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

IFCCS 5.2

Matt_Ubbing

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Came up on a problem with the new burn with the charge changing when going into FFE, when it shouldn't. Got this from LSEC:

"Here is the Log for the Msn I was talking about.  If you scroll down the log you can see right before FFE the computer changed the charge from 5 to 6.  Then the student" had to change it back to charge 5."






Good day all,

I have investigated the problem reported and found there is a problem with IFCCS' auto-charge selection mode. Normally, IFCCS will select the "Optimal" charge which is the charge that can achieve the largest gun-to-target range within 85% of its max range. When new guns are set to fire such as is the case when going to FFE, IFCCS will reselect a charge but will try to keep the original charge ("Previous then Optimal" mode). It should only change charge when a violation occurs such as max range is exceeded, a crest clearance or air corridor problem . In the scenario submitted by 11Fd, this is not the case. In this scenario, the range to target increases only by 250-300m but IFCCS changes the charge although the previous charge could accommodate another 1300m increase in range. The technical analysis is completed yet but it seems that IFCCS remains in "Optimal" mode instead of "Previous then Optimal" when it reselects a charge.  I do not believe this problem will occur very often but the units should be made aware of it. A problem report has been raised and this will be corrected in the next version of IFCCS .

Workaround: If the problem arises, the user should go the User Charge Selection mode and force the charge back of its previous setting.
 

Peter @ LSEC

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Did this problem go away in IFCCS 5.3?
I would be interested to see the log otherwise...

Thanks,

Peter
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
5
Points
380
The latest version was used throughout RST in Meaford this year; no reported bugs, far as I know, but will check the tech net next week during Stalwart Guardian
The unit I'm with will be mortars throughout the Ex and I don't believe there's too much experience using it yet with the 81; I'll post an update after the Ex
(any info will be sent to our G4 and School contact) 
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
5
Points
380
There are some problems, mostly with the way the information is flashing and displaying data
During ex a chg error possibly being fired as a result.
Still in field so I'll send more info on redeployment
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
5
Points
380
The charge error fired by the C3 Bty is still under investigation, and I wasn' t there when it happened, so I can't make any comment on why it might've happened.

I did, however, see a couple of times when IFCCS automatically changed charge and then displayed a warning dialog window with the Mortar Pl . I seen it happen at least twice, and it almost led to charge errors being fired during a fire plan. This approach of allowing the system to change the charge without a prompt from the user is wrong, besides which the operator can easily miss that the system has done this
Should the end of the optimum range be reached for the chg orginally selected, the system should just advise the operator of this, and that's it, it should not change the charge itself. Once the user ack's the warning dialog, then the operator must either continue using original charge they started the mission with, or force the charge the IFFCS recommended into use.

I know some will make the argument that CPO just needs to acknowledge the warning dialog and accept the charge selected by IFCCS. This can often be unworkable if the safety restrictions prohibit using a higher charge, and then the operator has to waste time forcing the charge back to what it was, albeit not the optimum charge.
The other thing; what's with all the flashing sig log data in the Fire Mission mode?
From a human factors point of view there is so much flashing now that it draws the operator's attention to nothing in particular, and the tech's now have a tendency to jump through steps just to stop it from blinking. This can lead to the bad habit of not letting the CP supervisor know what he's doing. This bad habit can then carry over to other times when something else important pop's up, like a warning dialog that says the charge has been automatically changed

Some other minor issues
- 81mm Ammo selection identifies WPSmk as a type to be selected for preferences, but this type of ammo doesn't exist in inventory for the 81, there is only Red Phosphorus (RP)
- warning dialog that says: "met is not valid when direction entered exceeds 1000mils between met lines when there is a wind speed of 10kts or greater". From the dialog description it sounds like it's talking about wind shear, which can happen. In any case, if the operator ack's the warning dialog, and continues to use the same supposedly invalid met, what's the point of displaying the warning dialog?
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
55
Points
480
Who wrote the program - Mullah Omar?

To my tiny mind, this is a dangerous situation and the use of the program should be halted until it can be fixed. Maybe I'm being over dramatic, but can you imagine what could have happened in the Sandbox with a computer program that changed charge on its own during a FM? There are enough things that can go wrong on a gun position without adding something like this.
 

Gunner109

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This is a reason, that the top two lines are read allowed to ensure everything is still good to go before firing and that the first rd of adj and FFE are map checked.  The senior supervisor ( The NCM ) would know this.
 
Top