Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Amongst other kit, a British General Dynamics variant of BOWMAN to equip the Libyan 32 Brigade which is essentially the "Palace Guard" that protects the Big Tent.
whatever we sold him it is hardly cutting edge and i don't think it is affecting the rebellion in any way.
A lot of other people - including senior British Officers- have serious reservations about BOWMAN as well ,RGJ, so for once we are in agreement- BOWMAN is hardly "cutting-edge".
Troops turn on 'useless' Bowman radio
27 August 2008
The Bowman radio has come under heavy attack from Army officers, who have labelled it "useless" and "astonishingly bad".
Lieutenant Colonel Nick Borton, the commanding officer of the 5th battalion the Royal Regiment of Scotland (5 Scots) recently told General Sir David Richards, the Army's second most senior officer, that the Bowman radio "was a broken system".
According to The Sunday Telegraph, while Sir David was visiting Musla Qala, Afghanistan with a number of field and operations commanders, Borton publicly confronted him about the failures of the radio system during an officer’s meeting.
The coverage has been weak according to Borton. In some cases radios on the other side of a base could not receive transmissions from Bowman.
"The coverage on VHF is just a few hundred metres, so we use HF or UHF but that only gives us five kilometres. In some cases we cannot even get coverage from one side of the base to the other," Borton told Sir Dave.
He also complained about the life of batteries in the radio. Their lifespan is so low that troops often have to keep the radios off until they come under attack, he said.
According to The Sunday Telegraph, a senior officer reckoned that many officers would prefer the older Clansman radio system.
During the system’s inception, engineers did not listen to complaints about how heavy the Bowman was. Troops repeatedly said that it was not practicable to carry on the battlefield.
The first attempt of Bowman, like many other high profile defence procurement projects, was ten years late and £500m over budget. The second attempt with General Dynamics, was more successful as it has now been deployed live, despite misgivings over its weight and performance.
MoD officials denied that there were any serious problems with the system and said that the harsh terrain in Afghanistan may pose a challenge to the radio’s operating capability. Potential improvements are being examined according to the MoD.
The highly-respected Col.Borton seems to me to be very well-qualified to comment above-I understand he has a bright future in the Army - and of course Gen.Richards has now moved on quite quickly to CDF.
But I do hope that after two decades of development and hundreds of millions over budget they have now listened to the likes of Col. Borton and made substantial improvements over the past 20 months- but I doubt it,somehow.
General Dynamics UK (GDUK) was given a deal worth s85m to supply the Libyan army with Bowman battlefield radios.
Yesterday Mr Blair made no mention of the deal when he said the No Fly Zone came not a moment too soon.
But decorated Army colonel and Tory MP Patrick Mercer said: Its a sorry state of affairs that UK forces and the Libyan people are now threatened with arms sold to them by their Prime Minister.
I said " a variant of Bowman". It is Bowman in all but name -but with replacements for a few pieces of American kit. Everyone knows that it is Bowman.
Last edited by timhorgan; 27 March 2011, 12:38.
Reason: typo
You're the one dragging it off topic RGJ - you asked what was sold to Libya and Tim Horgan answered the question. Nobody here gives a shit if bowman makes you a cup of tea and gives you a back massage - the topic is Libya.
And before you start accusing me of bias, Tim Horgan isn't telling the complete truth, as it was only a variant of bowman that they were sold, without any american technology - http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3518749
You're the one dragging it off topic RGJ - you asked what was sold to Libya and Tim Horgan answered the question. Nobody here gives a shit if bowman makes you a cup of tea and gives you a back massage - the topic is Libya.
And before you start accusing me of bias, Tim Horgan isn't telling the complete truth, as it was only a variant of bowman that they were sold, without any american technology - http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3518749
Thanks, Barry, but I specifically said "variant" of Bowman. See my original below. The changes were made to get around US licensing restrictions.
You're the one dragging it off topic RGJ - you asked what was sold to Libya and Tim Horgan answered the question. Nobody here gives a shit if bowman makes you a cup of tea and gives you a back massage - the topic is Libya.
And before you start accusing me of bias, Tim Horgan isn't telling the complete truth, as it was only a variant of bowman that they were sold, without any american technology - http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3518749
Thanks, Barry, but I specifically said "variant" of Bowman. See my original below. The changes were made to get around US licensing restrictions.
same BOWMAN (as used by SAS/SBS/SRR) just with some hardware and plenty of software upgrades - mostly for better interoperability (Apache etc.).
I am afraid you are quite wrong there, RGJ -IF UK Special Forces are in Libya you can rest assured that they are NOT using Bowman-they are using a much more sophisticated system, lighter and more robust-with design inputs by first-class British Army Officers and soldiers with excellent combat and IT skills and experience.
i didn't ask for the sh|te criticism of the kit that went with it
anyhow apologies, no more radio talk in here, OUT.
i haven't seen anything decent that western nations would have sold to him.
whatever we sold him it is hardly cutting edge and i don't think it is affecting the rebellion in any way.
RGJ, Barry is right- it was you yourself who brought up the quality of kit sold to Libya-I just answered your question and quoted senior British Officers view of Bowman.
The only "shite" ( your words) criticism came from Col. Borton but that is your description, not mine. I thought my presentation was a very well-balanced reply to your question.
But, I agree, we should now leave the questions of radios for OPSEC reasons and not go any further into the fabulous totally new kit being used by UKSF.
Havoc, The Director UK Special Forces decided some years ago that BOWMAN was totally unsuitable- they have a completely different system.That is all I can related to BOWMAN in any way. That is all I can say.
I heard that Bowman means "better off with map and nokia"
For those members of IMO who would like to know more about the systems now in use by UKSF please find below an extract from a document describing the system acquired by UKSF.
As it is quite clear that this system is still highly classified and even well-established correspondents on this site who have seen long service and are still serving in the British Army are unaware of it I have blanked some details as a courtesy to our British SF friends.
Recruited as the xxxxx , one of the largest IT contracts seen in Europe. Due to internal pressures, was appointed as the “solution owner” and technical director for a battlefield radio and data environment (J*) for the UK Special Forces (smaller, more technically complex and more capable than Bowman) (including IS, Gateways, Tactical comms, encryption, Vehicle Platform design, integration etc). Main Achievements
Led xxxxxxx to a win of a contract estimated to be worth between £500M and £1Bn over 10 years. The solution included 700 vehicles, radio comms, Tactical Information Systems. Appointed Technical Director across
Defence and Security in xxxx
.
All credit to UKSF though for keeping this fantastic kit out of the public eye and even those of their regular force colleagues.
RGJ: what radio system would you compare it to Tim that is more cutting edge? i'd like to know.
Thanks RGJ- I think that I would go with the Director UKSF on this one- I would trust his judgement implicitly ( After all he was trained and mentored by some great Irish soldiers).
But perhaps we should leave it all there now.
PS
My understanding is that the "Gateways" facility is without doubt the most useful and cutting-edge aspect of the system- but I cannot say any more.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment