The Singapore Armed Forces is undergoing a major transformation, and the new buzzword is to create a 3G fighting forces.

This means linking every soldier, fighter jet, tank and warship.

Exchanging messages, pictures and even video clips is now an everyday affair for most people.

But for soldiers in the battlefield, such real-time information can mean the difference between catching the enemy by surprise and running into an ambush.

Major David Chua, Force Planning and Strategy at G5-Army, said: "At the last minute before I moved out my tanks, my CO called me and said I had to switch plans with another PC. I rendezvoused with him and parked our tanks side by side and exchanged maps. I could not decipher what he wrote on his plans! He had to explain where his arrows were going and why he considered this to be the best plan."

But in a 3-G armed forces, such messy exchanges will be a thing of the past.

Brigadier-General Jimmy Khoo, Future Systems Architect at MINDEF, said: "What exactly is Third Generation SAF? It is early days yet to give a definitive answer and I believe that those who think they have all the answers will be wrong. There are just too many exciting possibilities that are still emerging.

"We won't depend on large numbers of platforms and people to be superior. Our edge lies in using unprecedented information to know the situation."

Colonel David Koh, Head of Joint Communications and Info Systems, said: "It is about delivering operational capability to the fighting forces. Of course we will leverage on technology, but technology by itself has limited value. What brings out the value is the marriage of technology and our operational requirements."

One scenario is soldiers in the future will carry devices that resemble PDAs.

If they cross paths with enemy tanks, real-time battlefield data about time and location - complete with pictures - can be beamed directly to the entire SAF network.

At the command centre, the information can be collated and analysed.

An updated battle plan can be beamed to all armed forces units - on land, at sea, and in the air.

So eventhough soldiers are only be armed with a rifle, they have the backing of the entire armed forces at their disposal.

But this means accepting change and leaving behind the old ways - something that will be difficult.

Captain Ang Chee Wee, Assistant Director of Future Systems Directorate, said: "Some functions and structures have existed for decades, and painstaking effort has been put in over the years to build up the identity, cohesion, esprit de corps within exsisting units and structures."

Colonel Koh added: "Because we are a NS army, our soldiers come in from all strata of society, and because of the strong education system in Singapore, we have highly educated soldiers who can leverage on the new technology and the possibilties technology make available."

MINDEF is so serious about 3G that it is setting aside 1 percent of the defence budget, about $80 million, on experimentation alone.

This is over and above the 5 percent for research and development. - CNA

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/87745/1/.html

on the topic of net work warfare

Net-Centric Operations Find New Focus in Cruise Missile Defense
By David A. Fulghum
05/30/2004 08:22:33 PM

NEW THREAT, NEW DEFENSE

What some Pentagon planners regard as the U.S.' most compelling future threat--an attack by cruise missiles carrying chemical or biological warheads--is pushing development of a true "network-centric" warfare system.

The scenario--closely held and virtually undiscussed in public--is intriguing. New electronically scanned, multi-frequency radars pick low-flying, stealthy cruise missiles out of ground clutter. The electronic babble produced by signals ricocheting from buildings and broken terrain has traditionally helped protect low-flying missiles and aircraft from radar detection. F/A-22 and F-35 fighters cruise the intercept area at supersonic speeds to loose two or three shots at these elusive targets before they speed past. And AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles with advanced sensors pick out the enemy weapons from decoys for precise interceptions.

What really makes cruise missile defense possible is the staple of net-centric operations and warfare: automated decision-making aids, machine-to-machine links, automatic target recognition, open electronics architectures, multi-frequency sensors and advanced horizontal communications--all of which break down barriers. In particular, net-centric operations assault those ancient walls between intelligence analysts and warfighters.

Not everyone shares the vision, however. Critics contend the cruise missile threat is inflated to justify a larger F/A-22 force that, without support, might shrink to 100-150 aircraft. Moreover, the Air Force is slashing the post-2005 funding that's needed to equip more fighters with the advanced, electronically scanned radars (AW&ST May 10, p. 35).

