Thread: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed

it's not a Comsec matter. you can get this information off the Harris website.

interestingly, the Harris VHF sets which the cadets have acquired in the small portion that Harris gave them, can go, and are designed to go, down into the upper end of the HF spectrum.

Its all part of incremental development and is to be expected. BTW we have already paid for the upgrade.

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Its all part of incremental development and is to be expected. BTW we have already paid for the upgrade.

but apparently not for the upgrade to actually make it work it seems.

When they said upgrade they must have meant the upgrade to the bubbly they could buy from the MOD sponsored slush fund.

But an upgrade from moet?? is it even possible??

Originally Posted by devilish

Could someone tell me why you're discussing comsec on insecure comms?

errrrr...cos Harris actually have their own website just loaded with all the info you want to know but were afraid to ask....

Originally Posted by Sensesworkingovertime

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Its all part of incremental development and is to be expected. BTW we have already paid for the upgrade.

but apparently not for the upgrade to actually make it work it seems.

When they said upgrade they must have meant the upgrade to the bubbly they could buy from the MOD sponsored slush fund.

But an upgrade from moet?? is it even possible??

Who says it doesn't work? What doesn't work? Or are you just basing your reply on the usual "Better Off With Map and Nokia" shyte which is so often spouted?

BCIP 5 has been paid for and that includes the upgrades.

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Originally Posted by Sensesworkingovertime

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Its all part of incremental development and is to be expected. BTW we have already paid for the upgrade.

but apparently not for the upgrade to actually make it work it seems.

When they said upgrade they must have meant the upgrade to the bubbly they could buy from the MOD sponsored slush fund.

But an upgrade from moet?? is it even possible??

Who says it doesn't work? What doesn't work? Or are you just basing your reply on the usual "Better Off With Map and Nokia" shyte which is so often spouted?

BCIP 5 has been paid for and that includes the upgrades.

The general consensus of opinion from people who've had to use this stuff for real is that it does not provide reliable VHF comms. The VHF radios are, and I quote, "flaky" . The HF stuff is fine and dandy and works.

The rest of the BOWMAN suite of tools is frankly a complete ripoff. OpenOffice is a free suite of software for Office use. Which MoD managed to end up paying for. The hardened laptops are a con. The networking system is a con. Why the f**K did MoD pay for a completely seperate and unique method of connecting a proven world wide standard of data cabling ? Why the f**K did MoD pay for another completely unique method of connecting USB memory devices? Why the f**k did MoD pay for a series of printers that are no longer supported by the makers of said printers?

I could set up and supply a HQ data network in the field for a lot less than MoD got stung for without too much hard work. I could supply hardened laptops without any problem what soever.

MoD got royally buttf**ked and ripped off over Bowman.

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Originally Posted by Sensesworkingovertime

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Its all part of incremental development and is to be expected. BTW we have already paid for the upgrade.

but apparently not for the upgrade to actually make it work it seems.

When they said upgrade they must have meant the upgrade to the bubbly they could buy from the MOD sponsored slush fund.

But an upgrade from moet?? is it even possible??

Who says it doesn't work? What doesn't work? Or are you just basing your reply on the usual "Better Off With Map and Nokia" shyte which is so often spouted?

BCIP 5 has been paid for and that includes the upgrades.

The general consensus of opinion from people who've had to use this stuff for real is that it does not provide reliable VHF comms. The VHF radios are, and I quote, "flaky" . The HF stuff is fine and dandy and works.

well said. the VHF things are a balls idea. whoever said 'right. let's train everybody in using Harris sets for HF, then train them ALL OVER AGAIN for VHF, and still name it all as one comms system... was a TWONK. whoever said 'right, we have a good set in the Harris HF system but instead of buying the VHF one as well, we'll buy a whole seperate set which doesn't work'... was a TWONK. etc etc.

The rest of the BOWMAN suite of tools is frankly a complete ripoff. OpenOffice is a free suite of software for Office use. Which MoD managed to end up paying for.

As per. How much stuff have we paid for in the history of the MoD where everyone knows you can get it free?!

