Use of PRR on Operations

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by ArmyYid, Jun 6, 2005.

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. Bit of a spotter thread here, but I am doing a bit of work on the above and looking at the req and feasibility of making PRR secure.

    Does anybody have any experience of using PRR as more than just chat net and at levels greater than Sect/Pl. Looking particularly at using it to pass information (Orders etc) for which the current level of security may be insufficient.
     
  2. How on earth would you get the range out of the thing to make Sy a critical issue. What level of Os do you anticipate using it for? QBOs or C2 during an assault? - no Req that I can see even if the En was listening directly. In fact it might quite suit a deception plan if you were facing an enemy whose section commanders spoke squaddie English as unlikely as that might be.

    As ever, happy to be edumacated if it so suits the forum...
     
  3. digitise the fcucker... that'll make life a bit more difficult for t'enemy.

    Albeit abacus has a very valid point. If they can speak squaddie english and are so close as to intercept prr transmissions they're more than likely to be removed in a mist of pain and misery within the next few mins.

    The short range was the security from what I heard.
     
  4. We used it both in BATUS and TELIC. In BATUS we marvelled at picking up a Pl of jocks at about 6km - it was LOS and great conditions etc, but it just goes to show how insecure it was (except no one spoke jockanese, so they may as well have been using BATCO).

    Also used in TELIC, on some ops, as Coy net because the Clansman just didn't cut it in some areas, so on Coy search ops etc, we relied on PRR. In built up areas it sometimes wasn't so hot, you could lose comms at 25m, but as the VRCs weren't working it was better than nothing. Secure would be great and save some concern about intercept, but remember that sometimes just TX will warn someone you're there anyway, whether they understand your conversation or not - which might be enough for the IED to be triggered. The other thing is - please don't make it any heavier, or use batteries any quicker, or it will find itself becoming a pain in the arrse.

    For what its worth.
     
  5. Works well on ops, but when you get people relying on it to pass consolidation Os like one of our LEs tried to do, then there is a problem. Am sure it could be digitised. It's a good bit of kit actually. :D

    BFW
     
  6. There are some specific problems with developing PRR as a fully secure radio: In short, you can't; you'd have to start again from scratch. And there are also a number of sensitivities about asking a question when we are not going to like the answer we'll get back. If you want to PM me with some idea of where you're coming from on this I'll give you as good a steer as I can, and tell you who you might wish to talk it through with.

    Don
     
  7. Thanks for the responses so far, very useful.

    I understand the issue ref range and intercept, linked to timeliness of info being passed and what anyone can actually do with it.

    Also note the point ref batteries and power budget.

    I am looking at increasing range, by upping tx power. This is possible with the current PRR. Again not wishing to compromise battery life etc in doing so.

    Reasons for investigating the security issue is that if pers are passing info of a less immediate, but no less sensitive nature (Wng O etc) then such future intentions should be better protected.

    Grateful for further views and would welcome PM should you wish to find out exactly where I am aiming with this.

    Rgds
     
  8. I understand PRR to have a limited in service life so there will not be a new generation as it were (will be replaced by part of BOWMAN). I think the sy aspect is covered by the user's awareness of the sy shortfalls and then not giving away 'future intentions'.

    Is greater range really necessary? we still have the PRC 349/350 at pl level to pass information from Pl HQ down - or have they been dropped as a means of comms because PRR is easier to use?

    My experience of PRR is that it is a great piece of kit at the lowest levels.
     
  9. PRR's a great piece of kit but it's nowhere near squaddie-proof. It also can't cope with the heat out in the sandpit. 500m seems to be about maximum range, any more and the signal starts to break up, so greater range or security aren't really neccessary. Also I defy anyone other than a Jock to understand a Jock on the net!
     
  10. 307

    307 War Hero

    I defy a non jock to understand them face to face let alone on the bloody net. :lol:
     
  11. 349 still in use.

    Unfortunately.
     
  12. hence the PRR's with dual pressel switches and the dangly clansman lead.
     
  13. also works with eg. 351/352.
     
  14. Works through cougar net. Obviously the chat net facility is still insecure but normal voice procedure should negate any need for a secure means below Bn net.
     
  15. jocks are fine face to face until they get excited then all bets are off.
    had a drunk at the hostel I worked at used to stand at the counter swearing away at the staff in fluent jock and all he got from the staff was smiles used to do that to visiting coppers as well safe in the knowledge that all these southern scum :lol: could'nt understand him.
    all went well until a new worker whod' worked in glasgow got a job
    Fluent jockanese verbal beasting resulted :twisted: he was visably shocked no one else understood what was going on though :roll:
    kept muttering a wee lass should'nt know words like that :roll: :lol: