|
Abstract. As many armies worldwide aim to become well-equipped forces available
for operations at short notice, the attractiveness of a networked
wireless command support system (CSS) grows. The Australian Army’s Battlefield
Command Support System (BCSS) is one example of a system
that seems ideally suited for wireless connectivity and its associated
advantages. Cabled deployments of command support systems in headquarters (HQ)
have several disadvantages due to the physical properties of the
cables and the transmission media. Compared to fibre-cabled systems, wireless
networking offers reduced set-up and strip-down times. Wireless systems also
support the ad-hoc nature of field network deployments and do
not require sustained effort towards architecture planning prior to deployment.
Several candidate wireless technologies for use in a networked command
support system are currently in commercial and domestic use but
care must be exercised to ensure that these commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)
solutions meet the requirements for Army field use. This paper
examines the advantages and disadvantages of cabled networks. Several current
and future wireless systems (including IEEE 802.11) are reviewed and
some predictions are made for the future of wireless systems
in networks for command support systems.
Related topics:
information security, wireless networks, command support systems, command systems
View first page of "Arcus: When Can Battlefield Command Support Systems Within Headquarters Go Wireless"
Papers by Arcus
Register for the free
to receive a list of papers for each issue as it is released.
|