The hardened laptops are a con.

cheap, nasty, sh1t IBM bricks in fancy green cases on roll out drawers are still cheap nasty sh1t IBM bricks.

The networking system is a con. Why the f**K did MoD pay for a completely seperate and unique method of connecting a proven world wide standard of data cabling ? Why the f**K did MoD pay for another completely unique method of connecting USB memory devices? Why the f**k did MoD pay for a series of printers that are no longer supported by the makers of said printers?

because we like to make everything ourselves. for the sake of it. 30 years ago... 'so... H&K are producing a wide range of great weapons in 5.56 calibre. what shall we do? build are own anyway!' 20 years of modifications to the weapon and everyone agreeing it was shag, we give it to H&K anyway.

we hand the BOWMAN project over to currently produced radio design as supposed to making our own and we still manage to inject our tuppence worth for the sake of designing a few bits ourselves...

as for the printers, I remember dragging a RATT around for 2 weeks in the back of my wagon taking all the space up and being a heavy annoying piece of sh1t that we couldn't even use because the printer cartridges stopped being produced about 20 million years before we got issued it.

I could set up and supply a HQ data network in the field for a lot less than MoD got stung for without too much hard work. I could supply hardened laptops without any problem what soever.

half the things the MoD have provided us with in recent years we could have all gone out and got better for less! eBay has proved that for a start!

MoD got royally buttf**ked and ripped off over Bowman.

no they didn't. we got butt f**cked by BOWMAN. they just watch the butt f**cking take place, and inject yet more cash into attempting to polish said turd.

[quote="therealbigdizzle"]as for the printers, I remember dragging a RATT around for 2 weeks in the back of my wagon taking all the space up and being a heavy annoying piece of sh1t that we couldn't even use because the printer cartridges stopped being produced about 20 million years before we got issued it.[quote]

A RATT? Or a Trend?

If the latter no you didn't, there was never a shortage at my units when using RATT. More likely more poor drills within your unit and a lack of ordering capability. Failing that, standard type writer ribbons from staples worked just as well.

Re BOWMAN, it's here, get used to it. How many complaining have filled in a CIS/IR? That is what they are there for.

Spot a problem report it up chain and it will eventually get sorted. Stop trying to make believe BOWMAN is Clansman and work with it instead of forcing it to do what Clansman could do.

Although I will agree about radios, why we didn't just get the Harris for all the radios is beyond me. They didn't have to do the full spectrum, (which actually would cost a lot of money, due to the technology of separating all the freqs inside the radio) but the same front end radio, and menus could have been used for a VHF set and a HF set, maybe a few VHF/HF cabable sets for those vehs/uses where space and weight is a bit more critical.

Not to mention the same mountings could be used.

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

Re BOWMAN, it's here, get used to it. How many complaining have filled in a CIS/IR? That is what they are there for.

Spot a problem report it up chain and it will eventually get sorted. Stop trying to make believe BOWMAN is Clansman and work with it instead of forcing it to do what Clansman could do.

I'll give you a hint how useful complaining about anything to do with Bowman is.

I did the Westland run Bowman course at Bicester a few years back. During my 5 weeks all told there the Instructor was forced to point out at least once a day a mistake in either the lesson or the Computer sims or both. Each and every single fault had been pointed out by the instructors at Bicester at least once over the 4 or so years they had been there. Not one single fault had been corrected. If no one can be bothered to make sure something as basic as the training package is correct....

I never said that the remedial action would be swifter than the graceful movement of glaciers or road kill :D

Can't comment on the above, after all are the comments leaving Bicester?

When a visitor comes around is it pointed out? (Esp high ranking visitors).

Personally, I have seen action on some of our comments.

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

I never said that the remedial action would be swifter than the graceful movement of glaciers or road kill :D

Can't comment on the above, after all are the comments leaving Bicester?

When a visitor comes around is it pointed out? (Esp high ranking visitors).

Personally, I have seen action on some of our comments.

