icom radios iraq

[buttsrob]

Re: more

http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004/1220/web-iraq-12-23-04.asp


"Woodhouse said that both Army and Central Command officials view the use of commercial radios in Iraq as too dangerous because an enemy could easily eavesdrop on their insecure communications. He said the new radio buys should eliminate that risk by providing U.S. forces with secure military systems.

Hedlund said he was aware of the risks when his troops used commercial radios, but he said any radio was better than no radio."

Hi folks.

After being in this business for 18 years...and now 4 months THIS time in Iraq....I have to wholeheartedly agree with HEDLUND. Woodhouse doesn't see it from my perspective.

I currently oversee both Signal (communications) and Military Intelligence Assets for a Brigade Combat Team so I have a pretty clear view of BOTH sides of the game....communications and communications security, etc.

We simply DO NOT discuss operational information on unsecure radios. This is a TRAINING issue....not a "gadget issue".

99% of the traffic on these unsecure radios sounds like this... "No, go a a little more to the left with that...perfect." Or, "Did you get those two soldiers linked up with the trash detail yet?". Nobody is going to get any operational intelligence value from that (I know the "experts" will argue with me). In an emergency, these small, hand-held radios are a life saver! I've already witnessed this several times. If someone is in trouble (needs medical aid, etc) we really don't care about COMSEC.

Furthermore....we routinely use secure systems but secure systems are very complex and there's lots of potential for error which leads to an inability to communicate (this is why public service agencies in the US have resisted or abandoned secure communications in the past).

For example, if you were to drive from Kuwait to Mosul in Northern Iraq, you would pass though the areas of operations of multiple units. Some would be US (both Army and USMC) and some would be coalition. To talk to them in secure mode you need their COMSEC fill, hopset information (assuming you have compatable frequency-hopping radios) and you have to have your radio's clock synchonized to theirs. Its just too complex over a large area with multiple units.

We (the military) have a tendancy to over-design and overbuild most things. I attribute this to high-level decision-makers not knowing the details about how the technology works. They have to be "big picture guys" because of the complexity of their jobs and often depend on defense contractors and the like to advise them...."General, you NEED this capability...it's a must." We often simply don't need all the bells and whistles. We just need simple, reliable and rugged systems.
Fortunately, the Army seems to have recognized this and is getting more and more COTS systems.

Finally, I'm proud to say that I've had an opportunity to work closely with the Iraqi Army lately. We are (among other things) helping them aquire their own tactical communications systems. They will more closely resemble the systems that our Police and Public Safety professionals in the US use (TRUNKED systems, etc) than they will US military communications in most cases. Of course the Iraqi Army isn't likely to deploy outside of its borders for a LONG time. Anyway, they certainly have the need for reliable, SECURE (yes, the bad guys have scanners) communications. I'm happy to be helping them get them.

Despite what you hear from some news sources I believe we really are winning this war and we are achieving a a greater purpose....one that is certainly worth the sacrifice. We are witnessing the birth of a democracy in a Mid-Eastern, Arab country. That's an awesome thing but it will still take some time.

...Oh yeah...one more thing...CIA, FBI nothing. The biggie still belongs to the military folks. The NSA is ours. We can teach ALL of the others about secure communications.


Take care!


MAJ Bob Butts
KB5YQH / YI9YQH

Tikrit, Iraq

 

[Hamradiostuffing]

CIA FBI

"...Oh yeah...one more thing...CIA, FBI nothing. The biggie still belongs to the military folks. The NSA is ours. We can teach ALL of the others about secure communications. "


Excuse me but secure communications is what it is all about. Clearly you do not want enemy knowing what your plans are. Using unsecure, and open communications is like broadcasting your intnentions in the newpaper thank you very much.

Since when does military Intelligence go together in the same sentence.
Since when does the military use common sense.

Project twenty five radios by the way have a scrambling system that can not be decoded by the average scanner. This cleary is a application issue all the way. To say that it is not is a posistion being in denial.

 

[Hamradiostuffing]

more info

from this link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1319735/posts?page=15



Troops in Iraq buy own 2-way radios
FCW ^


Posted on 01/12/2005 9:11:00 PM PST by Happy2BMe


Add commercial two-way radios to the list of gear that troops in Iraq have purchased on their own because of equipment shortages.


Despite Defense Department budgets totaling more than $400 billion a year for each of the past two years, Army officials have acknowledged a radio shortage and said they are rushing shipments of more than 40,000 radios, most of them for delivery in the first quarter of next year.


Army officials also said they have banned the use of commercial radios in Iraq because they are insecure and pose a grave risk to troops. The radios' communications can be easily intercepted.


Capt. Eric Hedlund, a transportation platoon commander with the 720th Transportation Company of the New Mexico National Guard in Las Vegas, N.M., said about 20 soldiers in his outfit bought commercial radios because of a shortage of military radios. The unit returned from a 15-month deployment in Iraq in August.


Hedlund said the group racked up 3.5 million miles running convoys in Iraq and that communications among vehicles in those convoys was essential. The convoys often comprised 60 to 80 vehicles, but the 720th had only seven military single-channel ground/air radio systems. Hedlund said commercial Family Radio Service (FRS) gear that troops bought themselves helped fill the gap.


FRS radios are simple push-to-talk radios. With a half-watt of power and 2-mile range, they allow users to select any of 10 channels in frequency bands between 462 MHz and 467 MHz. The radios are designed for casual or recreational use and are often given to children as high-tech Christmas presents. Hedlund said his troops paid about $40 a pair for their FRS radios.


The 720th is far from being the only unit to use commercial radios in Iraq. Ted Gartner, a spokesman for Garmin International in Olathe, Kan., said the company has sold thousands of its Rino 110 radios to deployed military personnel.


The Rino 110 operates under both the FRS and the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) standards. GMRS uses the same frequencies and channel scheme as FRS but has a power output of 2 to 5 watts and a range of up to 5 miles.


The Rino 110, which has an integrated Global Positioning System receiver, automatically transmits position information from one Rino 110 to another. Rino 110s sell for $130 to $170 on various Web e-commerce sites, Gartner said. Garmin also sells the radio in military base stores.


The company's Web site features testimonials e-mailed by soldiers in Iraq, including one from a soldier who said his Rino 110 worked after built-in radios in his Bradley Fighting Vehicle failed. Soldiers in Iraq also have used Amazon.com to post favorable reviews of FRS radios made by Garmin, Motorola and Cobra Electronics.


For example, in his review of Cobra's FRS radios, a soldier in Iraq wrote, "This is a great set of radios for the price to include the charging station. Great range and clarity."


Col. Al Woodhouse, director of current operations in the Army's Office of the Chief Information Officer, said service officials are well aware of the radio shortage in Iraq and the fact that troops are purchasing their own radios. He said Army officials plan to ship 21,000 portable IC-F43G radios manufactured by Icom America to Iraq by April 2005 under a fast-track, sole-source procurement valued at $32 million.


Woodhouse said Central Command officials have banned the use of commercial radios in the theater because they are unsecure. Lt. Gen. Steve Boutelle, the Army's CIO, said he views their use as a significant risk to troops.


Army officials are rushing the Icom radios to Iraq to ensure that no soldiers have to purchase their own radios, Woodhouse said.


Icom will equip every Army brigade in Iraq with about 1,000 IC-F43G radios, Woodhouse said. An Army brigade has 3,000 to 5,000 soldiers. The cost of each radio kit is about $1,200 and includes a radio, spare battery and headset.


Ron Leet, a command-and-control analyst on the Army's CIO staff, said the Army's version of the IC-F43G radio operates in the 380 MHz to 430 MHz frequency bands and provides secure communications. The radio supports the Triple Data Encryption Standard, which encrypts a signal three times using a key length of 192 bits.


Army officials do not intend to standardize on the IC-F43G, Leet said, adding that they view it as a stopgap to fill an urgent requirement between now and when DOD officials start fielding radios developed under the multibillion-dollar Joint Tactical Radio System program.


Margaret McBride, an Army spokeswoman, said that in addition to buying the IC-F43G radios, Army officials have initiated an emergency procurement of 20,000 military single-channel ground/air radio systems, which operate in the 30 MHz to 80 MHz frequency bands. The radios were to be delivered to Iraq at a rate of 300 a month, beginning in November and continuing through February 2005, when monthly deliveries will increase to thousands of units.


McBride said she could not provide the dollar value of the procurement. But Woodhouse said the ground/air radio systems cost between $6,000 and $14,000 each, depending on the configuration. The purchase could total $60 million to $140 million.


Woodhouse said that both Army and Central Command officials view the use of commercial radios in Iraq as too dangerous because an enemy could easily eavesdrop on their insecure communications. He said the new radio buys should eliminate that risk by providing U.S. forces with secure military systems.


Hedlund said he was aware of the risks when his troops used commercial radios, but he said any radio was better than no radio.

