Modern field command post of the operational-tactical echelon, deployed in a tent
1. Classification
Unfortunately, our military-scientific minds have not yet created a domestic classification of automated command and control systems. Therefore, in the absence of domestic developments, we will use the classification used in the armies of the most developed English-speaking countries.
And in these countries, it is customary to divide ACCS into several classes depending on the functions performed by the systems - Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Intelligence).
At the same time, we will be mainly interested in the division of systems according to the degree of automation of management processes in accordance with this classification.
It should be noted that the listed military terms used in "their" classification carry meanings that are far from identical to the meanings that, in accordance with our military terminology, we put into these words. But more on that later.
Display of the tactical situation on the computer screen in the operational control link (for subordinate units)
In the meantime, we are simply stating the fact that any automated control system belongs to a certain class in accordance with the degree of automation in it of the management functions, which are indicated above. If any of the listed functions is fully automated in the system, then the initial letter of this function will be present in the abbreviation of the class of this system.
So, control systems in which only two functions are automated, for example, Command and Control, will belong to the "SS" class. For simplicity, the class abbreviation is referred to as "C2"
If four functions are automated in the system (Command, Control, Communications, Computers), then such a system should be classified as "СССС", or "С4".
At the same time, according to the "dear comrades of the imperialists", the functions beginning with the sacramental letter "C" are basic, and all the rest are additional.
Briefly speaking.
From the point of view of automation of management functions (tasks), the control system that belongs to the class containing more letters "C" in its abbreviation will be more "advanced".
For example, a C2SR class system will be inferior to a "simple" C4 class system in terms of the "breadth of the spectrum" of tasks solved in an automated mode.
2. Tasks
As for, in fact, the "content" of the management functions.
Systems in which the Command and Control functions are automated must solve the following tasks in an automated mode:
1. Display and transmission of formulated combat missions to subordinate control bodies (control objects) in formalized text and graphic form (files) using a single "seamless" computer network.
2. Automatic determination of the position of their control objects (up to a separate vehicle) and periodic notification of their control bodies and neighbors about their location with display on electronic maps.
Displaying the tactical situation in a program that simulates combat operations during a march by a motorized infantry company reinforced by a tank platoon (during training of servicemen in a training center)
3. Manual or semi-automatic (using a rangefinder) display on electronic maps and automatic exchange of data on enemy targets, obstacles and infrastructure elements on the battlefield detected (by objects) by system elements.
4. Automatic calculation and selection of traffic routes based on known data on the road network and display of the path traveled by the system object (BFT - blue force tracking).
In simple terms, C2 systems only allow the commander to quickly communicate his decision to his subordinates and monitor the progress of its implementation.
In this case, the functions of assessing the situation and making a decision are completely assigned to the "natural computer" of the commander himself - that is, to his brain.
And, of course, - the favorite term of Western experts - "situational awareness"! That is, the system informs any control object (in addition to the commander himself) about the position and state of neighbors in the course of performing combat missions.
In addition, some of the systems belonging to the C2 class are capable of mutual identification of objects included in the system, according to the principle of "friend or foe", as well as identification of targets and the issuance of target designation in an automatic mode to the weapons included in the system.
Control systems in which such functions are automated are designated "SR" (Surveillance and Reconnaissance), and are designated as C2SR, or C2 +.
At the same time, computers used in C2 class systems are considered by Western experts only as a means of PRIMARY (not complete!) Processing and display of information. Therefore, although C2 systems include personal computers, the word "Computers" and the corresponding letter in the abbreviation of their class do not.
In other words, the C2 class system only helps the commander and other servicemen to set tasks for subordinates, to COLLECT AND DISPLAY information about the current position of their command and control facilities, the position of the enemy and neutral objects.
In fact, that's everything.
At the same time, we are not talking about "intellectual support for decision-making" and even more so - about the development of any decision options for a battle and their modeling.
But such a task as the automatic organization of communication networks and local area networks is already a distinctive feature of systems that have the abbreviation of the word Communications (third C) in the name of their class.
The presence in the abbreviation of the system class of the fourth letter "C" (Computers), as well as the letter "I" (Intelligence) implies, firstly, - FULL automatic PROCESSING of data obtained during the implementation of the first two "C" - Command and Control … And secondly, based on the processing of primary data, a SITUATION DECISION OPTION for the commander is developed and presented in the most convenient form for human perception.
