Back to top
Skip to menu
Skip to content
Duplex - I agree with you there are issues, and you have highlighted them perfectly. Most of these issues have been around since 2005, and have been flagged up again and again. It IS getting better though.
At least I hope it gets better or I will be an old(er) man by the time they sort it!
DG
Sort of brings us back to the expectation management point again
Just to quantify my stand point. CLANSMAN was ageing and needed to be replaced. I received my first brief on the new BOWMAN system in 1986 on my class 1 Sigs cse. It was a bloody long time in coming and when it arrived was not what was promised.
You know, and I know what is promised is not always what you get. Are you trying to tell me that someone on your Class 1 course had the foresight to predict EXACTLY what they thought BOWMAN was likely to be? Armed with this expectation, when the system arrived, you took one look at it, decided it wasn't what you had ben promised, and threw your rattle out of the pram. The system underwent a lot of changens betweem 1986 and 2005, not to mention the collapse of the ARCHER consortium, when the prime contractors for the system were sacked, and the contracts re-negotiated with GDUK. With the change in consortium came the changes in design, and hence the delays.
The reason BOWMAN is not used in Theatre has absolutely nothing to do with the availability of other systems and all to do with the lack of availability of a robust workable BOWMAN Data system (admittedly due to compatability with other 'stuff' as well).
If you have been out there, (and from your posts, I assume you have been), you will know that other systems are in place. This has NOTHING to do with the availability of robust BOWMAN data, and everything to do with the fact that these systems have been pushed down from NATO in order to get data from the top to the bottom. As you said before the bandwidth usage is massive, great when you have a large NATO HQ in your vicinity to manage it, but when you are part of an expeditionary force to Mbogoland, it is likely you will be bare arrsed. This is where BOWMAN is likely to come ito its own.
Yes things are improving (slowly) and 5.4, 5.5 and beyond may bring a solution to the problems, however, these solutions are only addressing what was promised in the first place not enhancements to capability due to new technology.
I beg to differ there. The enhancements in capability are part of the incremental development programme and some were not envisaged. New technology IS driving these enhancements.
Wasn’t the F in BCIP 4 meant to mean Final
No, the F was for FIELDED. BCIP 4F was an interim solution developed primarily for training purposes, and should be looked at as such.
I will apologise unreservedly if anyone without a vested interest in the BOWMAN gravy train can prove the above is complete b*llox
I find your lack of faith disturbing. Do you need a hug? Put your lip back in and suck it up mate. It's here, live with it. Oh, and that "Gravy Train?". Sounds to me that it left without you.
After reading the response I was going to post I have decided that OPSEC issues preclude me from going any further with this debate (what a copout )
However, sad as I am I have just dug out the BOWMAN performance requirements, issue 4 dated Aug 1997 (a weighty document) says a hell of a lot of what BOWMAN will do (admittedly in GD’s defence it doesn’t say when it will do it though ). All I will say is EXPECTATION MANAGEMENT
As for your final bit. Faith is something people have in a supreme being that they are told exists yet there is no proof (I see were your coming from with BOWMAN ).
Bearing mind the word BOWMAN is in my job title, I kind of know it’s here I live with it daily (intimately).
Finally, surely you can come up with something better than telling all and sundry who happen to disagree with the GD (party) line to ‘Dry your eyes princess’ and get on with it. We are soldiers, we always turn to the right salute and crack on. It will never stop us having our say though.
As for the gravy train, I am very happy on my own DPM coloured one thanks.
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
Go on, really, I would never have guessed
Go on, really, I would never have guessed
No it's really a WAH! I'm in charge of the toilets in LWC!
Thanks mate!
Go on, really, I would never have guessed
No it's really a WAH! I'm in charge of the toilets in LWC!
The ones on the left of the side entrance of the clock tower building
They don’t work either
Go on, really, I would never have guessed
No it's really a WAH! I'm in charge of the toilets in LWC!
The ones on the left of the side entrance of the clock tower building
They don’t work either
Go on, really, I would never have guessed
No it's really a WAH! I'm in charge of the toilets in LWC!
BOWMAN?
So you are an Archer then?
I can live with that, if the HF isn't working I do wonder why (haven't had too much experience with the BOWMAN HF TBH.
However, what is strange is that in a previous encarnation I worked with what is, essentially, the BOWMAN HF rig, and had NO problems working Long Range with both voice and data (sadly CW was no more
). Admittedly this wasn't in terrain similar to Afghanistan. But it worked pretty well in Oman.
I will agree though that other than cost and different radio story* I can't find a reason why we didn't just by VHF sets that were the same as the HFs.
* the story put about that someone during the design phase insisted that the British Soldier HAD to have a physically different set to differentiate between HF and VHF radios.
That was my first thought, but I don't know if this is even the case, or if it was just a case of the VHF radio bought was considered better than the Harris.
There is also a handheld version of the 5800 that can talk to the vehicle bound version (all off the shelf), has 40 to 500 odd Mhz range, and can flip between LoS, Ground to Ground to Ground to Air. Is just a tad smaller than a 349.
Last edited by chocolate_frog on Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Go on, really, I would never have guessed
No it's really a WAH! I'm in charge of the toilets in LWC!
BOWMAN?
So you are an Archer then?
Yes, some would say I am old enough to have been at Crecy and Agincourt.
John Thaw used to but since he snuffed it I'm afraid Morse has gone out of fashion.
The P2P design seems the natural choice but I've yet to see BOWMAN do it's 'self healing' thing when a node disappears. Typically I've found on Regimental exercises that there will be one Det who've got their poo in a sock who spend all their time helping out everyone else who are in despair. Forget the RRB, that's the target if you want to take out a Regiment's Data Comms, the det that's working properly.
You wouldn't have seen the "self healing" bit because Dynamic DNS (DDNS) has only recently been introduced.
DDNS has only just been introduced? F**K me....what useless twat got raped on that one?
The P2P design seems the natural choice but I've yet to see BOWMAN do it's 'self healing' thing when a node disappears. Typically I've found on Regimental exercises that there will be one Det who've got their poo in a sock who spend all their time helping out everyone else who are in despair. Forget the RRB, that's the target if you want to take out a Regiment's Data Comms, the det that's working properly.
You wouldn't have seen the "self healing" bit because Dynamic DNS (DDNS) has only recently been introduced.
DDNS has only just been introduced? F**K me....what useless t**t got raped on that one?
Plus anything else G4!
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:28 am
CAARPS:
DigitalGeek:
CAARPS:
DigitalGeek:
duplex:
DG. I'd like to qualify why, OPSEC permitting, I think BOWMAN is SHYTE.
Sect level/VHF:
1) Large, heavy batteries with short lifespans.
2) Large bulky radio with poorly designed connections and switches.
3) Fragile GPS cable, regularly breaks.
4) Loose GPS component, regularly falls off.
5) Poor range. 5W = 5km (GSM 900 by contrast: 250mW = 30km)
HF:
1) Electric shocks
2) High 'message failure' rate resulting in messages getting silently dropped
3) Sync errors resulting in garbled digital speech
4) Complex menu tree.
Data:
1) Complex initialisation procedure takes inordinate length of time to set up a detachment.
2) Several 'old school' network security holes created through poor design.
3) (There's more but I won't for OPSEC.)
COMBAT:
1)This software is so bad it hurts. It is simply too complicated for the Battlefield.
Sect level/VHF:
1) Large, heavy batteries with short lifespans.
2) Large bulky radio with poorly designed connections and switches.
3) Fragile GPS cable, regularly breaks.
4) Loose GPS component, regularly falls off.
5) Poor range. 5W = 5km (GSM 900 by contrast: 250mW = 30km)
HF:
1) Electric shocks
2) High 'message failure' rate resulting in messages getting silently dropped
3) Sync errors resulting in garbled digital speech
4) Complex menu tree.
Data:
1) Complex initialisation procedure takes inordinate length of time to set up a detachment.
2) Several 'old school' network security holes created through poor design.
3) (There's more but I won't for OPSEC.)
COMBAT:
1)This software is so bad it hurts. It is simply too complicated for the Battlefield.
Duplex - I agree with you there are issues, and you have highlighted them perfectly. Most of these issues have been around since 2005, and have been flagged up again and again. It IS getting better though.
At least I hope it gets better or I will be an old(er) man by the time they sort it!
DG
Sort of brings us back to the expectation management point again
Just to quantify my stand point. CLANSMAN was ageing and needed to be replaced. I received my first brief on the new BOWMAN system in 1986 on my class 1 Sigs cse. It was a bloody long time in coming and when it arrived was not what was promised.
You know, and I know what is promised is not always what you get. Are you trying to tell me that someone on your Class 1 course had the foresight to predict EXACTLY what they thought BOWMAN was likely to be? Armed with this expectation, when the system arrived, you took one look at it, decided it wasn't what you had ben promised, and threw your rattle out of the pram. The system underwent a lot of changens betweem 1986 and 2005, not to mention the collapse of the ARCHER consortium, when the prime contractors for the system were sacked, and the contracts re-negotiated with GDUK. With the change in consortium came the changes in design, and hence the delays.
The reason BOWMAN is not used in Theatre has absolutely nothing to do with the availability of other systems and all to do with the lack of availability of a robust workable BOWMAN Data system (admittedly due to compatability with other 'stuff' as well).
If you have been out there, (and from your posts, I assume you have been), you will know that other systems are in place. This has NOTHING to do with the availability of robust BOWMAN data, and everything to do with the fact that these systems have been pushed down from NATO in order to get data from the top to the bottom. As you said before the bandwidth usage is massive, great when you have a large NATO HQ in your vicinity to manage it, but when you are part of an expeditionary force to Mbogoland, it is likely you will be bare arrsed. This is where BOWMAN is likely to come ito its own.
Yes things are improving (slowly) and 5.4, 5.5 and beyond may bring a solution to the problems, however, these solutions are only addressing what was promised in the first place not enhancements to capability due to new technology.
I beg to differ there. The enhancements in capability are part of the incremental development programme and some were not envisaged. New technology IS driving these enhancements.
Wasn’t the F in BCIP 4 meant to mean Final
No, the F was for FIELDED. BCIP 4F was an interim solution developed primarily for training purposes, and should be looked at as such.
I will apologise unreservedly if anyone without a vested interest in the BOWMAN gravy train can prove the above is complete b*llox
I find your lack of faith disturbing. Do you need a hug? Put your lip back in and suck it up mate. It's here, live with it. Oh, and that "Gravy Train?". Sounds to me that it left without you.
After reading the response I was going to post I have decided that OPSEC issues preclude me from going any further with this debate (what a copout
) However, sad as I am I have just dug out the BOWMAN performance requirements, issue 4 dated Aug 1997 (a weighty document) says a hell of a lot of what BOWMAN will do (admittedly in GD’s defence it doesn’t say when it will do it though
). All I will say is EXPECTATION MANAGEMENTAs for your final bit. Faith is something people have in a supreme being that they are told exists yet there is no proof (I see were your coming from with BOWMAN
).Bearing mind the word BOWMAN is in my job title, I kind of know it’s here I live with it daily (intimately).
Finally, surely you can come up with something better than telling all and sundry who happen to disagree with the GD (party) line to ‘Dry your eyes princess’ and get on with it. We are soldiers, we always turn to the right salute and crack on. It will never stop us having our say though.
As for the gravy train, I am very happy on my own DPM coloured one thanks.
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
DigitalGeek
- Posts: 2929
- Joined: Aug 13, 2005
- Location: Behind you, in the dark, with a blunt object
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:32 am
DigitalGeek:
[
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
Go on, really, I would never have guessed
CAARPS- Posts: 2831
- Joined: Nov 01, 2005
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:33 am
@Choccy: Excuse me if I don't join you in the technical weeds. As the thread will get hijacked by Hams swapping pictures of each other's rigs.
The point I was making was that BOWMAN (HF) should, according to it's spec, be able to provide the long range Comms needed in Helmand. Unfortunately it's not able to and non-organic (borrowed) SATCOM is being relied on with the HF sets being kept on show for visiting Generals and regarded as SHYTE/emergency Comms.
