Comments on: JTRS on the Skids

By: Lt. Jesse J.

Lt. Jesse J. — Thu, 03 May 2007 14:35:47 +0000

That’s what you get when you hire an airplane company (Boeing) and a tank builder (GD) to develop and deliver radios. These two clown companies couldn’t get 2 cups and a tight string to work reliably.

By: TrustButVerify

TrustButVerify — Tue, 01 May 2007 21:40:37 +0000

Brilliant. The uppers are not only backing off from a near-term JTRS fielding (probably a good idea), but they’re ignoring the obvious solution of pushing acquisition of joint-capable radios. For all the murmuring I hear about the military-industrial conspiracy, they’re doing a poor job of capitalizing on a good opportunity. They could sell MBMMRs, MBITRs, and Falcons by the truckload… And instead they’re returning to status quo.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 01 May 2007 17:43:42 +0000

What’s frightening is that I’d have figured that radios and software were where we werw strongest.

By: Billy Big Spuds

Billy Big Spuds — Tue, 01 May 2007 17:35:41 +0000

Anyone here ever play Splinter Cell? (I know, I know, war is not a game, but here me out). If you ask me, the optimal com system would be something like Sam Fischer’s OpSat. Just a suggestion for Natick.
–Billy Big Spuds

By: Sven Ortmann

Sven Ortmann — Tue, 01 May 2007 16:50:29 +0000

What’s so difficult about tactical radios?
The British needed also many years and pounds more than expected for their tactical radio.

By: Grandjester

Grandjester — Tue, 01 May 2007 16:48:14 +0000

*crickets*
Guess nobody gives a shit about radios Christian.
Too bad, I started working in this area when it was still called C3i, working with the USMC, Navy and AF on Command and Control rooms. Real communication success would go far in eliminating the dread “fog of war”, just not anyones idea of high priority I guess.