Decision dominance depends on trusted communication

A strategic guide for defense leaders, CIOs, CISOs, architects, and acquisition teams—authored by Pexip experts.

Download the PDF

What you'll learn

The technical requirements

that define mission-ready video, from DDIL resilience and FMN-aligned interoperability to sovereign deployment, policy enforcement, and auditability.

How secure video supports three critical defense scenarios

mission collaboration, defense industrial programs, and enterprise coordination across classified and unclassified environments.

Why data-centric security matters for modern defense collaboration

including how identity, attributes, classification, and policy can govern across missions, partners, and national boundaries.

Executive summary

Military operations today are global in reach and increasingly multi-domain by default, spanning not only land, air, and sea, but also cyber and space. As the threat environment becomes more dynamic and operational tempo accelerates, the ability to share information, maintain alignment, and coordinate timely responses across distributed teams has become a critical differentiator.

In fluid coalition environments, trusted communication that can be established and scaled at speed is vital. Secure video has become a part of how defense organizations build shared situational understanding, coordinate across distance, and make decisions with speed and confidence.

This guide presents secure video as mission-critical infrastructure by examining how it enables key capabilities across three defense scenarios: mission collaboration from the firm base to the tactical edge, defense industrial collaboration, and defense enterprise collaboration.

Across each mission environment, the requirements are the same. Communication must be trusted, resilient, interoperable, and under mission-owner control.

Why secure video is now mission infrastructure

Modern defense depends on decisions made across distance, organizations, and security domains. Information must move in real-time in contested environments, from the tactical edge to operational and strategic decision-makers, across different networks and at everyclassification level. The most sensitive information must remain sovereign. Other information must move between mission partners without breaking trust, policy, or operational momentum. The speed and quality of that communication affect the speed and quality of the decisions that follow.

Previous military communication models relied heavily on radio and short text-based tactical messaging. Those methods still matter, particularly in constrained environments. But the volume, richness, and speed of information now required is fundamentally different. Digital maps, live planning, shared screens, and video-based coordination give commanders and teams a far fuller operating picture than voice or written messages alone can provide. This is especially important in coalition environments. Teams may come from different nations and organizations. They may not share the same primary language. Under those conditions, visual communication reduces ambiguity and supports faster alignment.

This places a different set of requirements on the collaboration platform.

In defense, a video platform must be assessed as part of the operational communications stack.

For procurement teams, the core question is whether the video platform can operate as mission infrastructure. This means working in degraded, disrupted, intermittent, and low-bandwidth (DDIL) conditions; across legacy, coalition, and mission systems; enforcing access by identity attributes, classification, and policy; and remaining under mission-owner control in sovereign, private, or air-gapped environments. A defense-grade collaboration platform must be able to support secure decision-making without becoming another point of operational friction.

Scenario one

Mission collaboration from headquarters to the deployed edge

The first and most operationally visible scenario is mission collaboration between a headquarters element, a forward-deployed command function, and units operating in the field.

These teams work from shared intent, but not from the same location, network, or operational picture. Conditions change quickly. Situational awareness must be refreshed in real time. Plans need to be adapted without delay.

In that environment, the collaboration layer must support real-time briefing, screensharing, chat, digital maps, and visual coordination across operational and deployed users. That becomes more demanding as command structures become more dispersed.

Modern conflict is driving more dispersed command models.

The conflict following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine has raised the technical bar for video in mission environments. Never has the need to span any platform, device, or network been so vital on the battlefield. Smaller, distributed units operating under constant drone and long-range strike threats in high electromagnetic threat environments must rely on real-time video to stay connected with command structures. The ability to deliver resilient video services over both military communication networks and fixed civilian infrastructure (spanning fixed fiber, mobile technology, and commercial satellite) in a layered multi-bearer battlefield network is essential. The platform must function in low-bandwidth, high-latency, and degraded environments while remaining usable across dispersed users and changing network conditions.

At the operational level, coalition interoperability becomes central.

NATO’s Federated Mission Networking (FMN) framework addresses the interoperability problem created when allied national Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems are jointly deployed. A video platform used in this allied environment therefore must support mission partner interoperability in communication, enabling organizations and networks to work together with confidence. FMN alignment matters here because the operational mission layer depends on secure connectivity between national and NATO systems.

