TCCCS not compatible with US radios?!

[youravatar]

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]

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]

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]

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certainly wouldn't call TCCCS cutting edge either, but in terms of military procurement, somthing that's only 15 years out of date isn't too bad (*sigh*)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

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.

Produced by Harris Corporation, the Falcon II radio covers a full range of band frequency and uses advanced software-defined radio technology. The radio provides embedded communications security, satellite communications and electronic counter-countermeasure capabilities. As this radio is in use by all NATO Forces in theatre it is required for interoperability with our allies.

The satellite communications on-the-move capability is provided by a foldable antenna system for the radio that allows patrols to maintain communications. The Army will purchase the antenna system from TRIVEC-AVANT, the original equipment manufacturer and the only company producing a system that allows for satellite communications while on the move.

Estimated project value up to : $9 million
Quantity required : 100 radios and 100 on-the-move antennas.
Procurement : In order to meet interoperability requirements with other NATO allies in Afghanistan, contracts will be sole-sourced to Harris Corporation for the radios and TRIVEC-AVANT for the antennas.
Delivery : Delivery is expected by February 2006.

 

[TCBF]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

what about these??

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

 

[NL_engineer]

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!!!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!!]

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.