The New Automated Fire Control System for Artillery Units based on

Interoperability and Standards

Karel Šilinger and Martin Blaha

Department of Fire Support, University of Defense, Brno, Czech Republic

Keywords: Fire Control System, Decision Making System, Decision Support System, Software Development,

Application, Interoperability, Standardization.

Abstract: This paper is focused on the new automated fire control system for artillery units - PVNPG-14M, especially

on interoperability and standards. Artillery units of the Army of the Czech Republic, reflecting the current

global security neighbourhood, can be used outside the Czech Republic. The paper presents principles,

evolution and functionality in the framework for the project through the establishment of strategic and

conceptual context and the examination of Network Enabled Capability (NEC) activities and Interoperability

Standards, makes proposals for engagement with NATO and coalition agencies, programs and projects, and

offers starting point for project and moreover set up the new artillery full-automated system for fire control.

The Czech Artillery units need to have intuitive system for mathematical computations what assures

prediction capabilities for adequate fire support provision - PVNPG-14M should be the best choice in current

conditions.

1 INTRODUCTION

The basic task of artillery weapon systems is an

indirect firing, thus keeping fire on targets kilometres

away and beyond the line of sight. Calculation of the

fire elements is a lengthy process based on the

mathematical apparatus of several disciplines such as

Ballistics, Meteorology, Geography and Theory of

probability. Automation of the entire process of

calculation of fire elements accelerates and reduces

the likelihood of errors.

The Czech University of Defense has initiated

a project to develop a proposal for an interoperable

automated Command and Control (C2) system

for the Czech Army’s Artillery systems. This paper

provides a framework for the project through the

establishment of strategic and conceptual context and

the examination of Network Enabled Capability

(NEC) activities and Interoperability Standards

(Blaha, Sobarňa, 2009), makes proposals for

engagement with NATO and coalition agencies,

programs and projects, and offers starting

point for project and moreover set up the new

artillery full-automated system for fire control (Blaha,

Brabcová, 2012) – PVNPG-14m.

At the same time, the user of the new system

removes the necessary knowledge of basic principles

and procedures for calculating the fire elements of

fire and creates the illusion of correctness of himself

(Doctrine of Communication and Information

systems, 2003). Because of the destructiveness of

artillery fire, the feelings of perfection cannot be

relied upon. The basic operating rule of tactical using

of artillery fire is supervised calculated of fire

elements for fire at a target before real start (Shooting

Rules and ground artillery fire control, 2017).

From the perspective of the application, software

must be open for easy deployment of internal

adjustments and additional functions, use common

programming language and allow install and run on

modern touch platforms with the Windows operating

system, which is implemented in the Czech Army.

2 INTEROPERABILITY

Interoperability is an operational problem not

a technical problem. The need for technical

interoperability between C2 Information Systems

(C2IS) is driven by the greater need for operational

interoperability between the national force elements

within a coalition military force.

Interoperability that is enabled by

Communication and Information Systems (CIS) is

332

Šilinger, K. and Blaha, M.

The New Automated Fire Control System for Artillery Units based on Interoperability and Standards.

DOI: 10.5220/0006468003320337

In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics (ICINCO 2017) - Volume 1, pages 332-337

ISBN: 978-989-758-263-9

defined as “the ability of systems, units or forces to

provide services to and accept services from other

systems, units or forces and to use the services so

exchanged to enable them to operate effectively

together” (ACP 167J, March 2008). Interoperability

enabled by CIS contributes to better information

sharing and better shared understanding. This in turn

leads to better decisions, actions and effects (NATO

Capabilities/Statements – 2018, 2007).

In the context of an Artillery system, this implies

a need for two-way flow of information between all

elements of the system and between the system and

higher echelons of C2, whether operating as part of

a national or Allied/Coalition force, so that accurate

and timely direct and indirect fire support can be

provided, to deliver the effects required by the

Command (Potužák, 2006).

Whether developing a national bespoke system or

procuring an ‘off-the-shelf’ system from an

international defense company, the Czech Army will

need to decide what level of interoperability is

required (Military Strategy of The Czech Republic,

2008). This will be dictated by the likely scale of

deployment of Artillery forces in national defense

operations or deployed Allied or coalition operations,

and the level of integration within the Command

structure (Doctrine of the Army of the Czech

Republic, 2005).

