# Do Canadian soldiers use the PRC 117 radio?



## basxav (2 Feb 2005)

Hi all:
Do Canadian soldiers use the PRC 117 radio? If not, do we use an equivalent type? What's the Canadian designation?
Thanks!
xavier


----------



## soldiers301 (2 Feb 2005)

Here is the different radio currently used by Canadian Soldiers :

-Combat Net Radio (Primary) or CNR(P)
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_61.asp?uSubSection=61&uSection=3

-Light Assault Radio (LAR) 
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_63.asp?uSubSection=63&uSection=3

-Combat Net Radio (High Frequency) or CNR (HF)
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_60.asp?uSubSection=60&uSection=3

-Air/Ground/Air Radio (A/G/A Radio)
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_59.asp?uSubSection=59&uSection=3


----------



## basxav (2 Feb 2005)

Soldier301:
Thanks for the links


----------



## BKells (3 Feb 2005)

You'll never see the bottom two unless you join the air force or work in a BDE CP.

The top one is called the AN/PRC-522 set and everyone calls it a 522.
The second one is called the AN/PRC-521 set and everyone calls it a 521.  This piece of kit is garbage, by the way.


----------



## buzgo (3 Feb 2005)

It was garbage when I did the course in '98. FRS radios are FAR superior, but last I heard we couldn't use them. Where I was in Pet (at the Sig Sqn!) we often needed a "walkie talkie" and luckily we had access to Motorola handhelds.


----------



## chrisf (3 Feb 2005)

BKells said:
			
		

> You'll never see the bottom two unless you join the air force or work in a BDE CP.
> 
> The second one is called the AN/PRC-521 set and everyone calls it a 521.   This piece of kit is garbage, by the way.



You have no need to see HF radios in the infantry, or really, any trade outside signals anyway, as it's for strategic communcations, not tactical communications. We sigs types use them though, often.

Reference the 521, if nothing else, it's virtually indestructible... not quite a PRC77, but still...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (3 Feb 2005)

I've had only limited contact with signals equipment on exercises, but having done my share of duty in "battalion" CPs and a little bit of experience in an infantry company headquarters, I have to say I was shocked by how little, apparently, has changed since the 1st British Airborne Division landed at Arnhem Bridge with completely sucky signals equipment.

The 77 sets - upgraded Vietnam era radios - seemed unable to operate in Wainwright - which is a lot of prairie land - without a boost from a ground mount antenna.  Our CSM was a Jimmy at heart, I think, and gave me a lesson in wire splicing on one ex, in addition to building his fav antenna mast.  

On our driver wheeled course, all the instructors brought cel phones - I realize the need for crypto stuff in modern comms equipment, but it is beyond me how we can't get radios to function with the same ease as a cel phone?

The 522 sets are great - unless only one person in your regiment "has the course".  I know I've whined about this before, but I'll say again - why couldn't they design it with intuitive switches like ON or OFF or VOLUME or CHANNEL X..... ;D

I haven't used the "new" stuff enough to have an informed opinion, though I was a bit alarmed on an exercise about a year ago in which I was tasked to man a RRB site - on top of a very large hill out west in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains - thinking that "hey, these new radios are NEW so they must be LIGHTER."   Of course, while the 521s are more man-portable, the 522 is most user unfriendly in hilly country...   I almost felt sorry for the poor Privates I made carry all that shit up to the top of the hill.    >


----------



## buzgo (4 Feb 2005)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> You have no need to see HF radios in the infantry, or really, any trade outside signals anyway, as it's for strategic communcations, not tactical communications. We sigs types use them though, often.



Umm, last time I checked, the 138 is in use with the infantry. The entire mission in Ethiopia/Eritrea used them. The Airborne used to use the 515 set (the old manpack HF). I'm quite sure that all of the various unit CPs have them. Just because something is HF doesn't mean its a strategic communications system. What if you have to talk further than the range of your VHF nets, and have no RRB? What if you want to run an HF guard net - which we used to do quite often with the 106 set, as a backup to the VHF bde comd net. 

Not to say that the 138 can't do strategic level comms, but to blatantly say "you have no need to see them"  is a bit much.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (4 Feb 2005)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> On our driver wheeled course, all the instructors brought cel phones - I realize the need for crypto stuff in modern comms equipment, but it is beyond me how we can't get radios to function with the same ease as a cel phone?



I remember hearing somewhere about some troops in Iraq (British, I think, but not 100% sure) using Motorolas to communicate with each other. They later got ambushed because the enemy was able to hear their conversation. I mean, sure, it's easier to use civilian technology, but what good is that when you're dead?


----------



## buzgo (4 Feb 2005)

Exactly, thats why non-military radios are not used in Afghanistan. The PRR (personal role radio) that gets used is basically a militarized FRS radio. It works quite well.

Hopefully they are being used in training now here in Canada. The only reason we ever used civilian comms (and ONLY on exercise), was because the military equivalent was garbage.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Feb 2005)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> was because the military equivalent was garbage.



None of which answers the question.  Why is the military stuff garbage?


----------



## Thompson_JM (4 Feb 2005)

I have a few theories on that.

1. It tends to be made by the lowest bidder, hence cheaper parts to lower the cost.
2. More often then not the Gov't seems to buy things based on can it be made in canada and by someone in XY's Constituency... ie: LSVW, Griffon.... 

anywho, we do have some great bang on equipment, but unfortunatley any kind of low level comms stuff is not it... i know we just did a weekend road move with the 521's and each vehicle had an FRS Radio as well, just in case the 521 didnt work, which on day one, was all of them, and day two was every radio in packet 1...

