications interoperability that have long stymied military planners. These advances greatly improve military communications capabilities, providing unprecedented situational awareness, better security and broader options for virtually every communications scenario.

While today’s military boasts a range of telecommunications technologies, compatibility issues can arise. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), time-division multiplexing (TDM), satellite communications, cellular, tactical radios, SCIP cryptographic devices, Wi-Fi and WiMAX: All are useful, but they don’t always play well together. This can have harmful tactical consequences. In a battlefield scenario, for example, it is unacceptable for the front line to lose contact with the command center.

Ensuring secure voice, data and radio communications between NATO allies in a common theatre of operation can be a difficult, even impossible task in forward operations. As encryption codes are secret, country-specific and are not shared, collaborating without risking eavesdropping from unwanted entities is a real threat.

NATO has 29 member nations, and each has circumstances that change from year to year. Geopolitical shifts can mean that a ‘friendly’ country cannot be considered as such permanently. For this reason, sharing encryption keys carries its weight of potential future risks, and understandably, countries want to maintain their independence as much as possible.