View Full Version : Modern SF Commo
Folks, I understand that the "XMTR in a cigar box" and the RS-1 are no longer standard equipment. Y'all pick my feeble mind for info but I would also like to learn something about the present day digital commo in use today.
Thirty years I said that in the future SF would carry hand-held radios which communicated via sattelite and could communicate directly to the SFOB and higher. Apparently those days are upon us. How about some of you current 18Es contributing??
ghuinness
08-06-2004, 18:40
Please excuse my intrusion to this forum.
I can't comment about the devices currently in use, but I can speculate about where I think they are going. I think 4G technology will be used extensively within 18 months.
The devices/networks will support the convergence of 3G and 4G technologies.
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/
http://www.80216news.com/
Just my .02
Originally posted by ghuinness
Please excuse my intrusion to this forum.
I can't comment about the devices currently in use, but I can speculate about where I think they are going. I think 4G technology will be used extensively within 18 months.
The devices/networks will support the convergence of 3G and 4G technologies.
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/
http://www.80216news.com/
Just my .02
Can you dumb this down for me? How could I use this technology in operational areas such as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Sahel region of Africa or in potential countries that are hostile and denied areas?
Kyobanim
08-07-2004, 06:37
Originally posted by Para
Can you dumb this down for me? How could I use this technology in operational areas such as Afghanistan, Iraq, the Sahel region of Africa or in potential countries that are hostile and denied areas?
Until the infrastructure is in place you can't. Even after the infrastructure is in place you'd have to consider the technology suspect/unreliable in an operational area, that is, if it survives any air strikes involved. But take it one step further and put satellites in the mix for data transmission, which has been used on the civilian side already with limited success/reliability, and it's a whole new ballgame, and this is probably a good place for me to stop.
A note about OPSEC here: So far everything stated is available from multiple public sources.
CommoGeek
08-07-2004, 06:42
With satellites it isn't a bad idea, but you'll always have PACE to bear in mind.
As for today's stuff? I don't know what I could say about the HF side. Open source info is a bit vague (or was a few months ago when I looked for it) and rightfully so. Satellite has changed some in the last decade, but the differences are in software and capabilities, not hardware. By that I mean the size/ weight has decreased little; the capabilites are night and day however.
I'm sure there's better stuff out there, but the best piece of gear I made commo with was a VDC-400, www.viasat.com. I liked the ability to send any file, anywhere over any secure means at my disposal.
Kyobanim
08-07-2004, 06:55
We need a good science fiction writer here.
Originally posted by CommoGeek
I'm sure there's better stuff out there, but the best piece of gear I made commo with was a VDC-400, www.viasat.com. I liked the ability to send any file, anywhere over any secure means at my disposal.
That's about the extent of my limited experiences, too. You should have seen the face of the Commo NCO at the Base Station when he realized the capabilities of what I was asking when I asked for dedicated ftp server space to upload files that could be useful without breaching OPSEC during Sage. He had never thought of it and I gather it had never been asked for.
Originally posted by Kyobanim
We need a good science fiction writer here.
Some of the things presently used were Sci Fi in my day.:D
ghuinness
08-07-2004, 10:24
Originally posted by Kyobanim
But take it one step further and put satellites in the mix for data transmission, which has been used on the civilian side already with limited success/reliability, and it's a whole new ballgame, and this is probably a good place for me to stop.
A note about OPSEC here: So far everything stated is available from multiple public sources.
True. ;)
I wouldn't call it limited success. Works damn well :D
Just to add: Smart Antennas are also coming of age:
link (http://www.wirelessdesignonline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid={fd438c4c-19b4-4cd4-82e3-4f996fe1ce5c})
CommoGeek
08-07-2004, 14:57
Originally posted by Para
That's about the extent of my limited experiences, too. You should have seen the face of the Commo NCO at the Base Station when he realized the capabilities of what I was asking when I asked for dedicated ftp server space to upload files that could be useful without breaching OPSEC during Sage. He had never thought of it and I gather it had never been asked for.
Two quick notes:
1) 7th Grp has a "Battlestar Galactica" C4I set up for their FOB. This was 5 or so years ago so I'd think it is standard to an extent: multiple widescreens and projection screens with all of the necessary data for an OPCEN to do their jobs. Neat stuff....
