FRS vs Mil Issue Radios

[Sig_Des]

Bert brings up a great point as far as FRS vs Mil Rads and nets.

As pointed out, a Combat Net is an organised communications system, including a net control station, operated by trained personnel. It can be directed, or open, allowing to avoid mass confusion on the network. There are procedures and protocol in place to protect the integrity of comms.

Using the Combat Net Radios (Mil Issue Rads) also allows for accountability and avoids confusion..We log messages on the Net. That way, if something needs to be looked up (IE: what was the Grid for that Supply Request? Where is that patrol? when are we supposed to pick up that patrol? Who asked for whatever) we have it in our Logs.

If some people are using FRS, and others Mil, things will get missed (orders, timings, etc). In addition to this, if OPFOR (in exercise) or EW (ISTAR deployed during Stalwart Guardian 05, for ex), is monitoring civilian freqs of FRS, it compromises everyones security.

(on SG 05, for example, the OPFOR knew our sentry challenges and responses, apparently having got it off FRS)

now, as far as using FRS instead of Mil issue on exercise, do we have the means? sometimes. Do we have the training? No.

I can tell you that 33 Bde has purchased repeaters and Base stations for a Motorola net, and always asks us to set them up for them on training support in Petawawa. But Communications orders always state that if a Motorola net is to be used, it's supposed to be contracted to a civilian company. Can I set up a repeater/base station? I can hash it out and figure it out, sure, but I haven't really been trained on it.

(This has resulted in my ass hanging 30 feet off the ground, holding on to a tree trunk no wider than my forearm, trying to strap this really awkward piece of kit that I'm not even sure is going to work up on Clement hill in Pet)

Don't get me wrong, I think the 521s are a POS. But TCCCS is a good system when you know how to make it work. Does FRS have a place in military training, I think so, but it should be sanctioned, and integrated in CEOI's, so that there is accountability.

also, some people are always fond of saying "Train as you would fight". Would you make unauthorized use of FRS in an operational setting is you knew it was going to be a security or OPSEC (there's that dirty word again) liability?

 

[c_canuk]

Allan Luomala, GO!!!

if you want info on what the capabilities of EW is, and where they have operated, I sugest you talk to them directly, your charm and wit will no doubt inspire them to demonstrate their capabilities to you, probably without warning on some exersize.

With good batteries, the 521 and 522 work great, as long as you use them what they are for and do regular maint on them, and replace batteries. The reason the 77 sets were considered more reliable is we never used rechargables in them, it was a fresh disposable everytime. There is a reconditioning setting on the battery rechargers, use that more often, and replace the batteries that flash amber.

the rechargeable batteries loose power sitting on a shelf, it does you no good to recharge them then let them sit on a shelf for 3 months then try to use them, keep a regular rotation of batteries going through the recharger on recondition constantly. If you have Lithium batteries, use them, don't let them sit on a shelf for 10 years, cause they won't work.

 

[DG-41]

Using the Combat Net Radios (Mil Issue Rads) also allows for accountability and avoids confusion..We log messages on the Net. That way, if something needs to be looked up (IE: what was the Grid for that Supply Request? Where is that patrol? when are we supposed to pick up that patrol? Who asked for whatever) we have it in our Logs.

I think you may be missing why it is we wind up using the FRS.

My first choice for a comms solution is a military radio. Absolutely. Without question. But in the last 6 months at least, having working military comms has been somewhat elusive. We lack vehicle mounts for the 522s, so we are tied to batteries. There aren't enough spare batteries and chargers (and a goodly proportion of the spare batteries don't last anywhere near as long as advertised) so the amount of operational military radios drops off as the working batteries are consumed. And the 521s don't work for shit even with fully charged batteries.

But it is absolutely essential that we have comms. It's just not acceptable for callsigns to drop off the net. So the SOP chain is 522, then FRS, then cellphone. If the 522s stayed up, we'd never use the FRS.