I agree the 522's are great.. or would be if i could figure out how to use them.... 

anywho, just my .02


----------



## willy (4 Feb 2005)

The PRC 521 isn't a great radio.  It is however a lot better than most people think.  Here are some common reasons why people fail to get adequate comms when using the 521:

1.  Squelch Setting or Tx Tone Set incorrectly:  I don't know why people want to constantly fiddle with these settings, but they do.  Squelch on the 521 is noise operated.  If some genius sets the threshold too high, then the radio will not recognize incoming intelligent signals, and will instead think that they are just white noise that needs to get filtered out.  The default is 8db, and the default setting is fine.  The tx tone needs to be set to 150 Hz in order for the thing to be compatible with other NATO radios.  150 Hz also happens to be the default setting, so just leave it alone.

2.  Finger problems when programming:  The PRC 521 IUCE (programming box) is not user friendly, and programming can easily go awry as a result.  Unless the thing is set to the same frequency as the next radio, problems will invariably occur.  Use a laptop with the Frequency Fill Software on it to program your radio, vice doing it manually with the IUCE.  The FFS is simple and user friendly, and if you do make a mistake, you'll be able to see it right away.  Overall, you'll find your results are much, much better.  Once one radio has been properly programmed in that manner, use a cloning cable to make your other radios identical.  Programming and the lack thereof  is the single biggest cause of poor comms when using these radios.

3.  Attempting to use the set for purposes for which it was never designed:  Nominal range of the 521 on high power when using the 1M blade antenna is 3.0 Km.  Actual range will depend on battery power, terrain, conductivity of the ground, and condition of the set itself.  You will almost never get 3 Km out of it though.  Accept that fact, and don't try and use it as your lone means of communications when on patrol 5+ Km from your patrol base.  I've seen that happen too many times.

Anyway, I'm not trying to say that the 521 is a great set.  It definitely isn't.  But it works much better when properly programmed and operated, and in my experience it would seem that there aren't enough people who know how to do that.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Feb 2005)

The 117 is a wide, multi-band AGA radio, VFH FM to UHF AM (about 30-512MHz, IIRC).  I believe our AGA radio is also known as the PRC-113...which is essentially a a VHF-AM and UHF-AM multiband radio (115-150, 225-400 MHz, note no FM like the 117).  I know that the AGA in part replaced the PRC-66 (UHF, 225-400MHz only) but I can not remember what the VHF AM AGA 'brother' to the UHF PRC-66 was.


----------



## chrisf (5 Feb 2005)

willy said:
			
		

> 2.   Finger problems when programming:   The PRC 521 IUCE (programming box) is not user friendly, and programming can easily go awry as a result.   Unless the thing is set to the same frequency as the next radio, problems will invariably occur.   Use a laptop with the Frequency Fill Software on it to program your radio, vice doing it manually with the IUCE.   The FFS is simple and user friendly, and if you do make a mistake, you'll be able to see it right away.   Overall, you'll find your results are much, much better.   Once one radio has been properly programmed in that manner, use a cloning cable to make your other radios identical.   Programming and the lack thereof   is the single biggest cause of poor comms when using these radios.
> 
> 3.   Attempting to use the set for purposes for which it was never designed:   Nominal range of the 521 on high power when using the 1M blade antenna is 3.0 Km.   Actual range will depend on battery power, terrain, conductivity of the ground, and condition of the set itself.   You will almost never get 3 Km out of it though.   Accept that fact, and don't try and use it as your lone means of communications when on patrol 5+ Km from



Supposedly, there's a version of the 521 available with a keypad, but it wasn't purchased, because it was slightly more expensive...

That being said, reference  your point #2, I've always found that when it's actually needed, a laptop is *always* unavailable.

Reference #3, while you are right, I once had a 521 that couldn't reach the CP we were gaurding, 500m away. It could establish comms with the 522 set we had on site, which in turn could reach the CP, but the 521 itself just couldn't do it... on high power... with the blade antenna. Probably some sort of freak circumstance, but still. We eventually gave up and ran a field phone.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2005)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Reference #3, while you are right, I once had a 521 that couldn't reach the CP we were gaurding, 500m away. It could establish comms with the 522 set we had on site, which in turn could reach the CP, but the 521 itself just couldn't do it... on high power... with the blade antenna. Probably some sort of freak circumstance, but still. We eventually gave up and ran a field phone.



I'm curious.....did you check the 'serviceability' of your kit....especially your connections?  I have found antennas that have been missing connecting 'clips' or a tiny pieces here or there that may have gone unnoticed.  With a broken antenna/connection you may be able to talk to the guy beside you, but not have any range over 50 ft.  Just a thought.

GW


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Feb 2005)

Quotes from Just a Sig Op,
 once had a 521 that couldn't reach the CP we were gaurding, 500m away.
We eventually gave up and ran a field phone.

Just nit-picking here but from everything I was taught, [and teached], shouldn't the running of the field phone have been the main priority?....we haven't fallen this far have we?


----------



## chrisf (5 Feb 2005)

Servicbility of kit -

Yes, of course the radio was checked, and appeared to be in working order.

Use of Field Phones -

This was a silly logistics issue. They wouldn't give us field phones, but they would give us a 521. After that didn't work, we were given field phones, but they wouldn't give us wire. So they were convinced to give us a 522. If you tell me it was silly, you're preaching to the choir... as I know it was silly. All I could do though was sit there, gaurd the gate, and sigh. After a couple of days, somone of sufficient rank to point out how silly it was saw to it that we had wire.


----------



## basxav (5 Feb 2005)

Hi all:
Wow! Very interesting reminescinces and comments about Canadian field radios  Thanks again for a very informative thread

xavier


----------



## LCMM (4 Jun 2005)

We do not really use the Harris Corporation AN/PRC-117F yet although both the Air Force and Army have bought a few to trial and for specific operations.  It has a lot of options including being able to set up a secure freqency hopping net with the US Army's SINGARS.  It can also do Have Quick hopping but the one thing it cannot do is CNR(P) hopping so it is not completely compatible with our primary VHF radio.  Trying to fully integrate it with the Iris Communication System will be a challenge.  The current A/G/A radio used by the Canadian Army is the RT-1319 as shown by the link someone else posted.  It is a good radio, but is no longer sold or even supported.  As they break, I expect we will gradually start replacing them with the 117F.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Jun 2005)

LCMM, I doubt the 117F would ever be modified to hop on IRIS...the SINCGARS and IRIS FH algorithms are substantially different, and Harris wouldn't even spend the time to build a new radio system, unless the Cdn Gov't threw lots of money at them....wait a sec... :


----------



## swordfish2 (19 Jan 2009)

The 522 radio i find works beautiful.
the 521 we did not run into much problems with but then again we were not in rough terrain if you will.