2) At JRTC in 98 I used two AOL accounts to traffic from the FOB to an ODB for two days (Damn you, OC's!:) ). Our SOCA was broke so I improvised. I recived a 1 for initiative and a 5 for judgement, but it caused everyone to rethink our PACE and equipment. We were better prepared the next time as a result.
BMT (RIP)
08-07-2004, 15:50
http://www.rfcomm.harris.com/products/tactical-radio-communications/
This link will cover the AN/PRC-117F.
BMT
BMT (RIP)
08-07-2004, 15:54
http://www2.racalcomm.com/details.asp?item_id=1
This link is for the AN/PRC-148.
BMT
Thanks BMT and Y'all. Noe I'm starting to get some current info.
BTW: Anyone know where I get an AN/GRC-26D or GRC-41 cheap? I figure I can install the set in my backyard and hook up to commercial power. Then add A/C a cot and my pooter. Then I'll have someplace to go when I'm en la casa del pero!:D
LongWire
01-20-2006, 14:08
http://www.rfcomm.harris.com/products/tactical-radio-communications/
This link will cover the AN/PRC-117F.
BMT
Most Teams are using the AN/PSC 5D
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:uKps3YAzR5AJ:www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_052968.pdf+an+psc+5d&hl=en
Some teams have the 117 but those are special...................
Personally I will take the 117 any day and twice on sunday!!!!!!!!!!!
VelociMorte
01-20-2006, 14:38
Some teams have the 117 but those are special...................
Just out of curiosity, why don't all the teams have them? Do all the teams want them, or are they more comfortable with what they have?
Just out of curiosity, why don't all the teams have them? Do all the teams want them, or are they more comfortable with what they have?
I would guess that's an OPSEC matter. Who, what, when and where are "need to know" questions when it comes to special equipment.
LongWire
01-20-2006, 14:48
Just out of curiosity, why don't all the teams have them? Do all the teams want them, or are they more comfortable with what they have?
Yeah most team guys dont even know the system........if they did Im sure they would want it!!!!!!
Dont know the official reason, I speculate that it is a Money issue, as well as a contract issue with all the compatability issues for hardware and software too.
Politics........................
Most Teams are using the AN/PSC 5D
Some teams have the 117 but those are special...................
Personally I will take the 117 any day and twice on sunday!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll take the 117 (Whatever) Sunday, Monday 24/7.. The PSC 5 are heaters made to look like a paper weight!!. They over heat to much, USASOC so have spent the money for 117s like they did for the special people. :mad:
Hell back in 2000/01 I found a 10th Mountian Paltoons having more PRC-148s in Kosovo than Teams did at the team. Where is the priority with DA G8 and fielding of equipment. Remember there was no 911 then.:confused:
Being of the same era as Terry but maybe a little bit more up to date on the Ham side. I think todays comms are the cat's meow.
Year's ago in Burma had a packet network with full encryption running right over the heads of the bad guys. 125 km 100% link with hand helds at both ends.
Commercial sat phone and Pactor III HF links make world wide commo a snap these days. If the rules were a little more wide open the ham community could have all the nice HF FHSS stuff too. Right night it is available for commercial UHF rigs that we use for SCADA comms.
Myself I would love to be able use the available technologies along with the DOD budget!
I would just have only one worry - when all else fails and I have to rely on emergency UHF gear who is going to answer my cry for help? I would be worried if I got patch through to some AF "Air Assets Manager" who would inform me that he doesn't have any slots left on his daily target planning worksheet to accomodate my requests......
My other worst fear is having a real reliable link that is being used 100% by the theater commander telling me to "break contact continue mission" all the while consulting his one over the universerve map to give me the new coordinates to move to.
Don't know if any of you current guys can relate to any of this..
helicom6
12-19-2006, 13:57
Harris has made great efforts to take HF communications and SATCOM to more stable and user friendly platforms. The PSC 5 will quickly become legacy equipment if the big Army would see the deficiencies and lack of updated software. The 117 provides a greater combined package for all applications and faster data rates. Echos need to plea with their Group Leadership and make the arguement for the new equipment available today.
If any of you Echos would like more information on the 117, 150, 152 please PM me and I will provide pertinent information.
Roger Out.
