# FRS vs Mil Issue Radios



## ZipperHead (26 Jan 2006)

I have to agree with the (sensible) masses on this one. I have found that the Sigs world is increasingly like Chicken Little: the sky is falling!!!! The sky is falling!!!! 

I'm sure everyone remembers the kafuffle over the use of FRS (Cobra/Motorola/Radio Shack models, etc) radios in training areas and in ops. I heard so many (admittedly unofficial) reasons for why they couldn't be used: they interfered with "official" frequencies. They weren't "secure" (which falls into the 'Well, duh!!!!!' category). They caused ovarian cancer in males (I just made that one up, but no doubt it has been used). Personally, I think it was because "they" lost control over the air-waves. 

The alternative was to use the POS radios that were the alternative (521(???) patrol radios, with the rechargeable batteries that lasted as long as a nervous 17 year old with a hooker) or the non-existent new manpacks, which nobody seemed to know how to use (I knew more before my "official" TCCCS course, which forced all the good, hard-fought corporate knowledge out of my brain, with the ability to hook it up into a WAN and control the Space Shuttle, which we ALL know that the average combat arms type needs to know....).

Personally, I relish stories like the one about buddy who called in arty on himself (notionally, of course). The technophobes like to trot out stories like that to prove that their Luddite ways are right: "...all's I need, dag nab it, is a map, the sun, and a newts tail to figure out where I am. Don't need no newfangled con-traption to know where I is!!!". The reality is that buddy couldn't read a map to save his life, and used the GPS as a crutch. When I was teaching tactics courses with the Coyote, we allowed the student to use the PLGR to confirm where they were. If they started to use it as a crutch, I would pretend to be changing a setting on the CI, and reach back and unplug the antenna lead for the PLGR, and then quiz buddy on where he was. Of course, they would invariably read the grid off of the screen, and spit out the (wrong by about 10km) grid, with all the certainty of someone who was truly screwed, blued, and/or tattoed. I thought it proved a good point (of course, they thought I was mean, but that's OK).

Al


----------



## GO!!! (26 Jan 2006)

> It is always the sigs types who jump up and down and point out the deficiencies in our systems, but when was the last time you actually did something crafty to the enemy?
> 
> You spoofed an NCO on an ex in Borden, good for you, lets see you save our skins or locate the bad guys.



I still want to know - is our EW any good against anyone but us?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jan 2006)

Yes.

It is very effective.


----------



## c_canuk (29 Jan 2006)

I personally believe the TCCCS system put a way too complicated radio into the hands of people who just need to be able to talk, and don't need to know how to program the thing, which is what the DTD is for, it can load everything you could possible need to program into the 522 in a short few seconds with only a few commands needed to be known.

The problem is to get the DTD loaded and ready for an exersize is a monumental task because of "other" features and uses which I'm not going into here.

The extention of the TCCCS system will add really great features that will be extremely useful to all branches without adding complexity if we could deploy the DTD in a timely fashion. 

for example all the facts needed about an incident involving pte joe infanteer on the front line including video, and text to go with could be passed up the net through to the CO in seconds, rather than hours or days, allowing a faster responce time. Your Recce's data could be sent back to HQ as you head back.

However this is all still theoretical depending on budgets and a loosening of the use of DTDs and whatnot.

EW is very quiet about how good they are and what they can do, however having been on the wrong end of our EW on 2 different occasions, let me tell you, no means of comms is out of their grasp... if they can't decode it they can still find a 10 figure grid of where it came from, and can get data from the most inconcevable things. all electronic devices emit RF Energy unless they are Tempest, EW can locate that.

Now if the Enemy is not using RF, they obviously can't find them.


----------



## NL_engineer (29 Jan 2006)

Thats why cell/sat. phones should be available as back ups or can our EW interfear with them too ???


----------



## Posthumane (30 Jan 2006)

Cell/Sat phones are in all likelyhood just as easy to jam / screw with as any other RF device (radio). That being said, it is very unlikely that any current en. would be jamming ALL radio freq, cell phones, sat phones, GPS's, etc. at the same time. Redundancy is key.


----------



## DG-41 (30 Jan 2006)

> I personally believe the TCCCS system put a way too complicated radio into the hands of people who just need to be able to talk, and don't need to know how to program the thing



TCCCS suffers from a strong case of "Hardware Engineer Syndrome" where the engineer behind the user interface has designed it to be able to flip the internal states of the device into every possible combination of allowed internal states *without* any real thought as to the TASKS the end-user is intended to do with them.

This also seems coupled to the (entirely sensible) use of off-the-shelf control components, which I also think were selected without thought to the end user interface. "I've got a 12 button keypad and 4 6-position rotary switches - how can I configure these so I can flip every internal state register?"

This is not unique to the Army, BTW. It's endemic in all sorts of bespoke electronic controllers. You should see the programming software for the electronic control module for the engine on my race car (which has admittedly gotten much better now that enough people yelled at the manufacturer - but the original software just let you plug values into control registers with no thought to what the registers did, or more importantly, how they interacted)

TCCCS could be made far, far easier to deal with if the user interface were reconfigured from an end-user-task point of view. As it is right now, the interface is so bizzare that it encourages rote memorization of the proper key sequences to get the thing to do what you want it to do, instead of actually understanding the equipment and setting it in the proper state for the task at hand.

At times, TCCCS feels more like an engineering proof-of-concept prototype, rather than a finished, deployable system.

DG


----------



## Carbon-14 (30 Jan 2006)

actually I find once you spend a year using it constantly, it becomes very intuitive on what is going on.

The problem is that there are way too many features that while necessary for future developments, don't need to be accessable through the control panel as they rely on information fed to the radio with the DTD anyway... so hide most of the complex functions and simplify the manual interface.

The idea behind the 522 is to combine the many simple componets one can assemble to do a particular comms task, into one all knowing all seeing all capable box that can be in a vehicle *OR* or on someones back, instead of what we had before which was 3-10 separate boxes that were not quite 100% compatible with eachother that could only be vehicle mounted, not manpacked, thus not helping the man on the ground. Only the 522 gives you this flexibility. You can buy off the shelf componets that are better, but once assembled, could not be man packable.

Sat comms are just as easy to affect and track by EW, and especially cell phones and remember they don't need to understand the signal to track it and pass the info on to arty.

Back on topic though, while Civy GPS are unlikely to be detected by any enemy we face today, they could with sufficient motivation acquire the means to do so, so keep it as a back up, and not a primary means of nav... which any good navigator should be doing anyway.


----------



## chrisf (30 Jan 2006)

Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> actually I find once you spend a year using it constantly, it becomes very intuitive on what is going on.



Are you referring to TCCCS in general or any particular component? As I find the whole system over-complicated and under-useful, despite having a fairly good grasp of it.



> The problem is that there are way too many features that while necessary for future developments, don't need to be accessable through the control panel as they rely on information fed to the radio with the DTD anyway... so hide most of the complex functions and simplify the manual interface.



The same logic that produced the 521, which can't be programmed without a j-box, and even with a j-box, there are critical parts of the programming that can't be changed without a lap-top.



> The idea behind the 522 is to combine the many simple componets one can assemble to do a particular comms task, into one all knowing all seeing all capable box that can be in a vehicle *OR* or on someones back, instead of what we had before which was 3-10 separate boxes that were not quite 100% compatible with eachother that could only be vehicle mounted, not manpacked, thus not helping the man on the ground. Only the 522 gives you this flexibility. You can buy off the shelf componets that are better, but once assembled, could not be man packable.



Have you had the opportunity to use the 138 or at least a QRT? Harris makes some lovely and relatively simply radios...

In my own personal oppinion, the absolute best option in terms of a manpack would be a heavily updated version of the 77 set, virtually indestructible, and virtually idiot proof controls... beyond that, the forces should (And is) investing in the new generation of Harris multi-band radios. Haven't had a chance to use them, but based solely on my experience with their HF radios, I'm going to say they'll be a wise buy. Simple to use menu based text interfaces, as well as a huge number of options and accessories, plus can be used for all radio bands.



> Sat comms are just as easy to affect and track by EW, and especially cell phones and remember they don't need to understand the signal to track it and pass the info on to arty.



Sat comms are harder to jam then other radio means, but of course it can still be done, using relatively un-sophisticated technology. Of course, if you don't know what a signal is that's being produced, no sense in dropping an arty strike on it, as it could easily be a red-herring.

And of course, as jamming is, as far as I know, always "active" (Versus passive technologies) it's relatively easy to direction find the source and send it to meet it's maker in any situation where you have air-superiority.



> Back on topic though, while Civy GPS are unlikely to be detected by any enemy we face today, they could with sufficient motivation acquire the means to do so, so keep it as a back up, and not a primary means of nav... which any good navigator should be doing anyway.



Unless it's got a built in transmitter (Example the ones with built in FRS radios) I can't see any reasonable (And very few un-reasonable) ways to detect a civvy GPS. The only caution against civvy GPS units is that the GPS sattelites can be encrypted, either globally, or over specific areas, to prevent enemy forces from using their own GPS units, and only military GPS recievers with loaded crypto can be used.


----------



## GO!!! (30 Jan 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> TCCCS could be made far, far easier to deal with if the user interface were reconfigured from an end-user-task point of view. As it is right now, the interface is so bizzare that it encourages rote memorization of the proper key sequences to get the thing to do what you want it to do, instead of actually understanding the equipment and setting it in the proper state for the task at hand.
> 
> At times, TCCCS feels more like an engineering proof-of-concept prototype, rather than a finished, deployable system.
> 
> DG



You are exactly right, as to how rote memorisation is used to operate tics, and this is how it is taught as well.

TCCCS does not require half of the features that it has, a quality walkie talkie with encryption and a keypad would do the trick.


----------



## chrisf (30 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> TCCCS does not require half of the features that it has, a quality walkie talkie with encryption and a keypad would do the trick.



The concept behind the horribly executed 521 LAR. Apparently the manufacturer makes a version with a key-pad, but for some god-unknown reason, we didn't buy it. In fact, I'm not entirely sure why one would buy the version *with* a key-pad, as it's a terribly heavy thing for it's function.

I'd disagree, off the top of my head, even in man-pack set-up, the only feature that it (I'm assuming we're talking about the 522) has that it doesn't need is the super-mode (Which was a silly and confusing feature for tactical VHF anyway as far as I can see). What is on it however can be heavily simplified and lightened, and the frame is simply a piece of garbage.

That being said, there's a plain ol' encrypted walkie talkie in the system already, it's called the Sabre as far as I know, the manufacturer doesn't make them any more, and as they're damaged, they're not replaced (The manufacturer makes an updated version, but I can't recall off the top of my head why they're not a being replaced with those).

As well, I'm not familiar with the PRR, but I'm guessing that also fills said niche?


----------



## NL_engineer (30 Jan 2006)

Just a Sig Op, 
Does the 521 with a keypad have the same 10m range as the ones we have ???. Last time I used the 521s we quickly ditched them for FRS' because we needed something small with a range greater then 10m.

The TCCCS would be much better if it were lighter; then at least the radio person can move at the same speed as the rest of the sect.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Jan 2006)

If you don't like the weight of the 521, you sure would not have liked to carry the 25 or 77 Sets, or even the 515's.  What is this world coming too?


_Edited for thread continuity_


----------



## chrisf (30 Jan 2006)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Just a Sig Op,
> Does the 521 with a keypad have the same 10m range as the ones we have ???. Last time I used the 521s we quickly ditched them for FRS' because we needed something small with a range greater then 10m.



It's the same basic radio, just has a key-pad instead of relying on the J-Box, as such, one would assume it's just as useless, only with buttons.



> The TCCCS would be much better if it were lighter; then at least the radio person can move at the same speed as the rest of the sect.



Would everyone please stop referring to a man pack as "TCCCS". The man-pack is just one compent in a much larger system of TCCCS (Tactical Command Control System) garbage 

And to George Wallace, the 522 replaced the 25 and 77 sets as the manpack, it's actually heavier, with about 3 times the range, whereas the 521 set has about a quarter of the range of a 77 set. The problem is, the 521 was bought for section level comms (And has since been more or less superceeded by the PRR as near as I can figure), but for it's capability, it weighs far too much, considering it's got less capabilities then an FRS radio (Ignoring the encryption).

You'll forgive me but I'm not familiar with the 515 set.


----------



## c_canuk (31 Jan 2006)

First I want to mention that the previous post by corbon-14 was actually me, He’s deployed with me, and I forgot to check to see if I was logged in as the right person… 



> “Are you referring to TCCCS in general or any particular component? As I find the whole system over-complicated and under-useful, despite having a fairly good grasp of it.”



In Particular the 522, but from what I’ve been exposed to, all of it gets intuitive. Yes 99% of it is for sig ops only, not for the man on the frontline, but with proper deployment of kit, that shouldn’t be a problem(DTD), yeah it’s more complicated than the 77/46 sets, but it’s high time we moved on from the Vacuum tube era.

If there are no new features everyone would be itching about what a waste of money to go to new highspeed kit that doesn’t do anything new.

If we are going to upgrade there is no point on doing so if we don’t get added features, and with added features comes added complexity. We pride ourselves in the fact that we know how to work all the whiz bang equipment, I don't understand when people say it does too much, we should go back to the stone age. There is a reason we deploy at least a CP with every unit in operations. It is our job to figure out how to use this stuff and make it simple to understand for others, it's what being a sig op is all about.



> The same logic that produced the 521, which can't be programmed without a j-box, and even with a j-box, there are critical parts of the programming that can't be changed without a lap-top.”



Well to the extreme yes, what I’m saying is that switching modes, volume/squelch and the ability to program channels is all most people need. Everything else could be DTD stored, and a lot of those higher funtions don't work without certain things from the DTD anyway.

Yeah, I found that out the hardway when teaching it to some infanteers before... that problem is not well documented.

The 521 removed the ability to program in channels by the operator, which of course was a mistake and is the only real problem with the 521, besides the 521 is meant for inter section communication, the 522 is for higher level comms.



> Have you had the opportunity to use the 138 or at least a QRT?”



yeah, and a 138 or LCT/QRT installation decked out with all the kit that it needs to do what the 522 can do, is not even close to man packable.



> In my own personal oppinion, the absolute best option in terms of a manpack would be a heavily updated version of the 77 set, virtually indestructible, and virtually idiot proof controls”



that’s pretty much what a 522 is, you can turn it on and throw a freq into the scratchpad in seconds, that is essentially all you could do with a 77 set

basic comms are easy to set up on it. If you don’t use it it looks scary but it’s easy to get it going for simple 77 set style comms.

Sure the 77 set was robust, but all it could do was simple coms, you could add crypto as a separate unit doubling the weight, but nothing else, there is a reason we are upgrading.



> (I'm assuming we're talking about the 522) has that it doesn't need is the super-mode (Which was a silly and confusing feature for tactical VHF anyway as far as I can see). What is on it however can be heavily simplified and lightened, and the frame is simply a piece of garbage



Even the Harris radios have similar functionality, you can use Super for voice but it’s meant for data. It's the radio worlds version of IP addresses.

The reasons we use the same radio across the board is so that anyone who has a spare radio can lend it to anyone else for any purpose with no problems, and 2 it kept our cost down, so we didn’t have to engineer a separate radio for everyone which would be a lot more expensive



> and the frame is simply a piece of garbage


When using the original battery the frame is great however we are using the adapter plate on them so we can use the smaller batteries, which makes it incompatible with the harness, use the harness for the 138 on a 522, works great.



> The TCCCS would be much better if it were lighter; then at least the radio person can move at the same speed as the rest of the sect



it is lighter compared to what it does… there is no other system out there that can do what TCCCS does in one package at the same weight (that I know of anyway), the 77 set with crypto was much heavier than the 522



> If you don't like the weight of the 521, you sure would not have liked to carry the 25 or 77 Sets, or even the 515's.  What is this world coming too?



hehehe, and some are advocating we go back to those beasts… I believe the 522 with the battery box adapter instead of the black screw on batteries actually weighs a bit more than the 77 basic, haven’t used a 77 in years though, so I couldn’t tell ya… if I get time, maybe I’ll see if I can look up the weight of the radio’s



> Does the 521 with a keypad have the same 10m range as the ones we have. Last time I used the 521s we quickly ditched them for FRS' because we needed something small with a range greater then 10m.



if you use the short whip your range is only 100m max, this is by design, as it’s for inter trench or section comms… where you don’t want to eminate much at all, so the enemy can’t DF your position easily, use the 3 foot whip for up to 3 km max range. The idea is that everyone in your section has one, so they can keep in contact with eachother at all times, but not give away their position or data to the enemy with large eminations that can be DF'ed easily or Intercepted. The 521 has whisper modes on it, so your whole section can me up to 100m apart, but keep eachother informed fo the situation with a whisper, and in emergencyies when your 522 is kaput, you can put on a 3 foot whip and get longer range comms. That is the sole idea behind the 521.




> The TCCCS would be much better if it were lighter; then at least the radio person can move at the same speed as the rest of the sect.”


I think that’s always been a problem =)


----------



## DG-41 (31 Jan 2006)

The concept behind the 522 set is perfectly sound, and it seems to work just fine (I haven't had the opportunity to try freq hopping or crypto). There are issues related to battery recharging, but those are supply issues, not technology issues.

The big problem with the 522 set is the user inteface. It uses overloaded controls (controls that serve multiple functions) grouped in such a manner as to disguise their function. There's nothing there that any user couldn't learn to make use of (and I agree that functionality should not be removed) but the obtuse user interface makes using the thing overly difficult.

The CI box suffers from the same problem, just exectuted in a different manner. With the CI box, you have multiple-nested menus, all of which need the magic values set to the right pattern, or no worky. Those menus *could* have been set up in a task-oriented pattern (instead of reflecting the internal data structures of the box) and prompted the user for the data needed to set up that task, instead of making the user memorise rote patterns of "magic" button-presses.

The TCCCS stuff appears to be great kit ruined by a horrible user interface - thus my comment about "engineering prototype". The user interface is *great* if you are a TCCCS development engineer who knows the internal structure of the devices and need the ability to flip the states of individual control registers. It's *horrible* if you just want your CI box to talk to the damn radio.

The 521, however, not only suffers from a poor user interface (can't set frequencies? What, are you kidding?) but the damn thing just doesn't work. We were issued 521s for inter-vehicle coms one ex, and even with the big antenna, we had 521s that wouldn't transmit 100m. 

DG


----------



## Kat Stevens (31 Jan 2006)

Yes, but can a 522 set tell you where you are when you're out snowshoeing around Elk Island park?  How clear is the mapping?  If it's any good, what does one cost civy side?


----------



## c_canuk (31 Jan 2006)

> The CI box suffers from the same problem, just exectuted in a different manner. With the CI box, you have multiple-nested menus, all of which need the magic values set to the right pattern, or no worky. Those menus *could* have been set up in a task-oriented pattern (instead of reflecting the internal data structures of the box) and prompted the user for the data needed to set up that task, instead of making the user memorise rote patterns of "magic" button-presses.



I agree with you 100%, but I've also used many task oriented menus that prompt for mystery variables that no one seems to know what they do, they just always set it to default or some other value... with the menu system as it is, you have to think about it from a per peice of equipment point of view, first I control my radios, then I Configure my CI... the training aids don't reflect that type of thinking, but it is effective, and as long as you understand how the equipment is working, it's not so much magic button presses, it's more scrolling through the menu to see what option you want... I can't really say either method is better, but from someone who is not interested in learning what each bit flip does, a task oriented method would be better... perhaps you could draw up what it would work like with the current CI and submit it up for the next reflash.

Kat Stevens, I laughed for about a minute at that, thanks =)

Perhaps some kind moderator could split this hijack off to a seperate thread


----------



## DG-41 (31 Jan 2006)

> perhaps you could draw up what it would work like with the current CI and submit it up for the next reflash.



Ah, CRAP. You're going to make me work, aren't you?  

I'll see what I can come up with.

DG


----------



## GO!!! (31 Jan 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So this has become a Hijack and Radios are now the Topic?
> 
> If you don't like the weight of the 521, you sure would not have liked to carry the 25 or 77 Sets, or even the 515's.  What is this world coming too?



I've seen or used all of the above systems except the 515, and the 522 is the heaviest and most complicated, even more so with the DTD, batteries and all of the cheat sheets necessary to make the stupid thing work.

The 521 is a paperweight, whoever bought them should be forced to use one for a week or so.

The point has been brought up that the PRR will replace the 521 - well, the eggheads tell us that since they are "not sufficiently encrypted" that they are "useless" so I'm not sure why we have them. A 50$ motorola still performs far better, so I'm not sure what the solution is.

I am still waiting for an EW type to supply an instance when they have used their supposedly stupendous powers on anyone but us or our allies in the current operational context.


----------



## chrisf (31 Jan 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The point has been brought up that the PRR will replace the 521 - well, the eggheads tell us that since they are "not sufficiently encrypted" that they are "useless" so I'm not sure why we have them. A 50$ motorola still performs far better, so I'm not sure what the solution is.



I'm not at all familiar with the PRRs except for the fact that they exist, but they're not "sufficiently encrypted"? Encryption is encryption as far as I'm concerned, particularly for somthing designed for section level comms at short range... bizzare.

I'm guessing the solution is the $50 off the shelf motorola. Can't be that hard to add encryption to them in our digital age.


----------



## willy (31 Jan 2006)

First of all, some comments I've made on the 521 before: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26224/post-161178.html#msg161178

Second, to respond to Allan Luomala's post of a few pages back:

"I'm sure everyone remembers the kafuffle over the use of FRS (Cobra/Motorola/Radio Shack models, etc) radios in training areas and in ops. I heard so many (admittedly unofficial) reasons for why they couldn't be used: they interfered with "official" frequencies. They weren't "secure" (which falls into the 'Well, duh!!!!!' category). They caused ovarian cancer in males (I just made that one up, but no doubt it has been used). Personally, I think it was because "they" lost control over the air-waves."

You're partly right, but there is good reason to want to control the air waves.  Ignoring the obvious concerns so far as EMSEC is concerned, FRS radios are intended for use by civvies out for hikes with thier families.  Having military users on those freqs is just not kosher.  A few years ago I was on a winter warfare exercise where a few yahoos decided to bring FRS radios with them.  One particular mama's boy who was out there got a little chilly and decided that he'd had enough patrolling for that day, so he called one of his buddies up on the FRS claiming to be hurt.  His buddy wasn't the only one who heard this- a bunch of civvies who lived in that area heard it as well, and decided to launch a rescue mission.  Within an hour, we had civvy snowmobiles and quads bearing down on us from all directions.  The resultant embarrasment and PR debacle was the sole fault of one MIR commando with a $50 FRS radio.  

If you absolutely have to use something other than an IRIS system radio, get ahold of some Motorola HT 1000's and have them programmed to use frequencies that are already allocated to your unit.  At least you'll be transmitting in the right frequency band.


----------



## ZipperHead (1 Feb 2006)

> You're partly right, but there is good reason to want to control the air waves.  Ignoring the obvious concerns so far as EMSEC is concerned, FRS radios are intended for use by civvies out for hikes with thier families.  *Having military users on those freqs is just not kosher*.  A few years ago I was on a winter warfare exercise where a few yahoos decided to bring FRS radios with them. * One particular mama's boy who was out there got a little chilly and decided that he'd had enough patrolling for that day, so he called one of his buddies up on the FRS claiming to be hurt*.  His buddy wasn't the only one who heard this- a bunch of civvies who lived in that area heard it as well, and decided to launch a rescue mission.  Within an hour, we had civvy snowmobiles and quads bearing down on us from all directions.  The resultant embarrasment and PR debacle was the sole fault of one MIR commando with a $50 FRS radio.



So, because of one particular example, who should forsake the rest of the "non-mama's boys" who would use them responsibly??? The hand holding that we do in the military has brought us to this pathetic result. Hammer the people who abuse the system, and let the other 99.9% use the equipment that works (if it's a $50 FRS radio, with a battery that lasts more than 15minutes, or a $200 pair of boots that one can purchase without having to jump through a million hoops). 

Let's bring this back to civilian GPS's fellers (or split it to the inadequacies of radio equipment)

Al


----------



## DG-41 (1 Feb 2006)

The FRS horse is totally out of the barn anyway - especially when it is married to your civvie GPS like my Rino 520.

DG


----------



## willy (1 Feb 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> So, because of one particular example, who should forsake the rest of the "non-mama's boys" who would use them responsibly??? The hand holding that we do in the military has brought us to this pathetic result. Hammer the people who abuse the system, and let the other 99.9% use the equipment that works (if it's a $50 FRS radio, with a battery that lasts more than 15minutes, or a $200 pair of boots that one can purchase without having to jump through a million hoops).
> 
> Let's bring this back to civilian GPS's fellers (or split it to the inadequacies of radio equipment)
> 
> Al



The point is that FRS radios are licensed for use by mom and pop, not us.  Military use of that band is not only inappropriate, but can also cause problems.  We have frequencies allocated to us, and we should use them.  Your unit has access to the Motorolas I'm talking about: you can either buy some outright if your budget can handle it, or you can arrange to borrow them from your base sig sqn or ASU.


----------



## ZipperHead (1 Feb 2006)

willy said:
			
		

> The point is that FRS radios are licensed for use by mom and pop, not us.  Military use of that band is not only inappropriate, but can also cause problems.  We have frequencies allocated to us, and we should use them.  Your unit has access to the Motorolas I'm talking about: you can either buy some outright if your budget can handle it, or you can arrange to borrow them from your base sig sqn or ASU.



What is the range of the average FRS? 2 to 3 miles, on a good day?? So, when I am setting up an OP in the middle of the training area, and not wanting to dick around with the issue (when it gets issued) junk that we have, or have access to, I'll think of that. Or when I'm overseas, wanting to track down a soldier, somewhere on the godforsaken camp without having to wander aimlessly, I'll think about mom and pop keeping tabs on Jimmy out for a hike. 

The point of my tirade is, if it comes down to buying what is available, or waiting for Uncle Stephen to provide for us (after 15 years of procurement hell, T&E, attempting to sign for it, no wait..... make sure we have the training on it first, then trying to pry it out of the stores). Nah, I'll flout the rules, and use what Cobra/Motorola/et al have been good enough to produce to satisfy the needs that we have right now. Which is, a means of non-securely communicating, in an obviously non-secure manner of: "Bloggins get back to the troop area for an O Gp, RFN!!!!" or "OK, are you ready to switch the radar to active???" 

Soldiers have found ways of going outside of the normal channels to get what works, from before the Roman era until now, and always will. Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant. Trying to stop that is like trying to stop the tides.