It would be a big help if there were vehicle-powered 522 battery chargers in every callsign (one that wasn't the size of a haybox). It would also be a big help if there were a 522 vehicle tray in every callsign - although, one hopes that the new GWagons will all be properly equipped with 522 trays.

Strictly speaking, every one of my callsigns should have TWO 522s in it (one in the vehicle tray, one equipped as a manpack for the observer) and where we have 522 shortfalls, we make it up with FRS.

The points about FRS being insecure are well taken, but if the choice is between insecure comms and no comms at all, I'll take insecure - I can work around the insecurity by minimizing the amount of transmissions and using veiled speech, just like the old days - but I cannot work around "no comms at all"

If you want to see the incidence of FRS use reduced, the solution is to provide working military comms.

DG

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not to mention that when we did have the veh installations, we were not provided with the amps. Ergo, we had about a 3 watt veh mounted walkie talkie. Good for shit. Brigade recce vehicles need two veh mounts (Bg and Tp net) and a manpack, with the veh mounts being able to rx/tx for more than 10 kms. Less is unacceptable.

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

Not to mention that when we did have the veh installations, we were not provided with the amps. Ergo, we had about a 3 watt veh mounted walkie talkie. Good for crap. Brigade recce vehicles need two veh mounts (Bg and Tp net) and a manpack, with the veh mounts being able to rx/tx for more than 10 kms. Less is unacceptable.

Sorry, but you're not correct.  If you stick a PRC 522 into a vehicle mounting tray (no amp) then it becomes a VRC 513 V (1), which is a 20 W transmitter, and should have a range of 20+ Km.  The amplified version is a VRC 513 V (2) which is a 50W set capable of 40+ Km on a good day.  If your vehicle installation can't transmit more than 10 Km, then one of three things is happening:

1.  You're limited by terrain;
2.  The set is N/S; or
3.  You don't know how to use your equipment.

I think you may be missing why it is we wind up using the FRS.

My first choice for a comms solution is a military radio. Absolutely. Without question. But in the last 6 months at least, having working military comms has been somewhat elusive. We lack vehicle mounts for the 522s, so we are tied to batteries. There aren't enough spare batteries and chargers (and a goodly proportion of the spare batteries don't last anywhere near as long as advertised) so the amount of operational military radios drops off as the working batteries are consumed. And the 521s don't work for crap even with fully charged batteries.

But it is absolutely essential that we have comms. It's just not acceptable for callsigns to drop off the net. So the SOP chain is 522, then FRS, then cellphone. If the 522s stayed up, we'd never use the FRS.

If the choice is between insecure comms and no comms at all, I'll take insecure - I can work around the insecurity by minimizing the amount of transmissions and using veiled speech, just like the old days - but I cannot work around "no comms at all"

This indicates that you may be missing half the reason why I'm telling you not to use FRS radios.  The point regarding COMSEC has been discussed to death here, and everyone understands it.   COMSEC is only half of the reasoning the jimmies are using here though. Very few of the posts in this thread seem to reflect an understanding of the EMSEC issue, which is different.  Maybe you can't work around no comms at all, but what I can't work around is "wrong circuit/improper transmission".

If you re-read my initial post in this thread, you'll see that I complained of the EMSEC issue specifically, and then offered a possible solution (use of motorolas on military VHF freqs).  That solution does nothing to address problems of COMSEC: you're still going to be transmitting in non-secure mode.  What it does do is allow the chain of command to have control over who can transmit and on what frequencies.  We have to stay in our own lanes, and on our own frequencies.  Individual troops in the field can't just act as their own frequency managers.  By doing so, they ruin any chance of having an effective deception plan for use against enemy EW, and they also run the risk of interfering with legitimate users of frequencies that aren't owned by DND.

Regular cell phones are completely acceptable for use by military users, provided that they are only used to discuss matters that are UNCLAS (which they regularly aren't, but that's back to the COMSEC issue).  By making a cell phone call, you're using a medium that has been approved for DND use.  DND can issue cell phones to selected individuals, and can therefore control who does or doesn't have a transmitter.  Lastly, you aren't going to unreasonably interfere with any other agencies or individuals.  No offence, but I can tell that your SOP for primary, secondary, and tertiary means wasn't written by a qualified CCO.  I'd suggest that you go out and get some of the motorolas that I've talked about several times now, and that you use those as your secondary means.  Failing that, bump cell phones up to secondary.  FRS isn't appropriate, and isn't even required, as there are other, appropriate systems that are readily available to anyone who wants them.

 

[PiperDown]

It never ceases to amaze me when people who cant (or choose not to, might be the better answer) get their heads around our comms equipt. can be seen later that evening with fingers flying on the latest game boy, IPOD, x-box or dungeons and dragons game...
I call it laziness. The equipment works... figure out how to use it and soldier on.



Cheers,

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It never ceases to amaze me when people who cant (or choose not to, might be the better answer) get their heads around our comms equipt. can be seen later that evening with fingers flying on the latest game boy, IPOD, x-box or dungeons and dragons game...
I call it laziness. The equipment works... figure out how to use it and soldier on.



Cheers,

..and this is directed at who??? I suggest unless your going to add something credible to the conversation, you go on radio silence and MYOB.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Sorry, but you're not correct.  If you stick a PRC 522 into a vehicle mounting tray (no amp) then it becomes a VRC 513 V (1), which is a 20 W transmitter, and should have a range of 20+ Km.  The amplified version is a VRC 513 V (2) which is a 50W set capable of 40+ Km on a good day.  If your vehicle installation can't transmit more than 10 Km, then one of three things is happening:

1.  You're limited by terrain;
2.  The set is N/S; or
3.  You don't know how to use your equipment.

I'll stand corrected on the wattage. It doesn't address the situation. My callsigns regularly run 30-40 km ahead of the Bg CP. They're the ones looking for my info. My CP is running maybe 3 k behind me. He's still out of range. Even down here in billiard flat southern Ontario, you'll never shoot 20+ line of sight with what we are given. The terrain will always be a factor, so don't even try to give ideal distance. My c/s doesn't have a 30' ground plane attached. Our equipment is always N/S because we can't get it repaired in under 9 months. The first military radio I used was a C42, sighting and working around radio problems and interference hasn't changed, I know how to use my equipment.

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

Recceguy, I don't understand the point you're trying to make, so I'd ask that you clarify something for me before I reply properly.  My understanding of the ranges you're talking about is as follows-your sub C/S are 27-37 Km forward of you, and you're about 3 Km forward of the BG CP.  You want your sub C/S to be able to talk to you, and you want to be able to talk to the BG CP.  Is this correct?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Recce callsigns regularly run 30-60 k ahead of the Bg, and their CP. The Recce CP is a bound or two back of the recce c/s, a couple of kms. Without being issued amps, your IDEAL 20 km range is not sufficient for us. Neither is one radio, neither is a manpack. And unless I can see the other antennae 20 k away with my high powered binocs, neither is your argument about ideal range.

 

[DG-41]

I'd suggest that you go out and get some of the motorolas that I've talked about several times now, and that you use those as your secondary means.

Right. And while I'm at it, I'll get that troop of Coyotes I was promised in '96, and I may even take a few seconds to let some monkeys fly out of my butt.

If I HAD Motorolas, I'd use them. If they were available to me, I'd use them. Telling me to use what is not available to me is not a solution.

Regular cell phones are completely acceptable for use by military users,

Except that:

1) Cell phone calls are point-to-point.

2) Each cell call results in a per-usage fee charged (one way or another) to the soldier involved in the call. Depending on where we are, there are roaming and long-distance charges to be considered as well.

You didn't mean MILITARY ISSUE cell phones did you? See comments above regarding Motorolas, availability of.