I personally perfer the 522's.
I'm just curious, what do our allies say in Afganistan use?

I read earlier that the british used civ. radios but not anymore. so what do they use?


----------



## Redeye (19 Jan 2009)

Read somewhere (probably on ARRSE - the UK Army Rumour Service) that they adopted a comms/SA system called "BOWMAN".  It's said to stand for "Better Off With Map And Nokia".



			
				swordfish2 said:
			
		

> The 522 radio i find works beautiful.
> the 521 we did not run into much problems with but then again we were not in rough terrain if you will.
> 
> I personally perfer the 522's.
> ...


----------



## Eric_911 (19 Jan 2009)

swordfish2 said:
			
		

> The 522 radio i find works beautiful.
> the 521 we did not run into much problems with but then again we were not in rough terrain if you will.
> 
> I personally perfer the 522's.
> ...



Holy frikin' necropost! Over 3 and a half years old!


----------



## Fusaki (19 Jan 2009)

> Holy frikin' necropost! Over 3 and a half years old!



Yeah, seriously.  But since we're here...

I would not go so far as to say that the 522 works beautifully.  In fact, I'd say the IRIS system as a whole is pretty junk.  The veh installs arn't too bad, but the dismounted stuff leaves alot to be desired.

But then again, I have a hard-on for Harris radios... ;D


----------



## rampage800 (19 Jan 2009)

Not too sure if anyone is using the 522s in dismounted/light roles overseas, I imagine they are but to be quite blunt most people could get away with the 522 vice the 117F. A lot of the guys you'll talk to say they need the SATCOM and UHF but don't carry the applicable antennas, know how to set it up (SATCOM)or even know the freqs so they're just basically carrying a fancier looking VHF radio. All things being equal the smaller versions are starting to come out over there( 148s and 152s) now and I have no problems buying the weight issue argument


----------



## Fusaki (19 Jan 2009)

A 117 pushes over twice the power of a 522, for the same weight.  SATCOM and UHF capabilities aside, it's a significantly better radio even when only used for VHF.  In my own perfect world 152s would replace our LARs and 117s would replace our 522s.


----------



## rampage800 (19 Jan 2009)

I have no rebuttal against saying the 117F is better than the 522, I totally agree and I'm well aware of the capes and limitations of both radios, the problem is, as you probably already know, there are not enough 117Fs to go around (ie. a 1 for 1 swap) so they need to be prioritized. In a perfect world all users would have VHF,UHF and SATCOM capes but thats not the Army we're in. For the average user the 522 works.


----------



## Sig_Des (20 Jan 2009)

AFIK, The Brits are still using the Bowman system, which is an upgraded version of the IRIS system, also made by GD.

As far as 522 vs. 117F, different radios, for different roles. Not everyone needs a DAMA/ HPW capability all the time, and some do.


----------



## GDawg (20 Jan 2009)

I had a 117F overseas and it truly is a wonder radio. Before I deployed I had maybe 2 hours of formal training on it, I figured out the rest myself. I think my TC was hesitant to switch from the 522, but when I found all the EIS and demonstrated the awesomeness and relative simplicity he was converted. Getting all the parts was a hassle, and I wouldn't doubt they were winding up with folks who didn't have the antennas or experience to fully utilize the radio. For my purposes the 522 was pretty good, but the 117 was better.  I also had a few 521s, but that is a different matter entirely. I rarely worked with the 148, but I wish I had.


----------



## willy (20 Jan 2009)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> AFIK, The Brits are still using the Bowman system, which is an upgraded version of the IRIS system, also made by GD.
> 
> As far as 522 vs. 117F, different radios, for different roles. Not everyone needs a DAMA/ HPW capability all the time, and some do.



The main advantage of the 117 as we are using it here in theatre is the multi band capability, not the HPW capability. The HPW capability is great, and it lets you do all kinds of snazzy things, but at the present time we aren't using it, other than in a few test cases.  (The Brits use HPW all the time, with outstanding results, and we should try to be more like them.)

I have been out with the Brits on multiple occasions now, and I have not seen them use any Bowman Radio, nor any VHF of any kind.  They are using the Harris PRC 150 to run most of their unit level nets.  Being a HF set there is a bit of an operator training bill involved with using it successfully/properly, but in the hands of a good operator it has a number of advantages over a VHF set, chief among them being the ability to punch through ECM.  We are not using HF in theatre (and again, we should try be more like the Brits).


----------



## Fusaki (20 Jan 2009)

> A lot of the guys you'll talk to say they need the SATCOM and UHF but don't carry the applicable antennas, know how to set it up (SATCOM)or even know the freqs so they're just basically carrying a fancier looking VHF radio.





> For the average user the 522 works.



But the 117 works better.  It's not just a "Fancy looking 522".  It's a 522 that has the muscle to TX longer distances through harsher terrain.  Even if you have no need for SATCOM, UHF, HPW, the _average user_ is still _better off_ with a 117.  The fact that there are not enough 117s to go around is a seperate issue.



> As far as 522 vs. 117F, different radios, for different roles.



They are not for different roles.  The 117 does EVERYTHING the 522 does in a _dismount_ role.  Just because the 117 can do alot more does not mean that it serves a different purpose.  The 113 and the 522 are different roles. The 117 fills the _same role_ as both of them and then some.