Al


----------



## GO!!! (1 Feb 2006)

+1 to everything allan just said.

Until some Sig O crawls out of his truck and actually drives to the location of the illegal radios, I will continue to use mine, and I'm sure my platoon will as well.

Until then, the jimmies will just have to content themselves with constantly complaining about "unauthorised radio use in the area of GR XXX XXX".

Buy me a radio and GPS that works, or stop complaining about the ones that I use - FULL STOP.


----------



## willy (2 Feb 2006)

First off, I'm sorry that this topic has made you guys so emotional.  It really wasn't my intent to get anyone's face in a knot.

I'm fully aware of the limitations of current issue radio systems, despite the "defense" of the 521 I posted above.  I understand that you guys have a job that you're trying to do, and that you're probably often annoyed by unreliable 521's etc.  It's understandable, and if I had the cash to buy better radios for the CF, then I probably would.  What I think you guys might fail to appreciate is that sigs like me who caution against using FRS might also have a job to do, and that we may be doing it for good reason.  The FRS issue is significant, and really isn't in any way similar to the topic of private purchase boots, despite your claim to the contrary, Allan.

All you need in order to be an ad hoc EW operator is a RF receiver.  I have personally seen locals engaged in suspicious "receiving" activity while overseas, and if you want to know more about that, then let's find some way to discuss the matter offline.  I hope you can accept it if I tell you that even the most backward enemy can have (at the very least) a rudimentary EW capability, and that FRS is therefore a stupid way for you to communicate while overseas.  It isn't even a good idea when you're out and about domestically.  If you don't want to hear that then fine, I'm not going to argue with you any further.  I'd suggest not letting your formation frequency manager find out what you're doing, though.


----------



## ZipperHead (2 Feb 2006)

willy said:
			
		

> First off, I'm sorry that this topic has made you guys so emotional.  It really wasn't my intent to get anyone's face in a knot.
> 
> I'm fully aware of the limitations of current issue radio systems, despite the "defense" of the 521 I posted above.  I understand that you guys have a job that you're trying to do, and that you're probably often annoyed by unreliable 521's etc.  It's understandable, and if I had the cash to buy better radios for the CF, then I probably would.  What I think you guys might fail to appreciate is that sigs like me who caution against using FRS might also have a job to do, and that we may be doing it for good reason.  * The FRS issue is significant, and really isn't in any way similar to the topic of private purchase boots, despite your claim to the contrary, Allan.*
> 
> All you need in order to be an ad hoc EW operator is a RF receiver.  I have personally seen locals engaged in suspicious "receiving" activity while overseas, and if you want to know more about that, then let's find some way to discuss the matter offline. * I hope you can accept it if I tell you that even the most backward enemy can have (at the very least) a rudimentary EW capability, and that FRS is therefore a stupid way for you to communicate while overseas*.  It isn't even a good idea when you're out and about domestically.  If you don't want to hear that then fine, I'm not going to argue with you any further. * I'd suggest not letting your formation frequency manager find out what you're doing, though.*



I highlited the points in your text above and will touch on each:

1) To you it is different, to me it isn't. To a supply tech (some, anyway) the thought of me buying unauthorized boots is the same as me buying an unauthorized radio (FRS) and using it: sacriledge. ANd as many arguments against the boots can be brought up as for against the radio, just as valid to the supply tech as to you (against the radio). 

2) You are stuck on transmit only. Switch to receive. Myself (and others) have indicated that we would only use these for non-secure, admin style traffic: finding people in camp, setting up OP (in other words: short range comsm). You insult our intelligence by implying that we would transmit our grid, or classified information willy-nilly. Sure, you can give me examples of it happening: those people are morons, who should have the radio (the bigger the better) jammed up their keister.

3) *IF* the formation frequency manager can find me when I'm using these things (FRS, civ GPS), I will ask him/her to bring along working, useful, reliable gear to replace what I felt forced to purchase, leave it with my troops, replace me while the MP's drag me off to jail, and do my job while I'm gone. Because, IMO, he/she probably isn't doing their best in THEIR job to get the goodies out to the troops. Refer to the last line in my post about 5 posts up.

There is a reason why we get emotional about this, in case you haven't figured it out yet: we have a job to do. Which is "Mission first". And when Johnny Q Public has access to higher quality (though less secure) equipment, available at WalMart, fer crissakes, that says there is something wrong. How long does it take to bring something into service. Just like computers and all the workarounds that hackers have for security issues, the enemy will find a way to crack the most secure comms gear security. Don't pretend it is inpenetrable. We don't spend our days quoting policy, trying to enforce arcane rules, using outrageous examples, in the event that MAY happen. You have your job, I have mine. I won't comment on your crew commanding skills; don't comment on how I get my job done.
Al


----------



## George Wallace (2 Feb 2006)

OK Allan


You are not taking into any account any of the Comms Directives and Policies of the CF with your little rant on FRS systems.  If you choose to ignore them or are just ignorant of them is of no concern to this Topic. 


_Edited for thread continuity_


----------



## NL_engineer (2 Feb 2006)

WRT the ranges of FRS radios they range from 3km to 20km. They are not secure but if you operate on at the high and low ends of the band with, with the use of the 200 different sub channels you usually will not be picked up by Joe civy out camping with his friends. THEY SHOULD NOT BE USED OUTSIDE OF TRAINING, or aid ops in Canada


----------



## DG-41 (2 Feb 2006)

FRS/GRMS doesn't have subchannels. It has special squelch tones prepended onto the transmission, such that any radio set to a different squelch tone will ignore that transmission.

That's an important fact to keep in mind, and SOP is to run the radio with the "subchannel" squelch off so one can monitor who else might be on the channel with you.

As I said before, the FRS horse is out of the barn. Effective comns isn't a nice-to-have; it's a safety essential. If the Queen's kit isn't getting the job done, then we are forced to adapt.

DG


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Feb 2006)

There's still the use of veiled speech to fall back on, if your old enough to remember it, before some wizard stated our comms were secure and veiled speech wasn't needed. It's not secure, but obscure enough that, used properly, Joe Civvie won't know what your talking about. You can also use BLACKHORSE for grids, but these same wizards don't like that either, cause they don't have your key.


----------



## ZipperHead (2 Feb 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> FRS/GRMS doesn't have subchannels. It has special squelch tones prepended onto the transmission, such that any radio set to a different squelch tone will ignore that transmission.
> 
> That's an important fact to keep in mind, and SOP is to run the radio with the "subchannel" squelch off so one can monitor who else might be on the channel with you.
> 
> ...



This is an excellent point: how many lives have been saved (civilian or otherwise) by the use of cell-phones (or FRS style radios). And so it goes for the military. I can't wait until the first example (assuming it hasn't happened yet) of a soldier's bacon being saved because of non-issue, non-secure comms gear (the FRS family of radio's in particular). What will the nay-sayers say then??? No doubt they'll charge said soldier for a Comms Security violation.....

When I was in Bosnia (both 97 and 00-01) the comms sucked mad ass. There were more than a few "dead zones" that weren't covered by the camps and/or RRB's. In 2000, we got issued SatPhones (the ancient ones that come in a big case, with the flat antenna), but they linked to us Banja Luka, to a British operator, who probably didn't have clue one who we were, let alone where in our AOR we would be calling from. That was back-up Plan A. Plan B involved giving us a phone card for the local civilian phone network. Yes, you read that right. When the shit hits the fan, and your comms crap out, make like ET and phone home. That's reasonably secure, right?!?!? Granted, this was all better than nothing, but when you saw Joe Blow celebrities with their Gucci sat-phone, the size of a largish cell-phone, flashing it as a status symbol, and you have the big honking sat phone which probably had zero range (we never did get to test "fire" them, as it was deemed "too expensive" so who knows if they even worked....), it really made you feel like you'd be hanging with your ass out to the wind if you lost comms, or rolled the vehicle and needed emergency help. But back in camp, everyone had access to the welfare sat-phones. Welfare or operationally effective comms....... welfare wins.

Al


----------



## ZipperHead (2 Feb 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There's still the use of *veiled speech* to fall back on, if your old enough to remember it, before *some wizard stated our comms were secure and veiled speech wasn't needed.* It's not secure, but obscure enough that, used properly, Joe Civvie won't know what your talking about. You can also use BLACKHORSE for grids, but these same wizards don't like that either, cause they don't have your key.



This is an aspect of the "new" comms world that I don't much like, either. ASSUMING that we are all on a secure net, and speaking that way all the time takes away a vital skillset that would be require when operating in a "degraded mode of operations": non-secure (for whatever reason) comms. As recceguy mentioned, with good veiled speech, it is hard to figure out what someone is talking about (with some people that includes even when they are transmitting in plain text   ) even when you know the army guy lingo, let alone someone who just happens to be listening in (eavesdropping, as it were). 

This is one area where a certain amount of resistance to change probably isn't a bad thing: it's like keeping an ancient language alive, and passing it off to the next generation to keep it alive, in case it is needed to save their hides. 

Al


----------



## buzgo (2 Feb 2006)

TCCCS was foisted on us by CDC. The project guys were totally hoodwinked right from the start. The system was designed in a vacuum - it can't interoperate with ANYBODY. On OP Apollo they had to get a SINCGARS system installed in the CP so that our guys could talk to the Americans. The whole project should be scrapped and replaced - the only thing keeping it going is the ridiculous amount of money spent thus far.

Here is the way to keep people from using FRS:

https://secure.thalescomminc.com/cart2/tcDesc.asp

http://www.rfcomm.harris.com/products/tactical-radio-communications/#1



> there is no other system out there that can do what TCCCS does in one package at the same weight (that I know of anyway), the 77 set with crypto was much heavier than the 522



See above...   

Can't hook a laptop up to your TCCCS manpack... or use it for SATCOM...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Feb 2006)

But you can order pizza with TCCC's


----------



## COBRA-6 (3 Feb 2006)

I'll take unsecure FRS comms over NO comms anyday, and that's what I'm doing now. I could go on such a rant, but will restrain myself in the name of OPSEC. (btw I'm not working in a Canadian org, so it's not a CF shortcoming I'm refering to) 

The cell phones over here are unsecure, and known to be monitored, but no one has a problem using those either...


----------



## squealiox (5 Feb 2006)

another problem with FRS is if you are outside of N Am, the locals may reserve those freqs for other purposes, depending on where you are. i know that if you used a canadian or us-bought frs in japan, for ex, you would not be very popular with the coast guard, since their rescue services use that band. probly not a big issue in afghanistan or somewhere like that, but something to keep in mind if you're thinking about taking one anywhere overseas


----------



## c_canuk (5 Feb 2006)

> Can't hook a laptop up to your TCCCS manpack



you can with the proper cable.


Why FRS radios are a bad thing in operation because of the following

1) the 521 is designed only to communicate within 100 meters with the stubby whip, and if your 522 craps out, you can use the 3 foot whip to get 3 km in an emergency

this is important so that:

a) the enemy has to be within 100 meters to Direction Find you, With an FRS they could be 3-5 km away. (DF Equipment accurate up to 10 figures costs about the same as a couple tickets from Saudia Arabia to New York) 

If you use a FRS radio the en force potential could get the locations accurate within a meter or two of every trench, latrine, tent, etc just by sitting 3 km away quietly for a few days.

b) the FRS radio cannot be encrypted, so not only will you bleed information, such as names, voices, call signs, structure of your area, who is in charge of who, you can also be seriously messed around with. 

Ie “Cpl Bloggins, Report to the oGroup” would be taped and dissected into syllables, as with every single transmission you make, then after about a week of recording, they now start messing with you, every 5 minutes your voice comes across the air, and orders your troops about. You attempt to stop them by saying “All C/S this is ____ I’m being imitated disregard” they stop… you think smugly to yourself, what do the Jimmies know HAH!” then you come under fire, you use your FRS to issue an order and damned if your voice doesn’t come over the air and tell them to disregard as someone is imitating you.

c) If you take the time to use and learn the 521 it is a very reliable piece of kit as is the 522 the “it’s unreliable stance” is from people unmotivated to learn and appreciate a fine piece of kit. The argument is similar to “we should go back to the Lee Enfield, we will never use the Auto Function, and the Repetition is too complicated and the rifle requires so much more maint and care to use. It’s a waste of my time” sigs are just as bad for this attitude, but we’re starting to come around.

d) using the 521 for anything other than section comms is not what it was designed for, the reason the 521 exists is so that you can talk to everyone in your section with a whisper, and no one except your section can hear it Period.

e) the separate RX/TX settings are important as they allow you to utilize RRB more fully… you want to keep your section informed as well as communicate with HQ, without giving away your position or hauling a 522 around the trenches

one example:

1) set up a 522 RRB relay (cable, press RRB so r on each radio, set one to pltn freq, one to alt freq) 
2) set your sections radios to Rx/tx on pltn freq.
3) the pltn is too far away to hear them, that’s fine, set the 2nd channel on each radio to R/X pltn freq, and T/X on alt freq
4) when you switch to ch2 freq, it goes to the RRB set, in one 522 and out the other at highpower, your section and platoon will all hear from the High Power TX, any comms from your section or platoon will go back through to you.
5) the pltn reply will come in and all will hear it from the pltn direct. 
6) This stops the Enemy from DF your exact trench, etc locations and allows you to keep your section in the loop with the pltn. If you throw your RRB 522s behind a hill, the enemy might not even hear your outgoing tx.

Ask your attached sigs guys to set this up for you if you don’t have the time to learn to do this yourself, takes about 5 min.

The 522 is easy to use.

To set it up like a 77Set or FRS

1) set channel to CH 1
2) set mode to PT
3) turn it on
4) punch in freq

done.

To Add Extra channels.

1) after setting channel 1 as above, rotate volume to HSET
2) switch to each channel
3) press up key, then enter channel, repeat for each channel.

Your sigs guys should load crypto for you, and hopping or anything else you need, and the only thing you need to know is press H/h until it says h if you are hopping with the control station, and press FXC otherwise. Follow CEOIs

To set up RRB
1) join 2 522s with RRB cable
2) set each to different freq
3) press RRB on each until r is on both

Done

The 522 while heavier than the 77 set, a full complement of batteries with the 522 is lighter than the same with the 77 set.

99% of comms problems stem from bad batteries, don’t give up on the radio, tag the bad batteries and get them replaced. 

Test your radios before you go to the field, you wouldn’t take an untested weapon to the field, don’t do the same with your radios, tag and send to be replaced if N/S.


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Feb 2006)

C_Canuk, thanks for the impromptu comms class. I probably learned more from reading that than trying to decipher the lesson plans, manuals, corporate knowledge, etc. 

Like most things in life, it is all about education. Unfortunately, we sometimes make things harder to learn than they have to be. As well, trying to "port" over from one style of kit to another doesn't always cut it: "Where's old squelch on this thing?!! I can't live without my old squelch switch!!!".

I have no doubt that the enemy, assuming that they are as determined to sit in and listen in on our FRS comms, could do what you say they could: in theory. In practice, I don't imagine it would happen that easily. I have only ONCE in my whole career heard of the EW guys stick it to somebody by recording the persons transmissions, manipulate it, then play it back, much to their chagrin. I think that there are far simpler (and effective) ways of fucking with someone. I am completely in the dark as to how hard it would for "them" to monitor our secure comms would be, but I tend to think that there are far too many people who put too much faith in "their" inability to do so. Personally, I think that "they" would far sooner plant a "bug" or some other device within one of our camps (or a vehicle) via the civilian workers, translaters, sympathetic NGO's, media,etc rather than listening in on FRS comms. 

Again, I'm sure that there are theories to cover all the possibilities you mention, and no doubt it has been practiced on exercises (where there are so many inside "leaks" that it wouldn't be too hard for the OPFOR to zoom in on the frequencies (i.e they know the SOPS, and freq ranges used) that it wouldn't be altogether difficult. Not unlike when the OPFOR get a briefing on where a friendly patrol will be at a certain time, or an OP to bump is located, and receive the trace, grid squares, freqs etc.

And regarding the batteries, I am 99% sure that you are right. However, when all you get is the shitty rechargable batteries (due to the cost of "normal" batteries) that last 15mins , and that is all you know, you quickly give up on the system. You can't train to fire a weapon by saying "budget cut, budget cut, budget cut" every time you pull the trigger. You can't train with a radio that doesn't receive/transmit due to dead batteries: putting your hand to your head like a fake cell-phone and pretending to tx/rx doesn't really have the same effect.

Again, I would LOVE to have a piece of gear that works, without having to go out and spend my own money. Yes, there are all kinds of reasons NOT to use unauthorized kit. But something that works, with all it's inherent risks and flaws, beats something that stays in it's case, in the vehicle or QM stores, because it can't be used (lack of training, lack of proper EIS, shite batteries, etc). Make things easy to work, that do more than something that can be picked up at Walmart, and I'm sure everyone will embrace it. I don't know of too many guys who enjoy something that is a pain in the ass to learn or operate.

Al


----------



## GO!!! (5 Feb 2006)

I am still waiting for an EW type to supply an instance when they have used their supposedly stupendous powers on anyone but us or our allies in the current operational context.  

I have to assume that the deafening silence that answers my question means that we are the only ones our EW is really capable of spoofing.

canuck, your example of an EW det sitting 3km away is ludicrous. We all know that EW dets require multiple sections of mod, flying kitchens, generators and daily re-sup, so stop pretending that you are everywhere all of the time. You have some great ways of ruining our day, but you have yet to prove that you are capable of foiling our enemies.

Increasing numbers of IEDs in Iraq are being detonated with cell phones. When will EW begin deploying with every convoy/ patrol in order to prevent this? That would be a useful skill. Sitting behind a computer at 742 Sigs Sqn telling me how to do my job is'nt.


----------



## Sig_Des (5 Feb 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I am still waiting for an EW type to supply an instance when they have used their supposedly stupendous powers on anyone but us or our allies in the current operational context.



GO, since jamming can be interpreted as an Act of War, and could lead to the start of hostilities between countries, I very much doubt you will hear any of the rubberheads supply an instance where they have used them on anyone but us and our allies.

Most of the stuff EW can do, they won't tell you, OPSEC.

and believe me, you would be VERY surprised as to what they CAN do...pretty scary stuff...but I'm not going into it, because I don't want to infringe on OPSEC, and if anyone decides what they can pass off, it's a 291ers place to do so.

There are, however, some threads reguarding EW and 291ers in the C&E Branch Forum


----------



## willy (5 Feb 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I am still waiting for an EW type to supply an instance when they have used their supposedly stupendous powers on anyone but us or our allies in the current operational context.
> 
> I have to assume that the deafening silence that answers my question means that we are the only ones our EW is really capable of spoofing.
> 
> ...



http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.11/bomb.html?pg=2&topic=bomb&topic_set=  Read the article.  They're already using EW to prevent remote detonations in Iraq, and have been doing so for some time.


----------



## GO!!! (5 Feb 2006)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> GO, since jamming can be interpreted as an Act of War, and could lead to the start of hostilities between countries, I very much doubt you will hear any of the rubberheads supply an instance where they have used them on anyone but us and our allies.


IEDs, dead and injured soldiers, destroyed vehicles and widows orphans and amputees can also be considered acts of war - but don't let that ruin a good story.



> Most of the stuff EW can do, they won't tell you, OPSEC.



Ahhhh yes, OPSEC, the same reason we can't know how much a general makes, or who those guys who drive around south east of ottawa in black suburbans and oakleys are. 

I have about as much faith in our EW as I do in our politicians - smoke, mirrors, baseless claims and alot of wasted money, but they sure give us a decent rogering!

Has Canada deployed any warlocks yet - or is that a secret too?


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Feb 2006)

I had a witty comment about countering all these FRS and other detonating devices, but my computer froze while I was typing it (EW gods angry at me!!), and I got the Wired article into my brain-housing group instead. Thank Christ that these guys are able to counter this shit.

It's nice to see that there is somebody even more cynical than I am (GO!!!!!). I have no doubt that the EW world has a few tricks up their sleeve, but claiming OPSEC is kind of lame, if you ask me. Considering that the Wired! article spells out quite a bit, without getting into specifics (after all, the bomb makers over in Iraq figure out the the good guys have been jamming them (umm, an act of war, in a war zone). How about now in A'stan, now that we're on the prowl for the Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc? I know.... OPSEC. I bet they got death-rays, and plasma cannons, and stuff!!!! Sorry, but the cloak and dagger stuff grows old pretty quick.

One "mission" I was on in Bosnia in 2000-01, which is 6 days of my life that I'll never get back, was to "watch" a big radio antenna in Livno, at the police station (I'd tell you what type of vehicle it was that we were using, but, you know, OPSEC, and all chap......hint, it rhymes with peyote). We were watching to see, well, I'm not really sure what we were watching it for, as it never moved, or got taller or anything, but the Sigs world was sure interested. Apparently it sent and received radio signals, or something fancy like that. We heard tell that the EW fella's drove around in their LSVW (or another stealthy vehicle) and tried to triangulate some radio signals in the area (hint: look for the 70m tall tower that we were watching!!!). Maybe we were the diversion. Maybe the EW guys just didn't have a clue. I'll never know, I guess. But, man was that ever boring!! If that's what the EW world is like (as opposed to the EOD world, as per the Wired! article), they can have it. Watching paint dry is more exciting than that.

Al


----------



## Tracker 23A (5 Feb 2006)

GO!!!,

it seems somewhere down the line you have been effected with comm's issue's.  Although you have convinced yourself our EW capabilities are unjust and unreliable, I can assure you they are quite capable of doing a vast array of tasks within their field.  

To get a better appreciation of the EW capabilities, you should visit the Communications Security Establishment website, as it is their function in the Federal Government to define everything with signals (SIGINT).  The CSE, if you don't know, is the equivalent to the NSA in the states.  Plenty of CommsResearch guys could probably tell you some interesting things, but since we infantry soldier's are nothing when it comes to the daily issues of national security as compared to their everyday job in NDHQ and other "listening centres" around Canada and abroad, we simply don't get what they do. 

Whether one wants to accept it or not, the majority of our intelligence in all theatres, domestic and foreign, comes from SIGINT.   

http://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/index-e.html


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Feb 2006)

I won't speak on behalf of GO!!!, but I think most guys know that there are super-secret establishments that can do all kinds of voodoo with all the technology available. It's just that I have a hard time believing a lot of the hype. And when somebody says: "Oh yeah, we can do that, but we can't tell you about it" my BS detector lights up like a Xmas tree. I suppose I'm the type that has to see it to believe it. And as I'm a pretty big threat to Nat'l Security I'm not worthy, I guess. Save the cloak and dagger stuff for the chicks: army guys need a little more than that to be impressed (or convinced).

I, like GO!!!!, just want to hear of an example of something that the EW boys/girls have done, in operations, that isn't classified, or won't result in the Secret Squirrels smashing through all our windows seconds after it's posted here, to indicate that all these measures we take (and the enemy does as well) are worth all the hush-hush. I don't know, something like saying that they were able to triangulate in on an Al-Qaeda base, or drop a SHRIKE on a Taliban compound. Otherwise, it's just smoke and mirrors (and BS). 

Al


----------



## Tracker 23A (5 Feb 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> I won't speak on behalf of GO!!!, but I think most guys know that there are super-secret establishments that can do all kinds of voodoo with all the technology available. It's just that I have a hard time believing a lot of the hype. And when somebody says: "Oh yeah, we can do that, but we can't tell you about it" my BS detector lights up like a Xmas tree. I suppose I'm the type that has to see it to believe it. And as I'm a pretty big threat to Nat'l Security I'm not worthy, I guess. Save the cloak and dagger stuff for the chicks: army guys need a little more than that to be impressed (or convinced).
> 
> I, like GO!!!!, just want to hear of an example of something that the EW boys/girls have done, in operations, that isn't classified, or won't result in the Secret Squirrels smashing through all our windows seconds after it's posted here, to indicate that all these measures we take (and the enemy does as well) are worth all the hush-hush. I don't know, something like saying that they were able to triangulate in on an Al-Qaeda base, or drop a SHRIKE on a Taliban compound. Otherwise, it's just smoke and mirrors (and BS).
> 
> Al



well I guess you are in for a long wait... :-X


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Feb 2006)

Is that because it's so hush-hush, or because it hasn't happened?

You know, I wear garlic cloves to keep vampires away. It works you know, because I've never encountered a vampire!!

Al


----------



## Tracker 23A (5 Feb 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Is that because it's so hush-hush, or because it hasn't happened?
> 
> You know, I wear garlic cloves to keep vampires away. It works you know, because I've never encountered a vampire!!
> 
> Al


Perhaps it has happened but since the general public (including myself) aren't made aware of the goings on around them, does that mean it doesn't?


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Sorry, but the cloak and dagger stuff grows old pretty quick.
> 
> ...................................... I'll never know, I guess. But, man was that ever boring!! If that's what the EW world is like (as opposed to the EOD world, as per the Wired! article), they can have it. Watching paint dry is more exciting than that.
> 
> Al


As does all the Allan Luomala stuff growing around here is growing old pretty quick.

Your tirades are getting as exciting as watching paint dry, but that is why you are here isn't it.  Nothing to do with the FRS vs Mil Issue Radio topic at all.  Just making us wish we were actually watching paint dry, as not have to listen to you.

If you have no concerns or respect for OPSEC, go find a happy retirement job in a commune in BC and smoke hemp all day, or perhaps join a protest at York U.  Just because you don't see anyone doing their specialty doesn't mean they aren't doing it.  If I were to believe your comments here, then you must of been humping the pouch rather doing your job as a Recce Soldier.  Actually, has anyone seen you do your job?


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Feb 2006)

I do have concerns for OPSEC, George, but I guess because I have my doubts about something that goes on, I must be a severe pooch seducer. 

I think that there are people who have witnessed me in action, but I had to kill 'em, because it was covert ops. Actually I am doing something work related, but it wouldn't interest you, I'm sure. Nothing like sitting on a high horse, but it gets the job done.

Have fun in YOUR retirement. Look me up at Y.U.

Al


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2006)

Allan Luomala said:
			
		

> Look me up at Y.U.
> 
> Al


So.  What are you applying for?   ;D

Beers

George


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2006)

So. On this note.  The Thread has been Hijacked.  Is there anything else relevant to the arguments for or against FRS that has not already been covered?  Anything on the Pros and Cons of them over the Mil Issue Radios?

If not, we will close it down.

Other non-relevant posts can be posted/started as New Topics.


----------



## GO!!! (5 Feb 2006)

well, to close,

EW says that they can do amazing things. 

Allan and I say "BS, prove it," and OPSEC suddenly becomes an issue.

