LIM Center, Aleje Jerozolimskie 65/79, 00-697 Warsaw, Poland
+48 (22) 364 58 00
[email protected]

From Field Phones to 5G: The Evolution of Military Radio and Telecommunications

From Field Phones to 5G: The Evolution of Military Radio and Telecommunications

0
From Field Phones to 5G: The Evolution of Military Radio and Telecommunications

Modern militaries rely on robust communication networks to coordinate operations, from secure battlefield radios to satellites and smartphone-based systems. Precise and secure communications are the sinews of good decision-making on the battlefield – a decisive factor in warfare that enables effective command and control of forces othjournal.com. This report explores the history of military telecommunications and how technology evolved from simple field telephones to advanced digital radios, satellite links, and emerging tools like AI-driven networks and 5G/6G wireless.

History and Evolution of Military Telecommunications

Military communication has come a long way from flags, couriers, and telegraphs to today’s digital networks. Field telegraph and telephone systems began supplementing visual signals in the late 19th century, and by World War I wired field telephones were widely used to relay orders on the front lines en.wikipedia.org ericsson.com. In these early days, armies quickly recognized that clear and timely information exchange could decide battles. By World War II, “mobile telephones – though still connected using cables – were taken for granted and often played a decisive role in outcomes” ericsson.com.

Wireless radio technology also matured rapidly through the world wars. Early radios were bulky and limited, but advances in vacuum tubes and frequency modulation (FM) made portable field radios feasible by the 1940s warfarehistorynetwork.com warfarehistorynetwork.com. For example, Galvin Manufacturing (later Motorola) developed the first backpack “Walkie-Talkie” (SCR-300) in 1940, an FM radio with about a 3-mile range that revolutionized infantry communications warfarehistorynetwork.com ericsson.com. Handheld radios (e.g. the wartime SCR-536 “Handie-Talkie”) gave front-line troops untethered voice communication for the first time warfarehistorynetwork.com. These innovations proved critical – in World War II’s Norway campaign, clandestine radio operators relayed intel that enabled Allied strikes (e.g. helping locate the German battleship Tirpitz) despite enemy efforts to intercept transmissions ericsson.com.

Throughout the Cold War, militaries invested heavily in communication technology. Analog radios improved in range and reliability, while the introduction of secure encryption devices protected sensitive voice traffic. By the late 20th century, digital transmission, packet-switched networks, and satellite links began to integrate, laying the groundwork for today’s network-centric warfare. In the 1980s, for example, the U.S. Army fielded the Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE) system – one of the first tactical cellular networks – to provide front-line units with mobile telephone and data services gdmissionsystems.com. Communications have continually evolved to support greater mobility, higher data rates, and better security, a trend that accelerates into the 21st century.

Field Telephones: Wires on the Battlefield

Before wireless radios became ubiquitous, field telephones were the workhorse of military comms. A field telephone is a portable phone that connects via a wire line, often ruggedized for combat use en.wikipedia.org. Early field phones had local batteries and hand-cranked generators to ring the other end, operating much like a standard telephone but designed for front-line conditions en.wikipedia.org. This technology was in use from the 1910s through the 1980s, and even today some armies maintain field phones for backup communication en.wikipedia.org.

During World War I, field phones proliferated in trenches to replace telegraph and runners – although lines were often vulnerable to shellfire. By World War II, U.S. forces preferred wire phones for reliability, using radios only when necessary (e.g. with moving units or until phone lines could be laid) en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. The U.S. Army’s standard field telephone from the 1930s into Vietnam was the EE-8, a leather-cased phone powered by D-cell batteries with a 7-mile range over wire nationalww2museum.org. The EE-8’s hand-cranked dynamo would ring the remote unit, and multiple phones could tie into a field switchboard at a command post nationalww2museum.org. Notably, “during World War II the phone was preferred to the radio, and the EE-8 was much more reliable than the backpack mounted Walkie-Talkie” sets of the time nationalww2museum.org. Soldiers often risked running wires under fire to maintain these vital links.

Many nations had similar devices. Germany’s Wehrmacht used the Feldfernsprecher 33, and Britain the “Don 10” system, among others. Ericsson (Sweden) was a major manufacturer – their field telephones were crucial in bolstering Finland’s defenses in the Winter War (1939–40). In fact, Ericsson’s Finnish branch supplied large quantities of phones to the army, aiding Finland’s resistance against the Soviet invasion ericsson.com. A Finnish study after the war praised Ericsson’s equipment and credited field telephones as an important factor in delaying and frustrating the Soviet offensives ericsson.com ericsson.com.

Field phones continued in service through the Cold War: for example, the U.S. introduced models like the TA-312 in the 1960s (a sound-powered and battery-powered phone) and the electronic TA-838 in the 1980s. These could interoperate with older gear, reflecting the long continuity of field telephone technology en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. Even in the 2020s, armies find use for field phones in certain scenarios – Ukrainian forces reportedly relied on them during the Donbas conflict to evade Russian electronic jamming and interception, noting “this technology is very old – but it works really well” and is impossible to eavesdrop remotely en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. While modern wireless comms dominate, the humble field telephone remains a simple, jamming-proof backup for secure point-to-point links.