> I had a 117F overseas and it truly is a wonder radio. Before I deployed I had maybe 2 hours of formal training on it, I figured out the rest myself. I think my TC was hesitant to switch from the 522, but when I found all the EIS and demonstrated the awesomeness and relative simplicity he was converted. Getting all the parts was a hassle, and I wouldn't doubt they were winding up with folks who didn't have the antennas or experience to fully utilize the radio. *For my purposes the 522 was pretty good, but the 117 was better. *



Agreed.


----------



## rampage800 (20 Jan 2009)

Wonderbread

I guess you missed the part where I agreed with you, that the 117F is a better radio, I think the higher power has more to do with the fact that the 117F covers a wider range of freqs than the 522, as opposed to muscling through heavy terrain, its still LOS. I stand by what I said, for the average user, who doesn't need UHF or SATCOM capability the 522 works fine.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jan 2009)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> ............, I think the higher power has more to do with the fact that the 117F covers a wider range of freqs than the 522, as opposed to muscling through heavy terrain, its still LOS.




You lost me, and I'm not an Electronics Engineer, but I think you probably lost all of them too.  I am positive that a CELE officer, or someone else with a higher Degree in the subject will tell you that a wider range of freqs does not give you more power.  

Another thing; it doesn't matter what  radio transmitter you use, a radio wave is a radio wave is a radio wave, and it isn't changed by using a different radio.  

How you use your radio, and you knowledge of radio waves, air and ground, as well as what "Skip" is, and a few other tricks may be something that you'll pick up with some experience.   Anyone want to get into Patrol antennas and expedient antennas or perhaps what height a Ground Plan antenna should be set for what freq?


----------



## rampage800 (20 Jan 2009)

George

There are different transmitting power settings on the 117F, the higher settings are for AM, the 117F has that capability. I believe even when in VHF mode the highest setting you can get is 10 even though it'll read 20, the AM setting at its highest will let you talk to a/c 30-40kms out, in VHF maybe 5, 10-15 with a 10ft antenna, no different than the 522.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jan 2009)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> George
> 
> There are different transmitting power settings on the 117F, the higher settings are for AM, the 117F has that capability. I believe even when in VHF mode the highest setting you can get is 10 even though it'll read 20, the AM setting at its highest will let you talk to a/c 30-40kms out, in VHF maybe 5, 10-15 with a 10ft antenna, no different than the 522.



Began to think of the different spectrums after I posted.  Still, range can be greatly improved with different antennas.  Not being too familiar with either radio, what is the differences in Power output between the two?


----------



## rampage800 (20 Jan 2009)

To be quite honest I don't know, I believe the max tx setting on the 522 is 5 so it would stand to reason that it would talk further but in reality it doesn't. The 117F will "step" on the smaller radios but talking VHF, in my experiences with both and with as you pointed out the same antennas, either 3 ft whip or 10 ft, they work the same.

We do use expedient antennas(when the situation permits) with the Cobra Heads and stuff but it is a bit of a lost art, no Droopy Dipoles or anything like that, about the best you'll see now is a piece of WD-1 strung out along the ground, to go along with that I've only seen one set up overseas, not saying its correct but just not something we practice a lot anymore but probably should.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jan 2009)

rampage800 said:
			
		

> To be quite honest I don't know, I believe the max tx setting on the 522 is 5 so it would stand to reason that it would talk further but in reality it doesn't. The 117F will "step" on the smaller radios but talking VHF, in my experiences with both and with as you pointed out the same antennas, either 3 ft whip or 10 ft, they work the same.
> 
> We do use expedient antennas(when the situation permits) with the Cobra Heads and stuff but it is a bit of a lost art, no Droopy Dipoles or anything like that, about the best you'll see now is a piece of WD-1 strung out along the ground, to go along with that I've only seen one set up overseas, not saying its correct but just not something we practice a lot anymore but probably should.



Many guys forget to properly ground the set.


----------



## Fusaki (20 Jan 2009)

> I believe the max tx setting on the 522 is 5 so it would stand to reason that it would talk further but in reality it doesn't. The 117F will "step" on the smaller radios but talking VHF, in my experiences with both and with as you pointed out the same antennas, either 3 ft whip or 10 ft, they work the same.



I work closely with a guy who humped a 117 as the OC's signaller almost every day for 6 months. He'll swear that the 117's 10 watts (VHF Low, FM mode) make a significant and noticeable improvement over the 522's 4 watts TX power.  Having carried a 117 myself for a few days in the fall, I'll say that there was a noticeable improvement over the 522 when operating in an urban environment.  I maintain that a 6 watt difference is a BIG difference.

WRT field expedient antennas...

Last spring we pushed 5 watts from Chalk River to Y-101, about 16 kms.  We did it using a 138 set on a VHF freq in FM mode, talking to a 522 on a vixon mast.  While it's true that we did have LOS, the 10 foot whip wasn't even breaking air on the far end.

The antenna we used was a "Vertical V" that we sort of came up with on the spot.  Imagine a horizontal V cut to length for the freq, and put on it's side so that it would propagate vertically.  Interestingly enough, of the 20 or so antennas we tried that day, the one that looked most like a vixon mast worked the best. Who'da thunk it?


----------



## tango22a (20 Jan 2009)

George:

PM inbound!

Cheers,

tango22a


----------



## Canadian Sig (8 Feb 2009)

I have been packing around a 117 and a 148 for the last 9+ months. Both are outstanding pieces of kit. A huge improvment over the 522/521 combo. The only problem I had at this end was finding a decent load carrying system for the 117. Finally got a Mystery Ranch bag and was good to go.


----------



## GDawg (8 Feb 2009)

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> I have been packing around a 117 and a 148 for the last 9+ months. Both are outstanding pieces of kit. A huge improvment over the 522/521 combo. The only problem I had at this end was finding a decent load carrying system for the 117. Finally got a Mystery Ranch bag and was good to go.



Overseas I used the small pack at first, and then a "Bug out gear" bag from the AAFES at KAF. I'll never use the standard radio harness again.


----------



## Fusaki (8 Feb 2009)

> I have been packing around a 117 and a 148 for the last 9+ months. Both are outstanding pieces of kit. A huge improvment over the 522/521 combo. The only problem I had at this end was finding a decent load carrying system for the 117. Finally got a Mystery Ranch bag and was good to go.



Which mystery ranch bag did you get? The NICE Comm system seems excessive, but the DA pack looks about right. Did you get the BVS option? If you did, was it a significant improvement in over armour comfort?

Did you use the headset or handset? The lack of a second port on the 117 was something we had to overcome:

SOP in my sigs cage is a knotted bungie loop through the shoulder strap of the pack, placed around head height with the handset through it.  This keeps handset by the signaller's ear so he can hear if someone's trying to talk with him, but also allows him to pull the handset down through the bungie so the boss can talk in it.  A big knot in the bungie gives the sig something to grab onto while wearing gloves so he can stretch the loop open and get the handset back in.

This gives a couple advantages over the headset:

-The handset isn't touching the sig's ear, and is therefore more comfortable

-The sig doesn't need to remove his helmet to get the headset on.  He can wear the veh headset when rolling in the LAV, then just throw the pack on as he dismounts.

-He can hear when someone's trying to get a hold of him, but can also quickly pass the handset off to the boss.


----------



## Recon 3690 (10 Mar 2009)

same old gripes nothing works right and someone else has something better. Back in the day we had the same probs, we all called our radios 25 sets and some griped that the US was using PRC 77s not realizing that if you opened them up they were 77s. 

Point 2 the prob with the 521s is DND tried to make it an everything radio its a squad radio and does not need a long range if your section is spread out over 1/2 a klick you're in deep shit troop, also it only needs about 10 preprogrammed freqs for section use ie. PRC 68 (still in use as PRC 126) your sect. does not need freq hopping just encryption. Range on a manpack VHF is about 5 Km on a good day & if you are that far ahead of your next higher HQ & support you are ahead of me and you're in deep shit troop, (Recce 1st to die) high power usage gives away your position to direction finding & eats batteries like crazy the weaker the battery the lower your tx/rx power, you do not need all those extra bands are you a FAC that needs to talk to zoomies, are your Recce that sometimes needs HF, are you Spec-Ops that needs a Satcom no not your job. You need to keep in mind the KISS principle the more complicated the kit the easier it breaks, the easier it is for someone to screw up under stress, and it sounds like that's the prob with the 522s, overly complicated, at least partly. Check & maintain your gear, I used to carry a small tube of dialectic grease for use on antenna, audio, & battery connections, it does wonders for stopping corrosion & keeping out moisture, use a tester to check your batteries, keep them fresh. Check & recheck your gear, make sure it works before you leave on the mission, if it doesn't work once you're across the FEBA its to late & your in deep shit troop. Fancy kit with features you don't need is not the answer, using what you have the way it was meant to be used is.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> same old gripes nothing works right and someone else has something better. Back in the day we had the same probs, we all called our radios 25 sets and some griped that the US was using PRC 77s not realizing that if you opened them up they were 77s.
> 
> Point 2 the prob with the 521s is DND tried to make it an everything radio its a squad radio and does not need a long range if your section is spread out over 1/2 a klick you're in deep crap troop, also it only needs about 10 preprogrammed freqs for section use ie. PRC 68 (still in use as PRC 126) your sect. does not need freq hopping just encryption. Range on a manpack VHF is about 5 Km on a good day & if you are that far ahead of your next higher HQ & support you are ahead of me and you're in deep crap troop, (Recce 1st to die) high power usage gives away your position to direction finding & eats batteries like crazy the weaker the battery the lower your tx/rx power, you do not need all those extra bands are you a FAC that needs to talk to zoomies, are your Recce that sometimes needs HF, are you Spec-Ops that needs a Satcom no not your job. You need to keep in mind the KISS principle the more complicated the kit the easier it breaks, the easier it is for someone to screw up under stress, and it sounds like that's the prob with the 522s, overly complicated, at least partly. Check & maintain your gear, I used to carry a small tube of dialectic grease for use on antenna, audio, & battery connections, it does wonders for stopping corrosion & keeping out moisture, use a tester to check your batteries, keep them fresh. Check & recheck your gear, make sure it works before you leave on the mission, if it doesn't work once you're across the FEBA its to late & your in deep crap troop. Fancy kit with features you don't need is not the answer, using what you have the way it was meant to be used is.



You forgot the most important piece of kit - a signaller as keen as you are about keeping your equipment operating!

Moving location now to get better comms....


----------



## Fusaki (10 Mar 2009)

> same old gripes nothing works right and someone else has something better. Back in the day we had the same probs, we all called our radios 25 sets and some griped that the US was using PRC 77s not realizing that if you opened them up they were 77s.
> 
> Point 2 the prob with the 521s is DND tried to make it an everything radio its a squad radio and does not need a long range if your section is spread out over 1/2 a klick you're in deep crap troop, also it only needs about 10 preprogrammed freqs for section use ie. PRC 68 (still in use as PRC 126) your sect. does not need freq hopping just encryption. Range on a manpack VHF is about 5 Km on a good day & if you are that far ahead of your next higher HQ & support you are ahead of me and you're in deep crap troop, (Recce 1st to die) high power usage gives away your position to direction finding & eats batteries like crazy the weaker the battery the lower your tx/rx power, you do not need all those extra bands are you a FAC that needs to talk to zoomies, are your Recce that sometimes needs HF, are you Spec-Ops that needs a Satcom no not your job. You need to keep in mind the KISS principle the more complicated the kit the easier it breaks, the easier it is for someone to screw up under stress, and it sounds like that's the prob with the 522s, overly complicated, at least partly. Check & maintain your gear, I used to carry a small tube of dialectic grease for use on antenna, audio, & battery connections, it does wonders for stopping corrosion & keeping out moisture, use a tester to check your batteries, keep them fresh. Check & recheck your gear, make sure it works before you leave on the mission, if it doesn't work once you're across the FEBA its to late & your in deep crap troop. *Fancy kit with features you don't need is not the answer, using what you have the way it was meant to be used is.*



Wrong.

First off, those features _increase_ our capability.  The capability to tx longer distances and switch to a SATCOM net in an emergency are REAL advantages.  The 117 is not a piece of LCF kit and it is not a piece of comfort kit.  It is a state of the art piece of equipment that helps us to do our job more efficiently.  And we're not going to war in scarlets just because the troops in the Boer war "got by just fine".

Second off, phrases like "using what you have the way it was meant to be used" is the polar opposite of the mindset I expect of keen signalers.  I expect signalers to try new things, be aware of new technology, and push the equipment further. When the OC asks a signaler for a solution to a comms problem, he should get more then shrugged shoulders.  I've personally recommended that 117s and Iridium phones be TSRed. We _did_ get them and they _did_ help our situation.  Later, we realized that HF would have been perfect for that environment.  When everyone else said HF was dead, we trained on it.  A few months later, we employed it successfully in a tactical situation giving my coy a real and useful capability that other coys on ex didn't have.  Signalers all the way down to the platoon and section level are expected to be problem solvers, full stop.


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

Thats the difference there I was recce I want a radio that works when the crap hits 1 good VHF or HF set so I can call next higher for to rain hellfire on the bag guys so I want something that works, not a fancy POS that takes 15 min to operate. I don't need to talk with Ottawa I need to talk to arty for my fire mission or to the FAC to get my airstrike.

over


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

second in all my time in I can't recall sigs ever being on my side of the FEBA


----------



## George Wallace (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> second in all my time in I can't recall sigs ever being on my side of the FEBA



Now you have pic'd my interest.  Your time in?  Recon?  Squad?  Perhaps you could enlighten us from whence you come.  Your recollection of the 25 and 77 Sets, has me wondering.


----------



## aesop081 (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> we all called our radios 25 sets and some griped that the US was using PRC 77s not realizing that if you opened them up they were 77s.



I have been out of the Army for a bit now but i seem to recall the radio being the 25 set and when combined with the manpack, it became a 77 set.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Mar 2009)

And FACs were using the PRC-66 UHF slab...could listen to Capt Glen Quagmire's buds "ummm" and "ahhhhh" until the battery ran down...


----------



## Sig_Des (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> second in all my time in I can't recall sigs ever being on my side of the FEBA



Well, first off, we don't really have a FEBA anymore.

Second...... well, here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/list.html?appSession=45374409005756&RecordID=119&PageID=3&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=1&CPIsortType=&CPIorderBy=

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/afghanistan/casualties/list.html?appSession=45374409005756&RecordID=47&PageID=3&PrevPageID=2&cpipage=1&CPIsortType=&CPIorderBy=


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Mar 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I have been out of the Army for a bit now but i seem to recall the radio being the 25 set and when combined with the manpack, it became a 77 set.


The 25 set and the 77 set were (externally at least) the same radio; the difference being that the '25' used vacuum tubes and the '77' was solid state.  However, the designations were often used interchangeably (at least to my recollection) even after the 25s were replaced in the CF.  A glance through an old aide memoire from CFOCS (sitting on my shelf of old issued pams) has the comms section describing the "AN/PRC 25" though the 77 was actually used when I went through.


----------



## Fusaki (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> Thats the difference there I was recce I want a radio that works when the crap hits 1 good VHF or HF set so I can call next higher for to rain hellfire on the bag guys so I want something that works, not a fancy POS that takes 15 min to operate.



The crap _has_ hit and the 117 has been there, doing a better job then what we had before.


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

1970s into 1980s RCDs & LdSH the last was a job as a civilian consultant with 163 Battalion MNG US Army


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

The 1st radio I used was the C42 set and surplus US 77 sets & we thought we were in high cotton when we got 524 sets (VRC 12)


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

our FACs were Air Command guys usually back in the cp


----------



## dangerboy (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> our FACs were Air Command guys usually back in the cp


Times have changed, now the FAC's(majority being Arty FOO's) are up front in the thick of things calling in the aircraft with the bullets flying over their head.


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

unless things have changed totally Recce is still trained to call there own fire missions & airstrikes so their FACs & FOOs are prob still in the CP my perspective is from recce sqn in an armoured unit.
the guys that are in the coyotes now


----------



## Cleared Hot (11 Mar 2009)

Rest assured... times have changed!


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

still why would the average grunt need UHF, HF, or Satcom bands or carry the 6 extra antenas in order to use those bands


----------



## Fusaki (11 Mar 2009)

The 117 does VHF and UHF/SATCOM.

The average grunt is usually only using VHF, but SATCOM is nice to have in case of emergency.  It's not limited to range or LOS and because of that it offers a last ditch means of reaching back to the TOC.  It's not practical for everyday traffic like VHF is (for reasons that shouldn't be described here), but having the capability to always call for help is well worth carrying the extra antenna.

Not to mention the fact that the 117 is over twice as powerful as the 522 on VHF.

The fact that the 117 also talks to planes is really only of use to the FACs, but they're right out there with us so it helps that we're using the same gear and can swap out N/S components in a pinch.


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

ok so your VHF is FUBAR say shot full of hole your Satcom is in the same unit how do use it to call for reinforcements


----------



## RCR Grunt (11 Mar 2009)

Iridium phone... dial 1-800-555-1QRF, follow the automated prompts, help will arrive in 30 minutes or it's free.