I will continue to use my civvie motorola, as will the rest of the field army because;

1) They work, and the army radios dont, and;

2) Most chains of command accept this;

3) EW WOs will not fall from the sky and take it away from me.

Have a nice day.  8)


----------



## chrisf (5 Feb 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> EW says that they can do amazing things.
> 
> Allan and I say "BS, prove it," and OPSEC suddenly becomes an issue.



It's a shame that EW don't deploy randomly to more exercises... as they can indeed do amazing and frightening things.

Consider that assuming you're using an unencrypted radio (Military, FRS, whatever), using a $50 radio scanner, a bit of copper wire, and compass,a topo map and a little time, I can tell you...

1) Where you are.
2) Who you are.
3) What you're doing.
4) What your strengths and limitations are.

Throw in a laptop, and a transmitter of some sort (radio shack or e-bay has everything you'd need) and it's not that hard to capture your voice and imitate your orders.


----------



## chrisf (5 Feb 2006)

That last post being said, don't get me wrong, the issued radios are garbage, but the answer is NOT FRS radios, the answer is to replace the issued radios...


----------



## Gunner (5 Feb 2006)

I'd just like to wade in, in support of our EW folks.  I've deployed several times with a robust EW capability and they have alway provided value added to the over all mission.  The other moderators know that I don't like it when folks wave the OPSEC flag but in this case, I believe they are justified to state so in this case.  For all you EW guys who think you are unappreciated  .


----------



## Bert (6 Feb 2006)

Being an ATIS tech, I can fully understand the need for communications OPSEC and the issues Allan
and GO!!! describe.

While on tour or taskings, I can inherit a number of portable and fixed radios and repeaters.  These aren't  
tactical sets like the army 521 or 522 but similar sets nevertheless.  Of note, the accessories for many radios 
were damaged or intermittent.  Battery life, that should be 8 hours under normal use for a new one, 
actually lasted between 1/2 hour and 4 hours.  Once equipment is identified to be defective, a procurement
or repair process ensues.  During a six month tour, a ordered a number of replacement batteries.   Almost
at the end of the tour, I received a limited number of previously used batteries with the same capacity problem.
Without getting into specifics about why, what and who, for a good part of my tour, poor quality batteries had 
to be issued because there was nothing else.  Depending on the techs and the spare parts, field repair actions
may be limited to restore servicability.

Another problem was the protocol of the nets.  On the main net, several conversations could be going on at the
same time from OSCER preparing for aircraft to maintenance crews on the roads.  If a couple of guys wanted
to pull cable up in the roofs and needed point to point RF comms, they'd have to use the net and stack the 
channel with pointless dribble while maintaining protocol.

For the most part, these two issues pushed some members to use FRS type radios.  The chain of command
feared the loss of OPSEC, members would communicate soley with the FRSs rather than the military radios,
and safety issues if a member was out in the field and didn't have a military net radio.

The nets are important as the traffic on them is monitored, recorded and members use protocol and OPSEC.  Its
within military control.  We had to pull conversations off a comm logger one day as an incident involving the
fueling of an aircraft took place.  The data provided context of the event.  The use of FRSs or non-military radios 
goes outside of this.

From my little corner in the tech world, the CF can improve the level of service support units are allowed, 
standardize life cycles and exchange degraded equipment, simplify the supply chains, and allow special
purpose nets within fixed or deployed situations.  And I'd like a spectrum analyser too.


----------



## Sig_Des (6 Feb 2006)

Bert brings up a great point as far as FRS vs Mil Rads and nets.

As pointed out, a Combat Net is an organised communications system, including a net control station, operated by trained personnel. It can be directed, or open, allowing to avoid mass confusion on the network. There are procedures and protocol in place to protect the integrity of comms.

Using the Combat Net Radios (Mil Issue Rads) also allows for accountability and avoids confusion..We log messages on the Net. That way, if something needs to be looked up (IE: what was the Grid for that Supply Request? Where is that patrol? when are we supposed to pick up that patrol? Who asked for whatever) we have it in our Logs.

If some people are using FRS, and others Mil, things will get missed (orders, timings, etc). In addition to this, if OPFOR (in exercise) or EW (ISTAR deployed during Stalwart Guardian 05, for ex), is monitoring civilian freqs of FRS, it compromises everyones security.

(on SG 05, for example, the OPFOR knew our sentry challenges and responses, apparently having got it off FRS)

now, as far as using FRS instead of Mil issue on exercise, do we have the means? sometimes. Do we have the training? No.

I can tell you that 33 Bde has purchased repeaters and Base stations for a Motorola net, and always asks us to set them up for them on training support in Petawawa. But Communications orders always state that if a Motorola net is to be used, it's supposed to be contracted to a civilian company. Can I set up a repeater/base station? I can hash it out and figure it out, sure, but I haven't really been trained on it.

(This has resulted in my ass hanging 30 feet off the ground, holding on to a tree trunk no wider than my forearm, trying to strap this really awkward piece of kit that I'm not even sure is going to work up on Clement hill in Pet)

Don't get me wrong, I think the 521s are a POS. But TCCCS is a good system when you know how to make it work. Does FRS have a place in military training, I think so, but it should be sanctioned, and integrated in CEOI's, so that there is accountability.

also, some people are always fond of saying "Train as you would fight". Would you make unauthorized use of FRS in an operational setting is you knew it was going to be a security or OPSEC (there's that dirty word again) liability?


----------



## c_canuk (6 Feb 2006)

Allan Luomala, GO!!!

if you want info on what the capabilities of EW is, and where they have operated, I sugest you talk to them directly, your charm and wit will no doubt inspire them to demonstrate their capabilities to you, probably without warning on some exersize.

With good batteries, the 521 and 522 work great, as long as you use them what they are for and do regular maint on them, and replace batteries. The reason the 77 sets were considered more reliable is we never used rechargables in them, it was a fresh disposable everytime. There is a reconditioning setting on the battery rechargers, use that more often, and replace the batteries that flash amber.

the rechargeable batteries loose power sitting on a shelf, it does you no good to recharge them then let them sit on a shelf for 3 months then try to use them, keep a regular rotation of batteries going through the recharger on recondition constantly. If you have Lithium batteries, use them, don't let them sit on a shelf for 10 years, cause they won't work.


----------



## DG-41 (6 Feb 2006)

> Using the Combat Net Radios (Mil Issue Rads) also allows for accountability and avoids confusion..We log messages on the Net. That way, if something needs to be looked up (IE: what was the Grid for that Supply Request? Where is that patrol? when are we supposed to pick up that patrol? Who asked for whatever) we have it in our Logs.



I think you may be missing why it is we wind up using the FRS.

My first choice for a comms solution is a military radio. Absolutely. Without question. But in the last 6 months at least, having working military comms has been somewhat elusive. We lack vehicle mounts for the 522s, so we are tied to batteries. There aren't enough spare batteries and chargers (and a goodly proportion of the spare batteries don't last anywhere near as long as advertised) so the amount of operational military radios drops off as the working batteries are consumed. And the 521s don't work for shit even with fully charged batteries.

But it is absolutely essential that we have comms. It's just not acceptable for callsigns to drop off the net. So the SOP chain is 522, then FRS, then cellphone. If the 522s stayed up, we'd never use the FRS.

It would be a big help if there were vehicle-powered 522 battery chargers in every callsign (one that wasn't the size of a haybox). It would also be a big help if there were a 522 vehicle tray in every callsign - although, one hopes that the new GWagons will all be properly equipped with 522 trays.

Strictly speaking, every one of my callsigns should have TWO 522s in it (one in the vehicle tray, one equipped as a manpack for the observer) and where we have 522 shortfalls, we make it up with FRS.

The points about FRS being insecure are well taken, but if the choice is between insecure comms and no comms at all, I'll take insecure - I can work around the insecurity by minimizing the amount of transmissions and using veiled speech, just like the old days - but I cannot work around "no comms at all"

If you want to see the incidence of FRS use reduced, the solution is to provide working military comms.

DG


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Feb 2006)

Not to mention that when we did have the veh installations, we were not provided with the amps. Ergo, we had about a 3 watt veh mounted walkie talkie. Good for shit. Brigade recce vehicles need two veh mounts (Bg and Tp net) and a manpack, with the veh mounts being able to rx/tx for more than 10 kms. Less is unacceptable.


----------



## willy (6 Feb 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not to mention that when we did have the veh installations, we were not provided with the amps. Ergo, we had about a 3 watt veh mounted walkie talkie. Good for crap. Brigade recce vehicles need two veh mounts (Bg and Tp net) and a manpack, with the veh mounts being able to rx/tx for more than 10 kms. Less is unacceptable.



Sorry, but you're not correct.  If you stick a PRC 522 into a vehicle mounting tray (no amp) then it becomes a VRC 513 V (1), which is a 20 W transmitter, and should have a range of 20+ Km.  The amplified version is a VRC 513 V (2) which is a 50W set capable of 40+ Km on a good day.  If your vehicle installation can't transmit more than 10 Km, then one of three things is happening:

1.  You're limited by terrain;
2.  The set is N/S; or
3.  You don't know how to use your equipment.



			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> I think you may be missing why it is we wind up using the FRS.
> 
> My first choice for a comms solution is a military radio. Absolutely. Without question. But in the last 6 months at least, having working military comms has been somewhat elusive. We lack vehicle mounts for the 522s, so we are tied to batteries. There aren't enough spare batteries and chargers (and a goodly proportion of the spare batteries don't last anywhere near as long as advertised) so the amount of operational military radios drops off as the working batteries are consumed. And the 521s don't work for crap even with fully charged batteries.
> 
> ...



This indicates that you may be missing half the reason why I'm telling you not to use FRS radios.  The point regarding COMSEC has been discussed to death here, and everyone understands it.   COMSEC is only half of the reasoning the jimmies are using here though. Very few of the posts in this thread seem to reflect an understanding of the EMSEC issue, which is different.  Maybe you can't work around no comms at all, but what I can't work around is "wrong circuit/improper transmission".

If you re-read my initial post in this thread, you'll see that I complained of the EMSEC issue specifically, and then offered a possible solution (use of motorolas on military VHF freqs).  That solution does nothing to address problems of COMSEC: you're still going to be transmitting in non-secure mode.  What it does do is allow the chain of command to have control over who can transmit and on what frequencies.  We have to stay in our own lanes, and on our own frequencies.  Individual troops in the field can't just act as their own frequency managers.  By doing so, they ruin any chance of having an effective deception plan for use against enemy EW, and they also run the risk of interfering with legitimate users of frequencies that aren't owned by DND.

Regular cell phones are completely acceptable for use by military users, provided that they are only used to discuss matters that are UNCLAS (which they regularly aren't, but that's back to the COMSEC issue).  By making a cell phone call, you're using a medium that has been approved for DND use.  DND can issue cell phones to selected individuals, and can therefore control who does or doesn't have a transmitter.  Lastly, you aren't going to unreasonably interfere with any other agencies or individuals.  No offence, but I can tell that your SOP for primary, secondary, and tertiary means wasn't written by a qualified CCO.  I'd suggest that you go out and get some of the motorolas that I've talked about several times now, and that you use those as your secondary means.  Failing that, bump cell phones up to secondary.  FRS isn't appropriate, and _isn't_ even required, as there are other, appropriate systems that are readily available to anyone who wants them.


----------



## PiperDown (6 Feb 2006)

It never ceases to amaze me when people who cant (or choose not to, might be the better answer) get their heads around our comms equipt. can be seen later that evening with fingers flying on the latest game boy, IPOD, x-box or dungeons and dragons game... 
I call it laziness. The equipment works... figure out how to use it and soldier on.



Cheers,


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Feb 2006)

PiperDown said:
			
		

> It never ceases to amaze me when people who cant (or choose not to, might be the better answer) get their heads around our comms equipt. can be seen later that evening with fingers flying on the latest game boy, IPOD, x-box or dungeons and dragons game...
> I call it laziness. The equipment works... figure out how to use it and soldier on.
> 
> 
> ...



..and this is directed at who??? I suggest unless your going to add something credible to the conversation, you go on radio silence and MYOB.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Feb 2006)

willy said:
			
		

> Sorry, but you're not correct.  If you stick a PRC 522 into a vehicle mounting tray (no amp) then it becomes a VRC 513 V (1), which is a 20 W transmitter, and should have a range of 20+ Km.  The amplified version is a VRC 513 V (2) which is a 50W set capable of 40+ Km on a good day.  If your vehicle installation can't transmit more than 10 Km, then one of three things is happening:
> 
> 1.  You're limited by terrain;
> 2.  The set is N/S; or
> 3.  You don't know how to use your equipment.



I'll stand corrected on the wattage. It doesn't address the situation. My callsigns regularly run 30-40 km ahead of the Bg CP. They're the ones looking for my info. My CP is running maybe 3 k behind me. He's still out of range. Even down here in billiard flat southern Ontario, you'll never shoot 20+ line of sight with what we are given. The terrain will always be a factor, so don't even try to give ideal distance. My c/s doesn't have a 30' ground plane attached. Our equipment is always N/S because we can't get it repaired in under 9 months. The first military radio I used was a C42, sighting and working around radio problems and interference hasn't changed, I know how to use my equipment.


----------



## willy (6 Feb 2006)

Recceguy, I don't understand the point you're trying to make, so I'd ask that you clarify something for me before I reply properly.  My understanding of the ranges you're talking about is as follows-your sub C/S are 27-37 Km forward of you, and you're about 3 Km forward of the BG CP.  You want your sub C/S to be able to talk to you, and you want to be able to talk to the BG CP.  Is this correct?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Feb 2006)

Recce callsigns regularly run 30-60 k ahead of the Bg, and their CP. The Recce CP is a bound or two back of the recce c/s, a couple of kms. Without being issued amps, your IDEAL 20 km range is not sufficient for us. Neither is one radio, neither is a manpack. And unless I can see the other antennae 20 k away with my high powered binocs, neither is your argument about ideal range.


----------



## DG-41 (6 Feb 2006)

> I'd suggest that you go out and get some of the motorolas that I've talked about several times now, and that you use those as your secondary means.



Right. And while I'm at it, I'll get that troop of Coyotes I was promised in '96, and I may even take a few seconds to let some monkeys fly out of my butt.

If I HAD Motorolas, I'd use them. If they were available to me, I'd use them. Telling me to use what is not available to me is not a solution.



> Regular cell phones are completely acceptable for use by military users,



Except that:

1) Cell phone calls are point-to-point.

2) Each cell call results in a per-usage fee charged (one way or another) to the soldier involved in the call. Depending on where we are, there are roaming and long-distance charges to be considered as well.

You didn't mean MILITARY ISSUE cell phones did you? See comments above regarding Motorolas, availability of.



> Very few of the posts in this thread seem to reflect an understanding of the EMSEC issue



Sorry, but my safety issues trump your EMSEC issues, especially in cases (like exercises) where EMSEC concerns are minor issues, but safety is very real. I have a story about this that drives this point home, I cannot relate it on these means.



> It never ceases to amaze me when people who cant (or choose not to, might be the better answer) get their heads around our comms equipt.



As I have mentioned elsewhere, I came out of an 8-year retirement fairly recently. The only major thing that changed in that time was the comms equipment. While the horrible user interface on the TCCCS stuff did not make my life any easier, I was able to do a lot of self-study and bring myself up to speed on the equipment, such that the only task I haven't figured out yet is how to make the PLUGR talk to the CI (there's a wire that connects them, but that section of the home study package was still incomplete on the version I found) I was also able to get my personal callsign properly set up, such that *I* now have access to a vehicle tray ("a" set, not "A" set) and a CI, and I know how to properly set them up and use them. Used and verified in the field - the 522 + tray "a" set worked every bit as well as I'd expect a 524 set to work.

All done on my own initiative and my own time, thank you very much. 

This, of course, does not change the fact that out of 8 callsigns, I have ONE properly equipped. Three more have 522+batteries (thus limited to "med" power and by the erratic lifespan and short supply of batteries) and the other 4 callsigns have 521s, whose only workable function is fuel for smoke signals. Given my book entitlement to 8Xveh trays and 4 X manpacks (minimum - should be 8 X manpack really) that means I have 33% of my minimum comms entitlement - and that number is misleadingly large, as I wind up using manpacks for tasks that they are not intended to do.

The problem is not capability - the stuff, when I have it, (521 excepted) works fine. The problem is not operator incompetence or unfamiliarity - we have enough people trained on the stuff to use it, and there are home study packages available that can bring the untrained up to speed. The problem is AVAILIBILITY.

If you don't fill my requirements with issue kit, I will look elsewhere to solve the problem - and I'm not going to apologise for it either. 

You want me to stop using FRS? Give me my missing 7 X veh trays and at least one more (and ideally 4 more) manpacks with serviceable batteries, and I'll happily put the FRS away. Until then, my need for comms trumps your EMSEC and COMSEC concerns.



> Recce callsigns regularly run 30-60 k ahead of the Bg, and their CP.



While this is entirely true, (and so is a strong argument for recce callsigns to have "A" sets) the types of exercises we have been doing lately have been limited to smaller AORs and have been served by lesser ranges. If the CP has "A" sets and a sputnik mast antenna (which we have had, for the most part) and the individual callsigns have "a" sets, that has proven entirely workable. The last big ex we did, I had an "a", the CP had an "A + mast", and I never lost contact with the CP, despite a 20+km distance between us (helped, no doubt, by the fact that our AOR had no contour lines in it)

In a perfect world, yes, I'd want my veh trays to be "A" sets, but I think I can live with "a" sets if the CP has an "A + mast". I reserve the right to change this opinion based on operational experience if I ever get enough "a" sets to try out.

DG


----------



## DG-41 (6 Feb 2006)

Question for the Jimmies here - what TCCCS installation is standard on:

1) Leopard

2) Coyote

3) LAV III

Do any/all of these come with the "A" trays (tray + amp) ?

DG


----------



## willy (6 Feb 2006)

Recceguy:

Fine, you should be issued with amps, as well as with vixam masts.  Hell, for the ranges that you're talking about, why not even get some 138 manpacks- they'll let you go even further forward and not lose comms.  As I said already, I'd pay for more and better issue stuff for the army by myself if I could.  If that's your only issue, then I guess we agree.  

Just as long as you're not suggesting that a FRS radio is going to solve these problems for you.  You aren't, are you?  Nor are you hopefully suggesting that the old equipment is more capable than what we use now.  Because I'm not aware of any FRS radio (typically less than 5 watts output) that will get you even 20 Km, nor am I aware of any old equipment (C42, 46 or 77 Set, etc) that would outstrip the range of the radios we currently issue.  If you are suggesting either of these things, then please advise me of any instance in which you got 30-60 Km out of either a FRS or Legacy equipment.

Also, please don't forget that my trades school is in Southern Ontario, and that I've been there on one or two occasions.  While the Canadian Shield does occasionally complicate matters, getting 20 Km out of an A set is not impossible around there, and it's much easier now than it was with the old kit.


----------



## willy (6 Feb 2006)

Recce DG:

The last I checked, butt-flying monkeys weren't available on a loan basis from 2 ASG Sigs, but Motorolas were.  Most units, even reserve units, have at least 2 or 3 cell phones allocated to them, if you don't, and if your troops absolutely had to use their own cell phones, then you could reimburse them for calls they made using a general allowance claim, as I've personally done before.  

So that you know, I've recently heard of a plan to pull all IRIS radios from Army Reserve units to hold them as national operational stock, and to replace them using, wait for it... Motorolas.  

I can't tell you what the standard installation in any of the vehicles you mention is, I don't have personal experience with them.  FYI though, the indicators given by the CI don't match with the proper indicators:

CI "A" set = VRC 513 V (2) = A+ Set
CI "a" set = VRC 513 V (1) = A Set


----------



## DG-41 (6 Feb 2006)

> So that you know, I've recently heard of a plan to pull all IRIS radios from Army Reserve units to hold them as national operational stock, and to replace them using, wait for it... Motorolas.



This plan is quite clearly unworkable, for the aforementioned range issue, and for the issue that we need to be able to train on operational kit. See the innumerable threads on the capability gap between the Reserves and the Regs - it's hard to augment when we don't use the same kit; especially when the user interface is so obtuse.

If you want to issue Motorolas to replace our field-expediant FRS - hey, I'm all over that. I'll take eight, plus enough batteries for 72 hours of operation, plus another eight backup batteries. Need a shipping address? 



> I can't tell you what the standard installation in any of the vehicles you mention is,



Well, if you find out, I'd submit that we'd need as a minimum the same sort of installation used in Coyote, and if Coyote comes with the A+ (CI "A") then that's what we should have too. Similar tasks, similar comms.

DG


----------



## c_canuk (6 Feb 2006)

RecceDG 

I understand your pain, I really do, when we had the 46/77 sets we had 7 trucks with a dual install, now I'm down to 2 trucks with a dual install, and 2 with single installs. the others are now support trucks that plug into the others via LDN

now, as for your tray shortages... eeeep!

are you on a waiting list for equipment? if not I would harass someone until I was.

the problem is the old procurment idiots investing in a tray that costs in the thousands for a frigging stamped piece of metal, hell the RRB Cables that our techs put together for 10$ cost $600 from the contractor... Procurment justifies this by saying there is extra costs involved in re tooling assembly lines, which tells me drop the contractor like molton lava and go with local machine shops.

anyway that said

I would press for more manpacks, and AMPs with trays in your situation before trying to fill the trays, the battery compartment comes off in a bout 30 seconds and you can mount it in an A+ tray and re attach the battery componets...

there are also some techs who know how to re wire the adapter to allow for full power from the manpack... Not authorised so Shhhhh!!!!!

there should be a mess of Masts around, so requisition some. If you have a local comm res unit around ask for support, we love to get out and see how others work, and may be able to come up with new solutions to problems you are so used to you don't notice them anymore... I imagine reg force comms guys might support you too. a Masted A+ CP should be avalible at most Comm Res units.

A lot of time units could ask for support from comm res but don't really know they can, my unit works us 2-3 weekends a month, and the others are filled with taskings to support other res and even a few Reg units. we have some guys (like me once I'm home again) avalible for more than weekends too.

Now there are Battery chargers out there that you can buy that can recharge batteries in greater numbers... I'm thinking about donating one to my unit because we can't buy one

1) me: can I buy a battery recharge cause our one tactical charger is not sufficient for our needs
2) them: there is already a charger in the system, so you cannot buy them
3) me: then issue me 4 more
4) them: there are none in the system for issue
5) me: see pt 1
6) them: see pt 2


I would also like to investigate Lithium Ion Batteries, and NiMH batteries over NiCad as NiMH last longer and don't suffer from memory effect and have higher power output ratings.


----------



## willy (6 Feb 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> This plan is quite clearly unworkable, for the aforementioned range issue, and for the issue that we need to be able to train on operational kit. See the innumerable threads on the capability gap between the Reserves and the Regs - it's hard to augment when we don't use the same kit; especially when the user interface is so obtuse.
> DG



I agree wholeheartedly.  Everyone needs more of everything.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2006)

Working at the Brigade G6 cell, I have empathy for BOTH sides of the TCCCS vs FRS arguments; mostly because I am the baloney in the sandwich.

On the one hand my superior headquarters tells me we are NEVER to use FRS except in the most limited circumstances (i.e. marching on the band on parade, family day, sports day), and are rather upset over the fact we have Motorola CT-250s (no one can learn how to use TCCCS if they use Motorola's).

On the other hand, my subordinate units are desperate for any sort of comms equipment at all, even the small amount of TCCCS we do have is often expensive paperweights because the EIS like handsets/headsets and batteries are non serviceable.

What is even more annoying is that the TCCCS boat has sailed a long time ago. I can go downtown and buy a GARMIN RINO for @ $400 which is a radio, GPS receiver, electronic map display (with maps downloadable on the Internet) and SAS system (when your C/S transmits, the person you are speaking to will see your location highlighted on their RINO map display). If we combined those capabilities with the "military" requirements to Tx on certain frequency bands, have crypto and frequency hopping capabilities and high power output to extend the range there would be one powerful information tool for the troops.

The biggest crunch (for any high level lurkers) isn't the availability of radios, but the serviceability of the EIS and the limited number of long range radios. We have 521s up the hoop, but they are of very limited utility for Armoured, Artillery, Engineers, CSS and the HQ. Even in the Infantry the 521 only helps the platoon commander stay in touch with the section commanders, we need 522s or their equivalents. There are no more TCCCS sets, trays, EIS or anything else on the horizon, and our shock and awe attack on the supply system has turned up very little for the units. Unless there is some high level will to fix the problem, we will be using cell phones, signal flags and heliographs lifted from the museum for the forseeable future.


----------



## DG-41 (6 Feb 2006)

After the ridiculousness that was the comms situation at SG and a follow-on local ex, we made a lot of noise, some of which actually generated results. I went from no trays to one tray + CI, and from 1 X 522 and 7 X 521 to 4 X 522 and 4 X 521 - and our CP is in good shape (which helps a lot).

RUMINT says that the C&R GWagons which are coming in to replace our Iltis Real Soon Now are going to have at least A trays (CI "a") and 2 X CI mounts - which would be a huge step forward. I'll hold onto my TCCCS Iltis right until the end, and as the GWagons come in, the comms should get better in lockstep.

We had a few GWagons at the unit temporarily (for driver training) and they were wired for TCCCS, but had no trays, AMUs, power units, etc. They were also missing the gun mounts (just three big studs on the hatch ring) so they weren't representative of what the final issue vehicle is going to be like - I hope!

One also hopes that as I get tray-equipped vehicles that additional 522s will be around to fill the trays.



> Now there are Battery chargers out there that you can buy that can recharge batteries in greater number



Are the 522 manpack batteries actually in some sort of standard form factor? Is there an off-the-shelf recharger out there?

DG


----------



## c_canuk (6 Feb 2006)

I'm looking for the website I saw it on... thought it was Harris, but now I'm not sure, that made them... the batteries we use are a form factor, and I've seen a couple websites that produce Lithium Ion batteries... I believe the model number is 

like this one which I believe is the same used for 521s 
https://secure.thalescomminc.com/cart2/tcBatteries.asp

this website sells batteries and chargers, the bb-2590/U battery would fit PRC 138s, 522 etc, and battery model BB-521/U fits 521... one of the 10 way univerals would be lovely to have in sig stores and in the CPs
http://www.milpower.co.uk/


----------



## NL_engineer (6 Feb 2006)

willy said:
			
		

> Just as long as you're not suggesting that a FRS radio is going to solve these problems for you.  You aren't, are you?  Nor are you hopefully suggesting that the old equipment is more capable than what we use now.  Because I'm not aware of any FRS radio (typically less than 5 watts output) that will get you even 20 Km,



Willy the set of Motorola's that I bought at Crappy Tire in the early fall, (bought for civi use but has be extended to use during training) are 2 watt and have a range of 19.5 km. If you take a trip into Future Shop they have some with longer ranges.

