It's not duff, Mr H., because I know him well so I know his history/quals and I sat and watched him trying to get the thing working!

I'm aware that it shouldn't take that long (I've done the Bowman Advanced Signaller course myself) but there were that many problems with the kit that it did. There were problems with the two fill guns both deciding to drop their fill, problems with getting the radios to accept the fills when we got the crypto sorted and problems with the ancils.

If a system can produce that many problems in one simple task for someone who is experienced with it, what is it going to do for a young lad in the infantry who's just grabbed a radio off an injured patrol signaller?

I know things have moved on since Clansman (which I miss dearly because my job (Tech) is utter shite since we got rid of it. There's something I never thought I'd say!) and that radios are more than just a box to talk to someone else a few miles away these days, but when it gets so complicated that you cannot just pick up a radio and use the basic functions without a training course and a precis thicker than the glacis plate of a Chally 2, maybe it's a little too complicated?

FFS! Here, if you want something simple that works here................................have it!



Now ask yourself a question.

Will the above equipment:

Allow me to talk securely?
Allow me to transmit Voice and Data?
Allow me to inform my higher formation where I am automatically?
Allow me to create overlays?
Allow me to create and pass electronic messages securely?
Allow me to set up alarms and alerts?

I could go on.

You people need to take a good look at yourselves. If you can't manage it hand your bedding in.

So got on the board at GD did we???

Well I didnt get on the INT CORPS board did I!

If I had my way, you'd be on a water board ya haemasex!!

If I had my way you would be on your way to a Gulag mate!

DG

Were you a Clansman user before Bowman, it would be interesting to see the difference in training overhead. I only ever used Clansman but was an RSI and remember the talk of Bowman being the cure for cancer, has it really lived up to expectations?

Seems that one of the big ideas was to create a self configuring information network for voice and data, has this been realised across a decent sized formation and what is the useable data rate. Perhaps more importantly what data are we trying to send and is there a need.

One of the big selling points about the Airwave system for the civ police/fire etc was interoperability, a fireman being able to talk to a copper directly. All well and good but in practice is this actually needed because it collapses the chain of command and creates too much chatter. Same with data, the often touted PNC checks across Airwave, if its so good, why do most forces still use GSM/3G for mobile data.

Its easy to be sceptical about new technology but I think Jimmys Best Mate has a good point about the need for simplicity, which I guess goes across many capabilities we have.

Have we over stretched

I thought I was already in one Commissar DG!

No, you're in the Guano mate!

The underlying problem with BOWMAN is it was sold as the panacea to all things bright and beautiful to non vocational signallers, who then instantly assumed that the laws of physics didn’t apply and that they would communicate over much greater distances with no effort on their part.

What should have been sold was a secure voice communication system that in time (with development and enhancements) will provide Data Passage, SA, etc etc.

In plain English the expectation management from the start was Poo.

Well maintained Clansman with good operators worked and worked well (especially the PRC 320), however, it was insecure, required lots of TLC and the HF was noisy (staff officers hated the noise)


I categorically am not on the board of GD (although if there are any offers)

Last edited by CAARPS on Thu Aug 27, 2009 12:13 pm; edited 1 time in total

The failure of decent communications kit over the last years is frankly inexcusable!!

Great post, thank you for your input, do you want some hot milk before the nurse comes to take you away?

As I've said before I am not a Bowman expert, but I've used both it, Clansman and a number of other radio system while in the Army and during my civvi career. It is no worse than any other secure comms system I've used, if you want it to be a clansman replacement then stick it in unsecure, input the frequency and have a chat to your mate on the other end.

The performance of Bowman is similar to Clansman, any performance 'issues' that people see are usually caused by physics which you can't blame on Bowman.

S_R

Thats why we replaced it.

With a system that does not yet fully do what it said on the box regardless of the spin

Quite frankly at the moment BOWMAN in the vehicle role does little more than the 353Z which was a whole lot easier to use

Not exactly what was briefed at the time (want to go for 3)

Isn't that a very telling statement though

Remind me how much Bowman has cost (include the cost of vehicle kits, batteries and training)

No it's not a telling statement...performance is based on power, you want more performance you have to have more power, more power equals more weight. If you want something that is the same size/weight as Clansman, or even close then you will get similar performance.

In the end this was an MOD descision anyway as they defined the radio hardware that was used.

The cost of Bowman isn't based on its basic voice comms performance, it is because it has growth potential and a whole host of other benefits that Clansman didn't. If the Army wanted a simple non-secure comms system with extended range for the same weight/size, then they should have asked for it, what they asked for was something different.

S_R

No the MOD got exactly what they were sold, there is quite a difference.

I rather doubt that somehow. I'm more inclined to think that a lot of the cost was down to corruption, waste and cr*p procurement decisions.
We do have a history of it don't we?

From what I've heard and seen bowman simply doesn't do everything it says on the tin.

Still, gives the techs some work to do eh?

I was a Larkspur operator before Clansman, and now I teach BOWMAN, and have done for the past six years.

BOWMAN is not the universal panacea, nor is it the bees boll0cks. However it is a bloody good system. The issue we have as trainers is that it is not just a radio system, and so the traning overheads are greater than with Clansman.

There is a need for data and what is needed and how it is produced and controlled is down to the IM (Information Manager) within the relevant formation. The data network works well and with new enhancements we should see the first tactical internet and intranet facility using dynamic routing.

The nature of the beast means the system will never be totally simple. However, once a manpack or platform is correctly filled and initiallised, then the "push to talk" function bleated elsewhere in this thread is relatively easily achieved.

I know I sound like a soundbite when I talk about the system, but when you hear "It's shyte", without clear qualification as to why it "is shyte" gets right up my arrse!

The system is here. Clansman has gone the way of Larkspur and the wheel goes round. No doubt in 20 years time there will be a new green box to play with, and people will moan (as they did with clansman BTW) on how bloody complicated it all is.

Im off for a brew.

DG

Thanks DG, always interesting to to get a balanced view

2 sugars