Bowman radio allegedly burns troops

#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.
 
#3
Not in the frigging slightest
 
#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
...so 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
YANTOFULPELT said:
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.
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
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
Guardian_Reader said:
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

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
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.
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

http://www.pgpi.org/
 
#16
I'm no expert in this stuff, but...
- GSM is as in mobile phones, yeah? Where are all the masts for this? In the desert...and the arctic...and the jungle and... Don't think Police Counter Terrorist teams is 'nuff said' - do they operate in the numbers and over the distances and in the conditions that we do in high intensity warfighting anywhere in the world? I don't think so - if they did, we'd all be out of a job, wouldn't we Tony?
- followed that link, couldn't make head nor tail of it - far too clever for me. If Public Key Encryption is something that the magic little elves inside the electronic talking machine do, then stick it all in. If it's something like BATCO, where you fack about with a slide rule at four in the morning in the rain than forget it, that's what we're trying to get away from.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend Bowman - I've haven't seen it - and it does sound like the MoD may have managed to pull offf the impossible and actually come up with something worse than Clansman...but I think we gotta accept that the scale of what we're trying to do with Bowman is pretty facking large and difficult.
 
#17
YANTOFULPELT said:
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.
That's rather lucky as it will dovetail nicely with the reduced numbers of cavalry soldiers available to crew the aforementioned CVR(T). So we will have nice shiny vehicles, with nice shiny radios and no personnel - thereby saving money on fuel, wear and tear and ammunition whilst at the same time reducing the level of harmful emssions being churned out into the environment. How much more synegistic can you get? Everyone's a winner! ........ errrrrrrr except the Army.

Someone should get a medal for this.
 
#18
do they operate in the numbers and over the distances and in the conditions that we do in high intensity warfighting anywhere in the world
I would agree its not easy enviroment, but GSM operates in 186 countries (wide climate conditons) with maximum range of about 35 km.

Tetra radios can operate without mobile base stations

May be none of the civilian options would be suitable, I'm a full time techie and I thought it might be worth highlight other options. Some of these MOD project delays are taking the piss and I think civilian kit needs to be considered.

[I apologise for this link

http://www.pgpi.org/

I should have explained better. Its a famous piece of software for encrypting email which uses "pulbic key encryption" system.]
 
#19
I've neard of PGP - Pretty Good Privacy - and I'm a thick squaddie.

Grauniad reader. one problem that we have is that we *cannot* rely on fixed base stations. We need to be able to communicate in the arrse end of the world - how may base stations are in Afghanistan, Sierra leon etc?

The MOST annoying thing about the whole issue is that years ago we have sold agile kit to Johhny Foreigner: plus the reality is that we should by from Uncle Sam as we aint going NOWHERE without him, and we need to be able to talk to the Septics -even to say CHECK FIRE YOU CNUTS... AIUI we cannot, right now.....
 
#20
The technology at the base of the whole comms issues are really old hat, frequency agility, burst transmission of data, etc. Ferranti (as was in 1985) had a system out called Jaguar that provided secure comms that is difficult to DF. The trouble with Bowman was that it was designed at the start to be all things to everyone, that was a crazy approach.

Whoever was leading the project through all the project management rules straight out of the window. The specification changed on an almost daily basis for longer than the project was supposed to take in total. No wonder it went pear-shaped. They should have developed a good, workable backbone to the system and then bolted on the bits for each service or corps relevent to their role.

Encryption is relatively straight forwards nowadays, PGP is good but there are more secure algorithms out there now. It's not as if the data has to stay secret forever, only until it is not relevent anymore. If you can make it too difficult for an enemy to waste the computing time necessary to crack a good algorithm then it's secure enough for what we need.

I can understand that there may be equipment that you could get RF burns from the emissions, though if you can get those from manpacks, then that is a problem.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Weapons, Equipment & Rations 1
U The Training Wing 0
The_Cheat Army Reserve 20

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top