I for one blame BAe. They have pretty much all of the MOD procurement bods in their pocket. Not to mention pretty much anyone in power. Plus those who are in the position of being able to do anything about it either A don't actually know they are or B In the pocket of BAe.

The powers that be have an isolationist mindset. have done since the neolithic age. In their view procurement is simple: "buy british buy british buy british buy anglo-euro" in that order even if there is already proven kit that can do the job and for a knockdown price whilst it's at it. Why get eurofighter if we can get F-15 jets from the yanks? All the R&D had been done already when the project was started towards the end of the cold war. It's proven itself as being a capable fighter AND by the way there just so happens to be a ground attack variant that works ;)

Sa80, why did we pay for british workers to come up with that? because bureaucrats for years didn't want to buy american. Ironic given that the Sa80 was the b*stard child of the EM2 and the american AR18.

Lately there has been progress towards a better system (UOR a whole new arms industry anyone?) but there is still a long way to go.

And by the way, the light at the end of the tunnel has been replaced with a newer model from BAe that was ordered 30 years ago. It will be switched off every 2 hours due to the bulb needing to be changed at these intervals!

It was my understanding that the pre-production SA80s were quite good bits of kit, but that subsequent cost-cutting (and poor management) mucked it all up. Some numbers that were mentioned were that the cost-cutting saved the equivalent of one Chieftain tank but ended up costing more than ten Challenger 2s to put right.

Then there are the political considerations where purchases are made to support the governments image or manage diplomatic considerations.

Plus you have the military bias against technical specialists, which leads to a fair amount of delay and confusion, including the aforementioned specifications slip.

On top of that, there is the monopoly consideration. Because of the F**S boondoggle, amongst other things, the various companies were able to buy up all their competitors. (Alvis buys GKN, then Vickers and is subsequently taken over by BAE) Thus the major combat vehicles of the British army are all supplied by one company. Previous and deliberate government policy has led to all the aircraft suppliers getting bundled into one (guess who again)

There are good and rational reasons for buying at home rather than abroad (esp. US) including things like freedom to upgrade, being at the front of the queue, operational sovereignty, being able to sell things, having something that fits into the UK method.

Typhoon vs. F15 - Maintenance might be something to look at. Fundamentally the US plane is of 1960s design and the 1980s upgrade (strike eagle) is still based on the same structure.

[edit]Oops - had two threads open at once, I'll leave this as it's somewhat relevant[/edit]

Originally Posted by incendiarycutlery

It was my understanding that the pre-production SA80s were quite good bits of kit, but that subsequent cost-cutting (and poor management) mucked it all up. Some numbers that were mentioned were that the cost-cutting saved the equivalent of one Chieftain tank but ended up costing more than ten Challenger 2s to put right.

Surely it would have been poor to begin with before the cost cutting? How many changes did HK have to make to actually sort the mess out?
I really don't think the sa80 was that good beforehand! costcutting doesn't completely ruin something very often!

Then there are the political considerations where purchases are made to support the governments image or manage diplomatic considerations.

Sad, but true. but surely it would be better to buy from an ally (no names) and have more people come home safe and sound for half the price (pinch of salt) than it would to explain why we had something that was known to be crap and horrifyingly expensive that cost many people their lives!

Plus you have the military bias against technical specialists, which leads to a fair amount of delay and confusion, including the aforementioned specifications slip.

You mean the brass changing their minds about what they think we need
For example Gen suchnsuch wants to replace all the gimpies with miniguns. Contractor says "we can do that for £XXX and have them ready for use by then end of 20XX". 6 months later Gen suchnsuch suddenly wants these miniguns to have homing bullets. Pushing cost up and the whole project back XX years. Then 6 months later he wants the option of swapping the homing bullets for ones that go kaboom.
That what you're getting at?

