1 INTRODUCTION

GIS is an increasingly important technology to themilitary. Spatial information has always beenimportant to military commanders; anunderstanding of terrain, for example, is an essentialmilitary skill. Maps have been the principalmechanism for disseminating this knowledge and theability to interpret a map the essence ofunderstanding. The military is always seeking toimprove capabilities in order to maintain a credibledeterrent and increasingly to ensure efficientparticipation in peace-keeping missions. In thepost-Cold War situation a key driver forinternational defence mapping agencies is theirvastly increased area of interest. Forces can bedeployed into almost any part of the world, yet priorknowledge of the terrain is unlikely. GIS have a keyrole to play in creating, editing, analysing, querying,and displaying geographical data in order to help thecommander understand the influence of terrain onthe conduct of the battle.

Why then has the take up of GIS technology beenso slow and confined to very specific areas within themilitary? While base-plant activities have closelyfollowed (and in some cases led) civilian GISevolution, the same cannot be said of battlefieldsystems. This chapter will expose the very realchallenges that face military GIS developers.

At the outset, it is worth defining some terms andsetting the limits to this chapter. All that is discussedhere is necessarily unclassified. That does not limit thescope as much as might be imagined sinceclassification is mainly reserved for the use rather thandesign of systems. Notwithstanding classification, itcan be extremely difficult to cite specific examplessince the release mechanisms to publicise work can beunduly cumbersome. This necessitates a more genericdiscussion of military applications.

The chapter centres on western technology andtherefore western defence. While this is partially areflection on the difficulties of gaining access toinformation from other nations, it is an accuratereflection of the uptake of GIS. There may beseveral reasons for this. The first is that the use ofGIS must be preceded by widespread use ofInformation Technology (IT). The use of IT on thebattlefield is largely confined to technology-richmilitary environments. This precludes many nationswith low-technology military requirements.

The setting for this chapter is therefore post-ColdWar defence. The main drivers in this context are ashrinking resource, an increasingly unpredictablethreat, and wider areas of interest. These drivers areof course well supported by the introduction of GIS.It is also worth explaining the use of the wordsdefence and military. Although they can be usedinterchangeably in some contexts, the formal

889

63Military applications of GIS

D SWANN

This chapter is concerned with military applications of GIS. It contrasts the considerabledifferences between military and civilian applications and highlights some of the key areasthat have been exploited to date, namely base plant, barrack, and battlefield applications. Inspite of the very real challenges of needing large (fine) scale data, for large areas of theEarth, in near real-time, there have been some notably successful military GIS applications.In the future, as technology continues to improve, many of the current technical difficultiesare expected to reduce in importance.

differentiation is that military refers to uniformedmembers of the airforce, army, and navy whiledefence includes all components includingpoliticians, civil servants, and contractors.

GIS can be applied to a wide range of militaryapplications. These can be broken into threeoverlapping categories of Base-plant, Barrack, andBattlefield, as shown in Table 1.

What might be surprising is that the ubiquitousapplication of GIS has been so slow in defenceorganisations. To date, the use of GIS has beenconfined mainly to certain specialist support areassuch as base-plant mapping activities and somelimited facilities management applications. Each ofthe key application areas is now examined in orderto expose the challenges and potential benefit ofGIS implementation

2 APPLICATION AREAS

2.1 Base-plant

Defence organisations require mapping and relatedproducts in order to support operations, planning,and training. Demands for geographical coverageand resolution increase constantly as does the rangeof products. These demands have to be met bydefence geographical agencies.

The fundamental problem is that the amount ofeffort required to produce a map or equivalentdigital geographical product is far greater than that

required to reproduce it. It takes little more effort toproduce 100 000 maps than 1000. Thus geographicalsupport is not proportional to the size of a force butto its area of interest.

Defence geographical agencies are therefore facedwith a requirements gap. Demand is growing asresource shrinks, or at best remains static. In orderto bridge this requirements gap a number ofstrategies can be adopted. Burden sharing,development of more efficient productiontechniques, and work to impose realism onrequirements are described below. Unfortunately,each of these strategies has some largely unforeseeneffects on the implementation of GIS.

