Australia joins Combat ID search

Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) has always been important - recent tragedies demonstrate the cost to coalition trust and morale when IFF, or Combat ID, doesn't work.
Fratricide incidents in recent conflicts involving US and Coalition forces-fortunately none involving Australians-have spurred the development of Combat ID systems including highly specialised systems to meet the 'IFF' needs of land forces in complex warfighting situations.

A number of low tech basic identification systems have been adopted by US and Coalition forces, including Australia, for their troops and combat vehicles in Iraq and elsewhere. These include:

* Infrared (IR) TAG: This short-range disposable infrared transmitter is detected by night vision devices at a range of 2,000 metres but cannot be seen by the naked eye.

* IR Patches and Tape: These are made with infrared reflective material. When illuminated with an IR source, they can be seen clearly by night vision goggles at long-range. They can be used on soldiers' uniforms, vehicles and other kit.

* Glow Tape Reflective Marker: The IR reflective patch is designed for wear on helmets or field uniforms. They appear as glowing patches in an infrared beam emitted by night vision goggles.

* Combat Identification Panels: These panels are more than a metre square and are mounted on vehicles or used to designate areas. They provide a distinctive marking detectable by ground vehicles as well as by aircraft. Sandwiched between the materials is a thermal layer, which presents a thermal signature (hot or cold) when viewed through a thermal device.

However, enemy forces with similar equipment can also see them and they can be obscured by adverse weather or smoke, and human errors also hamper positive identification. Another problem is that modern weapons often have an engagement range that exceeds the sensor range of FLIR or NVG.

Ground force IFF capabilities have been improved through enhanced Situational Awareness (SA), with digital networks such as Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below (FBCB2), Blue Force Tracking (BFT) and now Coalition Force Tracker (CFT), and the Battle Management System to be acquired for the ADF under Land 75. These systems are designed to provide near real-time information to warfighters on where they and coalition forces are, and where the enemy is. But effective combat identification requires more than the near real-time operational
The US Army began development of the Battlefield Combat Identification System (BCIS), in which combat vehicles carried transmitters and receivers that send pulses of energy to one another if the vehicles engage. The encrypted signal identified vehicles as a friend or foe. But after spending millions on BCIS, the Army deserted the program because of its expense, estimated at $US100,000 for each installation. And because it was not based on NATO standards it lacked NATO and coalition force interoperability.

Its successor is the Battlefield Target Identification Device (BTID) developed by Raytheon for the US Army. BTID conforms to NATO STANAG 4579 ensuring interoperability among similarly equipped NATO and coalition forces during joint and combined operations. BTID works by having an electronic interrogator on the firing platform send an encrypted millimetre-wave Ka Band (33-40 GHz) radio wave towards the target. Transponders on the target receive the signal and send an encrypted 'reply' signal back to the firing platform, confirming its friendly status, with a working range of about 5km.

There are now three STANAG 4579 compatible systems, BTID (US Army by Raytheon), BTID (British Army by Thales), and Battlefield Identification Friend or Foe (BIFF) (French Army by Thales). Each offers slightly different features. The US version is slaved to the main armament, while the UK version is steerable, so identification does not require the weapon to be pointed at the target. The French version offers a bolt-on feature for ad-hoc installation. Similar STANAG will be drafted for DSID & perhaps RBCI, with an eye on keeping compatibility.

Australia has closely followed these and other developments and had observers at the recent Coalition Combat Identification advanced concept technology demonstration (CCID ACDT) exercises at Salisbury Plain in September-October last year. During these exercises a family of combat ID solutions were tested including:

* Battlefield Target Identification Devices (BTIDs)

* ITT's Radio-Based Combat Identification (RBCI) system

* RF (radio-frequency) Tags

* Cubic's Optical Combat Identification System (O-CIDS)

* conventional STANAG 2129-compliant visual marking systems such as the combat identification panel (CIP) and the thermal identification panel (TIP).

Simply put, RBCI is a software modification to existing military hardware that allows a user to interrogate and receive responses on a radio.

The RF Tag is a promising technology that is designed to return, in the background clutter of a radar image, a unique identification encoding. It has the potential to be an inexpensive enabler for situational awareness and a target identification solution for air-to-ground Combat ID.

Cubic's O-CIDS is designed to reduce the incidence of fratricide for ground troops, vehicle crews and aircraft. The system provides the shooter with information about the target, including if it is a known 'friend,' and also provides the range to the target with a low probability of detection, interception or jamming. Cubic hopes to provide air-to-ground combat ID capability in a future generation of the system.

The consolidated military utility assessment of candidate systems is expected to be produced by the US Joint Forces Command around March this year.

While Australian troops and vehicles use the conventional marking systems such as CIPs and TIPs and reflective patches (including Australian Flag patches) high priority has now been given to the acquisition of more sophisticated electronic CID systems for the ADF under Phase 2 of LAND146 Combat ID for Land Forces.

The DCP proposed the acquisition of an assured, positive identification system for Land forces, using electronic systems to prevent fratricide. Plans are to introduce the new capability into service from 2009 onwards. And while this phase is concerned with the acquisition of mature CID products, Defence is interested in learning about technologies still under development. These will be considered in the next phase, which has yet to be approved.

Although the project office has closely watched CID developments and has been actively involved in the CCID ACTD program, to gain a better understanding of the technology involved, Defence has released two Market Technology Surveys under which CID technology suppliers and agents are asked to provide a range of technical, human systems integration, operational employment, logistics and cost information about mature technologies and products within the scope of the Phase 2 requirement.

By Tom Muir, Canberra