Military Radio Communication: HF, VHF, UHF and Secure Protocols

Radio communication freed militaries from wires, enabling mobile operations and fast long-distance signaling. Over the years, a variety of radio frequency bands and technologies have been adopted for tactical and strategic use:

  • High Frequency (HF) (3–30 MHz): HF radio waves can travel hundreds or thousands of kilometers by reflecting off the ionosphere. Militaries use HF for long-range communications (e.g. connecting theater headquarters or ships at sea) when satellite or landline links are unavailable. HF signals can penetrate certain terrain and work over-the-horizon, but bandwidth is low. Modern HF radios employ single-sideband modulation and automatic link establishment (ALE) to find the best frequency, and can encrypt voice/data. For instance, Rohde & Schwarz offers tactical HF systems with high-power transmitters for strategic communications rohde-schwarz.com rohde-schwarz.com.
  • Very High Frequency (VHF) (30–88 MHz typical for military): VHF is the primary band for line-of-sight tactical radio among ground units. These frequencies travel a few tens of kilometers and can be obstructed by hills or buildings, but offer a good balance of range and antenna size. Iconic VHF sets include the man-portable AN/PRC-25/77 from the Vietnam era and the later SINCGARS (Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System). SINCGARS, fielded by the U.S. Army in the late 1980s, has 2320 channels in the 30–87.975 MHz range irp.fas.org and introduced electronic frequency hopping to thwart jammers and eavesdroppers irp.fas.org. In frequency-hopping mode, “the SINCGARS radio hops to a different frequency over 100 times a second” across its spectrum, making it “almost impossible to detect, locate, jam, or intercept” by an enemy irp.fas.org. Such ECCM (electronic counter-countermeasure) features, combined with built-in COMSEC encryption, greatly improved the security of VHF voice networks irp.fas.org irp.fas.org. VHF remains the workhorse for squad, platoon, and company nets, providing short-range combat net radio for infantry, armor, and artillery units.
  • Ultra High Frequency (UHF) (typically 225–512 MHz for military radios): UHF is used where even higher frequencies and bandwidth are needed, but at the cost of range. Notably, air force and naval communications often use UHF. For example, air-to-air and air-to-ground voice comms in NATO employ AM radios in 225–400 MHz with anti-jam waveforms like Have Quick. Have Quick radios hop frequencies based on a daily key to prevent hostile interference, though they must be time-synchronized (often via GPS). UHF is also used for satellite communication uplinks/downlinks (around 240–270 MHz and higher bands) and for specialized applications like telemetry. Modern tactical radios are often multiband (covering VHF and UHF) so that one set can handle various nets and waveforms. For example, the Thales AN/PRC-148 Multiband Inter/Intra Team Radio (MBITR) – “the most widely fielded handheld multiband, tactical SDR used by NATO forces” – covers 30–512 MHz in a single handheld device en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. The MBITR and similar software-defined radios can seamlessly switch between VHF platoon nets, UHF air support channels, etc., and support multiple protocols and encryption standards.

Encryption and protocols: Since the Cold War, militaries have encrypted radio traffic to prevent eavesdropping. Early systems like the VINSON voice encryption module (KY-57) were separate devices, but today encryption is usually integrated into radios (classified as CCI – Controlled Cryptographic Item). The SINCGARS family, for instance, has embedded COMSEC – once loaded with a crypto key, the radio secures the channel and is treated as a classified device irp.fas.org irp.fas.org. Modern radios typically use NSA Type 1 encryption (for top-secret traffic) or similar high-grade algorithms, often with rekeying over the air for convenience. In coalition environments, interoperable encryption (e.g. NATO STANAG 4591 “MELPe” voice coding and shared keys) is vital so allies can communicate securely.

Standardized waveforms and protocols ensure different units and nations can work together. One example is SINCGARS waveform itself, which NATO allies adopted in basic form – “SINCGARS radios are compatible with older single-channel FM sets and with our NATO allies (in single-channel mode)” irp.fas.org. Another is the Have Quick UHF hopping protocol used by US and NATO aircraft for secure voice. As technology advanced, the U.S. led the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) initiative to develop common digital waveforms (SRW, WNW, etc.) that any compliant software-defined radio can run. The Harris (now L3Harris) AN/PRC-117G manpack, for example, was one of the first radios certified on the new Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW) and proved it could meet JTRS open standards for interoperability and security militaryembedded.com militaryembedded.com. This wideband radio provides IP networking at the tactical edge, supporting voice, data and even video streams – over 22,000 units have been deployed across U.S. services and allied militaries since 2009 militaryembedded.com.

Today’s tactical radios are predominantly software-defined radios (SDRs), which means their modulation, waveform, and cryptographic functions are controlled by software. This allows one device to run multiple communication modes. For instance, the Thales PRC-148 MBITR can operate in analog FM, digital frequency-hopping, and various encrypted modes. It supports legacy waveforms like HAVE QUICK, SINCGARS (with frequency hopping), as well as digital data modes and networking waveforms en.wikipedia.org. SDRs offer flexibility to update protocols via software download (e.g. adding a new NATO waveform). They also facilitate interoperability – a radio can communicate with many systems by loading the appropriate waveform, whether it’s a civil emergency channel or a foreign partner’s encryption (with permission).

Satellite Communications and Military Networks

To connect forces across the globe, militaries rely on satellite communications (SATCOM) and extensive network infrastructure. Unlike line-of-sight radios limited to the horizon, satellites provide beyond-line-of-sight links for voice, data, and video, from theater level down to individual soldiers (with the right terminals).

Military satellite systems are often categorized by bandwidth and purpose:

  • Wideband SATCOM: High-capacity satellites (often in geostationary orbit) that carry large volumes of data, video, and voice. For the U.S. and partners, the backbone is the Wideband Global SATCOM (WGS) constellation. “WGS provides worldwide, flexible, high-capacity communications for U.S. DoD, government agencies, multiple international partners, and NATO”, serving as the backbone of military wideband communications spaceforce.mil. Combatant commanders use WGS to link tactical users to the broader Defense Information Systems Network (DISN) – effectively bridging frontline units with the global military internet and command centers spaceforce.mil. WGS satellites operate in X and Ka bands with digital channelizers that can route many signals. A single WGS can deliver gigabits of throughput, supporting everything from live drone video feeds to VoIP calls. The system is composed of space segment (satellites), control segment, and thousands of terminal stations – fixed, vehicular, airborne, shipboard – with dish antennas from <1 m up to 18 m spaceforce.mil. Allies like Canada, Australia, UK and others have funded WGS satellites in exchange for bandwidth sharing, making it a true coalition resource.
  • Narrowband SATCOM: These are satellites (typically UHF band ~300 MHz) designed for mobile, low-data-rate communication to small terminals (manpack or handheld). The current example is MUOS (Mobile User Objective System), a U.S. Space Force narrowband SATCOM constellation. MUOS uses UHF frequencies and a 3G-like WCDMA waveform to greatly increase channel capacity for mobile forces space.skyrocket.de. A soldier with a special MUOS radio (or even a MUOS-capable handheld like AN/PRC-148 JEM) can get voice and data connectivity virtually anywhere under the satellite footprint – effectively like a tactical cellphone network spanning the globe. MUOS is replacing older UHF Follow-On satellites, providing 10x the capacity and improved voice quality and data service chelton.com. These narrowband SATCOM links are crucial for units operating in jungles, mountains, or dispersed areas where line-of-sight radio and larger dishes are impractical.
  • Protected SATCOM: For survivability against nuclear effects or jamming, militaries use highly robust satellites like the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) system (operating in EHF band ~44 GHz). AEHF satellites employ anti-jam modulation, beam nulling, and can survive electromagnetic pulses, ensuring that strategic command and nuclear C2 communications endure even in extreme conflict. Allied nations (the U.S., UK, Canada, Netherlands, etc.) participate in AEHF for secure strategic links.
  • Others: Militaries also use commercial satellites (Inmarsat, Iridium), tactical microsatellites, and various specialized space assets (like relay drones or balloons in some cases). A notable system is the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) – not a satellite but an aircraft (EQ-4B Global Hawk or E-11A) that loiters at high altitude acting as a “Wi-Fi in the sky” to relay and bridge communications for troops in rugged terrain othjournal.com othjournal.com. BACN can interconnect different radio nets by receiving on one waveform and retransmitting on another, serving as a universal translator between otherwise incompatible comm systems othjournal.com. This capability proved invaluable in Afghanistan’s mountains, solving line-of-sight gaps and linking multinational forces who used different radios othjournal.com othjournal.com.

Network infrastructure: Beyond raw communication links, modern military telecom includes elaborate network architecture. Tactical radio networks feed into higher-level networks that carry data to and from command posts and intelligence centers. For example, the U.S. Army’s Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) was a program to connect battalion and brigade HQs with high-bandwidth data (using radio relays, SATCOM, fiber, etc.), essentially providing internet and phone service in the field. This has evolved into the Integrated Tactical Network (ITN) concept, which blends legacy radios with new IP-based mesh networks.

A key aspect is linking tactical edge networks to the strategic backbone. Satellite terminals and troposcatter links can connect a forward-deployed unit back into the DISN (Defense Information Systems Network), allowing them to access global resources and enabling higher command to exert control. WGS, as noted, “provides connectivity between individual users and the DISN”, so a platoon radio net can ultimately pipe data to a distant headquarters via a satellite hop spaceforce.mil.

Additionally, military communications infrastructure includes hardened fiber optic cables, microwave relays, and switching centers that span theater bases – essentially a military internet (sometimes referred to as the Global Information Grid). Cybersecurity and redundancy are built-in, with network operations centers monitoring links and re-routing traffic if nodes go down.

In summary, satellites and network infrastructure give today’s forces unprecedented reach. A commander can speak to units hundreds of miles away or receive live ISR video via satellite. The challenge is ensuring these complex networks stay secure, jam-resistant, and able to operate in austere environments – issues we address in later sections.

Modern Military Smartphones and Soldier Systems

In the last decade, smartphone technology has made its way onto the battlefield, providing unprecedented situational awareness and digital tools to the individual soldier. Programs like the U.S. Army’s Nett Warrior and the Android Tactical Assault Kit (ATAK) have leveraged commercial mobile devices (hardened for combat) to put maps, messaging, and sensor data in the hands of troops on foot.

Nett Warrior (NW) is an integrated soldier-worn system for infantry leaders, originally stemming from the earlier Land Warrior program. The modern Nett Warrior setup consists of a commercial smartphone (Android) running tactical apps, connected via cable to the soldier’s radio (typically a Rifleman Radio or similar) civtak.org. In essence, the soldier’s radio provides the network, and the smartphone provides the user interface (touchscreen with GPS maps, icons for friendly forces, text chat, etc.). By 2018, the Army switched Nett Warrior’s software to the Android TAK application, moving away from custom software that had been clunky civtak.org civtak.org. This change also allowed a shift in security classification – “the Army loaded new software, the Android Tactical Assault Kit (ATAK), and downgraded the encryption”, meaning Nett Warrior devices now handle secure-but-unclassified data with commercial encryption, rather than full classified secret data civtak.org. The benefit is that troops can carry and train with the devices more freely (even off mission), drastically improving familiarity and adoption civtak.org. One Army NCO explained that after fielding ATAK-enabled Nett Warrior devices, “18 hours later, the soldiers were messaging, pulling mission graphics, talking over the radio – there was no official training at all” civtak.org. This ease-of-use and quick learning curve highlight why smartphone-based systems are a game-changer.

ATAK (Android Tactical Assault Kit), originally developed by the U.S. Air Force Research Lab, is essentially an app that provides mapping, blue-force tracking (BFT), and mission planning on an Android device civtak.org. It can run on mil-spec tablets/phones or even personal devices (for familiarization). ATAK allows users to see each other’s positions, draw graphics, mark targets, chat, and share video, all on a georeferenced map. It’s extensible via plugins – for example, parachute units use an ATAK Jumpmaster plugin for coordinating jumps civtak.org. The TAK ecosystem now includes CivTAK for civilian agencies and is used by many NATO partners, enabling inter-agency and allied collaboration on a common platform.

