# New Commo



## goon175 (Feb 1, 2012)

Interesting....I don't really see the need for this and I think it will find it's way to the bottom of a tough box in the commo cage...but I don't know. Anyone have any first hand experience with this stuff?

http://www.afcea.org/signal/signalscape/index.php/2012/01/31/15607/


----------



## fox1371 (Feb 1, 2012)

What happens when somebody loses that little arm computer?  If the enemy gets a hold of that, I can imagine that it would be a pretty bad day for everyone on the ground.


----------



## AWP (Feb 1, 2012)

Never used the stuff, but the overall JTRS concept has a bunch of problems. Hopefully USASOC can iron out the deficiencies for its platforms.


----------



## goon175 (Feb 1, 2012)

I don't think guys will lose it. They already have nine million sensitive items all over them on the average mission. I just think either A) it won't work like its supposed to (as freefalling alluded to) or B) It will not get used.


----------



## AWP (Feb 1, 2012)

This brings up another interesting point, and it isn't limited to SOF (apologies Goon if I'm totally hijacking your thread), but how many more "capabilities" do our guys need? Great, you can shave 3 lbs. off of a plate carrier, but then we add 10 lbs. to his vest and body. The geeks are screaming "Look what technology can do for the battlefield!", the PEO/ gear types are screaming "Look how much weight we're taking off the individual soldier while giving him state of the art gear!", and the poor bloody infantry is probably just screaming.

Commanders are almost to the point where they need two RTO's: one for the radios and one for the data equipment.


----------



## Manolito (Feb 1, 2012)

goon175 said:


> Interesting....I don't really see the need for this and I think it will find it's way to the bottom of a tough box in the commo cage...but I don't know. Anyone have any first hand experience with this stuff?
> 
> http://www.afcea.org/signal/signalscape/index.php/2012/01/31/15607/


 Isn't this some of the land warrior package they are trying to incorporate?


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 1, 2012)

I haven't used that system in particular but I've used vehicle and "mobile" terminals in our systems.  I can see the use at an OP and where ever it reports to but it's just another piece of junk to add weight.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 1, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> This brings up another interesting point, and it isn't limited to SOF (apologies Goon if I'm totally hijacking your thread), but how many more "capabilities" do our guys need? Great, you can shave 3 lbs. off of a plate carrier, but then we add 10 lbs. to his vest and body. The geeks are screaming "Look what technology can do for the battlefield!", the PEO/ gear types are screaming "Look how much weight we're taking off the individual soldier while giving him state of the art gear!", and the poor bloody infantry is probably just screaming.
> 
> Commanders are almost to the point where they need two RTO's: one for the radios and one for the data equipment.


 
I'll tell you what, as a RTO I would have loved this fucker. PLGR, Camera, radio control and some SA all rolled up into probably one pound including radio interface kit?

Fuck yeah.


----------



## Brill (Feb 1, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Commanders are almost to the point where they need two RTO's: one for the radios and one for the data equipment.


 
or just a 117G.


----------



## Brill (Feb 1, 2012)

goon175 said:


> Interesting....I don't really see the need for this and I think it will find it's way to the bottom of a tough box in the commo cage...but I don't know. Anyone have any first hand experience with this stuff?
> 
> http://www.afcea.org/signal/signalscape/index.php/2012/01/31/15607/


 
Ranger Goon, 

Write back when you see the WOLFHOUND system.  Basically same shit but does different stuff as far as "goes in ta" without the "goes out ta".  125lbs of lightweight gear is still 125lbs.


----------



## Etype (Feb 1, 2012)

How is this anything like a Wolfhound?  Wolfhound is SIGINT, not actually for OUR comms.  The Wolfhound is one of the best pieces of equipment conventional forces (and hell, even us when we don't have assets) have for chasing bad guys.  You set a couple up at various COPs, maybe push out an OP with one if your network needs to be upped.  You can turn random chatter into something worthy of analysis and even into something actionable almost overnight.

Wolfhound, 10 out of 10- one of the best pieces of commo gear in the GWOT.
This new thing, who knows.


----------



## Brill (Feb 1, 2012)

Etype,

"like" in that there's a cool looking  doo-hickey that can be mounted on the sleeve and it's another chance for more shit to carry.  SOT-A joke.