2.1.1 Burden sharing Burden sharing spreads the production activityacross a wide range of allied nations. To initiate suchactivity, considerable effort has to be applied to thenegotiation of bilateral and multilateral agreementscovering the exchange of geographical products andservices. In the digital era this has two main effects:rapid adoption of international standardisation andproblems with the release of data.

The former is positive in that the free exchange ofdigital geographical data demands, and indeed hasachieved, strong international standards. In somerespects international defence standards for theexchange of digital geographical products are manyyears ahead of civilian equivalents. The work ofcreating and maintaining these standards is

D Swann

890

Table 1 Classification of major military applications.

Base-plantDigital Geographical Information (DGI) management DGI productionMapping production Map catalogue productionThe management of geographical requirements Map stock control

BarrackRange management Range control systemsNatural resource management Facilities managementEnvironmental management HydrologyBarrack reorganisation and closure Emergency responseWildlife management Airfield damage repair

BattlefieldSituation mapping Terrain analysisAir space management Track managementCommand, control, and communications SimulationMap distribution and supply Terrain visualisationThe production of military situation overlays TargetingMaintaining battle records War gaming

undertaken by the Digital Geographical InformationWorking Group (DGIWG pronounced dijeewig) onbehalf of the NATO Geographic Committee (Salg,Chapter 50). The efforts of this working groupmanifest themselves in an exchange standard fordigital geographical information. This exchangestandard is known as the Digital GeographicInformation Exchange Standard (DIGEST).

DIGEST is an excellent framework for theexchange of raster, matrix (e.g. digital terrainmodels), and vector data. It can be implemented at anumber of different levels: for example, vector datacan be exchanged using either a feature-oriented orrelational data structure (see Worboys, Chapter 26).On top of the basic framework, specific products canbe built to supply to end-users. This greatly assists indistributing data in a user-oriented form. DIGEST isnot, however, compliant with any vendors binarydata structure. This has enormous implications forGIS developers since defence agencies in manycountries are moving to commercial-off-the-shelf(COTS) solutions (see Maguire, Chapter 25). Nolonger will developers (in-house or external) createone-off systems built from the ground up. Theintention instead is to maximise the use of up-to-date,widely supported COTS solutions. This can create aproblem for defence users because of the intimatelinkage between algorithms and data structures inCOTS GIS packages as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 illustrates in a generalised way therelationship between GIS algorithms and datastructures. One important consequence of theincreasing use of COTS GIS algorithms is thatapplication algorithms are required to translateDIGEST data into an internal GIS data structure.

This conversion, particularly for raster data, is timeconsuming, processor intensive, and demandsconsiderable data storage capacity. A key question iswho should be responsible for performing thisconversion? If the task is distributed to users, theinfrastructure required increases alarmingly, the userrequires considerable geographical expertise and acentralised common picture of data creation andusage is in danger of being lost.

The alternative is for the conversion to be done atbase-plant. The problem here is that vendors datastructures are different and incompatible not leastbecause each area in defence has differentrequirements that may demand more or less capableGIS. It is highly unlikely that the whole of defencewill choose a single COTS GIS package. Thus theresult of base plant conversion would be a plethoraof different data formats that would complicate thedistribution process.

The outcome will probably be, as is often the case,a compromise. It is likely that attempts will be madeto standardise on as few GIS software packages aspossible. Base-plant GIS specialists will undertake aconsiderable amount of data reformatting and userswill come to rely on geographical data serversoperated by geographical specialists that reformatdata for a cluster of local clients.

2.1.2 Making production more efficient Early GIS work focused on automating manualcartographic techniques. Military developmentsin automated cartography often led thecommercial world.