Modern military smartphones are typically ruggedized Android devices with additional security. For instance, Samsung produces Galaxy S23 Tactical Edition and Galaxy XCover Pro Tactical variants that come with Knox security, hardware encryption, night-vision readable screens, and dedicated emergency buttons, tailored for military customers samsung.com. These phones can be integrated with tactical radios (via USB or NETT WARRIOR cables) and are certified to run ATAK and other DoD apps. They meet MIL-STD-810G for shock and weather, and often allow easy removal of batteries (for quick swap in the field).

Beyond the handheld device, soldier systems include peripherals like helmet-mounted displays, smart aiming sights, and integrated power/data hubs on the soldier’s vest. For example, the U.S. Marine Corps and Army are experimenting with the Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS), essentially militarized HoloLens goggles, which could display ATAK data in a heads-up format. All of this relies on the network – which comes back to the radios and waveforms connecting these devices.

Other nations have similar efforts: British troops use the Bowman system (now evolving to MORPHEUS), which includes rugged tablets; French soldiers have the FÉLIN system with digital radios and eyepiece displays; many NATO forces now use variants of ATAK or similar apps for interoperability. The trend is clearly toward networked, dismounted communications that bring the power of the digital battlefield to the lowest echelons.

One key example of capability is how these systems improve battlefield command and control, which we’ll discuss next.

Major Suppliers of Military Communication Systems

The defense communications market is served by several specialized companies providing radios, devices, and infrastructure. Some of the key suppliers and their contributions include:

  • Thales Group: A leading provider of tactical radios and networks. Thales (including its US subsidiary Thales Communications, formerly part of Motorola and Racal) produces the AN/PRC-148 MBITR, the “most widely fielded handheld multiband SDR”, used by NATO and many nations en.wikipedia.org. Thales radios cover HF/VHF/UHF and offer voice/data encryption and frequency hopping. The company also offers soldier systems and satcom terminals. In Europe, Thales’s PR4G and SYNAPS radio families equip many armies. Thales has been at the forefront of software-defined radio adoption – the PRC-148 was one of the first handhelds to comply with the U.S. JTRS waveform standards en.wikipedia.org. They continue to innovate with miniaturized, power-efficient radios and waveforms for mounted and dismounted use.
  • L3Harris Technologies: Formed from the merger of Harris Corporation and L3 Technologies, L3Harris is a dominant player in military communications. The Harris Falcon series of multiband radios (Falcon II and III) is widely used by U.S. and allied forces. Notable products include the AN/PRC-117G manpack, which introduced wideband networking to tactical units (enabling high-speed data and video) militaryembedded.com, and the AN/PRC-152 handheld used by many NATO countries. According to Military Embedded Systems, the Falcon III PRC-117G is “the most widely deployed wideband tactical networking radio, with more than 22,000 units in all U.S. military branches and allied nations since 2009.” militaryembedded.com L3Harris also supplies SATCOM terminals, high-frequency radios (the AN/PRC-160 HF manpack), and airborne & maritime communication systems. As a large defense contractor, they are heavily involved in U.S. Army network modernization, providing new SDRs that run the TrellisWare TSM waveform for robust mesh networking businesswire.com.
  • Motorola Solutions: The modern company continues the Motorola legacy in public safety and military communications. Historically, Motorola pioneered military radios – famously developing the first handheld and backpack radios in WWII ericsson.com. Today, Motorola Solutions focuses on land mobile radio (LMR) networks and secure communications for military bases, police, and government. For example, in 2018 the company won a $495 million U.S. Army contract to modernize base communications with P25 digital radio systems for interoperable, secure land-mobile communications motorolasolutions.com motorolasolutions.com. Motorola provides the Army with handheld and vehicle radios, infrastructure like repeaters and dispatch consoles, all meeting APCO P25 standards (ensuring interoperability and encryption) motorolasolutions.com. While front-line tactical radios are usually from other vendors, Motorola’s tech often handles on-base emergency comms, convoy communications, and integration between military and civil networks. Additionally, they continue to ruggedize Android devices for government use and explore LTE/5G solutions for deployable networks.
  • Rohde & Schwarz: A German electronics firm, R&S is known for high-quality test equipment, but it also has a secure communications division that supplies many NATO countries. R&S produces the SOVERON® tactical SDR family, which includes manpack and vehicle radios for HF, VHF, and UHF rohde-schwarz.com. These radios emphasize information security and interoperability, supporting standardized waveforms. For instance, R&S was among the first to implement the new NATO SATURN waveform (Second-generation Anti-Jam Tactical UHF Radio) – “an interoperable and anti-jam UHF radio waveform set to replace the legacy HAVE QUICK” for NATO air and naval communications defence-industry.eu. The company has delivered thousands of SATURN-capable radios to NATO forces, underlining its leadership in secure comms defence-industry.eu. R&S also participates in the ESSOR (European Secure Software-defined Radio) project to develop common waveforms for European militaries rohde-schwarz.com rohde-schwarz.com. Their systems are used by the German Bundeswehr and others, often branded as the joint radio (SVFuA) in vehicles or infantry radios. Additionally, R&S provides high-end crypto solutions and monitoring systems, making them a key player especially in Europe’s defense comms market. As noted in a Defence Industry Europe article, Rohde & Schwarz’s decades of waveform expertise have helped “support NATO-wide adoption of SATURN”, which “ensures high resistance to jamming” and secure interoperability among allied forces defence-industry.eu defence-industry.eu.

These are just a few major players – others include Collins Aerospace (a leader in airborne and avionic communications like Link 16 terminals), BAE Systems (produces communications for UK forces), General Dynamics Mission Systems (tactical networking and SATCOM gear), Leonardo (Italy – communications and encryption systems), Elbit Systems (Israel – radios and military cellular networks), and Harris’s competitor ViaSat (for satellite and data links). The industry continues to consolidate expertise to meet military demands for secure, resilient, and interoperable communications.

