Bowman radio allegedly burns troops

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by easesprings, Oct 4, 2004.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Sorry no link available. Has anyone experienced any of these burns???? When the new generation of Land Rovers were procured surely someone would have had the foresight to measure up even if they measured the old ones.
    The Fcuk fairy has again visited the MOD :evil: :evil:

    It is claimed in the Daily Telegraph that the Army's new Bowman radios are giving the soldiers carrying them radiation burns, according to troops involved in trials of the £1.9 billion system. The radios are also much larger and heavier than the "old technology" Clansman sets they are designed to replace, the journal Defence Analysis reports today. Defence Analysis reports that the man-portable platoon level radio, which is carried on the back of the platoon signaller, has apparently given soldiers from the Royal Anglian Regiment radiation burns on certain power settings. The MoD said that there had been some problems with "minor radio-frequency burns" to soldiers carrying the Bowman radios but these had now been resolved. As for the weight problems, it was undertaking a post-design project with Land Rover to investigate the feasibility of an upgrade of front and rear axle weights to allow Bowman to be fitted to the Land Rover.
  2. Does this really supprise anyone?
  3. Not in the frigging slightest
  4. didn't CLANSMAN do the same? Heard that was down to people putting the whip thro the 2OW amp.
  5. I once thought I'd suffered some sort of awful burst battery injury until I remembered that it was in fact my flask in the 349 pouch on my belt order, and not the utterly useless piece of lowest bidder sh*te that should have been. It was dark. Luckily, I eventually "smelled the coffee"...
  6. Its worse than that!....It appears that if Bowman is fitted to CR2 you cannot use the crew i/c properly and it interferes with the gunnery systems!! :evil: :evil:
  7. the way I see it is that the moment you put the poor burned pl.sig. in the back of the rover, the already overworked axle on the FFR will give it some "one at a time please" and collapse. At that exact moment, some eccentric cavalrymen who's state of the art kit will not allow them to speak to each other, will hove into view. This will be closely followed by their strangled vowels setting off the main armament of the large mobile home they move about in.
    You couldn't make this up. It's even more frightening than being the number 2 on the "Charlie G",
  8. Allegedly, there is size issue in CVR(T). Can't fit it with the cav crew in!!!!!! Te He. Seriously though have heard this? Comments/confirmation anyone.
  9. Its true....but rather than update a 30+ year old vehicle to give more space they cram in a bulky thermal sight and probably didnt even measure up for bowman before they produced it..................Thick as fcuk procurement! As usual..............if you are claustraphobic don't join the cav 8O
  10. Urm, What happened to the extensive troop trails to iron out all the problems?

    How heavy is the damn thing if a Land Rover needs strengthening?

    I am told the Dutch Army have been using the system for a few years.
    Has anyone talked to them about problems....

    No change then. Bring back 2 baked bean tins and a piece of string!
    They have to be hainz mark you, no cheep supermarket brand.
  11. how the **** did they make something with chip in heavier than the 351?
    and don't give me any bollocks about mobiles not being squaddie proof :cry:
  12. Question from a civilian

    Why not buy civilian kit and modify it a bit.

    I know the army likes to have custom kit so that its

    i.e. ruggedised
    low probability of enemy detection
    high reliability (if pos)

    But wouldn't it be better to use cilivian technology, policy being to make as little change to the kit so that the army could use it (otherwise your back to square one).
    If you take mobile phone technology, you would have a number of advantages

    *It would work!
    *You would have the technology now (rather than 10 years)
    *mature technology (how oftern does your mobile phone let you down vs army kit?)
    *Plenty of equipment suppliers, so you would get true competiition. Not BAE or nothing
    *Easy upgrade to the latest technology
  13. JB

    JB Clanker

    As I understand it, the reason why it's so difficult to buy off the shelf/modify civvy stuff is simply security. The army wants secure comms: not something that anyone with a CB rig and a scanner can listen in to.
    Whatever else Bowman does or doesn't do, it's supposed to mean the end of BATCO, and BATCO, as far as helping with the fast-moving modern all-arms battle goes, is about as much help as a concrete lifebelt. No doubt the claim is that Bowman will help us to achieve this. Although, if you can't vehicle mount it to anything less than a Pinz and it doesn't work with AFVs and they've somehow made something even more unwieldy than the 349 and 351 for us at the bottom of the foodchain to carry, then...

  14. You have stepped into the wrong www site to ask questions like this. I suggest you with draw now before you gat a fire mission on your PM, and next time you log on make sure you have thoroughly researched or know your stuff
  15. Thats not true,

    GSM, is encrypted its just once the voice call enters the national telephone system its decrypted. This could be easily changed.

    Tetra, this is the system police use. I assume counter terrorism police squads use Tetra radios enough said.

    If thats not good enought plenty of really hard to break encryption technologies like public key encyrption (which GCHQ invented) could be included which you can download from