Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
The Electronic Battlefield Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Battle Command Brigade and Below
Texastillidie    4/15/2005 3:41:00 AM
Iv'e done some reading on this system and find it difficult to envision how it will be used. I'd like to hear a general description from someone who has used it.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
shek    RE:Battle Command Brigade and Below   4/15/2005 8:07:02 AM
FBCB2 and it's half-brother, BFT (Blue Force Tracker), are both in wide-spread use across Iraq. All the M1114 UAHs going into Iraq were being equipped with BFT, and the SBCTs and 4ID are equipped with FBCB2. FBCB2 uses the EPLRS radio to broadcast the information from the system, so it is a terrestrial based system, while the BFT is a satellite based system. We operated in northern Iraq with the FBCB2 without any issues and only 2 retrans sites to cover an AO about 200-300km wide (each EPLRS acts as its own retrans/relay, so it is a redundant system that relies on a specific retrans site only to cover gaps in EPLRS coverage). The digital signals travel farther than FM, so there were numerous times where I didn't have FM comms but had complete awareness and messaging capability through my FBCB2. So, the FBCB2 is LOS based, requires signal elements to act as retrans if necessary based on terrain, AO; however, the system is real-time with a lag of 20 seconds at most in updating friendly locations. For BFT, no additional signal assets are required since it is satellite based; however, updates on friendly locations take 5-20 minutes depending on the volume of traffic - the signal travels to the satellite and then back to other platforms, and this takes longer. As an infantry company commander, the FBCB2 was indispensible in providing situational awareness of the terrain and friendly platforms (it is a mounted system only for now - a handheld system that will be the size of a heavily protected PDA is nearing fielding within the next 12 months or so). You can load imagery with awesome resolution (1m) that allows you to maneuver in urban terrain with little to no problem (compare to the Battle of Mogadishu, where the mounted convoy had to abandon trying to move to the first crash site due to the inability to understand where it was at). I didn't have to call up platoons to ask where they were at since I saw it on my system. This freed up the voice net and allowed essential traffic to get through. Also, whenever an enemy icon was posted, it was easy to maneuver platoons into blocking positions around the contact to prevent the enemy from exfiltrating from the contact. Reliability was awesome - I never had a problem of the system crapping out on me. Here's an example. Radar picks up a point of origin for mortar fire Without FBCB2 - Radar gives grid to BDE, BDE sends to BN, BN sends to CO, CO sends to PLT. CO plots manually on map, identifies blocking positions and sends grid to PLT, identifies routes and sends to PLT. Too long. With FBCB2 - Radar gives grid to BDE, BDE plots on FBCB2. BN, CO, and PLT immediately see enemy mortar icon on their FBCB2 and receives audio warning of enemy nearby (must be within danger area of weapon system). CO can then talk to PLTs about their blocking positions relative to the enemy icon in seconds (1st PLT - go to the intersection 200m west, 2nd PLT - go to the intersection 300m north, 3rd PLT - go to the open field 500m southeast). No need to worry a whole lot about the route since you can navigate on the fly with the FBCB2 - however, if you want a specific route, you can make and send one within a minute that will display on the FBCB2 screen - then just "follow the yellow brick road" on the screen. Much, much faster. Still too long for an enemy with refined shoot and scoot tactics, but you may have a chance. Add a UAV that's in the air to mix, and the ability of the UAV to make contact and maintain visual contact will complete this scenario and allow you to bag the bad guys. Hopefully, this gives you a better flavor for the capabilities of the system.
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:Battle Command Brigade and Below   4/15/2005 2:54:34 PM
 
Quote    Reply

Texastillidie    RE:Battle Command Brigade and Below   10/26/2005 1:03:38 AM
If a target is detected, will BCBB display all blue elements that can fire on the target? Are fire commands relayed thru the system or the radio? The Army is developing remote-fired mortars. Will they be fired thru BCBB, or some other way?
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Battle Command Brigade and Below   10/31/2005 5:40:20 AM
Not trying to slam the system here, but there will be that 10% of battalion/brigade commanders who will see this as a new venue for micromanaging and stifling intiative. The program needs to be upgraded with a patch that cuts those guys out of the loop ; )
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Battle Command Brigade and Below   10/31/2005 6:05:14 AM
"remote-fired mortars. Will they be fired thru BCBB, or some other way?" The artillery has had networked digital command & control systems like this for a couple decades. Although remote control cannon are not common everything else in the firemission sequence can be run automaticly from the div.arty. command level down to the cannon section chief. The Dragonfire automatic 120mm mortaar system was tested by the USMC in the 1990s. The sensor to mortar loop was completely mechanized and self contained. The auto loading mortars could be deployed, linked to self contained/automatic sensors, and controled by a a automatic fire control system. In other words the sensors and mortars could be delployed and left to prosecute fire missions automaticly. The fire control program of course had a variety of setting for target selection and attack method. The tests were not satisfactory and further development of the Dragonfire was stopped.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics