• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A question for the CP techs/CP Supr/Tech WO's

Matt_Ubbing

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Well, as most of us know. The backup to IFCCS, is another IFCCS, then MAPS, or at least that's what's taught nowadays. I had this challenge come upon me when trying to Acquire 2 more CF-30's as we only have 2 and will require 2 per CP minimum with Mortars. Which pub. does it say that in?

All I have gotten so far, from the IFCCS Precis:

To produce Correction of the moment.  If the Manual Artillery Plotting System (MAPS) become the IFCCS backup because that backup cannot be another computer it may be necessary to calculate and print the corrections of the moment by means of the Met manager.  If a failure of the principal computer occurs, these corrections, depending of the validity of the Met message that was used, could be used with the MAPS. (IFCCS Precis 4.2.1, Ch 2[46])

b. Weapon system.  The technician will select the correct weapon system. The application will display a warning message that IFCCS databases will be automatically deleted and re-set when a new weapon system is selected.  (Figure 2-4)  (IFCCS Precis Chap 2, 2.7 )


Would this be enough to justify having 2x CF-30's per CP (We have 2 CP's)? I'm pretty sure it's a standard to have 2 per cp anyway. Otherwise apparently I'm on glue.
 

GnyHwy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I am not sure what your question is, but do what your told.  Iniative will always trump doctrine; that is why it is called iniative.  Are you suggesting that pubs should be changed everytime someone comes up with a good idea?

If you are not entitled to more CPUs, write a memo stating why you need more.  If you are looking for references to support your arguerment, you will not find them;  ensure your memo explains why you need them in detail.
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
5
Points
380
Incidentally, the original reason IFCCS was built with the ability to calculate C of M (in the met section, not the fire mission tab) was to allow the quick production of generic safety officer corrections, not for the possibility of being used as back up. Some have thought of using it to do exactly what you're suggesting in case the computers do fail. The drawback of course ( as your ref points out) is the C of M corrections are only as good as the expected duration of Met message, after that then what? So in the end, if it looks like your computer is about to give up the ghost, you best get ready to start going "oh manual", and receiving ballistic met

Gunner 78, I've heard that same statement over the years, many times, going back to "the replacement for MiliPAC is another MiliPAC". It wasn't written anywhere back then, and I highly doubt it is anywhere now.
I suppose what the concept is, really, is that eventually a broke computer gets replaced, but typically its done through the supply system not "on the spot"
I thought the Excalibur fuse kit has a back up computer. I suppose if that were available, and there was a way to keep it powered, it could be used until a replacement could be delivered. Otherwise, the reality, while you're waiting for your replacement CF30, is to shoot MAPS.
Here's a good for instance.
In 2007, a Gun Tp deployed in Afghanistan lost all ability to power their computers, any of them, and so had to resort to old fashioned MAPS for about a week, until a generator was brought out on a CLP. 

One way to let people know the problem you're talking about, is through the UCR process. This is a formal reporting procedure, and if you were to pursue that I suggest in addition to stating the need to back up your computing device, you should also make the need for a second computer for mortars clear; I doubt that's ever been officially addressed either

The procurement folks in Ottawa, especially in DLR, can't change the number of whatever unless it has the info from the field force, and believe it or not UCR's do help do that.

I encourage you to do it for another reason, the shortage of CP's we have
There is quite a hodge-podge of CP's being used by Artillery units, both Reg and P Res. It goes back to when the M109's were turned in and so were many of the M577's, and nothing replaced them. Then the shuffling, and make do, began.
I'm not sure where the "Corps" is at in dealing with that anymore. Certainly stating what the requirement in the CP is formally, or even if its just a UCR dealing with computing devices, digitally linked and not, will at least help identify/define the need better.


 

Bruce Monkhouse

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
643
Points
1,040
Petard, question from a very long ago tech,....you use 'MAPS' like it is an acrynom for something, and I'm curious if I'm reading that right.
In my day "maps" would have meant just that....
 

Matt_Ubbing

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
MAPS=manual artillery plotting system

UCR eh... I think I might do that. Cp supr hat off, qm hat on!

You know I'm surprised there isn't a CIG directive on the requirement to have separate computing devices when multiple weapons systems are on the gun position. I mean, for the supervisors, it's obvious, but for some new tech, I could see them being like, "time to change the weapon system" and then of course the supr starts layin into the tech for pushin buttons when he's not supposed to, lol. I get the feeling this will probably be stated whenever they publish a new précis.
 
Top