NAO Bowman Report

[ORAC]

Interesting article/links on problems with Bowman: Problems Forecast for BOWMAN System in NAO Report. (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/08/problems-forecast-for-bowman-system-in-nao-report/index.php) The Battlespace News article is very interesting, albeit very long.

Not strictly aviation, but Bowman is the carrier for many other other air/int related data.....

[Mr C Hinecap]

Very timely ORAC - thanks. Fairly pertinent to RAF business - we start taking it on in October :eek:

[ORAC]

It should be noted that the JTRS program is itself not without problems of its own. (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/07/jtrs-program-to-continue-after-restructuring/index.php) :hmm:

[tucumseh]

Report is here;

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/05061050.pdf


Page 50 - “The Director Infantry considers that the weight and ergonomics make it unsuitable for dismounted combat. Alternative options outside the BOWMAN programme are under consideration”.


“It” is the VHF portable radio, of which there are around 20,000 I think. The VHF sets in vehicles are essentially the same radio, hard mounted (or will be, when the mounting kits are delivered). This is a damning indictment. The politicians have been wheeled out in their droves to praise BOWMAN, but who do you believe – them or the Brigadier in charge of the largest element of the Army?

Think of BMN as a pyramid. Yes, there is some clever kit at the top (although it won’t work for some years until they deliver complementary programmes) but the volume and huge cost of support is at the bottom. (For example, the batteries and their weight D/Inf refers to. Incidentally, they don’t work very well. Old technology, poorly produced).

The final sentence is a cracker. BOWMAN is delivering over 65,000 PRR and VHF radios to dismounted troops, yet before delivery is complete ANOTHER PROGRAMME IS TO REPLACE THEM. Now that’s what I call a mid-life upgrade. Or should that be pre-life upgrade.

What the report doesn’t say, is that Thales are now quite openly touting the “alternative” option they have developed. They say it was trialled last year and it’s meant to be pretty good, although restricted by available bandwidth. But, think about this. If they’ve already developed it, that means they were funded years ago, and hence the problem has been known for even longer. The BOWMAN contract was only let in 2001 – that would mean they let the contract at roughly the same time someone else was planning to replace it. Communication breakdown?

[microlight AV8R]

Better
Off
With
Map
And
Nokia

Clansman never lived up to expectations either. Should anyone be surprised.

[GlosMikeP]

When the previous consortium for Bowman failed, I suggested using Mobile Phone technologies by joining with the likes of Nokia to speed up 3G and give it added value.

Loads of advantages, not lease cost of ownership: v short ILS chain with throw-away replacements, assured upgrades, shared costs with civil (indeed almost all borne by civil), everyone could have their own unique no (service no perhaps)......

No, I was 'barking' apparently, and seriously damaging the organisation's ability to win work with the new consortium. So what happened? Woof or growl!

[engineer(retard)]

Tuc

The unfortunate side of the manpack is that the specifications were virtually impossible at a lesser weight, predominantly due to requirements for range (read power), specified battery life and environmental specifications. Physics prevented any other answer. I suspect it was driven by the desire to stretch capability boundaries, a problem I have seen on other procurements.

GlosPM

That is a good solution if the enemy have the required infrasructure to support your network and are kind enough to leave it in place. Assuming we have not taken it out first.

Unfortunatley, the programme was overly ambitious in timescale and although technology is availble to support the requirements, a heavy burden of security restrictions makes it very difficult to achieve.

regards

retard

[cockneyrock]

Having used BOWMAN on exercise, I have to say that the radio comms was excellent. We had HF comms from Liverpool to Salisbury Plain clear as a bell, just like talking on the phone.

I don't understand the technical aspects, however, did notice that COMBAT was an OK (just) programme that operated on crap hardware. The laptops are all NBC proof which means that the processor has to be unbelievably slow as the comupter can not be fitted with a fan to keep it cool. Word had it that they were ordered under the original BOWMAN contract back in the early 90's and Thales had to take it on. Apparently each hardened laptop costs over £10,000!!!. For the same price you could buy about 10 rugedised laptops and at a higher spec.

I am sure that when it all sorts its self out it will be good,however, the data stuff at the moment is frankly crap and will remains so until better computers are procured.

[tucumseh]

Eng / Cockney Rock

This is from memory, but I can check…

I understand your manpack comments (be they for HF or VHF) as they can be configured with two batteries for hi-power. Which adds weight, reducing mobility and tempo, all of which concern D/Inf. CR’s 90s comment is relevant here, as the BMN batteries are twice as heavy with half the power compared to best-of-type available today. And at least 3 times the cost. MoD would no doubt tell you why they pay over the odds for old crap. And why troops receive RF burns. Or why they often don’t (can't) use BMN, preferring runners.

Correct on the power issue, but on HF it completely misses the point of skywave propagation. Get the frequency right and you don’t need the power (in simple terms). 3G ALE is ok, but only in certain circumstances, as it is overt. And it’s predictive, not real time. Looking at where our troops are deployed and what they do, ALE could be a liability. The solution has been in service for 20+ years (in small numbers) – in aircraft, ships and on the ground. Which begs the question – what are the troops who already have a proper system going to do when they get BMN? Keep the “old” but better system I’d guess. (For “old”, read the system that replaced Clansman’s replacement).

It is also worth remembering that BMN’s remit is to replace Clansman, not necessarily enhance it. It DOES enhance it in some areas, but in others it is a backward step – see D/Inf’s comments. That is why, as stated in the aforementioned report, another project is aiming to REPLACE BMN – it is that project which is under remit to enhance.

The B.O.W.M.A.N. (Nokia) thing is funny, but based in fact. This is essentially what was trialled in the 90s by the project now aiming to replace BMN. (Think about it! BMN’s replacement trialled years before BMN trials. My head’s spinning). Of course, they weren’t serious at the time – the aim was probably to demonstrate what was possible using COTS kit - but the truth is often stranger than fiction. When comparing the trials results, D/Inf was clearly more impressed with Nokia & map than with BMN!!!

CRock – Liverpool to SPTA is not a good test of any HF, but typical of what that part of DPA deem ok for acceptance. It’s practically NVIS. In practice, one or two skips with wet string is what the troops need when dug in a ditch needing to get through first time, every time. No-one doubts the radio – although two generations old (!!) it’s not too bad. But any YofS will tell you he also needs a working frequency and a suitable antenna. BMN doesn’t guarantee either. Fully agree with the cost / Data issues.

[ChristopherRobin]

I'm not surprised that Thales have touted a replacement - they were one of the losing teams when GDUK won the re-let contract in 2001.

...and ORAC, if you think that BOWMAN will carry any air/int related data beyond "contact, wait out", you are, sadly, v mistaken. It has tiny bandwidth, (512kbps shared between a brigade of users on so-called High Capacity Data Radio anyone?)

the bog standard VHF radios have less than 9kbps to spare, the HF radios naturally a lot less.

Environmental factors have added in most of the weight too. For example, the Personal User Data Terminal (PUDT), made so robust that it would survive a drop from 1.2m and temps from -40degC (approx) to +50 meant that it was so heavy and bulky that no one would bother carrying it in the first place - common sense on this point injected by the users was overruled by the IPT - as usual, so what you have is a long way from the palm-top devices everyone was supposed to be pulling from their top pockets...

[tucumseh]

ChristopherRobin

Wholeheartedly agree. HCDR is an astonishing -51C to +71C for land vehicles. Someone will perhaps confirm whether the contract includes air or manpack versions? For years BMN didn't want to know about the airborne side.

When you take overheads into account, VHF data must be a lot less than 9kbps. And they want realtime video!!!

BOWMAN was never designed to achieve high-tempo tactical execution. This is what the BMN replacement programme is trying to achieve. Take note here. The Gods demand this of the Army, but the flagship enabling programme doesn't enable. So what exactly do we get for £2Bn+ (plus all the hidden extras and through life costs), given the admission that what is being delivered now is in the process of being replaced? You couldn't make it up.

While PE/DPA have lots to answer for (your point about ignoring the Customer is well made, and precisely what D/Inf is getting at) I think DECs should take a good look at themselves. Uncoordinated is being polite.

[Two's in]

MoD PE took the airborne component out of the original BOWMAN contract when some bright spark realised that the BOWMAN Project Office would get saddled with all the platform integration costs - a staggering amount of money. The responsibility was then devolved to the various platform DECs to get BOWMAN incorporated, hence no real progress, because very few of those had or have the funding in place.

As some of you have already said, it is just another indictment of the 20 year requirements analysis to delivery procurement cycle that the MoD have determined is the most effective way of keeping middle grade staff gainfully employed, and sod the users.