Very few of the posts in this thread seem to reflect an understanding of the EMSEC issue

Sorry, but my safety issues trump your EMSEC issues, especially in cases (like exercises) where EMSEC concerns are minor issues, but safety is very real. I have a story about this that drives this point home, I cannot relate it on these means.

It never ceases to amaze me when people who cant (or choose not to, might be the better answer) get their heads around our comms equipt.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I came out of an 8-year retirement fairly recently. The only major thing that changed in that time was the comms equipment. While the horrible user interface on the TCCCS stuff did not make my life any easier, I was able to do a lot of self-study and bring myself up to speed on the equipment, such that the only task I haven't figured out yet is how to make the PLUGR talk to the CI (there's a wire that connects them, but that section of the home study package was still incomplete on the version I found) I was also able to get my personal callsign properly set up, such that *I* now have access to a vehicle tray ("a" set, not "A" set) and a CI, and I know how to properly set them up and use them. Used and verified in the field - the 522 + tray "a" set worked every bit as well as I'd expect a 524 set to work.

All done on my own initiative and my own time, thank you very much.

This, of course, does not change the fact that out of 8 callsigns, I have ONE properly equipped. Three more have 522+batteries (thus limited to "med" power and by the erratic lifespan and short supply of batteries) and the other 4 callsigns have 521s, whose only workable function is fuel for smoke signals. Given my book entitlement to 8Xveh trays and 4 X manpacks (minimum - should be 8 X manpack really) that means I have 33% of my minimum comms entitlement - and that number is misleadingly large, as I wind up using manpacks for tasks that they are not intended to do.

The problem is not capability - the stuff, when I have it, (521 excepted) works fine. The problem is not operator incompetence or unfamiliarity - we have enough people trained on the stuff to use it, and there are home study packages available that can bring the untrained up to speed. The problem is AVAILIBILITY.

If you don't fill my requirements with issue kit, I will look elsewhere to solve the problem - and I'm not going to apologise for it either.

You want me to stop using FRS? Give me my missing 7 X veh trays and at least one more (and ideally 4 more) manpacks with serviceable batteries, and I'll happily put the FRS away. Until then, my need for comms trumps your EMSEC and COMSEC concerns.

Recce callsigns regularly run 30-60 k ahead of the Bg, and their CP.

While this is entirely true, (and so is a strong argument for recce callsigns to have "A" sets) the types of exercises we have been doing lately have been limited to smaller AORs and have been served by lesser ranges. If the CP has "A" sets and a sputnik mast antenna (which we have had, for the most part) and the individual callsigns have "a" sets, that has proven entirely workable. The last big ex we did, I had an "a", the CP had an "A + mast", and I never lost contact with the CP, despite a 20+km distance between us (helped, no doubt, by the fact that our AOR had no contour lines in it)

In a perfect world, yes, I'd want my veh trays to be "A" sets, but I think I can live with "a" sets if the CP has an "A + mast". I reserve the right to change this opinion based on operational experience if I ever get enough "a" sets to try out.

DG

 

[DG-41]

Question for the Jimmies here - what TCCCS installation is standard on:

1) Leopard

2) Coyote

3) LAV III

Do any/all of these come with the "A" trays (tray + amp) ?

DG

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

Recceguy:

Fine, you should be issued with amps, as well as with vixam masts.  Hell, for the ranges that you're talking about, why not even get some 138 manpacks- they'll let you go even further forward and not lose comms.  As I said already, I'd pay for more and better issue stuff for the army by myself if I could.  If that's your only issue, then I guess we agree. 

Just as long as you're not suggesting that a FRS radio is going to solve these problems for you.  You aren't, are you?  Nor are you hopefully suggesting that the old equipment is more capable than what we use now.  Because I'm not aware of any FRS radio (typically less than 5 watts output) that will get you even 20 Km, nor am I aware of any old equipment (C42, 46 or 77 Set, etc) that would outstrip the range of the radios we currently issue.  If you are suggesting either of these things, then please advise me of any instance in which you got 30-60 Km out of either a FRS or Legacy equipment.

Also, please don't forget that my trades school is in Southern Ontario, and that I've been there on one or two occasions.  While the Canadian Shield does occasionally complicate matters, getting 20 Km out of an A set is not impossible around there, and it's much easier now than it was with the old kit. 

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

Recce DG:

The last I checked, butt-flying monkeys weren't available on a loan basis from 2 ASG Sigs, but Motorolas were.  Most units, even reserve units, have at least 2 or 3 cell phones allocated to them, if you don't, and if your troops absolutely had to use their own cell phones, then you could reimburse them for calls they made using a general allowance claim, as I've personally done before. 

So that you know, I've recently heard of a plan to pull all IRIS radios from Army Reserve units to hold them as national operational stock, and to replace them using, wait for it... Motorolas. 

I can't tell you what the standard installation in any of the vehicles you mention is, I don't have personal experience with them.  FYI though, the indicators given by the CI don't match with the proper indicators:

CI "A" set = VRC 513 V (2) = A+ Set
CI "a" set = VRC 513 V (1) = A Set

 

[DG-41]

So that you know, I've recently heard of a plan to pull all IRIS radios from Army Reserve units to hold them as national operational stock, and to replace them using, wait for it... Motorolas.

This plan is quite clearly unworkable, for the aforementioned range issue, and for the issue that we need to be able to train on operational kit. See the innumerable threads on the capability gap between the Reserves and the Regs - it's hard to augment when we don't use the same kit; especially when the user interface is so obtuse.

If you want to issue Motorolas to replace our field-expediant FRS - hey, I'm all over that. I'll take eight, plus enough batteries for 72 hours of operation, plus another eight backup batteries. Need a shipping address?

I can't tell you what the standard installation in any of the vehicles you mention is,

Well, if you find out, I'd submit that we'd need as a minimum the same sort of installation used in Coyote, and if Coyote comes with the A+ (CI "A") then that's what we should have too. Similar tasks, similar comms.

DG

 

[c_canuk]

RecceDG

I understand your pain, I really do, when we had the 46/77 sets we had 7 trucks with a dual install, now I'm down to 2 trucks with a dual install, and 2 with single installs. the others are now support trucks that plug into the others via LDN

now, as for your tray shortages... eeeep!

are you on a waiting list for equipment? if not I would harass someone until I was.

the problem is the old procurment idiots investing in a tray that costs in the thousands for a frigging stamped piece of metal, hell the RRB Cables that our techs put together for 10$ cost $600 from the contractor... Procurment justifies this by saying there is extra costs involved in re tooling assembly lines, which tells me drop the contractor like molton lava and go with local machine shops.

anyway that said

I would press for more manpacks, and AMPs with trays in your situation before trying to fill the trays, the battery compartment comes off in a bout 30 seconds and you can mount it in an A+ tray and re attach the battery componets...

there are also some techs who know how to re wire the adapter to allow for full power from the manpack... Not authorised so Shhhhh!!!!!

there should be a mess of Masts around, so requisition some. If you have a local comm res unit around ask for support, we love to get out and see how others work, and may be able to come up with new solutions to problems you are so used to you don't notice them anymore... I imagine reg force comms guys might support you too. a Masted A+ CP should be avalible at most Comm Res units.

A lot of time units could ask for support from comm res but don't really know they can, my unit works us 2-3 weekends a month, and the others are filled with taskings to support other res and even a few Reg units. we have some guys (like me once I'm home again) avalible for more than weekends too.

Now there are Battery chargers out there that you can buy that can recharge batteries in greater numbers... I'm thinking about donating one to my unit because we can't buy one

1) me: can I buy a battery recharge cause our one tactical charger is not sufficient for our needs
2) them: there is already a charger in the system, so you cannot buy them
3) me: then issue me 4 more
4) them: there are none in the system for issue
5) me: see pt 1
6) them: see pt 2


I would also like to investigate Lithium Ion Batteries, and NiMH batteries over NiCad as NiMH last longer and don't suffer from memory effect and have higher power output ratings.