Communications in Battlefield Command and Control (C2)

Effective battlefield command and control (C2) depends on reliable communications at all levels. Timely and reliable comms are decisive in war, as they allow commanders to coordinate maneuvers, call for fires, request resupply, and adapt to the enemy’s moves othjournal.com. Modern C2 is often referred to as C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance) – highlighting that comms are one of the core “C’s” enabling all others.

On the battlefield, communications networks tie together command posts, headquarters, and frontline units into a unified system. For example, at the tactical edge, a platoon leader uses a radio to report contact up to the company commander; the company command post might have a higher-bandwidth radio or SATCOM to push that report to battalion; from battalion TOC (tactical operations center), it might go into a theater network reaching division or a coalition HQ. Throughout this chain, having interoperable and secure links is crucial so that each echelon has the situational awareness needed.

One key element is situational awareness (SA) – knowing where friendly and enemy units are. Communications systems now carry GPS position data and share digital maps to provide a common operational picture. Systems like Blue Force Tracking (BFT) in U.S. service use satellite transponders in vehicles and radios in soldiers’ kits to broadcast their location to C2 nodes. Software like ATAK (on Nett Warrior devices) displays these on a map in near real-time. This significantly reduces the fog of war and risk of fratricide, as leaders can see unit icons and plan accordingly en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. As Nett Warrior’s overview states, it “provides SA (situational awareness) to the dismounted leader… enabling faster, more accurate decisions in the tactical fight” with GPS maps, friendly locations, and messaging linked through secure radios en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org. Essentially, every soldier becomes a sensor and a node in the command network.

Communications also allow commanders to exert control from afar. A Space Force fact sheet described how SATCOM (like WGS) lets Combatant Commanders “exert command and control of their tactical forces, from peacetime to military operations” by providing the links needed for orders and reports to flow spaceforce.mil. In practice, this means a general at a distant HQ can monitor a battle via live feeds and send directives to a forward commander, who in turn can relay them instantly to platoons in contact.

Another aspect is coordination of supporting arms – calling artillery or air support. Traditionally done by voice (“9-Line” CAS requests over radio, etc.), many militaries now use digital calls-for-fire: a forward observer can lase a target and digitally transmit coordinates to an artillery fire-direction center or to an aircraft via a data link. These systems (e.g. NATO’s Link 16 for air track sharing and weapons cueing, or Army’s Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System for fire missions) rely on robust comms. A single disruption in comms can delay support and jeopardize troops. Therefore, redundant links (multiple radios, mesh networks, SATCOM backup) are often employed to guarantee critical C2 messages get through even in contested environments.

In summary, communications are the central nervous system of command and control. They transmit the commander’s intent and ensure all units can act in concert. As one article put it, “communication is a key enabler and force enhancer for…command and control,” directly increasing the lethality and effectiveness of the warfighter othjournal.com. History provides painful lessons when comms fail – for instance, an infamous 2016 incident saw U.S. Navy boats stray into Iranian waters partly because they lost GPS and could not communicate effectively to correct course othjournal.com. Robust comms mitigate such risks, whereas “lack of infrastructure and rough terrain” in places like Afghanistan initially forced ad-hoc solutions until better comm nodes (like BACN) were deployed othjournal.com othjournal.com.

As warfare becomes faster and more data-driven, C2 will only be as good as the networks that support it. Thus, protecting and enhancing those networks is a top priority, leading to our next topic: security and resilience.

Security: Encryption, Jamming Resistance, and Cyber Resilience

Military communications are prime targets for adversaries, who seek to intercept messages, jam signals, or hack networks. To counter these threats, modern systems employ multiple layers of security and resilience:

  • Robust Encryption: Virtually all military comms (except some lowest-level short-range voice) are encrypted to prevent eavesdropping. As mentioned, radios have embedded COMSEC modules with NSA Type 1 algorithms for top-secret traffic. This ensures that even if transmissions are intercepted, the enemy cannot decipher them without the keys. For example, the PRC-148 MBITR includes encryption for voice and data; an exportable variant (PRC-6809) uses a different cipher for allies and public safety en.wikipedia.org. Encryption keys are frequently changed and managed via systems like the Electronic Key Management System (EKMS). Network encryption is also used – beyond just the radio waveform, military IP networks encrypt data packets (using devices like TACLANEs for high-throughput links) to guard against cyber snooping. Modern encryption standards (AES-256 and beyond, or proprietary algorithms in Type 1) are designed to be practically unbreakable without enormous computing power.
  • Frequency Hopping and Spread Spectrum: To defeat jamming, many tactical radios use frequency-hopping spread spectrum (FHSS), where the transmitter rapidly changes frequencies in a pattern known to the receiver. We saw this with SINCGARS (hopping 100+ times per second) irp.fas.org and the new NATO SATURN waveform, which Rohde & Schwarz notes has “fast frequency-hopping capability [that] ensures high resistance to jamming” defence-industry.eu defence-industry.eu. The idea is that a jammer would have to jam the entire band at once (which requires huge power) or somehow predict the hop pattern (impossible without the encryption key). Some systems also use direct-sequence spread spectrum (DSSS), where signals are spread over a wide frequency band with a pseudo-noise code – making them appear as low-level noise unless the receiver knows the code to despread them. These techniques, combined under the term ECCM, are fundamental to survivable mil comms. As European Security & Defence magazine noted, a SINCGARS hop rate of 100 hops/sec means a jammer has essentially no time to lock on before the frequency changes euro-sd.com. Newer waveforms like TrellisWare’s TSM combine frequency hopping with MIMO and clever routing to form jam-resistant meshes.
  • Anti-Jam Antennas and Power Control: Some comm systems dynamically adjust power output to the minimum needed (low probability of intercept) and use directional antennas to focus signals away from jammers. Satellites like AEHF use antenna nulling to mitigate jammer sources. The advent of phased array antennas in tactical radios (for example on vehicles) will allow beams that avoid jamming sources or point nulls at them.
  • Resilience to Electronic Warfare (EW): Adversaries not only jam; they also intercept and spoof (send false signals). Modern radios often have frequency monitoring to detect interference and can automatically switch to backup frequencies or modes. They also employ authentication protocols so that, for instance, a false “command” sent by the enemy won’t be accepted by friendly receivers.
  • Cybersecurity of Networks: As radios become IP networks, they face typical cyber threats (malware, intrusion, data exfiltration). Militaries thus implement firewalls, intrusion detection systems, and rigorous accreditation for any computing device. Tactical networks are often closed networks (air-gapped) from the public internet to reduce attack vectors. When military comms use commercial infrastructure (like leveraging local 4G/5G networks for non-mission data), they use VPNs and encryption to secure the data over those channels. Cyber resilience also means designing networks that can degrade gracefully – if part of the network is compromised or taken down, communications reroute through alternate paths (mesh networking helps here).
  • Physical Protection & Redundancy: Communications nodes are hardened against kinetic attack and EMP. Key command centers might be in bunkers or mobile. There are often redundant comm links (e.g., HF radio backup if SATCOM is knocked out, or multiple satellite constellations to ensure not all can be taken out at once). For nuclear scenarios, systems like EMP-hardened radios and legacy methods (even couriers) remain as backups to ensure command and control continuity.
  • Training and Procedures: Security is also procedural. Military communicators practice EMCON (emissions control) when needed – minimizing transmissions to avoid detection. They also train in operating under jamming conditions (using code words, brevity, and alternate comm methods). Authentication drills help verify that orders received are legitimate (to counter spoofing).

