Blogs

That mission remains a textbook example of how the failure to establish resilient communications can cripple even the most elite teams. Today’s operating environments are just as hostile and the communications challenge is no longer confined to the military domain. Military operations today face a simple but urgent question: what happens when the Primary and Alternate comms systems fail?

Over the last two decades, many field communications systems have been designed around known environments and familiar adversaries. But the threat landscape has changed dramatically –and with it the tempo and complexity of operations - that comfort zone is gone. Whether it’s cyber disruption, contested electromagnetic environments or just unpredictable terrain, the result is the same: fragile communications that don’t hold up under stress.

Electronic warfare isn’t a future threat. It’s now.

Many Primary systems in service today were developed in an era of lower-intensity conflict - environments where EW threats were minimal or non-existent. But peer and near-peer adversaries have been investing in EW for decades. Today, modern jamming equipment can track, detect, and hop frequencies as fast as our radios. It’s a dynamic contest - and most nations are playing catch-up. If our Primary systems are vulnerable and our Alternates follow the same design logic, then failure becomes a matter of when, not if.

Primary systems typically offer the richest capability - secure voice, data transfer and location reporting - and are therefore the top target for an adversary. Alternate systems follow the same logic and often the same vulnerabilities. That’s why modern Primary and Alternate systems are hardened with features like frequency hopping, low probability of intercept (LPI), and low probability of detection (LPD). But today’s jammers can match those evasive tactics in real time. It’s a technical arms race - much like the cyber world’s virus vs. antivirus battle - and many in-service systems are now outpaced.

Commercial comms networks - mobile phones and internet services - are especially vulnerable and often the first to fail or be denied in real-world conflict. And if they’re not denied, there’s a high likelihood they’re being exploited – handing valuable intelligence to hostile actors.

In September 2020, General Sir Nick Carter, then Chief of the Defence Staff, delivered a notable speech on the Integrated Operating Concept (IOC). He outlined a fast-evolving threat landscape and made clear that Defence must adapt to meet it — not in isolation, but through deeper interoperability across the whole national security enterprise. He emphasised that much of today’s military activity takes place below the threshold of war, requiring agility, integration, and rapid capability development. These are encouraging signals. But it remains to be seen how they will translate into real investment and enduring change. Forces need capability today to enhance their performance and likelihood of success – yet the timeline for change is often slow and change itself is difficult to implement. Structural hurdles, shifting priorities and constrained budgets all play a role. Even when the will to adapt exists, the ability to do so at pace is not guaranteed.

And yet, procurement cycles are still measured in decades.

The time it takes to bring a new Primary or Alternate system into service means most of what’s deployed today is already behind the curve. These systems are built to last 15 to 20 years and often enter service already facing threats they weren’t designed for. Retrofitting is slow and expensive. By contrast, Contingency and Emergency solutions - often commercially adapted - can be developed and fielded in months. But they rarely get the investment or attention.

The problem is structural. Most defence procurement prioritises the top tier - the Primary system - as the cornerstone of assured communications. The Alternate gets built in if funding permits. Contingency and Emergency solutions often fall into the ‘nice to have’ category. But on real operations, the fragility of this approach becomes obvious.

You wouldn’t play a round of golf with just one club.

The PACE methodology — Primary, Alternate, Contingency, Emergency — is like a well-stocked golf bag: each tier offers a different tool for a different challenge. It’s not enough to carry slight variations of the same system. To operate effectively, especially under threat, you need diversity — in bearer systems, hardware, frequency usage and resilience strategies. Without that, you're left making do with whatever’s in hand — and that’s when performance suffers. Right now, that’s the gap. And it’s one that satcom-based solutions like Bracer are purpose-built to close. Bracer is an encrypted, push-to-talk voice and data platform that requires no local infrastructure. It works out of the box. It’s compact, secure and designed to operate in austere environments, from first-in reconnaissance through to rearguard drawdown. As a Contingency or Emergency system, it delivers assured fallback when everything else goes dark.

Fixing this isn’t just a technical challenge - it’s cultural.

The decision to invest in C/E systems is still too often seen as optional. But when leaders signal that resilience matters - when doctrine, procurement, and operations align - better outcomes follow. Real change comes when we stop treating fallback systems as failure planning, and start seeing them as operational enablers. They aren’t there because things might go wrong. They’re there because they often do.

Ultimately, resilience planning is a matter of risk appetite.

Forces must assess whether their fallback systems - Contingency and Emergency layers - are sufficiently robust or whether they are simply hopeful placeholders. If Primary and Alternate systems fail, as they often do, suboptimal C/E solutions won’t just limit operational effectiveness - they could expose teams to catastrophic consequences.

PACE isn’t just a checklist. It’s a survival tool. And in today’s threat environment, resilience starts with facing that reality head-on.

Bracer: aligned with strategic defence priorities

The UK’s 2025 Strategic Defence Review makes clear that tomorrow’s operations demand assured, adaptable communications - especially in contested, infrastructure-denied environments. It highlights the need for resilient satcom systems, faster technology adoption and better support to distributed forces operating below the threshold of war.

Bracer aligns directly with that ambition. Compact, encrypted and field-proven, it fills the Contingency and Emergency layers of PACE with a capability that is available now - not in a decade’s time. As defence strategy pivots toward agility, deterrents and mission assurance, systems like Bracer move from ‘nice to have’ to operational necessity.

With a background in leading mission-critical communications across global deployments, Tim Williams now works at QinetiQ, helping organisations bridge the gap between evolving threats and real-world capability.