We could have been on our third iteration of Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) equipment since BOWMAN went "live", at considerably less cost and far more capability. Of course,it might not have worked in that Nuclear conflict with an ambient temp of -44C, but that's just life.

The current system survives because it is self sustaining from the MoDs viewpoint ,and the Contractors can hardly count the cash fast enough as the antiquated requirements get changed at the taxpayers expense.

[GlosMikeP]

Tuc

The unfortunate side of the manpack is that the specifications were virtually impossible at a lesser weight, predominantly due to requirements for range (read power), specified battery life and environmental specifications. Physics prevented any other answer. I suspect it was driven by the desire to stretch capability boundaries, a problem I have seen on other procurements.

GlosPM

That is a good solution if the enemy have the required infrasructure to support your network and are kind enough to leave it in place. Assuming we have not taken it out first.

Not as big a problem as it perhaps seems. We'd know if infrastructure was in place/survived or not and have the option anyway to deploy switches and other infrastructure in the same way we deploy comms now. Lots of satellite solutions possible too.

It's a common misconception that only the military have 'hostile' environments. Setting aside the bullets and bombs aspects (which are of course obvious difficulties), Voda et al set up their networks in some fairly remote and inaccesible/unserviced places now. TCW?

There was also a warehouse radio I looked at that with minor (and I mean minor) mods to receiver sensitivity would have achieved the VHF range and other minimum requirements without difficulty, and that was over 5 years ago. The problem was everyone was looking for bespoke instead of laterally into other parallel industry solutions.

At the FRES industry day a couple of years back more than one senior army officer was waving his mobile as an example of what they'd like. It's still doable and I'm astonished it hasn't been picked up.

[GlosMikeP]

MoD PE took the airborne component out of the original BOWMAN contract when some bright spark realised that the BOWMAN Project Office would get saddled with all the platform integration costs - a staggering amount of money. The responsibility was then devolved to the various platform DECs to get BOWMAN incorporated, hence no real progress, because very few of those had or have the funding in place.

As some of you have already said, it is just another indictment of the 20 year requirements analysis to delivery procurement cycle that the MoD have determined is the most effective way of keeping middle grade staff gainfully employed, and sod the users.

We could have been on our third iteration of Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) equipment since BOWMAN went "live", at considerably less cost and far more capability. Of course,it might not have worked in that Nuclear conflict with an ambient temp of -44C, but that's just life.

The current system survives because it is self sustaining from the MoDs viewpoint ,and the Contractors can hardly count the cash fast enough as the antiquated requirements get changed at the taxpayers expense.

Good points. There is a parallel instance for the central funding of such a capability, in Tactical Data Links. In general, the platform pays for the basic kit, not the capability.

[cockneyrock]

Eng / Cockney Rock
This is from memory, but I can check…
I understand your manpack comments (be they for HF or VHF) as they can be configured with two batteries for hi-power. Which adds weight, reducing mobility and tempo, all of which concern D/Inf. CR’s 90s comment is relevant here, as the BMN batteries are twice as heavy with half the power compared to best-of-type available today. And at least 3 times the cost. MoD would no doubt tell you why they pay over the odds for old crap. And why troops receive RF burns. Or why they often don’t (can't) use BMN, preferring runners.
Correct on the power issue, but on HF it completely misses the point of skywave propagation. Get the frequency right and you don’t need the power (in simple terms). 3G ALE is ok, but only in certain circumstances, as it is overt. And it’s predictive, not real time. Looking at where our troops are deployed and what they do, ALE could be a liability. The solution has been in service for 20+ years (in small numbers) – in aircraft, ships and on the ground. Which begs the question – what are the troops who already have a proper system going to do when they get BMN? Keep the “old” but better system I’d guess. (For “old”, read the system that replaced Clansman’s replacement).
It is also worth remembering that BMN’s remit is to replace Clansman, not necessarily enhance it. It DOES enhance it in some areas, but in others it is a backward step – see D/Inf’s comments. That is why, as stated in the aforementioned report, another project is aiming to REPLACE BMN – it is that project which is under remit to enhance.
The B.O.W.M.A.N. (Nokia) thing is funny, but based in fact. This is essentially what was trialled in the 90s by the project now aiming to replace BMN. (Think about it! BMN’s replacement trialled years before BMN trials. My head’s spinning). Of course, they weren’t serious at the time – the aim was probably to demonstrate what was possible using COTS kit - but the truth is often stranger than fiction. When comparing the trials results, D/Inf was clearly more impressed with Nokia & map than with BMN!!!
CRock – Liverpool to SPTA is not a good test of any HF, but typical of what that part of DPA deem ok for acceptance. It’s practically NVIS. In practice, one or two skips with wet string is what the troops need when dug in a ditch needing to get through first time, every time. No-one doubts the radio – although two generations old (!!) it’s not too bad. But any YofS will tell you he also needs a working frequency and a suitable antenna. BMN doesn’t guarantee either. Fully agree with the cost / Data issues.

