With the return of great power competition and the possibility of fighting in a communications-denied or -degraded environment, visual communications enhanced with existing technology is worth another look.
In October 2003, the signalman (SM) rating was disestablished and folded into the quartermaster rating. The message the fleet received was clear: Visual communications was obsolete. The result was the demise of visual communications proficiency in all its forms—Morse code flashing light, semaphore, and signal flag hoist.
Partners and allies, however, didn’t get the memo, and the Navy was routinely embarrassed while exercising with NATO partners when it was unable to communicate visually. The Atlantic Fleet implemented weekly in-port visual communications drills, but with only marginal results.
But avoiding professional embarrassment on a passing exercise with a foreign navy is not the point. Rather, by combining a low-tech, traditional, secure form of communications with available, low-cost technology, the Navy can gain an advantage in a high-end fight.
Arcane or Game Changing?
In 1985, before earning my commission, I enlisted in the Naval Reserve and selected the signalman rating. I remember my instructors at SM “A” school emphasizing that visual communications was the most secure means of communicating because of its line-of-sight transmission and extremely low probability of intercept. So how does that apply to today’s naval operations?
Visual communications can reduce the electronic signature of Navy at-sea forces. Of course, visual communications would not be used to direct in-progress tactical engagements. During World War II in the Pacific and through the Cold War, it wasn’t used that way either. Rather, its utility lies in maneuvering forces, transmitting orders, coordinating logistics, and exchanging administrative and scouting information.
Any means of communication that avoids use of the electromagnetic spectrum is a good thing when in conflict with an adversary possessing state-of-the-art intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities and the means to deny or degrade the use of the electromagnetic spectrum by others. Secure, low-signature visual communications when used to transmit mission-command-type orders is a potent tool of stealthy movement and operational employment.
In addition, visual communications is not limited to line of sight. Through the employment of relays, a message can be sent over the horizon while still maintaining secure, low probability of intercept line of sight between the relay ships. Incorporating visual communications into Navy operations would not require a return of the SM rating, nor would it require proficiency in visual communications methods. Technology would see to that, as well as to an increase in the speed of exchange of information.
There’s an App for that
There is a Morse code app for iPhones. One company offers an app that allows the user to type a message on the iPhone, which it then translates to Morse code and sends. The recipient would see the decoded message through the Morse code reader portion of the app.
Applying this concept to shipboard use appears pretty straightforward. One could envision a bridge wing or mast-mounted optical transmitter/receiver linked to a keyboard and computer. Essentially, this would be an automated, computerized signal lamp. The user types a message, hits send, and the optical reader on the receiving ship “sees” the transmission, decodes it, and displays the message. As quickly as an operator sends a chat text, a “flashing light” message of any length could be sent with accuracy, speed, and a level of security that only visual communications can provide.
Computer-assisted visual communications permits the direction and control of naval forces at sea without compromising electromagnetic signatures or being subject to communications denial or degradation by an adversary. Developing a low-cost, low-tech, secure communications capability that leverages commercial off-the-shelf technology is worth exploring.