Maybe instead of re inventing the wheel and designing a new comms system we should contract Motorola and get them to designed and build one for us. They do hold quite a few US Mill contracts.

just my 2 cents


----------



## willy (6 Feb 2006)

Fair enough.  Still less than the 30+ being discussed though.


----------



## Bert (6 Feb 2006)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Willy the set of Motorola's that I bought at Crappy Tire in the early fall, (bought for civi use but has be extended to use during training) are 2 watt and have a range of 19.5 km. If you take a trip into Future Shop they have some with longer ranges.
> 
> Maybe instead of re inventing the wheel and designing a new comms system we should contract Motorola and get them to designed and build one for us. They do hold quite a few US Mill contracts.
> 
> just my 2 cents



In my opinion, thats 19.5 km with the best battery in absolutely perfect LOS circumstances.  Hardly typical in 
actual field handheld situations

Given the description in many posts, its seems radio equipment availability and RF coverage areas are really the problem.
Since the discussion involves 522/521 radios, various handhelds/manpacks, with lack of amps and suitable antennas, 
maybe a focus should be put on integrated systems that are engineered to work.  What would be a practical mobile radio 
net involving a CP and distributed radios 60 km away?   Seems like the CELEs should get ahold of this.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Feb 2006)

Asking for a range of 60 Km is a bit much for a single radio set, unless it is attached to a honking amplifier and a gigantic mast. For practical purposes the long range will have to be passed on to an RRB, a radio relay UAV, an aerostat (tethered balloon or blimp) or sent via Iridium or IMERSAT. 

Col Banks wrote an article in the CAJ 8.3 regarding the American Task Forces in Afghanistan, one thing he noted was that sections could be from 5-30 Km from the Platoon; and the Platoon HQ was often 30+ Km from the Coy HQ. Given the distance and broken nature of the terrain any VHF solution will have a great deal of difficulty, and I wonder if HF would be viable given the combination of radio waves bouncing off the unstable atmosphere and the small receiver "targets" deep in the valleys. Maybe we need to move into Iridium technology in a big way to support widely dispersed operations and overcome the effects of atmosphere and terrain.


----------



## Carbon-14 (7 Feb 2006)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> I'm looking for the website I saw it on... thought it was Harris, but now I'm not sure, that made them... the batteries we use are a form factor, and I've seen a couple websites that produce Lithium Ion batteries... I believe the model number is
> 
> like this one which I believe is the same used for 521s
> https://secure.thalescomminc.com/cart2/tcBatteries.asp
> ...



Careful with the 2590 batteries.  The voltages are higher than spec for the radio.  The batteries used in the 138s & 522 is the BB-590/U.  This battery is used in the other countries (including the states) so there is a plethora of ancillary kit available on the net.  I'd love to get my hands on a charger that can handle more than 2 batteries at once!  But I'm not willing to shell the money out of my own pocket yet.  Those tactical chargers aren't terrible but not up to the job in a QM, especially for the reserves.  Parade maybe once or twice a week and its difficult to replace those batteries on the 1 charger we have.

NG_Engineer:  May I ask what type of radios those were?  FRS radios are limited to 1/2 a Watt.  GMRS is 2 Watts in Canada.  513 is 16 Watts as apposed to the 20 stated early.  Most other types of radios (legally  ^-^) require a license to operate.  I'm not trying to imply not to use it. Really, I'm just curious.

I personally believe that the radios we have are quite good (even those hated 521s).  But there is a HUGE problem with availability of the right equipment.   Recceguy's problem definitely sounded like an RRB would be a good solution, not necessarily more powerful radios.  And you don't need high powered radios to talk far in all situations.  I've talked to Vancouver from Edmonton on a 138 manpack (connected to a B&W antenna).  Of course HF is very dependant on atmospheric conditions.  113s are even more rare which is really unfortunate even though they're old.  Being UHF (like FRS) having them would certainly be advantageous in many situations, especially in urban environments.

I've been wondering lately, with the large increase in personnel the CF is hoping to attract... thats a lot of extra kit we'll need to purchase.  I hope people aren't planning to stretch equipment even more.  I hope if they do decide to purchase more radios that they at least get enough to meet current requirements!


----------



## c_canuk (7 Feb 2006)

Good point Carbon... though I think the allowable voltage range the radios will accept is 12-40 volts... maybe a tech could confirm that? though I'm sure we can also get the BB-590/U batteries from these companies as well.

I suspect that RRB with whips might help out a lot in RecceGuys case, as I suspect he's armoured Recce and they cover 60 km in an hour or so... the RRB would have to be on the move... but that could be done. he also need vehicle trays... battery power limits his options


----------



## NL_engineer (7 Feb 2006)

Carbon-14,
They are GMRS, and can you please spell my screen name properly :threat:


----------



## chrisf (9 Feb 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Asking for a range of 60 Km is a bit much for a single radio set, unless it is attached to a honking amplifier and a gigantic mast. For practical purposes the long range will have to be passed on to an RRB, a radio relay UAV, an aerostat (tethered balloon or blimp) or sent via Iridium or IMERSAT.



It's funny, I started thinking about a UHF radio with a whip antenna tethered to a balloon while browsing through this thread... it's actually an extremely viable idea, just not practical considersing the availability of the INMARSAT, particularly considering the current INMARSAT (Which costs somthing along the lines of $12-15 per minute) is being replaced by the Ottercom Storm ($0.89 per minute) and the troops in afghanistan will shortly be recieving Harris Multiband FALCON II radios, capable of a variety of comms, including HF, VHF and UHF, and supposedly are capable of sattelite comms while on the move.



> Col Banks wrote an article in the CAJ 8.3 regarding the American Task Forces in Afghanistan, one thing he noted was that sections could be from 5-30 Km from the Platoon; and the Platoon HQ was often 30+ Km from the Coy HQ. Given the distance and broken nature of the terrain any VHF solution will have a great deal of difficulty, and I wonder if HF would be viable given the combination of radio waves bouncing off the unstable atmosphere and the small receiver "targets" deep in the valleys. Maybe we need to move into Iridium technology in a big way to support widely dispersed operations and overcome the effects of atmosphere and terrain.



I'm not sure how familiar you are with HF, it's definitly viable in this case, that's why we've got man-packs.. there are limitations though... I'll give a quick run-down of factors applicable in this situation...

HF signals travel in two ways (They do so simulatenously, it's just the nature of the wave). They produce a ground wave and a sky wave. The ground wave travels in a line along the ground, the same as a VHF wave. The sky wave travels up to the sky, bounces off the ionosphere, travels back to the ground, bounces off the ground and continues this cycle.

One major limitation with HF is that propgation (How well the wave travels) is poor at night, sometimes a frequency that works well during the day will not work at all at night (It's entirely possible to have no frequencies in your list of freqs that work), though this only applies to sky-waves, ground waves will still work. Ground waves are limited roughly to line of site (Not entirely true, but true enough).

That being said, the 138 man pack is capable of a slightly higher power out-put then the 522 manpacks, and as such, can push a ground wave further, so assuming you're in range of the ground wave, the above limitation is not always a problem.

Some HF freqs may also be in use elsewhere around the world, and because of the potential for global propogation of a signal, it's entirely possible other users may interfere (Translation: When we're working with HF, sometimes we'll hear foreign news, music, conversations, all sorts of strange things, even in the freqs assigned to us)

ALE (Automatic Link Establishment) overcomes some of these problems, by automatically selecting the best freq from a list of programmed freqs, but it's slow somtimes...

Most (All) strategic HF dets (Army dets, as well as naval ships) also use a sattelite backup (Often INMARSAT, don't know if there's still any heavy sattelite dets) in case HF means are unavailable, or for priority traffic.

A hand-held sat phone (I am sure there are some out there with embedded encryption, none in the system that I'm aware of, but there's plenty of stuff in the system I'm not aware of) and a 138 man-pack may be an option for patrols far from the CP, not always as quick as VHF comms, but still, it may be viable.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2006)

Thanks for the clarification, my understanding of HF was a bit off. The point about signals "skipping" was the one I was trying to make, but the ALE was something I had never heard of before.

The other matter of global propagation is also a potential problem, satellite links like Iridium, IMERSAT or the Ottercom Storm bypas those problems, but now you are depending on some systems that are a bit *ahem* hard to make adjustments to (the satelites), and might be running into bandwidth issues as well.


----------



## chrisf (10 Feb 2006)

"skip" is another thing all together.

Ground waves travel in a straight path. If there's an antenna in that path, the ground wave will hit it.

With a sky-wave, the wave travels up and down, and there will be "skip-zones" where the signal doesn't exist, the solution can somtimes be as simple as moving the antenna 5 feet to the left or right, or adding or removing a section of the mast.

Global propogation isn't a major issue with HF, as generally you're issued more then one frequency, if one frequency is no good, you use another freq.

The biggest problem with the 138 manpacks is that embedded encryption was never purchased, and we have to use external means, though it may be that we need to either buy the crypto cards for the 138s (If that's still possible) or buy more of the new radios that they're procuring from Harris (In fact, buy lots and lots of them, and use them to slowly replace and phase out all the other radios except the 521, which can be phased out by somthing else) with an embedded crypto card.

Not sure what you mean by adjustments or band-width issues. If you want to send data, they're all capable of it, and if you want to send voice, all capable of it And plenty of room for traffic of multiple call-signs. No embedded encryption again, but I'm sure a hand-held sat phone can be procured with embedded encryption. Only major issue is as far as I know, with all models, you need to have a dish (The storm's dish is maybe 1'x1'x2", very reasonably sized, I'm sure there are handheld models out there with smaller dishes), and that dish needs to be aimed at the sattelite (Takes a couple of minutes to set up).

I should note that I'm not 100% familiar with sattelite comms (Reasonable familiarity) so I may be talking out of my rear at any point.


----------



## chrisf (10 Feb 2006)

I should note, there are a bunch of other inherrent limitations to HF comms, just as there are limitations with every form of comms. If you want more information, ask the questions here, or PM me. If you're really interested, I may be able to dig out some reading material.


----------



## buzgo (10 Feb 2006)

There is an encrypted Iridium, but it is a POS and there are issues with the crypto - it cannot speak directly to a STU-III but must go through the American gateway in... Hawaii (??) and get re-encrypted to STU-III. It can however go directly to the SWT or Sectera cell phone. Data rates are CRAP, less than an Iridium (which is 64k - crypto overhead.)

If the CF bought a LOT of 117f and MBITRs or the Harris RF-5800M-HH then we could replace the entire suite of IRIS radios, minus the 138, in one shot. If you go through the links that I posted earlier, you will see how capable these things are.

Satcom is good, but the portable stuff is not extremely capable (I refer to Inmarsat and Ottercom - you can have portable 'heavy' sat in transit cases) The MTs that we use have been useful but with IP, it is possible to do so much more. The MTs are still using 'circuits' they break the 1 meg pipe into segments - 128 k for DWAN, 4 x 8k for voice....


----------



## DG-41 (10 Feb 2006)

How well would these Harris radios play with the IRIS CI boxes?

OK, you'd have to reflash the CIs to reflect whatever differences there are in the wire protocals and data packets (so I don't expect a CI to work out of the box) but is there anything that would prevent being able to use a CI with a Harris?

DG


----------



## chrisf (10 Feb 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> How well would these Harris radios play with the IRIS CI boxes?
> 
> OK, you'd have to reflash the CIs to reflect whatever differences there are in the wire protocals and data packets (so I don't expect a CI to work out of the box) but is there anything that would prevent being able to use a CI with a Harris?



Harris is a manufacturer, makes all sorts of nice radios (Including several of the radios we already use).

The 138 and the UHF radio (Which I'm fairly confident is also made by Harris, I've never actually used one, only seen them in the labs) are both already capable of interfacing with the TCCCS system via an item called a "RAU" (Radio Access Unit).

It's not a problem to build a RAU to interface the new radios with TCCCS, but whether it exists already, I have no idea.

Additional plus for the Harris radios, they're pretty simple to program. Wouldn't take as long to teach as a 522, and because it's all based around text menus instead of memorizing bizzare number cominations, troops are less likely to suffer from skill-fade if they don't use it regularly.


----------



## buzgo (10 Feb 2006)

Personally, I say that IRIS/TCCCS should be scrapped. We should invest in JTRS and Blueforce tracker. Or buy what the British are getting with Bowman. Software based radios. If you need your radio to talk to SINCGARS, then you just load the SINCGARS waveform.

IRIS/TCCCS was a good idea, but the implementation was CRAP and we are now stuck with a lame system. I've heard whispers that JSR pulled out all of their legacy gear because no one trusted IRIS and could use the gear. I've also heard that the comm res units have been having a horrible time with the gear - not enough to go around, the units aren't fully equipped and its only when all the units in a commgp come together that they have a full system.

Plus whats going to happen when we need MORE IRIS gear? The assembly lines aren't running anymore...


http://jtrs.army.mil/sections/technicalinformation/fset_technical_sca.html
http://www.quad-a.org/chapters/Drum/blue_force_tracker_and_army_avia.htm


----------



## c_canuk (12 Feb 2006)

> Additional plus for the Harris radios, they're pretty simple to program. Wouldn't take as long to teach as a 522, and because it's all based around text menus instead of memorizing bizzare number cominations, troops are less likely to suffer from skill-fade if they don't use it regularly.



Uh, with the CI everything is text, the number combinations are not manditory but when you are really up to speed on the CI can allow you to configure 4 radios in seconds. Which would not be possible on the 138 where you have to confirm the default for every bit flip in the damn menu.

as for the face plate of the 522, your only need to know up 9 and a few others... inconvienient yes... but it hides all the really complex stuff that we would be deploying via DTD or radop only from the regular users. The 138 has about 1000 mystery variables that no one really knows what they do so we just plug in whats in the CEOI and hope for the best, as we can't bypass them like we can with the CIs. Thats also part of the problem when we teach the 522, we teach the Basic Infanteer how to hop, fxs all thats stuff that they will never need/use and it's information overload.



> I've also heard that the comm res units have been having a horrible time with the gear - not enough to go around, the units aren't fully equipped and its only when all the units in a commgp come together that they have a full system.



thats because the Comm Res Groups are supposed to deploy as a single formation now, not 5 or 6 mini groups. There is no time that a reserve comm unit would deploy and not it's sister units, so it's silly to train that way, and a waste of resources... keep in mind that my Res unit is the first in Canada to hop with RRB and Crypto successfully... why cause instead of itching about the equipment we sucked it up and figured out how to use it, and looking back it's not that difficult and if you know what you are doing, its pretty reliable though we do need more of it in the system.


----------



## GO!!! (12 Feb 2006)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Uh, with the CI everything is text, the number combinations are not manditory but when you are really up to speed on the CI can allow you to configure 4 radios in seconds. Which would not be possible on the 138 where you have to confirm the default for every bit flip in the damn menu.



Assuming that you have no other job than generator maintenance and radio operator, this is a great idea. Many of us have to function as soldiers as well though, and under adverse conditions, where the technical nuances of the 522 are not appreciated as much as a radio that works would be. 



> as for the face plate of the 522, your only need to know up 9 and a few others... inconvienient yes... but it hides all the really complex stuff that we would be deploying via DTD or radop only from the regular users. The 138 has about 1000 mystery variables that no one really knows what they do so we just plug in whats in the CEOI and hope for the best, as we can't bypass them like we can with the CIs. Thats also part of the problem when we teach the 522, we teach the Basic Infanteer how to hop, fxs all thats stuff that they will never need/use and it's information overload.


Most infantry signallers are well versed in the use of DTDs, and since all operational comms are encrypted now that includes "regular users".

Channel hopping is pretty basic stuff, and used frequently, fixed super was and is a stupid idea, and thankfully is no longer taught to most cbt arms troops.

The 138 is far easier to use than the 522 - most guys can figure it out on their own - lets see that happen with a 522!



> thats because the Comm Res Groups are supposed to deploy as a single formation now, not 5 or 6 mini groups. There is no time that a reserve comm unit would deploy and not it's sister units, so it's silly to train that way, and a waste of resources... *keep in mind that my Res unit is the first in Canada to hop with RRB and Crypto successfully... * why cause instead of itching about the equipment we sucked it up and figured out how to use it, and looking back it's not that difficult and if you know what you are doing, its pretty reliable though we do need more of it in the system.


Not very impressive, considering that a bunch of us mouth breathing information overloaded infanteers you hold in such disdain can accomplish this....


----------



## buzgo (12 Feb 2006)

> Not very impressive, considering that a bunch of us mouth breathing information overloaded infanteers you hold in such disdain can accomplish this....


Thanks GO!!!, I didn't want to say anything... I think that 2 CMBG units have been doing that since 1 RCR did trials in... 1999?


----------



## Sig_Des (12 Feb 2006)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Thanks GO!!!, I didn't want to say anything... I think that 2 CMBG units have been doing that since 1 RCR did trials in... 1999?



MMM....the taste of foot >

Actually, on SG 05, when with the 3 ARR, one of the squadrons Sgts asked me to give some of his cpl's a crash course in programming the CI's and Rads in their Sqn CP Rad Van...And, impressing me, they caught on right fast.

Also, we did have crypto and Freq Hop going, including at least 2 RRBs on the Bde command net...so The mouth-breather (sorry Go!!!, couldn't resist) is right when he says it's not that impressive.


----------



## c_canuk (13 Feb 2006)

> Not very impressive, considering that a bunch of us mouth breathing information overloaded infanteers you hold in such disdain can accomplish this....



ok 

1) I don't hold you in disdain and if you think I do you better check your inferiority complex. The fact is a weekend crash course is too short to teach all the nuances and get a platoon of any person, sigs or not, up to speed on radios.

2) first you complain that it's too hard to use, and has too many features that you don't use, and that you don't use crypto and DTDs are too hard

3) then when I say suck it up and learn the kit, then mention how my unit was the first to get over the emotional loss of the old kit and work with the new, you say you're not impressed with the fact that my unit can and does use all those features regularly because you guys do and it's not that hard.. which you just previously said you can't/don't use cause it's too hard or unnecessary.

btw on the last 2 day crash course I taught, a whole platoon of Res Infantry learned how to use the 521 and 522, we did a practical PO where I royally screwed with every radio, and somehow they all managed to get comms, why are you having so much trouble? Certainly you are better than the Res that you hold in disdain in other conversations.

why don't you either pick one side of the argument or GO!!!! away

I don't expect infanteers to be as proficient at comms as I am, because that's not infantry's primary role, but it is mine, you wouldn't expect a bunch of rad ops to be as proficient in section attacks would you?

the problem with TCCCS is not that it's too hard to use, the problem is a bunch of people who can somehow manage to use every electronic gadget under the sun, some how maintain a connection to the internet, but itch because the radio's we use in 2000+ are not as simple as radios designed when tubes were new technology. Oh and if you added the components that enabled our legacy kit to do what the 522 does it would weigh about a ton, and be more complex than the 522 ever could be.

suck it up, grow up, learn the kit, move on. If you can use a computer effectively a 522 should be a joke.

If you have suggestions to improve the kit beyond "it has more buttons that Vietnam era kit boo hoo" pass them up and maybe you'll see them incorporated, in the mean time stop pinning for the 77 set that was no more reliable than the 522 (at least you know when the 522 isn't working) cause it isn't comming back, and I would like to think that Infanteers would rather spend money on bullets and training instead of buying a new suite of radios we don't need that do what we already can, or less.


----------



## DG-41 (13 Feb 2006)

> the problem with TCCCS is not that it's too hard to use, the problem is a bunch of people who can somehow manage to use every electronic gadget under the sun, some how maintain a connection to the internet, but itch because the radio's we use in 2000+ are not as simple as radios designed when tubes were new technology.



But here's the thing - that TASKS we expect our radios to do in 2000+ are effectively the same as the radios we used in 1970.

The only new things that TCCCS brings to the table for the average end user are frequency hopping and integral crypto, both of which (once properly configured) are completely transparent to the end user. Joe Section Commander is not aware that his transmissions are encrypted and being relayed over multiple frequencies; all he is aware of is that radio can or can not talk to the people he wants to reach.

In a perfect world, nobody on the pointy end of the stick would ever have to do anything more complicated than select the channel the radio is operating on (which in the case of a frequency hopper is a "virtual channel") set the volume, and Push To Talk.

In the Real World (as the 521 has shown) we cannot expect all our radios to be pre-configured by Sig Ops or Rad Techs or whatever. That means the user interface on the radios needs to be able to expose the end user to the setup/programming functions, and that in turn means that the user interface of a frequency hopping encrypted radio is going to need to be more complicated than that of the PRC-77.

But that being said, that user interface should be designed to make the programming/setup functions as simple and streamlined as possible. The user interface needs to be designed from a task-oriented perspective, not an internal-machine-state perspective.

And from examining the 522, it is clear that not only did that NOT happen, but it is also clear that the user interface to the radio was desined AFTER the controls had been decided on. Some controls are heavily overloaded. Other controls have functions spread across multiple UI devices, in effect "wasting" the elements.

A simple UI redesign could greatly reduce the setup/configure/use complexity that everybody talks about, without compromising the feature set of the radio.

DG


----------



## chrisf (13 Feb 2006)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> The fact is a weekend crash course is too short to teach all the nuances and get a platoon of any person, sigs or not, up to speed on radios.



Which is the problem... as Go!! pointed out, most people can pick up and figure out a 138 set with a little bit of fooling around, as it's all text based menus.

Pretty much anyone could figure out a 77 set as it was all dials.

The problem is, if you're going to have a radio that's manpackable, it's manpackable because the infantry are going to be humping it, and if the infantry are humping it, it had better be simple, as they've got other things to worry about then memorizing button combinations. And everyone in the platoon had better be able to use it in case the platoon signaller is lost.

The 522 however is not a simple piece of kit, or one that can be figured out without either a manual, an instructor, or cheat sheets.



> 3) then when I say suck it up and learn the kit, then mention how my unit was the first to get over the emotional loss of the old kit and work with the new, you say you're not impressed with the fact that my unit can and does use all those features regularly because you guys do and it's not that hard.. which you just previously said you can't/don't use cause it's too hard or unnecessary.



Your unit doesn't use any more or less of the features then anyone else. Get over it.



> btw on the last 2 day crash course I taught, a whole platoon of Res Infantry learned how to use the 521 and 522, we did a practical PO where I royally screwed with every radio, and somehow they all managed to get comms, why are you having so much trouble? Certainly you are better than the Res that you hold in disdain in other conversations.



Didn't you say above that a weekend crash course isn't enough time to teach the radios? Make up your mind.

More to the point, courtesy of skill-fade, and how rapidly it seems to happen with the TCCCS gear, I'd be curious how many of those you taught the comms course to could still do the same a month later.



> why don't you either pick one side of the argument or GO!!!! away
> 
> I don't expect infanteers to be as proficient at comms as I am, because that's not infantry's primary role, but it is mine, you wouldn't expect a bunch of rad ops to be as proficient in section attacks would you?



You've got an infanteer, one of the primary end users of the manpack configured radios, telling you that it's no good as a manpack radio, and you're aruging with him. This is some of the same logic that produced the tac-vest and keeps us with chest pockets instead of sleeve pockets. Think about it.



> the problem with TCCCS is not that it's too hard to use, the problem is a bunch of people who can somehow manage to use every electronic gadget under the sun, some how maintain a connection to the internet, but itch because the radio's we use in 2000+ are not as simple as radios designed when tubes were new technology. Oh and if you added the components that enabled our legacy kit to do what the 522 does it would weigh about a ton, and be more complex than the 522 ever could be.



No, the radios aren't that hard to use, particularly if the prime focus of your job is the radios, but they can always be more simple. And it's not at all a problem to make them more simple. Like the example that keeps getting brought up again and again, the 138 (Which as far as I remember is older then the 522 radio design), it's got text based scroll through menus. Nice and simple.

Not really sure what you're talking about when you say adding the compnents to make our legacy kit do what a 522 does, as none of our other kit does what the 522 does.

That being said, throwing a hopping card and a vinson-compatible crypto card in a 138 would only add a few ounces (Or didn't you know that? Harris makes on-board crypto and hopping, we just never bought it). Presumbably the FALCON II series is far lighter then FALCON series.



> suck it up, grow up, learn the kit, move on. If you can use a computer effectively a 522 should be a joke.



Don't know about your computer, but mine has a very nice point and click interface with pretty pictures and words describing what said pictures mean. No need to remember bizzare number combinations. Most kindergarten students can figure out how to use a PC with minimal instruction. Shall we give them a 522 to see if we achieve the same result?



> If you have suggestions to improve the kit beyond "it has more buttons that Vietnam era kit boo hoo" pass them up and maybe you'll see them incorporated, in the mean time stop pinning for the 77 set that was no more reliable than the 522 (at least you know when the 522 isn't working) cause it isn't comming back, and I would like to think that Infanteers would rather spend money on bullets and training instead of buying a new suite of radios we don't need that do what we already can, or less.



No one is asking for the 77 set to come back, just pointing to it as a better radio, because as somone else pointed out, the demands of a radio built 50 years ago are pretty much the same as a radio built today. 

The entire TCCCS system however needs to eventually be binned in favor of somthing better.


----------



## buzgo (13 Feb 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> The entire TCCCS system however needs to eventually be binned in favor of somthing better.



thank you!


----------



## chrisf (13 Feb 2006)

I've been saying that since the begining of the thread 

It would be interesting to see which would be more viable... buying new radios + RAUs now and the networking stuff later, or just binning IRIS all together and buying the new radios and compatible networking stuff now.


----------



## NL_engineer (13 Feb 2006)

We need something that is compadable with the changing demands, look at the new US  systems, they are pity much computers (not referring to the laptop being trailed). For example a police officer can get up to date info through his/her radios and computer system in there vehicle (not shore if it is connected to the radio network). 

I think we should get a system that can handle both easily, and be easy to use.

just my $0.02


----------



## chrisf (13 Feb 2006)

Erm, if you mean tactical data, we have the capability with our system now. It's just not very good (Low quantity, outdated technology). It's basically just a computer hooked to a radio (the FDT (Field Data Terminal, kind of like a great big over sized under powered palm-pilot) and PDT (Kind of like a great big over sized under powered lap top) are both parts of the Iris sytem). 