Feature extraction, that is creation of specificfeatures (e.g. drainage features, houses, and roads) isperhaps the slowest part of the cartographic process(see Weibel and Dutton, Chapter 10). The fact thatdifferent scales of mapping have traditionallydemanded separate extraction has resulted inresearch and development to facilitate automaticgeneralisation. This allows multi product operations(MPO) where features are extracted once at thelargest scale demanded and then automaticallygeneralised to create smaller-scale products. TrueMPO remains very difficult to achieve since theconsiderable amount of operator interventionnecessary demands highly skilled techniciansworking at expensive workstations.

Auto-stereo correlation is now widely used toextract elevation data from stereo pairs of imageryand operator intervention is typically reduced to less

Military applications of GIS

891

Fig 1. Relationship between GIS algorithms and data structures.

DIGESTAlgorithms

Data

Applicationalgorithms

GISalgorithms

GIS datastructures

Application datastructures

than ten per cent. In this case though, capabilitydrives demand and battlefield commanders areincreasing their aspirations from 100 m to 1 mspatial sampling interval elevation models. In termsof effort, ten per cent operator intervention on a 1 mmodel represents 1000 times more work than 100 percent manual effort to create a 100 m model!

At the present time, fully automatic featureextraction continues to elude developers. Whilstmany research projects show much promise,there is considerable difference between researchand production.

2.1.3 Requirements realism In defence, as in any business, a line must be drawnbetween what is desirable, highly desirable, andessential. This discrimination must be made in termsof what is affordable. It would be a considerableadvantage for defence planners if every part of theEarths surface were mapped at 1:1000 resolution. Yetthis is clearly unaffordable given current technologyand requirements. At the other extreme it would bevery cheap but clearly unacceptable to only holdworldwide products at scales greater than 1:1 000 000.

In between these two extremes can be found thebalance between affordability and acceptable risk.Maintaining that balance is a key function ofdefence geographical agencies. On the one hand,data are needed to support defence activities. At thesame time, operational staff, planners, anddevelopers must be educated to be realistic in statingtheir demands for geographical data of all kinds.

There is an additional problem concerning theresolution of data required to support GIS use atdifferent levels of command. The correspondencebetween map area, map scale, and type of defenceuser is summarised in Table 2. A strategic planningheadquarters will be able to meet most of itsrequirements using small (coarse) scale data and onlyrequire limited amounts of 1:250 000 scale data. Ahigh level tactical headquarters such as a divisionalheadquarter will require an absolute minimumspecification of 1:250 000 scale data and large swathsof 1:50 000 data. A brigade commander at the nextlevel down will demand 1:50 000 data and need downto large (fine) scale 1:10 000 data for target areas ofinterest. The battle-group commander one level lowerreally needs 1:10 000 data to support GISrequirements. This is unrealistic and the unpleasantmessage that must be distributed is that the usersfunctional requirements cannot be met and that thedevelopers aspiration is technically not feasible.

Both user and developer are likely to reactangrily to this news and may seek contractors todemonstrate their wares. The contractor will be ableto demonstrate the functionality on a small part of atraining area that has the required data available.There is a real danger at this point that the vestedinterest of the contractor, the needs of the user, andthe ambition of the developer will conspire tointroduce a system that cannot be supported inoperations where wide area coverage of digitalgeographical information is required.

2.2 Barrack

The term barrack is used to encompass a wide rangeof asset management, training, and infrastructureactivities that are required to support the military intheir peacetime locations.

The infrastructure required to support defence istypically huge. The ending of the Cold War hasforced many countries military organisations toemerge blinking into the harsh realities ofdownsizing, rationalisation, competition, andenvironmental assessments: all the issues that mostcommercial businesses have been grappling with foryears (see Birkin et al, Chapter 51).

The application of GIS to assist in theseproblems is not new (see, for example, Conry andGoldberg 1994; Lamb et al 1994), and for thatreason this section is the shortest of the three. Forfurther discussion of similar civilian infrastructureapplications, see Meyers (Chapter 57) and Fry(Chapter 58). The military-specific issues that areworthy of note concern the scale of the problem,the availability of data, and the potential need tomigrate to Command Control and CommunicationInformation (C3I) functionality.