Despite all these measures, the threat is growing. Electronic warfare units equipped with AI-driven jammers are emerging; as one Army Signal article warned, near-peer adversaries will use “intelligent jammers leveraging state-of-the-art AI/ML in multiple bands” to disrupt tactical networks afcea.org. They may deploy jamming drones or loitering munitions that target comm nodes afcea.org. To respond, the U.S. and allies are developing cognitive radios that can autonomously detect jamming and hop to clear spectrum, or even change waveforms on the fly. The use of AI/ML for network automation and resiliency is seen as critical for future communications afcea.org. Indeed, “AI/ML-enabled cognitive radio and network automation will be critical for future tactical communication systems to operate in highly congested and contested environments”, allowing self-healing, adaptive networks that react in split-seconds to interference afcea.org afcea.org. The concept of a “self-healing” ad hoc network – one that can reroute around jammed nodes and auto-optimize – is nearing reality with advances in machine learning and robust waveforms afcea.org.

In summary, securing military comms is a never-ending race between offense and defense. Encryption stopped the enemy from listening; they responded by jamming. Frequency hopping countered jamming; they invest in smarter jammers. Now AI and networking are being leveraged to stay ahead. The goal is resilient communications that “can sense and evolve without human intervention” when under attack afcea.org, ensuring commanders and soldiers retain an information advantage even in an electromagnetically contested battlespace.

Interoperability Among Allied Forces

Modern military operations are often coalition efforts – multiple nations working together. This makes interoperability of communications a top priority so that allies can coordinate effectively. Interoperability encompasses compatible radio equipment, frequency agreements, and standardized procedures/codes.

NATO standards: Within NATO, decades of standardization work have produced STANAGs (Standardization Agreements) for communications. These cover everything from message formats to waveforms and crypto. For example, STANAG 4372 defines the new SATURN waveform so all NATO air forces can adopt it for jam-resistant UHF comms defence-industry.eu. NATO’s Minimum Military Requirements for interoperability mandate that systems like SATURN ensure seamless integration across members’ ships, aircraft, and ground units defence-industry.eu. As noted, Rohde & Schwarz has been key in rolling out SATURN radios to replace HAVE QUICK II, enabling secure coalition air operations defence-industry.eu. Similarly, for land forces, the ESSOR project is creating a suite of common waveforms (e.g., HDR – High Data Rate waveform) that participating countries’ SDRs will all support rohde-schwarz.com rohde-schwarz.com. This means a French platoon radio could directly talk or share data with a German one in combined missions, by switching to the agreed ESSOR waveform. ESSOR’s goal is “interoperable, robust and seamless networked forces” across Europe rohde-schwarz.com.

Common equipment and frequency bands: Allies also achieve interoperability by using common radio systems or at least overlapping frequency capabilities. Many NATO countries, for instance, bought PRC-148 MBITRs or PRC-152s, meaning troops from different nations can communicate on the same nets during joint operations (with proper key fill for encryption). Even when equipment differs, coalitions de-conflict via allocation of frequency spectrum. In multinational exercises, it’s routine to designate certain VHF channels or HF bands as “Allied net” with everyone tuning in. Liaison teams often carry multi-band radios from each nation to act as relays if needed.

Language and procedures: Interoperability isn’t just technical. It also involves common voice procedures and brevity codes (NATO has standardized prowords and reporting formats) so that, say, a Dutch pilot and a Turkish air controller have a common phraseology in English. Data interoperability is also crucial – ensuring one nation’s command system can digitally feed information to another’s. Standards like Link 16 allow sharing of a common tactical picture (air and ground tracks, etc.) among dozens of participants. During operations, a U.S. AWACS, a UK Typhoon, and a French SAM system can all see the same radar picture via Link 16 network exchange.

Inter-theater interoperability: It’s not only within NATO. When working with partner nations elsewhere (e.g. coalition in the Middle East or UN missions), forces may use interoperability gateways. A system like BACN, mentioned earlier, was used to bridge communications between U.S. and Afghan troops who had different radios – BACN could receive a transmission on one radio network and rebroadcast it on another, “bridging different communication sources through a tactical datalink” so information flows between allies othjournal.com othjournal.com. There are also deployable “interoperability modules” – essentially, base stations with multiple radios cross-connected. For example, a communications vehicle might carry an American SINCGARS, a British Bowman radio, and an international SATCOM, and patch voice channels together so a multinational patrol can talk.

