Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Curtains for "Jitters"?

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.

factsheets_JTRFACT.jpgEssentially, the JTRS program [known as "Jitters"] is aiming for something that’s 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 Pentagon’s 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 Army’s Communications-Electronics Lifecycle Management Command] said. “Maybe we can have it run just one wave form, then you wouldn’t 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, we’re 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, it’s 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.

Comments

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 12:59 AM


So have you figured out how every time Congress cuts a program's budget, they put it back on cost and schedule? It's simple. The cost profile is in the contract. It's just like if you hire a contractor to work on your house. You promise to pay a certain amount every month or so. When Congress "punishes" a program by not fully funding it, the contract has to be renegotiated. Customarily this is where the DoD fixes things to erase the over run and schedule slippage. Usually they also add years to the end of the schedule and funds to cover them at that time too.

It's very nice for the contractors because, as I mentioned before, they don't make any profit on the over run amount with a cost plus contract. What they heck, they might just as well sign firm fixed contracts with the DoD if they aren't going to be held to their funding profile or schedule anyway. Think about that the next time you see where Congress is cutting the budget of some errant program. Someone's being punished, but it isn't the contractor.

Posted by: Dfens at November 10, 2005 10:12 PM


JTRS dude, you are correct. There are many errors in the article, and in these postings as well. I won't attempt to correct all, but will point out a few.

First, JTRS was never intended to work off of one antenna. There are efforts to minimize the number of antennas, but not to one. Best case, there will be less antennas; worst case, no more than now.

Second, one of the priorities of JTRS was to provide interoperability between the services, something that is hardly existent today. This is the reason for operating in the "WWII" era frequency bands. Good example, you have an Army guy with eyes on target, and an AF plane flying by with an extra bomb, but doesn't know where the target is. The best the Army guy can hope for today is the pilot will see him pointing at the target as the plane flies by, because since they have different types of radios, they can't talk to each other. The Army's primary means of communicating voice is SINCGARS, and the AF uses HAVEQUICK, which are not only in different parts of the spectrum, but have different modulation schemes. Both warfighters, outfitted with JTRS, would have the capability to host one another's "waveform", providing them with the opportunity to operate in the same part of the spectrum using the same modulation scheme, thereby achieving interoperability.

Secondly, JTRS is intended to provide a network capability to the warfighter. This is where the digital capabilities will be employed. In a sense, JTRS will bring internet-like capability to the battlefield. What better way to "shorten the kill chain" than to give the warfighter the means to relay targeting information machine-to-machine? Battlefield orders and aircraft taskings can be sent digitally, and retaskings or redirecting assets in the same manner. Battlefield Damage Assessments will be nearly instantaneous, enabling leaders to make reattack decisions without having to wait for the information to work it's way back to the headquarters and be analyzed by intel. Internet almost like you have at home, but to pass battlefield information. Who wouldn't want that?

Lastly, JTRS will solve another problem that hasn't even been addressed here. That is encryption. The FRS radios described above are doing the job for the guys in Iraq, but at what risk. Those radios have no encryption, so the insurgents could be buying the same Walmart special, and be eavesdropping on our guys. Doesn't sound like an ideal seituation to me. JTRS will have embedded encryption, and will be programmable to be interoperable with encryption systems in use today (there's that interoperability thing again).

Bottom line, yes, JTRS is expensive. Yes, it's taking longer than scheduled. Yes, it's complicated. But so were a lot of the technologies we have today, military and civil. I think the companies working on it should be given the time to continue to develop this system because once fielded, it will provide those guys on the front line with a tremendous advantage over any military they'll ever have to face.

Posted by: A at November 10, 2005 03:08 PM


There are so many errors in the article that it would be better to get the facts straight before make comments...

Posted by: JTRS dude at November 10, 2005 12:13 PM


These are not the wavebands you are looking for!

GSM is NOT an analogue system. In fact it was the first digital system. It operates world-wide in the following: 900MHz, 1800MHz, 1900MHz, and 850MHz. 850 is used ONLY on the old AT&T Wireless net and nowhere else. UMTS, the European (and worldwide) 3G standard, has two flavours. The usual one by a mile is UMTS-FDD, aka WCDMA, which is mostly found in the 2100MHz band (assigned to it under the ITU's IMT2000 spectrum plan). CDMA2000, the US 3G standard, is in the 1900s too. To reiterate, WCDMA (UMTS) is a global standard.

450MHz was used by the old NMT networks - a first generation standard developed in Scandinavia, and the first mobile system to include international roaming. These have long since been superseded by first GSM and then UMTS, so the 450 band is now becoming available. Lucent (Bell Labs) and ZTE of China both offer a CDMA2000 system operating at 450MHz, which is being used in Norway, Romania and a few other places, usually for mobile Internet access.