The scale of the problem is enormous. Thenumber of buildings, the length of roads, complexityof infrastructure, and area of land involved aresimilar to that of a large local government user, butthe assets are dispersed nationally and, often,

D Swann

892

Table 2 Military data requirements.

Geographical extent User Map scale

1000km 1000km Strategic planning > 1:250k400km 400km Divisional HQ planning 1:250k 1:50k150km 150km Brigade HQ planning 1:50 1:10k50km 50km Battle group planning < 1:10k

internationally. The quality of available hard copymap data is typically poor and the numbers of staffengaged in production often inadequate. Finally, theproblem is often most pressing whilst the resourcesto solve the problem are difficult to acquire.

Data availability is tied to the paucity of trainedtechnical personnel. Inevitably, military prioritiesfocus on the front line. It can be difficult to attractsufficient investment to acquire the GIS hardwareand software, much less the data required topopulate a GIS. Defence mapping agencies arefocused on acquiring and producing data tosupport operations: they are frequently notresourced to collect the very large scale datarequired to support facility management. This is animportant issue since military developers andprocurement staff are rarely confronted with thetrue costs of geographical data. When a barrack ortraining area GIS project submits a bill for theprocurement of large-scale geographical data,disbelief and refusal are typical reactions.

Even when data are acquired, the problemscontinue. The data are likely to be acquired fromnational civilian mapping agencies whose datastandards may not conform with DIGEST.Furthermore, where data are acquired for more thanone country, the data specification and transferformats are likely to differ (see Smith and Rhind,Chapter 47; Salg, Chapter 50). The result is thatfacility managers are likely to encounter differentdata structures across their area of responsibility.

The final issue concerns the need to havecommonality between the facility management GISand battlefield, or to be more precise, battlemanagement GIS. This problem is most acute whenfacilities are located in a different country to theagencys base GIS capability. It can especially be aproblem in the case of an operational airfield. If thefacility is attacked, the need to integrate facilitymanagement data into the command and controlsystem is very real. For example, what damage hasbeen caused by that bomb? How long before theairfield is operational again? What units are within5 km that could assist?

This requires liaison between developers at the twoextremes of the military spectrum: the facility managerand the operational commander. This rarely happensbecause development activity for the operationalcommander is often focused on the battlefield while thefacility manager is rarely confronted with C3I systemrequirements. Cova (Chapter 60) provides a review ofemergency management using GIS.

2.3 Battlefield

This section focuses on the specific use of GIS onthe battlefield, and highlights the particularchallenges that are faced by developers in this area.The military are beginning a process of moving fromreliance upon paper products to using maps anddigital geographical products in tandem. Note,however, that a switch from paper maps and manualmethods of interpretation during field use, to digitalgeographical data and GIS is not being advocated.This is unlikely to occur in the near future for goodpractical reasons. When a US$10 GIS is developedthat can be folded into a pocket, display 10km 10km at 600 dpi even when the batteries have failed,and will still be usable with a bullet hole in it, thenlook to a switch from maps to GIS!

The military always strives for improvementbecause there is an ever pressing incentive forcontinuous change. Military agencies must continueto provide an effective deterrent and, if required, winin battle against constantly improving threats. Thisever-present driver for change is being supplementedby the growing need to support operations short ofwar. Increasingly, the military are called to make orkeep the peace. In these situations very small actionscan have key strategic consequences and there istherefore the need for high-level headquarters tohave an increasingly fine resolution view of thesituation. These politically sensitive situations alsorequire very careful media handling and the need toget information to commanders ahead of televisioncompanies is very pressing!

Much of the work of the military is currentlysupported by paper maps. Before seeking to improveon the map it is necessary to understand exactlywhat a paper map has been providing the militarywith for hundreds of years.

