Military Review

FBCB2 US tactical-level automated command and control system (part of 1)

33
FBCB2 US tactical-level automated command and control system (part of 1)

Modern field command and control center deployed in a tent



1. Classification

Unfortunately, our military-scientific minds have not yet created a domestic classification of automated troop 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 the automated process control system into several classes depending on the functions performed by the systems - Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intellect, Surveillance and Intelligence).

In this case, we are 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 about that later.


Display of the tactical situation on the computer screen in the operational control unit (for subordinate units)


In the meantime, we simply state 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 that are indicated above. If any of the listed functions is automated in the system in full, then the abbreviation of the class of this system will contain the initial letter of this function.

Thus, control systems in which only two functions are automated, for example, Command and Control, will be classified as “CC”. For simplicity, the class abbreviation is denoted as "С2"

If the system has four automated functions (Command, Control, Communications, Computers), then such a system should be classified as “SSSS”, or “С4”.
At the same time, in the opinion of the “dear comrades of the imperialists,” the functions beginning with the sacramental letter “C” are basic, and all the rest are additional.
In short.
From the point of view of automation of management functions (tasks), the management system that belongs to a class containing more letters “C” in its abbreviation will be more “advanced”.

For example, the system of the С2SR class will be inferior to the “simple” system of the С4 class in terms of the “latitude of the spectrum” of tasks solved in an automated mode.

2. Tasks

As for the “content” of management functions.
Systems in which the Command and Control functions are automated should perform the following tasks in an automated mode:

1. Display and transfer of formulated combat tasks to subordinate controls (control objects) in a 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 controls and neighbors about their location with display on electronic maps.


Display of tactical situation in a program simulating combat operations during a march by a motorized infantry company reinforced tank platoon (during the training of military personnel in a training center)


3. Manual or semi-automatic (using a range finder) displaying on electronic maps and automatic exchange of data on enemy objects, obstacles and infrastructure elements on the battlefield, detected (by objects) by system elements.

4. Automatic calculation and selection of routes based on known data on the road network and display of the path traversed by the system object (BFT - blue force tracking).

In simple terms, the C2 systems allow the commander to only quickly bring the decision he made to his subordinates and monitor the progress of its implementation.
At the same time, the functions of assessing the situation and making decisions are completely assigned to the “natural computer” of the commander himself — that is, his brain.
And, of course, the favorite term of Western specialists is “situational awareness”! That is, the system reports to any control object (besides the commander himself) about the status and condition of the neighbors during the performance of combat missions.

In addition, part of the systems belonging to the C2 class are able to perform mutual identification of objects within the system according to the principle of “friend or foe”, as well as carry out target identification and automatic target targeting to fire destruction equipment included in the system.

Control systems in which such functions are automated are designated as “SR” (Surveillance and Reconnaissance), and are designated as С2SR, or С2 +.
At the same time, computers used in the “С2” class systems are considered by Western specialists only as a means of PRIMARY (and not complete!) Processing and display of information. Therefore, even though С2 systems have personal computers in their composition, they do not have the word “Computers” and the corresponding letter in the abbreviation of their class.
In other words, the СHNUMX class system only helps the commander and other servicemen to assign tasks to the subordinates, COLLECT AND DISPLAY information about the current position of their control objects, the position of the enemy and neutral objects.
In fact - that's all.

At the same time, there is no talk about "intellectual support for decision-making" and even more so - about the development of any solutions for a fight and their modeling.
But such a task as the automatic organization of communication networks and local computer networks is already a distinguishing feature of systems that have the abbreviation of the word Communications in their class (third C).
The presence in the abbreviation of the 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, the development on the basis of the processing of the primary data of the OPTION OF THE SITUATIONAL DECISION of the commander and his presentation in the most convenient form for human perception.


Control point of one of the battalions 4 md US Army (Iraq 2003 year)


An important note for the Russian generals: the simple presence of color screens at the control point with the flags and icons of different colors displayed on them against the electronic topographic map is NOT a sign of a high level of automation of the command and control system!

Moving on.
Systems of class "С4" (in addition to performing functions implemented in systems of class "С2" and "С3") should be able to solve the following tasks:

1. Full automation of methods for collecting and processing information.

2. Information support by the commander of the development of solutions (availability of programs like "Sketch in the decision" (Sketch in the decision).

