Command, Control & Communications
The capacity to decide and direct: national and joint command arrangements, resilient communications and the battle networks that turn sensing into action.
- Indicators
- 2
- Leaders
- 10placeholder ratings
- Like it
- 8capabilities
- Developments
- 5
What Command, Control & Communications is, and how it is measured
The capacity to decide and direct: national and joint command arrangements, resilient communications and the battle networks that turn sensing into action.
Indicators
- Protected satellite communications capacity
- Deployable joint headquarters
The nations that lead in Command, Control & Communications
These ratings stand in until the capability is rated.
| # | Nation | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Germany | AAA |
| 2 | South Korea | AA |
| 3 | India | AA |
| 4 | France | A |
| 5 | Italy | A |
| 6 | Norway | A |
| 7 | Denmark | BBB |
| 8 | Sweden | BBB |
| 9 | United States | BB |
| 10 | Japan | BB |
The capabilities most like Command, Control & Communications
- Sea Control0.24
Likeness, from 0 to 1, as the Atlas measures it.
How Command, Control & Communications came to be
- Security
Historical Developments
Oldest first1988
NATO issued a formal definition of command and control as exercise of authority over assigned resources
NATO defined command and control as the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated individual over assigned resources in pursuit of a common goal. The formulation became a reference point for allied doctrine, with the Australian Defence Force adopting a closely similar definition stressing lawful authority over assigned forces. Agreed terminology of this kind underpins interoperable joint doctrine and procedures between allies.
1999
United States Army defined C2 in Field Manual 3-0 as authority exercised by a designated commanding officer
Versions of US Army Field Manual 3-0 circulating around 1999 set out command and control as the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commanding officer over assigned and attached forces in accomplishing a mission. Codifying the concept in capstone doctrine fixed the terms on which American forces organise decision-making.
2010
US Department of Defense Dictionary elaborated C2 as performed through personnel, equipment, communications and facilities
The edition of the Dictionary amended through April 2010 specified that command and control functions are performed through an arrangement of personnel, equipment, communications, facilities and procedures employed by a commander in planning, directing, coordinating and controlling forces and operations. This tied the abstract notion of command to the concrete systems and networks that enable it.
Recent Developments
Most recent first2015
Vassiliou, Alberts and Agre advanced a broader definition of C2 as organisational and technical attributes and processes
The military scientists Marius Vassiliou, David S. Alberts and Jonathan R. Agre defined command and control as a set of organisational and technical attributes and processes employing human, physical and information resources to solve problems and accomplish missions. The formulation extended C2 beyond strictly military hierarchies to enterprises generally, reflecting the growing information-centric view of the capability.
2014
US Department of Defense Dictionary dropped the elaborating sentence from its command and control entry
In the edition amended through 15 August 2014 the sentence describing C2 as performed through an arrangement of personnel, equipment, communications, facilities and procedures was removed from the entry. The revision narrowed the official American definition of the capability.