Assumptions about the scale of operations and

level of integration required will be determined by

national policy and strategy (Blaha, Sobarňa, 2010).

3 CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT

3.1 Effects based Approach to

Operations

The University of Defence project specifically seeks

to make proposals for an Artillery C2 system that will

support an Effects Based Approach to Operations

(EBAO). This is an evolving philosophy that is

defined as “the coherent and comprehensive

application of the various instruments

of the Alliance, combined with the practical

cooperation along with involved non-NATO actors,

to create the effects necessary to achieve planned

objectives and ultimately the NATO end state”

(AJP-3.9).

At the operational level, an effects based approach

involves the selective combination of actions,

coordinated with the activities of other organizations

to create lethal and non-lethal effects in order to

achieve operational objectives in support

of this end state. Operations are still executed through

the time-tested manner of applying operational art,

design and management. Operational art, supported

by the targeting process, seeks to analyse and then

direct activity to defeat or neutralise an adversary. It

integrates recent developments, for example,

Information Operations, with more traditional

methods.

Understanding the adversary's operational

objectives, capabilities, and intentions through

analysis enables the use of capabilities to be focused

on key components of the adversary’s systems. This

analysis is an integral part of the Operational

Planning Process. The Joint Force Commander (JFC)

establishes the operational objectives to be achieved.

Targeting is focused on creating specific desired

effects to achieve the JFC’s objectives and/or

subordinate commanders’ supporting objectives.

3.2 Joint Action

Effects are delivered through Joint Action, designed

to influence any actor, whether opponent, friend,

neutral, belligerent or spoiler. An actor’s ability to use

force or to threaten force, to achieve a desired

outcome is dependent upon his will to act, his

understanding of the situation, and his capability to

act decisively. Together, these elements determine an

actor’s military effectiveness (Doctrine of

Communication and Information systems, 2003).

 Will - At the strategic level, will is influenced

by factors such as national culture, ideology

and political resolve; at the operational and

tactical levels it is based upon the social unity

of communities of interest or armed groups,

their morale, esprit de corps, and cohesion.

Once an actor loses the will to act, he

relinquishes his ability to actively influence

events.

 Understanding - An actor’s understanding of

his situation originates from the information

he receives, but is shaped by his thoughts,

experience and senses. As a result, an actor’s

perception of his situation is as important as

reality in determining his actions and, indeed,

in affecting his will to act at all.

 Capability - An actor’s capacity for action

is dependent upon his physical capabilities and

their utility in a particular situation. Although

quantity and quality tend to confer advantage,

a variety of other factors also impact upon

effectiveness. Some, such as geospatial

factors, are situation-dependent but others,

The New Automated Fire Control System for Artillery Units based on Interoperability and Standards

333

such as prioritised resource allocation to

achieve competing tasks, are subject to

a commander’s discretion and influence.

Cohesion within an organization is also an

important facet of operational effectiveness. For

example, it is collective will or resolve, ranging in

strength from tacit acceptance through

to absolute allegiance, which mobilises a group of

individuals in pursuit of a common goal. A group’s

cohesion reflects the extent to which those

motivations bind individuals together, and inspire

them to act in unison.

Joint Action, then, involves the deliberate use and

orchestration of military capabilities and activities to

realise effects on other actors’ will, understanding

and capability, and the cohesion between them. It is

implemented through the coordination and

synchronization of:

 Fires - Fires are the deliberate use of physical

means to realise, primarily, physical effects.

They are focused on another actor’s capability

(to destroy someone or something, including

that which enables understanding); fires may

also influence indirectly behaviour, attitudes

or decisions. Fires would include Artillery

systems.

 Influence Activities - Influence Activities seek

to affect understanding and thus the character

or behavior of an individual, group

or organization. They do so by manipulating

information ahead of its receipt, or perceptions

of that information once received. Artillery

systems could be used in influence activities,

perhaps to strengthen understanding of

friendly force capabilities.

