Future SATCOM implimentations... [Archive] - SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network

9 August 2006, 19:44

http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2002/08.html

The anticipated implementation of advanced architectures, supported by heightened connectivity in space as well as on the ground, will enable national security space communications to take advantage of commercially developed Internet-like communications, but with greater assurance and security.

'bout time... Not that typical SATCOM (TACSAT or otherwise) isn't mostly secure; but there is always room for improvement.

There has some major strides in this area of commo, much of which has been a direct result of the GWOT.

Richman

9 August 2006, 22:34

Wow, now I have more reading to do on Army time! :D Thanks for the link! :)

SATCOM

10 August 2006, 11:48

The main problem (I believe) with TACSAT availability right now is boneheads using it that have no business doing so. It has become the in-theatre ass & trash frequency-for-all.

A few months ago I overheard this on a certain sat channel at Bagram "I really don't like my Mitsubishi Pajero, and the Sarn't Major's back hurts after we ride around in it all day. See if there's any new Toyota Land Cruisers that are not being used at the JSOTF, then roll by the JOC and check. The A/C is also not as cold as it should be, plus the stereo doesn't have enough bass."

So, although the new breakthroughs are welcome, a crackdown on the buffoonery would be more advantageous.

Richman

10 August 2006, 11:53

That sort of thing has been a problem since indians were using smoke signals - air pollution :rolleyes: The more things change - the more they stay the same.....

Doogie320

10 August 2006, 12:32

Okay, dumb question here, but no one is acting as the Net Control Station? ALL of my SATCOM nets had an NCS. If the NCS told you to pound sand then you did.

All commo nets, SATCOM, UHF LOS, FM, whatever, are supposed to be controlled nets.

Edit: I know I'm preaching to the choir, SATCOM. You only have about a billion years more commo experience than me. Just a general rant on my part here. :)

The main problem (I believe) with TACSAT availability right now is boneheads using it that have no business doing so. It has become the in-theatre ass & trash frequency-for-all.

So, although the new breakthroughs are welcome, a crackdown on the buffoonery would be more advantageous.

Almighty Bones

10 August 2006, 13:21

Back when I was using Tacsat, Bde (not our own since at the time we didnt have one) was NCS they told us to kick rocks all the time. Problem was, we were trying to use it for real time world missions. They werent using it for crap. So we had the need, but it was theirs so we got screwed a lot.

RsovRanger

11 August 2006, 04:52

lol.. net control station? I thought that was just the highest ranking RTO on the freq... lol

SATCOM

11 August 2006, 11:07

NCS is supposed to control that kind of stuff, but it appears as though everyone has seen the limited bandwith abused. Our unit has bypassed the DOD and secured our own civilian pay-as-you-go satellite capability (for NIPR traffic) due to the unavailibility of military access. Reminds me of that Captain in Grenada that used his calling card to contact the ship for some naval gunfire!

Richman

11 August 2006, 11:27

NCS is not doing it's job if they let that shit happen. Just like kids... you can let the stations communicate amongst themselves but when they get out of hand or it gets too busy you are to put the hammer down.

11 August 2006, 11:46

We never fucked around on the Net... especially in the sandbox. Even in field-ops on Bragg we treaded very carefully... over basic SINCGARS on Air-Ops as well... Though I did hear a "Hey bob, where the fuck are you and where is the steiner aid?"

SGM broke him that night :D

If I heard trash over the net via some Joe, I'd smoke the shit out of him.

I'd say a far larger problem was people using up BW for surfing the internet on NIPRNET... not much of an issue when your pushing the BW we we're, but we restricted it to our company.

RsovRanger

11 August 2006, 20:21

lol.. if you are gonna fuck around on a net, fuck around on something that isn't heard at HQ!

15 August 2006, 07:55

lol.. if you are gonna fuck around on a net, fuck around on something that isn't heard at HQ!

lol, aye... Though, some late nights (02:30) it is fun to fuck around with some green LT on the crap-shift at Battalion.

