In Simple Terms
The United States, Japan, and Australia are working to help their military forces share information more easily. Recent exercises show progress, but the systems still do not work together perfectly. Better connections matter even more as forces use more drones and other tools that collect information.
When Forces Cannot Share Messages
Shared communications matter most when units from different countries are working together. During a three-country exercise in Japan, U.S., Japanese, and Australian forces struggled to exchange voice messages and data. Their systems could not give everyone a common view of what was happening, so participants had to enter symbols or other information by hand into a separate system to display it together.
General Ronald Clark, commander of U.S. Army forces in the Pacific, described the incident a month after taking up his post. The problem was more than a slow connection: without a direct way to exchange data, the forces found it difficult to build a shared operational picture. That picture brings together what the forces know about their locations and activity in the exercise area, rather than leaving each side to rely on separate or delayed information.
Clark pointed to a striking contrast between advanced defense cooperation and the practical reality of communication among ground forces. He had attended a signing ceremony in Washington related to the AUKUS agreement, which includes the sharing of sensitive defense technologies. Yet in the field, forces sometimes still had to move information manually from one workstation to another. The point is not that advanced technology is entirely absent, but that partner systems have not always been able to exchange data in the way joint exercises require.
A Network That Reaches Beyond Any One System
For years, the U.S. military has been developing and testing communication pathways that allied and partner forces could rely on during a crisis or conflict in the region. One effort is the Pacific Mission Network, a broader network under U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. Previously known as the INDOPACOM Mission Network, it operates at a wider strategic or operational level than communications between individual units.
The network is not a single device that solves every communications problem. Instead, it is a way to connect different military working environments and networks so they can exchange information. The infrastructure links dozens of countries. Through it, the U.S. Army has tested whether it can send information and access the same data its allies and partners can see. The practical goal is to narrow the gap between the information each organization holds and what others can access.
Making a technical connection is only part of what makes this kind of network useful. Data must reach the right people in a form they can use, and it must support the needs of command and coordination. When several partners share information, they can build a more consistent understanding of what is happening. That is preferable to each side making decisions from its own picture, which may be incomplete or differ from the picture available to its partners.
Two Tests, Two Different Settings
This year’s exercises gave the network two practical tests, but in different environments. During Balikatan, a large-scale exercise, the United States, Australia, and Japan used the Pacific Mission Network to get a real-time view of participating forces across the exercise area. According to the U.S. Army, the exercise allowed information to be tracked as forces operated across a physical training area and at multiple levels.
Months later, the three countries met again for Yama Sakura 91, an annual military exercise with Japan and Australia that ended on 10 September. This exercise focused on sharing simulated information in real time during a command-post exercise. The distinction matters: Balikatan tested the display of live information in a field-training environment, while Yama Sakura 91 focused on the exchange of simulated data in a command-center scenario.
Neither test can stand in for the other. A command-post exercise lets forces examine how information moves between levels of command in a simulated scenario. A field exercise, by contrast, can reveal the challenges of sharing data while troops are moving and spread across a real area. In the Army’s account, the exercises demonstrated two different forms of real-time information sharing: one involving simulated information, and the other involving live data across a physical training area and multiple levels.
Using the network in more than one type of exercise can provide a broader picture of what it can do. Successfully moving data in a simulated scenario does not, on its own, prove that communications will work the same way in the field. Likewise, sharing information at a training site does not automatically answer every question about coordinating command. The exercises are valuable because each tested something different, not because they were identical steps in the same test.
What Does It Mean for Allies to See the Same Picture?
One result Clark highlighted was that partner systems had become able to exchange data in ways that had not been possible before. This matters because commanders can send information that can help with targeting, while also building a shared operational picture, without relying as heavily on manually moving information between workstations.
Sharing data does not mean that any partner gives up its own systems or responsibilities. It can, however, make important information available to the people who need it within a shared context. If a naval commander receives data relevant to events on land, for example, those details can become part of broader coordination among forces instead of remaining inside one organization’s system. That depends both on the network’s ability to carry the data and on partners’ ability to incorporate it into their work.
Clark illustrated this kind of coordination with the example of Major General Bernard Harrington, who leads the Multi-Domain Command-Pacific and the 7th Infantry Division. Harrington can bring together information related to long-range precision fires, sensors, space capabilities, electronic warfare, and cyber capabilities, then share it with Admiral Stephen Koehler, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, who led the exercise. The information can then be considered in a shared context across the forces.
The broader point is to connect different kinds of information and capabilities in a way that helps forces coordinate. Sensor data, land-based capabilities, and information related to space or electronic operations do not serve the same purpose. But sharing them can give commanders a more complete view of what is available. How useful that view becomes still depends on what the network can carry and how commanders choose to use the information—not simply on gathering data in one place.
A Technology Shift as Drones Join the Mix
The Pacific network is being developed alongside the U.S. Army’s effort to bring more technologies and sources of data into its forces, including drones. As more devices monitor activity or collect information, forces need to know what those devices are seeing, control them, and make use of the data they produce.
Drones add another source of information, but their presence alone does not make that information useful to the force as a whole. If data stays in a channel that partners or relevant commanders cannot access, it may not help build a shared picture. If it can be passed along and combined with information from other sources, however, sharing data among forces may become increasingly important as the range of tools used in the field expands.
So the question is not just whether the Army can operate a device or collect its data. It is also how to connect devices and information to the chain of command and partner forces. The more varied the sources of data become, the more important it is to know who can access the data, how it reaches those people, and whether they can use it in their plans. These operational and technical issues overlap, making communications a central part of readiness testing in multinational exercises.
Real Progress, but No Final Fix
Clark has described the change as addressing a source of frustration that persisted for years, and he sees the network as an important innovation in this area. But the exercises show progress in passing and sharing information; they do not prove that every participating country’s systems now work alike or that all the challenges of operating together have disappeared.
Exercises test specific capabilities under known conditions and give forces a chance to find out what works and what needs improvement. The tests included sharing simulated information in command centers, as well as passing live information across a field-training area and at more than one level. These are significant results because they show that the effort has moved beyond theory: the network has been tested in exercises involving several countries.
The network’s effectiveness also depends on how forces prepare to use it. Technology provides a channel for exchanging data, but turning that data into decisions and coordination requires participants to understand what they receive and how to incorporate it into their work. Building a shared capability therefore involves developing communications, testing them, and training with partners in different settings.
The Bottom Line
The United States, Japan, and Australia are trying to move from unreliable information-sharing to communications that let their forces exchange data and work from a more widely shared operational picture. Balikatan 26 tested real-time information sharing across a field-training area, while Yama Sakura 91, which ended on 10 September, focused on exchanging simulated information during a command-post exercise. The Army said the network enabled sharing that had not been possible before, supporting coordination across land, naval, and other forces.
This effort matters even more as the Army adopts more technologies, particularly drones, and must move, understand, and use the data they generate. Better communications do not mean that integration is complete: exercises remain a way to test the network’s practical limits and improve cooperation. The wider goal is for participating forces to exchange the information they need at the right time, rather than having to transfer it by hand between separate systems.