Command post of one of the battalions of the 4th MD of the US Army (Iraq 2003)
An important note for the Russian generals: the mere presence of color screens at the control room with flags and icons of different colors displayed on them against the background of an electronic topographic map IS NOT a sign of a high level of automation of the command and control system
Move on.
Systems of class "C4" (in addition to performing the functions implemented in systems of class "C2" and "C3") must be able to solve the following tasks:
1. Complete automation of methods for collecting and processing information.
2. Informational support for the development of solutions by the commander (availability of programs such as "Sketch in the decision").
3. Mathematical modeling of the results of combat actions according to the selected options for performing combat missions (high-speed analytical program "Blitzkrieg") with a graphic display of the modeled course and results of hostilities on electronic maps, including using the means of three-dimensional display of the battlefield.
4. Information support for the development of planning documents (program "Sketch in the plan", which converts graphic and audio materials into planning documents.
5. Information support for making private decisions during the execution of a combat mission (the "Crystal sphere" program, which updates estimates and conclusions based on information obtained during the operation)
To summarize: the fundamental difference between the systems of the class "C4I" and the class "C2" is a higher degree of automation of information (management) tasks.
And now, ATTENTION!
In the armies of even the most industrially developed countries, all systems of the C4I and C4SR class, in terms of their belonging to the level of military command, relate only to the automated command and control system of the operational, or operational-strategic level.
Information transfer scheme in the tactical echelon of the US Army
At present, ALL tactical-level automated command and control systems that are in service with foreign states belong to the "C2" or "C2 +" class, and differ from each other only by a slight expansion of the range of tasks to be solved. At the same time, all tactical systems fundamentally "do not reach" even up to the "C3" class.
According to experts, the main obstacles to the development of tactical control systems from the C2 class to the C3 and C4 classes are:
- the lack of mathematically correct algorithms for assessing the actions of troops at the tactical level, due to the huge variety of methods and techniques used by them for performing combat missions;
- the complexity of creating an automated system for collecting and assessing tactical situation data, due to the very wide variety of its parameters and the transience of changes (in comparison with the operational control link)
- arising, in connection with the previous paragraph, the need for manual work to collect, process and display a large amount of variable data, exceeding the ability of the responsible officials to enter such data into the system;
- the need to process a relatively large amount of data per unit of time, which in terms of their volumes currently exceeds the capabilities of the machine support used in the tactical control link;
- the complexity of creating self-organizing communication networks and reliable local networks (data transmission systems) between a large number of highly mobile control objects.
3. Ambition
A bit of history.
In the early 1990s, the idea of using computers to control combined arms units and subunits came to someone's clever head in the United States.
For some time the idea was in the air. And then, the Americans, with their typical business pragmatism, began to implement it.
I believe that it was not without DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), but the point is not important.
And what is important is that in the mid-90s a very ambitious Future Combat Systems program was announced in the states. As part of its implementation, it was planned to develop central network concepts for a multipurpose combat system, which would have a large lethal effect, ready for deployment in the shortest possible time, autonomous and very tenacious in battle through the use of a set of automated control of single crewed and unmanned ground and air platforms. The goal of the FCS program was the development of such a complex of weapons, means of processing and data transmission, which would allow achieving an optimal balance between the indicators of decisive tactical and technical characteristics and the maximum completeness of their use in battle.
According to the developers of the program, a unit equipped with an FCS system must be able to adapt to the changing volume of tasks during deployment and conduct of hostilities in the range from conventional combat (operation) to peacekeeping operations. The troops equipped with the FCS system were to receive:
1. Unified transport and armored platforms.
2. Autonomous robotic systems.
3. Functional capabilities of the command and mobile control facilities equipped with computers, united in a control network, communications corresponding to the C4 class;
4. Possibility of observation, reconnaissance, detection and guidance in an automated mode for all elements (control objects) of the system.
5. Possibility of high-precision direct and indirect fire for all weapons combined with reconnaissance and control equipment into a single network.
They got down to business zealously. However, the development of the very concept of creating such a system, the creation of single copies of elements of hardware and software complexes, as well as individual samples of high-tech radio stations and prototypes of robotic means, did not go further.
No, though. A number of well-directed videos (and now googling on the net) were also created, which described and showed how effective such a system would be if it could be created.
By the way, on the Russian-speaking Internet, individual users are very fond of citing links to these "cartoons" as support for their arguments like "But how cool they are!"