On top of that, there is the monopoly consideration. Because of the F**S boondoggle, amongst other things, the various companies were able to buy up all their competitors. (Alvis buys GKN, then Vickers and is subsequently taken over by BAE) Thus the major combat vehicles of the British army are all supplied by one company. Previous and deliberate government policy has led to all the aircraft suppliers getting bundled into one (guess who again)

Ooohoooh! I know this onARRRGH *dislocates shoulder* :D

There are good and rational reasons for buying at home rather than abroad (esp. US) including things like freedom to upgrade, being at the front of the queue, operational sovereignty, being able to sell things, having something that fits into the UK method.

Jobs for the boys mabye? Surely a joint project with the americans wouldn't be as difficult as the EU would it? Language barrier and the fact there is only one of them for starters! F35 anyone? (granted that one isn't looking so hot, but that can be put down to the brass not knowing what we want or need). That's freedom to upgrade sorted (ish).
Being at the front of the queue though, I'd have thought that they being our allies could be persuaded to sort us out something.
And can you name anything that we have sold in numbers to anyone other than us and the Saudis?? Not much I'd bet.

Where does operational sovereignty come into this? sure the yanks may sell us loads of F14 tomcat planes and tell us not to use them on north iranistan but did that ever stop the ayatollahs with all the kit the US sold the Shah before '79?? Did it hell. The Iranians kept using those F14's and quite a few still fly to this day. Not bad going for a bunch of arabs under an allegedly "total" arms embargo I must say!

And what pray tell is the "UK method"? Using our own self made kit that frankly leaves a lot to be desired even if it had a purpose a.la. Sub hunters come to mind here. Red banner northern fleet? 1990? Soviet? Do they jog the memory? We don't need such a massive proportion of our fleets looking for things that simply don't happen anymore. Sure the Iranian navy has some subs, but who in their right mind sees them using them for something destructive? A few sub hunters are fine but do we really need loads? I digress quite massively..

Typhoon vs. F15 - Maintenance might be something to look at. Fundamentally the US plane is of 1960s design and the 1980s upgrade (strike eagle) is still based on the same structure.

More or less irrelevant if they were bought brand new. Although the cost would be pushed up by having to set up the production line again. What about the F/A 18 super hornet? Again an oldish but sound basic design with a lot of modern improvements and mods. Either way we still would likely save billions on R&D alone. The yanks have done the hard work haven't they?
Both are cold war relics admittedly, but the F15 has the flexibility to do rather nifty and immensely useful ground support work RIGHT NOW in the F15E. Do we have anything like that in the EF2000 sorry eurofigher, sorry typhoon? I'm not holding my breath!

Who was it that said that anything that rebrands more than a few times a century is more than likely going to fail?

[edit]Oops - had two threads open at once, I'll leave this as it's somewhat relevant[/edit][/quote]

It happens mate.

Originally Posted by Sensesworkingovertime

Surely it would have been poor to begin with before the cost cutting? How many changes did HK have to make to actually sort the mess out?
I really don't think the sa80 was that good beforehand! costcutting doesn't completely ruin something very often!

I'm not entirely convinced that it would have been. I seem to remember that the chap telling the story had used the pre-production weapons and that they were OK, but as evidence goes that's scarcely a step above the man in the pub.

Sad, but true. but surely it would be better to buy from an ally (no names) and have more people come home safe and sound for half the price (pinch of salt) than it would to explain why we had something that was known to be crap and horrifyingly expensive that cost many people their lives!

You get no argument from me.

You mean the brass changing their minds about what they think we need
For example Gen suchnsuch wants to replace all the gimpies with miniguns. Contractor says "we can do that for £XXX and have them ready for use by then end of 20XX". 6 months later Gen suchnsuch suddenly wants these miniguns to have homing bullets. Pushing cost up and the whole project back XX years. Then 6 months later he wants the option of swapping the homing bullets for ones that go kaboom.
That what you're getting at?

More along the lines that Gen/Col./Maj. is not a technical bod and doesn't like to listen to technical bods, technical bods tend not to get to be Gen/Col./Maj. Therefore when a decision needs to be made, the only available Gen/Col./Maj. cannot make a suitable technical appraisal. To use your analogy, Gen suchandsuch gets sold on the minigimpy by a salesman but doesn't quite understand that the laws of physics do not allow poor old Mr T. Atkins to carry sufficient ammunition for the thing.