3. Mathematical modeling of the results of hostilities for selected options for performing combat missions (Blitzkrieg (Blitzkrieg) high-speed analytical program) with a graphic display of the simulated progress and the results of hostilities on electronic maps, including using the three-dimensional display of the battlefield.

4. Information support for the development of planning documents (the program “Sketch in the plan” (Sketch into the plan), which transforms graphic and audio materials into planning documents.

5. Information support for making private decisions in the course of a combat mission (the program “Crystal sphere” (Crystal Ball), which updates the estimates and conclusions based on information obtained during the operation)
We summarize: the fundamental difference between the C4I class systems and the C2 class is the higher degree of automation of information (management) tasks.

And now, ATTENTION!
In the armies of even the most industrially advanced countries, all systems of the C4I and C4SR class, in their membership of the military command level, belong only to operational control or operational-strategic level control systems.


The scheme of information transfer in the tactical level of the US Army


At the present time, all the automated command and control systems of the tactical level in the armament of foreign countries belong to the C2 or C2 + class, and differ only by a small expansion of the range of tasks. At the same time, all tactical systems fundamentally “do not reach out” even to the “С3” class.

According to experts, the main obstacles to the development of the ACCS tactical link from the СХNUMX class to СХNUMX and С2 classes are:
- the absence of mathematically correct algorithms for evaluating the actions of troops at the tactical level, due to the huge variety of methods and techniques used by them to perform combat missions;
- the difficulty of creating an automated system for collecting and evaluating data of a tactical situation, due to the very large variety of its parameters and the transience of changes (compared with the operational management level)
- arising, in connection with the preceding paragraph, the need for manual work to collect, process and display a large number of variable data, exceeding the capacity of 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 volume currently exceeds the capabilities of the machine software used in the tactical control unit;
- the complexity of creating self-organizing communication networks and reliable local area networks (data transmission systems) between a large number of highly mobile control objects.

3. Ambitions

A little bit stories.
At the beginning of the 1990s in the United States, the idea to use computers to control military units and subunits came to someone's clever mind.
For some time the idea was in the air. And then, the Americans, with their usual business pragmatism, began to put it into practice.
I believe that without DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) it was not done here, but it does not matter.

And the important thing is that in the middle of 90's, the states announced a very ambitious program “Future Combat Systems” (Future Combat Systems). As part of its implementation, it was intended to develop a central network concept of a multi-purpose combat system that will have a great destructive 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 crew and crewless ground and air platforms. The aim of the FCS program was to develop such a complex weapons, means of processing and transmitting data, which will allow to achieve the 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 the FCS system must be able to adapt to the changing volume of tasks during deployment and combat operations ranging from conventional combat (operation) to peacekeeping operations. Equipped with a system of FCS troops were to receive:

1. Unified transport and armored platforms.

2. Autonomous robotic systems.

3. The functionality of the command and mobile control objects equipped with computers, united in a control network, communications corresponding to the С4 class;

4. The possibility of observation, reconnaissance, detection and guidance in an automated mode for all elements (control objects) of the system.

5. The possibility of high-precision direct and indirect fire for all means of destruction, combined with the means of reconnaissance and control into a single network.

They set to work zealously. However, further development of the very concept of creating such a system, creating in single copies of elements of hardware and software systems, as well as individual samples of high-tech radio stations and prototypes of robotic tools, did not go.

Although not. There were also a number of well-directed videos (and now online) that told and showed how effective such a system would be if it could be created.

By the way, on the Russian-language Internet, individual users like to give references to these “cartoons” as a support for their arguments like “But how they are - cool!”

Nevertheless, all the developments within 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 clips) in creating an automated control system for the TACTICAL LEVEL of the С4 class. All its elements were worked out rather weakly. 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.

In short.
In May, 2011, the press appeared official reports on the closure of the program FCS.

This time, without any pump.
However, this does not mean that the United States has completely abandoned the improvement of its technologies in the field of automation of the management of military formations. Part of the developments, in particular, on unmanned aerial vehicles and means of transmitting information was transferred to other programs.

4. Simple moves
Currently, the most well-known of all existing ACCS tactical level is the American system class "С2SR" - "Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below" (FBCB2). This title 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."



At about the same time that optimism about the Fighting System of the Future program was still very high, Northrop Grumman Corporation, without much ado, received an order to develop an automated control system for the brigade-battalion-company-platoon-control link department (tank) ". Well, and appropriate financial support for the implementation of this project. Naturally, after appropriate military-scientific studies of the issue submitted, by the way, to the relevant committee of the US Congress for consideration!
The essence of the project was as follows.

It was supposed to create a reliably functioning system of the C2 class, which would unite not “promising combat platforms” (which were still at the stage of conceptual designs by 1995), but the means of warfare already existing in the troops. That is, the “good old” tanks M1 Abrams, BMP M2 and BRM M3 Bradley, as well as the M-113 BTR. Well, still multi-purpose cars HMMWV.
And ..... at times to increase their combat effectiveness simply by reducing the battle control cycle and increasing situational awareness.
In the FBCB2 ACCS development, only in one 1996 fiscal year, about 47,6 million dollars were spent. And from 1997 to 2004, the year was spent on refining the system and eliminating the identified deficiencies, according to various estimates, from 270 to 385 million dollars.

According to some data, 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 impressive.
Having overcome a huge number of problems and cured an incalculable number of "childhood diseases", NG specialists achieved the system's compliance with the requirements of the military.
The serial production of the FBCB2 ACS has been established since 2002.
In 2003, the system received "baptism of fire" in Iraq as part of the 4 mechanized division, which received the nickname "Digitized" ("digital") after equipping with FBCB2 kits. All tanks and infantry fighting vehicles of the division were equipped with the appropriate system complexes before being sent to the combat zone. This version of the modernization of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles received the name "SEP" (program to expand the capabilities of the system).


The modernization scheme of the tank МХNUMX "Abrams" to the version of "SEP"


Based on the results of the hostilities in Iraq, as well as the tests that continued on the continental US, a series of upgrades to the hardware and software components of FBCB2 were carried out.

So, since October 2008, the implementation of the upgraded version of the fifth software version (V1.5) has been started.

According to the plan, by the end of 2011, each FBCB2 system’s hardware and software complexes (APC) had to be equipped with every tank, infantry fighting vehicle, self-propelled artillery system and all the commander vehicles of the US Army Brigades and Marine Corps (more than 100 000 sets). Before 2015, it is planned to equip each soldier with specialized combat units with portable systems.
Currently (data for December 2011 of the year) about 85 000 (eighty-five thousand) sets of workstations for equipping control points and individual combat vehicles (vehicles) have already been delivered to the US Army and Marine Corps.

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 software with touch screens (500MHz / 4Gbyte / Windows 95 / NT in a highly rugged box) connected to the 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 is docked with other on-board devices and combat vehicle systems, (including a laser rangefinder), for mutual identification, automatic generation of messages about enemy targets and call for fire.



The APC fits in with various means of data transmission (communication devices of various ranges). Data exchange in the "tactical Internet" (TI) is performed using radio communication systems EPLRS and SINGARS, and L-band Inmarsat mobile satellite communication system
The appearance of the kit in the first version is shown in the figures. The circle in the picture with communication means the system unit, keyboard, and multifunction display of the computer AN / UYK-128 Applique.


Northrop-Grumman Company Specialist presents a portable set of workstations system to marines


Such kits are the same for all levels of “brigade-branch (tank)” level of management and can be mounted (deployed) at the brigade’s field control points (building, tent, recessed, or protected control point), on any vehicle such as armored vehicle (tank, BMP, BRM, BTR), as well as by helicopter.


Hardware-software complex (automated workplace) of the FBCB2 system, deployed at the brigade's field control center (in a tent).





Hardware-software systems (automated workstations) of the FBCB2 system deployed in the headquarters vehicle.







Hardware-software complexes (automated workstations) of the FBCB2 system installed in HMMWV type cars





Hardware-software complex (automated workstations) systems FBCB2, mounted on the basis of armored facilities.



Hardware-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, several other wearable devices are also included in the FBCB2 hardware and software complex. Such devices were named "FBCB2-Light Handheld". The picture on the left shows a GPS navigator that allows an individual soldier outside the vehicle to track his position using the global positioning system NAVSTAR.



For mounting remote devices directly to the machine, there are special sockets and corresponding connectors for connecting it to the other blocks, as well as for recharging the batteries.



In addition to the navigator, each set includes a communicator that allows a soldier outside the vehicle to receive (send) short text messages, receive and display tactical information transmitted by other sets, determine their position with reference to an electronic map, and also calculate and display on the electronic map the shortest paths of movement between points, taking into account the presence of the road network.
The original versions of the communicator had the form shown in the pictures on the left.

According to the US military, the main drawbacks of the intermediate versions of communicators were their dependence on the GPS receiver (they must work “in pairs”), the small capacity of the batteries, 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, devoid of such shortcomings.
As a result of the modernization of the complex, the communicator acquired the form shown in the figure below. The finned tube to the left is the case - this is an additional battery device. Top cylinder - GPS receiver antenna. The operating time of this version of the communicator with an additional battery is about 12 hours.



In the modernized device, the communicator was combined with the GPS-navigator, and also introduced into the software the possibility for the user not only to receive information 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 it runs on batteries. Therefore, it is intended for use only by army pilots aviation



Possible variant of the portable system module (tactical terminal) for the commanders of "simple infantry".
Despite the fact that the portable version of the terminal is essentially a tablet computer with the implementation (duplication) in it of all the functions of the main (portable) set, it has not yet become widespread and is a prototype.

The main snag here is that communication with communicators is carried out in the microwave range using the base station located in the vehicle (armored vehicle). That is, the communication range is limited by the power of the base station, as well as by the peculiarity of radio wave propagation frequency 1,2-2,4 MHz. And such waves, in contrast to the radio waves of the VHF range, 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 loss of communication.
The figures below show a set of communication facilities 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 mobile version of the complex. At the same time, wearable VHF radio 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 on his back carries ammunition and other things necessary in battle, then you are mistaken. Almost all the place in it is occupied by all sorts of glands.



In other words, a backpack is just a package for storing and transporting devices for processing, displaying and transmitting information, as well as batteries.



A special vest has also been designed to accommodate elements of all equipment that ensures the operation of the complex.
And the general layout of the placement of wearable equipment of the complex on a serviceman looks like that shown in the pictures below:



Originator:
http://pentagonus.ru/publ/amerikanskaja_asuv_fbcb2_2012/11-1-0-2201
Articles from this series:
FBCB2 US tactical-level automated command and control system (part of 1)
FBCB2 US tactical-level automated command and control system (part of 2)
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. KG_patriot_last
    KG_patriot_last 26 August 2013 09: 35 New
    +4
    necessary thing. even with the 2 at the tactical level it increases the level of ozedomy and the level of interaction
  2. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 26 August 2013 10: 15 New
    +5
    Interesting personnel are trained to fight in the absence of such systems.
    1. smile
      smile 26 August 2013 10: 37 New
      +5
      chunga-changa
      Yes, they can hardly be called idioms ... mi, of course, I think, they work out the action in the event of a system failure
      1. Geisenberg
        Geisenberg 26 August 2013 21: 08 New
        +1
        Quote: smile
        chunga-changa
        Yes, they can hardly be called idioms ... mi, of course, I think, they work out the action in the event of a system failure


        About their personnel it has long been noticed (not by me) that excess muscle mass clearly affects mental abilities for the worse.

        The system is good, just now it gives them besides awareness. As a result, it decides the ability of an individual soda to fight, that is, fighting spirit. There is a fighting spirit - they will break it without C2 + systems, there isn’t it and the ACS will not help.
        1. smile
          smile 26 August 2013 22: 17 New
          +1
          Geisenberg
          So I agree with you unconditionally ... just such systems are put into service by stupid people who are simply obliged to provide how to act if the system is destroyed ... otherwise this is the road to nowhere ... I would love to consider them all stupid .... but self-deception is a dangerous business ... :))))
        2. psdf
          psdf 26 August 2013 22: 42 New
          +1
          One fighting spirit is not enough. We need to learn, as the classics bequeathed.
          Everything needs skill, skill, training

          The energy consumption of a pumped brain roughly corresponds to the consumption of 15 kg of muscle. But it should be borne in mind that no one forbids pumping metabolism.
        3. cdrt
          cdrt 27 August 2013 02: 56 New
          +1
          What C2 gives you can read about Iraq 2003. Especially what our military wrote. The revolution in military affairs. Or you can watch a feature film - Generation kill. The film does not say that it is very cheers-patriotic - rather the opposite. But this is not important. Always in the hands of the commander of the tablet, where all your and all intelligence information is clearly visible. Communication always works. These are the benefits.
  3. T-100
    T-100 26 August 2013 10: 18 New
    -6
    Using an EMP bomb, these warriors will turn into an army of monkeys with bananas)))))
    1. specKFOR
      specKFOR 26 August 2013 10: 30 New
      +8
      so let's put on the Kirzach, HB and cap again, take the three-ruler, the 159th radio station, the red flags .... and into the BATTLE !!!
      1. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 26 August 2013 13: 06 New
        0
        We hope that this does not come to this.
        And if it comes, R-159 will be it)
        1. roial
          26 August 2013 17: 38 New
          0
          If this comes to that, the R-159 will be the same coffin as the Amer radio stations.
  4. specKFOR
    specKFOR 26 August 2013 10: 34 New
    +4
    Cool equipment! Worked on it. Windows stood 2005, only the hardware in the form of a laptop is done. By pressing the stylus on the screen, you can call art-air support, medevac, etc. There is also a KFTS-simpler system.
  5. mirag2
    mirag2 26 August 2013 10: 37 New
    0
    Need, need, need !!! That's what modern equipment means, methods of warfare, and not ak12 with a poor kit.
    1. Ka-52
      Ka-52 26 August 2013 12: 08 New
      +2
      Do not confuse hot with cold! fool
      No one needs to argue, but what does ak12 have to do with it, which has not yet entered the troops?
      With the same success we can say: if the amers have all these gadgets, then nah ... they are M16 with poor skirts ?! soldier
    2. biglow
      biglow 26 August 2013 13: 40 New
      +1
      Quote: mirag2
      Need, need, need !!! That's what modern equipment means, methods of warfare, and not ak12 with a poor kit.

      and what weapons do you think are right and not wretched?
      1. biglow
        biglow 26 August 2013 16: 32 New
        0
        It’s unfortunate that in addition to the minus, you could not answer the question
  6. denson06
    denson06 26 August 2013 12: 09 New
    +2
    I hope that our General Staff understands that the days when the unit was stupid enough for communication and interaction were over ... all should see everything ... this is interaction and centralization ..
  7. Hitrovan07
    Hitrovan07 26 August 2013 12: 26 New
    0
    I wonder how with such a high-tech cross country?
  8. washi
    washi 26 August 2013 13: 03 New
    0
    A little bit of history.
    At the beginning of the 1990s in the United States, the idea to use computers to control military units and subunits came to someone's clever mind.
    For some time the idea was in the air. And then, the Americans, with their usual business pragmatism, began to put it into practice.
    And for some reason, I thought that they finally, after the collapse of the country, saw and appreciated the Soviet complex ASUV "Maneuver", as well as other Soviet developments.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 27 August 2013 03: 03 New
      0
      And for some reason I thought that they, finally, after the collapse of the country, saw and appreciated the Soviet complex of ASUV "Maneuver", as well as other Soviet developments


      Well, you thought so by ignorance. Read about the creation of the Maneuver, about the form in which it was received, about the connection in this system.
      And at the same time about the American system of the same time.
      By 1988, they had a lot, much cooler. Especially in ACS intelligence processing.

      Although ... given that the Maneuver began to be created, in my opinion in the late 60s, a front-army-division level control system, we started creating ASUV precisely with us, we created a monster without normal communication - that's for sure because of the military foolishness Signalers, not Agate qualifications. Although, judging by the teachings, even this monster managed front-army-division control seriously.

      Only now - Maneuver is a system for another purpose - operational, and tactical in the article. We did not have such
      1. washi
        washi 27 August 2013 18: 19 New
        0
        The maneuver is tactical. It was still operational. But there was no connection between them.
        Amer in technology constantly lagged behind us. We went ahead of schedule only after the collapse of the country. We used Soviet developments, and at this time we had a decline and sale of strategic factories and developments
        1. mirror
          mirror 27 August 2013 21: 50 New
          0
          Vasya, the trouble is that we used Amer’s developments. For example, in the 70s, we stole (copied) 360 and 370 series of IBM computers, calling them in our EU series of computers. Incidentally, such was the decision of the party and government. We have always lagged behind in computers and communications in Soviet times, sadly. They lagged behind in electronics in general, however sad it may be. I recall that Khrushchev called for catching up and overtaking America - apparently from the fact that we were always ahead.
  9. Andreas
    Andreas 26 August 2013 13: 13 New
    0
    I look at the problem of building an ACS database with more detail:
    - communication;
    - a single data transfer protocol;
    - a single data transfer format;
    - streaming hardware data encryption;
    - graphical presentation of information;
    - digitization of topography;
    - transparent information interaction of all levels of management;
    - automation of decision-making processes.

    In this case, the main tasks of the ACS database should be the collection, synthesis and display of information.
    Simulation of hostilities is a secondary task.


    The simplest question is to ensure communications on the battlefield and in the frontline, including the rear of the enemy under the influence of reconnaissance and sabotage groups.
    It is decided by the creation of three technically independent systems:
    - low-orbit space constellation of communication satellites ("satellite telephone") for the front-line band:
    - cellular communication with repeaters installed on UAVs with multiple redundancy for the battlefield;
    - VHF and HF as a fallback for the battlefield and front line.

    The main reason for choosing satellite and cellular communications as the main option is their lack of terrestrial omnidirectional antennas that are easily detectable by the enemy and destroyed with one hit of high-precision weapons.
    1. washi
      washi 27 August 2013 18: 22 New
      0
      And We had it all.
      And then it was with our spioneers and they began to develop on their elemental base.
  10. gregor6549
    gregor6549 26 August 2013 15: 12 New
    +1
    The article shows a certain ignorance of the author with the subject as a whole and with what was created in Soviet times. And the created one includes, in particular, the Automated Command and Control System (ASUV) of the Maneuver front, the development of which began at the end of the 60 years at the Design Bureau of the Minsk Electromechanical Plant (MEMZ) and then was continued at the Research Institute of Automation Facilities (NIISA) created on the basis of the Design Bureau of MEMZ. The Maneuver system encompassed all types of front-line troops (infantry, artillery, missile troops, air defense, air defense, tactical aircraft, etc.) at all levels of command and control. The General Designer and General Director of the AGAT NPO supervised the creation of the ASUV Maneuver; in addition to NIIS, a number of research institutes and factories in various republics of the USSR, major general engineer Podrezov Yuri Dmitrievich were also included. At the beginning of the 80x, automated control systems for automated control systems of maneuvers began to enter service with the Special Forces in Germany. Unfortunately, the collapse of the USSR seriously put an end to the completion of the development of all elements of the system, but much of what had already been done at that time was in the arsenal of the Armed Forces of Russia and Belarus and continues to improve in Belarus and in Russia, although under other "names" and designations. This should be noted at the time of the creation of the ASUE “Maneuver”, its probable opponents had only miserable similarities to this ASUV and the performance characteristics of these “clones” were much lower than the performance characteristics of the “maneuver” (and this, despite the backwardness of the Soviet element base from the western one, which was in those times). Of course, now the West has advanced far in this direction. Especially impressive are the developments of the Israeli company Elbit, which leads the way in the creation of ASUV in the Western arms market. But still, what was done in the USSR gives us the right to be proud. The main thing now is to restore what has been done at least to the level of the middle of 80x and without losing a day to move on. On some “shooters” and “flyers” even the most advanced ones cannot be defeated in the war, as the experience of the Second World War convincingly showed. And now in Russia there is clearly a bias towards the creation of such “shooters” and “flying”, to the detriment of the means of command and control and communications. Well, how, the cool "maneuver" of the fresh SU35 is much more pleasant to the eyes of the authorities than some kind of half-forgotten "Maneuver" with its "cybenimatics"
    1. gregor6549
      gregor6549 27 August 2013 16: 40 New
      -1
      It is interesting that for the "great special" on ASUV I put a minus to my comment and what exactly did he not like about this comment? To the barrier, "specials." And at the same time find out which of you is "special"
    2. washi
      washi 27 August 2013 18: 29 New
      0
      "Maneuver" is a battalion division. GS-front-army was a different complex.
      To replace the "maneuver" was already ready another complex with r \ s "Crossbow" (figure, adaptation of frequencies, PD, etc.)
      Production remained on the outskirts.
      1. gregor6549
        gregor6549 28 August 2013 05: 07 New
        0
        You are mistaken, uv. Vasya. ASUV "Maneuver" from the very beginning was set and developed precisely as an ASU to control all types of front forces and at all their levels: from an ordinary soldier to the Front CP. Naturally, all the objects of such a large-scale system could not be developed and made at the same time, and therefore their development was carried out in turn in accordance with the priorities determined by the Customers. And them, in addition to the main gene. The customer, there was darkness: both aviators, and artillerymen and signalmen and motorized riflemen, and tankmen, and rear officers, etc. And each one pulled a blanket over himself. Therefore, by the time of the collapse of the USSR, something had already entered service, something was being tested, and something else was in the drawings, sketches and thoughts. And he worked to create this system not only of the USSR but also of some of its allies under the Warsaw Treaty. In general, the scale of work on the creation of ASUV Maneuver was "huge"
  11. user
    user 26 August 2013 15: 42 New
    0
    Today I have one hope that we do not lag behind in the means of electronic warfare. Back in Soviet times, in this direction, we were OGO-GO. In another embodiment, it would be softer to say. . . . . ass in one word
    1. roial
      26 August 2013 17: 29 New
      +3
      Quote: user
      I have one hope that we do not lag behind in the means of electronic warfare

      Unfortunately, this is not so, during tests of the ACS “Maneuver” it was found that the REB system is not able to suppress the radio means of the ACS “Maneuver”, it was possible to detect and suppress the radio exchange only if the connection was made in voice mode.
      It’s very difficult to reveal the affiliation of telecode radio networks. Almost no intelligence signs. To transmit a telecode message, the transmitter goes on air for a few seconds (transmission of a short codogram lasts less than a second).
      But the most important thing that put an end to the ASUE “Maneuver” was the difficulty in mastering the equipment by senior command personnel and the unwillingness of the same command staff to “tinker with automation”, it was easier to cover subordinates with a three-story mat and, with the help of the “Kuz'kina mother”, manage the unit
    2. washi
      washi 27 August 2013 18: 32 New
      0
      At the moment, unfortunately, everyone has succumbed to the means of suppressing the Constitutional Court. At the same time, conventional radio bands are practically not involved in updating RRiREB facilities.
  12. Backfire
    Backfire 27 August 2013 01: 12 New
    +2
    Good article on a little "highlighted" topic.

    Smiled photo, where the Marines present a portable set of AWS system.
    A part of the people, besides the interest on their faces, clearly understands that they say, fuck, dig, now I can also carry this portable horseradish on myself!
  13. Kukota
    Kukota 27 August 2013 09: 19 New
    0
    People! Where can I download one? laughing
    1. yanus
      yanus 27 August 2013 13: 07 New
      +2
      Quote: Kukota
      People! Where can I download one? laughing

      Download ARMA 2, there is plenty of it)))
  14. Max_Bauder
    Max_Bauder 27 August 2013 15: 08 New
    0
    It would be nice if each squadron had such a laptop, armored from the outside, like a piece of metal, and opened it — a laptop, and all the teams of a higher level and tasks would be sent there, with goals clearly shown on the map showing the course of the battle. Well then, I think such information (from a satellite, a drone or other flapping bugs) should come directly from the front to the headquarters (electronically), then the headquarters quickly makes a decision and sends tasks.

    In general, if you so dream, then I would immediately want to fight robots (walking or flying drones), with infrared and other radiation, scanning the environment around 360 degrees with full arms, killing everything with the accuracy of a millimeter, which would be controlled from headquarters. =)
    1. washi
      washi 27 August 2013 18: 37 New
      0
      And I think the opposite.
      Let everyone see, smell, try with their own hands what the "peacekeeping" operations lead to.
      These are not toys. This is people's lives