Data-centric interoperability in action: Operation HIGHMAST

During Operation HIGHMAST, the recent high-profile mission led by the UK Carrier StrikeGroup (CSG), video was used to support mission planning and exercise coordination, giving the multinational task force a reliable way to work together across allied networks. HIGHMAST also highlighted the operational value of a data-centric approach, where security, policy, and releasability stay attached to the information itself. In coalition operations, where access requirements change constantly across classifications, national boundaries, and mission roles, that approach offers a more flexible and scalable way to share information securely.

For defense buyers, this suggests a broader set of requirements.

A mission-capable video platform should:

Features

Pexip

Support low-bandwidth, high-latency, and DDIL conditions

Operate across boundaries, classifications, and requirements - connecting users across tactical, operational and fixed networks

Offer full functionality in fully air-gapped, TOP SECRET use cases

Work in an assured manner across security domains

Be future-proofed for data-centric security

Support secure integration with surrounding collaboration, identity, and assurance capabilities

Meet security and compliance requirements without slowing collaboration

Be future-proofed for data-centric security

The UK Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) is a strong example.

A huge number of suppliers may be responsible for different parts of a complex aircraft development project in a program like the GCAP, but they still need to work off the same designs, align decisions, address risk, and move forward together. In practice, that means engineers and stakeholders in different locations may need to stay on a secure video call while viewing or manipulating design data in real time. That places a much higher burden on collaboration technology than a standard enterprise meeting does.

This challenge extends beyond unauthorized access to a meeting.

In some cases, that requires self-hosted deployment. In others, sovereign private clouds or air-gapped environments are necessary. The world’s leading hyperscaler cloud providers are increasingly promoting their services as relevant to secure workloads, something most people thought impossible a few years ago. The common requirement is that the collaboration model must match the security and contractual demands of the program, often requiring purpose-built solutions to support these complex contexts.

When integrated properly, secure video delivers clear operational value in this environment.

It can shorten engineering review cycles, reduce unnecessary travel, help protect intellectual property, improve coordination across partners, and support faster program alignment. In sensitive settings, that value also depends on the surrounding collaboration ecosystem. Additional safeguards such as deepfake detection can help reduce the risk of impersonation or synthetic media in high-trust conversations, while AI controls can support real-time assistance without exposing sensitive data to public models. This makes open architecture and secure integration increasingly important where collaboration spans multiple systems, partners, and security requirements.

For defense buyers, this leads to a more specific set of industrial collaboration requirements.

The video platform should:

Features

Pexip

Support regulated, high trust-work across organizational boundaries

Run across self-hosted, private cloud, and approved hyperscaler cloudenvironments, such as AWS Top Secret Enclaves (TSE)

Work securely across customer authorities, primes, subcontractors, and specialist suppliers

Enforce access based on identity, attributes, and policy

Maintain control over data, align with policy, and enable integration

Support secure integration with surrounding collaboration, identity, and assurance capabilities

Meet security and compliance requirements without slowing collaboration

Be future-proofed for data-centric security

The third scenario is defense enterprise collaboration,

This is internal collaboration within defense enterprises, and it often involves the most complex requirements. Large defense enterprises work across government departments, services, commands, sites, classifications, industrial partners and, often, generations of infrastructure. Legacy meeting room systems often play an important role. Modern collaboration platforms may be in use elsewhere. Some conversations take place on unclassified enterprise networks, while others must remain fully inside sovereign or classified environments.

That makes defense enterprise collaboration fundamentally different from a typical commercial environment.

In this scenario, video supports secure coordination across headquarters, commands, crisis-response functions, and distributed teams. This may include leadership communication, operational planning, secure internal briefings, and cross-site collaboration in environments where reliability, access control, and auditability all matter.

For many defense enterprises, that coordination also has to extend beyond video alone. Secure chat integration, for example with platforms such as Rocket.Chat and Mattermost, can help connect messaging and meetings inside existing workflows. Real-time transcription and translation can support multinational coordination where speed and clarity matter across language boundaries. And as state-level deception techniques continue to evolve, capabilities such as deepfake detection are becoming increasingly relevant in higher-trust environments where identity assurance matters.

Self-hosting and sovereignty are central to this scenario.

Many defense organizations need communication capabilities that remain fully within their own infrastructure, particularly for SECRET or TOP SECRET systems. They need to know where their data is, how policy is enforced, and how the system is governed over time.