 Manoeuvre - Manoeuvre gains temporal and

spatial advantage. It places those seeking to

create either physical or psychological effects,

or frequently both, in the most appropriate

time and space to do so. Manoeuvre can also

realise a variety of effects in its own right, and

may be used to supplement the impact of fires

and influence activities. Artillery systems are

often used in conjunction with manoeuvre.

3.3 Joint Action Enabled by Network

Enabled Capability (NEC)

The aim of NEC is to link sensors, decision-makers,

weapon systems and support capability to achieve

enhanced military effect through improved

exploitation of the information available (AArtyP-5,

2013). Therefore, NEC should be viewed as

delivering Networked Enabled ‘Capabilities’, ie,

a pervasive attribute, or a characteristic, desired of all

capabilities and having applicability to all personnel

across Defence.

All capabilities rely on the integration of the Lines

of Development (eg DOTMLPFI). Similarly, NEC

has three dimensions that provide the ways and means

– Networks, Information and People – that support

the end effect; Joint Action. With Networks acting as

the arteries of the NEC ‘body’, Information as the

blood supply and People as the brain, Joint Action

may be most easily likened to the senses and the

muscles – the effectors, realizing the physical effects

engendered by the three ‘supporting’ dimensions.

NEC delivers ‘enablers’ that facilitate

communication between platforms, sensors, decision

makers and support services within a nation’s Armed

Forces and with Allies and coalition partners. As

such, it is a force multiplier that can offer decisive

advantage in terms of improved situational

awareness, more efficient sharing and exploitation

of information, better-informed decisions, more

effective command and control and greater precision

and speed in the application of appropriate force.

The diagram below shows the NEC ‘Benefits

Chain’:

Figure 1: NEC Benefits Chain.

In other words, NEC enhances operational

capability by helping to get the right information to

the right people at the right time. As far as Artillery is

concerned, it uses information and communications

technology to get information from the sensor to the

ICINCO 2017 - 14th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics

334

shooter more quickly and more effectively than in the

past. The use of Artillery systems as an effective

component of Joint Action may therefore

be enhanced by NEC.

4 INTEROPERABILITY

STANDARDS

Operational, procedural and technical standards

within NATO are developed through Standardisation

Agreements (STANAGs) and Allied Publications

(APs). A STANAG is defined as “A normative

document recording an agreement among several or

all NATO member nations, which has been ratified at

the authorized national level, to implement

a standard, in whole or in part, with or without

reservation.” (AAP-42) An AP is defined as

“A NATO standard established and approved by

several or all NATO member nations

at tasking authority level.”

STANAGs and APs are produced by groups and

committees under the direction of their various

Tasking Authorities; senior NATO bodies with the

authority to task their subordinate groups to develop

new standards. Of these, the most relevant to the

development of Artillery C2 interoperability are

the NATO Committee for Standardisation (NCS),

the Conference of National Armaments Directors

(CNAD) and the NATO Consultation, Command and

Control Board (NC3B). Committees and groups

working to other Tasking Authorities may have some

relevance, for example the NATO EW Advisory

Committee under the Military Committee, but only

peripherally.

Under the NCS, the Army Branch of the NSA

(NATO Standardisation Agency) provides support to

9 working groups and 34 panels, responsible

primarily for the development of tactics and

procedures published in APs (such as AArtyP-1 and

AArtyP-5). Of these, the most important are the

Artillery Working Group, Interservice Ammunition

Interchangeability Working Group and the Land

Operations Working Group.

Under CNAD, the NATO Army Armaments

Group’s (NAAG) ‘Level 2’ group on Fire Support,

Land Capability Group 3 (LCG/3), is the main focus

for Artillery systems. LCG/3’s Sub-Group 2

on Accuracy and Ballistics is especially important for

the development of the SG/2 Shareable (Fire Control)

Software Suite (S4).

NC3B is the authority with expertise in C4ISR

capabilities, including Land C2IS, Deployable CIS,

the Information Exchange Gateway (IEG), Secure

Joint Tactical Chat Services (JChat) and the NATO

Messaging System (compliant with STANAG 4406).

Following a reorganization within the structure

of the CNAD Main Armaments Groups in 2006,

the Battlefield Digitization Group (LG/1) was

disbanded, and it was expected that NC3O would

continue the work of the group. However, funding

cuts have impacted on the capacity of NC3O, so

NAAG is now establishing a C2IS Quick Reaction

Team (QRT – due to report to NAAG in Spring 2011)

to clearly define Land Force C2IS operational

requirements at Battlegroup level and below across

the Level 2 Groups’ tactical capability domains, as

well as the interfaces to the Air and Naval

components. The analysis will result in the definition

of the C2IS requirements and in the presentation of an

action plan that can be used by NAAG to prioritize

the shortcomings and gaps.

The resulting C2IS Operational Requirements and

action plan will be presented to the International

Staff, NHQC3 Staff, RTA, and other NATO

organizations and agencies for them to address the

required development of tactical C3 architectures and

standards necessary to achieve the necessary level of

interoperability (Chulsilp et al., 2012).

4.1 SG/2 Shareable Software Suite (S4)

The S4 is an umbrella NATO cooperative program

with five individual cooperative projects, all under

the auspices of NAAG, LCG/3 SG/2. Each project

develops one or multiple software products. The suite

is comprised of the separate software products,

designed to be embedded in the executive level

software of a fire control computer, which when

combined will provide most if not all of the basic

capability required by a fire control computer for

mission planning and accurate fire except for

communication and the soldier-machine interface.

The five individual software projects are the

NATO Armaments Ballistics Kernel (NABK),

NATO Armaments Geophysical and Information

Kernel (NAGIK), NATO Armaments Meteorological

Kernel (NAMK), NATO Indirect Fire Appreciation

Kernel (NIFAK), and the NATO Armaments Support

Services (NASS). The NABK project produces the

NABK product. The NAGIK project produces the

Terrain Elevation Data Manager (TEDM), Global

Land-Usage Manager (GLUM), and NAGIK

Common products. The NAMK project produces the

Meteorological Data Manager (METM), Gridded

Meteorological (Message) Verification software

(GMVerify), and CI products. The NIFAK project

The New Automated Fire Control System for Artillery Units based on Interoperability and Standards

335

produces the NIFAK product. The NASS project

produces the NASS product.

The umbrella or parent programme is managed by

SG/2 through the S4 Configuration Control Board

(SCCB). This level has oversight of all projects,

manages key requirements and product-to-product

interfaces, suite quality assurance, technology

generation, and independent software/safety audits.

Each project is managed by a project lead from a lead

nation and the project team at a minimum has the key

roles of software development, quality assurance, and

configuration management. STANAG 4537,

AOP-37 and AOP-49 guide the program organization

and operation.

4.2 Multilateral Interoperability

Program (MIP)

MIP is an interoperability organization established

by national C2IS system developers with

a requirement to share relevant C2 information in

a multinational/coalition environment. As a result of

collaboration within the program, MIP produces a set

of specifications which, when implemented by the

nations, provide the required interoperability

capability. MIP provides a venue for system level

interoperability testing of national MIP

implementations as well as providing a forum for

exchanging information relevant to national

implementation and fielding plans to enable

synchronization. MIP is not empowered to direct how

nations develop their own C2IS.

Key points:

 MIP focuses on interoperability of command

and control (C2) systems, which includes the

Land view of Joint operations, but

encourages contributions from Air,

Maritime and other Communities of Interest

(CoIs).

 MIP specifications are based on operational

requirements developed into a fieldable

interoperability solution.

 MIP assures the quality of the specification

through operational and technical testing of

national implementations.

 The MIP solution refers to two or more

national C2IS exchanging information by

employing their respective implementations

based upon the agreed MIP technical

specifications and supporting procedural and

operational documentation.

A conceptual illustration of how the current MIP

interoperability solution works is shown below.

Figure 2: MIP interoperability solution.

The MIP Solution supports the ability to exchange

information between national C2IS in order to

facilitate the improved situational awareness and

collaboration among commanders that will lead to

and support common understanding. The MIP

Solution satisfies the information exchange

requirements between forces employing dissimilar

C2IS and which, during an operation, have

a command, support, or proximity relationship. The

MIP Solution contributes to the creation of

a Common Operating Picture (part of Situational

Awareness) and the Plans and Orders

by providing effective management and

dissemination of information being exchanged

between national C2IS. This is achieved by the

implementation of a common data model and

common exchange mechanisms (messaging and data

replication).

