Originally Posted by bakersfield

Ho11os

Without knowing what you have (BMN, BMN Lite or "BMN Enhancement") it seems to me that if you have to "play with" the HF set to get it to work then you've been short changed on the training package. Also, you can get lucky with HF propagation, but on many other occasions you can sh*g the batteries chasing working frequencies if you don't have the correct kit. I don't expect you to say this openly in Forum, but what is your success rate at getting through, first time, with HF? Do you get through every time, rarely or in between?

whell firstly im a stab in helmand our training was 1 week long on bowman that included combat net as well with have had alot of probs with certin bits of it (not sure what can be said) on the playing with it side there is only a few things that u can do ie adjusting watts on so forth the 2 types of batterys we have dont give us any probs really the marines were attached to have had more probs with it than us and we r stab infantry so guess were a bit more with it

Clearly TA Infantry are a "bit more with it" that the RM.

Any views from TELIC 9?

There is a lot information coming out of TELIC and HERRICK through official and unofficial channels. I could spout on endlessly on what is happening in these 2 theatres but in the interests of operational security will not do so. On 2 Feb 07, C in C sent a memo to all 2 and 3 stars asking them to remind their sub-ordinates of opsec. Our enemies read this site and we owe it to our comrades in arms to keep quiet where appropriate.

Having said all that I am quite prepared to continue sniping at our inefficient and stumbling procurement process - Defence Procurement Agency being top of my list. It is primarily DPA's cock-ups (others too) which result in our soldiers getting crap kit and tax payers' pounds being wasted.

Crack on!

On 8 Mar the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts published a report titled: MoD Delivering Digital Tactical Communications Through the Bowman CIP Programme (HC 358 available on the internet: http://www.publications.parliament.u...emaphoreserver). In this report the Department (PUS, DEC and BATCISIPT among others) is severely criticised. The procurement of the Section Radio receives a lot of attention and Committee is highly critical of the Department for ignoring Director Infantry's requirements for the Section Radio (PRC 354). The National Audit Office Report, published last year, also refers to this.

If you look at my 12 Oct 06 post I refer to a letter written by the BATCIS IPT leader in Jan 05 (a 1 star - Brigadier) in which he very publicly criticises DInf for daring to state the PRC 354 was not fit for purpose especially when he (DInf) had been involved in its development and selection all along. The Brigadier was either misinformed by his staff or was just plain lying. The honorable thing to do now would be for the Brigadier to write a public apology to DInf. He is still in post so is in a position to do this. For those of his staff, who are reading this, you might like to post it on this site for him.

The main aim of the Public Accounts Committee and NAO report is to identify shortcomings and put them right. In my opinion the corporate culture of the MoD procurement system is such that institutionally it is unable to make the necessary changes and we the consumer and tax payer will see more NAO and PAC reports containing the same message.

BOWMAN was out of date when I did my RSO's course over 10 years' ago.

Give the money to me instead. I have an infallible secure system using nothing but string and some tin cans.

1.incompetent procurement bordering on criminal.

2. MOD are a disgrace, the f**king lot of you.

3. V senior members of the military lie because they are either too scared or they are told to lie.

because of the 3 above people will die.

Originally Posted by Facey_Romford

BOWMAN was out of date when I did my RSO's course over 10 years' ago.

Give the money to me instead. I have an infallible secure system using nothing but string and some tin cans.

My only knowledge of this subject is an impression formed in 1986(ish) when I attended the RAC RSO conference in Bovington.
We were given a presentation on Bowman., by two Canadian exchange officers. Impressed? I nearly learned morse.

It seems, to a very old and smelly ex-tankie, that the same attention to detail and priority has been given to this entire sorry project.

In my day it was C3, it is now, I understand, C4. The whole thing pivots on the Communication part. Not doing very well are they?

Keep up the pressure.

Janes Defence Weekly, dated 28th March 2007 page 32, is worth a read.

“UK Considers BOWMAN Options”


It starts “MoD is expected to maker a decision by August on how it will upgrade or replace some or all of the current 5W BOWMAN PRC-354 VHF radios that equip section and fire team leaders”.

It goes on to say that FIST (Future Integrated Soldier Technology or, as the IPT call it “Future Infantry….” as presumably they don’t like integration) will be responsible, but infers GD(UK) are the prime, when in fact Thales have the Assessment Phase contract.

Apart from this error, the article is good, and outlines four options, postulating that the actual solution will be a combination of (Option 1) keeping the existing radio, while concentrating on ancilliaries, cabling, mechanical interfaces, taking the GPS antenna off the left shoulder etc to make them more user friendly and (Option2) repackaging the existing radio in a lower volume case, and placing a more efficient battery at the base of the radio.


Now, the observant (and very old) among you will realise that ALL of the above was highlighted MANY times by ITDU and other IPTs, on behalf of D/Inf, as long ago as the 90s. ALL of the above are fundamental designs issues which only a complete moron would ignore, especially when the User re-iterated many times that this was his MINIMUM requirement. I have witnessed a presentation to a room full of 1 and 2*, long before BOWMAN design reviews, all of whom opined that BOWMAN would be off their rockers not to accept this wisdom. Not just written words and photographs (although these exist in abundance) but a soldier placed in front of senior staffs, wearing BOWMAN, with the presenter saying “This is bollixxx, we don’t want it”.

Interestingly, Option 3, while more expensive, is what has been trialled, long ago, on FIST. Lower volume, lighter, longer range. Cost is relative of course. If they hadn’t wasted the money on unwanted and rejected crap in the first place, this option would look cheap.

Option 4 is a Software Defined Radio, which is immature at the moment and would necessitate changes to the parts of BOWMAN which actually work (allegedly).

The article concentrates on VHF. Doesn’t mention concurrent PRR replacement (trialled with Option 3) or the HF debacle.

So, some progress. But I imagine some units will still be reluctant to hand back the far better kit they already have.