For defense buyers, this leads to a specific set of enterprise collaboration requirements.

The video platform should:

Features

Pexip

Fits within national security boundaries

Supports separation between classified and unclassified operating environments where required

Supports access management, policy enforcement, auditability, and secure integration into wider collaboration workflows

Gives operational control to the mission owner

What all three scenarios have in common

Mission collaboration, defense industrial collaboration, and defense enterprise collaboration each have a unique set of challenges. But the closer you look, the more their requirements converge.

The platform must be resilient.

In defense, resilience means more than service uptime in a normal office environment. It means supporting degraded conditions, low-bandwidth scenarios, distributed architectures, and operational environments where a single failure cannot be allowed to disrupt communication.

It must be secure by design.

Encryption matters, but it is only one part of thepicture. Defense environments also require strong identity controls, policy-based access, least-privilege enforcement, clear classification handling, and fullauditability. Increasingly, they also require a data-centric security approach, where access is governed by identity, attributes, classification, and policy rather than by network location alone.

It must be interoperable across technology and international boundaries by default.

Defense organizations cannot assume a single platform, a single endpointtype, or a single network model. Interoperability has to extend across legacy VTC, modern collaboration systems, mission applications, partner environments, and coalition structures.

It must be deployable under mission-owner control.

Defense organizations need the freedom to choose where the system runs, how it is governed, how it is updated, and how it integrates into wider security architecture. That control is increasingly important in a world shaped by sovereignty demands, zero-trust principles, and supply-chain risk.

Pexip supports all three defense scenarios through a combination of deployment flexibility, interoperability, and mission-owner control.

Defense customers rarely have the option of starting from scratch. They need a platform that can work across legacy video teleconferencing (VTC), modern platforms, mission applications, and varied endpoint types. In mission environments, that extends to support for FMN-aligned interoperability and integration into command-and-control and wider command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) environments.

Pexip can be deployed on premises, in private or sovereign cloud environments, or in air-gapped settings where required.

Pexip’s fit with defense also comes from its support of data-centric security.

In defense environments, access often has to reflect classification, nationality, releasability, mission role, and other operational attributes. Pexip supports a data-centric security approach that enforces access based on identity, attributes, and policy rather than relying on broad, static permissions or network locations. That is supported by role-based access control (RBAC), attribute-based access control (ABAC), classification labels, granular policy-based admission, and full audit trails.

The security model is reinforced by the surrounding control framework.

Pexip supports secure identity integration, policy enforcement, and deployment under customer control, including customer-owned keys where required. That flexibility also extends to wider integrations. In defense enterprise and industrial environments, Pexip can form part of broader secure workflows through integrations with surrounding collaboration and security capabilities, including secure chat platforms, language support, AI controls, and identity-assurance technologies. This is where open architecture becomes especially important: defense organizations rarely need a standalone meeting tool, but a secure collaboration layer that can fit into existing systems, workflows, and security models. Examples include secure chat integrations such as Rocket.Chat and Mattermost, real-time translation to support international interoperability with Pexip Private AI, and deepfake detection through iProov in environments where verification and trust are increasingly important.

For defense organizations, that combination of interoperability, deployment sovereignty, auditability, data-centric security, and integration flexibility is what makes secure collaboration workable across mission, enterprise, and industrial environments.

Procurement checklist for
defense teams

When evaluating whether a video collaboration platform qualifies as mission infrastructure, defense procurement teams should ask five practical questions.

1. Can we deploy it on our terms?

Can it run on premises, in a sovereign or private cloud, or fully air-gapped where required? Can we retain control over governance, policy, and upgrades?

2. Will it work across our environment?

Can it interoperate with legacy VTC, modern collaboration platforms, mission systems, and mixed endpoint types without creating new silos?

3. Is it secure at the policy level?

Does it support strong authentication, granular access control, classification-aware workflows, audit trails, and least-privilege enforcement?

4. Can it support mission and coalition operations?

Is it suited to low-bandwidth or contested environments, and can it support interoperability across mission partners and operational structures?

5. Does it reduce long-term dependency risk?

Will it keep the organization in control of data, architecture, and future integrations, or will it create lock-in that becomes a liability later?

The new standard for defense collaboration

Defense organizations are being asked to move faster, coordinate more broadly, and operate with greater assurance than ever before. Missions are more distributed, coalition operations are more important, and industrial programs increasingly span borders, partner organizations, and supply chains. At the same time, secure internal collaboration remains critical across services, commands, and classifications.