Just to keep you confused, Nokia and Ericsson just relaunched a 450MHz version of GSM intended for third world markets. In Slovakia, T-Mobile operate an OFDM mobile IP system at 450 and say they think 450 is "optimal for OFDM". In the Czech Republic, T-Mobile are doing the other version of UMTS, UMTS TDD (TDCDMA) at 1900 in the unpaired IMT2000 spectrum, as well as WCDMA.

Posted by: Alex at November 10, 2005 06:47 AM


they might want to work with video game developers along with nasa and their plan to digitize the battlefield might enhacne software antanee compatibility.

Posted by: Evan Barnett at November 10, 2005 04:16 AM


Good Evening Dfens,

I have been involved with Government contract and am very much awere of the games. I know about advance payments,change orders, cost plus agreements etc.

These procedures as you suggest streach out programs for obsene amounts of time and as I think we both agree on time equates profits. I'n also sure that the incestious relationship between industry and the Pentagon is in no small part responsible for this.

To tie this into Timekeepers statements. First, I did enlist into the U.S. Army, did you?

Secondly the United States doesn't exist in a vacuum other are working on the same C4/I3 problems, most notably China. The private sector products that I mentioned in my earlier post will be marketed worldwide and that incluses China and India. If the United States loses it edge in C4/I3 we are in serious trouble and as was suggested the same people involved in this work are working both sides of the water, it all depends on who will wriye a paycheck.

Thirdly, on the pay of flag officers. An example a Major General serving as a Divisional Commander earns in the neighborhood of $130K. For that money he runs and organization capitalized anywhere from $2-5+Billion with 14to20+K employees.

At some point in their careers military officers are going to have to start thinking about the future. The retirement benefits for career military both Officer and Enlisted are meager and the defense industry knows this and exploits it to there advantage.

A $130K year would be only an ok one for a Realestate Sales Agent, a down one for a Construction Project Manager and in a mid size company would be where a mid level production manager with about five years experience should be.

Meanwhile if he/she would be running a division or a company of that market value the pay would be in the $1.5Million range or more, much more.

This is a major problem and at some point it will have to be addressed as well as the payscale for senior enlisted personal.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 10, 2005 01:27 AM


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.

Posted by: Dfens at November 9, 2005 11:28 PM


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?

Posted by: Dfens at November 9, 2005 08:43 PM


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.

Posted by: TheMasterTimekeeper at November 9, 2005 07:39 PM


Good Afternoon Gopi and The Master Time Keeper,

A couple of technical points here. GSM is an analoge standard that is common ourside the U.S. the overlay to this is WCDMA with in the U.S. CDMA has been replaced by CDMA2000 and propriatry CDMA protacalls by licenced users such as Nokia.

Addressing the point of a squad radio, or even the platoon level for that matter, of these radios not being able to communicate outside their nets they can't.

For example to call in an air strike or even a "Dust Off" a platoon leader without an attached Air Force FAC must go through his company net who in thurn most likely must go to the battalion net before this can be done.

The mentioned AN/PRC117F is an example of how clumsly and technogoly behind the military is. This is a direct satellite voice only system. In order to us it the operator must find a stationary position, set up and antenna and wait for his/her satellite to come by and work with in a window. The main unit is about the size of a couple of shoe boxes and weigthts in at about 25lbs. if I recall.

On the other hand the typical CNN/FOX reporter whipps out a satellite phone the size of a brick that weights in at about 2lbs. and makes his/her call.

Last Summer Qualcomm demoed a pod cast from backpackers hiking in Northern Canada using a protype phone, Sony pda and a Sony camcorder that had two way voice, text and one way video. Battery charging was form solar panels.

I saw both live and tape delayed pod casts. The quality although not HD was certainly good enough. The current retail cost of this equipment would be about $2,000.00. True the phone is a protoype but it was expected to his the market about now.

Qualcomm's goal for a consumer product is to put all this in a single unit smaller then the current satellite phone alone. Market date estimated 3ed qtr. '06.

This technology is several generations ahead of the JTRS. The chilling thing is the bad guys will have it with in a week of it hitting the retail stores.

As was mentioned is a previous post the defense industry makes money of mistakes and failures, the only other industry that I know of where that happens is education.

The problem stems from as the late Col. David Hackworth would say is the "The perfumed and plummed princes and princess of the Pentagon." They view the Defense Industrial Complex as their Maniafist Destiny for wealth and are willing to trade their souls for the 30 pieces of silver being offered.

The problem is money, we pay out military officers way to little. Patroitism and loyality alone make for a lousy retirement. The appox. $80,000.00(taxable) retirement for a four star is paultry when all they have to do to make 10 or 20 times that amount is lean on there friends.