It is easy to take maps for granted because theyare such common commodities. Maps are of courseextremely expensive commodities to make andmaintain. Accurate mapping demands asophisticated national infrastructure that takesconsiderable time and effort to put in place. Militarydeployments are becoming increasinglyunpredictable as peace-making and peace-keepingoperations become the norm. As a consequence ofthis, ensuring the availability of 1:50 000topographic mapping demanded by militarycommanders has become a challenge for defence

Military applications of GIS

893

mapping organisations around the world. GIS havecontributed to the process of meeting the paper maprequirement by automating map production systems.Now that GIS are migrating onto the battlefield anddigital geographical data are being required forbattlefield applications, that base plant burden is setto increase many-fold.

When attempting to project what GIS is likely to beused for on the battlefield it does not suffice to look atthe uses of a paper map and then automate thosemanual processes. GIS is likely to revolutionisecommand and control procedures on the battlefield inthe same way that commercial businesses have beenrevolutionised by IT. The disadvantage faced bydevelopers on the battlefield is that there has been verylittle use of any IT to date; IT is being introduced intoheadquarters at the same time as GIS. This, notsurprisingly, is revolutionising the way militaryagencies operate.

Most military IT development effort in the UK, forexample, is currently focused on the development ofC3I systems. These C3I systems will be used by staffofficers from the Defence Ministry to the front line.Since the essence of command and control on thebattlefield is an understanding of terrain it is logicalthat GIS will form an essential foundation of thesebigger systems.

There is a significant difference between a team ofGIS specialists building a GIS with a range ofapplications built on top, and a team of C3Idevelopers trying to implement a GIS at the heart ofa C3I system. C3I developers have traditionally hada wide range of communication system skills buthave not seen GIS as a core skill. That is slowlychanging as the importance of the geographicalinfrastructure is understood.

It is useful to divide battlefield GIS use into twobroad categories, based on the spatial datamanipulated. High end GIS will be required tomanipulate the background geographical data thatare the equivalent of the paper map. Lowerspecification GIS will suffice to view thebackground data and manipulate the digital battleinformation that is analogous to an overlay trace.This overlay trace contains military-specificinformation traditionally drawn on transparent filmoverlain on the paper map. This separation ofbackground and overlay data is essential for datamanagement purposes; users will manage their ownlayer of the overlay whilst management of the

background data should be left to geographicalspecialists. The overlay will probably be split intolayers based on functional divides within theheadquarters: operational staff managing thefriendly force picture; intelligence staff, the enemypicture; engineers, the obstacles; artillery, the guns,and so on. This model of a multi-purpose databaseis well known in multi-department civilianorganisations such as local government and largeprivate agencies.

Each component of a GIS demands specialconsideration in the military environment.Table 3 highlights five components: hardware;software; data; the human resource; and the targetmanagement structure. This latter component refersto the need for the GIS to take its place within thestructure of an existing organisation; in this case amilitary headquarters. This table lists some of thefactors that must be considered when introducingGIS into the military environment.

These factors represent a small proportion ofthose that need considering and may help us tounderstand why there are so few GIS on thebattlefield today. Further discussion of the critical,but often overlooked, organisational issues is givenin Peuquet and Bacastow (1991).

2.4 Examples of current military GIS

Currently there are very few military C3I systems,although a number of systems with embedded GISare nearing their in-service dates. These tend to use ageographical clientserver architecture as isillustrated in Figure 2.

This allows the C3I system to embed a lower-endGIS (OPGEOCLIENT), while leaving the high-endGIS functionality to a separate system(OPGEOSERVER) operated by geographicalspecialists. It is this latter system that manipulatesand manages background geographical data in orderto provide the C3I system with a managed picture ofthe terrain. These high-end systems are already inservice. For example, operational connection hasbeen made to the NATO Crisis and RESponsePrototype (CRESP) and Prototype Allied CommandEurope Intelligence System (PAIS) in BosniaHerzegovina. A trial connection has also beenestablished to the Battlefield Management System(BMS), a prototype command and control system inservice in the UK.