SATCOM sharing: Allies often share satellite resources to stay connected. We saw how WGS includes international partners – a UK unit in the field can access WGS satcom and reach a U.S. HQ over DISN, or vice versa spaceforce.mil. On the tactical side, Inmarsat and Iridium phones are commonly used by various national contingents, and coordination ensures everyone has the right SIM cards and encryption modules to join secure calls. NATO’s new AFSCN (Alliance Future Surveillance and Control) and other initiatives will likely emphasize a unified network approach.

In NATO’s collective defense philosophy, interoperability is fundamental to mission success rohde-schwarz.com. If allies cannot communicate, they cannot effectively fight together. That is why so much emphasis is placed on exercises focusing on comms, exchange of liaison signals officers, and technical standardization. As one Rohde & Schwarz brief put it, “Interoperability…makes multinational operations possible”, and they strive to ensure their SDRs and waveforms allow allies and partners to “work together to achieve common objectives” rohde-schwarz.com rohde-schwarz.com. The ongoing transition to common waveforms like SATURN and ESSOR is a big step in that direction, as was NATO’s past adoption of standards like Link 11/16, JTLS, etc.

Looking ahead, interoperability will extend to new domains (cyber coordination, joint spectrum management) and even to non-military partners (NGOs, civilian first responders) in complex crises. Communication remains the key to unity of effort.

Emerging Trends: AI, Mesh Networks, Quantum Communication, 5G/6G

Finally, military communications are poised to leap into the future with cutting-edge technologies. Several emerging trends promise to enhance how forces stay connected:

  • Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: AI is being applied to make communications smarter and more autonomous. One area is cognitive radio, where AI/ML algorithms allow radios to dynamically learn and adapt to the environment – choosing optimal frequencies, detecting interference, and even predicting and mitigating jamming. The complexity of managing modern networks (multiple bands, waveforms, nodes) can overwhelm human operators, so AI aids in network planning, real-time optimization, and troubleshooting afcea.org afcea.org. For example, an AI-enabled system can automatically reroute traffic when a node goes down or suggest using a different SATCOM beam if it detects congestion. AI is also being used in signal processing – e.g., deep learning techniques to improve signal clarity, remove noise, or even decrypt enemy signals (in SIGINT applications). As one industry expert notes, deep learning can learn new radio waveforms from sample data, providing greater sensitivity and performance than traditional designs militaryembedded.com. The U.S. DARPA has programs like Spectrum Collaboration Challenge and the Resilient S&T (Science and Technology) Institute for machine learning in networks afcea.org. The vision is a battlefield where “intelligent machines [make] split-second decisions” in the electromagnetic spectrum, enabling self-healing, adaptive networks without constant human micromanagement afcea.org. However, this also raises the specter of adversaries using AI – hence an arms race in cognitive EW (electronic warfare). Overall, AI will be a force multiplier in communications, optimizing everything from routing to cyber defense (e.g., anomaly detection in network traffic).
  • Mesh Networking and MANETs: Traditional military radios followed a hub-and-spoke model (platoon to company, etc.), but Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) are changing that. Mesh networking allows each radio node to relay data for others, creating a self-forming, self-healing network topology. This greatly extends range (a message can hop through several soldiers to reach a distant unit) and improves robustness (if one node drops, traffic finds another path). New waveforms like TrellisWare’s TSM are specifically designed for large-scale mesh networking. In fact, the U.S. Army has chosen TSM as the networking waveform for its Integrated Tactical Network, enabling “a single flat network per battalion comprised of hundreds of radios” where every soldier radio is a node businesswire.com. Such a battalion-wide mesh can operate with less spectrum than multiple separate nets, and can carry voice, data and video efficiently businesswire.com. SOCOM units have already utilized mesh radios to coordinate operations spread over wide areas without fixed infrastructure. Another benefit is reduced need for big antennas or high power – the network can use many short hops. Mesh is also being explored for swarms of drones or UGVs, which need to communicate amongst themselves and back to operators. The trend is toward ubiquitous connectivity – every platform, manned or unmanned, acting as a network node. There are challenges (MANET routing in highly mobile scenarios, crypto synchronization, etc.), but progress is steady. Mesh networking fundamentally boosts resilience and range of tactical comms, and will be standard in future soldier radios.
  • Quantum Communication: While still experimental, quantum technology holds both promises and threats for military comms. Quantum communication (QC) usually refers to techniques like Quantum Key Distribution (QKD), which uses quantum properties (entanglement, etc.) to securely exchange encryption keys. The attraction is that quantum-encrypted channels would be virtually unbreakable – any eavesdropping attempt disturbs the quantum state and is immediately detected govconwire.com. China has already demonstrated QKD via satellite, and NATO countries are researching it. For military, this could mean strategic communication links (e.g., between national command centers) secured by quantum encryption, immune to even quantum-computer-enabled codebreaking. The U.S. Defense Department is investing in post-quantum cryptography and quantum-resistant networks to prepare for a future when adversaries might have quantum decryption capabilities govconwire.com govconwire.com. Besides encryption, quantum communications could enable networking of quantum sensors and computers in new ways congress.gov. One battlefield use could be quantum sensor nets that detect stealth aircraft or submarines via minute signals and instantly share data. However, quantum comm tech (like entangled photon exchange) is currently limited by range and very sensitive equipment. We may first see it employed in high-level fiber-optic links (some governments have quantum-secured fiber lines already) and slowly fielded to satellites or theater links as the tech matures. NATO has flagged quantum as an area where we must ensure allies are not outpaced afcea.org. In summary, quantum communication promises “virtually unbreakable” channels and instant alert on interception attempts govconwire.com govconwire.com – a potential game-changer for secure command and control in the future.
  • 5G and 6G Wireless: The military is actively adopting 5G technology and looking ahead to 6G for its high data rates, low latency, and device capacity. 5G is the 5th-gen mobile network standard (already widespread commercially) – it offers fiber-like speeds (100+ Mbps to Gbps) and millisecond latencies, plus the ability to connect massive numbers of devices (IoT). For military, this translates to new possibilities: “5G holds the promise of secure wide-bandwidth digital links from orbital space to the tactical edge” militaryaerospace.com. Use cases include streaming HD video from drones to troops, real-time augmented reality for soldiers (visors getting live feeds), or coordinating swarms of unmanned systems. A Military Aerospace piece highlights that 5G’s high speed and low latency can support “network-enabled warfare” with more data than ever before militaryaerospace.com. The U.S. DoD has launched numerous 5G pilot projects at bases, testing things like smart warehouses, AR/VR training, telemedicine, and mission planning using 5G militaryaerospace.com militaryaerospace.com. One trial at Marines’ 29 Palms base showed 5G controlling drone swarms and enabling mobile command posts to have continuous, high-quality connectivity while on the move militaryaerospace.com militaryaerospace.com. A key benefit is that 5G (especially millimeter wave at 24–300 GHz) offers huge bandwidth for data-intense applications – “ultra-wide bandwidth and low latency for real-time decision making” on the battlefield militaryaerospace.com. It also can be more secure via network slicing and advanced encryption built into the standard, and potentially harder to jam if using beamforming in mmWave (short range, highly directional signals). That said, 5G has shorter range (especially mmWave), so it likely complements, rather than replaces, traditional tactical radios. Militaries might deploy local 5G cells around command posts or forward operating bases to connect all systems on base, and integrate 5G with their tactical networks. Looking beyond, 6G (sixth-gen wireless) is expected around 2030 and is projected to bring even higher data rates (multi-gigabit), even lower latency (<1 ms, perhaps enabling near-instant machine control), and novel features like integrated sensing (using signals for radar-like functions). Defense experts anticipate 6G will “significantly impact battlefield communications”, potentially supporting concepts like distributed AI and ubiquitous connectivity for the Internet of Battle Things spslandforces.com linkedin.com. The Pentagon is already funding research into how 6G could be used for both communications and sensing (e.g., detecting stealth by analyzing 6G signal disruptions) defensenews.com. One 6G vision is a fully meshed battlespace where every soldier, vehicle, drone, and even munitions are networked at extreme speeds – enabling true “multi-domain operations” with seamless coordination between land, air, sea, cyber, and space in real time. As a Wind River futurist put it, “6G has a huge opportunity for AI and machine learning for the warfighter to get critical data for decision making, with higher data rates, lower latency, and massive device distribution” militaryaerospace.com. In essence, 6G could make the concept of instant, data-rich awareness a reality, and allow new applications like holographic communication or swarms that react as one entity. Of course, these benefits come with challenges in security (protecting 6G networks from intrusion/jamming) and infrastructure. It’s notable that the U.S. and allies are moving quickly – DefenseNews reports the Pentagon is already preparing for 6G through programs like “Next G” to ensure standards include military needs defensenews.com.