Got to admit DG, I admire your optimism, Good luck.
I re-traded because I objected to having to work with, and teach, such poorly designed equipment. I found myself forever apologising on behalf of GD and the MOD for equipment failure and poor design. GD would send down highly paid 'experts' in their shiny GD 4x4's to smoke fags and occasionally gob off: "Yeah it's your IP thingy." Cheers. Some didn't know what the OSI model was. They were all notoriously absent during the heated question sessions leaving the Cpls to take the flak. I detested BOWMAN so much I declined a promotion to re-trade and looking back am glad I did.
Was I selfish in leaving it up to others? I did my share of training trainers and students and now I've moved on to better things. Thank Fcuk.
The point I was making was that BOWMAN (HF) should, according to it's spec, be able to provide the long range Comms needed in Helmand. Unfortunately it's not able to and non-organic (borrowed) SATCOM is being relied on with the HF sets being kept on show for visiting Generals and regarded as SHYTE/emergency Comms.
Got to admit DG, I admire your optimism, Good luck.
I re-traded because I objected to having to work with, and teach, such poorly designed equipment. I found myself forever apologising on behalf of GD and the MOD for equipment failure and poor design. GD would send down highly paid 'experts' in their shiny GD 4x4's to smoke fags and occasionally gob off: "Yeah it's your IP thingy." Cheers. Some didn't know what the OSI model was. They were all notoriously absent during the heated question sessions leaving the Cpls to take the flak. I detested BOWMAN so much I declined a promotion to re-trade and looking back am glad I did.
Was I selfish in leaving it up to others? I did my share of training trainers and students and now I've moved on to better things. Thank Fcuk.
duplex
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Jan 17, 2009
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:34 am
CAARPS:
DigitalGeek:
[
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
Go on, really, I would never have guessed
No it's really a WAH! I'm in charge of the toilets in LWC!
DigitalGeek- Posts: 2929
- Joined: Aug 13, 2005
- Location: Behind you, in the dark, with a blunt object
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:36 am
duplex:
@Choccy: Excuse me if I don't join you in the technical weeds. As the thread will get hijacked by Hams swapping pictures of each other's rigs.
The point I was making was that BOWMAN (HF) should, according to it's spec, be able to provide the long range Comms needed in Helmand. Unfortunately it's not able to and non-organic (borrowed) SATCOM is being relied on with the HF sets being kept on show for visiting Generals and regarded as SHYTE/emergency Comms.
Got to admit DG, I admire your optimism, Good luck.
I re-traded because I objected to having to work with, and teach, such poorly designed equipment. I found myself forever apologising on behalf of GD and the MOD for equipment failure and poor design. GD would send down highly paid 'experts' in their shiny GD 4x4's to smoke fags and occasionally gob off: "Yeah it's your IP thingy." Cheers. Some didn't know what the OSI model was. They were all notoriously absent during the heated question sessions leaving the Cpls to take the flak. I detested BOWMAN so much I declined a promotion to re-trade and looking back am glad I did.
Was I selfish in leaving it up to others? I did my share of training trainers and students and now I've moved on to better things. Thank Fcuk.
The point I was making was that BOWMAN (HF) should, according to it's spec, be able to provide the long range Comms needed in Helmand. Unfortunately it's not able to and non-organic (borrowed) SATCOM is being relied on with the HF sets being kept on show for visiting Generals and regarded as SHYTE/emergency Comms.
Got to admit DG, I admire your optimism, Good luck.
I re-traded because I objected to having to work with, and teach, such poorly designed equipment. I found myself forever apologising on behalf of GD and the MOD for equipment failure and poor design. GD would send down highly paid 'experts' in their shiny GD 4x4's to smoke fags and occasionally gob off: "Yeah it's your IP thingy." Cheers. Some didn't know what the OSI model was. They were all notoriously absent during the heated question sessions leaving the Cpls to take the flak. I detested BOWMAN so much I declined a promotion to re-trade and looking back am glad I did.
Was I selfish in leaving it up to others? I did my share of training trainers and students and now I've moved on to better things. Thank Fcuk.
Thanks mate!
DigitalGeek- Posts: 2929
- Joined: Aug 13, 2005
- Location: Behind you, in the dark, with a blunt object
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:39 am
DigitalGeek:
CAARPS:
DigitalGeek:
[
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
Go on, really, I would never have guessed
No it's really a WAH! I'm in charge of the toilets in LWC!
The ones on the left of the side entrance of the clock tower building
They don’t work either
CAARPS- Posts: 2831
- Joined: Nov 01, 2005
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:46 am
CAARPS:
DigitalGeek:
CAARPS:
DigitalGeek:
[
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
Go on, really, I would never have guessed
No it's really a WAH! I'm in charge of the toilets in LWC!
The ones on the left of the side entrance of the clock tower building
They don’t work either
DigitalGeek- Posts: 2929
- Joined: Aug 13, 2005
- Location: Behind you, in the dark, with a blunt object
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:48 pm
DigitalGeek:
CAARPS:
DigitalGeek:
[
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
Go on, really, I would never have guessed
No it's really a WAH! I'm in charge of the toilets in LWC!
BOWMAN?
So you are an Archer then?
chocolate_frog- Posts: 11457
- Joined: Nov 20, 2004
- Location: Up my own ArRSe
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:57 pm
duplex:
@Choccy: Excuse me if I don't join you in the technical weeds. As the thread will get hijacked by Hams swapping pictures of each other's rigs.
The point I was making was that BOWMAN (HF) should, according to it's spec, be able to provide the long range Comms needed in Helmand. Unfortunately it's not able to and non-organic (borrowed) SATCOM is being relied on with the HF sets being kept on show for visiting Generals and regarded as SHYTE/emergency Comms.
The point I was making was that BOWMAN (HF) should, according to it's spec, be able to provide the long range Comms needed in Helmand. Unfortunately it's not able to and non-organic (borrowed) SATCOM is being relied on with the HF sets being kept on show for visiting Generals and regarded as SHYTE/emergency Comms.
I can live with that, if the HF isn't working I do wonder why (haven't had too much experience with the BOWMAN HF TBH.
However, what is strange is that in a previous encarnation I worked with what is, essentially, the BOWMAN HF rig, and had NO problems working Long Range with both voice and data (sadly CW was no more
). Admittedly this wasn't in terrain similar to Afghanistan. But it worked pretty well in Oman.I will agree though that other than cost and different radio story* I can't find a reason why we didn't just by VHF sets that were the same as the HFs.
* the story put about that someone during the design phase insisted that the British Soldier HAD to have a physically different set to differentiate between HF and VHF radios.
chocolate_frog- Posts: 11457
- Joined: Nov 20, 2004
- Location: Up my own ArRSe
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:11 pm
No CW on BOWMAN, tell me it isnt so
If they wanted a different look to differentiate HF and VHF could we not have just painted the chassis a different colour
If they wanted a different look to differentiate HF and VHF could we not have just painted the chassis a different colour
meridian
- Posts: 6670
- Joined: Sep 09, 2007
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 1:25 pm
Please don't get fooled by MODAF. I was told it will solve all ill's - the panacea of the god's designed to remove error from procurement. The problem is - "£$£* into MODAF $^&$ out. Plus it is too complex.
The bottom line is unless we start buying off the shelf kit that already works and then upgrading it, we will continue to belong to a complete cake and ARRSE party. I put my money where my mouth was and left the Army because I could'nt continue to work in an environment where the user was not being considered or being told by DES that we were too biase and couldn't be trusted, because they know better. Idiots.
I have avioded working for Defence Contractors and my soul is still intact unlike some senoir officers from my Corps I know!!
The bottom line is unless we start buying off the shelf kit that already works and then upgrading it, we will continue to belong to a complete cake and ARRSE party. I put my money where my mouth was and left the Army because I could'nt continue to work in an environment where the user was not being considered or being told by DES that we were too biase and couldn't be trusted, because they know better. Idiots.
