The idea was simple: take the military’s tangled mess of radios, any replace ‘em all with a single, software-based model.
But executing the idea has been anything but easy. And now, generals are talking about dropping the notion of a universal radio altogether, Defense News’ Greg Grant reports — right when Pentagon chiefs are trying to decide what to do with about the troubled, $6.8 billion Joint Tactical Radio System.
Essentially, the JTRS program [known as “Jitters”] is aiming for something thats almost physically impossible, or at least extremely expensive, experts say… The desire to use a single antenna for many different wavelengths bumps up against laws of physics, which make it difficult to pull in strong signals across the spectrum. An amplifier that works across the whole spectrum will use much more electrical power than one tuned for a specific frequency band. Waveforms and transmissions that are speedily handled by analog systems, such as the widely used Link-16, are much tougher to achieve with digital computation…
A better solution… is using such software-defined radios only when absolutely needed. More and more communication of data and even voice can be routed via the Pentagons burgeoning digital network. Such relays could allow the new radios to coexist with older ones…
Initially, every JTRS box has to host all the waveforms and all the software for the network. To do so requires high-performance computer processors, which translates into more heat and power.
But for the JTRS radio to be carried on missiles to provide guidance and on other platforms such as unattended ground sensors, there is no requirement for all that processing power.
So maybe one size does not fit all, [Maj. Gen. Michael Mazzucchi, who commands the Armys Communications-Electronics Lifecycle Management Command] said. Maybe we can have it run just one wave form, then you wouldnt have the same battery, heat and processing speed challenges.
Mazzucchi said JTRS also ran into the reality of an ongoing war when the Army realized it needed a lot more tactical network radios and so ordered another 100,000 radios. Those radios are going to last a long time, were not going to now go out and replace those radios in three years with JTRS.
The Army is no longer looking at JTRS as a radio replacement program. Instead, its being viewed as a gateway into the network.
The article is “absolutely right,” one Air Force radio specialist tells Defense Tech.
Yes, we’d all love a one-size-fits-all radio — especially one which can tie into larger networks without a lot of mucking around with settings for an hour beforehand. But there are huge technical obstacles to be overcome in the meantime, and the Pentagon is being unrealistic about the timeline for deploying the system. (2 MHz to 2GHz? They’re not kidding about laws of physics needing to be overcome.)
In the meantime, they could save a lot of trouble by procuring more of the newer do-it-all radios like the PSC-5D, PRC-117F, or the PRC-148. These radios already have impressive do-it-all capabilities and save a lot of hassle when it comes to interoperability.
Simply, the miltary has finally started using radios that can talk to different services, in different transmission modes, with different encryption, in addition to their normal mission. Our ETACS [Enlisted Terminal Attack Controllers, the guys who help bring in air support] used to need one radio to talk to the Army, a completely different one to talk to the planes, and yet another (different) radio to talk to the next echelon via SATCOM or HF. Each of these needs an encryption device (external, and bulky of course) plus associated power supply, audio cabling, and antennas
Anyway, since the late 90’s companies like Racal and Harris have been making radios which have multi-algorithm encryption built right into the radio, can handle lots of transmission modes (aside from the one or two a given service needs), and cover very broad frequency ranges. As an example, an old PRC-77 (the Army radio operators hauled around on their backs) covered 30-78MHz in FM voice mode only, with no internal encryption. (Mind you, that’s just the Army; there’s the USMC, USAF, USN, etc. to worry about, plus third parties.) A newer “do-it-all” radio like the PRC-148 MBITR covers 30 to 512 MHZ in AM, FM, SINCGARS (Army frequency hopping), HAVEQUICK II (Air Force frequency hopping) for both voice and data, with internal software that can simulate all sorts of external encryption devices.
AND the damn thing can talk through satellites.
This is typical of what similar radios like the PSC-5D and PRC-117 can do. The only real difference is form factor; the PRC-148 is the size of a largish walkie-talkie (slightly larger if you include the amplifier which makes SATCOM possible), the –5D and –117F are backpack-sized.
So now your ETAC doesn’t need a Humvee full of radios and encryption devices; he can carry one radio to talk to anyone he wants. Or maybe two if he needs to talk to two people simultaneously.
…and don’t forget that the software-based nature of these new radios means they can learn all sorts of unheard of tricks. For instance, the PSC-5 series of radios can pair up to make a repeater, or retransmit a SATCOM channel over an Army SINCGARS net (for instance) AND vice versa.
Well, to a radio guy, that’s pure dynamite.
JTRS wants to take it further, but in my opinion they’re trying to turn over two pages at once. There’s simply no precedent for tactical radios which self-program to switch nets (the way that cellphones do when changing service areas) and it could take a decade — easily — to get this off the ground.
