# TCCCS not compatible with US radios?!



## youravatar (26 Dec 2005)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Army needs to modernize to be able to link with the US digital network.




I was under the impression that our coms are all digital.


----------



## chrisf (26 Dec 2005)

Nope.

We've got some reasonably high-tech comms gear (All things considered), but there's plenty of better stuff out there now.

Harris makes some multi-band radios that I'm guessing would be a good purchase (Guessing because I've never used them, but I like the concept, make/buy some RAUs to integrate them into TCCCS, could replace the VHF, UHF, and HF radios as they need replacing. I rather like the menu based programming on the Harris radios we use now, much simpler then a 522)


----------



## buzgo (26 Dec 2005)

The reason that our system won't allow us to interoperate with the Americans, is because our system is closed. It was NEVER designed to be interoperable. The OPCAP 1, tacrad stuff works, but you can't take a CF vehicle and hook it up with the US systems. OPCAP 3 won't work at all. The cables aren't even standardized (FOCA). SAS doesn't interface with blueforce tracker, ATS (LFC2IS) won't connect with anyone else without  using the MIP systems which 'translate' from one messaging standard to another.

BTW, the last I heard (2004), the ATS system needed MIP to talk to other CF systems (AFCCIS, MCOIN)

TCCCS would have been cutting edge in 1991, not 1999.


----------



## chrisf (26 Dec 2005)

Oh... I misunderstood, I thought he was saying the radios won't talk... I didn't figure the Americans were using digital voice, but it wouldn't surprise me either.

And I certainly wouldn't call TCCCS cutting edge either, but in terms of military procurement, somthing that's only 15 years out of date isn't too bad  (*sigh*)


----------



## buzgo (26 Dec 2005)

We are getting new Harris multiband stuff as part of the latest purchase for Afghan, along with the new vehicles and UAVs.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1833#mmr



> Multi-mission radios and satellite communication on-the-move capability
> 
> The multi-band, multi-mission radio will be the communications backbone for the Army by allowing commanders to effectively share and disseminate information on the battlefield. The Army will be purchasing the Falcon II AN/PRC-117F(C) radio that is currently in use by other NATO Forces in Afghanistan.
> 
> ...


----------



## TCBF (26 Dec 2005)

I think if the public figured out that we wasted more money on TCCCS than on Gomery and Gun Control put together, there would be Hell to pay.  But, a "Command Post Mentality" overcomplicating the gear needed in an AFV or on a soldiers back has a lot to do with it, as does the long lead times and poorly written contracts.  I would not be suprised if we have spent 7 billion dollars to get 2 billion dollars worth of somewhat useable but rapidly obsolesing kit.

This will quietly blow over, as we IOR ourselves what we need and bin TCCCS over the next decade.

Tom


----------



## chrisf (26 Dec 2005)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> We are getting new Harris multiband stuff as part of the latest purchase for Afghan, along with the new vehicles and UAVs.
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1833#mmr



Lovely.


----------



## buzgo (26 Dec 2005)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I think if the public figured out that we wasted more money on TCCCS than on Gomery and Gun Control put together, there would be Hell to pay.  But, a "Command Post Mentality" overcomplicating the gear needed in an AFV or on a soldiers back has a lot to do with it, as does the long lead times and poorly written contracts.  I would not be suprised if we have spent 7 billion dollars to get 2 billion dollars worth of somewhat useable but rapidly obsolesing kit.
> 
> This will quietly blow over, as we IOR ourselves what we need and bin TCCCS over the next decade.
> 
> Tom



You're absolutely right, thats the most refreshing take I've heard since the TCCCS debacle started. I was told by the PROJECT MANAGER that it was a white elephant, back in 2001! Since fielding they have been cancelling, scaling back or replacing major portions of the system. On Op Apollo they had to borrow comms from the americans, they were using tactical sat stuff and at the time we didn't have the gear. How could we not have seen that coming?!?!

It seems now that with these new purchases, not just of comms gear but everything, there seems to be at least SOME thought going into things. Even if its 'buy what the Yanks are using' its better than no thought at all!


----------



## TCBF (27 Dec 2005)

I was on Op APPOLO in a Coyote.  Our tech did not have CFTOs on the comms gear he had to repair, and the second line guys did not have the gear to test it or the parts to fix it.  I think we have some of the best military mechs and techs on the planet, but without the tech repair manuals, test eqpt, and spare parts, they are starting with two hands tied behind their backs.

It does not help that our 17th century cavalry mentality is so used to the old reliable Yank stuff, that any failure in vehicle comms is viewed as a failure in crew commanding.  This is not helped by a lot of CP operators defending TCCCS becuase the Sigs have been tagged as being responsible for this fiasco.  

When it goes down on your vehicle, your failure is front page - but when the tech finds a cable or amp caused the problem, your redemption is on page G-57.

Tom


----------



## Armymedic (29 Dec 2005)

While I was in Afghanistan, my teams LUVW radios were secure with both US and Cdn cryto. I believe this shows some compatibility this the US SINGAR radios. 

As we drove thru Kabul, we could switch channels from Blackhorse (Camp Blackhorse), to War33 (Camp Pheniox) to 0 (Camp Julien).

So if our veh tac radios work, which part of the TCCCS is not compatable?


----------



## buzgo (29 Dec 2005)

The TACRAD stuff works (radios) its all the OTHER parts of the system. The radios are great. The networking stuff is not so great. You can't connect non-TCCCS/IRIS stuff to the system (data). Our SAS is not compatible with the US Blueforce Tracker system.  

IRIS is a 'system of systems' but unfortunately, the backbone connecting the 'systems' is crap. We would have been better off tacking everything onto an industry standard network that we could interconnect with other people through normal means - routers or telecom switches. We invested so much into this system that we actually hurt our capability to use other systems - anyone speaking out about TCCCS in 2 CMBG was pretty quickly shut down. Trust me!


----------



## Sf2 (29 Dec 2005)

what about these??

http://www2.racalcomm.com/details.asp?item_id=1


----------



## NL_engineer (29 Dec 2005)

The only real good thing about the TCCCS is the cripto. On my comms course the staff told us that the army had a new radio system in the works that is compadable to the US system.