"Hotel Bravo six, this is Alpha Lima niner... Be advised, we just lost our thirty mike... Private Joe forgot to engage the parking break on one of our victors and the bastard just went down taking out our generator as well. ETA on corrections, six hours" :D

We can deny anything when Bat only has one OIC, one NCOIC, and a lower enlisted driver on graveyard (of course the enlisted are in on it). Next day CO comes in and its always the same- "Sir, the thrity mike never went down; we we're running drills" :cool:

Taser

17 August 2006, 05:51

Everyone is becoming over reliant upon the SAT nets anyway. No one even knows HF exists, or they say it doesn't work in the sand. We ever loose the SAT channels (anti-sat missle or EMP?) , there won't be any comms (relevent or not) going on. The radio operators are not even taught HF theory anymore. People think if the SAT don't work a jungle antenna will chat just the same.... Sorry, this will fall in serious ranting if I continue...

17 August 2006, 10:33

Meh, I'm not sure about specifically HF, but we only used RF LOS commo in the desert (UHF/VHF). SAT packages we're involved in different areas. I myself was a 25Q and it (RF) is all I dealt with. As as far as I remember, RF packages we're heavily used when I was over there ('04/'05).

Now if we ever fought a technologically sophisticated enemy, I would want to be as far from the SAT packages as possible. Too much of a target that can be easily honed into with rocket-technology that is now coming into fruitation with other countries (crap we used back in the first gulf war).

In the end, RF tech is going to have to remain; it's redundency and its tactical applications are too valuable.

Max Power

17 August 2006, 10:50

RF was primary for us in Iraq, Sat was primary in Afghanistan. We tried HF in Afghanistan and it just didn't work because of distances (our Bn was spread over Bagram, Gardez, Jalalabad, Asadabad, and a town south of Gardez (can't remember)).

We did use HF while at JRTC to communicate with our Scouts when they were set up in OPs, as well as VHF/UHF (through the use of a retrans site, we were on the western edge of the box by North Fort in a bowl, comms out were limited without retrans, HF, or Sat), and Sat was soley used to communicate with Bde.

Doogie320

17 August 2006, 11:26

HF is viable in the desert. Antenna selection is the key. Pushing an assload of wattage helps if you can. Terrain and soil hurts you in the Stan but can be overcome with the right antennas.

Ole crusty bastard

17 August 2006, 11:41

We used a VHF PRC 25 in Nam, the top 5 channels at that time were not used by the military so that is where we played around. No one monitored those freqs, so anything went, sorts like CB radio today. Proper radio procedure was the norm on the lower channels, you had to request to join a "net" and use current call signs. How macho can you feel when you have to call yourself "Spunky Trick?" Apparently misuse of comm equipment has been around ever since we had radios.

Winnie

17 August 2006, 12:27

Lots of changing to TACSAT since I was in and worked it. It wasn't even an MOS then...just an identifier!

Gryfen-FL

17 August 2006, 12:59

Apparently misuse of comm equipment has been around ever since we had radios.
I'm sure there were Spartans who had to put boot to ass over issues with carrier pidgeons.

Technology changes, us Joes never will.

Almighty Bones

17 August 2006, 14:14

Didnt use HF when I was there, but then we werent allocated enough HF RT's to do much of anythnig with. The only 2 people that claimed to know HF, were my crusty Plt. Sgt. and my SSG that was 31P i believe in a LRS unit before going to active duty. We were forced to spend many a hour trying to get in touch with our base, even had AF Tac-Ps trying to help us for a bit. Nothing. The most I got was a Puff Daddy song at abotu 2300 hours. After that, back to fuzz. They dont teach uniforms anything to do with HF at all. At least not when I went thru AIT.

EchoFiveMike

17 August 2006, 14:41

We still do HF, but it's way too fucking work intensive for use by light infantry in a mobile role. We tried and tried to make it work in OIF2, but it just kept sucking. Sure, you could rig it to work point to point with hard antennas, but having to do radio checks every 30 minutes off a center feed 1/2 wave dipole while moving tactically with a team? No fucking chance.