 

[Sigo]

I too am a Army signal officer currently deployed. I can say from experiance the Icom's fill a role that other radios are just not suited for. They are definitely NOT intended for anything other than ordinary communications from your housing area to the TOC to see if a soldier is on his way to a detail, or to make sure all the vehicles in your convoy are still there, or to have someone bring a vehicle to your location on the FOB, ...etc. Everybody that uses them is briefed they ARE NOT secure despite the voice scrambler. They fill the gap that soldiers purchased FRS radios for, and I think they fill that gap pretty well. And though they are commercial radios they are not as widely available as FRS radios and therefore provide an extra little measure of security just for the fact that they use different freqs.

That is a picture of the triggering device from a detonated IED. See clearly the FRS or PMR radio? Need I say more?

 

[Hamradiostuffing]

No everyone gets the word

There are alot of soldiers who apparently have not gotten the word about not talking about sensistive communications with the ICOM radios. It is my understanding that the Talaban can use your signals as an aiming point.

Did I understand that correctly???

So what does the picture of a broken radio mean? Icom break to from what I understand.

 

[Sigo]

As stated at the bottom of the picture. It is from an IED that exploded. The FRS or PMR radio was used by insurgents to trigger the IED remotely. If you would have read my post I explained the significance of that picture and why it is a bad thing for soldiers to use radios that are widely available to insurgents as well.
The RF from the radios is not the biggest problem. The problem is unencrypted discussion of information that can be used against us.

 

[Hamradiostuffing]

My point exactly

"The problem is unencrypted discussion of information that can be used against us."


I could not agree with your more. Also note that insurgants also probably have scanner capable of search modes. The F43's are well within the range of most scanner search modes. Which means in my opinion the talaban can still monitor you to figure out your posistion to lay a trap. The talaban in my opinion have a better capablity than they are given credit for. IF Osama Bin Laden can affort flying lessons for the planes on 911. He can sure afford scanners and get them from anywhere in the world. A minor problem compared to 911.

That is why I beleive that a radio that is digitally encrypted with a rolling code scambler is needed for your saftey. Possibly spread spectrum. I am on your side and believe that solders are not getting the protection you need. Simple voice inversion scrambling is not as secure as one would think.

Commercial radios are more for Schools contruction compaines ETC. There is a reason why the Goverment mandated project 25 digital radios..

 

[Sigo]

Any type of voice scrambling is NOT secure that is why I stated:

"Everybody that uses them is briefed they ARE NOT secure despite the voice scrambler"

We have secure radios for discussing things that need not be dicussed in the clear. The problem is these radios are expensive and there are not enough for day to day operations that do not need to be secure. The icoms are not secure nor do they need to be as long as one does not discuss anything that the enemy can use. There are differnet radio nets for different people that are involved in different operations. Some are secure because they need to be some are not secure because they dont need to be. Icoms are filling the role FRS radios used to, and for the most part our soldiers know the radios' limitations.
Of course scanners are available to the enemy but that is not my point.
My point about the FRS radios is that because they are so common, and they are available to the enemy they are often used to trigger IED's. That is another reason they have no place in OEF/OIF.

 

[Hamradiostuffing]

my point is

My point is the a Solders life my more important than the exspense of a radio. True folks are briefed to not use the ICOM for secure information. That does not mean that a person will not slip up. From time to time

Thanks for the chat. My thought and prayers are with you.

 

[buttsrob]

ICOMs, FRS and IEDs

SIGO you're tracking. Want to come work for me?

"Stuffing"...I appreciate your concern...but we do this for a living.

I also enjoy the perspective gained from having oversight of some Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) assets.

Don't ever get the impression that our guys out here are a bunch of careless idiots who put their lives in danger by talking on unsecure radios. That simply isn't true.

Having reliable, hand-held communications is critical. We just medevac'd another solder yesterday (we seem to do it all too often these days) - anyway, having key leaders at key places with hand-held Icom radios (nobody CARES if they are secure in this circumstance) probably saved his life.

As for the IED thing. The SIGO is spot-on. The bad guys really like to use FRS radios to remotely-detonate IEDs. They're cheap and easy to come by - and relatively high-powered (compaired to garage door openers and car alarm fobs, etc). That's OK...we know about them....we know what frequencies they use....enough said.

6 months and counting.


DC3 Out

 

[Hamradiostuffing]

i know you are not

"Don't ever get the impression that our guys out here are a bunch of careless idiots who put their lives in danger by talking on unsecure radios. That simply isn't true. "


No I never saw you guys as careless idiots. I was concerned that I mistake could happen. Wish you the very best!

 

[Sigo]

Re: ICOMs, FRS and IEDs

SIGO you're tracking. Want to come work for me?

"Stuffing"...I appreciate your concern...but we do this for a living.

I also enjoy the perspective gained from having oversight of some Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) assets.

Don't ever get the impression that our guys out here are a bunch of careless idiots who put their lives in danger by talking on unsecure radios. That simply isn't true.