Supposedly the tough book note-books will be replacing the PDT and possibly the FDT (Lovely and rather durable off the shelf lap-tops made by panasonic. The MPs use them in their cruisers, and as far as I know, so do the MPs).


----------



## GO!!! (14 Feb 2006)

c_canuk,

You lack the experience to understand my point of view on this issue, so I'll spell it out for (even more) you more clearly.

The computer I am typing on right now has what is known as a GUI (graphics user interface) that means that graphics compose the bulk of my prompts, commands and options. My cell phone has this, as does my GPS and palm pilot. 

GUIs are well known to be far easier to use than text and numeric option based interfaces, like the CI and 522 have. As a result, items like windows are easier to use than the CI, even though they are exponentially more complicated.

Now, put yourself in this position.

You just jumped out of a plane with a 110lb rucksack, which contains a radio. You landed alright, found your unit, are slightly concussed, and it is dark, minus 40 and snowing. You fire up the 522 and get a few error messages and a crypto alarm. Without standing up, or using a flashlight, and with your numb fingers, fix your radio - the OC needs to give orders! NOW!!! 

I have watched experienced jimmies screw this up under these conditions, so while the medic on DZ coverage just becomes the master, switches channels and configures the headsets so they can talk to each other with the intercom, the guy in the field is under totally different conditions. 

The 138 has exactly what each button and dial does written on it, they are backlit, or glow in the dark, and as a result, is much easier to use.

While we often have difficulty with the 522, more so in a veh mount with the CI, we do get them to work, but they are a quantum leap from ideal. 

Just because we have a piece of kit, and you happen to know how to use it, does not make it the best item for us, you must always look for the next, greatest thing, because, as the saying goes, standing still means you are falling further behind.


----------



## c_canuk (14 Feb 2006)

> as Go!! pointed out, most people can pick up and figure out a 138 set with a little bit of fooling around, as it's all text based menus."



I'm calling BS on this one

to set up a channel in the scratch pad of a 138 is almost the identical process as the 522, second, the 138 in HF freqs needs ALE to be effective for use, which is a time consuming repetitive process full of mystery variables. Yes you can get a Crypto and hopping card for the 138, however hopping on HF is not as useful as VHF true it has overlapping bandwidth, but there are much fewer channels available on the 138 compared to the 522, and the fact that the crypto card is designed for civvies, and is way under secure for our purposes.

Yes it's nice to read that the setting it's asking you to confirm is bandwidth offset in KHz or interleaving is on but that's pretty useless to an infanteer who just wants to dial in a freq and talk isn't it?

the 138 does not make comms easier, and the 77 set was no more simple than the 522 to put in a freq and talk



> The 522 however is not a simple piece of kit, or one that can be figured out without either a manual, an instructor, or cheat sheets.



77 set
1) turn it on
2) dial in your freq
3) push to talk
4) hope there is no problems and you get comms

522
1) select CH 1 and PT
2) turn it on
3) punch in your freq
4) if no error alarms you should can talk




oh, and now you have the option of med power in man pack configuration, and high in vehicle (or if you know a friendly tech, manpack too) which you didn't with the 77 set

you can also load your crypto into the same box, instead of loading it into another box that also uses more batteries and a wad of sketchy cables

oh, and if you take the time you can program in hopping which was not possible with 77 sets and for large deployment of hopping use the DTD... that sets the Channels up as virtual channels that hop, with crypto even!

if you need an RRB all you need is a little coaxial cable, with the 77 sets we didn't bother doing this because the kit was veh mounted only.

Sure the main goal in the end is to talk, just like with the 77 set, however it's pretty hard to do that when the enemy has intercepted and or DFed your position and is lobbing HE at you, since the equipment to do that is a lot more readily available these days than the days of the 77 set.



> But that being said, that user interface should be designed to make the programming/setup functions as simple and streamlined as possible. The user interface needs to be designed from a task-oriented perspective, not an internal-machine-state perspective.



I agree and I am PRO redesign the interface, however asking that we bin the system and buy an inadequate off the shelf system that is not as secure, nor does anything more than we can now, and most cases less and pretty much say that the millions spent on the project was wasted (I'm pretty sure the Canadians requesting these capabilities spurred the modernization of CNR as the TCCCS project started in the 70s), is not going to happen, an I say lets focus on making what we have work, which is going to accept that it takes more the 5 minutes to teach everything about the 522, but it is simpler to use than for example setting up an internet router.



> A simple UI redesign could greatly reduce the setup/configure/use complexity that everybody talks about, without compromising the feature set of the radio.



I'd like to see a simpler interface that does everything the current one does without subjecting you to endless text based menus like the 138, maybe the endless text messages are better for novice users, but I hate them, I know what I want to do and I want to do it now, not in 20 minutes of pressing up and enter.



> Your unit doesn't use any more or less of the features then anyone else. Get over it.



so let me get this straight... everyone says the radio doesn't work, is to hard, and has to many unused features, I point out that we use them all, and we don't find it hard, and you guys reply that it's easy to use, and you guys use all the features.... right... pick a stance please.



> Didn't you say above that a weekend crash course isn't enough time to teach the radios? Make up your mind.
> 
> More to the point, courtesy of skill-fade, and how rapidly it seems to happen with the TCCCS gear, I'd be curious how many of those you taught the comms course to could still do the same a month later.



bingo give the guy a prize please, in a weekend I can teach a bunch of people how to get basic comms and trouble shoot the radio and I bet 50 bucks they all still know how to use basic comms and trouble shoot, however none of them is going to remember how to program TOD or hoping because they don't use it... the solution is not an easier (HAH) interface, the solution is to always use the kit to it's fullest, combatting skill fade, the same reason you do range practice and field exercises.



> You've got an infanteer, one of the primary end users of the manpack configured radios, telling you that it's no good as a manpack radio, and you're arguing with him. This is some of the same logic that produced the tac-vest and keeps us with chest pockets instead of sleeve pockets. Think about it.



no I've got an infanteer crying cause he has to let go of his emotional attachment to an ancient piece of kit who states the replacement is too hard to use, and full of extra unneeded features who then tells me it's easy to use and they use all the features. 

Many of the arguments he's using were heard when we went from the FN to the C7. Every piece of kit we have is going to have problems, the key is to improve the kit, not abandon it in another futile search of a better off the shelf solution that will come with a completely new set of problems who someone else will complain and recommend binning for another set of off the shelf.... and on and on.

I agree the Tac Vest is not as good as it could be, but I don't want to go back to webbing, just give me a detachable butt pack for my rain gear, and modular mag pouches which is not that hard for them to retro fit and I'll be happy, and the tac vest will be much better than the webbing ever was. The problem is not the kit, the problem is the people who are controlling how the kit is used, another tac vest is not going to help that we still have chest pockets, we need to alter the thinking of people who think chest pockets are crucial in winning the battle, and get them to realize that how we look has no bearing on our success (on the same note I would love to be able to have my belt pouches mounted on my left strap, but can't because of the mentality of persons who outrank me)



> it's got text based scroll through menus. Nice and simple.



I beg to differ the 138 is a prime example of engineers showing off each feature without thought to the end user, just try to set up ALE and that should be appearant, the only reason it's "easier" is you get to read text and scroll through the settings which is set up WORSE than the CI.



> Not really sure what you're talking about when you say adding the components to make our legacy kit do what a 522 does, as none of our other kit does what the 522 does.



you can add a Vinson box to the 77 set but it's an external module, and no you can't hop with the 77 set.

btw Vinson is old tech and on it's way out.



> Don't know about your computer, but mine has a very nice point and click interface with pretty pictures and words describing what said pictures mean. No need to remember bizzare number combinations. Most kindergarten students can figure out how to use a PC with minimal instruction. Shall we give them a 522 to see if we achieve the same result?



Actually To configure my computer to talk to other computers I have to know:

1) How am I connecting to the internet, directly, through a large network, through a gateway or through a Router
2) Should I have a Dynamically set IP or a static, if so what Gateway address should I use, whats my subnet mask, what DNS Servers am I using, how do I set these, do I have to set my card to 10 MB/S or can I leave it at auto sensing.
3) For protection, how to I set up my firewall, what if I have other computers behind me, how do I set them up for the firewall, each firewall is different and there are 100s to choose from.
4) do I go with wired Ethernet and if so what flavour cat3, cat 5, cat5e or cat 6?
5) do I go with WiFi, if so B or G? What Encryption should I use? none, WEP, WPA, if WPA - open or shared? 

which is a lot harder than even with the point and click interface than:

1) select CH 1 and PT
2) turn it on
3) punch in your freq
4) if no error alarms you should can talk

I have no time for someone who can get onto the internet but complains that the 522 is too hard to use. We are living in an electronic age and you have to keep up or get left behind.



> The entire TCCCS system however needs to eventually be binned in favor of something better



like what? all TCCCS needs is a face lift, modify the UI to be a bit more friendly and we'd have the best system out there bar none.



> You just jumped out of a plane with a 110lb rucksack, which contains a radio. You landed alright, found your unit, are slightly concussed, and it is dark, minus 40 and snowing. You fire up the 522 and get a few error messages and a crypto alarm. Without standing up, or using a flashlight, and with your numb fingers, fix your radio - the OC needs to give orders! NOW!!!
> 
> I have watched experienced jimmies screw this up under these conditions, so while the medic on DZ coverage just becomes the master, switches channels and configures the headsets so they can talk to each other with the intercom, the guy in the field is under totally different conditions.



1) your radio should have been programmed and had a full bit test before you even boarded the craft. If it was, turning it off then on again should solve the problem.
2) the 77 set used to just stop working on it's own too... true the solution was usually to slam the darn thing against the nearest stationary object, but a slightly concussed Jimmie in either instance might not understand what the problem is. 




> The 138 has exactly what each button and dial does written on it, they are backlit, or glow in the dark, and as a result, is much easier to use.



BS in that situation I guarantee the 138 requiring a total reprogram as when they fail they ususally loose their programming, would take 4 - 5 times longer just because you have to scroll through all the darn menus and can't skip redundant and default settings.

A 522 only needs a translucent keypad and an led linked to the display to have back lit keys... don't think that justifies binning the whole thing... nevermind that that would blow your light discipline all to hell

This is also the time when the backup radio operator should be trying to get comms, in fact your secondary operator should have a 138 and a small bag of spare parts and what not.



> Just because we have a piece of kit, and you happen to know how to use it, does not make it the best item for us, you must always look for the next, greatest thing, because, as the saying goes, standing still means you are falling further behind.



sure, but we are in the CF, I doubt we will ever get the best piece of kit available, and if we do it will never be the best build of the equipment, we can't afford to wait for a better piece of kit that will never come, we have to learn how to effectively employ what we have now. That is what we excel at.

I have nostalgia for the old 77 and 46 sets too, love telling the SOP to fix a crystallized handset on the old kit to the new guys, but I know that the new kit is better and keeps us safer from those that do us harm... 

just because our current enemy doesn't attack us this way yet, doesn't mean it won't happen, there is a reason the Russians are worried about comm sec and making their radios look like other equipment.


----------



## c_canuk (14 Feb 2006)

> You just jumped out of a plane with a 110lb rucksack, which contains a radio. You landed alright, found your unit, are slightly concussed, and it is dark, minus 40 and snowing. You fire up the 522 and get a few error messages and a crypto alarm. Without standing up, or using a flashlight, and with your numb fingers, fix your radio - the OC needs to give orders! NOW!!!



this statement bothers me...

why is your OC giving orders over the radio? comsec here is a MUST if he is.

if it's on your back in a ruck sac and you can't get up or it off your back you're gonna have the same problems with a 77 set. You still have to turn it on, which is just as difficult as the 77 Set, and if you get one of the intermittant mystery alarms, like I said on and off usually solves the problem... if it didn't you are in the same situation as the 77 set... try to trouble shoot but most likely the radio is broken or it's a hand set/head set problem and the solution is too pull out a spare...

I fail to see why the 522 is worse than a 77 set in this situation... maybe the numb fingers is harder to punch in a freq than turn knobs, but your freqs should already be loaded, and it should be the channel knob you should be turning. 

I guess I just don't see where you are going with this... there is a reason you mount the radio on your back facing away from you, it's so that the guy behind you can use it cause it's impracical from the front... if you have to use it yourself you should be wearing the harness with the radio in front of you, not in the ruck sac... though I imagine that would not be possible when jumping... in that case the radio should be accessable to others.

Do you get your orders before you all RV? 

why can't the radio be on with the volume setting to the lowest before you jump, I understand that you would want the headset/handset stowed in your ruck before you jump so they don't blow off, but that doesnt mean the radio can't be on already.

can you shed some more light on this... am I missing something?


----------



## willy (14 Feb 2006)

c_canuk: stop.


----------



## DG-41 (14 Feb 2006)

> why is your OC giving orders over the radio? comsec here is a MUST if he is.



Uhh... we do this all the time. Situations change, "no plan survives contact with the enemy", etc etc. Getting orders over the radio is part of our doctrine.

And we did it over 77/524 sets too - with and without Vinson. Veiled speech plus paper crypto makes it secure enough.

Look - when you have end-users complaining about equipment, you would do well to listen to them. Doctrine is nice and all, but in an operational situation, it's all about adapt and overcome. If the radio won't do what the guy on the pointy end of the stick wants it to do, then it is just junk. It doesn't matter if the problem is an internal fault or a UI problem or an overly complicated system that requires operators to be experts - at the end of the day, "radio no worky" and that is not acceptable.

As a Jimmy, we (the pointy end) tell you how we use the radio, and you figure out how to make the equipment meet our - OUR - requirements.



> to set up a channel in the scratch pad of a 138 is almost the identical process as the 522, second, the 138 in HF freqs needs ALE to be effective for use, which is a time consuming repetitive process full of mystery variables.



I've never seen a 138, so I can't confirm nor deny that a 138 is any easier to set up and use than a 522. But I DO know that most modern radios are not purely discrete devices (like a 77 set) anymore. They are actually computers that control a series of discrete devices in order to emulate a discrete divice. The 522, if memory serves, actually runs Linux under the hood (I wish I could telnet into my 522 sometimes) The 138 is probably similar - perhaps a different OS, but it's still probably a computer.

The good news about that is that it makes the equipment, at least on paper, modular, expandable, and upgradeable. The bad news is that it encourages radio engineers to expose all the internal states of the computer to the user, and provide an interface to the user that allows him to examine and change all those internal states. The CI is like that.

While that sort of interface is sub-optimal too, at least it can be "reasoned out" by anybody with average intelligence and a reasonable familiarity with electronics - assuming the use of jargon is minimized. Consider the user menu on any modern photocopier as an example. The big downside to this kind of control interface (Go!!) is that it takes a lot of time to navigate the menu tree, and there is often far too many mystery variables exposed where the end user has no idea what the option does and how its different internal states affect the operation of the radio - and get any one of the important ones wrong and No Worky, often with no indication of what parameter is wrong, because the designer assumed that the user completely groks the entire menu tree and what every operation does - after all, the designer does, whay can't the end user?

I've run into THAT over and over again with complex, mission-specific electronics (like engine control modules and shock dynos)

The 77 set user interface was very good - not perfect, but very good. The 522 control interface (which admittedly has more to do than the 77 set) ALMOST gets it right, and with a redesign it could be exceptional. The CI suffers from Death By Nested Menu, but that could probably be reconfigured in such a way to focus on the important "you must set this properly or No Worky" parameters and hide the extra stuff, which would be a big step forward.

But the single biggest problem we have with IRIS/TCCCS is that it appears to be dead. There isn't (as far as I can see) any attempt to take feedback from people like GO!! and incorporate that into revisions of the equipment. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be any upcoming purchases of additional equipment to correct the shortfalls in supply that is my major beef with the stuff. "It's here, and you aren't going to get any more and it's not going to change, so live with it."

At least with the legacy stuff, I could go to http://www.militaryradios.com and buy a 524 set if I really needed one. With TCCCS, it's proprietary to Canada and there ain't no more anywhere else.

Now I'm not opposed to equipment that is proprietary to us. In fact, I think there is value in having radios that the Americans can't listen in on (although we need to be able to talk to them) But the downside to rolling our own is that we don't leverage the design experience from other nations, and the per-unit cost is going to be higher. That being the case, IRIS should be an ongoing project whose goals should be to constantly refine the system to meet requirements and to ensure there are never supply shortfalls. I don't see EITHER of those things happening. And if that isn't happening... then yes, by all means, turf it - because as it sits now, it isn't doing the job.

DG


----------



## chrisf (14 Feb 2006)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> to set up a channel in the scratch pad of a 138 is almost the identical process as the 522, second, the 138 in HF freqs needs ALE to be effective for use, which is a time consuming repetitive process full of mystery variables. Yes you can get a Crypto and hopping card for the 138, however hopping on HF is not as useful as VHF true it has overlapping bandwidth, but there are much fewer channels available on the 138 compared to the 522, and the fact that the crypto card is designed for civvies, and is way under secure for our purposes.



You're comparing apples to oranges here. You're comparing the settings needed for HF to the settings needed for VHF. No one is talking about the merits of HF vs VHF, but the merits of the *way the settings are put in*. Quite simply, Harris radios have a nice simple interface.

Reference crypto, it doesn't matter who it was built for, if the NSA (National Security Agency) approves it, it's good.

And no one is talking about the merits of hopping in HF, we're talking about buying Harris radios because they're better, and pointing out that just because we happen to use external kit to facilitate voice and data secure with the 138 doesn't mean that's the only option on the market.



> so let me get this straight... everyone says the radio doesn't work, is to hard, and has to many unused features, I point out that we use them all, and we don't find it hard, and you guys reply that it's easy to use, and you guys use all the features.... right... pick a stance please.



No one said it was simple or easy to use, just pointing out that contrary to your feelings of superiority, your unit doesn't use any more features then anyone else.



> bingo give the guy a prize please, in a weekend I can teach a bunch of people how to get basic comms and trouble shoot the radio and I bet 50 bucks they all still know how to use basic comms and trouble shoot, however none of them is going to remember how to program TOD or hoping because they don't use it... the solution is not an easier (HAH) interface, the solution is to always use the kit to it's fullest, combatting skill fade, the same reason you do range practice and field exercises.



And I will be you $50 that at least half of said infantry barely remember a quarter of what you taught.

They're not going to use the kit to it's fullest on a regular basis. Rather then buy complex kit, you buy simple kit. Simple.



> no I've got an infanteer crying cause he has to let go of his emotional attachment to an ancient piece of kit who states the replacement is too hard to use, and full of extra unneeded features who then tells me it's easy to use and they use all the features.



No, you've got an infanteer telling you the radio he has is ineffective, and several jimmies telling him and you that there are far better options, off the shelf (You'll note, the forces are already buying 100 of the replacement most of us are suggesting)

[/quote]
I agree the Tac Vest is not as good as it could be, but I don't want to go back to webbing, just give me a detachable butt pack for my rain gear, and modular mag pouches which is not that hard for them to retro fit and I'll be happy, and the tac vest will be much better than the webbing ever was. The problem is not the kit, the problem is the people who are controlling how the kit is used, another tac vest is not going to help that we still have chest pockets, we need to alter the thinking of people who think chest pockets are crucial in winning the battle, and get them to realize that how we look has no bearing on our success (on the same note I would love to be able to have my belt pouches mounted on my left strap, but can't because of the mentality of persons who outrank me)
[/quote]

Or, rather then feeling the need to be different, the Canadian army could have bought MOLLE vests like everyone who had a clue wanted.



> I beg to differ the 138 is a prime example of engineers showing off each feature without thought to the end user, just try to set up ALE and that should be appearant, the only reason it's "easier" is you get to read text and scroll through the settings which is set up WORSE than the CI.



As I've done it often enough to have the SOP setttings memorized, I can set 10 channels with ALE in well under 10 minutes. 

Given that we're talking about a replacement for a *vhf* radio, there wouldn't be any ALE to program anyway. You're just grasphing at straws.



> you can add a Vinson box to the 77 set but it's an external module, and no you can't hop with the 77 set.
> 
> btw Vinson is old tech and on it's way out.



What's your point? No one said buy 77 sets, they pointed to it as a radio with a simple interface. And Vinson equipment may be out, but vinson *compatibility* is still required, hence the need for a vinson compatible crypto card.



> Actually To configure my computer to talk to other computers I have to know:
> 
> 1) How am I connecting to the internet, directly, through a large network, through a gateway or through a Router
> 2) Should I have a Dynamically set IP or a static, if so what Gateway address should I use, whats my subnet mask, what DNS Servers am I using, how do I set these, do I have to set my card to 10 MB/S or can I leave it at auto sensing.
> ...



I plugged mine into the wall and then clicked the big blue E. Works fine out of the box. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say 99% of the users of the internet have no idea what the above information means.



> like what? all TCCCS needs is a face lift, modify the UI to be a bit more friendly and we'd have the best system out there bar none.



TCCCS needs to be gradually replaced and phased out. It's incompatible with other NATO systems, spares can't be obtained, it lacks a number of vital capabilities, and the interface is not user friendly.



> A 522 only needs a translucent keypad and an led linked to the display to have back lit keys... don't think that justifies binning the whole thing... nevermind that that would blow your light discipline all to hell



Another example of simplicity of interface... to turn the LCD display off on the 522, I believe the combination is either [up arrow] 1 or [up arrow] 9. The 138 has a nice big simple button marked "light".



> sure, but we are in the CF, I doubt we will ever get the best piece of kit available, and if we do it will never be the best build of the equipment, we can't afford to wait for a better piece of kit that will never come, we have to learn how to effectively employ what we have now. That is what we excel at.



Yes. We excell at modifying and rebuilding garbage again and again and again rather then buying proper equipment in the begining. No, wait, it's just somthing we do all the time... not exactly somthing to excell at.

Again, you've got infanteers telling you the manpack is no good for infanteers, and your fellow jimmies telling you very clearly how the TCCCS system is junk, as well as pointing out excellent alternatives.


----------



## c_canuk (15 Feb 2006)

well... I guess I'm RTF out of er then...

I'll depart the conversation, have a good one all


----------



## GO!!! (15 Feb 2006)

c-canuck

I give up.

Dinosaurs like you will never admit that the party line could be wrong.

TCCCS is crap now, it was crap when we bought it, and it will be crap when I use it tomorrow. 

I don't want the 77set back, or a vinsent, I just want to be able to talk on the radio without a jimmy telling me how I should carry my radio or when my OC should be giving orders.

You are missing alot more than my point, but I am getting tired of trying to explain it to you. 

I just hope all of our kit deficiency reports are'nt being filtered by by a yes-man like you.


----------



## mudgunner49 (15 Feb 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> c-canuck
> 
> I give up.
> 
> ...



Holy crap, GO!! - you been reading my mail???


----------



## Carbon-14 (16 Feb 2006)

First of all, let me just say I'm a big fan of the 138 and Harris radios in general.  But i don't think people are giving a fair comparison between the 522 and 138.  Setting up the 138 as is is pretty easy:  Operating on a single channel in the clear.  Does anyone have a problem doing this on the 522?  Sure, getting crypto and hopping to work on the 522 seems to become an endless task of pushing the correct key sequence at the right time.  But has anyone actually setup the hop or crypto settings on a 138 with the embedded cards?  I'd like to assume its relatively easy, but I've never talked to anyone thats done it.  But we all know what happens when people assume.  I've looked through the at the manual at some of the crypto settings on the 138.  Some of them seem a little bizarre.  Its just difficult to get an accurate opinion on something that just isn't available to us.

Also, i was told many years ago that the crypto board that is available for the 138 was not acceptable and thats the reason it wasn't purchased.  Its not enough to say crypto is crypto and be done with it.  It has to mean certain standards for certain classifications blah blah blah!  I should know better than believe rumours but has anyone heard anything about this?  I don't know why else Canada would not have bought that module!

Also, are people aware that the frequency range on the 138 goes from 1.6 - 60 MHz?  So you can use the 138 in the VHF role (this is undocumented in the 138 manual but it is possible!).  They are compatible with the 522.

There is a problem with the 138 as i see it.  There are tons and tons of settings in those menus.  And as long as people stick to the defaults everything is super.  If someone comes along and starts messing with things it can cause a huge problem.  People, including A LOT of SigOps, simply click to the next menu without understanding what each setting is. Most people won't remember default settings especially if they're just used to hitting the enter key.  I've come across this problem with working with the 138s.  Often CEOIs just list settings as "As per SOPs".   Now i don't have the SOP for the 138 memorized.  I can rarely find a paper copy.  Are you going to remember of those while you're on a patrol?  Many units will have different settings in their SOPs (especially when you start playing with those modem settings)!  Problems begin.

Now that all thats said, I do love the menus on the Harris radios.  Not sure if its the same reason.  The best part about Harris radios is once you've learned one, you shouldn't have any problem with other Harris radios!  And thats a huge deal when it comes to training.  Know the 138 inside and out?  You'll have no problem with the QRT/LCT.

I've used both the 522 and 138 (I like to think a lot).  I like both radios.  I don't see a major problem with the 522 (I do have problems with the CI).  Once its set up correctly, which should be done at the CP hopefully with a SigOps supervision, I've found it to be reliable.  I've never know a properly maintained 522 to just loose their settings.  It provides a great deal more capability than was available before and more than is available in the Canadian version of the 138.  I think it might just be people always see the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.  138 is a great piece of kit and I've love to see more of them but don't look at it as some kind of miracle radio and all your comms problems with be solved by it.  95% of the time, the error is at the operator.


----------



## buzgo (16 Feb 2006)

Like you said, once you know one Harris set, you know them all. This goes back a long way too, they have had the same interface for at least the last 15 years. I used the IMRCT back in 1994/95 and the skillset transfers to ALL the newer Harris gear. I was able to jump onto a QRT with no major problems, and then an LCT a few years later.

The radio that is being purchased or has been purchased (x 60?), the 117F (FALCON II) continues with that same interface. Its very similar to the FALCON (the basis of the 138 and LCT/QRT) but is a MULTI-BAND radio. Frequency range is from 30.000 to 512.000 MHz, plus SATCOM. The crypto is easy to use, you load with a DTD and once you have your radio programmed the way you want, you can clone it to another set, over the air. You can throw it in your pack, and detach the faceplate which can be mounted to your forearm. 

I'm quoting from the specs a bit, but I've played with them too, and the Thales MBITR which is very similar. Here is a link (again!) to the Harris page, some good info in the .pdf files:

http://www.rfcomm.harris.com/products/tactical-radio-communications/

Its very good that the big Army is buying this gear, I think its because the americans are using them almost exclusively and these are the radios that had to be begged/borrowed during Op Apollo so that we could interoperate with them. You probably won't see a huge purchase of this stuff though, they are being bought up as fast as they can be produced... Military-comms is a growth industry right now!


*EDIT* Forgot something, you could also check out what the Americans are doing, we could jump onto their bandwagon:

http://jtrs.army.mil/index.html


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2006)

We are a bit obsessed with the idea of a "radio" here, without stopping for a second and thinking about what it is we are supposed to be doing. A radio is a means of transmitting information over a distance. We could use heliographs or smoke signals or relay teams of Olympic athletes to do the same thing, there are certain advantages and disadvantages to each COA.

If we look at how information is being passed in the "real" world, people aren't sitting around and working out the infinite number of variables in the Windows OS, and configuring the desktop to dial into a modem or talk to a DSL or cable device is pretty straight forward as well. My mother in law did this once when the cable connection crashed and I was away on tasking, but I would never, ever expect her to be able to work a 522. (She can program a VCR as well, so it isn't that she is not technically savvy).

Given that we need to access, trade and process information at a rapid rate, would it not make sense to START with the users and design the system around them? By user I mean the infantryman huddled in the bottom of a trench with freezing rain falling on his numb fingers, or the RG 31 commander who's head is ringing and wonders why the interface is 900 to the horizon as the smoke from the VIED clears, or the gunner who is leaping out of the cab of the gun tractor as the rest of the crew wrestles the 155 into a firing position.....(insert own scenario here). A very simple interface is a must.

The next thing we need to consider is the fact that much of what we do is best expressed in either text or graphics. Do you really believe it is efficient (or even safe) to read a recovery request or other "rep" over the radio with the constant refrain of "Say again, over" and "More to follow, over", when people outside the military do the same sort of thing by filling in text boxes in preformatted messages and send an email ? Sending or changing a trace electronicly is analogous to using a digital whiteboard to draw diagrams (and have others contribute) in a tele or video conference.

What we need isn't really a "radio" at all. I have seen hardened tablet computers with built in GPS recievers and touch screens which allow the use of text and graphics, have crypto enabled wireless networking capabilities (including long range amplifiers and antennas), and as a bonus, Voice over IP (VoIP), which allow them to be used as plain vanilla FM radios. If you were really keen, you could plug in a normal network card and attach them to a LAN (VoIP would make it a phone!). The vendor offers Windows, but serious users can request (and get) various UNIX or LINUX operating systems installed as well. Have a read here: http://www.inter-4.com/


----------



## chrisf (16 Feb 2006)

Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> Also, are people aware that the frequency range on the 138 goes from 1.6 - 60 MHz?  So you can use the 138 in the VHF role (this is undocumented in the 138 manual but it is possible!).  They are compatible with the 522.
> 
> There is a problem with the 138 as i see it.  There are tons and tons of settings in those menus.  And as long as people stick to the defaults everything is super.  If someone comes along and starts messing with things it can cause a huge problem.  People, including A LOT of SigOps, simply click to the next menu without understanding what each setting is. Most people won't remember default settings especially if they're just used to hitting the enter key.  I've come across this problem with working with the 138s.  Often CEOIs just list settings as "As per SOPs".   Now i don't have the SOP for the 138 memorized.  I can rarely find a paper copy.  Are you going to remember of those while you're on a patrol?  Many units will have different settings in their SOPs (especially when you start playing with those modem settings)!  Problems begin.



No one is suggesting replacing the 522 with a 138. The 522 is a VHF radio, the 138 is an HF radio (Even if it can operate in the low end of the VHF band).

Most of the settings you have to program in the 138 are related to data, indeed, as long as your freqs match, none of the other settings matter for non-secure voice (Even if your bandwidth settings are different, as long as you both have the same window freq, you should communicate).

With reference to the SOPs, if you're in an NCCIS det and you don't have a copy of the SOPs, bang your head against a desk while jacking yourself up, then get a copy of the SOPs printed and bound and kept with the other pubs for the det.

If you're using the manpack in an actual manpack role (Specificly, sans data), then the SOPs are relatively un-important, as most of the settings can be ignored.


----------



## chrisf (16 Feb 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The next thing we need to consider is the fact that much of what we do is best expressed in either text or graphics. Do you really believe it is efficient (or even safe) to read a recovery request or other "rep" over the radio with the constant refrain of "Say again, over" and "More to follow, over", when people outside the military do the same sort of thing by filling in text boxes in preformatted messages and send an email ? Sending or changing a trace electronicly is analogous to using a digital whiteboard to draw diagrams (and have others contribute) in a tele or video conference.
> 
> What we need isn't really a "radio" at all. I have seen hardened tablet computers with built in GPS recievers and touch screens which allow the use of text and graphics, have crypto enabled wireless networking capabilities (including long range amplifiers and antennas), and as a bonus, Voice over IP (VoIP), which allow them to be used as plain vanilla FM radios. If you were really keen, you could plug in a normal network card and attach them to a LAN (VoIP would make it a phone!). The vendor offers Windows, but serious users can request (and get) various UNIX or LINUX operating systems installed as well. Have a read here: http://www.inter-4.com/



An excellent idea, and part of the concept behind the FDT (Admitedly, technology has some a long way since the FDT).

Don't consider it a replacement though for a a radio, so much as an addition. It's got a tiny antenna, and presumably, a tiny power source, which means tiny range... note however "Optional Tactical Modem for connectivity to Tactical Radios." meaning it can be plugged into a radio for transmission...

An ideal potential piece of kit...


----------



## Carbon-14 (17 Feb 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> No one is suggesting replacing the 522 with a 138. The 522 is a VHF radio, the 138 is an HF radio (Even if it can operate in the low end of the VHF band).


No, but good to know when comparing the radios.  Just wanted people to be aware of this fact.  And i can't remember the last time i used a VHF frequency over 60 MHz.


> Most of the settings you have to program in the 138 are related to data, indeed, as long as your freqs match, none of the other settings matter for non-secure voice (Even if your bandwidth settings are different, as long as you both have the same window freq, you should communicate).


There are a few settings that can have an effect.  Someone could turn Rx only on.  If they were working in HF they might select the wrong mode.  They might somehow put digital voice on.  Changing squelch settings. A slip of the finger and they could put different Tx/Rx freqs.  I know this is stretching a bit but it does happen.  With a 522 no one should have a problem setting up a single frequency.  Just got to watch those switches. 


> With reference to the SOPs, if you're in an NCCIS det and you don't have a copy of the SOPs, bang your head against a desk while jacking yourself up, then get a copy of the SOPs printed and bound and kept with the other pubs for the det.


Funny thing happens when you switch from the VHF role to a HF role over the summer.  SOPs didn't exist.  We only recently received a draft SOPs from group and they still require a lot of tuning.  I did push for our Tp OC to write some earlier but the whole mess is out of my hands.  "Its my first day!"


----------



## chrisf (17 Feb 2006)

> No, but good to know when comparing the radios.  Just wanted people to be aware of this fact.  And i can't remember the last time i used a VHF frequency over 60 MHz.
> [/qoute]
> 
> Doesn't matter, still not suggesting replacing the 522 with a 138, just using the 138 as an example of the ease of use of Harris Radios.
> ...


----------



## Carbon-14 (17 Feb 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> An excellent idea, and part of the concept behind the FDT (Admitedly, technology has some a long way since the FDT).
> 
> Don't consider it a replacement though for a a radio, so much as an addition. It's got a tiny antenna, and presumably, a tiny power source, which means tiny range... note however "Optional Tactical Modem for connectivity to Tactical Radios." meaning it can be plugged into a radio for transmission...
> 
> An ideal potential piece of kit...



An antenna for what now?  I was certain the FDT has no RF transmit capablilty itself; it needs to be plugged into a radio.  I've never seen this done but always wanted to.  Where did all those FDTs go?  Are they at some Infantry unit?  Are they used?  Seemed to me they were a great idea, horribly implimented.

But yeah, it looks like thats how the system was meant to be implimented and i think it actually works now at a CP level.  There are pre-formatted messages in some of those PDTs.  One day I think they'll make there way down to all levels but i don't think the PDA style touch screens are at a level yet that'll survive in the field.  And i bet thats what most people want. Typing messages on those FDTs was a bitch!

Voice will always survive because it is the simplist interface.  Noone can expect someone to be fiddling with menus on a PDA while getting shot at.  VoIP is an excellent point and the system sorta kinda does that.  IUCEs have IP addressed and when you use the telephone system i believe that what it does (not 100% sure on that).  Again great idea, bad implimentation.  Don't know how much room they left to upgrade it to something you describe but i doubt i'll ever see it.


----------



## c_canuk (17 Feb 2006)

> If you want more rants or better yet, more helpful information, PM me.



Hey Just a Sig op, I'm not gonna rebut your misguided points, however you might want to check your attitude towards Carbon 14, as he may be your instructor this summer.


----------



## buzgo (17 Feb 2006)

:


----------



## chrisf (17 Feb 2006)

Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> An antenna for what now?



I was referring to the link a_majoor posted, the antenna on the palm-pilot looking thing 

Of course you are quite right, no intrinsic broadcast capability in the FDT. And what *did* ever happen to them???


----------



## buzgo (17 Feb 2006)

I never saw them used in 2 CMBG. I used on on the 103 course in 2000 then the only time I ever saw them again was in a dog and pony show, mounted in the docking station thingy.


----------



## chrisf (17 Feb 2006)

Perhaps the only real solution is to bin TCCCS and have us yell at each other really loud? I mean really really really loud.


----------



## Sig_Des (17 Feb 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Perhaps the only real solution is to bin TCCCS and have us yell at each other really loud? I mean really really really loud.



Like I told you on course, buddy, we should just go to tin cans and wax string  8)


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I was referring to the link a_majoor posted, the antenna on the palm-pilot looking thing
> 
> Of course you are quite right, no intrinsic broadcast capability in the FDT. And what *did* ever happen to them???



According to the company rep (and remember he is a *salesman* and the RCR on my slip on does not stand for Royal Computer Regiment) the small version was capable of Tx to 1000m, and the larger "laptop" tablet was capable of 5 km range. Various other antenna and amplifier devices were available, and I know that certain "campus" wireless systems provide broadband for considerably greater distances (although using more powerful amplifiers and sophisticated antenna). There is no intrinsic reason tablet computers can't transmit any distance (or in any band) we want, it is only a matter of having the proper transmission module.


----------



## chrisf (18 Feb 2006)

No reason anything plugged into anything won't do anything. I lack the familiarity with the PDT and the FDT to say yes or no though, anyone else?


----------



## GO!!! (18 Feb 2006)

Has anyone in the sigs world got any information on the new radio that is supposed to be coming in?

I was told it was to be a replacement for both the 522 and 138, and was called the 113. It has both HF and VHF capabilities, and is ridiculously easy to use.

Anyone?


----------



## buzgo (18 Feb 2006)

The only new radio coming in that I know about is the AN/PRC-117F (FALCON II), lots of links above. They might be getting the AN/PRC-150 (FALCONII HF) as well, which could replace the 138, its basically the new version of the 138 (FALCON). I'm not sure about that.\

Right now, the only Canadian units that I know of that are using the 117F are SOF. Its pretty easy to use.

There is that purchase of I believe 60 new sets for OP ARCHER that may have been delivered, but maybe they will be mounted in the RG-31s.

There IS a radio called AN/PRC-113: http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/pmcomm/prc113.asp

The website says that it is being replaced by JTRS though: http://jtrs.army.mil/index.html


----------



## MJP (18 Feb 2006)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Right now, the only Canadian units that I know of that are using the 117F are SOF. Its pretty easy to use.
> 
> There is that purchase of I believe 60 new sets for OP ARCHER that may have been delivered, but maybe they will be mounted in the RG-31s.



FWIW TF Orion has 117s right now with more coming (so is my UAB


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2006)

This is from today’s _National Post_, it is reproduced under the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.  Can anyone on the ground comment on this, here, in the open?

Is this a matter of unreliable radios, poor installation kits or, as the story seems to indicate, the wrong radio – VHF/UHF in the mountains, where their ‘line of sight’ propagation characteristic renders them less than ideal?

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=10e99b3f-02d6-404e-a8ff-7fa7e2df0590&k=31226 


> $1.4-billion Canadian radios fail troops
> 
> *Using U.S. radios fastened to vehicles 'Red Green' style - with duct tape*
> 
> ...



I have only very, very limited experience with satellite radios – maybe they are better than HF (the Recce Pl’s _traditional_ friend); if that’s the case then why didn’t we have some in inventory?  It’s not like we haven’t known we were going back into the mountains.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Feb 2006)

Interesting article, but then it is supposed to be.  It does show that many, not only the author, but the soldiers using the equipment, are not too knowledgeable of how communications equipment works.  If we had been using the 77, 125, and 46 Sets, they would be experienceing the same problems.  It is a problem more to do with the "Characteristics" of Radio Waves, rather than radios.  Of course Satellite radios will work better in that environment.  They are transmitting to and receiving from a satellite over head.   There are no obstructions like mountains to interfer with them.  Sure TCCCs has problems, but this is a problem of 'Line of Sight', not radio.

Some 'Tech Weenie' can better explain the technicalities here.  To accept this article at face value is totally out of the question.


----------



## chrisf (21 Feb 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Interesting article, but then it is supposed to be.  It does show that many, not only the author, but the soldiers using the equipment, are not too knowledgeable of how communications equipment works.  If we had been using the 77, 125, and 46 Sets, they would be experienceing the same problems.  It is a problem more to do with the "Characteristics" of Radio Waves, rather than radios.  Of course Satellite radios will work better in that environment.  They are transmitting to and receiving from a satellite over head.   There are no obstructions like mountains to interfer with them.  Sure TCCCs has problems, but this is a problem of 'Line of Sight', not radio.
> 
> Some 'Tech Weenie' can better explain the technicalities here.  To accept this article at face value is totally out of the question.



Quite right, I would think the biggest concern in this article is not the limitations of TCCCS (As line of sight range is an accepted limitation of any VHF radio, not just TCCCS) but the fact that proper mounts were never bought or made.


----------



## DG-41 (27 Feb 2006)

Hey, all you Jimmies, I wonder if you can help me out with a little research.

I need to know the official expected maximum ranges (over flat level ground in ideal conditions) of:

1.   The 521

2.   The 522 on "medium" with the 10' whip antenna

3.   The 522 in the vehicle tray (A set, "a" on the CI) on "high" and with the vehicle antenna on the AMU

4.   The 522 in the vehicle tray, plus amplifier (A+ set, "A" on the CI) with the vehicle antenna on the AMU

5.   The 522 in the vehicle tray, plus amplifier (A+ set) plus the extendable mast antenna

6.   The 77 set with the 10' whip

7.   The 524 set with the AMU vehicle antenna.

8.   The name of the PAM that contains this info

Tanks,

DG


----------



## c_canuk (2 Mar 2006)

RecceDG... can't help you on PAMs but this information should be all contained in the Manuals...

keep in mind that radio waves are more an art than science... factors such weather, time of day, what the ground is like, sand/mud/clay/wet/dry/water, type of antenna used/back ground noise/ etc can change ranges...

that said due to the curvature of the earth the farthest VHF can go line of sight is 40 KM period... now if you raise the antenna you can get longer ranges, but 40 KM is generally the accepted maximum range for VHF

The following is what I've pulled from my TFAR(That Feels About Right) guide 

1.   The 521  100meters with the small whip, 2.5-3 km with the long whip... this radio is not meant to replace anything, it is to provide a new ability, communication between each member in a section, on partrol or in the defensive, hence the very short range, if EW can't hear you they can't Direction Find you or intercept your comms.

2.   The 522 on "medium" with the 10' whip antenna
on med I belive (my memory is not the best) the 10' whip gives you 10 km in ideal circumstances... however that can vary, if you are in sk just after rain, you could probably get 40 km if there is nothing between the radios but wet dirt. on low, I think the 522 broadcasts at 100mW like the 521, with the whip I'm sure you'd probably get at least 500M but I'm not sure... I am not in a role where I would use low very much. 


3.   The 522 in the vehicle tray (A set, "a" on the CI) on "high" and with the vehicle antenna on the AMU

assuming you are using the whip you should get around 15-20 km...  if you are using a Vixam you could get 40 km depending on the elements.

4.   The 522 in the vehicle tray, plus amplifier (A+ set, "A" on the CI) with the vehicle antenna on the AMU

ok... this is where we get some interesting things going on, the Amp can be tuned to turn out different ranges of power... generally you go from 16 watts on high to 40 watts or higher... with the whip you could expect 25-35 km with whip and 40km with vixam 

5.   The 522 in the vehicle tray, plus amplifier (A+ set) plus the extendable mast antenna

40km on flat ground

6.   The 77 set with the 10' whip

experiance with the 77 set says 8 km though we were taught 10

7.   The 524 set with the AMU vehicle antenna.

with whip you should get 20-30 km... the old 524s were very fickle and no 2 transmitted the same power... you could always count on it sending something, but you never were really positive that it would get the range you needed, thats why we always made sure the vixam was at the ready. With a Vixam you would get 40 km 

8.   The name of the PAM that contains this info

this info should all be in the radio manuals, I don't have the numbers with me... I'll see if Carbon-14 has them...

generally comms isn't a problem on flat ground. the problem is working in rugged terain with heavy metal deposits and low grounding potential. line of sight is a big issue... now in ideal situations pretty much any radio should get the job done, but the more power you have the more you can muscle through difficult mediums to transmit through. the newer radios provide a little more muscle over the others as well as give crypto/hopping/data in manpackable package.


----------



## DG-41 (2 Mar 2006)

Thanks for the info, but I'm going to need the PAM/manual because I have to cite it in the paper.

If you can dig that up, that'd be great.

DG


----------



## DG-41 (10 May 2006)

Any chance I could get a citation on the PAM for this? The paper is due this week.

My own efforts on the DIN have proved fruitless.

I need the TX wattage and expected range for:

1) 521 with whip

2) 522 with whip on "medium"

3) 522 vehicle mount, on "high", AMU antenna

4) 522 vehicle mount + amplifier (A+ set) on highest power, AMU antenna

Tanks,

DG


----------



## chrisf (10 May 2006)

Without having to look up the individual manuals for the radios...

B-GL-351-003-FP-001 (Communications Electronics Standing Instructions) (The new big book of all things communications related, should have all the data for the TCCCS gear)
B-GL-321-006/FT-001 (Signals Field Handbook) (The old big book of all things communications related, should have all the data for the pre-TCCCS gear)

Great books, the first one should be standard issue to all rad dets, but it's not, a shame.

Going out shortly, but if you don't have DIN access, I'll even look up the figures for you later on.


----------



## chrisf (10 May 2006)

Ok, apparently I'm not going out for a bit...

AN/PRC 521 - Operates on 0.5W on low power and 2W on high power. Range is 0.5-3kms

AN/VRC 513 (V1) (Vehicle mounted, Rad A) - Operates on 0.1W, 4W, and 16W (Adding an amp and making it a AN/VRC 513 (V2) AKA Rad A+ will change the maximum power setting to 50W). Maximum range on Rad A is 20kms, 50kms with A+

AN/PRC 522 - Operates at 0.1W and 4W with a maximum range of 20kms (I know that's the same as the vehicle mount configuration with a max power of 20kms, and I'd also say it's wrong, with a max range of I think 12kms, but it says 20kms in the book)

An/PRC 77 - Output of 0.5W and 2W with a maximum range of 8kms

An/VRC-46 (RT-524) - High power 35W - Low Power 1-3W - Range of 32Kms Stationary or 24kms Mobile

(All references drawn from the last two manuals I mentioned, the TCCCS stuff from the new one, the non-TCCCS from the old one. The range of the 522 manpack is suspect, I would suggest looking it up in the 522 manual.)


----------



## chrisf (10 May 2006)

Also note, the ranges I gave were under "ideal" conditions, like c_canuck said, it changes depending on factors... I've seen a 521 not be able to broadcast to a CP 200 down the road, and I've seen a VHF RRB cover about 80kms (Stuck on top of a really big mountain)


----------



## DG-41 (10 May 2006)

Thanks.

Is that 50km range with the A+ with the big mast antenna, or with the standard vehicle whip AMU mount antenna?

DG


----------



## chrisf (10 May 2006)

Just says 50kms, doesn't specify.

That being said, you're not going to get 50kms with a whip (Line of sight) unless you're on top of a mountain or you're in the prairies.


----------



## GO!!! (11 May 2006)

Here's a new one for all of you sigs Jedi Masters.

a man - packed 522 with fresh batteries works just fine on freq in the 4000 band +, but when switched to any freq starting with 3000, gives the "last chance battery" change signal. (alternating hi/low continuous tone)

Before you answer, this radio worked fine on any channel not beginning with 3000 prior to, and after this incident for about 10 more hours, all of the antennaes and headset/handset were installed correctly and functional and there was no crypto used or needed on any of the nets in question, nor was there any "fixed super" (FXS) use, the NTX button was not used, the keypad was not locked blah blah blah.

Vehicles in the same area were able to switch to the 3000 frequency and Tx without difficulty, which leads me to the conclusion that;

Since Tx in the lower frequency bands require more power to transmit (in theory anyway) that rechargeable batteries that are at less than 70-80% of a charge are unable to transmit in the lower end of the 522 band. As such, our rechargeables are wholly unsuited to our uses for them.

Besides getting Li batts, or going to vehicle mounts (both impossible) any solutions?


----------



## c_canuk (12 May 2006)

I've seen that before, i think the radio might need a ZEROing, that pops up sometimes if the radio hasn't been zeroed regularly. was it working ok before this or from the start of the Ex? radios should have a detailed check before being deployed, I'll bet the BIT will return some codes on this radio. I use the 522 in the 3000 band quite a bit with the NiCD batteries... they work, just they're worn out and need replacing and we need more of them and more rechargers


----------



## chrisf (13 May 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Here's a new one for all of you sigs Jedi Masters.
> 
> a man - packed 522 with fresh batteries works just fine on freq in the 4000 band +, but when switched to any freq starting with 3000, gives the "last chance battery" change signal. (alternating hi/low continuous tone)
> 
> ...



The radios should transmit fine in any on any of the freqs within it's range (30 to erm... 88Mhz?). It is NOT an issue of manpack vs vehicle mount, rather an issue with the radio itself.

Did you do a BIT test? Weird things *do* occasionally happen with the radios, the only thing that can be done if you go through all the basic checks (Is the headset ok? Is the antenna ok? Is the tranmission power ok? Are the batteries fresh? Is the frequency right? Is the crypto correct? If the net isn't using crypto, was the radio zeroized?) is turn the radio in for exchange and have your RQ send it off to a tech.


----------



## GO!!! (13 May 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> The radios should transmit fine in any on any of the freqs within it's range (30 to erm... 88Mhz?). It is NOT an issue of manpack vs vehicle mount, rather an issue with the radio itself.
> 
> Did you do a BIT test? Weird things *do* occasionally happen with the radios, the only thing that can be done if you go through all the basic checks (Is the headset ok? Is the antenna ok? Is the tranmission power ok? Are the batteries fresh? Is the frequency right? Is the crypto correct? If the net isn't using crypto, was the radio zeroized?) is turn the radio in for exchange and have your RQ send it off to a tech.



Radio passed a bit test, and later was mounted in a LUVW, where it functioned perfectly. 

As I stated earlier, all the peripherals were correctly installed and functional.

The ONLY changed variable between the veh mount (where it worked) and the batteries (where it did not) was the power source. For confirmation, we checked with another man pack, and he was having the same problem.


----------



## chrisf (13 May 2006)

Very strange, as pretty much all the freqs I've ever used were in the 30-40 range, never had a problem... with the NiCad batteries, very strange indeed...

Did anyone try pulling one of the radios out of a truck and sticking on the battery pack?


----------



## c_canuk (15 May 2006)

this could also happen if the vehicle mounted radios have a newer flash than the manpacks... it ends up being a squelch tone conflict, although I haven't seen that since 2003. could the manpacks talk to eachother?

or 

did the manpacks give you an error tone when you tried to put in the freq and talk... sometimes if the ant connection is bad the coupler has a hard time tuning at lower freqs, try cleaning the connection points or exchanging the ant componets.


----------



## GO!!! (15 May 2006)

_Did anyone try pulling one of the radios out of a truck and sticking on the battery pack?_
Yes, the problem came up again, which lead my to suspect batteries.

_this could also happen if the vehicle mounted radios have a newer flash than the manpacks... it ends up being a squelch tone conflict, although I haven't seen that since 2003. could the manpacks talk to eachother?_
The manpacks could not talk to each other with batteries on, bit when connected to veh power (power only, no veh ant or CI) worked fine. Flash would not be an issue here. When both manpacks were placed in the vehs, they worked fine, and in all higher band channels they worked fine both mounted and dismounted.

_did the manpacks give you an error tone when you tried to put in the freq and talk... sometimes if the ant connection is bad the coupler has a hard time tuning at lower freqs, try cleaning the connection points or exchanging the ant componets._
After the 031s had a go at them, the jimmies had a try, with identical results. We spent alot of time ruling out faulty antennaes and headset/handsets.

This stumped 6 guys, all very proficient with light and mounted radios, thanks for your efforts here, but this lemon is off to be repaired.


----------



## GAP (15 May 2006)

Reminds me of a grunt who stalked into the tec shop one day totally P%$#ed off. He slammed a PRC-25 onto the workbench and said "It talks, but won't listen", then turned around and walked out.


----------



## GO!!! (15 May 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Reminds me of a grunt who stalked into the tec shop one day totally P%$#ed off. He slammed a PRC-25 onto the workbench and said "It talks, but won't listen", then turned around and walked out.



Or the techs who smugly proclaim that the only problem is the operator, and return N/S kit to the units without fixing it, because they don't know how, or can't, or simply can't be bothered.

So many problems could be solved so much faster if the "fixing" side of the army would  fix a little more and second guess a little less.


----------



## c_canuk (16 May 2006)

it could be a power issue like you mentioned... however I suspect the guts of the radio, not the batteries, unless you got a whole batch of bad batteries.

the reason is the batteries in the manpack adapterplate are designed to feed the radio 12v, the veh mount feeds it 24 volts, inside the radio it decides how to deal with various feeds... now I'm totally guessing out of my bottom here cause I've never been allowed to gut a 522 before, but the mechanism that deals with the different voltages might be broke... If you had one of the doesn't officially exist adapter plates that puts the batteries in series rather than parallel and feeds 24 v to the radio, you might not have had this issue.

btw, does anyone know if the old black batteries that take the place of the adapter plate provide 24 volts or 12? if 24 that might have solved your issue too


----------



## chrisf (1 Jul 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Or the techs who smugly proclaim that the only problem is the operator, and return N/S kit to the units without fixing it, because they don't know how, or can't, or simply can't be bothered.



A tech recently walked into my buddie's LCT, which was having electrical problems... the breaker would throw sparks every time it was engaged... my buddy was standing by with a plastic marker to flip the switch to demonstrate the problem... the tech said nonsense, that there was nothing actually wrong with the breaker, and flipped it himself with his fingers... and was promptly shocked... poetic justice anyone?


----------



## couchcommander (1 Jul 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Or the techs who smugly proclaim that the only problem is the operator



Because it usually is! 

My favourite T-Shirt describes it beautifully. 

(Problem Exists Between Keyboard and Chair - at least 95% of the time in my civvie experience tis true)


----------



## Klc (26 Jul 2006)

Working in retail electronics tech services, I see piles of returned product every day. Literally.

In the civvie world, 'defective' returns are 70-90% NFF (No Fault Found)

-- Of course, many of these are for questionable reasons, as they get refunds..

I couldn't see military kit sent for service being very often without fault.
I mean... in cadets we would use kit until it literally fell apart, and repair it ourselves, probably more than we should have.

(Thats right... I was in cadets... bring on the flames  :threat


----------



## GO!!! (26 Jul 2006)

Klc said:
			
		

> I couldn't see military kit sent for service being very often without fault.
> I mean... in cadets we would use kit until it literally fell apart, and repair it ourselves, probably more than we should have.



This is true of us too, as a radio sent away for repair is often not seen for months or even years.

I also find that techs will usually do the first repair they come accross - and not necessarily the one it needs, or bounce it back to us because it is "too dirty to be serviced" five months later. 

The 522s are really bad for this, and I get the impression that there are not that many people able to fix them!


----------



## chrisf (26 Jul 2006)

Klc said:
			
		

> Working in retail electronics tech services, I see piles of returned product every day. Literally.
> 
> In the civvie world, 'defective' returns are 70-90% NFF (No Fault Found)
> 
> ...



I've seen plenty of kit returned un-repaired (Though not to blame the techs nessiscarily, very likely a break down somewhere in the chain on the way to the techs)

Also had techs tell me repeatedly that somthing wasn't broken when it was (Until they eventually relented, actually CHECKED the equipment, and found it broken) and tell me what I said was the problem wasn't it (And generally their "solution" doesn't work and they're back a second time to actually fix what I told them was wrong).

Recently we had a truck returned to us as having been fixed... an electrical problem with the pod... so we checked the pod... still had the same problem... went inside the cab of the truck to move it, and there were the new parts for the truck, sitting on the seat of the truck, brand new, still in the box.\

Like I said, somtimes it's a problem with the techs, and somtimes it's a problem with the supply chain returning it to the techs...


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2006)

We had a checkout procedure that stepped through every module on the equipment. I went along until the problem was found...was fixed..then the checklist was started again thru to completion. Then it was passed on to the gunny for QC. He went through the checklist again, plus anything else related to the complaint he could think of. We took pride in our accuracy and speed. I have seldom worked with a better team since then.


----------



## couchcommander (27 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> We had a checkout procedure that stepped through every module on the equipment. I went along until the problem was found...was fixed..then the checklist was started again thru to completion.



Indeed, it's a very good way of doing things.

We have a similar system where diagnostics are run and systems manually checked for the most common points of failure no matter what the initial complaint was.

Intermittent problems are a nightmare however. 

Happens more frequently than you'd think too. Surprisingly, a lot of tech work, at least with computers, is intuition and experience. "Hrm, the diagnostics say there is nothing wrong, yet this machine will occasionally generate a disk read error on boot..... feels like a pws problem."... (your standard tester doesn't actually load the pws - so as long as it has the correct voltage with no load it will return a ok.. testing rigs exist to load the pws - we don't use them. Too much risk of being electrocuted in our small lab. We'd rather replace the 20 dollar pws.)  Also, thanks to our records, we know that *certain* products are more likely to suffer *certain* failures, and certain conditions, while possibly being a wide number of things, are *most likely* caused by certain failures.

Not 100%, but more often than not they point you in the right direction.


----------



## luismariano (27 Jul 2006)

Just my 2 cents,
Many public safety agencies around the country have been modernizing their communications equipement for the last 10 years or so. 

From personal experience, I know many of the older RCMP radios have DES encryption.  Handhelds like the Motorola Saber or Ericsson M-PA/M-PD are pretty rugged, have lots of nice features (like emergency key) and you can reprogram them relatively easily from a laptop with a RS-232 serial port.  Batteries, chargers, speakermics and keyloaders are readily available and reasonably priced.

I know it might be wishful thinking on my part, but instead of having these radios sold at a federal auction wouldn't it be better to give (or sell?) them to the army so they can have a second life serving our country instead of ending up on Ebay and some of you guys having to resort to  FRS/GMRS? 

Granted that some of these radios will have frequency splits outside what the military normally uses, but at least you get to choose a working channel outside consumer allocated frequencies and have reasonably secure voice crypto. 

Luis


----------



## willy (27 Jul 2006)

Luis Mariano said:
			
		

> From personal experience, I know many of the older RCMP radios have DES encryption.  Handhelds like the Motorola Saber or Ericsson M-PA/M-PD are pretty rugged, have lots of nice features (like emergency key) and you can reprogram them relatively easily from a laptop with a RS-232 serial port.  Batteries, chargers, speakermics and keyloaders are readily available and reasonably priced.



I've used the Sabres before while on exercise in the States.  They do work well, but they aren't the answer.



			
				Luis Mariano said:
			
		

> Granted that some of these radios will have frequency splits outside what the military normally uses, but at least you get to choose a working channel outside consumer allocated frequencies and have reasonably secure voice crypto.



The frequency problem is pretty big.  I don't believe that the Sabre in particular can be programmed to use low band VHF (30- 50MHz), so they would be incompatible with our IRIS system.  Furthermore, we can't just take any old frequency we want- we'd be intruding on bandwidth allocated for Police and Emergency Services.  As I've said repeatedly in this thread, we have to stay in our own lane with regard to frequency spectrum use, and that's one of the reasons we aren't supposed to be using FRS in the first place.


----------



## chrisf (27 Jul 2006)

willy said:
			
		

> I've used the Sabres before while on exercise in the States.  They do work well, but they aren't the answer.



If the RCMP radios are the same as our Sabres, and the RCMP is getting rid of theirs, they'd be a great thing to get ahold of... not as an alternative for tactical comms, but just because our stocks of Sabres are dwindling, and the manufacturer no longer produces them...


----------



## DG-41 (27 Jul 2006)

> As I've said repeatedly in this thread, we have to stay in our own lane with regard to frequency spectrum use, and that's one of the reasons we aren't supposed to be using FRS in the first place.



Given the choice between not being able to talk to my troops, and stepping on the FRS frequency, that's a no-brainer.

Don't want me to use the FRS? Then give me a damn radio that WORKS.

DG


----------



## chrisf (29 Jul 2006)

Hopefully they will... word on the street is that TCCCS is being abadoned... for what? Harris radios (The purchase for afghanistan was only a start... again, word on the street)


----------



## Jay4th (29 Jul 2006)

Just my 2 cents.  I am almost always of the same mind as GO!!.  Here it comes.  Through 13yrs in the Infantry with a break in the middle as a crewman  I have NEVER had legacy or TCCC radios perform anywhere near the ranges quoted in  the manuals  NEVER.  15-20 km for a 522 in a LAV, amped or not. BULLS@#T    I am the closest thing to a comms guy in my platoon having been a signaller fot many years, I can get a CI to do whatever I want WHEN THE 522 WORKS.  Every time we marshall to go outside the wire, radios that worked yesterday, all of a sudden dump crypto or lost net ID or some damned thing.  GOD help you if you turn on SAS.  The sky really does fall then.   What is this crap about the 521 being for section internal comms?  Were they gonna give us 10 per section, in THE WHOLE INFANTRY?  Yea right.  I couldn't carry enough batteries if I tried.     The bottom line is you damned near have to be an electrical engineering technologist to get TCCC to work, or keep working.  We in the infantry do get the full version of the course but the guy isnt gonna be a signaller for his whole career.  We dont have the time for all the set up synchronizing, ensuring they have the same FLASH?,.  Sig ops guys, we don't blame you guys for the radios, but don't defend the crap.
    In feb I got a 1 day course on the 117 from a 20 year old American kid.  I can make it do what I want every time, and it always works.  It does Sat comm too.  Every platoon there has em and all meaningful comms goes through em.  If we had trays for em we would gladly drive over the 522's. We all have PRR and the section commanders get the one with the tail to plug into a 521.  Aside from the 521, PRR works great.  We also get issued civvy etrex legend gps.  We dont wear issued TAC vests and when none of the good kit isnt available at home on ex, we use  FRS.  This is the reality.


----------



## buzgo (30 Jul 2006)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Hopefully they will... word on the street is that TCCCS is being abadoned... for what? Harris radios (The purchase for afghanistan was only a start... again, word on the street)



I've heard that too. General Leslie mentioned that comms gear was a priority. I'm pretty sure that you will see more 117's and probably MBITRs start coming into the system. I hear that the army has a bunch of heavy satcom gear too - enough that they could push it to the BN level! 

If it really happens, it'll be about time that someone has seen the light and made the right (and courageous!) decision to walk away from it all. We've been trying to jury-rig and make it work for 7 years!


----------



## chrisf (31 Jul 2006)

Jay4th said:
			
		

> In feb I got a 1 day course on the 117 from a 20 year old American kid.  I can make it do what I want every time, and it always works.  It does Sat comm too.  Every platoon there has em and all meaningful comms goes through em.  If we had trays for em we would gladly drive over the 522's. We all have PRR and the section commanders get the one with the tail to plug into a 521.  Aside from the 521, PRR works great.  We also get issued civvy etrex legend gps.  We dont wear issued TAC vests and when none of the good kit isnt available at home on ex, we use  FRS.  This is the reality.



There's enough systems out there *off the shelf* that meets the needed standards for military use (Secure, reliable, durable) that we could completely replace TCCCS... as in ALL the junk that came with TCCCS, not just the radios... hopefully we'll be seeing it sooner or later. Definitly no one wants to admit that TCCCS was a waste of money...


----------



## couchcommander (31 Jul 2006)

Dumb question time....

Do they not field test this stuff before they decide to blow hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars on it??


----------



## buzgo (31 Jul 2006)

The system was designed starting in the late 1960's and production started in the early 90's. It was intended for use in northern Europe... We're not the only country that has ended up with a system like this. The Germans have a battlefield microwave system that uses gigantic repeater towers - not very adaptable for use in Afghanistan! Another problem is that we kept trying to add technology to the system as tech advanced. Unfortunately there came a point where they had to stop and PRODUCE something. So in 1999 we ended up with 486 and Pentium workstations running SCO Unix with a Windows 3.11 virtual machine using a low speed LAN to interconnect the vehicles.

Things WERE field tested but alot of the time it seemed like the results were ignored. I remember hearing a lot of "Well the system works on the test bench in the lab." and "They can't figure it out so its up to us (the Army) to figure it out and make it work as best we can." 

yeah, right.


----------



## couchcommander (31 Jul 2006)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> So in 1999 we ended up with 486 and Pentium workstations running SCO Unix with a Windows 3.11 virtual machine using a low speed LAN to interconnect the vehicles



... oh my god.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2006)

As has been suggested in the past, we are barking up the wrong tree. We started the TCCCS program back in the stone age, when "communications" and "radio" were synonymous. Now we need to send data and information across the net, but the origional systems were never designed to do this, and multiple layers of add ons make this less rahter than more possible.

There is also the matter of multiple conflicting requirments to remember. Satcoms have limited numbers of channels available, crypto enabled devices need some pretty complex hardware and software, more range = more TX power, operating in a military environment requires ruggedized, shock and water resistent housings......A GARMIN RINO costs about $400, and a Blackberry even less, but they only have a few of the desirable features for a military radio. A MILSPEC GARMIN RHINO would be far bigger and far more expensive (although I suspect it would still be an order of magnitude less than a 522).

If I were in charge of the program, you would be seeing hardened LINUX tablet PC's with wireless network cards, embedded GPS and VoIP instead of "radios" to transmit data and information. Platoon and Company signallers would be carrying wirless routers to go with the system, and your C/S would be your URL.......


----------



## Carbon-14 (31 Jul 2006)

wireless networks (802.11) are still a work in progress in some respects.  What was thought to be secure within a year ago can now be hacked in seconds.  IMO its not quite mature enough for classified information.  But I would definately expect a move in that direction as well as "Software Communication Architecture"


----------



## couchcommander (31 Jul 2006)

WPA provides, right now as far as I know, secure communications (either with 802.1x (EAP-TLS)... my preferred, or PSK even if you want). I don't know enough about WPA2 to comment. 

WEP is broken. 

In the end, I really don't understand why you guys don't just use TCP/IP w/ TLS based systems. 

I mean, a_majoor hit the nail on the head with the linux - you can pretty much get the kernel to boot on anything... xboxs, cell phones, PSPs....if you really want to spend money you could develop your own hardware using off the shelf parts, put linux on it, throw TCP/IP w/ TLS over some type of datalink and physical layer (I'm no engineer), and bob's your uncle.

802.11g is good, but awfully jammable and shortrange. It'd probably be good to go with something different to put the rest of your network on top of.


----------



## Carbon-14 (31 Jul 2006)

There are now tools available on the net to crack WPA networks.  Hence the movement to WPA2.  But it requires new hardware.  You're right that its easily jammed.  Its also very susceptible to denial of service attacks.  Its very easy to spoof a packet telling a client to disconnect from the network.

**edit : spelling**


----------



## couchcommander (31 Jul 2006)

Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> There are now tools available on the net to crack WPA networks.



Really? Hrm, I must be behind.

Do you know some of the specifics or do you have a link, I'd be interested to know.


----------



## buzgo (31 Jul 2006)

Harris (but of course!) makes type-1 encrypted 802.11 devices:

http://www.govcomm.harris.com/secure-comm/

There is also a good artice at Signal magazine (the AFCEA publication):

http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles/templates/SIGNAL_Article_Template.asp?articleid=1000&zoneid=163

a_majoor: I've seen devices similar to what you are describing. I was at a demo that General Dynamics ran and they had their C4 systems running on linux and windows based COTS laptops, as well as milspec handhelds. They use a mesh architecture - it was very impressive. I gather that they did live testing in Iraq and were very pleased with the results.

There are lots of things out there, we just need to sort out our procurement and shake up the C and E branch a bit to get the ball rolling!

CC: The Auditor linux distro has a WPA cracker (or 2) to play with. Its a live CD so you don't even have to install.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2006)

When I said hardened Linux tablets with wireless cards I was careful not to specify what wireless protocol should be used. There really is no reason the wireless card could not be a VHF emitter coupled to a military encryption and frequency hopping software. In fact, if you were to open up a 522 (DO NOT DO THIS AT HOME!!!!) you would find the hardware laid out in a series of cards, although not in the standard PCIMA card  format.

Remember, the purpose of communications is to transfer information, so lets get our collective heads out of the "radio" box. Maybe section commanders really need "Blackberries". Maybe the best way to set up TF CPs is to have mobile videoconferencing down to the company level. Maybe we ned to concentrate on visual signals and suppliment them with hand held laser pointers. Maybe we should hypnotize soldiers and give them their orders and commanders intent that way. Think out of the box!


----------



## George Wallace (31 Jul 2006)

So we do away with radios and equip everyone with a "Combat Cellphone" where we can use audio, visual, or Text messaging.  We can take photos in situ and use them to develop our plans for quick attacks, etc.  Use the vibrate mode to cut down on noise.  Everyone could get synchronized time, text orders with photos, etc.  Mobile Cells would have to be deployed.  Encryption would have to be developed to military standards.  

Only concern would be range, if at a distance from a Cell Transmitter/Receiver.


----------



## Carbon-14 (31 Jul 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> Really? Hrm, I must be behind.
> 
> Do you know some of the specifics or do you have a link, I'd be interested to know.



A quick google of "crack WPA" comes back with links.  I think Aircrack has some WPA cracking.  I think its brute force but if you use a simple PSK, it'll be cracked quickly.  I just came off a SANS course a couple weeks ago and the instructor mention something new, but i don't recall what it was.


Back to Linux tablets.  Are they rugged enough yet?  I know many companies are coming out with some pretty incredible stuff.  But I've heard they've gone through several mail servers in Afghanistan..  And that's a sheltered, air conditioned (I think), static installation.  That place kills electronics.

George:  Wouldn't cellphone towers make tempting targets?  You'd require security to protect them.  Even then... <shrug> :-\


----------



## George Wallace (31 Jul 2006)

Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> George:  Wouldn't cellphone towers make tempting targets?  You'd require security to protect them.  Even then... <shrug> :-\



It isn't a good idea, but CPs and RRBs would be the Cell Towers.  Then if it could be reduced down in size, each vehicle would be a mobile Cell Tower.

EW would say that it would be easily detected.  True; but if everyone on the Battlefield was emitting, then who is who?  In the Cold War the Canadians would be easy to detect using EW.  They would be in the area that wasn't emitting (Black), while everyone around them was making "noise".

It will depend on how you want to think about 'Electronic Deception'.  Be able to hid it, or just make so much noise no one can tell the difference.......then again; we have the technology to do that to.......damn!


----------



## couchcommander (31 Jul 2006)

LOL, well I guess it's a good thing I wasn't allowing wireless connections on any network with access through the firewall. 

Another one bites the dust. 

But it looks like that SecNet is already experimenting with sending military grade encryption over IP networks - IMO a definite step in the right direction. Opens up a whole range of ready to go technologies and software.


----------



## Carbon-14 (31 Jul 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It isn't a good idea, but CPs and RRBs would be the Cell Towers.  Then if it could be reduced down in size, each vehicle would be a mobile Cell Tower.
> 
> EW would say that it would be easily detected.  True; but if everyone on the Battlefield was emitting, then who is who?  In the Cold War the Canadians would be easy to detect using EW.  They would be in the area that wasn't emitting (Black), while everyone around them was making "noise".
> 
> It will depend on how you want to think about 'Electronic Deception'.  Be able to hid it, or just make so much noise no one can tell the difference.......then again; we have the technology to do that to.......damn!



I think I understand what you're looking for.  Basically you want the range, encryption, versatility of a VHF radio with a point-to-point and Time Division Multiple Access/digital capability of the cell phone network?  Do I understand you correctly?  I hope that made sense.  I think that would be great.  I'd bet someone, somewhere is working on it.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Jul 2006)

And I used to think James Bond movies were all fiction, until I found out that a lot of his technology was 'ancient'.  I am sure without a doubt that the Cell Phone has been trialed in the past, but with the rapid advances in what we are seeing in Cell Phone technology and miniaturization, I am not sure where or how far it has headed.  I am sure that it is in the future as two way comms, replacing radio, in HUD displays in turrets, aircraft cockpits, helmets, etc.  It will put SAS and all the others into the museum.


----------



## buzgo (1 Aug 2006)

couchcommander said:
			
		

> LOL, well I guess it's a good thing I wasn't allowing wireless connections on any network with access through the firewall.
> 
> Another one bites the dust.
> 
> But it looks like that SecNet is already experimenting with sending military grade encryption over IP networks - IMO a definite step in the right direction. Opens up a whole range of ready to go technologies and software.



Read about TACLANE (KG-175) and AltaSec (KG-250). They are also IP encryptors. 

Alot of the stuff you guys are talking about is already in production/use. The system I described earlier was used in Iraq and I believe it still is. From what I was told, the troops using it would move into location by air assault or whatever, and would deploy the transmitter kit on the highest point. Then repeaters would be deployed throughout the area. This allowed the troops to have comms with the system as they came into the objective.  They also stuck an access point on one of the blimps they have deployed there. The box I saw is basically a rugged iPaq. They have a camera built in and if they detained someone they would take a shot and send it back over the net for instant ID. The GD guys told us that it was also very difficult for the sigint guys to pickup...


----------



## DG-41 (1 Aug 2006)

> Remember, the purpose of communications is to transfer information



No, it's much more than that - and I'm not talking about data either.

The fundamental purpose behind the radio is to allow a commander to have influence on the battle over a larger distance than his immediate person. It is a personality and leadership extension device. A leader with the appropriate voice skills can project his presence directly over the radio and have almost as much effect on a subordinate as if he was standing right there.

Be that to calm somebody down, instill some courage, shame someone into action, reward good performance... we've all known commanders who could put *volumes* of meaning into a few short words, via modulation of tone and timing.

But transmitting that emotional sidechannel takes VOICE. You need to HEAR the voice of your commander (or your subordinate) to pick up on that extra information. No "combat Blackberry" is going to be able to meet that need.

DG


----------



## GO!!! (2 Aug 2006)

Recce, I would far prefer an accurate, marked map, along with written instructions forwarded to my hand, to the loving persuasiveness of my supervisor.

While I agree that tone can be helpful in creating action, I think that all of the misunderstandings that could be avoided by commanders sending more detailed orders and updates to subordinate c/s would more than make up for the lack of personality transmission, as it is so often the signallers that do so much of the talking anyway.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Aug 2006)

I saw hardened tablets at AUSA last year from this company http://www.inter-4.com/ which included the capability of voice through a process known as VoIP.

Just think RecceDG, you could project the trace and then _tell_ that dumbass on the other end to read the map. While your point is well taken, often the amount of distortion over the channel makes "reading" the emotional tone of the sender impossible. Well trained signalers speak in a clear, even tone so the person at the receiving end can understand or copy the message, filtering out a lot of the emotion as well.

The best way to influence the battle if you are not present in person is through being able to transmit clear information. Would the "Charge of the Light Brigade" have happened if the message "Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front, follow the enemy, and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns. Horse artillery may accompany. French cavalry is on your left. Immediate."  wasn't so ambiguous (Go ahead, try and figure out what it means without a map, and knowing there was enemy artillery visible on three sides of the valley). Since Captain Nolan apparently didn't know what was being referred to either, off they rode into the valley of death......

Given that units, sub units and even sub sub units can be separated by several or even several tens of kilometers distance in modern operation's, there is plenty of room for uncertainty and ambiguity to creep in, so we need all the help we can get. A well designed system should have several "fall back" modes, the "blue Tracker" system used by the United States in OIF allowed the passage of simple text messages, and due to the technical difficulties suffered by other systems, often became the default communication channel to the far ranging American forces. Whatever we choose to use in our next generation of comms needs to be designed with that in mind.


----------



## c_canuk (15 Aug 2006)

I like the idea of tablets, but Cell phones wouldn't be effective cause to talk to many stations at once you either have to call the individually or set up conference calling... the reason Cells work better is their tower are like 300 feet high, while our masts are only 40 feet, plus we don't just find the highest hill to put the tower on, we have to take other factors into account too


----------



## c_canuk (15 Aug 2006)

> Through 13yrs in the Infantry with a break in the middle as a crewman  I have NEVER had legacy or TCCC radios perform anywhere near the ranges quoted in  the manuals  NEVER.  15-20 km for a 522 in a LAV, amped or not. BULLS@#T



uh huh, and where are you always sited? On the plains of Saskatchewan with lots of nice wet earth between the two points or in gully’s trees, on sand, etc? oh right the latter… well if you actually took time to comprehend the manual rather than just read it you would have realized that in less than ideal conditions (ie if you don’t have line of sight when using line of sight frequencies VHF) no you are not going to get max range… this is why we have RRB, if you need RRB ask for RRB, you will get RRB, Using RRB strategically will allow you to get comms through reliably by putting them in the right location for RRB rather than only relying on the comms you get by placing your only radios in strategic positions and hoping to get comms, rather than employing RRB to help RRB the signals with RRBs placed strategically for RRB while your LAVs are placed for fighting. RRB!



> I am the closest thing to a comms guy in my platoon having been a signaller for many years, I can get a CI to do whatever I want WHEN THE 522 WORKS.



you know I never have problems with the 522 in with CIs it’s always a Net ID that’s wonky or the NAU is flaking out, rarely have a problem with a 522, I’ve unbolted many a NAU in the field and bolted in another, but have hardly ever had a problem with my 522s… oh I know, I don’t treat my 522 with contempt, I treat it as well as a weapon… because, especially for you, it is a weapon, while your personal weapon can only deliver one bullet at a time, or your LAV only a section at a time, through the radio you can call in fast air or artillery, another section of Infantry, Armour, Etc so treat it with the respect you’d treat your LAV… if it gives more than a 0401, or 0301 error when you turn it on get it fixed, if the techs won’t fix it, do what you’d do if the techs wouldn’t fix your LAV, raise merry hell about it. Don’t wait till the radio completely fails… also most radio problems are from excessive shock, or voltage overload (i.e. turning the radio’s on before starting the vehicle, flipping the main power, etc.)



> Every time we marshall to go outside the wire, radios that worked yesterday, all of a sudden dump crypto or lost net ID or some damned thing.


 see my statement above… also it takes what 30 seconds to do a load easy and 30 more to set net IDs how about you actually do a radio check every time you get in the vehicle, much the same way you test your weapons before you go outside the wire or range.




> What is this crap about the 521 being for section internal comms?  Were they gonna give us 10 per section, in THE WHOLE INFANTRY?  Yea right.  I couldn't carry enough batteries if I tried.



YES, YES THEY WERE however since the whole infantry refused to use them because they refused to read the manual and learn what they were for, and kept complaining that they didn’t work because they were trying to get 77 set ranges of a radio designed to not eminate more than 100 meters or 3 km in an EMERGENCY procurement shelved the project rather than waste money. 

Carry that many batteries? That’s why the carrying case has a spare battery pouch, and the batt charger charges half an 8 man section’s batteries at once. Not to mention that the lithium batteries last for 24 hrs, so a weeks batteries is like what 3 lbs?




> The bottom line is you damned near have to be an electrical engineering technologist to get TCCC to work, or keep working.



little exaggeration here, an electrical engineering tech”nologist” would be able to build this system from the ground up… you just need to read and comprehend a couple 4 page pamphlets, get over your resistance to change, and actually practice with the radios you have.




> We in the infantry do get the full version of the course but the guy isnt gonna be a signaller for his whole career.


 what course? The 3 day 522 course that teaches you everything from hopping to crypto to setting the 522 up as a modem… I doubt that. Or the whole TCCCS IRIS course? I doubt that too.