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

as for power go back to your comms training low power for standard use high power only limited use
and I can get more range with a 77 set using the 3 meter antenna and propper terrain location and low power than someone in a depression with a 1 meter blade antenna on high power
if you only want more range the 138 set has HF to give you that or its successor the PRC 150
Satcoms major benefit is if you're in JTF2 deep in the boonies in Afghanistan & are required to talk to Ottawa or Pet it is strategic more than tactical


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

the old ET phone home ploy


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> as for power go back to your comms training low power for standard use high power only limited use
> and I can get more range with a 77 set using the 3 meter antenna and propper terrain location and low power than someone in a depression with a 1 meter blade antenna on high power
> if you only want more range the 138 set has HF to give you that or its successor the PRC 150



Since you seem to be on permanent send, how about providing weights of each of these radios plus the total weight of batteries for seven days of operations.


----------



## RCR Grunt (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> Satcoms major benefit is if you're in JTF2 deep in the boonies in Afghanistan & are required to talk to Ottawa or Pet it is strategic more than tactical



Actually, most everyone in theater is on satellite or at least has the capability.  It's not just for scuba-ninja's anymore.



			
				Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> ok so your VHF is FUBAR say shot full of hole your Satcom is in the same unit how do use it to call for reinforcements





> if you only want more range the 138 set has HF to give you that or its successor the PRC 150



So you want platoon's to carry 522's as well as 138's?  I pity that poor signaler.  If only there was a radio that had better range AND have satellite capability.... oh, wait.


----------



## Fusaki (11 Mar 2009)

> ok so your VHF is FUBAR say shot full of hole your Satcom is in the same unit how do use it to call for reinforcements



Well in that case it doesn't matter if you're using a 117, 522, 77 set, or two fucking timmies cups and a piece of 550 chord.  If your radio is shot up, it's not going to work. But that's besides the point.

The benefit is this: 

If you find yourself cut off from from higher on a VHF (Line of Sight) net due to range or terrain, a SATCOM (Non - Line of Sight) capability will allow you to call for the QRF, medivac, ect, ect, ect.



> as for power go back to your comms training low power for standard use high power only limited use
> and I can get more range with a 77 set using the 3 meter antenna and propper terrain location and low power than someone in a depression with a 1 meter blade antenna on high power
> if you only want more range the 138 set has HF to give you that or its successor the PRC 150
> Satcoms major benefit is if you're in JTF2 deep in the boonies in Afghanistan & are required to talk to Ottawa or Pet it is strategic more than tactical



ARGHHH!!! :brickwall:

1.  I ride around in a 21 tonne green machine.  The Taliban know where I am and they are not using direction finding equipment to call massive arty barrages on me.  My high power transmissions don't make a lick of difference. Don't even mention the fact that every single vehicle puts out even more power then a 117 anyways.

2.  The shitty thing about that "move to better ground" argument is that "better ground" is typically higher ground, which is quite often held by the bad guys on the days where you need comms the most.  It's just not always a viable option and we need to the capability to tx beyond LOS without stringing up huge ass NVIS antennas.

3.  SATCOM is employed on tactical nets.


----------



## HItorMiss (11 Mar 2009)

As a former Coy Signaler, a Reccepatrolman and a Recce Pl Sigs NCO I have used all of the above radios in both training and combat.

The ease of use of the 117 for every and all situations is what makes the difference I can have Sat com. VHF, UHF all programmed into a single radio and switch between them in the matter of moments (In some cases a quick switch of antenna required).

To accomplish this with the other sets my patrol would need to carry 3 separate radios, now think weight added to the individual on top of his other mission essential kit.

Recon your way off IMO.


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

same as in the day if you have 2 radios you have 2 radiomen to lug them


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> same as in the day if you have 2 radios you have 2 radiomen to lug them



OK, how about some background for context.  When was the last time you put on a CF uniform?  We do know you were in a Cougar once or twice from another post, though that in itself doesn't tell us your trade.


----------



## RCR Grunt (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> same as in the day if you have 2 radios you have 2 radiomen to lug them



Good point.

STOP THE PRESSES!  WE NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE TO&E!

Man, if only there was some kind of super radio out there that was roughly the size and weight of a manpack, but could do the job of 3 different radio's ... hmm.

Listen, you've just been told by two and a half dudes who have been there and done that in the COE.  The 117 is the bee's knee's and is the absolute right tool for the job.  The radio's your talking about belong in the C&E Museum in Kingston, not taking up room in the modern soldiers ruck.

Step into the 21st century, my friend.  Thanks to global warming, it's quite nice.


----------



## HItorMiss (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> same as in the day if you have 2 radios you have 2 radiomen to lug them



And now I need 1 man to carry what 2 men used to... I can have more batteries, more ammo more water more food etc etc etc...

SATCOM *IS* a critical requirement on today's battlefield. There is no FEBA there is simply a country that is an battle space and often times you will not have the ability to bring with you the RRB sites required to reach back to your point of origin and that's not just your precious Armoured Recce that's everyone in the TF from the CLP to the FOB to the COPs to the Recce Patrol.

This is starting to be like urinating in the wind...futile at best


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

as I stated before my perspective is as armoured recce


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> as I stated before my perspective is as armoured recce



OK, then I'm guessing you were a Militia soldier for a few years in the 80s, you might have had a comms course, and other than that you collect kit.  And that's all you're bringing to this discussion except poor writing skills.  You'll find some comments on that deficiency in the Conduct Guidelines which I am sure you read.


----------



## RCR Grunt (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> as I stated before my perspective is as armoured recce



Hey guess what capability those guys are using in theater now... I'll give you a hint.... it uses satellites.


----------



## HItorMiss (11 Mar 2009)

Grunt I better not be the half!


----------



## Fusaki (11 Mar 2009)

> Grunt I better not be the half!



I think it might be me. I'm the one the fits in a rucksack. :blotto:


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

my mistake I thought this was a discussion forum sorry if I have offeded anyone


----------



## HItorMiss (11 Mar 2009)

You did not offend anyone...

However you are stuck on out dated equipment I wont say it was bad equipment it has simply been out done by a better piece of kit.

Your logic is flawed and has been proven such, I cannot for the life of me see the reason to carry 3 radios when 1 radio will do it all...

Let alone the secondary comms options brought by all teams in the field.


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

MOC 011 RCD, LdSH, 1970 & early 80s & civilian consultant 163 Inf Bat MNG US Army late 80s


----------



## RCR Grunt (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> my mistake I thought this was a discussion forum sorry if I have offeded anyone





			
				BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> You did not offend anyone...
> 
> However you are stuck on out dated equipment I wont say it was bad equipment it has simply been out done by a better piece of kit.
> 
> ...



You were trying to espouse the benefits of the steam powered horseless carriage vice the latest modern automobile.  It was kinda silly really.


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> MOC 011 RCD, LdSH, 1970 & early 80s & civilian consultant 163 Inf Bat MNG US Army late 80s



Thank you.  The soldiers who have posted above have captured the contrast between your experience and theirs.


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

no I have no faith in super systems which are usually deficient as opposed to purpose built equipment and has no redundancy when they break and a 25/77 set while old is not ancient it just does not have on board encryption or frequency hopping abilities just using them as a base line add those and its ohh a PRC 119 or a PRC 117 add HF, UHF, & Satcom its a PRC 117F weight is lower on the new stuff + some additional or classified features


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> no I have no faith in super systems which are usually deficient as opposed to purpose built equipment and has no redundancy when they break and a 25/77 set while old is not ancient it just does not have on board encryption or frequency hopping abilities just using them as a base line add those and its ohh a PRC 119 or a PRC 117 add HF, UHF, & Satcom its a PRC 117F weight is lower on the new stuff + some additional or classified features



Do you have any personal operational experience with the new family of radios used by the CF?


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

I just think dedicated radios at about the 3rd the size & weight would ease the burdon carried  by leaving unneeded stuff plus add in redundancy


----------



## Recon 3690 (11 Mar 2009)

the newest radio I have even touched was a brand new (then) 119 with no letter designation in the US


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Mar 2009)

Well, since RCR Grunt and Bulletmagnet have weighed in, why don't we ask them what they'd leave behind next time if they had the choice, based on their recent combat experiences.


----------



## RCR Grunt (11 Mar 2009)

No question.  I'm leaving behind the antiques.  I'd have better luck bringing my cell phone on patrol than the antiques he's talking about.

The 117F is superior in all ways and shapes.

YOU GET 3 FOR THE PRICE OF ONE!  HOW CAN YOU NOT LIKE THAT DEAL?!


----------



## HItorMiss (11 Mar 2009)

I as a Coy signaler would take the 117F with an Iridium phone full stop!

I never once had a single issue requiring a Tech with the 117F, I get all the capabilities plus the encryption (which by the way is so dirt simple to load into it even Wonderbread does it) SATCOM on demand and better LOS TX capability.

Should (and it never happened while I was working it) the 117F fail me I have Iridium to contact any and all I have numbers for including my QRF and the TOC back at any FOB and my point of origin.


----------



## Fusaki (11 Mar 2009)

> I just think dedicated radios at about the 3rd the size & weight would ease the burdon carried  by leaving unneeded stuff plus add in redundancy



Huh?

A 117 weighs approximately the same, if not slightly less then a 77 Set (and a 522 for that matter).

If you want a smaller radio, both the PRC-148 MBITR and PRC-152 are a fraction of the weight but maintain the same range as a 77 Set. But then again they both go all the way up to 512Mhz, so they must not be reliable... :

The fact of the matter is that the radios of today are better then the ones from 25 years ago. They're smaller, lighter, more reliable, more powerful, and more capable. Why is that so hard to understand?


----------



## HItorMiss (11 Mar 2009)

PRC-148=$$$


----------



## willy (12 Mar 2009)

Recon 3690-

I've used every radio mentioned in this discussion, and the 117 is by far the most capable and easy to use.  Wonderbread and Bullet Magnet are 100% correct, and if you retired in the '80s then I don't know where you get off trying to argue with them. 

Maybe you didn't see any Sigs past the FEBA in the 70's or 80's-- I don't know, I wasn't in the Army then, so I definitely won't argue with you or tell you that you're wrong.  What I will tell you is that here in Afghanistan in 2009 we don't have a place called a "FEBA".  We have a place called "outside the wire" instead.  I go "outside the wire" quite frequently, usually carrying a 117, and I don't believe I've ever seen you out there.  So let's make a deal: I won't talk about things that I know nothing about, like the '80s, and you extend the same courtesy to those of us who are currently serving.


----------



## buzgo (12 Mar 2009)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> PRC-148=$$$



117f = $$$ x 2

148 is only 5 watts, you need an amp to give it any range... extra weight, extra batteries to run the amp.  117f is the way to go...


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Mar 2009)

117F may be more $$$ than the 148 but they do different things, so not really fair to compare them together.


----------



## rampage800 (13 Mar 2009)

G2G

Although I've stated alot earlier in this thread as to what I think when it comes to comparing different radios I'm not really sure I understand what you mean when comparing the 148 and 117F, the only difference I can see really is besides weight the 117F is a lot more capable(UHF,VHF SATCOM vs UHF, VHF)not to mention user friendly(IMO) Not calling you out but just for PD can you elaborate ?


----------



## COBRA-6 (13 Mar 2009)

117 is a manpack-sized radio, 148 is walkie-talkie sized. 

If you have a freq-cut UHF antenna for the 148 you'd be surprised the range you can get from it...


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Mar 2009)

Like COBRA-6 mentioned for the size, there is employment of the 148 that is ideally suited to the user for exactly the spectrum the user needs.  Yes, 117F is more expensive, heavier, larger, but in the specific role I was thinking of, all the user needs is the 148, thus no need to spend the extra $$$ to equip each operator (inappropriately) with the additional capabilities of a more complex radio.  Note, this is clearly task-specific, hence my original take on it not really being fair to compare the two radios.

cheers
G2G


----------