Having reliable, hand-held communications is critical. We just medevac'd another solder yesterday (we seem to do it all too often these days) - anyway, having key leaders at key places with hand-held Icom radios (nobody CARES if they are secure in this circumstance) probably saved his life.

Anytime Sir! I am about to be out of a job for awhile (from what it sounds like BN is going to have me doing anyway), so I am looking for a job. Problem is I think we are in different theaters!

I'm glad to hear the Icom radios are as useful to other units as they are for us. Despite the usual *****ing about limitations (no piece of equipment is perfect) they have proven very useful, and I am not sure what we would do without them. Ours havent clearly saved a life yet, and hopefully we wont be in that situation, but they sure have made our jobs easier.

I like the idea you talked about above. Using an Icom T90A to moniter all the different freqs people are using in PT. I ordered a Yeasu VX-7R about a month ago for the same purpose. I havent got it yet but with the freeband mod it should work the same way as your T90, right?

 

[buttsrob]

Re: ICOMs, FRS and IEDs

I like the idea you talked about above. Using an Icom T90A to moniter all the different freqs people are using in PT. I ordered a Yeasu VX-7R about a month ago for the same purpose. I havent got it yet but with the freeband mod it should work the same way as your T90, right?

Yes, it should work just fine for that.

Here's the specs for the freeband on that one I think:

http://www.mods.dk/view.php?ArticleId=2581

TX - 40~222 Fm and Air band- yes
300~550
RX - As the manual says.


If you're behind "Websense" you won't be able to hit that one.
If this is the case just email me and I can send you the mod.

Anyway, these very wide-band, small HTs are just perfect for monitoring all the different bands we need to monitor. This is truly a good reason for them to remain easy to modify. Lots of folks are "sensitive" about the legality of it, etc.

I gave my IC-T90 a serious workout the other day. I got the privledge of helping set up the local Iraqi TV station (I jumped at the chance to do it).

I was talking to my BN on our UHF frequency and talking to my security (an infanty PLT) on an FRS frequency (that's right they are STILL using FRS radios...because they are cheap and AVAILABLE). Because the T90 has WFM reception and covers the TV bands I was also able to monitor the audio feed from the station. Nothing less than AWESOME. What a great tool.

Be careful out there!

DC3 Out

 

[Hamradiostuffing]

scamblers

I guess a major defense contractor will installing digital scamblers in the some ICOM radios. Did I hear that correctly???

 

[buttsrob]

Re: scamblers

I guess a major defense contractor will installing digital scamblers in the some ICOM radios. Did I hear that correctly???

Not exactly...it's a form of analog inversion installed on the F-43G "Military Bundle". It's installed by Icom.

http://www.icomamerica.com/press/?id=200502

It's better than standard analog inversion because it shifts frequency according to a code key - but - it's still not 100% secure and we often turn it off because it severely distorts the audio when the signal is weak.

RMB

 

[Hamradiostuffing]

I am sorry

I am sorry to hear that. Is rockwell collins suppling a radio to the Army in IRAQ??

 

[mancow]

I have a VX-7r with the mod but it still won't TX in the 108-136 airband.

It does about everything else. It will even cover a good portion of the 300 Mhz airband but will only do FM there.


mancow

 

[buttsrob]

Re: I am sorry

I am sorry to hear that. Is rockwell collins suppling a radio to the Army in IRAQ??

Not one that I'm aware of...but there are lots of different units out there with some different "kit".

Rockwell makes a LOT of our GPS receivers in various aircraft, vehicles, etc as well as a lot of the components in our satellite systems.

Most of the tactical and hand-held radios in use are made by Icom or Motorola....plus the MBITR made by Thales (tied to Racal?).

Harris makes some outstanding HF and satellite radios too.

 

[RADIOGUY2002]

My 2 cents

First, off I would not like to be confused with the as**ip* that goes around complaining about Icom. Yes, they have there limitations.

I agree complitily with the purpose of encrypting the radio, but in all reality if they want to get passed it they will. Do not forget the ability to yank the radio from the body after bad things happen and mess around with it to solve the puzzle lets nots forget about the code transenders.

Case and point Die Hard, G.I. Gane etc granted its the movies but still it hold its importance, and all the undersiege movies.

Not to mention B>S> policies on when to shoot and when not to shoot. That down right stupidity on every level. Yes, I support the war, just not the apporach style and the lack of improper intellgence gathering, but I guess that very typical.

God Bless, and stay save in that crap hole of bad mind people (not sterotyping), take it for what its worth.

 

[Hamradiostuffing]

don't worry

I would not worry the information about ICOM or being blammed for it. The info was apparently part of a court record and is public information.