Jobs for the boys mabye? Surely a joint project with the americans wouldn't be as difficult as the EU would it? Language barrier and the fact there is only one of them for starters! F35 anyone? (granted that one isn't looking so hot, but that can be put down to the brass not knowing what we want or need). That's freedom to upgrade sorted (ish).

Not really. We are tied to the US upgrade path on that one. Plus export law is a greater PITA when dealing with across the Atlantic compared to across the North Sea.

Being at the front of the queue though, I'd have thought that they being our allies could be persuaded to sort us out something.

Maybe. Maybe not.

And can you name anything that we have sold in numbers to anyone other than us and the Saudis?? Not much I'd bet.

In the last few decades:
L119(M119), L16 (M252), ULFH (M777), AS90 (in the form of the Polish Haubicomarta KRAB), AIM132 ASRAAM, CVR(T), L96, Rapier, Lynx, Merlin, Challenger 2 (to Oman). Still and all, we used to be better at it.

Where does operational sovereignty come into this? sure the yanks may sell us loads of F14 tomcat planes and tell us not to use them on north iranistan but did that ever stop the ayatollahs with all the kit the US sold the Shah before '79?? Did it hell. The Iranians kept using those F14's and quite a few still fly to this day. Not bad going for a bunch of arabs under an allegedly "total" arms embargo I must say!

I was thinking more along the lines of the Belgians refusing to sell us ammunition or getting dodgy stuff from India or somewhere.

And what pray tell is the "UK method"? Using our own self made kit that frankly leaves a lot to be desired even if it had a purpose a.la. Sub hunters come to mind here. Red banner northern fleet? 1990? Soviet? Do they jog the memory? We don't need such a massive proportion of our fleets looking for things that simply don't happen anymore. Sure the Iranian navy has some subs, but who in their right mind sees them using them for something destructive? A few sub hunters are fine but do we really need loads? I digress quite massively..

The UK method is what you are forced to use when you can't afford all the funky toys that the US has. We don't have as much or as varied stuff to fill in gaps, so what we have needs to be able to do more.

More or less irrelevant if they were bought brand new. Although the cost would be pushed up by having to set up the production line again. What about the F/A 18 super hornet? Again an oldish but sound basic design with a lot of modern improvements and mods. Either way we still would likely save billions on R&D alone. The yanks have done the hard work haven't they?
Both are cold war relics admittedly, but the F15 has the flexibility to do rather nifty and immensely useful ground support work RIGHT NOW in the F15E. Do we have anything like that in the EF2000 sorry eurofigher, sorry typhoon? I'm not holding my breath!

Less irrelevant. The Typhoon has an additional 10-20 years of maintenance and logistics experience, so it is designed to be easier to maintain - less manhours to change engines etc. It's like the difference between changing the engine on a Leo2 vs a Chieftain.

Who was it that said that anything that rebrands more than a few times a century is more than likely going to fail?

I don't know, but it might explain the parties political.

Originally Posted by Kitmarlowe

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

Re BOWMAN, it's here, get used to it. How many complaining have filled in a CIS/IR? That is what they are there for.

Spot a problem report it up chain and it will eventually get sorted. Stop trying to make believe BOWMAN is Clansman and work with it instead of forcing it to do what Clansman could do.

I'll give you a hint how useful complaining about anything to do with Bowman is.

I did the Westland run Bowman course at Bicester a few years back. During my 5 weeks all told there the Instructor was forced to point out at least once a day a mistake in either the lesson or the Computer sims or both. Each and every single fault had been pointed out by the instructors at Bicester at least once over the 4 or so years they had been there. Not one single fault had been corrected. If no one can be bothered to make sure something as basic as the training package is correct....

The Westland courseware was SHYTE. We know that. The package was designed and "locked down" to stop plagirisation and due to copyright issues.

Just because it was SHYTE then does not mean it is SHYTE now.

If you have a problem with the system IR it! If not, stop dripping and learn the thing.