The reason units in SF Command have PSC-5s is because it won the MBMMR program about 10 years ago. Everyone groused then as well. I had just switched to teh AF at that point and we only had a few PSC-5s (everything else was 117s) because CCT had just come out of a consolidation of all CCT under AFSOC and the PSC-5s were legacy from units that had belonged to ACC and AMC.
This is what is out there for satcom now;
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=118
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/com/milstar2.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/milstar3.htm
The capabilities of todays communications satellites are phenomenal and stagger the imagination. New protocols for faster and more reliable transmissions are developed every 5 years or so. However, satellites are also extremely vulnerable to external forces and evironmental phenomena among other things. Their use as a primary means of communications has become (in my opinion) to dependant. The volume of traffic is tremendous (there's not alot of bandwith out there). To much communication can be just as detrimental as not enough (micro-mangement is one thing that comes to mind). In other words satcom on the battlefield can easily become the weak link.
Before I retired there was an experimental obital system that allowed to upload/download messages on the bird every 12 hours or so... but that would't help you if you needed air support NOW... There was a pretty good HF system out there as I recall and probably shouldn't elaborate.
smitty
sfbaby1982
02-17-2007, 15:35
I think that the issue here is the army's material acquisition system. The "Boat Anchor" has been outpaced by new advanced equipment and the fact that we do not have it is beyond me. But however as much purchasing of civilian equipment as we get away with the 5 has worked just fine over and over again for me. I just need to get my hands on a 117 to do some real tests not just see it in some CP running in an air conditioned room. Looks like for now we are just going to be told anecdotal stories about how our forefathers got away using nothing so we can make do with the 5. So be it.
R
I'm working on the next generation of man-pack portable software defined radios that will bounce UHF up to a satellite and give you a wide range of capabilities that you never thought of. Smaller and lighter than a AN/PRC-117. We call those 'legacy' radios because of their limitations. Hang in there, guys, the good stuff is coming.
I remember the old AN/GRC-109, so don't gripe about your commo!
Jack Moroney (RIP)
02-18-2007, 06:13
[QUOTE=I remember the old AN/GRC-109, so don't gripe about your commo![/QUOTE]
Yeah, but that is when we had a lieutenant on the team to function as the generator cranker:D
Yeah, but that is when we had a lieutenant on the team to function as the generator cranker:D
:lifter = Who had a Lt? We took the youngest, strongest guy and made him the cranker. Since I started out in the 05B course before finding out I had a 'ham fist' and couldn't send more than 13 gpm, they made me the cranker. Their claim was that as a 11B3S, I could provide cover for the commo guy. Like after cranking that damn thing while he's loading the antenna, establishing contact, Tx outgoing and Rx incoming, I was lucky if I could wiggle my little finger, let alone pick up my M-16 and shoot at someone!:o
The Reaper
02-18-2007, 08:43
I'm working on the next generation of man-pack portable software defined radios that will bounce UHF up to a satellite and give you a wide range of capabilities that you never thought of. Smaller and lighter than a AN/PRC-117. We call those 'legacy' radios because of their limitations. Hang in there, guys, the good stuff is coming.
I remember the old AN/GRC-109, so don't gripe about your commo!
We had PRC-70s and 74s when I got to my first team.
What is the BOIP for this new radio and when will it be fielded to SF?
What other USASOC units will get it first?
SF has recently been pretty low on the priority list for new gear, and SF only projects tend to be fielded at less than full density, if at all.
TR
deanwells
02-18-2007, 09:36
I'm definitely interested in info on your new idea. I've seen a 117 in action in hot, muggy and salt water mist conditions. Worked like a champ for comms to the birds we were calling in, but I have yet to see it do sat stuff. :confused: I still want one to enhance my capabilities. Besides I want something to play with...button mashing here I go.:lifter
LongWire
02-18-2007, 23:29
The 117 working sat goes like a champ as well....to include data push using Harris Software........Better than that Crash Heavy Viasat Crap!!!!!!!!
Guys:
Here's a link to Wikipedia that has a non-opsec description of the program I'm working on. Think of it as a spread spectrum cell phone on super steroids - high speed data, secure, VoIP and a heck of a lot smaller than a 117. It's a Navy program, but I've seen a lot of Army-types in providing inputs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_User_Objective_System
GaSFecho
02-21-2007, 02:06
My team uses PSC-5s extensively. Air Force and all other units we work with (including the regular army) use the 117 and ask why we don't have it. It does seem to be a superior system. That said, the PSC-5D using the cable that connects from the data port on the PSC 5 to Serial Port on the Computer seems to work a lot better than using the ViaSat card in the computer. In my experience the data cable that connected to the VDC 400 card is not robust enough and breaks easily, and the cards themselves can fry if too much data is being pushed. The embedded VDC emulator in the PSC-5Ds is better.
The MBITR being used for SAT is ok in a bind, but it pushes less power than the PSC-5. Still we have used it and it is nice to have that on the PACE plan.
Here is a public link to the PSC-5D
http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_052968.pdf
Ret10Echo
02-21-2007, 16:35
Hipshot,
Concept of the constellation looks interesting. Question what the prioritization of bandwidth once the system is established. There are some civil sector systems along the same lines. Where the guy on the ground takes it is in quality of service when you are operating in a high-use environment. If I am not on the A list, then I take it in the shorts on QoS...
The MBITR being used for SAT is ok in a bind, but it pushes less power than the PSC-5. Still we have used it and it is nice to have that on the PACE plan.
I have seen a lot of guys complain about this being unreliable. The thing you have to remember about the MBITR as SATCOM is that you need 10W to hit the bird. The MBITR pushes 5W, therefore in most cases you will need to attach 1 atinuator, 2 depending upon atmospherics.
Not to brag, but I had our Jr. Bravo hit a bird with an Mbiter and expedient antenna, but the conditions were perfect. Not to mention that I built the antenna, and the bird was a 45 degree bird. The major issue (s) with the 148 on a sat net is that the radio wasn't made to do sat. The Modulation is not precise enough and it has a tendency to bleed over to other channels, and when using it for data, it (the RT) gets REALLY hot. But it will work in a pinch, and is always figured as part of the PACE. I can't wait to get my hands on the 152 though.......
Just my .02, have a good 'un
Ret10Echo
02-28-2007, 06:55
From the March edition of National Defense Magazine.
I understand the desire at the command level for information. Especially considering the perishable nature of information from the field. But when we start talking about bandwidth purchases from commercial Sat vendors (you got money GI?) I find myself concerned about dependance upon a market-driven sector.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2007/March/CommunicationsIm.htm
LongWire
02-28-2007, 08:15
My team uses PSC-5s extensively. Air Force and all other units we work with (including the regular army) use the 117 and ask why we don't have it. It does seem to be a superior system. That said, the PSC-5D using the cable that connects from the data port on the PSC 5 to Serial Port on the Computer seems to work a lot better than using the ViaSat card in the computer. In my experience the data cable that connected to the VDC 400 card is not robust enough and breaks easily, and the cards themselves can fry if too much data is being pushed. The embedded VDC emulator in the PSC-5Ds is better.
The MBITR being used for SAT is ok in a bind, but it pushes less power than the PSC-5. Still we have used it and it is nice to have that on the PACE plan.
Here is a public link to the PSC-5D
http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/groups/public/documents/content/cms01_052968.pdf
Dude, you need to check Your SA!!!!!!!!
You should have seen the face of the Commo NCO at the Base Station when he realized the capabilities of what I was asking when I asked for dedicated ftp server space to upload files that could be useful without breaching OPSEC during Sage. He had never thought of it and I gather it had never been asked for.
Consequently, that is in place now for those at Sage. I used it, and it worked well. Thanks for the hook-up!
steelcobra
09-08-2008, 12:44
Commo shop perspective of radios:
PSC-5D: Easy to set up, does SATCOM perfectly, and as for data, well, Viasat sucks, but it works...mostly.
PRC-117: PAIN IN THE ASS to program without a computer, UI makes no sense whatsoever, does nothing as well as the PSC-5. Very easy to break remote cable plug on the radio requiring contract repair. Only redeeming value is the High-Performance Wave data mode.
PRC-150: Same as 117, but replace HPW with HF ALE.
PRC-148: Bread and butter radio. UI makes hand-jamming...doable. Can do 20W satcom with the amp mount.
SINCGARS/ASIP: Still the best radio for FH comms. And despite the "improvements" I still prefer to use the old, C/D model 1523s over the new one's keypad-primary operation.