Thread: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed

Originally Posted by meridian

Thanks DG, always interesting to to get a balanced view

2 sugars

On its way mate!

Originally Posted by meridian

20W for 2km, bloody hell

Whats the data rate, no, hang on, don't tell me

But I assume were not passing real time video :D

They are not playing with data much out there.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by duplex

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Originally Posted by meridian

20W for 2km, bloody hell

Whats the data rate, no, hang on, don't tell me

But I assume were not passing real time video :D

They are not playing with data much out there.

I think you mean BOWMAN data? In that case you are correct.

Every Mil SATCOM data channel is choka, so much so PJHQ are renting Civvie ones and scrounging Bandwidth from the Yanks (no change there). There's more data systems in use than ever but none of them are BOWMAN...
The unofficial standard is Civvie SATCOM with Military Secure (Data capable) Telephony. Quitre simply because it works.

Yes but can you shove it in a Warrior or CR2 and charge around the battlefield? No. you can't. Why, because all the satcom and bandwidth in the world wont keep a decent signal to a moving platform. Nor will the network heal itself. Plus the systems you are used to out there are predominantly server based which in itself leads to a degree of inflexibility.

There are pros and cons on both sides. I'm glad. It keeps me busy.

Originally Posted by duplex

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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).

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.

Wasn’t the F in BCIP 4 meant to mean Final :D

I will apologise unreservedly if anyone without a vested interest in the BOWMAN gravy train can prove the above is complete b*llox :D

Originally Posted by duplex

Re PRRs: My PRR has a waterproof bag over my microphone otherwise it shorts out when wet. Another great bit of design.

Are you one of those people who sucks it then dips it in the orange drinking powder by any chance? ;)

Originally Posted by CAARPS

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Originally Posted by 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.

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 :D

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 :D

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.

Originally Posted by duplex

If anyone wants to split hairs over RF propagation in an arid environment consider that with the right antenna and frequency you can talk around the world on 5W or less so surely the PRC 325 (HF) should be 'the radio' in Helmand.

I've seen BOWMAN HF (Groundwave) on 20W struggle over 2km out there. The power readings were high at the received end but due to the *** overhead and inability to maintain sync the result would be whats known in the trade as 'Donald duck underwater.'

My bold.
Have you actually any experience of worldwide HF? Because I have.

You seem to have picked up little snippets on comms and strung them together to form technobabble. You know some of the capabilities but not the downsides that go with them.

What would be the "right antenna"? Would you just set this up or would have to make changes to it through the day? Roughly, how big a job are we looking at?

What would be the "right frequency"?, how would find this freq, how would disseminate it to the crews, would you need to change this freq through the day? and could we all use it in theatre?

How would the weather affect us? After all we may need to consider such minor details as the F layers collapsing at night.

Whilst many will scoff at such problems as Sunspots or Sporadic E, and rightly so over say 20Km, when talking around the world these start playing a part. Then (for the higher frequencies of HF in to VHF and even UHF) we have Ducting when cold fronts come in.

Still sure 5W around the world is doable? With vox or CW? Or shall we use the more traditional power settings for such activites?

If you could see all these problems, why retrade? Why not see if you open some eyes in the kingdom of the blind?

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Originally Posted by CAARPS

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Originally Posted by 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.

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 :D

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 :D

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 :D )

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 :D ).

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. :D :D