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

This plan is quite clearly unworkable, for the aforementioned range issue, and for the issue that we need to be able to train on operational kit. See the innumerable threads on the capability gap between the Reserves and the Regs - it's hard to augment when we don't use the same kit; especially when the user interface is so obtuse.
DG

I agree wholeheartedly.  Everyone needs more of everything.

 

[a_majoor]

Working at the Brigade G6 cell, I have empathy for BOTH sides of the TCCCS vs FRS arguments; mostly because I am the baloney in the sandwich.

On the one hand my superior headquarters tells me we are NEVER to use FRS except in the most limited circumstances (i.e. marching on the band on parade, family day, sports day), and are rather upset over the fact we have Motorola CT-250s (no one can learn how to use TCCCS if they use Motorola's).

On the other hand, my subordinate units are desperate for any sort of comms equipment at all, even the small amount of TCCCS we do have is often expensive paperweights because the EIS like handsets/headsets and batteries are non serviceable.

What is even more annoying is that the TCCCS boat has sailed a long time ago. I can go downtown and buy a GARMIN RINO for @ $400 which is a radio, GPS receiver, electronic map display (with maps downloadable on the Internet) and SAS system (when your C/S transmits, the person you are speaking to will see your location highlighted on their RINO map display). If we combined those capabilities with the "military" requirements to Tx on certain frequency bands, have crypto and frequency hopping capabilities and high power output to extend the range there would be one powerful information tool for the troops.

The biggest crunch (for any high level lurkers) isn't the availability of radios, but the serviceability of the EIS and the limited number of long range radios. We have 521s up the hoop, but they are of very limited utility for Armoured, Artillery, Engineers, CSS and the HQ. Even in the Infantry the 521 only helps the platoon commander stay in touch with the section commanders, we need 522s or their equivalents. There are no more TCCCS sets, trays, EIS or anything else on the horizon, and our shock and awe attack on the supply system has turned up very little for the units. Unless there is some high level will to fix the problem, we will be using cell phones, signal flags and heliographs lifted from the museum for the forseeable future.

 

[DG-41]

After the ridiculousness that was the comms situation at SG and a follow-on local ex, we made a lot of noise, some of which actually generated results. I went from no trays to one tray + CI, and from 1 X 522 and 7 X 521 to 4 X 522 and 4 X 521 - and our CP is in good shape (which helps a lot).

RUMINT says that the C&R GWagons which are coming in to replace our Iltis Real Soon Now are going to have at least A trays (CI "a") and 2 X CI mounts - which would be a huge step forward. I'll hold onto my TCCCS Iltis right until the end, and as the GWagons come in, the comms should get better in lockstep.

We had a few GWagons at the unit temporarily (for driver training) and they were wired for TCCCS, but had no trays, AMUs, power units, etc. They were also missing the gun mounts (just three big studs on the hatch ring) so they weren't representative of what the final issue vehicle is going to be like - I hope!

One also hopes that as I get tray-equipped vehicles that additional 522s will be around to fill the trays.

Now there are Battery chargers out there that you can buy that can recharge batteries in greater number

Are the 522 manpack batteries actually in some sort of standard form factor? Is there an off-the-shelf recharger out there?

DG

 

[c_canuk]

I'm looking for the website I saw it on... thought it was Harris, but now I'm not sure, that made them... the batteries we use are a form factor, and I've seen a couple websites that produce Lithium Ion batteries... I believe the model number is

like this one which I believe is the same used for 521s
https://secure.thalescomminc.com/cart2/tcBatteries.asp

this website sells batteries and chargers, the bb-2590/U battery would fit PRC 138s, 522 etc, and battery model BB-521/U fits 521... one of the 10 way univerals would be lovely to have in sig stores and in the CPs
http://www.milpower.co.uk/