# CNR(E)/CSB (split from:  Army Communication & Information Systems Specialists)



## upandatom

Learned a bit more about this CNR(E)/CSB Etc.


So let me get this straight- A more complex, harder to fault find system, Harder to repair system (2nd Line), Very "finnicky", Harder to program......

Amidst all these changes, 

This is gonna be a rough go. 

 :facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser

Are the issues directly related to the CNR(E) having to trick the NAU/RAU into thinking things until we get the CSB, or is it a case of lowest bidder cards being put into the radios? 

Mods: Perhaps we could split the last few posts in here about CNR(E), and TCCCS upgrades into its own thread? That way we can geek out in a segregated area...  ;D


----------



## RedMan

upandatom said:
			
		

> Learned a bit more about this CNR(E)/CSB Etc.
> 
> 
> So let me get this straight- A more complex, harder to fault find system, Harder to repair system (2nd Line), Very "finnicky", Harder to program......
> 
> Amidst all these changes,
> 
> This is gonna be a rough go.
> 
> :facepalm:



That about sums it up...yah.


----------



## PuckChaser

Is this extra info coming out through the FoS net? Latest thing I've seen is only whats on the CID. I'd love to get some more info, as right now CNR(E) is just a nebulous list of shiny new features that I'm going to be responsible for getting a section up to speed on quickly.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is this extra info coming out through the FoS net? Latest thing I've seen is only whats on the CID. I'd love to get some more info, as right now CNR(E) is just a nebulous list of shiny new features that I'm going to be responsible for getting a section up to speed on quickly.



I just saw it being installed, little brief about it. Not sure how much I can say but---- its a tricky little system that will make an former LCIS tech shake his head. 

They have removed a tonne of training, good training at that for fault finding. Removed a system that everyone was comfortable with, and now put out this new kit, that currently is Macgyvered, and will be harder to fault find, program (your going to need a CST that was a former LCIS tech or a bang on IST to program it) but alot easier to use. From what I saw, the system is great for non signals members. simplified. 

What i have seen of the ACISS core training, it does not go into depth enough for the programming of the CSBs, and even then, it is finicky with what suite, vehicle, and is no longer plug an play

but- the techs will be lacking skills strongly needed to use and fault find this kit to its full potential. 

They have done this in the middle of some major cutbacks in training and exercises, and deployments.


----------



## Bucky

I have it on good authority that it's going to suck.

Meanwhile Harris kit keeps finding its way into my daily life, and everything is all sunshine and lollipops. Seriously, how does Harris not supply everything we need?

I know, I know, "made in Canada", etc...

Still, CNR(E) is going to fail just as hard as EPLRS did, and we'll be stuck using VoIP because the radios don't work. Who ever would have thought that the IST's would be the only ones providing robust voice comms? It's easier to get a teleconference up these days than it is to get reliable comms over a VDN.

Which reminds me, we need LDN back, VDN is a failed experiment at providing a band-aid. As it stands now (to continue the analogy), it's like hitting the patient in the head with a sledgehammer.

/rant


----------



## upandatom

Bucky said:
			
		

> I have it on good authority that it's going to suck.
> 
> Meanwhile Harris kit keeps finding its way into my daily life, and everything is all sunshine and lollipops. Seriously, how does Harris not supply everything we need?
> 
> I know, I know, "made in Canada", etc...
> 
> Still, CNR(E) is going to fail just as hard as EPLRS did, and we'll be stuck using VoIP because the radios don't work. Who ever would have thought that the IST's would be the only ones providing robust voice comms? It's easier to get a teleconference up these days than it is to get reliable comms over a VDN.
> 
> Which reminds me, we need LDN back, VDN is a failed experiment at providing a band-aid. As it stands now (to continue the analogy), it's like hitting the patient in the head with a sledgehammer.
> 
> /rant



I see GDC "anchors" and "bricks" on a daily basis here, 

I smile when I see a Harris and its simplicity. Lets call a spade a spade, GDC rips us off regularily. 

Dont Say EPLRS sucks.......I have yet to see it work. 

I can see the new system sucking, sorry but i can


----------



## Bucky

EPLRS is dead, jim.

I've seen it work (if you can call it that) in classrooms in kingston, but it's actual effective range "in real life" is around 2km, TOPS.

So yeah, we're back to the drawing board on that one.

It isn't being fielded anymore.


----------



## PuckChaser

Bucky said:
			
		

> It isn't being fielded anymore.



My unit just got a whole whack of them, and 4 static kits for implementation this year. Its apparently the last kick at the can for ELPRS, if it doesn't live up the Army is going to trash it. So it is still out there.

I'm interested in why ISTs will be the ones programming the CNR(E)? If its TacRad, you better believe my core guys will be learning the ins and outs of the thing. ELPRS needs subnetting done to make it work, yet Core and CST ended up on the network manager course.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm interested in why ISTs will be the ones programming the CNR(E)? If its TacRad, you better believe my core guys will be learning the ins and outs of the thing. ELPRS needs subnetting done to make it work, yet Core and CST ended up on the network manager course.



I never said ist would be programming, cst would. Also, unless a core has a strong ip background, programming and fault finding will be more then difficult. This is not just a swap a piece in this truck for one in this one and see it work, after doing that each piece needs to be programmed again.


----------



## PuckChaser

upandatom said:
			
		

> I never said ist would be programming, cst would. Also, unless a core has a strong ip background, programming and fault finding will be more then difficult. This is not just a swap a piece in this truck for one in this one and see it work, after doing that each piece needs to be programmed again.



Absolutely, but if core guys aren't learning IP addressing they're going to be left behind. The branch will realize that very very shortly.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely, but if core guys aren't learning IP addressing they're going to be left behind. The branch will realize that very very shortly.



I agree with you on that-

However, as of right now, Im fairly certain all Core, CST and IST, and a few LST are getting left behind.

You cant honestly tell me that a Core member you recieve 1.0 right now is at the same quality as Sig Op fresh off their 3s, I know in tech land its getting very evident, and the gap keeps getting larger somehow.


----------



## PuckChaser

upandatom said:
			
		

> You cant honestly tell me that a Core member you recieve 1.0 right now is at the same quality as Sig Op fresh off their 3s, I know in tech land its getting very evident, and the gap keeps getting larger somehow.



Although I haven't worked with any DP1 operators yet, from what I've seen with the training plans is that we've gone from creating a SigOp who can work under minimal supervision on radio shift and set up a detachment somewhat autonomously, to individuals who have all sorts of great exposure to everything but need maximum supervision to do anything. I think the gap is getting larger in that theres less and less time available to OJT these pers, so the corporate knowledge left in legacy SigOps is flowing slowly up the promotion chain, leaving it less in direct supervisory roles where it can be mentored into the new pers. This is especially true when our radios (which they're already doing with CNR(E)) go to an IP-based infrastructure where you need computer skills and savvy. Buttonology is going to die, which is a good thing, but training for Core pers better catch up quickly or CNR(E)'s failure will not be devices, but the training for the supposed SMEs who will be on the front-line supporting it.


----------



## upandatom

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Although I haven't worked with any DP1 operators yet, from what I've seen with the training plans is that we've gone from creating a SigOp who can work under minimal supervision on radio shift and set up a detachment somewhat autonomously, to individuals who have all sorts of great exposure to everything but need maximum supervision to do anything. I think the gap is getting larger in that theres less and less time available to OJT these pers, so the corporate knowledge left in legacy SigOps is flowing slowly up the promotion chain, leaving it less in direct supervisory roles where it can be mentored into the new pers. This is especially true when our radios (which they're already doing with CNR(E)) go to an IP-based infrastructure where you need computer skills and savvy. Buttonology is going to die, which is a good thing, but training for Core pers better catch up quickly or CNR(E)'s failure will not be devices, but the training for the supposed SMEs who will be on the front-line supporting it.



Its happening Tech side too-


----------



## RedMan

Bucky said:
			
		

> Which reminds me, we need LDN back, VDN is a failed experiment at providing a band-aid. As it stands now (to continue the analogy), it's like hitting the patient in the head with a sledgehammer.
> 
> /rant



The problem with VDN is that it is not being used as it was intended. None of the SR2 upgraded vehicles have a new VIP that allows the rest of the system to work as designed. (So now we have to use blue cable instead of FOCA on the VIP, changing all the IP addressing and port availability) So instead of having it work automatically we have to program in workarounds, and even disable 2nd LES's to make the system work. Many techs have no idea how to do any of this or what any of it means, let alone sig ops.

I can only imagine what this new system will be like. The comms in vehicles always seem to go down just before a "move", so imagine how this new system will affect that.

There are surprisingly few tech savvy computer geeks among the techs and operators. I thought my nerdiness would be right at home in this trade... joke's on me...


----------



## upandatom

Daywalker said:
			
		

> I can only imagine what this new system will be like. The comms in vehicles always seem to go down just before a "move", so imagine how this new system will affect that.



From What  saw/understood in the a la francais brief I recieved, please feel free to correct me if you know better;

1. ITs digital, but allows for a "cold"analog voice, unlike the boot time required for the NAU
2. Less downtime, and apparently more stable due to being programmed as this is the suite, not on bootup being like "I have this many CIs, this UCD I can reach this radio, this RAU etc"

We will see; its gonna be arough conversion for sure. 
Im still not sold on GD though.


----------



## RedMan

I haven't been able to read up on recent details on the new system. Its been a while since I last read up on it.

The real issue will be how usable is the system (when comms have issues) without the need for a tech to come in and program everything in via cf30 or other equipment. I assume most of the new suites will have at least one cf30 dock station, like many of the SR2 vehicles.

Sounds like the new system "may" have a low-level analogue access function for audio (kind of like a simple USB (driver box) mode). Maybe only for CREW IC without the need for a system boot up?

Seeing that you can't (shouldn't) use the green headsets with the current radio faceplate (unless these new CNR-E radios have changed this), maybe this new system will help address that issue either through the CSB, or by allowing the newer radios to handle a larger power draw from the audio port.


----------



## PuckChaser

Black headsets are on the way out of the system. The only issues I've encountered with the greens is when they are left in the amplification or noise canceling mode. If the ttp is to ensure they are set to off when programming, then they will be fine. One of those nuisances that needs to be reinforced for the end user.


----------



## upandatom

Daywalker said:
			
		

> I haven't been able to read up on recent details on the new system. Its been a while since I last read up on it.
> 
> The real issue will be how usable is the system (when comms have issues) without the need for a tech to come in and program everything in via cf30 or other equipment. I assume most of the new suites will have at least one cf30 dock station, like many of the SR2 vehicles.
> 
> Sounds like the new system "may" have a low-level analogue access function for audio (kind of like a simple USB (driver box) mode). Maybe only for CREW IC without the need for a system boot up?
> 
> Seeing that you can't (shouldn't) use the green headsets with the current radio faceplate (unless these new CNR-E radios have changed this), maybe this new system will help address that issue either through the CSB, or by allowing the newer radios to handle a larger power draw from the audio port.



yes a larger power draw and the low level analog audio is correct, i think its the first three minutes, so pretty much ready to roll our fast and keep IC up.


----------



## RADOPSIGOPACCISOP

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely, but if core guys aren't learning IP addressing they're going to be left behind. The branch will realize that very very shortly.



THIS.

Doesn't matter if you are core, IST, CST or even LST. Everyone will need to know IP, everyone will need to understand basic subnetting, be able to configure a commercial router, CISCO or HP. 

The army will soon realise that creating their own standards and protocols died back in the days of novell. The sooner we get on the IEEE standards, the sooner we can start buying kit of the shelf and militarizing it. That way we can avoid things like TCCCS showing up on the doorstep 20 years too late. Commercial solutions are out there, they're evolving quickly and they're cheaper than proprietary solutions.


----------



## upandatom

RADOPSIGOPACISSOP said:
			
		

> THIS.
> 
> Doesn't matter if you are core, IST, CST or even LST. Everyone will need to know IP, everyone will need to understand basic subnetting, be able to configure a commercial router, CISCO or HP.
> 
> The army will soon realise that creating their own standards and protocols died back in the days of novell. The sooner we get on the IEEE standards, the sooner we can start buying kit of the shelf and militarizing it. That way we can avoid things like TCCCS showing up on the doorstep 20 years too late. Commercial solutions are out there, they're evolving quickly and they're cheaper than proprietary solutions.



Then training has to pick up quick and fast. IEEE Standards had already been taught in the CF via DATACOMMS, which to my understanding several Legacy Sig Ops and new ACISS IST had been on. 

We all know how our acquisition of new equipment unless its a operational requirement takes forever, expect the same with training, if not longer. I agree with you, and as technology has increased kids in school are being taugh IP Subnetting etc. That explains why CCNA etc has started to go the way of the Dodo. That training is being offered in high school for free, kids nowadays have a much better grasp coming into the CAF with the skills we need, without having to be taught by the CAF.

That being said, we are not discussing 3-10 years from now, we are discussing now.


----------



## nobody

If anyone has questions or concerns about CSB/CNRE I'd be interested in hearing them.
I worked on the project.
I obviously can't get into great detail, but I'm interested in hearing feedback.


----------



## PuckChaser

I think the biggest question is, is the CNR(E) capable of communicating with a 152/117G/MBITR/522? That was the rumour that floated around here, that to talk down to the section/platoon-level from a LAV, you'd need a legacy 5121 radio still installed.


----------



## McG

I can't say that I like a system that needs to be set by a laptop but does not have the laptop as a standard component of the vehicle.  The new control box is great for drivers or turret crew, and absolute junk for the guy in back of a CP.


----------



## PuckChaser

You can program without the laptop, but you have to listen to the Siri voice prompts which is annoying as hell. CI was too complicated for simple frontline use, but worked in a CP. We've knocked the pendulum all the way over to the over-simple for frontline, and next to useless in a CP. I am a big fan of making a profile and just zapping it from truck to truck, however. Your Coy/Platoon Sigs can easily fix finger errors by just resetting to a Coy/Platoon standard setup.


----------



## McG

Engineer regiments are established for neither troop nor squadron Sigs.  We need radios that can be operated by the average user.


----------



## buzgo

The ATCIS course will be changed to cover the new equipment. It won't have an immediate impact but anyone taking the new course will be current on the latest LCSS gear.


----------



## MedCorps

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The ATCIS course will be changed to cover the new equipment. It won't have an immediate impact but anyone taking the new course will be current on the latest LCSS gear.



Do you know when the QS / TP for the new ATCIS-Basic / ATCIS-Intermediate / ATCIS-CP / qualifications will be coming out? 

MC


----------



## PuckChaser

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The ATCIS course will be changed to cover the new equipment. It won't have an immediate impact but anyone taking the new course will be current on the latest LCSS gear.



Are they going to increase the course length for ATCIS-Intermediate as the CNR(E) is mounted only, and the ATCIS-Basic deals with only dismounted comms? There's not a lot of whitespace in the schedule to cram in buttonology for a new radio system into Intermediate.


----------



## nobody

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think the biggest question is, is the CNR(E) capable of communicating with a 152/117G/MBITR/522? That was the rumour that floated around here, that to talk down to the section/platoon-level from a LAV, you'd need a legacy 5121 radio still installed.



Sorry for the late reply, The CNRE is as compatible as the CNRP essentially. No frequency hopping support.


----------



## PuckChaser

No worries, thanks for the clarification.


----------



## buzgo

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Are they going to increase the course length for ATCIS-Intermediate as the CNR(E) is mounted only, and the ATCIS-Basic deals with only dismounted comms? There's not a lot of whitespace in the schedule to cram in buttonology for a new radio system into Intermediate.



I'm told its being worked on now, and it is modularized into different focused areas: dismounted, mounted etc. So there shouldn't be an increase unless the soldier takes all of the modules.


----------

