Thread: BOWMAN - BCIP 5 Upgrade Confirmed

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

Originally Posted by CAARPS

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

Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

[
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!

Go on, really, I would never have guessed :D :D

@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.

Originally Posted by CAARPS

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

[
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!

Go on, really, I would never have guessed :D :D

No it's really a WAH! I'm in charge of the toilets in LWC!

Originally Posted by 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.

Thanks mate! :D

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Originally Posted by CAARPS

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

[
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!

Go on, really, I would never have guessed :D :D

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 :P

Originally Posted by CAARPS

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Originally Posted by CAARPS

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

[
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!

Go on, really, I would never have guessed :D :D

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 :P

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

Originally Posted by CAARPS

Originally Posted by DigitalGeek

[
Its funny that. BOWMAN (Or at leas a derivative of) is in my job title too!

Go on, really, I would never have guessed :D :D

No it's really a WAH! I'm in charge of the toilets in LWC!

BOWMAN?

So you are an Archer then?

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

No CW on BOWMAN, tell me it isnt so :D

If they wanted a different look to differentiate HF and VHF could we not have just painted the chassis a different colour