I have avioded working for Defence Contractors and my soul is still intact unlike some senoir officers from my Corps I know!!
hamster_man
- Posts: 249
- Joined: Jul 08, 2005
- Location: I can see the tunnel at the end of the light
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:20 pm
meridian:
No CW on BOWMAN, tell me it isnt so
If they wanted a different look to differentiate HF and VHF could we not have just painted the chassis a different colour
If they wanted a different look to differentiate HF and VHF could we not have just painted the chassis a different colour
That was my first thought, but I don't know if this is even the case, or if it was just a case of the VHF radio bought was considered better than the Harris.
There is also a handheld version of the 5800 that can talk to the vehicle bound version (all off the shelf), has 40 to 500 odd Mhz range, and can flip between LoS, Ground to Ground to Ground to Air. Is just a tad smaller than a 349.
Last edited by chocolate_frog on Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
chocolate_frog- Posts: 11457
- Joined: Nov 20, 2004
- Location: Up my own ArRSe
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:22 pm
Just been having a gander at the ITT and Harris websites, some interesting stuff but as I said, the most complex thing I ever played with was Clansman. Does no one do morse these days then
meridian- Posts: 6670
- Joined: Sep 09, 2007
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:59 pm
chocolate_frog:
DigitalGeek:
CAARPS:
DigitalGeek:
[
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!
Go on, really, I would never have guessed
No it's really a WAH! I'm in charge of the toilets in LWC!
BOWMAN?
So you are an Archer then?
Yes, some would say I am old enough to have been at Crecy and Agincourt.
DigitalGeek- Posts: 2929
- Joined: Aug 13, 2005
- Location: Behind you, in the dark, with a blunt object
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 3:01 pm
meridian:
Just been having a gander at the ITT and Harris websites, some interesting stuff but as I said, the most complex thing I ever played with was Clansman. Does no one do morse these days then
John Thaw used to but since he snuffed it I'm afraid Morse has gone out of fashion.
DigitalGeek- Posts: 2929
- Joined: Aug 13, 2005
- Location: Behind you, in the dark, with a blunt object
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:09 pm
DigitalGeek:
duplex:
DigitalGeek:
No need, they have a plethora of server based, (which BOWMAN is not BTW), applications out there which do the job just as well if not better.
The P2P design seems the natural choice but I've yet to see BOWMAN do it's 'self healing' thing when a node disappears. Typically I've found on Regimental exercises that there will be one Det who've got their poo in a sock who spend all their time helping out everyone else who are in despair. Forget the RRB, that's the target if you want to take out a Regiment's Data Comms, the det that's working properly.
You wouldn't have seen the "self healing" bit because Dynamic DNS (DDNS) has only recently been introduced.
DDNS has only just been introduced? F**K me....what useless twat got raped on that one?
Kitmarlowe- Posts: 2376
- Joined: Nov 28, 2005
- Location: South Yorkshire
-
Re: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 7:20 pm
Kitmarlowe:
DigitalGeek:
duplex:
DigitalGeek:
No need, they have a plethora of server based, (which BOWMAN is not BTW), applications out there which do the job just as well if not better.
The P2P design seems the natural choice but I've yet to see BOWMAN do it's 'self healing' thing when a node disappears. Typically I've found on Regimental exercises that there will be one Det who've got their poo in a sock who spend all their time helping out everyone else who are in despair. Forget the RRB, that's the target if you want to take out a Regiment's Data Comms, the det that's working properly.
You wouldn't have seen the "self healing" bit because Dynamic DNS (DDNS) has only recently been introduced.
DDNS has only just been introduced? F**K me....what useless t**t got raped on that one?
DigitalGeek- Posts: 2929
- Joined: Aug 13, 2005
- Location: Behind you, in the dark, with a blunt object
-
All times are GMT
Colour my ARRSE:
| Home
| Sitemap
| Search
| Last 50
| Complain
| Contact
| Advertise
| Help!
| Kit Shop
| Navy Net
| Rear Party
| Jobs
| Yr Acct/Login
| Join ARRSE