TCCCS not compatible with US radios?!

[TCBF]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Carbon-14]

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

 

[Journeyman]

Maybe someone wasn't checking their antenna connections.

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.

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]

.....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]

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

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

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. 

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

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

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. 

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. :

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

TCCCS could be made far, far easier to deal with if the user interface were reconfigured from an end-user-task point of view.

TCCCS does not require half of the features that it has, a quality walkie talkie with encryption and a keypad would do the trick.

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.

...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.

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).

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

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

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

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]

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

 

[DG-41]

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]

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]

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!!!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.