----------



## GO!!! (29 Dec 2005)

I was under the impression that Canadian and US radios *WERE * compatible, they just frequency hopped at a different rate. This could be remedied by adjusting the hopping rate, but that required permission from Ottawa and a 6 month notice to do.

Comments?


----------



## buzgo (29 Dec 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that Canadian and US radios *WERE * compatible, they just frequency hopped at a different rate. This could be remedied by adjusting the hopping rate, but that required permission from Ottawa and a 6 month notice to do.
> 
> Comments?



I think that sounds pretty good. I know that we have a different hop algorithim than the Brits and the US. I guess they could change the programming in the radio and make it work. Anyway, as I said above, the tacrad stuff all works really well.


----------



## Canadian Sig (1 Jan 2006)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> The TACRAD stuff works (radios) its all the OTHER parts of the system. The radios are great. The networking stuff is not so great. You can't connect non-TCCCS/IRIS stuff to the system (data).


We have gotten pretty good at sending data via the 138's secure (hyperterminal or SAS data) lately and they are not part of the TCCCS system. Also as far anew kit goes; the wide are just binned the band 4 and the band 5 in favor of a past-line of sight system (satalite).


----------



## Journeyman (21 Feb 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I think if the public figured out that we wasted more money on TCCCS than on Gomery and Gun Control put together, there would be Hell to pay.



If the public was paying attention, they'd know it by now. I highlighted two opposing in-theatre opinions.

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

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - When Canadian soldiers venture into the dangerous foothills and mountains north of Kandahar, they must jury-rig a U.S. satellite radio to communicate with home base because their $1.4-billion Canadian system has about the same range as a walkie-talkie.

The troops say the Canadian TCCCS radios, short for Tactical Command & Control Communications System, or "Ticks," have been plagued by unreliability and range problems since the first of 2,200 Canadian soldiers began patrolling around Kandahar this month.

*"The TCCCS is a great radio as long as it's kept on a nice clean table in Canada and you're not moving," said a radio operator with the Canadian battle group, who did not want his name used. "Out here, they're f---ed."*
The radios' range is sometimes so limited vehicles in the same convoy cannot communicate with each other, he added.

Some patrols must venture nearly 100 kilometres away from the headquarters of Task Force Orion, the Canadian battlegroup based in Kandahar. To allow them to talk with headquarters, the military bought a rush order of 100 Falcon II satellite radios shortly before the troops began deploying to southern Afghanistan.
The Department of National Defence spent $9-million on the new Falcon satellite radios, built by Florida-based Harris Corp., which are used by all other NATO forces in Afghanistan. They have virtually unlimited range and can communicate while the vehicles are moving.

However, the troops have been forced to improvise their own mounts for the new radios' collapsible satellite dishes, using duct tape and cord to secure them to the roofs of their LAV III armoured troop carriers.
"Somebody didn't think this one through," said a senior non-commissioned officer with the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry battle group, watching his men try to tighten knots holding the small satellite dish to a dusty LAV.

"We need a way to mount them on the vehicles that doesn't look like it was dreamed up by Red Green."
The TCCCS project began in 1985 to replace the army's Vietnam-era field radios with modern digital equipment with built-in encoding devices.

It was finished in 2002 at a cost of $1.4-billion and, according to the army Web site, is "the most integrated digitized command and control system in the world." However, the soldiers who must use the radios often curse them for being complicated to operate and prone to break down, especially in the rough-and-tumble conditions of field operations.

*Major John Cullen, head of communications for the Canadian battle group, said he has not heard about reliability problems with the radios, which he defended as "an excellent radio system."*
"It's an urban myth among soldiers that the TCCCS is always breaking down," he said yesterday.
"The TCCCS radio is very reliable and I haven't had any flags raised at all about its serviceability here in [the Afghan] theatre."

But he acknowledged the army had bought U.S. radios because of the TCCCS's range limitations in the mountains and deep valleys being patrolled by Canadian battle group, but also because the satellite radios were what Canada's allies are using in southern Afghanistan. "We have [high-frequency] radios that would work here ... but the other countries in the coalition aren't using them, so it made more sense to use the [Falcon II satellite radios]."

Maj. Cullen said the TCCCS radio, built by General Dynamics of Canada, was designed when the army expected to be fighting a conventional war in Europe.
"The whole system was designed basically around the old Cold War environment, which basically means the European theatre of operations," he said.

The system includes short-range personal radios, medium- and long-range sets, all designed to be modular, with interchangeable parts, and to allow a whole network of radios to be encrypted to prevent the enemy from eavesdropping on classified conversations.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Feb 2006)

I am not a Physicist, nor a Radio Expert, but even I realize that although we have designed and developed a new 'Radio' system, there is no way in the world that we can change or modify the characteristics and behavior of 'Radio Waves'.  

We have been operating in the mountains of Afghanistan for how many years now?  Why is radio comms all of a sudden a problem?  Aren't the people in this BG aware of what a RRB can do?  

I have read the article and although it makes good news, it speaks more on the lack of knowledge of not only the author, and the people he has quoted.


----------



## MdB (21 Feb 2006)

The article seems to be contradictory to me. Are they or aren't they reliable. Is there such a deep schism between this major and his troops that they say one thing and its contrary?

I understand that waves won't crawl up the mountain, but still buying the Falcon II radios just before this deployment isn't really professional, to say the least... Now, not being able to communicate from vehicule to vehicule inside a patrol, isn't it just damn asking for troubles?

Weren't CF members supposed to do patrols in Kabul too? Is that less hilly up there? What's the difference? Is the chain of command so disconnected (haha!  ;D) that they aren't realizing what's going on on the ground? Hmm, maybe it was just that we have to wait 2-3 years (mandatory canadian lag??) to get from 'oh, there's a problem there' to 'oh, it's on the ground and working'.


----------



## GO!!! (21 Feb 2006)

So the jimmy major says, in the same breath, that TCCCS is great, and has no problems, and that we bought nine million dollars worth of replacements for it.

The good major is toe-ing the party line on the many, many, many, deficiencies of TCCCS, while admitting, to the brand, what we should have had all along.

George, the ranges and obstacles involved could potentially require 5-8 RRB sites, each with local security etc. This would quickly tap the BG manpower, simply to provide comms.

evidently, the sigs world still refuses to admit that their beloved TCCCS may be great for them, but not for us, the end user.


----------



## TCBF (21 Feb 2006)

Some Siggy explained to me that all of the decisions regarding the project were made in a room where the vast majority had very good technical degrees but had never worn CADPAT or humped a radio on a ruck in the winter at -40 on snowshoes (and yes, I have).

So, users be damned, and full speed ahead, and they all probably retired on a Friday and were hired by GD on a Monday.

At least - unlike 2002 in Kandahar - the units in Afganistan now should at least have CFTOs for their techs.

Now, if only the 522 would work dismounted in the rain.

The 521 is good if you tie one of your cam net ropes to it, then throw it over a branch in a tree.  When it comes down, you can untie it, then pull on the rope and raise your cam net.

Tom


----------



## buzgo (21 Feb 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> At least - unlike 2002 in Kandahar - the units in Afganistan now should at least have CFTOs for their techs.



At least they don't have to borrow the 117's this time out!


----------



## Carbon-14 (22 Feb 2006)

> The radios' range is sometimes so limited vehicles in the same convoy cannot communicate with each other, he added.



WTF? I find this hard to believe.  I know conditions are bad but I've never head of a 522 failing this badly.  Maybe someone wasn't checking their antenna connections.


----------



## buzgo (22 Feb 2006)

Some of the valleys they are travelling through may put one end of the convoy out of LOS with the other end...


----------



## Carbon-14 (22 Feb 2006)

Normal sized packet / separation and outages should only last a couple minutes at most.  Is it someone just inexperienced complaining?


----------



## Journeyman (22 Feb 2006)

Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> Maybe someone wasn't checking their antenna connections.





			
				Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> Is it someone just inexperienced complaining?



.....or someone "just inexperienced" with the Area of Operations pulling 'advice' of absolutely no value out of their butt? 
Or do you really believe that the entire TCCCS mess could be sorted out if only those dopey operators would check antenna connections?   <<-- We call this flame a rhetorical question; don't bother wasting anymore bandwidth with a response.



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> The 521 is good if you tie one of your cam net ropes to it, then throw it over a branch in a tree.  When it comes down, you can untie it, then pull on the rope and raise your cam net.



Now THAT'S a useful post  ;D  Too funny, Tom.


----------



## Carbon-14 (22 Feb 2006)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> .....or someone "just inexperienced" with the Area of Operations pulling 'advice' of absolutely no value out of their butt?
> Or do you really believe that the entire TCCCS mess could be sorted out if only those dopey operators would check antenna connections?


Note I'm defending the radios not the entire TCCCS mess


> <<-- We call this flame a rhetorical question; don't bother wasting anymore bandwidth with a response.


too late
If you don't want to waste bandwidth why not tell us what the problem with the radio is instead of a very valuable flame?

But I'll acknowledge that shouldn't have worded it the way I did.  What i should have said was "Is it someone who as an unrealistic expectation of the VHF part of the spectrum complaining?"


----------



## Journeyman (22 Feb 2006)

Well, after a VERY shallow search.....



			
				DaveK said:
			
		

> We need equipment that will enable us to be more network centric, interoperable with our allies (i.e. the US/UK)





			
				DaveK said:
			
		

> The tactical secure cell phone was the best thing that TCCCS ever had, yet we scrapped that and went ahead with a microwave replacement for LTACS that has yet to work on operations.





			
				Radop said:
			
		

> complicated system that we worked as designed in Afghanistan but the maintenance was far to high.





			
				DaveK said:
			
		

> The one principle of Signals that TCCCS is not: simple.





			
				Radop said:
			
		

> there are flaws in the system and a RAU to connect non-TCCCS radios into TCCCS and limiting those radios capabilities ie 138s LQA and AEL is just a waste of resources.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> We probably wouldn't need so many RRB's if they'd issue the amps to go with the TCCCS radios. As it is, without them, we have a 4 watt walkie talkie, with the comparable range. :





			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> the TCCCS system put a way too complicated radio into the hands of people who just need to be able to talk,





			
				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.





			
				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.





			
				Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> I find the whole system over-complicated and under-useful, despite having a fairly good grasp of it...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.





			
				Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> ...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.





			
				Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> 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).





			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> Yes 99% of it is for sig ops only, not for the man on the frontline.





			
				c_canuk said:
			
		

> The 521 removed the ability to program in channels by the operator, which of course was a mistake





			
				Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> 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





			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> Now, if only the 522 would work dismounted in the rain.



....and the pretty much the entire "FRS vs Mil Issue Radios" thread, as well as this one.

So, first off, saying "you meant just the radios, and not the system" is BS, because we're stuck using the entire package. It's like a tanker saying the Leopard 1 is still awesome...except the main gun should be 120mm. Well, it's not; and that minor issue could get you just as dead as a radio you cannot communicate with if you're in mountainous, urban, damp terrain...or if your Sig collapsed several kms back because the radio's too heavy to allow him to keep up with the rest of the platoon.  

If you honestly believe there are no problems with the TCCCS radios, then

a) you're trolling, in the hopes of building your posting numbers, or

b) you're hoping to someday be the Sigs Major, 'head of communications for a Canadian battle group, saying you've heard nothing about radio problems.' (Hmm, _A Bridge Too Far_ flashback...."the crystals worked fine in the desert Sir."

c) there is a third option, but because of etiquette and army.ca protocol, I _*won't*_ offer that you may simply be an idiot actually believe sun-tanning in the Golan Heights is no different than patrolling in Afghanistan. (I mean, so what if a convoy loses comms; "outages should only last a couple minutes at most." Doesn't take long to die, Jimmy.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Feb 2006)

Ahhh....and while writing the response above, your post gets edited.


----------



## DG-41 (22 Feb 2006)

> I know conditions are bad but I've never head of a 522 failing this badly.



A 522, no - not in my experience anyway. So far, I've found that a 522 with either good batteries or a proper vehicle tray (assuming either can be found) works as well or better than a 77 or 524 set. Maybe other people have had different experiences with them... but aside from the user interface stuff that I've driven into the ground by now, I'm happy with the 522 overall.

