Could we still support ARRC

Discussion in 'Royal Signals' started by polar, Sep 4, 2008.

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. Seeing as most TA don't have BOWMAN due to resource issues, its all needed to support the two Ops, it makes me think we don't have enough ICS assets to do this anymore. Ptarmigan is an antique and can't support a modern army. Falcon isn't in service and was based on the demands of a few years ago, I suspect it will deliver a vastly poorer date rate/service to COTS kit currently in service

    I know ARRC has deployed recently but not without the scale of supporting services needed in a break in op. Via normal work I know the demands a part of the CSS would/will put on the network.

    Have been reading a TA thread on (lack of) BOWMAN and I feel they're an ICS generation or two behind modern demands. 12 Sig Grp with their Ptarmigan provide a healthy supply of reserve drivers but to drive what???

    Should we just stop creating big systems i.e. PTARMIGAN/FALCON/BOWMAN etc and upgrade elements when needed (I'll call it COTS).
     
  2. Ironic that Cormorant is comprised of COTS kit but they don't simply use COTS eqpt to upgrade the system by increments on demand and thereby end up with an ever-evolving system that meets the same CONOPS. Example - swap out 100 Mb network switches with Cisco Gigabit switches, swap out PBX with VOIP system, swap ATM kit with IP/MPLS kit and so on. But that would make the contractors feel unloved if they weren't allowed to tell us what we want. Let's face it, data protocols aren't tied to defence contracts - IP is IP, ISDN is ISDN, BGP is BGP, V11 is V11 and dodgy contracts are dodgy contracts. :roll:

    But no, Cormorant is scheduled to die in 3 or 4 years. What a waste.
     
  3. Thought ARRC had new network kit procured for it last year? THALES built using Cisco and Dell COTS equipment? Or is this another project that has re-directed some where else?
     
  4. Sorry if I'm being a bit slow tonight, but if they don't swap out a PBX with VOIP system (to use your example) what do they swap it out with?

    Baldrick - the ARRC's system was called Project RICHILIEU - I believe that they are still using it. I think that they may have changed the name though.
     
  5. We might be thinking along different lines here, but essentially I meant taking the leap and replacing PABX circuit switched traditional means with packet switched means, in order to take advantage of the rise in IP networks, rather than a choice between Voice-Over-any other alternative comms.
     
  6. I suppose that physics is difficult to get over. Can't they use clever algorithms to sample data at a higher level, process it and provide the modified feedback. Shannon?
     
  7. NOTEPAD works fine, but try explaining that to Staff who are using Office 2K3, or Vista at home. Demands on bandwidth increase every year for both WAN and LAN links. Convincing the User community to reduce its requirement to accommodate last century’s technology is futile. Expectation will continue to grown in line with Moore's law and our challenge is to meet these new needs, not just to roll back applications to a level we can handle.

    The use of intelligent switching and routing protocols instead of blindly flooding networks with traffic would be a start, (for those who know, I'm pointing the finger at me). Better infrustructure, increased bandwidth and load balanceing over meshed networks are some means of improving data rates. I've not served with ARRC so I'm not the SME, are there other options that could be consider?
     
  8. So only officers can ICS systems? What about the inexperienced doc/medic facing an operation he's never dealt with before and requires a remote more experienced doc to give him advice (the remote doc needs to see an image of the wound)?

    We can't go back and accept the comms of only a few years ago, as joe public wouldn't want the scenario above to not occur (and the soldier/patient dies). Yes some people are using more bandwidth than they require, with WORD format being a lot fatter than rtf or ascii text.

    I understand that some of the BISA's have turned into CD/Memory stick ISA's. I don't believe I've seen the 'B' mentioned in any document over the past few years, industry/other corps had already given up on 'B'.
     
  9. Was going to make a post against this but in my boredom I've looked into some project files.

    I'm amazed at how much tripe officers put out, what amounted to a few (industry) emails this week appears to have been the subject of several (service) meetings, 1000 emails a couple of years ago. I still can't believe how simple requests like we want to be able to send emails gets turned into enabling technologies, information repostistories, core services, foundation technologies and network & communication bearers.

    Whats this thing for turning everything into info babble. No wonder networks get overloaded
     
  10. I'd heard that Cormorant was getting passed onto the RAF ? This was because Falcon was doing really well and well - it's better than Cormorant. Anyone heard anything similar ?
     
  11. Aside from the software issues, there are equally important and yet more basic concerns. The ARRC can only deploy into a secured location. It has no integral ability to maintain anything other than point security around the HQ as it is simply a HQ (albeit Supported by a very small Signal Bde). Luckily in its' last 3 deployments it has been into areas that are basically controlled (if not secure). Were the situation in Kabul to worsen ARRC may find its ability to take on the mission could be compromised by a lack of available bayonets.

    Further the overwhelming demand of the US to maintain Command of ISAF, which is far greater than when ARRC last deployed there, would deny GBR the ability to actually Command the Operation. This is likely not acceptable to GBR or COMARRC. One wonders what status COMARRC will actually have?
     
  12. But surely US and GE demands for command and control of the major assets is one of the reasons for moving the ARRC back and reconstituting it as 1 (UK) Corps?
     
  13. The RAF already have Cormorant, 90 SU.
     
  14. I hear that they're actually doing quite well with it. Speaking to a couple of the lads that teach it and some USSO guys, they're impressed by how the RAF lads have taken a different angle on it and started to ask serious questions about scalability. The Army have always been hampered by the old "that's what you asked for in the contract" bo11ocks and, as usual, come up with innovative bodge solutions regardless. Even though the RAF are a bunch of barrack-room lawyers (pot, kettle black over) they are bringing in some perspective regarding the services that run over it.

    A bearer is a bearer, but "it's what you do with it that counts".
     
  15. That is a pipe dream as UK are currently unable to form a Corps Size group independent of US and other EU support. Just consider for instance the comms assets required, the helicopters and the other Divisions (we have a fairly stronf 1 UK Div, but when that is fully manned what would remain in 2 and 3 Divs? Moving ARRC to Uk is simply a way for this govrnment to save money. - No LOA, no need for Service Schools, reduce CEA, no need for families medical/dental support etc etc. Shame is that it will destroy the espirit de corps found in the ARRC now, as people scatter to the 4 winds at weekends.