Blogs

Why PACE plans fail

Military operations planning is an intricate process – time permitting – involving estimates to define the objective and outline potential ways to achieve it. The resulting plan usually focuses on the preferred course of action but must also account for the ‘what ifs’. These include known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns – a daunting proposition. But this is not planning for failure, it is about planning for success, even when things go wrong.

There is a well-worn saying: no plan survives first contact with the enemy. However, if a plan is thoroughly developed and clearly communicated, it equips commanders with the tools and understanding they need to make informed decisions and achieve successful outcomes – even under pressure.

Planning under pressure

Different nations approach operational analysis in different ways. One widely used framework is the US Army’s MET-TC, an acronym that stands for:

• Mission: the defined objective, desired effect and outcome (the ‘how’ is developed during planning).
• Enemy: The composition, disposition and capabilities of opposing forces.
• Terrain and weather: The physical environment and its operational impact, including climate conditions.
• Troops and support: The unit's own strengths, limitations and available resources.
• Time: The time available for planning and execution and its influence on decisions.
• Civil considerations: The effects of the local population, infrastructure and cultural context on operations.

By systematically working through these factors, planners can build effective, resilient strategies and adapt as conditions evolve.

From IER to action: PACE in communications

Communications planning is integral to mission success – and frameworks like MET-TC help guide these decisions. At the heart of this is the Information Exchange Requirement (IER): a structured way of identifying what needs to be communicated, when, how, at what level of classification and to whom.

Effective IER planning must also account for interoperability across mission elements – from air assets and intelligence feeds to supporting arms and multinational partners. This provides a foundation for designing a resilient communications architecture using available tools.

PACE (Primary, Alternate, Contingency, Emergency) planning should run through every part of this process. While the core IER for a mission might be defined broadly, the specific communications plan – and its PACE structure – must be tailored to the task at hand.

Like broader operational and tactical planning, the PACE approach is about planning for success, not failure. It builds resilience through contingency thinking and lays the groundwork for executing the mission effectively, even when conditions deteriorate.

The following section focuses on the tactical radio element within a communications plan.

What if? Turning contingency into capability

Each level of the PACE plan should be detailed in its own right. Take, for example, the Primary radio system and its frequency plan – both require clear, structured thinking. Here are some of the key questions planners should address:

• What are the triggers for switching from Primary to Alternate, Contingency or Emergency systems?
• Is every operator trained to use all communications equipment identified in the PACE plan?
• Will the unit carry more than one primary radio system in case of functional failure?
• What is the frequency plan? If contact cannot be made on the primary frequency or channel, what is the fallback procedure? At what times should the alternate frequency be used (e.g. on the hour, at 15-minute intervals) and how long should it be monitored?
• Who determines when to switch systems or channels? Have users been issued with a communications schedule or windows of communication? What actions are expected if these are missed?
• At what level will each element of the PACE plan be monitored and by whom?
• If all electronic communications fail, has the unit received orders to physically move to a rendezvous point, either to be picked up or to collect replacement equipment?
• What is the contingency in the event of full communications or GPS denial?

Keep it simple. Make it stick

The list is extensive – and the more ‘what ifs’ considered in advance, the greater the chance of success. But there’s a risk: overly complex plans can become unworkable in the field. This is where the planner earns their spurs. A good PACE plan must be simple, easy to remember and yet rooted into rigorous thinking. It is an art as much as a discipline.

Red Team it, rehearse it

A strong PACE plan rests on three pillars: operability (is it feasible?), interoperability and continuity. Like all mission-critical preparations, it should be red-teamed and thoroughly rehearsed.

PACE is more than radios

PACE is a planning principle – and it is not limited to communications. The same approach can be applied to other mission-critical systems such as power, water and food supplies, medical support, shelter and transport.

Failure by design

Let’s be clear: anyone who builds a communications plan around just the Primary and Alternate systems – assuming they will always be available – is setting themselves up for failure. Too many variables can go wrong, many of them well beyond the user’s control.

Plan for reality, not assumptions

Plan effectively. Plan for the worst-case scenarios. And above all, plan for depth and resilience.

The contested spectrum

The critical role of communications in operations is well-understood. While it may be technically possible to succeed without them, it is far from desirable – and is rarely sustainable. That’s why adversaries consistently prioritise the disruption or destruction of communications systems. Denying access to the RF spectrum, targeting RF emitters and degrading command and control can rapidly undermine a force’s effectiveness. These are longstanding tactics – but in today’s conflicts, they have reached a new level of sophistication and intensity.

Where Bracer fits in

Diversity is key – and Bracer offers multiple ways to address these constraints. Its push-to-talk (PTT) voice capability continues to function even in heavily GPS-denied environments. Because it does not rely on terrestrial infrastructure, users can physically screen the device – a known technique for reducing the impact of jamming.

Bracer operates on the Iridium network, which benefits from constantly shifting look angles. At any given time, up to three satellites may be in view – significantly increasing the chance of maintaining a network connection, even when other systems cannot.

Even when operating in a GPS-denied environment, Bracer continues to listen for a usable signal. As soon as it detects one, it updates its position to the talkgroup automatically. In a worst-case scenario – full GPS denial – position reports can still be calculated manually using a map, with coordinates sent via secure voice. Old school, but dependable.

Bracer has PACE thinking built-in. It can operate as a standard Iridium satphone (using any enabled Iridium voice SIM), as an Iridium Push-to-Talk device or in its native Bracer mode, which includes tracking and emergency alert functions.

It can be powered and charged via mains electricity, 12v DC or USB, (including primary and alternate radio batteries using a USB adaptor. Designed for flexibility, it delivers all of this capability in a compact, lightweight unit weighing just 450g.

A toolkit, not a silver bullet

A wide range of radio solutions can form part of a PACE plan – from Private Mobile Radio (PMR) and satellite phones to tracking devices and more advanced systems that enable a primary radio to connect via L-band satellite.

The right choice depends on factors such as security, functionality, simplicity, range, reliability and cost. Only Bracer meets all these criteria. While it is more expensive than a standard PMR, it offers significantly greater functionality – and crucially, it does not rely on terrestrial repeater infrastructure.

A satphone may provide one-to-one voice calls but typically offers poor security and is vulnerable to interception. Bracer uses two layers of encryption. One of which is certified to government standards. A basic satellite tracking device can provide position reports, emergency alerts and short messages but unless it operates over a secure network, its security is limited. Bracer, by contrast, integrates tracking and alert features and does not require LAN or WAN access to transmit and receive location data.

L-Band conversion systems (e.g. L-TAC) offer another option but airtime costs are often extremely high. These systems may lack tracking, have only a single satellite look angle and require a primary or secondary radio to function. Bracer works independently and uses Iridium PTT airtime, priced comparably with high-tariff mobile phone rates.

The 5-iron of the comms world

Let’s summarise with an analogy. In golf, each club has a defined purpose, with the driver, putter and wedge forming your core set. Think of these as the Primary system. Bracer, by contrast, is like a 5 or 7 iron: a versatile mid-range club that can adapt to almost any situation. It won’t replace your driver or putter but it allows you to stay in the game – fairway, rough, bunker and, at a push, you could even use it to putt. Most golfers would not leave home without a 5 or 7 iron and for the same reason, Bracer is the ideal complement to more specialised systems. It gives users a simple, reliable, cost-effective way to stay operational and improve their chances of mission success.

Closing the gap

Back in the real world: when plans shift, conditions degrade and primary tools fall short - Bracer keeps you in play.

PACE isn’t just a checklist. It’s a mindset. And Bracer was built for it.

Tim Williams has spent his career making communications work in the most demanding operational environments. At QinetiQ, he focuses on delivering field-ready solutions that enable tactical resilience.