Nonetheless, a team of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin researchers is plunging into the task of making cruise missile defense a functional net-centric operation. Among those leading the charge is J. Michael Borky. He is the team's chief architect for battle management, command and control (BMC2) capability being designed for the next-generation E-10A ground surveillance aircraft. The Pentagon says the E-10 will be the centerpiece of cruise missile defense, particularly when U.S. forces are operating on a remote foreign battlefield.

Fundamentally, the mission won't be much different from what's done on board today's E-3 AWACS and E-8 Joint-STARS aircraft that were designed for long-range surveillance. However, it's to be far less manual. Operators now have to make the association between targets and intelligence reports, and make rapid calculations in matching the fuel, munitions and speed of strike aircraft to targeting priorities.

"We believe the technology exists to substantially automate and improve the quality of those decisions," Borky says. What U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. John Jumper doesn't need, Borky asserts, is for "the guy in the back of his [E-3] AWACS or [E-8] Joint-STARS or [E-10] multisensor command-and-control aircraft to be a clerk typist. He doesn't need them making six queries to get a target's identification. [Jumper] wants the process to be intuitive. I put a cursor over a target, and down the sides of my head-up display comes everything I wanted to know."

Two important needs for cruise missile defense, or any other net-centric operation, would be a common picture of the battlefield for everyone involved and rapid data flow.

In a startling claim, Raytheon and Lockheed Martin officials contend they could nearly halve the Air Force's required time to destroy a target. "We think it's possible to [reduce the kill chain to] under 5 min.," says Greg Hinchman, chief engineer for Lockheed Martin's BMC2 effort. "But most situations will take 5-10 min., as we currently see the problem--to exploit the target, understand it, get the authority to engage and understand the consequences. The limiting factor will be human decision times."

There are other variables that will affect the equation.

THE 5-10-MIN. timeline is possible, "if I can have [interceptor aircraft] forward and get my first shot 10 naut. mi. or more before they reach the forward edge of the battle area; and if I have cueing that can tell me there has been a cruise missile [launch] and tell me where to focus my search," Borky says. That information would allow an E-10 controller to position the defendi.......... too long to post, go read yourself

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/05314top.xml

If I wanted to set up a SME developing NCW or even 4G stuff for MINDEF, how feasible would it be? Would I have a chance at the 80 million dollar pie?

Let's assume that I have the know-how. Are there any living examples out there?

Sounds fascinating. But the image of soldiers tapping away on their PDAs strikes me as pretty funny. Nerdy soldiers.. hehe.

Hah... SAF can have the best hard ware but it still down to the man who used it, looking at it now

Just take the SAR21, the LAD build in for easy aiming but the user using it had used it at wrong time. one real example, Night time, at FUP, dun know who give the order to on the LAD or the man on it themself, guess what, like star war, enemy saw it and call fire on their FUP lucky it was just an ex.

DSTA better go on field themself b4 coming up any more new things as i see it as wasting tax payer money.

They have to find the camps first!!!

You'll be amazed....... some of them don't know where their end users are!

im worried about over reliance on technology.

wat happens if there is a breakdown somewhere in the equipment, or a successful electronic jam?

Originally posted by Joshua1975:

Hah... SAF can have the best hard ware but it still down to the man who used it, looking at it now
.

I agree with u here. MINDEF is investing heavily into giving its men the best fighting chance they can get. The only weak link will be the men themselves.

Originally posted by wuming78:

im worried about over reliance on technology.

wat happens if there is a breakdown somewhere in the equipment, or a successful electronic jam?

here another example, GPS down, whole PL lost How dar? When they reach, war over

Perhaps we can get rid of the weak link? then no more NS! Yay!

Originally posted by Blockhead:

I agree with u here. MINDEF is investing heavily into giving its men the best fighting chance they can get. The only weak link will be the men themselves.

Perhaps we can get rid of the weak link? then no more NS! Yay!

Originally posted by Blockhead:

I agree with u here. MINDEF is investing heavily into giving its men the best fighting chance they can get. The only weak link will be the men themselves.