Is the Army getting rid of radios at the battalion and lower levels?

[prcguy]

I use a signal lamp or signal flags.

Pigeons will get your msg out further with no photon QRM/QRN.

 

[DeoVindice]

Android isn't a device. It's an operating system based on the Linux kernel that can be adapted to run on various hardware. A military device will not be using stock Android with all the Google "services" (spyware).

If I remember correctly, the MPU-5 MANET radio actually runs some flavor of Android. The compatible RDC is a touchscreen but that's where all similarities to consumer cellular devices end.

 

[nd5y]

Yes it must be cool to see how they take out satellites now.

You don't need to take out or damage satellites to prevent people from using them.

 

[trentbob]

You don't need to take out or damage satellites to prevent people from using them.

I assume it's done remotely from Earth or another satellite, I don't really know but they can disable the use of it without physically damaging it, I assume there's an awful lot of them up there from all all sides.

I still want to know how they're going to communicate if there is a small or isolated nuclear exchange.. I know they just wouldn't throw the towel in.

I assume this Android system would be gone, or would it?

They also must have a plan if it was an all out exchange.

 

[kc2asb]

I assume it's done remotely from Earth or another satellite, I don't really know but they can disable the use of it without physically damaging it, I assume there's an awful lot of them up there from all all sides.

Weren't the Russians jamming Starlink to prevent Ukraine from using it? Curious how they did it and maybe that is along the lines of what @nd5y means?

 

[mmckenna]

I assume it's done remotely from Earth or another satellite, I don't really know but they can disable the use of it without physically damaging it, I assume there's an awful lot of them up there from all all sides.

I still want to know how they're going to communicate if there is a small or isolated nuclear exchange.. I know they just wouldn't throw the towel in.

I assume this Android system would be gone, or would it?

They also must have a plan if it was an all out exchange.

Mesh networks are a pretty nice solution. That's easy to do with an IP based system, and from reading the article (as well as some of the others in links on that page), it's going to be an IP based system. Trying to piece together from the articles, it looks like a mesh based system as well as mobile hotspots.

One of the points made was lower energy consumption. Having read articles over the years, one of the big problems that ground troops had to deal with what the weight of all the batteries they had to carry for their equipment. Having a more energy efficient portable device that does way more than just voice makes a lot of sense. The article did say that the goal was to replace single and 2 channel radios, so I don't see this was a wholesale replacement of their radios, just a solution for smaller groups.

I used to have a Sonim XP8 phone. It was Android based. While it had its quarks, it did just fine, and was extremely durable. I have no doubt that a militarized version of that would fit the needs. There were version of that phone shown at trade shows that included the ability to run in a radio-radio mode.

Considering that even consumer cell phones are including satellite capability, this seems like a good option.

 

[GlobalNorth]

I use a signal lamp or signal flags.

Aldis lamp in infrared for the win!

 

[trentbob]

Mesh networks are a pretty nice solution. That's easy to do with an IP based system, and from reading the article (as well as some of the others in links on that page), it's going to be an IP based system. Trying to piece together from the articles, it looks like a mesh based system as well as mobile hotspots.

One of the points made was lower energy consumption. Having read articles over the years, one of the big problems that ground troops had to deal with what the weight of all the batteries they had to carry for their equipment. Having a more energy efficient portable device that does way more than just voice makes a lot of sense. The article did say that the goal was to replace single and 2 channel radios, so I don't see this was a wholesale replacement of their radios, just a solution for smaller groups.

I used to have a Sonim XP8 phone. It was Android based. While it had its quarks, it did just fine, and was extremely durable. I have no doubt that a militarized version of that would fit the needs. There were version of that phone shown at trade shows that included the ability to run in a radio-radio mode.

Considering that even consumer cell phones are including satellite capability, this seems like a good option.

That's a good explanation, it sounds like the new system will have more longevity and durability.

Thanks for the information.

 

[BinaryMode]

Oh I don't like that idea at all but.. just as long as they don't use the Signal messaging app🤭.

Seriously though, I don't know if that's a good idea to use Android. Are they able to make sure they are not compromised? Are the encrypted radios compromised? Interesting report.

Android is open source. It's called AOSP or the Android Open Source Project. For example, I flashed my phone with a third-party Android operating system that's more private and doesn't require a Google account.

The next generation solider is what this is all about. The communications and whatnot. But I worry about jamming and an EMP. I honestly believe we are ill prepared for an EMP attack. As well as a satellite attack...

Weren't the Russians jamming Starlink to prevent Ukraine from using it? Curious how they did it and maybe that is along the lines of what @nd5y means?

I find it funny, and perfectly illustrates how the media doesn't report everything. I can tell you I see WordPress bot scanners get stopped at the Cloudflare level of my website each and every single day out of Ukraine. So it's not like Ukraine doesn't have Internet or server infrastructure anymore. Heck, I just checked and my VPN allows me to make a connection out of Ukraine.

 

[Boingel331]

I wouldn't feel comfortable not being able to talk because the nearest node is too either too far away, blocked by terrain, or being jammed. Maybe it would be best to start at a smaller scale with the migration to IP, perhaps with intra-squad comms.
I need keep myself from being too negative about phone-like technology. I say we ought give the prospect a chance. ATAK integration is a very appealing feature.
Here's a company that appears to be developing this kind of technology:

Military & Tactical Communications Systems | Instant Connect Push-to-Talk

Instant Connect Enterprise™ (ICE) is the interoperable tactical communications platform for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and many allies worldwide. We provide a unified IP-based voice environment connecting everyone everywhere – warfighters on the battlefield, tactical teams, C2 posts...

www.instantconnectnow.com

 

[nd5y]

I wouldn't feel comfortable not being able to talk because the nearest node is too either too far away, blocked by terrain, or being jammed.

That is no different than any other radio system.

 

[Boingel331]

That is no different than any other radio system.

Conventional VHF simplex for example, would be more reliable in this scenario since it wouldn’t rely on gigahertz nodes with shorter range. With nodes, you’d need more than one to communicate with a far away unit which would add more opportunities to jam the link.

 

[gtaman]

I use a signal lamp or signal flags.

From flag and torch in the Civil War, to signal satellites afar, we give our Army the voice to give command on battlefield…. Okay I’ll stop!

 

[GMB2711]

Here at Ft Bragg very little VHF low band anymore other that range control, the vehicles have a uhf antennas now and all are (ENC)

 

[dlwtrunked]

The Army may go Android at the tactical level.

Army could be moving to eliminate radios at the tactical edge

As the Army looks to modernize under what it calls its Next Generation Command and Control architecture, the service's vice chief said radios will be replaced by smartphone-like devices.

defensescoop.com

All this said is that they are getting rid of traditional 1 or 2 channel radios. "A separate official clarified" in the link understood better.
The problem is that those interviewed do no understand digital and repeaters the way we do. They probably would not even consider a cell phone a radio. In addition, they have likely exaggerated. (When I retired, I was working in Army R&D and acquisition. I would take some of the wording in the article with grain of salt with program managers pushing their program which they many not really understand at the final deployment level.)

 

[krokus]

I'm a bit late to the party, but found it interesting that the original article ignored that the connectivity would require some form of radio, to form the mesh network mentioned.