D Swann

894

Geographical specialists are also using these high-end systems to undertake some specialist tasks insupport of high level decision-making. Terrainanalysis, for example, demands a very powerful GIScapability to help a commander to understand howterrain is likely to influence the conduct of a battle.This analysis requires use of every component of theGIS described in Table 3 and as such is likely toremain a specialist task. Indeed, at present terrain

analysis is restricted to problems where there is aspecific question that can be satisfied with limiteddata and an explicit answer. When fuzziness entersany element, computer-based terrain analysisbecomes increasingly difficult, and users must revertto manual methods of terrain analysis.

Terrain visualisation is being used as an achievablealternative to pure terrain analysis. This involvespresenting terrain information in a flyable

Military applications of GIS

895

Table 3 GIS components in a military environment.

Component Consideration

Hardware Protection to some extent against:Water, dust, temperature, shock, vibration, etc.

Very low overheads:Low maintenance, hot-swap modules, user serviceable

GIS-ready:Good display resolution, multi-gigabyte data storage, powerful graphics architecture

Future-proof:Modular, latest technology, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)

Affordability:COTS, low unit cost, low maintenance cost

Software Usability:Intuitive, low training overhead, standard interface

Security:Compatible with secure operating systems

Data:Ability to handle any format with variable coverage and resolution

Cost:COTS, reusable application code, low maintenance cost

Data Coverage:Small scale worldwide, large scale provided on warning for localised area

Resolution:Low resolution worldwide, resolution improves with targeting and time

Format:Data will be provided in DIGEST format; a worldwide military standard

Timeliness:Commanders require an up-to-date picture of the battlefield

Human resource The situation:Operator is tired, cold, under immense pressure, mistakes kill!

Training burden:The user is a soldier, sailor, or airman first, then a specialist, then a GIS operator

Tool, not system:The system should allow the user to complete tasks faster and better

Target management structure Situation:A military HQ is lean, under pressure, and very conservative

The system must fit into existing procedures:The tested procedures in a military HQ will only change after the introduction of a new system

Evolution:The procedures will change to take advantage of the new systemThe system will need to evolve

3-dimensional model space that allows very intuitiveunderstanding. Limited terrain analysis results can bepresented in this model space to allow a commander orother user to assimilate the impact of the informationand thus assist in the decision-making process.

Plate 55 illustrates a typical model space withgeoreferenced imagery draped over an elevationmatrix. This example integrates the line-of-sightanalysis of a weapon platform and a correctly scaledattack platform into the model space. It isemphasised that this is a snapshot of a dynamicmodel space. It is the dynamism that addsconsiderably to the interpretability.

3 THE FUTURE

It is always difficult to predict the future, especiallyin the IT arena where things move quickly. For thisreason only a vision of the future is described;others can guess the timeframe in which the eventswill occur. One certainty is that the timeframe willbe much shorter than could be expected in almostany other discipline except IT!

Possibly the most important aspiration must be toremove any differentiation between base-plant,

barrack, and battlefield GIS. Although theapplications will be different and tailored to thespecific requirements of each area, they should bebased on a common view of the world. Thisdemands common data, preferably manipulatedusing a common GIS interface. This is not the sameas advocating a single vendors GIS softwarepackage, but does recognise the training andoperational advantage of having a common userinterface. Despite setting unification as a major goal,each current application area will be assessedseparately here in order to allow easy comparisonwith the current situation described above.

3.1 Base-plant

Automatic feature extraction offers the greatest promisefor base-plant GIS. This, allied to the increasingavailability of high resolution commercial satelliteimagery (Barnsley, Chapter 32; Estes and Loveland,Chapter 48), is likely to have a radical impact on theactivities of base-plant mapping organisations. Whenthe sources and means to exploit them enter the publicdomain, competition is likely to enter the closed worldof defence geographical organisations. Why producebase-maps in-house when you can out-source?

D Swann

896

Fig 2. The embedding of GIS into a C31 system.