In conclusion, the horizon of military telecommunications features smarter networks (AI-managed), more interconnected nodes (mesh and IoT), fundamentally secure channels (quantum), and vastly greater bandwidth (5G/6G). These technologies, combined with legacy lessons, will shape how forces communicate in the coming decades. Just as past innovations – from the telegraph to the tactical radio – transformed warfare, so too will these emerging tools enable new concepts of operations and even change the balance of power for those who master them first.

Conclusion

From the first field telephone wire strung across a battlefield to the sophisticated digital networks linking today’s forces, military telecommunications have continually evolved to meet the demands of warfare. Communication is the lifeline of command: it must reliably carry orders, intelligence, and coordination across miles or continents, under threat from enemies and the environment. Over the past century, we’ve seen a progression from simple wired phones (valued for their reliability and security) to radio systems that cut the cord and gave mobility, then to integrated satellite and computer networks that connect the entire battlespace. Each step brought new capabilities – greater range, more data, improved security – but also new challenges.

In the present day, militaries operate with a communications ecosystem that spans handheld soldier radios, vehicle and aircraft transceivers, base stations, satellites, and even smartphones. These are tied together by standards and protocols that allow a message to hop from a platoon leader’s radio to a satellite and down to a general’s command post in seconds. The introduction of rugged smartphones and apps like ATAK shows how quickly forces are leveraging commercial tech for tactical advantage, enhancing situational awareness at the squad level. At the same time, time-tested methods like field telephones and HF radios remain in the toolkit as backups when high-tech options are jammed or unavailable – a reminder that sometimes “low tech” is the counter to high-tech threats.

Going forward, military communications are on the cusp of another leap. The convergence of AI, edge computing, and advanced waveforms promises networks that are more resilient and autonomous – able to handle “communications in a contested environment” with minimal human intervention afcea.org. Quantum encryption may render communications immune to eavesdropping, even as quantum computing threatens older encryption methods govconwire.com. And adoption of 5G/6G technologies will inject enormous bandwidth and connectivity, enabling new warfighting capabilities from linked swarms to real-time virtual reality for troops militaryaerospace.com militaryaerospace.com.

One constant through all this change is the critical importance of communications in achieving military success. History has shown that armies that communicate quickly and securely gain a significant advantage. Thus, militaries worldwide will continue to invest in and prioritize telecommunications – making networks as important as weapons in the battlefield of the future. As an Over The Horizon journal article aptly stated, “Freedom of communication and access to information is an element of multi-domain operations that armed forces have frequently taken for granted, to their peril.” othjournal.com Maintaining that freedom – through innovation and sound strategy – will be essential to prevailing in conflicts to come.

Sources:

LIM Center, Aleje Jerozolimskie 65/79, 00-697 Warsaw, Poland

+48 (22) 364 58 00

© 2025 TS2 SPACE Sp. z o.o.

This site uses cookies to deliver services in accordance with the Privacy Policy. You can specify the conditions for storage or access to cookies in your browser.