The 521 I have absolutely had this happen. A 5-car adm move out to the training area, using 521s in each car, with the troop lined up nose-to-tail (maybe an Iltis length between us) and I (in the third vehicle back) couldn't talk to the lead vehicle. Fresh batteries, proper antennae, and all that. They worked when we we stading right next to each other, but at any range longer than that - nada.

DG


----------



## Carbon-14 (22 Feb 2006)

Through most of the article they slam the "TCCCs Radio" - The 522.  So I just want to know if the radio is having serious problems or if that part of the article is just BS.  OR are they using 521s?!

Yeah TCCCs sucks.  I know.  But I want to know if the radios are failing.
I've been a member since Sept 05.  Why would i suddenly care about post counts?
Are you capable of posting without including an insult?  You don't know me, I don't know you.  Can we have some form of civility?


----------



## Carbon-14 (22 Feb 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> A 522, no - not in my experience anyway. So far, I've found that a 522 with either good batteries or a proper vehicle tray (assuming either can be found) works as well or better than a 77 or 524 set. Maybe other people have had different experiences with them... but aside from the user interface stuff that I've driven into the ground by now, I'm happy with the 522 overall.
> 
> The 521 I have absolutely had this happen. A 5-car adm move out to the training area, using 521s in each car, with the troop lined up nose-to-tail (maybe an Iltis length between us) and I (in the third vehicle back) couldn't talk to the lead vehicle. Fresh batteries, proper antennae, and all that. They worked when we we stading right next to each other, but at any range longer than that - nada.
> 
> DG


Thanks for the post RecceDG.  So my question is now are they running low on 522/513s that they're using 521s on Archer for inter-packet comms?


----------



## GO!!! (22 Feb 2006)

Carbon-14 said:
			
		

> Normal sized packet / separation and outages should only last a couple minutes at most.  Is it someone just inexperienced complaining?



And you want civility?

How would you know what patrol ranges/ veh seperations are? Have you ever even patrolled in A-stan?

I find it disturbing that the default answers from the sigs world for any TCCCS complaint seems to be;

1) You, the complainant, are too stupid to use the kit.

2) You, the complainant have not installed it properly.

3) You, the complainant, are not using th kit as designed.

Since we are trained to be the operators of said kit by signals units, the problem evidently lies in the training. Somehow we manage to get everything else right (pants on legs before boots, pointy end towards bad guy) but as soon as the radios don't work, it must be due to operator error or something dumb like not screwing the antennae all the way on. 

This, quite frankly, is BS.

We are working within the limitations of a deeply flawed system, and I find it amazing that we get as much out of it as we do. The sooner the sigs world recognises that this abomination of a comms system needs to be replaced, the better off we will be, egos and kingdoms be damned.


----------



## karl28 (22 Feb 2006)

Man oh man this is really sad .We cant even get decent radios for the troops over seas . i wish the government would stop getting involved with equipment purchases they should let the military buy what it needs damn where it came from and how it may look to the public. One of these days this type of thinking is really gonna hurt us  but this is just my two sense worth


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Feb 2006)

I don't understand why we standardize ammunition within NATO but not equally vital stuff like communications equipment....maybe we're scared we might have to have a third go at the Germans or something?

Seriously, why standardize some parts and not the others?


----------



## buzgo (22 Feb 2006)

karl28 said:
			
		

> Man oh man this is really sad .We cant even get decent radios for the troops over seas . i wish the government would stop getting involved with equipment purchases they should let the military buy what it needs damn where it came from and how it may look to the public. One of these days this type of thinking is really gonna hurt us  but this is just my two sense worth



Well, I don't think that good old... I guess Brian Mulroney at the time, sat down and said "Hey, I know, we need a new radio system, lets buy TCCCS!" The system was bought just like everything else the CF buys... a bunch of guys who haven't had any contact with operational realities, got together in Ottawa, in some windowless room, and came up with a 'system'. 

The same thing happened with CTS... where are the rucksacks? Why can't I carry more than 4 mags?

We are our own worst enemies...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Feb 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I don't understand why we standardize ammunition within NATO but not equally vital stuff like communications equipment....maybe we're scared we might have to have a third go at the Germans or something?
> 
> Seriously, why standardize some parts and not the others?



Communications systems are, largely, standardized within NATO in the same way they are standardized in the private sector in North America: through _interoperability_ standards – that’s why your Rogers cell phone works through both a TELUS and then a Bell landline system which, in turn, connect through the former AT&T networks to a Verizon cell phone in Texas.  There is no need for everyone to use British mortar bombs, American rifles or German radios – the key to NATO’s _standardization_ is _interoperability_ achieved through common standards.

There are a couple of wrinkles in the signals world: COMSEC, especially.  There is less standardization and interoperability there – limited to only a few (a half dozen when I served).  There was some secure interoperability throughout NATO’s Central Region when I was at AFCENT but, if I recall, it fell apart when we had to talk to 1st French Army - we had only a very few terminals on one narrow band system which suffered from awful _”Donald Ducking”_ which made voice recognition very difficult.  At the high level we had one system which only a few British and US officers and an equally small number of British, Canadian and US soldiers could use and operate – the German CinC was denied direct access to it.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Feb 2006)

Actually I know from personal experience that TCCCS and SINCGARS are compatable in almost every way, except for crypto. Actually I am not really sure what the thrust of the complaints are, any VHF radio set on the same channel should be able to talk to any other. The main reason TCCCS and legacy radios don't talk too well is the legacy radios "drift" through the frequency bands, but since the channel separation was fairly wide, legacy to leagacy wasn't an issue.

More advanced radios like JTRS might not be compatable with TCCCS since they use some fairly freaky (i.e. I don't understand this) physics to provide high bandwidth and high rates of data transfer, but I would expect even a device like that would have a default mode allowing it to talk to SINCGARS equipped units or other allied forces.


----------



## geo (22 Feb 2006)

When we plan to go into the field as part of a combined multi national force - it would make sense to have common (and / or compatible) kit.

What burns me is that, for training in Canada, they took away the 77 sets from all the units while replacing them with "waaaaay" fewer units.