OPERATING SYSTEM

RDBMS

DATABASE INTEGRATION

APPLICATION INTERFACE LAYER

Overlay display/change

SupportDecision ApplicationsCellOPGEOCLIENToperates at this levelof the C31 System

Background data display

Data Import Services

DIGEST and otherstandard dataproducts

Backgroundgeographicdata store

OPGEOSERVER

There are likely to be enormous political impactsas countries whose 1:50 000 topographic mapping isclassified suddenly find neighbours exploitingimagery and extracting features at a resolutionequivalent to 1:2 500 scale mapping and better.Equally, civilian mapping agencies will see threats toexisting pricing structures as competition drivesspatial data prices sharply downwards (but seeRhind, Chapter 56). This is likely to be exacerbatedas international competition, perhaps usingextremely cheap labour, has access to high resolutionimagery over national territory.

The requirement for a common view of thebattlefield demands standards for data and rapid datacapture (Lange and Gilbert, Chapter 33; Salg,Chapter 50; Smith and Rhind, Chapter 47). Asfeatures are captured at base-plant they shouldimmediately be seen by end-users. Similarly, changebeing reported from any source should immediatelybe promulgated to all users. There are enormousquality control and validation issues to be addressedhere, but to a large extent these can be resolved bycomparing change from different sources. In turn thisdemands more complicated data structures that allowtime and quality information to be added toindividual data elements such as points, lines, orpolygons (Bdard, Chapter 29; Goodchild andLongley, Chapter 40).

3.2 Battlefield

Commanders at all levels need a common view ofthe battlespace that is capable of integrating allinformation into an easily interpretable userinterface. They need to be able to rewind the battlepicture to re-examine past information in the light ofnewly received reports. More importantly they needto be able to fast-forward the battle picture for wargame scenarios of future operations.

The need to integrate information from a varietyof sources, sent at different times and of differentqualities, demands very specialist GIS tools. Navalsystems, for example, have used track managementsoftware to produce a record of ships tracks onnavigational displays. This involves extrapolatingpositions and speed and direction informationreported at different times in order to providepredicted current positions of vessels in the vicinity.This functionality now needs to migrate to battlefieldsystems where the unpredictability of position, speed,and direction is much greater, the situation morecomplex, and the terrain itself subject to change.

All of this activity demands advanced,knowledge-based GIS processing. This must bebased on a common, high resolution representationof the battlespace, presented using widelydistributed visualisation tools (e.g. see Neves andCmara, Chapter 39).

Military applications of GIS

897

Fig 3. Maturity of GIS technologies.

Automatic

Embedded

Handheld

Descriptive

Physics based

Knowledge based

Datadissemination

Incr

easi

ng m

atur

ity

Maturitythreshold

Elevation extraction

Image exploitation

Visualisation

Positioning

Terrain analysis

3D

2D

CD-ROM

Assisted

Automatic

Feature extraction

Data managementand update

Now Time 2010?

4D

Satellitecommunications

Several elements of this vision are closelyrelated. There is, for example, a link betweenresolution and commonality that demandsattention. A low resolution representation can bemade common to all users with comparatively lowbandwidth communications. An increase inresolution demands an increase in bandwidth. Toshare a 1 m resolution picture of a typicalbattlespace (often 10 000 km2 and with activity upto 10 000 m) to all the widely dispersed users woulddemand a bandwidth in excess of 1 Gb/s (1 Gigabitper second). This is not technically feasible atpresent for wireless communication networks.

It may be possible to focus effort on geographicaldata maintenance by ensuring that all users deploy

from barracks with a full geographical datacoverage. This could be provided using a highbandwidth network infrastructure linking all staticpeacetime locations. Bandwidth requirements couldalso be dramatically reduced by only sendingchanges to the distributed dataset to deployed users.Thus automatic change detection algorithms couldbe applied to imagery at base-plant and the changesin the imagery automatically extracted to createvector changes. The combined imagery and vectorchanges would then be the only components sent todeployed users.

The hypothesis of a drawing together of GIStechnologies in different areas of defence issupported by this vision of automatically extracted

D Swann

898

Table 4 Some hopes and fears for military GIS development.