No new radios, no radical weapons or lighter armor … what’s left of FCS other than some new chassis? The Army should cancel this boondoggle stat and take a more conservative piecemeal evolutionary approach to modernization. Massive increases in air– and sealift would pay higher dividends than any major new ground systems.
Bah, they should have gone with one frequency range and done everything digitally with software…
Well, let’s remember that a lot of the successes in military research have come from pushing hard until a seemingly magical breakthrough occurs. In this case, they were just asking for too much magic.
Yeah, go ahead and cancel this one. Cancel F-22. Cancel F-35. Cancel the next one too.
You just don’t get it, do you? The defense contractors make a profit on every program that gets cancelled. Do you really think you’re sticking it to them by canceling these programs? How damn obvious does it have to be?
They make the same profit during development that they make during production. The down side is, during production, there’s a lot more problems to crop up. For one thing, what they build has to work. Development has no such problems. They keep pumping out reports saying everything is peachy and as far as the government knows, it is. That’s not even to mention the penalties and fines the government often pays when the cancel a program. Pure profit there too with no risk at all.
Go ahead, cancel them all. You’ll get a whole lot of nothing, and pay billions for it. Now there’s a smart move.
Can I be the first to out myself as an Internet utopian and suggest the following action: Bin the whole bunch of shit, buy a ton of IEEE802.16e WiMax kit when the standard completes early next year (Motorola will gladly make it), stick the base stations on Humvees and the switch in a truck, and do encrypted voice-over-IP.
No one I work with believes JTRS or FCS will survive. They are to many technical and/or management problems. The wasteful spending is intense and there is almost nothing to show for it. Nothing.
FCS is particular is so out of control that it needs to be stopped.
Gopi, you’ve made some outstanding points. I’d like to piggyback on them by pointing out that “interoperability” means talking to EVERYone. Leapfrogging so far ahead with squad radios, for instance, could come at the expense of being able to talk to everyon else. Like, oh, aircraft. Or other countries, or even other services who aren’t up to the latest standard. Interoperability is a tricky beast at best and we would do well to remember that many of the platforms we need to talk to are going to be years, or even decades, behind.
Hey FCS Engineer:
Drop me a line, willya? It’ll be strictly off-the-record…
nms
Skinner,
I can’t agree that sat-phones are “several generations ahead” of JTRS. It may be that we’re talking abou apples and oranges here, but given your statement about the –117F* I suspect that in this case you just don’t know any better.
It’s an impolite thing to put so harshly, especially in light of the many reasoned and insightful comments you’ve made in the past, but it must be said.
One other thing– if you think officers are underpaid, well, you should have been enlisted.
Come on, Bryon, you’re smart enough to think more than one step ahead. So think about what’s going to happen after this program gets cancelled. Is the Army going to need a new radio ever again? I’ll bet they will. So that means they will need a new program to replace the old one. Who do you think will bid on the new program? Hmm, there are so many potential candidates…
I’d hold their damn feet to the fire if it were up to me. I’d quit giving them a free pass with budget and schedule and let them over run their cost plus contract so their profit on development would dry up. They sure as hell would stop getting an award fee. I’d also make them fire the morons who lied about being able to do the work in the first place or else I’d suspend the company from being able to bid on new work until they did. If the program got cancelled it would be at the contractors request. They’d be the ones that would pay me for the f-ups. It sure wouldn’t be me paying a cancellation fee.
Sure, go ahead and try the same thing that’s failed time and time again, then wonder why you get the same result. As long as being stupid pays better than doing the job right, guess what’s going to happen? The contractors are going to be stupid. And y’all are just too ready to play along. How many times are you going to get screwed before you figure it out?
Byron, I just reread my earlier post. Sorry about misspelling your name. I think it’s finger dyslexia.
I should mention, though, the DoD knows very well the game that’s being played here. These guys swap back and forth between industry and the government all the time. They know what’s going on.
Have you figured out the scam where Congress cuts the budget for a program and the program gets more expensive? Not only does the program get more expensive, but the schedule slides to the right and, as if by magic, the cost over runs disappear. Do I need to tell you how this scam works?
Haven’t you ever wondered how a 20+ year duration program like F-22 can be on budget and schedule every single year? They’re on a cost plus development contract, and yet every year they make full profit on every dime they spend. That’s a pretty good feat when you consider that if they were to over run, they would make zero profit on everything they spent that wasn’t in their budget for that year. Let’s see if you can figure out how they do that. It’s yet another aspect of this military industrial complex joke that’s hiding in plain sight.
There are so many errors in the article that it would be better to get the facts straight before make comments…
Links of London
Links of London Jewelry
Links of London Charm
Links of London Necklace
Links of London Bracelets
Links of London Earrings
Links of London Rings
Designer from UK
Diamond
Gold&Silver
Links Jewelry
Links Necklace
Links Charm
Links Earrings
Links Rings