“Serverless communications” has become a hot buzzword in the defense tech world lately — but what does it actually mean? What are the pros and cons of serverless computing? Is serverless becoming a required capability at the tactical edge? And more importantly, is it really something the tactical community needs right now? Let’s dig into what serverless really is, how it’s being used (or not used) in military communications, and where REDCOM stands on the path toward serverless functionality.
What does “serverless” actually mean?
At first glance, “serverless” sounds like there are no servers involved at all — but that’s not quite true. In computing terms, “serverless” means that the user or application doesn’t have to manage a dedicated or centralized server. The system is distributed, flexible, and often self-organizing.
In the tactical communications world, “serverless” usually refers to communication systems that allow users at the edge to operate without needing to connect back to a core system or distant infrastructure. Units can still talk, coordinate, and share data — even if they’re completely disconnected from higher echelons or the cloud.
Ultimately, the goal is resilient, autonomous, edge-based communications that keep warfighters connected when it matters most.
Is “serverless” really serverless?
Many so-called “serverless” solutions aren’t completely serverless. They might not rely on a persistent, centralized server, but they often use something like a proxy server to establish and manage clients.
Some “serverless” solutions may still rely on a brief initial connection to a server to initialize sessions and provide certain services. Once established, users likely communicate peer-to-peer, typically across a MANET or mesh radio network, but the system isn’t entirely free of server dependencies.
So, while “serverless” is a convenient label, in reality, it’s often a spectrum of decentralization, not a complete removal of servers altogether.
How does ‘serverless’ functionality apply to tactical communications?
In tactical environments, resiliency and simplicity are crucial. Warfighters and first responders can’t always rely on cloud services, centralized servers, or even reliable network backhaul. That’s why the idea of serverless communications is appealing: if every node can communicate directly without requiring a hub, operations can continue even when the rest of the network is down.
In practice, this type of architecture is usually achieved through MANET (Mobile Ad Hoc Networks) or mesh networking, where every node acts as both a transmitter and receiver. Radios capable of providing data networking can also support voice over IP — meaning that even in isolation, edge users can stay connected.
However, going fully serverless often means losing out on certain centralized capabilities — like call logging, recording, voice translation, and policy enforcement. When connectivity to a central node is reestablished, those logs need to sync back securely, which introduces its own challenges.
How do serverless architectures affect cybersecurity and latency?
Security is another major consideration. In a distributed, serverless setup, there’s no single point to monitor or control the flow of data, which means cyber hygiene and encryption practices become even more critical. Each endpoint must be trusted, authenticated, and capable of operating securely on its own. ZKX Helix is a possible solution for scenarios like this.
Latency can also vary depending on the network topology. Peer-to-peer voice communications over a MANET can introduce additional hurdles, depending on distance and bandwidth. Units must decide if the tradeoff is worth it. They may decide that in certain environments, connectivity matters more than perfect quality.
So where does REDCOM fit into this conversation?
REDCOM’s solutions already provide many of the building blocks for distributed, resilient communications. Our Sigma software maximizes interoperability and thrives in environments with limited or intermittent connectivity. Meanwhile, our XRI product family acts as intelligent radio gateways, bridging disparate networks and waveforms — a crucial step toward enabling serverless-like flexibility at the edge.
For users looking for a tactical comms solution that doesn’t require heavyweight server equipment or limit tactical mobility, then the REDCOM Sigma product line fits the bill. The REDCOM Sigma Client can provide communication without a server connection, and our R&D team is actively working to further enhance this functionality.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is serverless?
There are a few different ways to answer this question. Technically, “serverless” means communications or computing that doesn’t rely on a dedicated, centralized server to operate. In practice, it allows systems to function independently, at the edge, without depending on reach-back connectivity. Now that doesn’t mean that there aren’t servers involved. There are still servers involved — they’re just distributed or temporary rather than fixed and central.
What are the pros and cons of serverless communications?
The biggest advantage is resiliency — units can keep operating even if connectivity to higher networks is lost. It also reduces hardware requirements and simplifies deployment at the edge.
The tradeoffs include loss of centralized logging, call management, and certain automated services. Security, synchronization, and control can also become more complex in fully distributed systems.
Is serverless functionality a ‘must have’ in tactical communications?
It depends on the mission. Some users — especially small, agile teams operating at the edge — benefit from the independence of a serverless setup. Others still need centralized oversight, management, and logging. It’s less about “must-have” and more about having the flexibility to choose the right mode for the mission.
How do other tactical comms providers provide serverless communications?
Other tactical comms providers may use a peer-to-peer architecture built on multicast RTP and MANET networks. However, they may still require initial server connectivity to establish client apps and services. So, while these solutions are often described as “serverless,” it’s more accurate to call them partially serverless. Some features and capabilities, such as voice translation or communicating outside the reach of the local multicast group, might not be available in a serverless setup.
Key Takeaways
- •
“Serverless” doesn’t mean “no servers” — it means operating without dependency on a central one.
- •
Tactical “serverless” solutions often rely on mesh or MANET networks for peer-to-peer communication.
- •
The tradeoff: more resilience and independence, but less centralized control and easier management.
- •
REDCOM’s Sigma, Sigma XRI, and Sigma. Client product lines already deliver many of the core benefits of serverless communication — resiliency, flexibility, and interoperability at the edge.
- •
REDCOM’s R&D team is actively developing new approaches to serverless functionality, ensuring that as the concept matures, our customers will be ready to take advantage of it.
Is serverless the future?
Maybe — but not for everyone, and not for every mission set. The tactical market is just starting to explore what “serverless” could look like in practice. Some users, like parts of the U.S. Army, are curious about the potential benefits. Others recognize that their existing radios and gateways already accomplish similar peer-to-peer communication without needing to rebrand it as “serverless.”
For REDCOM, it’s not about chasing buzzwords. It’s about solving real problems for operators in the field. REDCOM will continue doing what we do best: delivering reliable, flexible, and secure communications — anywhere, anytime, under any conditions.
If you would like to schedule a demo to see our solutions in action, contact sales@redcom.com.
