If you’ve spent any time in modern operations, you’ll know that the old definition of “connectivity” doesn’t cut it anymore. For years, we judged success by whether we could talk, share, and move enough data to keep the mission going. But today’s battlespace is contested, fragmented, and changing by the minute. The real question is whether connectivity helps forces move from sensing, to understanding, to deciding, to acting faster than a thinking adversary, even when the network is under pressure. And that’s a much higher bar.
Two big shifts are driving this rethink. First, the explosion of data producing platforms, especially uncrewed and autonomous systems, means information is appearing at the edge faster than ever. Second, these systems are expected to operate in environments that are Denied, Degraded, Intermittent, or Limited (DDIL). Bandwidth collapses. Nodes disappear. Routes change. Adversaries target both the signal and the data itself.
In this world, advantage doesn’t go to the force that collects the most data. It goes to the force that can reliably source, combine, and exploit it faster, without losing trust, control, or tempo.
That’s why connectivity can’t just be a collection of radios and links anymore. It has to become a mission fabric – something resilient, adaptive, and designed to keep decision making coherent even when the environment is anything but.
Why connectivity fails (even when the bars are green)
One of the most uncomfortable truths from recent operations is that connectivity often fails not because the radios stop working, but because everything around them does.
Information is scattered across apps, enclaves, platforms, and nations. Access rules vary by mission, classification, and policy. Under pressure, operators spend precious minutes hunting for data, reconciling conflicting versions, or negotiating release decisions. And even when the network is technically “up,” the mission system can be effectively “down” because no one can find what they need or share it quickly enough.
Coalition operations can make the challenge even more evident. Multi national task groups operate across huge distances with shifting task organisation and mixed classification regimes. The hardest problem isn’t sending a message - it’s figuring out who should see what, under which conditions, and how fast, while the threat picture evolves around you.
And then there’s the silent killer: time to change. Threats change. Partners change. Data sources change. But networks are often last to change. Traditional integration and accreditation cycles simply weren’t built for the pace of modern conflict. The result is a kind of operational lock in: advanced sensors and effectors constrained by a mission network that can’t adapt quickly enough.In a world where decision advantage is measured in seconds, slow adaptation is a strategic liability.
The tactical internet: a different blueprint
If the goal is to preserve decision advantage under fire, we need to rethink the blueprint. What’s required is a deployable tactical WAN – essentially a tactical internet that can be assembled quickly, extended forward, and adapted continuously.
“Deployable” doesn’t necessarily mean a network you pack into a container. It means an approach that can be built from heterogeneous components, federated across partners, and made operational without bespoke engineering every time.
A tactical internet must embrace connectivity diversity, not rely on any single bearer. That means orchestrating line of sight and beyond line of sight pathways, terrestrial, maritime, airborne, and space routes, mesh and relay architectures, and both tactical data links and IP networks. When links are contested or nodes are lost, the system should preserve data integrity, prioritise critical flows, and keep essential services running at the edge.
One of the clearest ways to understand this is as a layered mission fabric:
Weakness in any layer undermines the whole. Engineering them together creates something resilient and relevant to the modern battlespace.
The UK Ministry of Defence’s Digital Targeting Web
This shift toward a mission fabric aligns closely with the direction the UK MOD is already taking – particularly through initiatives like the Digital Targeting Web.
The Digital Targeting Web is all about enabling a faster, more coherent targeting cycle by ensuring that data, context, and authority can move quickly and securely between sensors, analysts, decision makers, and effectors. It recognises that the targeting process is only as fast as the slowest link in the chain, and that those slow links are almost always caused by fragmentation, policy friction, or brittle connectivity.
A mission fabric directly supports this ambition by ensuring targeting data is discoverable at the edge, even in DDIL conditions; by allowing policy and sovereignty controls to travel with the data; by reducing the need for manual coordination; and by keeping the targeting cycle moving even when reach back is disrupted. In other words, the Digital Targeting Web needs a network that behaves like a tactical internet — adaptive, data centric, and resilient under pressure.
Why data centric security matters more than ever
Traditional network centric security – where access is granted because a user sits inside the right enclave – simply doesn’t hold up in coalition, edge, and DDIL environments. Data centric security flips the model. Instead of relying on perimeters, the security controls travel with the data itself. A mission message or surveillance image carries the metadata, encryption, and policy that determine who can open it, where, on which device, and under what conditions.
This turns sharing from a manual, error prone process into a governed, machine enforceable one. It supports selective sharing without sacrificing sovereignty. And it accelerates tempo by reducing the cognitive burden on operators who would otherwise be forced to adjudicate release decisions under pressure.
Lean services architecture: making the edge work
Even with resilient transport and strong trust controls, a mission fabric will struggle if the service layer is too heavy for tactical realities. Traditional enterprise architectures assume stable connectivity and centralised infrastructure – luxuries rarely available at the edge.
Lean Services Architecture (LSA) was built for exactly these conditions. It stays lightweight, software only, and transport neutral, focusing on a small set of essential messaging patterns and service discovery. That simplicity is its strength. It allows edge nodes (vehicles, dismounts, gateways, radios, autonomous systems) to continue performing critical functions such as local fusion, alerting, messaging, and track dissemination even when reach back is intermittent or absent. And because it reduces point to point integration burden, it supports modular growth as platforms and partners evolve. In an environment where uncrewed systems proliferate and task groups reconfigure frequently, that kind of composability becomes an operational necessity.
Software defined networking: a practical path forward
Software defined networking (SDN) is already showing what this future looks like, and BAE Systems’ NetVIPR™ is a strong example of this direction in action.
In contested environments, topology rarely stays stable long enough for static communications plans to hold. NetVIPR’s node based design automatically re routes around damaged, jammed, or disconnected nodes, directly addressing this reality. It can exploit diverse communications infrastructure, reducing dependence on any single bearer and improving survivability when specific pathways become compromised.
Pair that with edge oriented behaviours (store and forward, reconnection synchronisation, prioritisation across constrained links) and you get a system that sustains tempo under pressure rather than collapsing into manual workarounds. NetVIPR also hosts local applications and supports lean service discovery, meaning mission data remains usable at the edge even when reach back is fragile or absent.
Virtualising functions that were traditionally fixed in hardware matters because it compresses time to change. Updates can be delivered remotely. Configurations can be adapted quickly. The network evolves on operational timescales, not platform refit cycles. In a world where adversaries adapt rapidly, agility becomes a decisive advantage – not necessarily perfect connectivity, but the continuity of decisions, despite imperfect connectivity.
Connectivity redefined
The central challenge of modern mission connectivity isn’t a lack of technology. It’s the collision of data abundance with connectivity adversity, compounded by fragmentation, policy friction, human trust factors, and slow adaptation cycles.
The answer is a shift from static, enclave centric constructs to a deployable tactical WAN implemented as a governed mission fabric. It must be multi bearer, data centric, and lean at the edge, because the goal isn’t flawless communications. It’s something far more operationally meaningful: coherence, tempo, and trust when the decision window is narrowing.
That’s what connectivity must deliver. And that’s what we’re working to engineer.
Subscribe to our Digital Thread newsletter to receive first-hand insights in your inbox from our data specialists, plus commentary from our defence technology teams, alongside a host of guest content from digital game-changers in space, the armed forces, government departments and more.