When a Retired General of Wesly Clark's satature can generate $1.6Million annual income for renting out his name and makeing a few county fair appearences, the system is broke.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 9, 2005 06:25 PM


Hey FCS Engineer:

Drop me a line, willya? It'll be strictly off-the-record...

nms

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at November 9, 2005 06:18 PM


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.

Posted by: TheMasterTimekeeper at November 9, 2005 03:13 PM


Byron Skinner:
While I can't comment on the effectiveness of the current military radios, I do think there are some inaccuracies in your post.

The frequencies that were used for AMPS are still being used today for digital signals by telcos. GSM works at 850 MHz, the AMPS band, in the US. CDMA also runs on the old AMPS bands, in addition to in the 1900 MHz band. Across the world, you can find digital signals where there used to be analog.

It is generally agreed that, all else being equal, the lower frequency signals will have better penetration into buildings. Most of the multi-GHz systems in use are extremely short range. Cellular systems have frequent base stations - something that's not practical on a battlefield.

There are reasons beyond the technical ones for moving to high frequencies. High frequencies are more available - there are less people already using them. In countries where lower frequencies are still available, they are being used. Eurotel, in the Czech Republic, is running a 3G cellular system on the 450MHz band - the same type of network that runs on 1900MHz in the US.

The frequencies that go back to WWI are superb for long range communications. You can't transmit as much data on them, that is correct. That's why you want short range gigahertz band and long range at lower frequencies.

I'm not sure what your wal-mart sells, but the $20/pair walkie talkies I've seen were FRS or GMRS radios, and 15km is not going to happen, even in ideal line of site conditions. A high power CB handheld is more likely to get you that, but they're a lot more than $10 each.

As to the suggestion that JTRS is less advanced than a garage door opener, that's just ridiculous. JTRS is (was?) a very advanced software defined radio platform. The technology behind it is quite interesting, but as the article says, the JTRS specs are probably not possible due to those annoying laws of physics.

From what little I know of military radios, it does sound like they're disturbingly outdated and technically obsolete. However, this does not mean that the _frequencies_ they use are obsolete, merely the radios themselves. "Old" low frequencies are widely used and have many benefits.

Posted by: Gopi Flaherty at November 9, 2005 01:21 PM


Good Morning Dfens,

I think there is an old, and over used saying that clearly cover all the points of your post; "Throwing good money after bad." or if you are of a gambling bent how about; "Cutting your loses."

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 9, 2005 12:56 PM


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.

Posted by: FCS Engineer at November 9, 2005 10:12 AM


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.

Posted by: Alex at November 9, 2005 06:25 AM


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.

Posted by: Dfens at November 8, 2005 11:33 PM


The JTRS has many problems but probably it's major short comming is layed out in the paragraph that lists the bandwiths the military is using. They are are all old analogue bands.

The problems that the JTRS have encountered were dealt with in the private sector a decade ago. They went digital and into GaHZ bandwiths.

The JTRS is trying to make AMPS circuits work, the movement of a digital signal over an analogue signal. Sad to say but your garage door opener is of higher tech then the JTRS.

The military insist on using bandwiths that go back to the first world war and are limited in there capacity and range. An anology would be building horse barns for the current 1st. Cavalry Division. On the other hand our enemies have no such restrictions.

The answer of course is scrapping the old and moving up and all digital signals but the prime contractor Harris Communication is making to da** much money screwing around trying to reinvent the wheel and we have no Admirals or Generals who have the ba**s to stand up and say enough is enought.

A rather sad but humorious account of what Harris is up to can be found in the story of how they rebuilt the air traffic system in Kobal Agfhanstan.

The most hidious example of the problem is in the urban combat in Iraq. American forces using the ANPRC/119B can't communicate more then three Km. on a good day, the specs for the ANPRC/119B call for only a range of six Km, which it can only do line of sight.

Meanwhile the bad guys using off the shelf, made in China, can be bought at Wal-Mart for about twenty bucks a pair walkie talkies can talk over a range often to fifteen Km.

Needless to say our guys picked up on this very early and those walkie talkies hanging off their battle rattle are the main communications at the Company level and below. Thats where the fighting takes place.

At some point the folks in the DoD who are managing (not leading) this war I'm sure will take notice and move into 21st. Century Communications Technogoly, let's just hope they don't wait till the 22ed. Century for the revelation.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
"Stewart's Platoon"

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 8, 2005 02:17 PM


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.

Posted by: Lally at November 8, 2005 01:59 PM


Bah, they should have gone with one frequency range and done everything digitally with software...

Posted by: Pierce Wetter at November 8, 2005 01:48 PM


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.

Posted by: David Axe at November 8, 2005 01:19 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.