I have seen troops going round with more "cobra" / motorola walkie talkies than anything else. Cell phones is another means that we've fallen back on - it doesn't make sense to this fella!

(ok - rant over)


----------



## buzgo (23 Feb 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Actually I know from personal experience that TCCCS and SINCGARS are compatable in almost every way, except for crypto. Actually I am not really sure what the thrust of the complaints are, any VHF radio set on the same channel should be able to talk to any other. The main reason TCCCS and legacy radios don't talk too well is the legacy radios "drift" through the frequency bands, but since the channel separation was fairly wide, legacy to leagacy wasn't an issue.
> 
> More advanced radios like JTRS might not be compatable with TCCCS since they use some fairly freaky (i.e. I don't understand this) physics to provide high bandwidth and high rates of data transfer, but I would expect even a device like that would have a default mode allowing it to talk to SINCGARS equipped units or other allied forces.



From what I've been told about JTRS, they could create a TCCCS 'waveform' and load it into the JTRS radio, thereby creating a TCCCS clone in software - fully compatible with hopping and everything.


----------



## Journeyman (23 Feb 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I don't understand why we standardize ammunition within NATO but not equally vital stuff like communications equipment....Seriously, why standardize some parts and not the others?



The two key issues are proprietary rights (patents and copyrights) of the companies producing the equipment....and ricebowls. The first is a reasonably simple money issue.

Ricebowls covers the need to protect and develop domestic industries and encourage research (which tends to create advances just as standardization catches up); every politician has local constituents they need to employ or otherwise feed money to. 

NATO and ABCA standardization actually does amazing work considering the assorted national stumbling blocks, but sometimes the ricebowl can be as petty as some Major-level staff officer protecting his portion of the cubicle farm as PER season approaches (painful example= Sigs guy not talking to IO guy, so that Sigs guy's "proposal" makes him look "forward thinking, embraces transformation, blah, blah" on PER. Unfortunately, the proposal was stand-alone and not particularly promising even within a Canadian-alone context, let alone interoperability...so how much time was wasted?).


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Feb 2006)

Add frequency hopsets and the frequency management _system_ to the list of things which makes standardizing signal systems a bit more complex than standardizing, say, aircraft towing hooks (although that was complex enough and is (was) vitally important when one considers what happens when damaged aircraft land on foreign, but allied, aerodromes).

We need to put the signaling _system_ into its proper context – it is part of a _command and control_ system which includes, _inter alia_: personnel (with the training implications), procedures, facilities (including computer _systems_) and communications.

Reminder: what is now TCCCS began, in the mid ‘70s as a project called ACCS 85.  Col, later LGen, Jim Fox (armoured corps) was its _patron_.  It was _managed_ by a mixed team of combat arms and signal officers – signal officers with plenty of recent (then) and useful (then - North German plain) field experience.  The acronym stood for *A*rmy *C*ommand and *C*ontrol *S*ystem 19*85* – the thinking, then, being that ten years was enough time to design, develop and field a system which would be based on proven, mostly off-shore, hardware.  The signaling systems called up in the combat development studies (Terry Liston (R22R) led the infantry study team) was, essentially, a _slice_ of the British _Ptarmigan_ system to serve brigade and divisional HQs (and to extend one or two ‘trunk’ links down to battalions and regiments) and a generic combat net radio system.  (Despite all the bells and whistles there have, I think, been few changes in combat net radio systems since the early ‘60s – maybe even before that.  Nets are still nets, ranges are still extended by RRBs, the nature is ‘one > all’ _broadcasting_, with complete nets being the exception, rather than the rule.)

Suffice it to say that when I retired, nearly 20 years after ACCS-85 was born, TCCCS was still not there.  By the mid ‘80s we had a _home made_ and decidedly _interim_ trunk (switched telephone/teletype) system to serve brigade and ‘task force’ HQ.  It was a _systematic_ copy of the British _Bruin_ system with which many Canadian senior officers were both familiar and comfortable.  Computers began to creep into the field about the time I left – they had been the _weakest link_, I think in ACCS-85, we (combat arms and signals people, alike) simply didn’t know enough and we relied, too heavily, on our UK and US allies who were headed off in different directions.  The gunners led the way with e.g. TACFIRE and BATES and we were amazed at the Brit’s embryonic WAVELL systems – but that’s all water under the bridge.

TCCCS finally got to contract for one, and only one reason: CDC agreed to build something in Calgary.  NDHQ (the signals guys, especially) had all kinds of strong views re: what should be built.  They even told the Minister of National Defence; I don’t know what he said to anyone.  I am 99% certain that all important decisions were taken by Dan Mazankowski, the Minister of Finance and, more important, the regional minister for Alberta; I am 95% certain that Mazankowski cared little and understood less about military technical requirements – he understood that CDC had the corporate where-with-all to set up shop in Calgary, build an _acceptable_ radio system and create jobs.  Given the national aim, regional development, TCCS is wildly successful – CDC sold out to General Dynamics (I think that’s right) and they in turn sold TCCCS II to the Brits.  (maybe things came full circle.)


----------



## DG-41 (23 Feb 2006)

> they in turn sold TCCCS II to the Brits.



What are the details on that system?

DG


----------



## buzgo (23 Feb 2006)

Do a google search on BOWMAN. They have software based radios, more advanced data terminals etc etc.


----------



## Weekendsig (14 Nov 2007)

The ANPRC 522 /ANVRC 513 (V1) and ANVRC 513 (V2) which all use the RT 5121 is an excellent radio. It is compatable with US, British, and any NATO which use the VINCENT (VINSON?) standard. Most of my experience with the 522 errors are mostly due to improper maintenance or programming by people who do not have a clue what they are doing. If properly programed with all the codes and such under the IRIS system the units forward of the Coy CP in the field should never have to do more than change the batteries. Im not sure if I should say much more on that on this forum but if the people stayed awake in the THEORY portion of their 103, ATCIS, QL3 etc courses (which I have taught) they would know what I am talking about. The TCCCS system when fully employed (not peice meal) is an excellent system.

The ANPRC 521 is (and hear it comes) a good radio. It is meant for inter-section communtications. When it first came out and they took our 77 sets, we were told by our offecuh that they were replacing the 77sets role as manpacks. The 521s full capabilites are not being employed due to the changes in the organization of TCCCS (where every one had a lap top on their back). 

If you must complain about the radios complain about the batteries that go with em. if you actually have to use them on operation get Lithium batteries. For both. The NICADs arent being properly maintained (its impossiable to maintain them as required by the maintenance manual.) Oh the harness should be swaped with the small packs. I had to carry two 522 manpacks on my back for 2 weeks in Fort Pickett (where I had secure comes with the US ARMY equipment) it was heavy but comfortable.


----------



## Weekendsig (14 Nov 2007)

Oh and another thing, it doesnt matter what  vhf radio you have and who makes it TERRAIN will play a huge factor when you cant get comms. Remember VHF is LOS. If your goiung to be static for a few hrs in afgan the sandy dry conditions do not reflect any radio waves well. (Think Wainright)  build a counterpoise around your antenna. Or build a directional antenna to blow your powerr in one direction, or pop up on your HF guard Net with the 138 lol wait they dont use that now. hmmmm


----------



## Matt_Fisher (14 Nov 2007)

Weekendsig said:
			
		

> The ANPRC 522 /ANVRC 513 (V1) and ANVRC 513 (V2) which all use the RT 5121 is an excellent radio. It is compatable with US, British, and any NATO which use the VINCENT (VINSON?) standard. Most of my experience with the 522 errors are mostly due to improper maintenance or programming by people who do not have a clue what they are doing. If properly programed with all the codes and such under the IRIS system the units forward of the Coy CP in the field should never have to do more than change the batteries. Im not sure if I should say much more on that on this forum but if the people stayed awake in the THEORY portion of their 103, ATCIS, QL3 etc courses (which I have taught) they would know what I am talking about. The TCCCS system when fully employed (not peice meal) is an excellent system.
> 
> The ANPRC 521 is (and hear it comes) a good radio. It is meant for inter-section communtications. When it first came out and they took our 77 sets, we were told by our offecuh that they were replacing the 77sets role as manpacks. The 521s full capabilites are not being employed due to the changes in the organization of TCCCS (where every one had a lap top on their back).
> 
> If you must complain about the radios complain about the batteries that go with em. if you actually have to use them on operation get Lithium batteries. For both. The NICADs arent being properly maintained (its impossiable to maintain them as required by the maintenance manual.) Oh the harness should be swaped with the small packs. I had to carry two 522 manpacks on my back for 2 weeks in Fort Pickett (where I had secure comes with the US ARMY equipment) it was heavy but comfortable.



Even as though Jordan is no longer with us, his comments ring true today as they did when he first posted this...



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> I find it disturbing that the default answers from the sigs world for any TCCCS complaint seems to be;
> 
> 1) You, the complainant, are too stupid to use the kit.
> 
> ...


----------



## geo (14 Nov 2007)

Ayup...

The moment people depart from the acronym "KISS" all hell breaks loose.
The time it took for the deployment of TCCS was another problem.  They give the course while the equipment still hasn't been distributed.  By the time the hardware got out to the troops, everyone had forgotten the hands on & theory they had been given.

It's like a car, using the equipment has to be intuitive - without need to refer to the instruction manual for typical operations.  If you need the instruction manual to get basic operations out of the darned thing, it's too complicated for general use..... IMHO!


----------



## Weekendsig (14 Nov 2007)

This is respone to the followers of  GO!!!. So, lets look at it like this. C7, the basic service rifle has basic IA's and stoppages just like every other weapon. Just because I know those drills does not mean I can shoot something at 300 m. Unless you practice these drills and the principles of marksmanship, your an ineffective rifleman. You say the radio is to complicated. I say sit down and try the learn the damn thing. I dont remember junk from my conversion crse. But i got fed up being a lousy shot ,so to speak, and people bsing me about the gremlins in the system and how it sucks. So what did I do I broke out my OPERARTOR CARD and played with it.
And literally all you have to do is turn it on and press 4 digits and your on that freq. 
You say the 522 is to complicated and the older stuff was better. The older stuff, was broken, repaired 100 times and put back into service with rebuilt parts. It could not go secure with out another peice of kit that was more complicated and a cable that broke easily if twisted the wrong way. So when you went on Op in the 60's and 70's you lugged around a peice of crypto along with your radio or your were transmitting in the clear. 
You had to learn 3 different radios before and how to encrypt them, what crypto went with each, learn that crypto. And the variants of each of those radios.Yeah real easy.  The only difference now is how much power your putting out.   All you remember is the 77 set and having to talk to range control. Try organizing 2 or more combat nets each with fixed call signs all transmitting in the clear and same freq  and the Infanty are using 1, the Armored are using 1 and the guys they have on the radio slept through the lecture on Arm Indicators (ACP 125). 
Im tired of people whining about it when the just sit back on the course and joke the entire time. I have taught Army Navy and Airforce, the 522 both reg and reserve. You not going to learn it if you take the lecture time to sleep.
Accept the fact that the radio is here its not going anywhere for a long time. Suck it up and learn it. Unlike the C7 you can drop this in a pond get it cover in mud, and smack it off a rock and it will still work.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (14 Nov 2007)

You do realize your there to support us right, so if easier radio's to operate for us means more work for you then perhaps its you that should suck it up.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Nov 2007)

Weekendsig said:
			
		

> This is respone to the followers of  GO!!!. So, lets look at it like this. C7, the basic service rifle has basic IA's and stoppages just like every other weapon. Just because I know those drills does not mean I can shoot something at 300 m. Unless you practice these drills and the principles of marksmanship, your an ineffective rifleman. You say the radio is to complicated. I say sit down and try the learn the damn thing. I dont remember junk from my conversion crse. But i got fed up being a lousy shot ,so to speak, and people bsing me about the gremlins in the system and how it sucks. So what did I do I broke out my OPERARTOR CARD and played with it.
> And literally all you have to do is turn it on and press 4 digits and your on that freq.
> You say the 522 is to complicated and the older stuff was better. The older stuff, was broken, repaired 100 times and put back into service with rebuilt parts. It could not go secure with out another peice of kit that was more complicated and a cable that broke easily if twisted the wrong way. So when you went on Op in the 60's and 70's you lugged around a peice of crypto along with your radio or your were transmitting in the clear.
> You had to learn 3 different radios before and how to encrypt them, what crypto went with each, learn that crypto. And the variants of each of those radios.Yeah real easy.  The only difference now is how much power your putting out.   All you remember is the 77 set and having to talk to range control. Try organizing 2 or more combat nets each with fixed call signs all transmitting in the clear and same freq  and the Infanty are using 1, the Armored are using 1 and the guys they have on the radio slept through the lecture on Arm Indicators (ACP 125).
> ...



I've been watching your posts and ever increasing condascending attitude. You've been quite busy in the few days you've been here. Experience is one thing, but if I was a univesity student from Newfoundland, I might tend to tread somewhat more carefully around here.


----------



## Canadian Sig (14 Nov 2007)

Weekendsig,

I have to disagree with some of your points. I dont think the 522 system is in anyway user friendly espescialy when in a vehicle LAN and combined with SAS, Athena or a RAU and that poses a problem for soldiers that are requiered to use it on a daily basis and who are counting on it as their life-line. It can be finacky, it doesn't like extreme heat and it can rarely be fixed by techs and generaly gets a BLR card when it screws up. 

The 521 is a horendous waste of time and energy. My PRR works farther and better than this "good radio" as you call it.

The small pack does not a radio carrier make. When I dismount (and I dismount a lot) I have a 522, a PRR, a C8, A pistol, 300 rds of 5.56 (gotta carry extra for "the boss") 4 batteries, water and spare First Aid supplies. That pack does'nt cut it.

There are still multiple radios for these guys to learn. Minimally they need the 522, 521, 117, and PRR. To that list you can add the 148 MBITER and the Iridium with sleeve (we still have 138s in 2 Bde btw). The easier it is, the better.

I take great pride in being a Sig and in being the bosses GIB. I know that when my guys hit the PTT someone will hear them and if that fails then I have failed. Your apparent attitude sounds a lot like the same one that has helped to perpetuate the "fricken Jimmies" attitude that I face and fight on a regular basis. 

Just my .02 and if I'm out of line mods, I apologise.


----------



## Franko (14 Nov 2007)

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> Weekendsig,
> 
> I take great pride in being a Sig and in being the bosses GIB. I know that when my guys hit the PTT someone will hear them and if that fails then I have failed. Your apparent attitude sounds a lot like the same one that has helped to perpetuate the "fricken Jimmies" attitude that I face and fight on a regular basis.
> 
> Just my .02 and if I'm out of line mods, I apologise.



Nope, you're good here.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Weekendsig (14 Nov 2007)

Your, right I was rude and Im sorry. It wasnt my intention to be condenscending. I was frtustrtated at reading Go!!!'s comments. However the 522 in it basic manpack form is not complicated. SAS, Athene systems are not the ANPRC 522, ANVRC 513 V1 or V2. My arguement was specific to that peice of kit.  I have limited experience with SAS and cannot comment on it. I stand by my statement that the 522 is not a hard radio to learn if given time to practice the basic programming. It is in the end IA's and stoppages so to speak after all. 

To  Canadian Sig, you are right when you say there are complications with the Iris system within the LAN, LDN, WAN etc. There are bugs and I do not expect some one with an ATCIS crse to operate and man a fully bombed up CP. This is no fault of the radio, itself, for me my problems are always in the NAU. Most of the problems for me early on were remedied when we got the proper 5 K TKG in our unit instead of running of a 2k AC mil spec genny.  Power is a big thing with that system i find running off off the truck power causes more problems than its worth. But there are still bugs that sometimes a hard reboot will only fix.  Again, the people I support will always have comms and 

To recce Guy, 
What does my education have to do with anything? You obviously know who I am. I dont know who you are but i would appreicate it if you didnt further identfiy me. I do know that the army provides the courses and therefore the opportunity for its soldiers to learn the equipment. Again, my comments were in respone to GO!!!'s thread. 

Again, I do apologize for sounding condesending. Just getting flash backs to JNCO when I asked whats a carl g and the looks I got from the Crse sgt.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Nov 2007)

Weekendsig said:
			
		

> To recce Guy,
> What does my education have to do with anything? You obviously know who I am. I dont know who you are but i would appreicate it if you didnt further identfiy me. I do know that the army provides the courses and therefore the opportunity for its soldiers to learn the equipment. Again, my comments were in respone to GO!!!'s thread.



Simply, that most of the comments here come from guys with operational experience, not just something they picked up on course, or at a school. It matters not, how well it works in a classroom or controlled enviroment, or when you've got time to fiddle fuck with it. When the rubber hits the road, and it fucks up, it's no better than a boat anchor. I used the education thing as a polite way of telling you to quit looking down your nose at the people that have BTDT and have to use your cherished equipment. However, you've apologised, so I'll let it drop with one final word. Go read, or re-read the guidelines, before you post further. It'll save you some heartache down the line.


----------



## TCBF (15 Nov 2007)

Apart from the fact that we are rumoured to have spent seven billion dollars on the TCCCS project and only have two billion dollars worth of rapidly aging dodgy kit to show for it, I have no real problem with it.  The fact that our unification-bred CF Comm Command alledgedly stacked the TCCCS committee with every colour of uniform but Green might have something to do with that.  

I do know that the old man-pack radios worked in the rain and the 522s don't always.  And that you can give the IUCE a nervous breakdown by pushing the buttons on your CI to fast. And that we went to KAF in 2002 with TCCCS and our Techs still had not been issued any Sevicing or Diagnostic manuals for the kit, nor did they have the level of test kits they had for the old stuff.  

But hey, I'm sure all the relevant decision makers are now happily super-annuated and working for Harris, or Collins, or whatever.

Funny how that works.


----------



## LordOsborne (18 Nov 2007)

My personal feeling on the TCCCS system is that it's unreliable and far from user-friendly. Obviously my experience with it it limited, but even on simple reserve weekend exercises, where distances are well within the 'paper performance range' of the radio system, comms failures are a constant headache. I recall for Cougar Salvo 05, when we all lined up for the Coy radio check, and we all went round to verify we were on the same channels. 