The Common Operating Picture is created

through a predefined set of information exchanges

with other HQs. The information exchanges include:

Blue force locations, operational graphics, significant

activities (as defined by the Lead Nation), the

correlated enemy picture and uncorrelated enemy

picture. In general terms it encompasses all relevant

information within a given commander’s Area

of Interest. Operations staffs are responsible for

identifying specific information to be exchanged in

order to create the default common operational

picture. This information sharing is accomplished via

the Data Exchange Mechanism (DEM). The DEM is

the automated exchange of information between

related forces.

This diagram shows how MIP-JC3IEDM supports

a call for fire message and subsequent action:

ICINCO 2017 - 14th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics

336

Figure 3: Diagram MIP for fire message and subsequent

action.

4 CONCLUSIONS

The global environment changes, threats and new

tasks require new approach of the Czech Republic

defence strategy. Future security environment will be

characteristic by dynamic changes of situation. The

threat of terrorism causes changes

of strategy, which turns from using massive armed

forces to effectively using modern, sophisticated

forces with quick Command, Control and Decision

process supported by information technologies.

The aim of this article was not to describe detailed

interoperability and standards issue for fire control

system running but to introduce the most important

system of the Artillery Battalion Fire Control System

of the Artillery of the Army of the Czech Republic

and highlight significance of perfect communication

system of today and future fire control system or

command and Control operational tactical systems

(Mazal, Stodola, 2015). The above mentioned

requirements on necessary changes the Czech

Automated Artillery Fire Support Control System

represent absolutely basic conditions for approach to

the NATO standard (NEC Capabilities).

The perspective fire control system, which is

developed at the University of Defence, must assure

fire control at first. In near future there may be

circumstances for the advancement of the current

system to a higher level.

This higher level requires compliance with

principles and standards presented above in the paper.

The Czech Artillery units need to have intuitive

system for mathematical computations what assures

prediction capabilities for adequate fire support

provision - PVNPG-14M should be the best choice in

current conditions. It is necessary to connect Future

Artillery Fire Support Control System to the NATO

network philosophy system within the Network

Enabled Capabilities.

REFERENCES

Blaha, M., Sobarňa, M., 2009. Principles of the Army of the

Czech Republic Reconnaissance and Fire Units Combat

using. In The 15

International Conference „The

Knowledge-Based Organization“.

Blaha, M., Brabcová, K., 2012. Decision-Making by

Effective C2I system. In The 7

International

Conference on Information Warfare and Security.

Prague, MO CR, Joint Forces Command, Training, 2007.

Shooting Rules and ground artillery fire control (gun,

platoon, battery compartment). Pub-74-14-1.

Prague, MO CR, 2008. Military Strategy of The Czech

Republic.

NSA NATO, 2007. NATO Capabilities/Statements – 2018.

Prague, MO CR, 2005. Doctrine of the Army of the Czech

Republic.

NSA NATO, 2008. ACP 167J Glossary of Communications

– Electronics Terms.

Blaha, M., Sobarňa, M., 2010. Some develop aspects of

perspective Fire Support Control System in Czech

Army conditions. In The 6

WSEAS International

Conference on Dynamical Systems and Control.

Potužák, L., 2006. Control and Realization of Fire Support

- The Cooperation of Artillery and Units of Artillery

Reconnaissance during Fire Support of Forces.

Prague, MO CR, 2003. AD-6.1 Doctrine of Communication

and Information systems.

NSA NATO, 2009. AAP-6 NATO Glossary of Terms and

Definitions.

NSA NATO, 2013. AArtyP-5 (A) – NATO Indirect Fire

Systems Tactical Doctrine. Brussel.

Chulsilp, P., Charubhun, W., Nuktumhang, N., 2012.

Investigating and iterative method to compute firing

angles for artillery projectiles. In The 2012

IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced

Intelligent Mechatronics, Kaohsiung.

Stodola, P., Mazal, J., 2015. Tactical and operational

software library. In Military Technologies (ICMT).

The New Automated Fire Control System for Artillery Units based on Interoperability and Standards

337