> We dont have the time for all the set up synchronizing, ensuring they have the same FLASH?,.  Sig ops guys, we don't blame you guys for the radios, but don't defend the crap.



Ensure they have the same flash? You make sure all your rifles have the same mods don’t you?

Set up Synchronizing…. You are using hopping? That’s the only time the 522s have to sync that I know of… and it’s all automatic when the master holds the PTT when initiating the net… of course you have to enter the TOD and not including keying in the actual time it’s a whole 2 buttons. If you practice you can do hopping programming in like 2 minutes including the sync.



> In feb I got a 1 day course on the 117 from a 20 year old American kid.  I can make it do what I want every time, and it always works.



I can teach you in an hour how to punch in freqs and to a load easy, and the 522 works, and you can make it do whatever you want every time, as long as you treat it like it is supposed to just like the 117. 



> It does Sat comm too.  Every platoon there has em and all meaningful comms goes through em.  If we had trays for em we would gladly drive over the 522's.


I;m assuming that there means Afghanistan, if so yes you need 117s because VHF does not work in mountains areas, because of all the ROCK between you and the other station, SAT comms are pretty much the answer, or setting up RRBs all over the place, like they did in Bosnia.



> when none of the good kit isnt available at home on ex, we use  FRS.  This is the reality.



so instead of figuring out how to make the kit work and practicing with it so you know it inside out and backwards , you illegally use non secure means which our allies don’t use, so when you do get to theatre you are useless… good plan…

let me show you how silly you sound to me


Through 8yrs in Comms I have NEVER had the C7 perform anywhere near the ranges quoted in  the manuals  NEVER.  30 rounds in a mag? Always Jams, and it’s too hard to get them all in there. I am the closest thing to an infanteer guy in my platoon. I can get a C79 Optical to do whatever I want WHEN THE C7 WORKS.  Every time we marshall to go outside the wire, C7s that worked yesterday, all of a sudden jam or totally miss the target or some damned thing.  GOD help you if you turn on AUTO.  The sky really does fall then.   What is this crap about the C9 being for a section?  Were they gonna give us 2 per section, in THE WHOLE COMMUNICATIONS?  Yea right.  I couldn't carry enough boxes of ammo if I tried.     The bottom line is you damned near have to be an mechanical engineering technologist to get C7s and C9s to work, or keep working.  We in the signals do get the full version of the course but the guy isnt gonna be a infanteer for his whole career.  We dont have the time for all the set up bipods, ensuring they have the same mods?,.  Infantry guys, we don't blame you guys for the rifles and guns, but don't defend the crap.

    In feb I got a 1 day course on the SA80 from a 20 year old British kid.  I can make it do what I want every time, and it always works.  It does grenades too.  Every platoon there has em and all meaningful fire comes from em.  If we had mounts for em we would gladly drive over the C7's. When none of the good kit isnt available at home on ex, we use Canadian tire.22 Cal hunting rifles.  This is the reality.


----------



## buzgo (15 Aug 2006)

c_canuk - are you on the GDC payroll or what? Do you work for the LCMM or something? I've never heard anyone toeing the TCCCS/IRIS party line like you are...

I have to agree with the guys above - the system is workable but it is shite.


----------



## c_canuk (15 Aug 2006)

> _canuk - are you on the GDC payroll or what? Do you work for the LCMM or something? I've never heard anyone toeing the TCCCS/IRIS party line like you are...



No I'm not on their payroll, I'm just not a sheep Baaing along with the others, I have my own opinion based on my own experiance.

Back when we used the old legacy kit with frigging tubes and all, when it didn't work you didn't just throw it away and have a good cry and whine why can't we use CB radios like truckers, you frigged around with it until you got it working and learned the equipment's quirks and moods, you learned how to guestimate the range you could expect from the radio accuratly, but now with the new stuff everyone thinks it's acceptable to just give up and use cell phones and FRS radios and it disgusts me because the new kit doesn't have moods, it tells you what is wrong, and has a lot less problems.

I never got the conversion course, I sat my ass down in the back of a truck and learned how to use the kit, I didn't just go "this stuff is crap I wanna use a POS civvy radio on a civy freq illegally".

I've been using 522s all summer and not had a problem with one yet. I just got home from the Golan, and used radios made by motorola which use a similar freq range as FRS Radios... the damn things broke down all the time and no one new why... we had theorys involving time of day, moon phase and if we had rain in the last 30 days... Not fun when the Mission commander comes back from his little house in Damascus demanding to know exactly why you never answered his driver's radio check.

I think TCCCS implementation is crap too, but the 521 works fine when you use it for what it was designed for, the 522 works fine when you use it properly and take care of faults, and the 138 works great...

only the 522 is associated with TCCCS and only because of HIDS which was an add on for us.

my point is that the 522, the 521 and the 138 are perfectly fine radios on their own, and I'm sick of people saying they are crap when they are more reliable, powerful, and have more features designed to keep you alive that what we had before. The radios we have do exactly what some whiz bang piece of kit they've only read about on the Harris website but never used.

The problem is mainly the operator has just decided to not like the radio because they didn't get to pick it and all the old farts who hate change pine for the legacy crap. So they use some piece of crap FRS that doesn't do half of what the 522 does, and will set them up for further failure when they go overseas and HAVE to use NATO spec radios. I've used FRS extensively, you get a range of 5 - 10 KM in ideal conditions, anybody, not just EW, can and will break in and screw with you. Plus FRS and GRMS don't have umpteen billion channels, they have about 22 channels and privacy codes, so if someone on a  different privacy code is TX the same time you do, you jam eachother and don't even know it. Not to mention that these are the same frequencies that a myriad of radio devices work on as they are free channels, and thus every 5th word is garbled when near any built up area  ie URBAN, and because they work on such low TX power, they are so easily jammed it's not funny. Not to mention NO RRB, no Amps, no Mast, no more powerful base stations, no cyrpto, no hopping, no selective call, no data. Did you know with the 522 if you want you can send images and web cam video? those hardened tablets people were talking about earlier would go great with em.

The problem is not the radio, it's poor planning, and knowledge of how to use the radio and resources. I guarantee that if they would request a few RRB sites comms would be perfect, but no one wants to ask someone else to lend a hand it seems.

I have only come across 3 radios that I couldn't get working in less than 5 minutes and in 2 cases the radio had been giving more and more progressively worse errors over a span of weeks and only when it failed had they brought the radio to someone, and the last case was because one of the earlier flashes was not compatible with legacy radios, which has been fixed a while ago.

The bottom line is not the radios are crap, it's that they are misused, and their operators don't work within their capabilities. Complaining that in the hilly forest you can't get 40 km on whip is akin to complaining that the C7 can't Peirce an Abrams' armour, the even more ridiculous part is then saying if we had the SA80, which fires the same round, it would do a better job. VHF is VHF is VHF and that is what NATO is going to use and there is a good reason for that. 

If you can't get comms you move until you can, if you can't move you throw up a mast and/or use RRB.

If your radio gives errors get it fixed

Don't program your radio's the night before, turn off the power, then expect it to be ready to go without verifying it the next morning when you move out, especially when you send a surge of power through them cause you didn't turn off the radios you when you turned off and on vehicle power.

90% of the time when you get an error message up up T is all you need to clear them all and get comms. And if it's giving errors, there is a reason, something is failing. 

Use ECO mode to save power and prolong battery life.


----------



## GO!!! (15 Aug 2006)

c_canuck,

Back to reality now,

-Where broken radios never come back if they are sent to be fixed;
-Where RRB sites and pers to man them don't just pop out of nowhere just because you asked for them;
-Where 8-10 year old rechargeable batteries that don't hold a charge die at the drop of a hat;
-Where comms are a part of our jobs, not our _raison d'etre_;
-Where radios that function better, longer and lighter are available at Wal Mart, for what we need them for.

Under ideal conditions, with the right kit, I can make TCCCs work too, but we don't have shelves stacked with spare NAUs, or the time to spend troubleshooting a system that should have worked right the first time.

TCCCs works great in the utopian test bench world you seem to live in, and in which it was designed, but here in the hot, dusty real world, without spares of everything, it is more of a hindrance than a help.


----------



## c_canuk (15 Aug 2006)

> -Where broken radios never come back if they are sent to be fixed;


 then the problem is not the radio, nor the tech, it's that there are not enough of them, so how is buying a different radio that does exactly the same thing and getting rid of the 522s going to make a difference you still won't have enough... focus on getting more radios rather than replacing what we have



> -Where RRB sites and pers to man them don't just pop out of nowhere just because you asked for them;


 this is why Comms is a trade, I bet any res comms unit in canada would jump at the chance to provide RRB for you if you just asked. you can also make your own unmanned RRBs just by taking 2 522s and linking them with the cable if you don't have any get a tech to make a couple, they only cost about 3 bucks to make. all you have to do after that is press RRB on each radio until you see a Capital R on the display and set each radio to one of the two freqs being used by A and B Nets that you want to join. I know at my unit we could during the fall winter spring provide at least 2 trucks and probably up to 4 additional RRB stations within 24 hours and upwards of 10 RRB Stations in a weeks notice. Plus I know for a fact Petawawa has a rears truck and the ability to field several RRB stations as I was in the A Ech Comms Det for First light last year, and also personally manned an RRB in that trg area.



> -Where 8-10 year old rechargeable batteries that don't hold a charge die at the drop of a hat;


 again not a problem with the radios, if you get replacements that use the same batteries is that going to solve the problem? no we need new batteries... use up your stock of lithium batteries too... you can order new batteries, I got a pile of them in my stores that we ordered as our old ones are sent in NS



> -Where comms are a part of our jobs, not our raison d'etre;


 which has what to do with changing our radios? Comms is my Raison d'etre, it is why my trade exists, and we are their to provide support, if you don't ask for support you don't get it.



> -Where radios that function better, longer and lighter are available at Wal Mart, for what we need them for.


 I've got a few sets of those walmart radios, they do not have the same range, do not last longer when using lithium batteries while I will admit carrying 48 hours of battereis for a FRS is a little lighter, do not function better especially in urban areas. Not to mention the short falls that I've already mentioned.

the only reason FRS radios work for you is you had a vested interest in finding out their characteristics and work within them, what happens when you have to talk to someone 40 km away, I'll tell you what you do, you use 522s with a mast and or RRB, so why shouldn't you use them the rest of the time?


----------



## buzgo (15 Aug 2006)

> The radios we have do exactly what some whiz bang piece of kit they've only read about on the Harris website but never used.



117's were purchased for the TF quite some time ago. I've seen pictures with the TACSAT antenna mounted on a LAV. So I would say that the TF is using them overseas as we speak. Also - I don't recall there being an IRIS piece of gear that has quite the capabilities of the 117...




> what happens when you have to talk to someone 40 km away, I'll tell you what you do, you use 522s with a mast and or RRB, so why shouldn't you use them the rest of the time?



I would just use the 117 and be done with it.


----------



## c_canuk (15 Aug 2006)

not my point, you could use a 138 in this role too.

The 117 adds a capability we didn't have which is a manpackable sat comms... we have sat phones but thats not the same thing. 

the 117 is a very vesitile radio, but we don't have many of them...

my point is that FRS radios do not provide the comms we need, and instead of getting rid of radios that work just fine we should add to the numbers we already have, and aquire more resources, like the 117s, we have to do the job. 

I'd love to have a butt load of 117s come down the pipe, I'll learn to use any radio they give me. Just don't take away the 521, 522 and 138 just because the 117 exists, they have a use and getting enough 117s to replace the 521s, 522s, and 138s is a waste of money as 90% of the time you don't need a 117, and this would ensure that yet again we don't have enough units in the system nor enough parts to go around.

I just don't see any reason to get rid of the 521, 522 or 138, they work fine, and we have the resources to use them, so why short change ourselves and get ourselves back into the same problem we are having now, by trash canning what we have just because we get a few 117s in Afghanistan? If we hadn't trashed the Legacy stuff when the 521s, 522s and 138s came on line we'd still have loads of radios we could use, plus we would have a force that has experiance linking legacy with new. all they had to do was keep the 77 sets around.


----------



## c_canuk (15 Aug 2006)

we should trash can the rechargable battery model and go back to disposables like the 77 sets... I agree 100% on that


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Aug 2006)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> *I just don't see any reason to get rid of the 521, 522 *or 138,* they work fine*, and we have the resources to use them, so why short change ourselves and get ourselves back into the same problem we are having now, by trash canning what we have just because we get a few 117s in Afghanistan? If we hadn't trashed the Legacy stuff when the 521s, 522s and 138s came on line we'd still have loads of radios we could use, plus we would have a force that has experiance linking legacy with new. all they had to do was keep the 77 sets around.



Didn't even read the rest of the thread did you? They don't work. That's what this whole thread is about. Don't wade in half cocked, until you know the parameters of the discussion. Also, before you try defend your position on this, read all the points against first, and don't rehash the old stuff.


----------



## c_canuk (15 Aug 2006)

beg your pardon, but if you read the threads you will see me deconstruct every argument about the radios to one of the following

operator error
lack of parts
lack of radios
battery issue

I keep rehashing what I said, because people keep rehashing their arguments against, which I've already deconstructed.

you will also note that I am a rad op and I've been working intensly with these radios since they entered the system, and military radios in general for 8 years of which even though I'm a Reservist according to the time in calculations for Class C contracts I'm the eqivalent to a MCpl 2, so I'm not just a weekender, and though I'm loath to admit it I was in a Sigs Cadet Corps before that that was run by ex Comms officers, and I actually attended trg with the affiliated reserve unit for 5 years and basicly knew the 25/77 set inside out and backwards before I even joined.

you will also note I've been part of this thread when it was created not just the last 2 times it's resurfaced. -> post #4




> I personally believe the TCCCS system put a way too complicated radio into the hands of people who just need to be able to talk, and don't need to know how to program the thing, which is what the DTD is for, it can load everything you could possible need to program into the 522 in a short few seconds with only a few commands needed to be known.
> 
> The problem is to get the DTD loaded and ready for an exersize is a monumental task because of "other" features and uses which I'm not going into here.
> 
> ...



117s can easily be integrated into TCCCS just like the 138. and they are only the latest cute radio everyone wants if you go through the thread they've also wanted the falcon IIs, FRS, Legacy, etc

I'm not changing my point of view, my point of view is that the radios are fine, the problem is elsewhere, and throwing them away for the same amount or likely less 117s is not a reasonable solution and that using FRS radios instead of using what we have is not only lazy it's dangerous, and a poor practice. 

that said, it appears that you'd much rather I just keep this opinion to myself because some people would rather blame everything on the tool and not where it belongs, the one holding it.

Peace out


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Aug 2006)

I've had Reg Sig WOs & Sgts tell me they're shit. I'll take their word......and experience. Thanks anyway. 

Maybe the Navy is looking for some new boat anchors. ;D


----------



## GO!!! (15 Aug 2006)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> beg your pardon, but if you read the threads you will see me deconstruct every argument about the radios to one of the following
> 
> operator error
> lack of parts
> ...



You have'nt deconstructed anything. You've demonstrated again and again that you have a REMF mindset where everything always works, and we all have unlimited resources and time to sort it out.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again THE KIT WORKS FINE IN A WORKSHOP, JUST NOT IN THE FIELD



> you will also note that I am a rad op and I've been working intensly with these radios since they entered the system, and military radios in general for 8 years of which even though I'm a Reservist according to the time in calculations for Class C contracts I'm the eqivalent to a MCpl 2, so I'm not just a weekender, and though I'm loath to admit it I was in a Sigs Cadet Corps before that that was run by ex Comms officers, and I actually attended trg with the affiliated reserve unit for 5 years and basicly knew the 25/77 set inside out and backwards before I even joined.
> 
> you will also note I've been part of this thread when it was created not just the last 2 times it's resurfaced. -> post #4



You will note that no-one here is disputing your qualifications, only your opinions, and your "real world" experience. TCCCs is a deeply flawed system, your cheerleading notwithstanding. TCCCs works great in a heated, stable, well powered CP. It fails in inclement weather, when manpacked, and when used with the peripherals that are a fact of life in this army. 

This is reality, from the people who use it on the ground for real operations.



> 117s can easily be integrated into TCCCS just like the 138. and they are only the latest cute radio everyone wants if you go through the thread they've also wanted the falcon IIs, FRS, Legacy, etc


The Falcon II_ is _ the 117. It is not a "cute" radio or the flavour of the month, it is the necessary tool for the job we do. You might be able to get away with LOS comms, but I can't, nor can I stand on a mountain top waving an antennae until I get reception - or shot.



> I'm not changing my point of view, my point of view is that the radios are fine, the problem is elsewhere, and throwing them away for the same amount or likely less 117s is not a reasonable solution and that using FRS radios instead of using what we have is not only lazy it's dangerous, and a poor practice.



I would submit that your "view" is somewhat skewed, given that your experience is based in a Signals regiment, not an operational unit; and not in our most recent theatre of operations, where TCCCs has been soundly denounced for what it is, and replaced with a system that works, all the time, off the shelf - the 117.


----------



## c_canuk (16 Aug 2006)

> You have'nt deconstructed anything. You've demonstrated again and again that you have a REMF mindset where everything always works, and we all have unlimited resources and time to sort it out.
> 
> I've said it before, and I'll say it again THE KIT WORKS FINE IN A WORKSHOP, JUST NOT IN THE FIELD



Explain to me what doesn't work in the field? the only argument you made in this whole thread was something vague about an operator being hit in the back of the head with his radio after jumping and the crypto dumping... and for some reason think that doing a load ez on a Falcon II would be eaiser even though the DTD is the tool being used to load a radio 117 or 522.

does the digital display somehow not work in the field, or the buttons or knobs? what exactly is the problem?



> You will note that no-one here is disputing your qualifications, only your opinions, and your "real world" experience. TCCCs is a deeply flawed system, your cheerleading notwithstanding. TCCCs works great in a heated, stable, well powered CP. It fails in inclement weather, when manpacked, and when used with the peripherals that are a fact of life in this army.
> 
> This is reality, from the people who use it on the ground for real operations



I felt that the previous poster was calling my quals into question. I have also been in three operations and one of them was a testing ground for our equipment linking with 40 other Nato nations.

You don't use TCCCS you use a very small part of it. Radio that works with TCCCS does not = TCCCS

I agree TCCCS has problems, but the radios are not TCCCS, the 117 is not part of TCCCS but you can use it with TCCCS just like the 138. 

I've used the 522 many times in downpour, winter, and extreme heat, just last year I did four recce patrols in two days in a hard downpour that didn't stop, the only problem we had was that one of the batteries broke and shorted out, it was one of the old black plastic screw ons, which is why we use the metal box with the duals. when the black batteries are out of the system that shouldn't be a problem.



> The Falcon II is the 117. It is not a "cute" radio or the flavour of the month, it is the necessary tool for the job we do. You might be able to get away with LOS comms, but I can't, nor can I stand on a mountain top waving an antennae until I get reception - or shot.



The 117 is a very nice radio, indeed we should indeed have lots of them, but we will never get enough to replace all the 522s so getting rid of the 522s, which will not get rid of TCCCS, is not a solution to TCCCS having problems.

The 117 Works in Afghanistan because it works with Satillight, if you program your radio to work on any frequency that the 522 operates on, you will have the same problems with the 117... because VHF is line of sight, you need satilight or a butt load of RRB to get reliable comms, if whoever had planned comms in afghanistan had done their homework they would have realized that the 522 would not work, you can't use VHF in that type of terrain, again operator error... or in this case error on the planner's side, however it shows that they are thinking in getting the 117 because it gives us more comms.

How many people in Canada are using 117s right now? not many I'd wager. And while Afghanistan is our only real big operation right now, will it be that way in the future? might we end up in a jungle or forest somewhere where sat comms don't work and you need VHF? sure the 117s can do that, but if we don't have many of them, wouldn't it be great to have a butt load of other radios to help out with that?



> I would submit that your "view" is somewhat skewed, given that your experience is based in a Signals regiment, not an operational unit; and not in our most recent theatre of operations, where TCCCs has been soundly denounced for what it is, and replaced with a system that works, all the time, off the shelf - the 117.



I think that it may be a bit, however I never said don't get the 117, I"m all for getting more 117s however I doubt we will ever get enough 117s to replace our suite of radios, that work well when used for what they were designed for, and going to FRS until then is a bad move.

I'm not familiar with the 117, does it's satillight time cost money like the sat phones? or is the satillight simply a repeater? Believe me I do want 117s in the system, I really do and I'd be tickled pink if we got enough to replace the 522s, but if there are not enough 522s their won't be enough 117s, and the two are compatible on the VHF spectrum, so why get rid of them, if combat arms want to use all 117s go for it, just so I don't have to listen about how they are crap cause you can't be bothered to learn how to use them within their capabilities and how to properly deploy assets to accomplish the goal within the given spectrum.

I just heard that the CF is now building RRB boxes... basicly everything you need to make an RRB in a box with directions on the lid, I hope every single unit gets 10 of them. that would be awsome, and would solve a lot of problems.

either way, using FRS is Verboten for legal and practical reasons.


----------



## Sig_Des (16 Aug 2006)

You'll not see the 117 replace the 522, at least not anytime soon at all.

There's also a problem integrating the 117 into the TCCCS suite of vehicles like the 138. I'm not sure what it is, I'll be speaking with our Harris rep when I get into the office tomorrow. I'm not sure if it's a RAU problem. I need to pull my 117 CDs out of my case and go over the manuals again.

It is a great radio, but don't expect it to replace TCCCS for the time being. More of an extra.

GO!!!, I do agree that the 117 seems much better suited for the infantry, and I would love to see you guys get dibs on them. But we don't have very many right now. I'll see if I can get dates, numbers, and distribution plans for you.

Hell, we're supposed to be the first-line support, and we only have a couple, which we keep under lock and key!


----------



## c_canuk (16 Aug 2006)

Sig_Des

I was wondering if the CF has to rent bandwidth on the satillights the 117 works with like the INMARSAT, or is it free to use. Just idle curiosity If I get on a TF soon, I'm sure I'll find out in due time.

thanks


----------



## George Wallace (16 Aug 2006)

Nothing is for Free.


----------



## GO!!! (16 Aug 2006)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> Explain to me what doesn't work in the field? the only argument you made in this whole thread was something vague about an operator being hit in the back of the head with his radio after jumping and the crypto dumping... and for some reason think that doing a load ez on a Falcon II would be eaiser even though the DTD is the tool being used to load a radio 117 or 522.


KYK 13s are a far simpler and faster method of loading crypto, and as such, the main method of loading (for us).  



> does the digital display somehow not work in the field, or the buttons or knobs? what exactly is the problem?


As explained earlier, errors that cannot be corrected in the field - by anyone, including QL5 rad ops, or techs, that appear and dissapear with no apparent rhyme or reason, the dumping of crypto, inability to broadcast on 30000 bandwidth with rechargeable batteries, the list goes on and we've already covered it.



> I felt that the previous poster was calling my quals into question. I have also been in three operations and one of them was a testing ground for our equipment linking with 40 other Nato nations.


So TCCCS worked well for *radops* in a *test environment*?? I think I've been saying that all along...



> You don't use TCCCS you use a very small part of it. Radio that works with TCCCS does not = TCCCS


Right. I guess the SAS, RRBs, CPs, HFs, and all their peripherals I use are also a "small part". I've got some news for you - if what I need to work does'nt, and nobody in my unit's sigs platoon can make it work, then it is garbage, period. We are the end user of this system.



> I've used the 522 many times in downpour, winter, and extreme heat, just last year I did four recce patrols in two days in a hard downpour that didn't stop, the only problem we had was that one of the batteries broke and shorted out, it was one of the old black plastic screw ons, which is why we use the metal box with the duals. when the black batteries are out of the system that shouldn't be a problem.


_Four_ recce patrols in _two_ days? You poor soul, how did you survive? 

I sat in a heated CP for two days once, guzzling coffee and cigarettes and watching TV - I guess I know your job too.  :



> The 117 Works in Afghanistan because it works with Satillight, if you program your radio to work on any frequency that the 522 operates on, you will have the same problems with the 117... because VHF is line of sight, you need satilight or a butt load of RRB to get reliable comms, if whoever had planned comms in afghanistan had done their homework they would have realized that the 522 would not work, you can't use VHF in that type of terrain, again operator error... or in this case error on the planner's side, however it shows that they are thinking in getting the 117 because it gives us more comms.


I see. Evidently you are unfamiliar with the tactical situation in Southern afghanistan right now, in which small groups of soldiers are regularly attacked with direct and indirect fire both while static and moving. Scattering small RRB dets around in the mountains is not an option, and it is ridiculous to even suggest it.

Now that you are smarter than whoever came up with the comms plan for Afghanistan, perhaps you can explain how VHF comms can be made to work in mountainous areas without RRBs. The RRB boxes explained below are just about the biggest potential breach of COMSEC I can imagine, and how you can advocate leaving RRB boxes anywhere while preaching about the insecurity of FRS is breathtakingly hypocritical.




> How many people in Canada are using 117s right now? not many I'd wager. And while Afghanistan is our only real big operation right now, will it be that way in the future? might we end up in a jungle or forest somewhere where sat comms don't work and you need VHF? sure the 117s can do that, but if we don't have many of them, wouldn't it be great to have a butt load of other radios to help out with that?


The 117 can do anything the 522 can, X3 - I've used it. 

I'd rather have 20 radios per unit that work than 500 that don't - call me crazy!



> ... and going to FRS until then is a bad move.


But leaving encrypted radios in unmanned RRB sites is not?



> I'm not familiar with the 117, does it's satillight time cost money like the sat phones? or is the satillight simply a repeater? Believe me I do want 117s in the system, I really do and I'd be tickled pink if we got enough to replace the 522s, but if there are not enough 522s their won't be enough 117s, and the two are compatible on the VHF spectrum, so why get rid of them, if combat arms want to use all 117s go for it, just so I don't have to listen about how they are crap cause you can't be bothered to learn how to use them within their capabilities and how to properly deploy assets to accomplish the goal within the given spectrum.


So what it really comes down to is that you think we are too stupid to use the kit as it was designed. I would challenge you to "man up", join the reg force and come to an operational unit, where you can see how this system is employed in the field. 

I've encountered other radops and techs with attitudes like yours, and they are invariably changed after seeing the performance of this system in a real unit.


----------



## buzgo (16 Aug 2006)

Well said GO!!! especially: 





> I would challenge you to "man up", join the reg force and come to an operational unit, where you can see how this system is employed in the field.



This thread is pure entertainment!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Aug 2006)

It's also been spinning it wheels for a few pages. You guys know the drill. Locked.


----------

