This won´t be of much use for AE, but some may find this interesting. I served in communication battery that was assigned to army corps´artillery regiment´s HQ [I think I write this a bit differently every time I write it in English, heh]. My own position was in the same space with the guys who were giving firing orders, used the computers to calculate the data for the guns and who were supposed to have general view on the artillery´s duties at the army corps level. I was one of the dumb asses whose job was to keep the communications running properly and keep eyes on those damned screens where the messages were flowing [crappy business especially after 48-60 hours without any sleep].... I must say that I was busy with my work, but I think that I have some idea about how it worked in Finnish Army in 1998-1999. The firing commands and communication between us and forward observes were radioed when possible [encoded, of course] but in jamming environment digital messaging was used. The data between the positions was preferably sent as messages when it was sent to the firing batteries while forward observers used mainly radios when giving us targetting data, sometimes they used digital messagesn though, like when they operated in the "enemy´s" rear. Short bursts are harder to jam, to notice and code is harder to break. Because of the safety issues the live-firing orders were always vocally confirmed and there was always radio connection between us and forward observers in these cases [but in war it wouldnt be necessery if messaging contact were usable]. So... basically it was a combination of digital messaging and vocal commands - data given as a data, but commands given vocally [preferably]. The targetting information that was digitally sent was instantly available for every gun that needed it, non-digital information had to be converted at the battery level.

"...to "educate" (I can see old grunt, A.R. Ambush, Horsesoldier and others rolling their eyes)the manuever side..." Hoped you'd notice the dual-hatting I gave you in deference to your time well spent in the combat arms. I frankly suspect that we'd all have benefited more from "combat arms" types over on the log side at the field grade level. Carl S. really hits it in referring to the turnover of data at 75% over four hours. For anybody who's been in a brigade TOC or Arty Bn. FDC, you KNOW the workload entailed is huge, neverending, with multiple repeated opportunities for major f&#kups that cost lives.

As you can tell I know diddly about artillery. But I do understand how a CIC on a ship works and how fire (either guns or missiles) are done against a backdrop of targets moving at 600kts or more. The repetitive tasks that Carl S describes is what computers are for. If you have to change this kind of data every 4 hours, then automate the process. Perhaps you should see how the AEGIS system handles a thousand targets at the same time, many of them moving at 600kts. Not saying the Navy is doing it better, just different. The AEGIS system, only needs someone to say fire, it handles all the details of target recognition and threat analysis. Someone I know who served on an AEGIS ship said that if the heat got to be too much, there was a switch you could trow that took the human out of the loop and the ship would just keep fighting on it's on. Granted Naval targets are more easily define, and the sensors are more defined. But still one person typing in cordinates, followed by someone repeating those coordinates when they read them from a console so they could be fed into yet another computer to work out firing solutions seems a bit much. The middle man adds no value, and would seem to be a source of error. (Heading for cover as I expect 155MMs inbound any minute)

"The repetitive tasks that Carl S describes is what computers are for. If you have to change this kind of data every 4 hours, then automate the process." I think that really sums up the difference in our experince. I suspose it is possible to automate the decisions in altering coodinating measures, but I'm not sure how we'd fit the Cray supercomputer in the truck. In any case the AI required is a ways off. "But still one person typing in cordinates, followed by someone repeating those coordinates when they read them from a console so they could be fed into yet another computer to work out firing solutions seems a bit much." We have not done it that way in the Marine Corps in fifteen years. Again this remark demonstrates how far apart our experince is. "Granted Naval targets are more easily define, and the sensors are more defined." Now we can get at some exchange of realities here. How many sensors are you talking about, how many targets, and how many friendlies are there to track? This is a serious question. I cant recall at all the nominal size of current USN battle groups or what AEGIS actually does in terms of battle space management.

Targeting Complexity, Well gentlemen, my research has led me to FM 6-20 Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for the Targeting Process. The pic below shows the overall process of which the Arty function is just a small subset of options available. http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f332/adjstewart/fm6-20.jpg" alt="Image hosting by Photobucket">

EW3, I really hear what you are saying regarding the utilisation of software to aid the data management and display, and to a certain extent the actual decision making process. But my god the model would be complex and the decision making algorithms would be very very hard to validate before turning loose operationally. Considering the amount of variables the Failure Modes & Effects Analysis (FMEA) would take decades!!!!!

Actually I'm not stirring up stuff, I'm quite interested in your view of things. I've spent a good deal of my professional life automating processes to eliminate human error. On the your question of a CBG with AEGIS ships, satellites, subs, seabed arrays, AEW aircraft, and the odd JSTAR like support aircraft, I would say they could track over 3000 targets at the same time over a 150nm radius from the carrier. These target could be moving at close to 600kts. Actually gf would be the right guy to get specifics, but I'd say I'm accurate to 75% on the numbers. The thing you might need is to appreciate what new CPUs/systems are doing. I worked with a 32bit processor a few years ago called strongARM. It could do more calculations than an IBM 360s could in the old days, and it ran on batteries. (Speaking of Cray, they used our ALPHA chips in their NSA machines). Just as a technological point of reference, I have a 1GB flash drive I bought for about $30. In the 70's we used to sell 80MB disk drive systems for $30K. And their performace and reliability were lower than the $30 flash drive. My current work is on a 24MHz CPU with configurable analog and digital blocks. It can run for days on a battery, gives off zero heat, and costs $2.00 each. That's more horespower than was in the Apollo moon lander for $2.00 What I do give the military a lot of credit for is that they are using COTS. When I was in, it was all milspec, which took years and years to get anything done. Now we can develop new UAVs at the rate of 3 or 4 a year.

That's a scary process. How would that compare with a Predator control stryker. It sees the target, and they check with command and get a go or no go decision, due to netcentric warfare the command sees the same signals. The rest is automatic. I think we have all seen the AC-130 gunship videos. Essentially they see bad guys, and get permission to fire and then go.

"It sees the target, and they check with command and get a go or no go decision, due to netcentric warfare the command sees the same signals. The rest is automatic." Thats possible with the equipment we have had since the early 1990s. Mustavaris refers to the manual, or partially electronic methods used before the communication and computers were adaquate. The communications hardware we used in the 1970s & 80s was simply not up to the task. Neither was the programing industry. The US Marines contracted the development of a completely electronic firesupport control system back in the 1970s. The project was canceled when none of the biders were able to produce a functional prototype. It took the much larger US Army project, working from experince with the old TAC Fire system another decade to get to where the artillery electronic network was in the 1991 war. EW...Refrences are being made to a two or three terminal system with one input. I have no idea what the scope of the current systems are in the US Army or Marines are. When I retired our little corps size exercises were based on some 200+ terminals. That is keyborads with someone pounding in instructions. Primarily coordinating measures, or downloading new data from outside. That was inside our artillery net. What the airwing or anyone else brought I had no clue. Like I wrote earlier the IFASS system we were using for these exercises was acceptably stable. But it was considered obsolete & replacements were in procurement. The systems contemplated were susposed to automate between 400 & 500 battlefield fire support tasks. Vs the 50 or so the IFASS could handle.

The digital messaging was done with this http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/index.dsp?level=81&equipment=137 it can be connected to radio, cable network or whatever one wants. It can transfer data and text/numerical messages. The light version is this http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/index.dsp?level=81&equipment=138 little less capable but a lot handier. And the thing I used, the central station: http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/index.dsp?level=81&equipment=139 From this machine the data was transferred to the computer that counted the artillery´s firing values, then gave them back and the data was sent to the batteries. Basically there was no need for talk: forward observers could have just sent the targetting data, then it would have been processed and sent to the batteries along with firing order. The guys who operated the computer and supervised the firing had map hanging on the wall at their use and the friendly troops´positions were updated in the old school way using magnetic buttons, pieces of paper and pens. We had the artillery regiments top officers there, so the firing decisions could have been made really fast if needed and we trained to act as fast as possible when we got new targets available.

"...had map hanging on the wall at their use and the friendly troops´positions were updated in the old school way using magnetic buttons, pieces of paper and pens." IFASS & the ancient TAC Fire had sophisticaed programs for recording & using the friendly locations, enemy locations, and the related coordinating measures. Unfortunaly the little digital screen proved a poor way to display all this information. You'd end up with several decsion makers flipping back & forth between displays as they peered over someone elses shoulder. Over the course of two years I learned to use the various formats to work off the displays. This required I spend the same ammount of time learning the system as a operating tech, which was not practical for most field grade officers. tracking the finer details in this way also contradicted my focus on he 'big picture'. I'm still hearing a similar complaint from the current artillery/operations officers, so perhaps the architects of the current system did not solve that problem. The bottom line was wee still placed key information of large charts so the commander & staff could grasp the essentials in a few seconds.