Nevertheless, all developments under this program, as well as their intermediate results, were presented to the American public with great fanfare. It is understandable - the money spent was by no means small.
But. It was not possible to achieve real success (demonstrated at test sites, and not in presentation videos) in the creation of an automated control system of the TACTICAL LEVEL of class C4. All of its elements have been worked out rather poorly. It is possible that this is due to the excessive complexity and scale of the tasks set, as well as to a significant reduction in the US military budget.
Briefly speaking.
In May 2011, there were official reports in the press about the closure of the FCS program.
This time, without any fanfare.
However, this does not mean that the United States has completely abandoned the improvement of its technologies in the field of automation of command and control of military formations. Some of the developments, in particular, on unmanned aerial vehicles and information transmission facilities, were transferred to other programs.
4. Simple movements
At present, the most famous of all existing tactical ACCS is the American C2SR class system - Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2). This name in a very loose translation can be voiced as "The control system of the brigade and subordinate units in the battle (battle) of the twenty-first century."
Around the same time, when optimism about the Fighting System of the Future program was still very high, Northrop Grumman Corporation, without much fuss, received an order to develop an automated control system for the brigade - battalion - company - platoon - branch (tank) . Well, and the appropriate financial support for the implementation of this project. Naturally, after the corresponding military-scientific study of the issue, submitted, by the way, to the appropriate committee of the US Congress!
The essence of the project was as follows.
It was supposed to create a reliably functioning C2-class system, which would combine not "promising combat platforms" (which by 1995 were still at the stage of draft designs), but the means of warfare already available in the troops. That is, the "good old" tanks M1 "Abrams", BMP M2 and BRM M3 "Bradley", as well as the armored personnel carrier M-113. Well, more multi-purpose vehicles HMMWV.
And ….. to significantly increase their combat effectiveness simply by shortening the combat control cycle and increasing situational awareness.
About $ 47.6 million was spent on the development of the FBCB2 ACCS in just one fiscal year 1996. And from 1997 to 2004, according to various estimates, another 270 to 385 million dollars was spent on improving the system and eliminating the identified deficiencies.
According to some reports, the total amount of contracts related only to the development and improvement of the system from 1995 to 2010 is estimated at 800 million dollars.
A lot. But the result was also impressive.
Having overcome a huge number of problems and cured an innumerable number of "childhood illnesses", NG specialists have made the system meet the requirements of the military.
Serial production of the FBCB2 ACS has been established since 2002.
In 2003, the system received the "baptism of fire" in Iraq as part of the 4th mechanized division, which was nicknamed "Digitized" ("digital") after being equipped with FBCB2 kits. All tanks and infantry fighting vehicles of the division were equipped with the appropriate systems of the system before being sent to the combat zone. This version of the modernization of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles was named "SEP" (system expansion program).
Scheme of upgrading the M1 Abrams tank to the SEP version
Based on the results of the hostilities in Iraq, as well as the ongoing tests on the continental United States, a number of upgrades to the hardware and software components of the FBCB2 were carried out.
So, since October 2008, the implementation of the fifth version of the software (V1.5), which has already passed the modernization, has been introduced.
According to the plan, by the end of 2011, hardware and software complexes (APC) of the FBCB2 system were to be equipped with every tank, infantry fighting vehicles, self-propelled guns and all command vehicles of brigades of the ground forces (army) of the United States, as well as the Marine Corps (more than 100,000 sets). Until 2015, it is planned to equip the systems of each soldier of specialized combat units with wearable complexes.
Currently (data as of December 2011), the US Army and the Marine Corps have already delivered about 85,000 (eighty-five thousand) sets of automated workstations to equip command posts and individual combat vehicles (vehicles).
5. Iron
What is the FBCB2 hardware?
The system complexes are available in two versions. The main one is the AN / UYK-128 Applique computer-based machine software with touch screens (500MHz / 4GB / Windows 95 / NT in a particularly rugged case), connected to a NAVSTAR system receiver and a digital radio station and using combat control software.
The second option is a purely software version for information processing devices built into weapons systems. The FBCB2 equipment interfaces with other on-board devices and systems of a combat vehicle (including a laser rangefinder) for mutual identification, automatic generation of messages about enemy targets and calling for fire.
AIC is docked with various means of data transmission (communication means of various ranges). Data exchange in the "tactical Internet" (TI) is carried out using the EPLRS and SINGARS radio communication systems, and the Inmarsat L-band mobile satellite communication system
The appearance of the kit in the first version is shown in the figures. The circle in the figure with the means of communication denotes the system unit, keyboard and multifunctional display of the AN / UYK-128 Applique computer.
A specialist from Northrop-Grumman presents a portable set of AWP systems to the Marines
Such kits are uniform for all control levels of the brigade-squad (tank) link and can be mounted (deployed) at the brigade's field command posts (building, tent, recessed, or protected command post), on any vehicle such as a car, on armored vehicle (tank, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, armored personnel carriers), as well as by helicopter.
Hardware and software complex (automated workstation) of the FBCB2 system deployed at the field brigade control post (in a tent).
Hardware and software complexes (workstations) of the FBCB2 system deployed in a command vehicle.
Hardware and software complexes (workstations) of the FBCB2 system installed in vehicles of the HMMWV type
Hardware and software complexes (workstations) of the FBCB2 system, mounted on the basis of armored vehicles.
Hardware and software complex of the FBCB2 system installed on the UH-60 helicopter
7. Devices
In addition to the actual system unit, interactive display and keyboard, which are rigidly mounted on the vehicle, each FBCB2 hardware and software complex includes several more wearable devices. Such devices were named "FBCB2-Light Handheld". The image on the left shows a GPS navigator that allows an individual outside the vehicle to track their location using the NAVSTAR space-based global positioning system.
For mounting external devices directly in the car, there are special sockets and corresponding connectors for connecting it to the rest of the units, as well as for recharging the batteries.
In addition to the navigator, each kit includes a communicator that allows a serviceman who is outside the vehicle to receive (send) short text messages, receive and display data on the tactical situation transmitted by other kits, determine his position with reference to an electronic map, as well as calculate and display on the electronic map the shortest routes between points, taking into account the availability of the road network.
The initial versions of the communicator were as shown in the pictures on the left.
According to the US military, the main disadvantages of intermediate versions of communicators were their dependence on a GPS-receiver (they must work "in pairs"), small battery capacity, and the inability for the user to make changes in the tactical situation.
Therefore, in the course of further improvement of the system, a wearable device was finally developed that was devoid of such disadvantages.
As a result of the modernization of the complex, the communicator acquired the form shown in the figure below. The ribbed tube to the left of this is the extra battery for the device. The top cylinder is the GPS receiver antenna. The operating time of this version of the communicator with an additional battery is about 12 hours.
In the upgraded device, the communicator was combined with a GPS navigator, and the software also added the ability for the user not only to receive data about the situation, but also to form its elements and transfer them to other users.
The next version of the communicator is called "Electronic Data Manager" (EDM), or "Knee-Board", and also combines the functions of a handheld computer and a GPS receiver.
A significant drawback of this option is the limited time of its operation on batteries. Therefore, it is intended for use only by army aviation pilots.
Possible variant of a portable module of the system (tactical terminal) for commanders of "simple infantry".
Despite the fact that the wearable version of the terminal is essentially a tablet computer with the implementation (duplication) in it of all the functions of the main (transportable) set, it has not yet become widespread and is a prototype.
The main catch here is that communication with communicators is carried out in the microwave range using a base station located in a car (armored vehicle). That is, the communication range is limited by the power of the base station, as well as by the propagation of radio waves with a frequency of 1, 2-2, 4 MHz. And such waves, unlike VHF radio waves, can propagate only in the line of sight. Any obstacle in their path (buildings, trees, bushes, not to mention the folds of the terrain) leads to a loss of communication.
The figures below show a set of communication means and data transmission devices that are necessary to ensure the full operation of the portable version of the AIC with full duplication of all functions of the portable version of the complex. At the same time, a portable VHF radio station is used for data transmission
A soldier using a tablet version of a computer will be "loaded" like this:
And if you think that a fighter in a backpack is carrying ammunition and other things necessary in battle behind his back, then you are mistaken. Almost all the place in it is taken by all kinds of pieces of iron.
In other words, a backpack is just a stowage for storing and transporting devices for processing, displaying and transmitting information, as well as batteries.
A special vest has also been developed to accommodate the elements of all the equipment that ensures the operation of the complex.
And the general layout of the placement of the wearable equipment of the complex on the soldier looks as shown in the pictures below:
