justifiable to regard this as a revolution in military affairs, it is at least widely agreed that technology is rapidly changing the way military objectives are accomplished. Integrated Communication Networks are therefore an increasingly necessary to ensure that critical information gets to those who need it fast, whether it is those on the battlefield or those making the decisions at HQ. David S. Alberts, who formerly worked in the office of the Assistant Secretary of Defence for Networks and Information Integration, lists the four foundational advantages of such a network to be:

(a) A robustly networked force improves information sharing.

(b) Information sharing and collaboration enhance the quality of information and shared situational awareness.

(c) Shared situational awareness enables self-synchronization.

(d) These, in turn, dramatically increase mission effectiveness.

2. Obviously, any method of conducting operations that is expected to increase mission effectiveness will be welcomed by any armed forces. The US Department of Defence goes as far to say that ‘Forces that are networked outfight forces that are not, everything else being equal.’ They also makes the claim those only military forces that are ‘truly joint, with comprehensively integrated capabilities can fully exploit the highly path-dependent nature of Information Age warfare.’ This certainly enforces the view that modern military operations require a network-centric approach to be effective. It is thus indubitable that possessing an integrated network capability does indeed prove to be a ‘game changer’ when facing an enemy who does not possess such capability.

3. It has been amply demonstrated that an Integrated Communication Network has been established as a core element of modern military operations. Given the ever-evolving and increasing role that technology possesses in warfare, it becomes more crucial to make certain that forces have the information, intelligence and situational awareness they require to achieve their objectives. Not only is technology changing conflict, but the manner in which militaries wage war is also changing. An increasingly prevalent theory of war is that of joint operations, defined by the US Department of Defence as ‘military actions conducted by joint forces and those Service forces in specified command relationships with each other’. As armies, air forces and navies work together to achieve political goals, warfare becomes more complex and operations become larger. Carl von Clausewitz talks of the uncertainty of information that is experienced in the fog of war. Although this paper does not suggest that integrated communications can lift this fog totally, the evidence suggests that it will bring a degree of clarity and awareness to the battlefield. Using communications technology to provide even dispersed forces with the latest information guarantees that forces are better informed and therefore more likely to make the right decisions. Successful joint operations depend on a number of very different but capable forces working together. A centralised communication infrastructure along with a supportive joint communication/ operation doctrine can oversee such joint operations and act as a hub for communication with and direction of any of the units in the theatre, be it a modern fighter aircraft or a team of Special Forces.

4. Thus far, both the theoretical concepts surrounding integrated communications and the practical uses of the doctrine have been described. Ample evidence from recent military operations has clearly demonstrated that in the increasingly technological theatre of war a network centric approach to modern military operations in indispensable for achieving information dominance and an upper hand