Component Aspiration Challenges Hopes/fears

Hardware Visualisation capability down Affordability New games platforms offer.affordableto platoon level visualisation.

Training burden Increasingly intuitive interfaces.

Palmtop size Display Portable display technology emerging rapidly.

Voice input, instead of keyboard Voice recognition improving rapidly.

Group decision display Immense! The type of display that could replace the2 m x 2 m @ 600 dpi that can be paper map as a group decision aidrolled into a kit bag, retaining (the Bird Table) presents enormousdisplay without power technological challenges.

1 m resolution across the battlefield Data storage > 1 terabyte (TB) Data storage continues to fall in cost.Demand continues to outstrip supply.

Software Full terrain analysis Knowledge-based processing Progress with knowledge-based GISremains slow.

Data availability Automatic data extraction some way off.

Battlespace visualisation Integration of GIS and visualisation Rapid progress in COTS packages.

Data management Change detection Change detection routines available.Automatic feature extraction Automatic feature extraction a long way off.Update management

Doctrine yet to be established, routines must follow doctrine.

Data High resolution geographical data Data volumes Decreasing storage costs.(1 m imagery, elevation and Data communications Bandwidth improvements not keeping pace.feature data) Increased rate of change Improving change detection routines.

Data management Immature doctrine.Image interpretation Increasingly sophisticated classification tools.

High resolution vector data Extraction from imagery Fully automatic extraction some way off.

Common view of the data Data dissemination Wireless bandwidths inadequate.From division to platoon Data standardisation Data formats remain tied to vendors GIS.

Military applications of GIS

899

base-plant data being distributed to an in-barrackinfrastructure prior to deployment.

3.3 Trends

One way of attempting to predict the future is toexamine trends. Figure 3 shows the maturing ofvarious geospatial technologies over time andattempts to project them into the future.

This illustrates the challenge facing battlefieldGIS developers: whilst a number of keytechnologies have only just become mature enoughto deploy onto the battlefield (crossing the maturitythreshold in the diagram), a number of foundationissues have yet to be resolved. Of these, it is datamanagement and update that cause most concern.There is little point in developing tools to enhancea commanders decision-making if those decisionsare going to be based on poorly managed ormaintained data.

The maturity threshold is also important interms of COTS development. Technologies thatappear to have developed beyond the thresholdgenerally have commercial applications that offerthe potential for return on investment. Thosebelow the line demand considerable investmentbefore a commercial return is likely. For an exampleof how COTS software can be used to create amilitary terrain information system see Graff andVisone (1996).

Some predictions about the future of GIStechnology and their impact on military systemsare summarised in Table 4.

4 CONCLUSIONS

GIS present considerable challenges for militarydevelopers. Many of the problems are unique to themilitary and demand innovative solutions.Increasingly, those solutions are relevant to thecivilian world, particularly the efforts to turnspecialist GIS into transparent, user-oriented tools.

Many challenges lie ahead but, given theincredible pace of change, there can be few doubtsthat they will be met, and more before the nextedition of this book is published!

References

Conry T, Goldberg J 1994 Integrating facility, comprehensiveplanning, and environmental management at a large AirForce Base using GIS. URISA Proceedings. Washington DC,URISA: 54253

Graff L H, Visone D L 1996 The seamless integration ofcommercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) and government-off-the-shelf (GOTS) products to meet the Armys terrain analysisrequirements. Proceedings, Sixteenth Annual ESRI UserConference. Redlands, ESRI: 4pp

Lamb W R, Evans B J, Perry M I, McKimley M I, Petrie GM, Wessels D P 1994 The base-wide environmental analysisand restoration (BEAR) system for Eielson Air Force Base,Alaska. Technical Papers of ACSM/ASPRS Convention andExposition. Washington DC, ACSM: 2: 1969

Peuquet D J, Bacastow T 1991 Organizational issues in thedevelopment of geographical information systems: a casestudy of US Army topographic information automation.International Journal of Geographical Information Systems5: 30319