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

Voice or Data

elscotto937

Member
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Here is a question, to the gunners. With the improved comms in the system, should we be even sending missions (both OP to CP and CP to Guns) by voice. Does voice have any advantage or should we be strictly data. Or should it be some sort of strange combination of the two(From the CP end who remembers GACS Fire Discipline). If a mixture is the decision then what is to be passed via voice or data link. Also, if all missions are being tallied directly into the computer system, then should we even have FOO or could they be replaced by fire support officers who simply enter data. Just curious to know what everyone thinks....

Scott
 
If the role of the FOO was simply data input, we could have replaced them long ago. Basically, training NCOs and officers in all arms to execute the basic call for fire achieves the simple ‘data input‘ requirement over a voice network. Beyond that there are functions the FOO is trained for that go past simple data entry functions; such as development and control of fire plans, and advising manoeuvre arm commanders on the role and employment of available fire support resources.

With regard to the transmission of data: Even as automated systems for input, transmission and development of fire mission data improve, we should retain the basic systems (voice and individually controlled computational devices or computers) and the necessary skills for those times when technology fails.
 
I agree with keeping some type of voice communication. nothing can express to sit rep better than the articulation of the person speaking. As for orders from CP to Guns, there must be a system in place for people to talk and to confirm data. GACS was an old system that was not used very well, but I still feel that voice is a good way to go.
 
I‘ve heard artillery nets are pretty nuts anyway...
 
Shortt, I completely agree that some form of voice is required, because a computer read out cannot accurately describe the dire situation that the supported arm might be in. Voice creates a sense of urgency in the person executing the fire orders.

Yeah, arty nets can get pretty crazy but believe it or not the TCCCS has made the management of nets easier, well at least in the CP.

Micheal, I think we are re-teaching the other arms, slowly, the advantages of their artillery advisor
 
Scott, While I was on LFTSP, my project team proved that voice and data could co-exist on an artillery net. This was in a lab setting, so the TCCCS was functioning at 100%. The procedure of using voice/data great enhanced the time it took to process the call for fire. There was virtually not latency with any text messages marked "priority" (ie Fire missions).

We used a construct of a BC's fire plan, run 6 times using Vx and 6 times using Vx and text. Mission time was reduced by an order of magnitude! It was a hefty projectm and not something I can go into all the details here, but certainly out thoughts were that a mixed voice / data net was the way to go.

The voice command "Fire mission battery" is still used, but then the CP just expects to see an email with the FOO (FEO?) data. Ultimately, I'd like to see this data be computed almost instantly at the CP and converted into gun data. Imagine how fast a FM would go just by eliminating voice readbacks?!



 
I know, I'm just an ex-musclehead.  But I received a briefing in Germany in 2000, on the future of the German artillery.  The FOO, in his modified tank (modified so it has no gun and so on), does his target calculations, and passes all of the information on to the guns digitally.  The system, which supposedly works, is that when the FOO calls for Fire Mission Battery, the best suited battery will receive the order, the others won't.  By best suited, I was told that this included ammo state, condition, as well as location.  Once the FOO is informed (digitally) that he has a battery ready, the fire order is passed both verbally and digitally.

They may have been exaggerating, but they told me that with the PZH 2000, and the weather data and so on already automatically constantly updated, that a battery could have, conceivably, a dozen rounds on the target at the exact same time, with no need for targetting rounds.  Something about each gun firing a three round "burst", at different elevation settings, so that every round landed at the same time. I was also told that the PZH could fire this three round "burst" in ten seconds.

There is no doubt some that have more current information that they may be willing to share.  BTW, I was never told that any of this information is classified in any way, so it may be confirmable on the web.
 
Believe it about the Germans, they have some of the best kit in the world, and best trained soldiers. The bad thing is that we usually don't see them at work or even work with them. They have developed Artillery into such an art that I would be terrified if we went against them. They can do 3rds on the target at the same time from the same gun. the Brits and Americans can also in theory, the nice thing about the Germans is that although they have what I would say the most up to date and technically advanced systems in the world, they still practice the old method of maps and ensure they are proficient in it, if their 2-3 back up systems ever fail they can still shoot and hit the target.
Yes we need to get with the times and use data burst transmission but as stated above nothing is better then a voice on the end of the line piping out that description of the enemy, the Artillery not only destroys and neutralizes the target as part of the all arms battle it is also the eyes and ears of the battle field. In the end I feel that the officers could be better employed co-ordinating the support and and the NCO can be better employed as the Foo's callin in the fire, A officer in charge of three to four Foo teams with a Wo or Sgt as the Foo's with a Mbdr as the tech would be a good combination. this is my opinion and my opinion only.
 
Ultimately, I'd like to see this data be computed almost instantly at the CP and converted into gun data

Interesting. From FOO to CP I think would go much better than CP to Guns. Acknowledgement from the Guns is also there for a reason. What about questioning funky Gun Data? Occasionally the CP errs, and the Guns question it. Would they question a readout? As far as firing data, the CPO or Tech WO has to review it anyway - or they did - so Computer to Guns would be tricky in that respect too.

Alas, I'm not a Tech, other than virtue of the courses (back then). I'd like to see Gunner, RCA, and Bruce's thoughts too...
 
With any system used, we can not forget, or circumvent the double check (ie - the importance of a read back in a voice system).
 
Yes, Sir - That's what I was alluding to...
 
Muskrat, Thanks for the vote of confidence, but my days of being called a "tech" are probably 5 computing systems old. :'( 
What I do know is from the years I spent in the CP and that everyone on down the line is human, therefore mistakes can be made and the double check of all firing data must still be able to be caught. One computer thinks exactly like the next , so mistakes will not be caught there. Nuff said.
Now having acknowledged that we are human, NOTHING, gets the blood flowing and people moving like the human voice of "Fire Mission Bty." :cdn:
...and just to add some Regt. backpatting I really can't see any system being that much faster than when two Bty. CP.'s are duking it out to be ready first, at least not back in the days of "D" Bty[AMF}L and "E" Bty. [para] :salute:

 
The independant double check is not something that can be ignored, but there is a way to do it instantaneously and electronically. The Germans have a system where dual computers function as data crunchers, with one of the systems working as the "safety officer".

What our team found out was that with voice readbacks, there were actually MORE errors introduced in the CFF. Each time you add another human into the loop, you introduce the possiblity of transcription error. If the FOO and his tech get the target info right the first time, then there is no need to check calculations (ahh, I can hear all you Field Gunners gasping!). But even if the FOO pty does make an error with the tgt grid, the second computer can pick it up (don't anybody task me with explaining how the independant electronic double check works - I don't know).

If anyone is interested in the report I can upload it to another website.



 
We have moved leaps and bounds from the bad old days of megaphones andplotters. Missions are now conduct in minutes as opposed to slow times in the past.

Anything to speed up Fixation and Orientation, Target Acquisition, Data Transmission and Conversion is always good for response times. As long as we don't take short cuts or become a slave to technology. We should never lose the ability to lay a gun by compass, and fire from the Map and TFTs. Of being proficent at map reading

I remember following a Recce Officer (no names, no pack drill) as a Recce TSM, who, going cross country, would stopped every couple of 100 yds, and out would come this hand with a GPS in it. It got to the frustrated point (TTBR was within the 1/2 hr) where I had to pull up beside him, show on the map where we were and point out to him through his windshield were he had to go.
 
Well, we might be making another leap. If we end up with say MOBAT (with autonomous fixation & orientation), and a GDU, we'll be shaving  afew more minutes off the response time. Add a digitized text/data transfer system, and we could shave a few more minutes off. Last time I was between the boards it was using GFT's (milipac had died), yet even today a CFF typically takes 5 minutes. With MOBAT & digitized CFF, I see no reason why we can't have rounds on target in under 1 minute; and I'm talking FFE here - there should be no need to adjust fire with the accuracy of LAV-OPV + MOBAT.

I don't think we'll ever shake the compass and paper map (nor should we) , but I can see that training responsibility being relegated to the Regt's or even to Troop "PD days"
 
I remember following a Recce Officer (no names, no pack drill) as a Recce TSM, who, going cross country, would stopped every couple of 100 yds, and out would come this hand with a GPS in it. It got to the frustrated point (TTBR was within the 1/2 hr) where I had to pull up beside him, show on the map where we were and point out to him through his windshield were he had to go.

Gulp...er...I hope that was't me.  :-[
 
The German Arty has had a combination of voice/data burst in place for over a decade. When the German Arty was deployed in Shilo, their OP's would send the Fire Mission by data burst to their FDC and it would compute the data. The Senior Tech Adviser would then check the Grid of the Tgt and once confirmation was determined to to be safe, he would transmit the data directly to the guns by data transmission. Their FDC personnel did not actually
do much over than physically checking the Grid. The guns were then laid on tgt. This procedure would take less than 2 minutes. Not Bad for a conscript army.
 
Gunner:

Have no fear, at least you knew which side North was on the Map. No he was from much further west, and couldn't find his way out of the "woods"
 
Since I started this thread I have had the chance to fire the first digital msn in the Canadian Artillery, it was completed entirely without voice, and as a functional level it was very effective. It was designed around an OP Client for the IFCCS. Date was inputed at the OP end and transmitted to the CP who hit compute on the IFCCS and transmit, and it was sent to gun display unit. all without voice. Once a link could be made between the TOFCS or directly to the INS, the flow would be even more smooth. This is along way from getting fielded but it is a starting point, and leaves the errors to either software, or to the gun's ability to read the display.
 
Back
Top