----------



## Etype (Feb 1, 2012)

Gotcha


----------



## Brian1/75 (Feb 1, 2012)

My roommates mentioned this once. I'll ask them about it sometime.


----------



## reed11b (Feb 1, 2012)

If it could perform the role that our toughbooks were doing with tac-chat and compressing picture files to ease there sending on HF, I could see a use for LRS.
Reed


----------



## Etype (Feb 1, 2012)

HF??? Come on, get with the 90s- we use sat these days.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 2, 2012)

HF works when other things won't, just takes a brain to know how to do it.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 2, 2012)

It always seems like the Army is about 5 year behind the IT industry.


----------



## Etype (Feb 2, 2012)

Ranger Psych said:


> HF works when other things won't, just takes a brain to know how to do it.


About the same amount of work as sending via sat- if you have your antenna precut before the mission.  The big problem I see with sending stuff HF is antenna setup in certain environments(like desert and urban), and the amount of time required to actually send and receive.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Feb 2, 2012)

How much HF work have you done, out of curiosity?


----------



## Mac_NZ (Feb 2, 2012)

I would have given my left nut for this a few years ago, knowing whos about to blunder onto your OP because some fuck tard didnt mention we were in the area would be a god send.

In line with the follow ons the only drama I had in the desert was getting the antenna high enough for the take off angle and the fact it's hard to get a good earth.  You can make a spider to solve the earth problem or piss on the ground spike if your desperate.  A small collapsible fibreglass tent pole sorts out the angle.

For urban just drape a ground wire or use a bastardized L shape with a reflector and NVIS it.

Did a job were we rolled in an RV once, had a 1/4 wave box set up on the roof.

Sat is faster but getting the air time was a mission for us and the same for you guys as I understand it.

I still have nightmares about tacchat and sending jpegs.  That and typing sitereps into the KDU because we couldn't get a decent link to voice or transfer.  We ended up getting general dynamics ruggedised palm pilots, beat the shit out of the tough books for weight and size.  Also not really a fan of ALE and 3G to a degree, still think we should use morse and pads but oh we'll what do I know.


----------



## Etype (Feb 2, 2012)

Not much, just at PMTs and in training- and it's all been ALE.


----------



## surgicalcric (Feb 2, 2012)

Etype said:


> Not much, just at PMTs and in training- and it's all been ALE.


 

Brother, that is sad.

There was a push by the CDR of the Echo course to remove HF from training.  He was a CIF guy - who would have guessed it.  Smarter, more backwards (UW) thinking prevailed.

I wonder how guys think we will be talking in the future if the ability to use Sat comes to an end because of the ability of others to listen?  I suppose we could talk in the noise.  ;)

Crip


----------



## goon175 (Feb 13, 2012)

more.....

http://www.soc.mil/UNS/Releases/2012/Feb/120213-01.html


----------



## steveshore400 (May 5, 2012)

Etype said:


> How is this anything like a Wolfhound? Wolfhound is SIGINT, not actually for OUR comms. The Wolfhound is one of the best pieces of equipment conventional forces (and hell, even us when we don't have assets) have for chasing bad guys. You set a couple up at various COPs, maybe push out an OP with one if your network needs to be upped. You can turn random chatter into something worthy of analysis and even into something actionable almost overnight.
> 
> Wolfhound, 10 out of 10- one of the best pieces of commo gear in the GWOT.
> This new thing, who knows.


 
Wolfhound is a great system and great user feedback like this keeps it going.

Agree with comment about HF, many folks have said its dead for years but last time I checked it is as busy as ever and lots of companies are still building radios.  HF comms are free satellite comms arent, HF works in the jungle satellite doesnt, HF comms are hard to locate satellite comms arent. HF ALE, HF email, and low cost and easy to operate digital HF radios have given it a boost. My 5 watt Yaesu 817 and a 90 ft B&W dipole work wonders


----------



## Brill (May 5, 2012)

steveshore400 said:


> HF comms are hard to locate...


 
Really?  I'd like to learn more about why they're difficult to DF...*it's only been done since World War One*. :-"

(Please note how that shit rhymes!  In honor of MCA (RIP).)