"channel 1, guys."  ... "ok, they're all good."  "channel 2?"  "F___ck, hold on, i can't hear you three"  - that was a pretty common part of the game. Heck, just this weekend, i sat down for a TCCCS refresher for IBTS. The sigs Sgt giving the lecture said the system was flawed, and deserved some criticism, but that it was, overall, a decent setup. In that same class, even with instructor supervision, we had issues getting the 522s and 521s to talk to one another. I remember looking at the handout and seeing the page-long table of error codes and thinking "Something that can have this many known things go wrong with it has some issues!" 

my 0.02


----------



## willy (18 Nov 2007)

I am that Sigs Sgt.  And I said that the system was _ok._  We could probably do better, but TCCCS is what we have now.  I also said that problems were often, not always, related to operator training or other factors within the user's control, which was the case in that classroom.  The problem we had in there, if you recall, is that the radio headsets provided as trg aides by your unit are nearly all N/S.  If more operators were trained to troubleshoot your kit properly, identify those faults, and take initiative to report them so that they would get corrected, you'd have less problems.  Those headsets were broken the last time I ran training for you guys too, by the way, and I reported it to your guys then.  I would recommend that action be taken this time.

The system isn't the best.  But you're going to have broken headsets with any system, and if you guys don't do your maintenance then problems are going to be the result.  

And on a personal note, I'm willing to go over there and help if that's what's required.


----------



## LordOsborne (18 Nov 2007)

Sorry for the misquote! :blotto: 

I understand where you're coming from. I really do wish i was able to troubleshoot the system properly. When I'm talking with it, and one minute people can hear me, and the next they can't, I usually tend to get frustrated immediately. Usually it ends up being the aforementioned headsets, but at the same time it might be low battery power or something else. All that we can do is shrug our shoulders and say "well, it's N/S." We turn the radios in at the end of the day, tell the CQ that it's got an N/S headset, and he sends it away somewhere. I think though, that in the end we get the same headsets returned to us. Later on, they fail again and the cycle repeats itself.  Granted, i've gone through days on end in the CP where the 522 operates flawlessly. 

I agree with what you said in the classroom that the radios and their EIS needs to be periodically replaced at the end of their service life. I know of more than a few mangled whip antennaes that are still in service, along with other items of kit. 


At some point, i want to take a comms course (if there's one for officers, that is. I don't know if one is available for the infantry variety) because i like knowing how my kit works, and also how to work my kit properly. I think it might be a good idea to try to arrange a big comms training night sometime after Xmas and just get everyone basically familiar with the TCCCS system, with a big focus on diagnostics and troubleshooting.


----------



## Weekendsig (19 Nov 2007)

TCCCS is a subsystem of IRIS. IRIS is compatabile with NATO communications systems. The ANPRC 522 when loaded with all its crypto (not freq hop) can work secure with American manpack equivalent in secure voice. American Singcars (spelling?) is a communication standard for the US ARMY. It is compatiable with NATO communications systems. When IRIS and SINGCARS are setup independently, (striclty independent of each other) they can do more like freq hop, call home, make a cup of coffee  etc. However, when you mix the two you loose alot of your bells and whistles in order to be more cohesive as a NATO force. (Unless you have a strategic link up between the two. This would be way above a COY level) 

IRIS is the fully digital system and does as whats advertised. To a point. When you load the 522 your putting out a digital signal because all your putting out is data. A bunch of 1's and 0's are being imprinted on the wave thus giving you a digital wave ( as I understand it. I could be wrong). When your transmit in the clear your imprinting your voice on the wave. Thats why when you listen very carfully you can make out what someone is saying when the signal is weak (squech off). Therefore you get a regule sine wave.But with the digital signal you wont be able to make out the msg because the radio needs all the data in order to decrypt the message. Data, however, is just 1's and 0's and is able to get through interferance because of its nature. Regards to the comms course or officers there is the ATICS course taught in Edmonton and Gagetown. Its an all ranks course for combat and combat support trades. They usually run 4 throughout the year.
But with op tempo I dont know whats on the go with it now.


----------



## willy (19 Nov 2007)

Weekendsig said:
			
		

> TCCCS is a subsystem of IRIS.



You got it backwards, actually.



			
				PatrickO said:
			
		

> At some point, i want to take a comms course (if there's one for officers, that is. I don't know if one is available for the infantry variety) because i like knowing how my kit works, and also how to work my kit properly. I think it might be a good idea to try to arrange a big comms training night sometime after Xmas and just get everyone basically familiar with the TCCCS system, with a big focus on diagnostics and troubleshooting.



PM sent.


----------



## Weekendsig (19 Nov 2007)

Your right my bad. I got so used to calling it all TCCCS. The 522, 521, CPIC, VIC and its ancillarys are all IRIS. I had to look it up to be sure in my handy dandy IRIS over manual.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Nov 2007)

In anti-jam modes, I thought TCCCS wasn't compatible with anything else, even UK's Bowman, also made by Racal.  SINCGARS, JTRS and NATO's SATURN are all systems that TCCCS can't communicate with in anti-jam (freq agile) mode, correct?

G2G


----------



## Weekendsig (19 Nov 2007)

Yes your right. When the TCCCS system is fully employed (as of 2003-4 OPCAT3), secured and independent of any other system (American British etc) it cannot talk with any other NATO system. It is a strictly canadian system. The obvious draw back is the lack of compatability with NATO countries. However the way the system is designed allows us to secure a net all the way down to the section level, where the commander in the field with the benefits of SAS, C2IS, IRIS has a real time view fo whats going on. According to Cold War doctrine Canada would stand up a full Army Gp (again not sure about that number) and direct it military from a JOC like NORAD where each nation would have its own means of linking their Nations communications systems together. 

When TCCCS was contracted out, as my understanding is and I have no referenance material to back this up, we were still training to a Cold War doctrine.We CAN talk to other NATO countries on Secure nets. As in a British section, can directly talk to a canadian section in secure using each nations manpack equivlents.   You are just not as secure and you loose some capabilities which I dont think I can mention on this forum.


----------

