Author Topic: Who is usually the Radio Operator?  (Read 25761 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rmc_wannabe

  • CADPAT Computer Nerd
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 453
  • NTLDR is missing, PRESS Ctrl+Alt+Del to restart
Re: Who is usually the Radio Operator?
« Reply #25 on: December 28, 2009, 12:09:40 »
It will be interesting to see how this pans out once the SR2 project comes full swing. Where things become more IP based and there's more integration with networks.

As it stands, I know in the HQ region we need to know things like sub-netting and the basics of network topology in order to make the bigger stuff work(TSL, HCLOS, TACNET). I wonder how it will fit into this long standing argument.

Just some food for thought from a Bde HQ Sig.
"One of the most feared expressions in modern times is 'The computer is down.'"
 -Norman Ralph Augustine

Offline Jammer

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 14,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: Who is usually the Radio Operator?
« Reply #26 on: December 28, 2009, 12:18:42 »
Bulletmagnet
We breathed the same dust on 3-06 then.
I was the ECM Sect Comd with 23 Fd Sqn.
It really depends on the BG and what the OC of the Coy wants.
In M and N Coys on 3-08 they were comfortable having the 215s with them on the ground.
What could possibly go wrong?

Offline WB

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,273
Re: Who is usually the Radio Operator?
« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2009, 13:00:33 »
First off, I can't emphasize enough the respect I have for Sigops.

I'm privileged to have worked for and learned comms from a group of extremely switched on guys from the 1RCR sigs platoon from 2004-2009.  Jammer, I know you'll agree with me when I say that anyone who's been under the tutelage of guys like Randy J, Jay M, Joe A (The Lebanese Newfie), Steph P, and Josh B would have a hard time NOT being good with comms.  Under their guidance, I've held comms positions both in Canada and overseas: section, platoon, and OC's sig, CP operator, and culminating in a stint as Coy Sigs Rep.  When I say that I'm not just some dumb 031 who forgot to put it in HIDS, it's only because of the experience (and extreme patience) of the guys I mentioned above.

There's my background, and I stand by my opinions.  With some exceptions aside, it's better for the sub-unit signallers to be soldiers of that trade trained in comms.  While Sigops are expected to maintain a VERY wide range of comms skills across a variety of equipment types, those skills typically used at the sub-unit level are VERY specialized.  Because comms equipment at the coy level and below is such a narrow skillset, it's more practical to train an infantry guys to carry the radio then it is to train Sigops to be Infanteers.

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,370
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Who is usually the Radio Operator?
« Reply #28 on: December 28, 2009, 21:13:04 »
Jammer, 

Please quote me on where I was incorrect or where I stated how sig ops should employed.  Otherwise all your doing is ramblimg. 

As far as staying in my lanes go, I am well within my lanes as I have many years of experience in many jobs with many different types of communications.

The topic is who is usually the radio operator not how sigs should be employed.

My past posts in this topic have had nothing but praise for actual sigs.  My points are accurate and are taken directly from my experience in numerous positions and tours.

As far as a concept of things, as an experienced Sig you should know what value the Arty brings to the table and the diversity of our equipment.  RMC raises a good one about networking coming in the near future.  I will likely be right in the middle of that.  Hey, maybe you can come teach me.




Offline Jammer

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 14,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: Who is usually the Radio Operator?
« Reply #29 on: December 28, 2009, 21:52:02 »
As you might know as well my posts have acknowledged that Arty Sigs have to take a separate course taught by gunners before they are turned loose.
This thread had devolved by others in regard to HOW sigs should be employed, in particular those who have no experience in the trade at all.
Networking on the battlefield has been around for us for some time now. Catch up you're behind a bit.
I not exactly a new guy at this Sig stuff either...oh yeah, it what I do.
What could possibly go wrong?

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,370
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Who is usually the Radio Operator?
« Reply #30 on: December 28, 2009, 23:13:44 »
Quote
This thread had devolved by others in regard to HOW sigs should be employed, in particular those who have no experience in the trade at all.

Once again, please quote me on where I stated anything like this.

Quote
Networking on the battlefield has been around for us for some time now. Catch up you're behind a bit.

What are you speaking of.  Mirc? or maybe SAS. LOL.  We have barely chipped off the tip of the iceberg for networking potential.

Quote
I not exactly a new guy at this Sig stuff either...oh yeah, it what I do.

I never said you were but somehow you seem to know enough about me to be able to slander my name.

Quote
Neither one of you have any idea where/how SigOps are employed or what we do in Cbt Arms units, or anything else for that matter. You are both talking out of your a## about something you have no concept of

You have mentor attached to your name.  Maybe you should better understand the definition of mentor and try some tact.


Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC - 5320.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 270,192
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,432
    • Army.ca
Re: Who is usually the Radio Operator?
« Reply #31 on: December 28, 2009, 23:39:41 »
Everyone better reel in their necks. Good info is getting lost amongst the pissing contests. If people are claiming to be super SMEs they oughtta start acting like it. It'd be a shame to have to lock this because some can't play nice in the same sandbox with the rest.

Milnet.ca Staff
Diversity includes adverse opinions, or it is not diversity.
Inclusive includes adverse opinions, or is not inclusive.

Offline rmc_wannabe

  • CADPAT Computer Nerd
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 453
  • NTLDR is missing, PRESS Ctrl+Alt+Del to restart
Re: Who is usually the Radio Operator?
« Reply #32 on: December 29, 2009, 01:53:30 »
Let me clarify,

I  know that we have and use networking on the battlefield for Bde and higher level comms. Thats a given. Things like FDNet and TACNET have been around or in concept since before I started grade school.

What I was getting at was the introduction of IP based (or at least capable) comms within the combat arms Pl/Tp allowing more information in real time to be streamed live over a WAN rather than in bits and pieces through a freq net.
 
I was merely throwing out the point that as technology changes, and things get more complex, how does this affect the answer to the question originally posed? is a rad op merely a rad op? Can you honestly and completely transfer concepts that require a month of course for a Sig to an Infanteer in 2 weeks (thats not a shot at your capability, I don't think anyone could fully grasp that sort of stuff in that short of time)?

Opinions and positive responses welcome.
"One of the most feared expressions in modern times is 'The computer is down.'"
 -Norman Ralph Augustine

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,370
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Who is usually the Radio Operator?
« Reply #33 on: December 29, 2009, 02:15:29 »
I personally am for as much real time info as possible. 

Some would disagree.  If you read the Section Cmdr PDA http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=90008.15 you would see that some see it as a negative opportunity for higher to micromanage.

Blue SA is a high priority for me and I will support any real time IP based network.

As far as training and employment goes.  I think with todays tech savvy troops, a basic course shouldn't be too tough but, a solid core of Sigs with comprehensive knowledge need to be at the BG level.

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,370
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Who is usually the Radio Operator?
« Reply #34 on: December 29, 2009, 02:34:28 »
Further,

Some see this capablility as a burden on a Section/Squad/Det etc. but, the way I see it is we must go below Plt if we want it to be effective. 

A Plt is easy to track with old methods i.e. a radio and a greasy fat tipped marker.  The fidelity that near real time networking can provide is something that we are lacking.

 

Offline Jammer

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 14,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,023
Re: Who is usually the Radio Operator?
« Reply #35 on: December 29, 2009, 07:13:04 »
If you are familiar with Blue Force Tracker I think you would agree that it as close to being able to provide Blue/Red/Brown/yellow SA all the way down to det/veh level.
I have used it on several occasions and agree wholeheartedly that it far and away ourstrips SAS in every respect, but we don't own it and that shortcomings are noted by the folks in the Ivory Towers.
The challenge we face now in order to permit the user (you guys) is to develop a system that falls into the following criteria:

Can it process voice/data information on a VHF freq in real time without bandwidth loss? Not at this time. We tried in several years ago in a unit here in Kingston. By introducing a secure feature to piggyback on the system eats up additional B/W.

Can we do this in a multi-national environment? Not as I see it with many VHF freqs being used multiple times by multiple users.

Why not TACSAT? Why not indeed? Can we do it on the move with no loss of signal at critcal times? No, given the nature/capabilities of the equipment being used at the tactical level right now.

this is a signifgant bone of contention for us at the Operator level to get through to the people at the higher levels who are pushing stuff like SAS down our throats. If we as operators can't make it work at BG/BDE level, how in heavans name can we make it work for the Foxhound in the back of a LAV?

There are systems that are being used that I will not discuss here.
What could possibly go wrong?

Offline birdgunnnersrule

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 66
Re: Who is usually the Radio Operator?
« Reply #36 on: December 29, 2009, 16:43:54 »
There is some really good discussion here. Like previously stated, the location of a Sig Op is usually dependent on unit resources, SOPs, and availability.

For the individuals talking blue PA/digital networks, the Air Defence is ahead of most of the Army in terms of the capability.  Unfortunately, the trade is close to dead, but there are a lot of good lessons learned that are around that could assist the folks in the back of LAV as the guys in the back of the ADATS have/are learning them. Without getting into specifics, digitization is a great thing if folks understand network design, equipment capabilities, and bandwidth limitations.