Communication cannot be treated as a background service.

Secure video now belongs in the category of mission infrastructure because it supports the speed, context, and trust that modern defense work requires. It helps commanders make decisions with greater clarity. It helps mission partners coordinate across distance. It helps industrial teams work securely on sensitive programs. It helps defense enterprises operate across complex internal estates without fragmentation. That includes integrating video with the wider collaboration, identity, and assurance capabilities that modern defense environments increasingly require.

In modern defense, decision dominance not only depends on access to information, but on the ability to share, interpret, and act on that information securely across missions, partners, and command structures.

Across all three defense scenarios, the standard is becoming clearer.

The collaboration layer must be resilient, secure, interoperable, and controlled by the mission owner. That is what defense organizations should expect, and what their collaboration platforms should be built to meet.

Built on operational experience

Authored by Pexip defense experts

Nick Ross

Director of Defense & National Security at Pexip

10+ years UK Armed Forces
Specializes in bridging operational realities and critical communication

Mel Green

Defense & Intelligence specialist, Pexip

25 years+ British Army officer
Extensive experience in operational planning and intelligence
MSc in Modern Warfare

Download the guide to take with you

The full 11-page guide includes detailed scenario analysis, data-centric security frameworks, Pexip's technical architecture for defense, and the complete procurement checklist.

Download a pdf version

This form could not be displayed because of your browser’s settings. Please adjust your browser’s privacy controls to allow embedded forms, or try opening this page in a different browser.

Follow the instructions for your browser to fix the problem:

Decision dominance depends on trusted communication

Table of Contents

What you'll learn

The technical requirements

How secure video supports three critical defense scenarios

Why data-centric security matters for modern defense collaboration

Executive summary

Why secure video is now mission infrastructure

This places a different set of requirements on the collaboration platform.

Scenario one

Mission collaboration from headquarters to the deployed edge

The first and most operationally visible scenario is mission collaboration between a headquarters element, a forward-deployed command function, and units operating in the field.

Modern conflict is driving more dispersed command models.

At the operational level, coalition interoperability becomes central.

Data-centric interoperability in action: Operation HIGHMAST

For defense buyers, this suggests a broader set of requirements.

In mission environments, the collaboration layermust become part of the operational workflowrather than sit outside it.

Scenario two

Defense industrial collaboration across programs, partners, and supply chains

The UK Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) is a strong example.

This challenge extends beyond unauthorized access to a meeting.

Granular policy control is important in this scenario.

When integrated properly, secure video delivers clear operational value in this environment.

For defense buyers, this leads to a more specific set of industrial collaboration requirements.

In defense industrial programs, the core value of secure video is in helping partners move faster while staying within strict security and control requirements.

Scenario three

Defense enterprise collaborationacross commands, classifications, and legacy estates

The third scenario is defense enterprise collaboration,

That makes defense enterprise collaboration fundamentally different from a typical commercial environment.

Self-hosting and sovereignty are central to this scenario.

For defense buyers, this leads to a specific set of enterprise collaboration requirements.

In defense enterprise collaboration, secure video must support everyday coordination without weakening sovereignty or control.

What all three scenarios have in common

The platform must be resilient.

It must be secure by design.

It must be interoperable across technology and international boundaries by default.

It must be deployable under mission-owner control.

How Pexip supports this shift

Pexip supports all three defense scenarios through a combination of deployment flexibility, interoperability, and mission-owner control.

Pexip’s fit with defense also comes from its support of data-centric security.

The security model is reinforced by the surrounding control framework.

Procurement checklist for defense teams

1. Can we deploy it on our terms?

2. Will it work across our environment?

3. Is it secure at the policy level?

4. Can it support mission and coalition operations?

5. Does it reduce long-term dependency risk?

The new standard for defense collaboration

Communication cannot be treated as a background service.

Across all three defense scenarios, the standard is becoming clearer.

The collaboration layer must be resilient, secure, interoperable, and controlled by the mission owner. That is what defense organizations should expect, and what their collaboration platforms should be built to meet.

Built on operational experience

Nick Ross

Mel Green

Download the guide to take with you

Defense enterprise collaboration
across commands, classifications, and legacy estates

Procurement checklist for
defense teams