FRS vs Mil Issue Radios

[Carbon-14]

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]

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.

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.

Sure, there are a couple of settings that can screw up voice, but it's not that hard to remember those few settings (Really, the RX Only setting and the potentially different Tx/Rx freqs are the only options I can think of. There is no "digital voice" setting, though there is a data setting, though voice will still function just fine. Squelch settings won't affect anything unless you've got a poor signal). The point is, it's not hard to program. I've found one of the biggest problems with the light HF radios is that people either don't take the time to learn, or just aren't properly taught, how they work.

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!"   

Unless you switched more then a few years ago, the SOPs existed. There were NCCIS light SOPS written up at the national symposium a few years ago, and the theory is that everyone is using them, I say theory, because it doesn't happen in practice, and we won't go into my rant about that (It's lengthy and involves a lot of motions that make me look like a monkey).

If you *did* recieve the SOPS written up at said national symposium (A lovely big document containing about two dozen annexes), do NOT fine tune the settings, they work as written, as that has been a major problem, people changing small settings at each station. Voice should work just fine, but small settings off will affect data in a big way.

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

 

[Carbon-14]

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]

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]

:

 

[chrisf]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!!!]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

© National Post 2006

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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