"Mayhem, this is Nightmare, we're now 35m west of the last radio check, over"

Might be worthwhile for vehicles, but IMO/IME, a 50-100w VHF set with a decent antenna will get you all the range you need for a Bn AO in conventional operations. We routinely did 40km with a VRC-92 on a 3m vehicle whip in suburban Iraq. S/F.....Ken M

17 August 2006, 19:55

Double-Tap

17 August 2006, 19:55

Para

18 August 2006, 05:02

RF was primary for us in Iraq, Sat was primary in Afghanistan. We tried HF in Afghanistan and it just didn't work because of distances (our Bn was spread over Bagram, Gardez, Jalalabad, Asadabad, and a town south of Gardez (can't remember)).

It's not the distances. HF is a radio frequency range that will allow you to talk around the world. The problem with HF in the A-stan is the water table location in the ground which acts as your reflector.

If you can get a CO to accept near real time data comms over voice, the way to go is -137 ALE. So long as your Signal guys stay on top of the TRK-43 and reboot it every so often. The 137 in ALE mode is a beautiful thing. I have seen wire laid out on the ground and guys make comms. For that matter, you could just drag it behind you while moving.

triumph

19 August 2006, 22:05

I'm really not that familiar with NCS, as I've never had to deal with them. We just get our net, and do our job, minus the chit chat.

Since this has been sidetracked slightly to HF, I never thought I would be a big fan of it, I've done a 180 on it. It has saved our ass numerous of times when other shit ain't working well. Always on, always reliable. Being on the water doesn't hurt either. I have found very little units use it, but if you ask, they would come up on it. I'm not going to get into what a MK-V has onboard, but I'll say that the MTUs aren't the only equipment putting out some power. I'm a fan.

Sli-Pro

8 June 2011, 08:35

Hello! I'm not a PJ or anything like that. I'm actually a 3D1X3 that will be supporting PJ's and CRO's I guess. My background is TACSAT, telemetry and instructor for TACSAT & Milstar. Can anyone give me an idea of what the hell I'll be doing in this job? I'd be a big hell as I had no idea us (SATCOMers) did this kind of stuff. Thanks in advance.

8 June 2011, 09:22

Ask your instructors at Fort Gordon what your job entails.

HighDragLowSpeed

8 June 2011, 11:02

The problem with HF in the [INSERT LOCATION HERE] is the [INSERT EXCUSE HERE] in the ground which acts as your reflector.

I think that the above is the most common rationale for saying why HF not working regardless of location in the world. In Bolivia, they said it was the iron ore; in Guatemala, the mountains; in Guyana, the attenuation from the jungle.

No one ever says, "we couldn't make HF comms because my antenna was fucked up". Sigh.

0699

8 June 2011, 12:29

I think that the above is the most common rationale for saying why HF not working regardless of location in the world. In Bolivia, they said it was the iron ore; in Guatemala, the mountains; in Guyana, the attenuation from the jungle.

No one ever says, "we couldn't make HF comms because my antenna was fucked up". Sigh.

Or "I failed to plan properly"... :cool:

Sli-Pro

8 June 2011, 12:56

Ask your instructors at Fort Gordon what your job entails.

What are you talking about?

Max Power

9 June 2011, 18:46

Ask your instructors at Fort Gordon what your job entails.

Uh... If you read his profile and post, you'll see that he is most likely an instructor at Gordon.

If I had to guess, he's asking about his role supporting PJs because the scope of his role there might be a bit wider than what he has done in the past.

Sli-Pro

9 June 2011, 19:11

Uh... If you read his profile and post, you'll see that he is most likely an instructor at Gordon.

If I had to guess, he's asking about his role supporting PJs because the scope of his role there might be a bit wider than what he has done in the past.

Thanks Max you hit the nail on the head, but I already got an answer elsewhere. Just thought I'd gotten some insight from this site.

Fubar

9 June 2011, 19:28

Nice article CV.

I don't recall an NCS on our frequencies when I was in the Gulf. But heck, that was Earnest Will - nothing in comparison to what followed. I do remember SATCOM being a pain in the ass at times due to alignment concerns. I can also remember getting some extreme LOS from a 50 Watt VHF (100mi) on a PB while on patrol in the gulf. That or the POIC QM's plot was wayyyy off.

San Clemente to the Strand was easily accomplished HF all the way. VHF most (not all) of the way. But then again, our shit worked..... thanks to me, and a CO/XO that let me at a milvan full of parts. :)