----------



## AWP (May 5, 2012)

steveshore400 said:


> Wolfhound is a great system and great user feedback like this keeps it going.
> 
> Agree with comment about HF, many folks have said its dead for years but last time I checked it is as busy as ever and lots of companies are still building radios. HF comms are free satellite comms arent, HF works in the jungle satellite doesnt, HF comms are hard to locate satellite comms arent. HF ALE, HF email, and low cost and easy to operate digital HF radios have given it a boost. My 5 watt Yaesu 817 and a 90 ft B&W dipole work wonders


 
Steve,
Please an Intro in the proper sub-forum before posting again.


----------



## steveshore400 (May 5, 2012)

lindy said:


> Really? I'd like to learn more about why they're difficult to DF...*it's only been done since World War One*. :-"
> 
> (Please note how that shit rhymes! In honor of MCA (RIP).)


Sure it has but by using large stand off skywave DF systems, expensive airborne DF systems or short range ground wave DF systems, but not very accurate, timely or tactical,  finding a low power man pack using NVIS isnt easy


----------



## steveshore400 (May 5, 2012)

"You can make a spider to solve the earth problem or piss on the ground spike if your desperate. A small collapsible fibreglass tent pole sorts out the angle.
For urban just drape a ground wire or use a bastardized L shape with a reflector and NVIS it.
Did a job were we rolled in an RV once, had a 1/4 wave box set up on the roof."

ever use one of these for HF? they dont make them anymore but they can still be had and they work great! http://www.hflink.com/antenna/elpa/


----------



## Brill (May 5, 2012)

steveshore400 said:


> Sure it has but by using large stand off skywave DF systems, expensive airborne DF systems or short range ground wave DF systems, but not very accurate, timely or tactical, *finding a low power man pack using NVIS isnt easy*


 
Ah!  Yes, I totally agree!!!


----------



## Etype (May 5, 2012)

steveshore400 said:


> expensive airborne DF systems


These are the norm nowadays...

Is NVIS harder to DF because of the steep angle that it's bouncing at?  I'm sure my terminology suck, but you know what I mean.


----------



## Brill (May 5, 2012)

Etype said:


> These are the norm nowadays...
> 
> Is NVIS harder to DF because of the steep angle that it's bouncing at? I'm sure my terminology suck, but you know what I mean.


 
In part BUT the big deal is the fact the antenna is close to the ground limiting the radiation pattern (no ground wave), in effect, making the HF antenna sort of directional (as directional as HF can be) as well as the low power needed to achieve high quality reception (very little distortion or loss).  Imagine a water hose pointed skyward: one could control where it waters the lawn without getting the entire area wet like with a sprinker.  You can basically do that same thing with HF comms with NVIS.

NVIS is not impossible to find, fix, and pass to you all to..., well you know...but one must be close and knowledable.

Damn, I love my job.  Like commo but with titties.


----------



## Etype (May 5, 2012)

But if lack of a groundwave were the main point in making NVIS hard to DF, satcom would be even better. I'm thinking the range at which you can communicate coupled with the low power needed is the bigger point.  I am just a dumb bravo, but 400+ miles @ <5 watts sounds cool.


----------



## Brill (May 6, 2012)

Etype said:


> But if lack of a groundwave were the main point in making NVIS hard to DF, satcom would be even better. I'm thinking the range at which you can communicate coupled with the low power needed is the bigger point. I am just a dumb bravo, but 400+ miles @ <5 watts sounds cool.


 
Prob should hit up your SOT-As inside their office...or wait a few months and we can take this up in person. 

Another option, tell SGM Rainey you want *need* this guy down there ASAP!


----------



## WBTurner (May 6, 2012)

Well Guys, I'm an ancient 05B (way before ECHO). In the day we had HF-CW(Morse code only)) for commo anywhere outside a few miles. Single sideband was just beginning to be used (voice). Computing was done with pencil/paper or slide rule. Satellite, internet, e-mail was science fiction.

That being said, all it will take to disable the satellites is a small nuke detonated in the upper atmosphere or just outside it. The resulting EMP will eliminate sat-com. Then, we will have to dig up the AN/GRC 109's,
AN/GRC 19's ETC that are in the basement of some museum and go back to bouncing radio off the ionosphere. I hope there are a few left to be used. Morse code is a pain in the butt to learn initially but you don't forget it, especially if you use it occasionally. -food for thought-


----------



## Brill (May 6, 2012)

Plus it's cheap to set up and maintain!


----------



## AWP (May 6, 2012)

I miss HF, DMDG's, one-time pads, 01 ANGUS...


----------



## RackMaster (May 6, 2012)

I just miss the soothing sound of white noise while trying not to fall asleep on the log book.


----------



## WBTurner (May 6, 2012)

It might just be possible that there are a few "Old Farts" lurking around on this "New Fangled" computer forum and I'm not the only one.


----------



## Poccington (May 6, 2012)

Trying to send images over HF breaks my heart, every single fucking time. Voice is shit on it too.

As for Toughbooks, the only thing I like about them is the fact we somehow ended up with Pinball on ours.


----------



## RackMaster (May 6, 2012)

WBTurner said:


> It might just be possible that there are a few "Old Farts" lurking around on this "New Fangled" computer forum and I'm not the only one.


 
I'm not that old but still played with "Old" radios.


----------



## AWP (May 6, 2012)

Rack, I don't know if you ever used BTB's, Blind Transmission Broadcasts, but when you talk about falling asleep to the sound of white noise...imagine manually scanning a range of freqs for 12 straight hours listening for the cleanest frequency.

As an aside, the guys who took the time to learn HF, regardless of their age, those were the ones who could make commo with anything. A guy who didn't put much or any thought into HF could mess up SATCOM. I "get" why SATCOM is preferred, especially to someone living out of a ruck, but HF will always be there. SATCOM nets are so saturated these days we're using comercial birds for a great deal of our data transmissions. The reality is that even when things work well SATCOM isn't a given.

Threads like this almost make me want to re-enlist.


----------



## Brill (May 6, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Rack, I don't know if you ever used BTB's, Blind Transmission Broadcasts, but when you talk about falling asleep to the sound of white noise...*imagine manually scanning a range of freqs for 12 straight hours listening for the cleanest frequency*.


 
Oh that must have really sucked for you.  At least the other guy was speaking in English!


----------



## steveshore400 (May 6, 2012)

NVIS is hard to locate within the cone for a few reasons

1. Steep takeoff angle (not a major problem in itself) where most of the radiation is upward (not all of it due to radiation off the feed line and nearby objects, plus no TX antenna is perfect).

2. The reflection off the ionosphere and downward to an airplane or ground based system will dominate over the direct wave and will be correlated with the direct wave making it difficult (not impossible) to process and in most cases the loss over the NVIS path is much less than the direct wave suffers making the problem even harder

3. Faraday (polarization) rotation of the signal as it reflects off the ionosphere distorts the signal and creates a changing polarization at the receiver (that whoop whoop whoop fading sound you hear).

But all is not lost it can be done, google ARD-15  which was flown on the L-20 aircraft before most of the forum members were born.

BTW the term NVIS (not NVIS itself) is believed to have been coined by a US Army Radio Physicist who worked for the Signal Corps Labs


----------



## AWP (May 6, 2012)

lindy said:


> Oh that must have really sucked for you. At least the other guy was speaking in English!


 
1) The point was to find a freq. without anyone on it.
2) Don't you guys rate language pay?

<3's!


----------



## Mac_NZ (May 6, 2012)

steveshore400 said:


> ever use one of these for HF? they dont make them anymore but they can still be had and they work great! http://www.hflink.com/antenna/elpa/


 
Yeah we had a few elpa, should still be in the system.  Awesome bit of kit but I found they got a bit twitchy if you weren't talking elpa to elpa.


----------



## Mac_NZ (May 6, 2012)

Poccington said:


> Trying to send images over HF breaks my heart, every single fucking time. Voice is shit on it too.
> 
> As for Toughbooks, the only thing I like about them is the fact we somehow ended up with Pinball on ours.


 
What programmes are you using to do it?


----------



## RackMaster (May 6, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> 1) The point was to find a freq. without anyone on it.
> 2) Don't you guys rate language pay?
> 
> <3's!


 
Most of the time the HF net was just a "Guard" net and rarely used.  I mostly used it to scan for BBC broadcasts to kill the time and the silence in the back of the CP at night.


----------