You went secure on me right after:

I understand your manpack comments (be they for HF or VHF) as they can be configured with ...............:confused:

However, get the general idea of what you are saying. I mearly base my opinions on my experience which never saw CLANSMAN comms established with the level of ease and clarity provided by BOWMAN. However, I admit that the only bit of any radio I can confidently operate is the handset!!! :}

[ORAC]

and ORAC, if you think that BOWMAN will carry any air/int related data beyond "contact, wait out", you are, sadly, v mistaken Don´t tell JETTS..... :hmm:

[engineer(retard)]

Tuc

I know the guy who tried to sort out the manpack side, an ex YofS an excellent engineer and manager even if he used to wear green. He believed that the battery technology was the best available at the time.

The remit was to enhance Clansman and the major requirement driver was improved SA through the use of data, the use of IP was mandated as was the Windows version. Happily the voice quality across the board has been very good and the HF is supposed to be very good (again based upon my friends first hand experience - he is neither MoD or GD).

The Chinook Mk2 & 3 and Merlin Mk3 stayed in the programme, although the Ch Mk3 dropped out for well known reasons. I believe the AAC integration money may have been used to prop up the procuurement but I could be wrong, radios were bought for AH and Lynx.

Glos MP

It was a customer requirement that the network had to be self sustaining, self healing and not reliant on fixed infrastructure. The environmentals were also customer requirements. The security element was also mandated and the governemnt furnished crypto gear would not fit in a mobile phone.

D/Inf comments were correct but came a a result of field trials some years after contract let. I suspect that there was neither the political will or money available in town to change direction.

Someone needs to seriously look at the level of specification that gets flowed down. I am working on a programme that is going to wreck about £1m worth of kit so that we can meet 2 requirements, then another 200 requirements to test after that.

regards

retard

[tucumseh]

Eng

Within the boundaries of the subject (HF/VHF) I know that BMN at a basic level is an enhancement in the sense that the radio specs (90s) are very much better than Clansman (60s?). That is to be expected. (Although they’re not as good as the newer variants from the same suppliers already issued to many users years ago).

However, scrutiny must always be from the User’s viewpoint – in fact it’s mandated - and they, as represented by D/Inf, have given it the thumbs down, continually, over a long period. The infantry soldier, the majority user by far, is not interested is esoteric issues like signal to noise or image rejection ratios. He wants his new BMN kit to be lighter, last longer, easier to get the hang of, easier to use/carry/wear – and to work first time every time when he presses to transmit. D/Inf, quite correctly, complains it isn’t and doesn’t – on every count. On a more basic level, the soldier also hoped the policy would change whereby he was expected to purchase vital ancillaries for himself. It didn’t. (What, you want a pouch to carry it in? Or a proper antenna? Buy them yourself lad).

To specifics. D/Inf, in the NAO report, complains of weight and ergonomics. These are vital to his basic requirement – increased tempo, leading to fewer casualties. Improved Situational Awareness contributes, but that is the remit of another project, despite BMN’s BSAM, which is a relatively simplistic baseline compared to that trialled successfully in the 90s; and, of course, constrained by bandwidth. As the NAO report acknowledges that much of BMN (PRR, VHF, perhaps HF) is to be replaced by the other project, perhaps BSAM will be replaced/enhanced/made to work.

I’m not sure if the radios themselves are heavier, but the soldier looks at what he must carry. If the SYSTEM (radio, mic, headset, antenna, pouch, battery, data terminal etc) is heavier than Clansman for a given mission, then BMN is an abject failure. D/Inf says it is. The same applies to the vehicular kit, although reports suggest it’s not as heavy as first thought, mainly because the installation kits haven’t been delivered and radios are fixed with bungies.

The battery technology was probably the best available at the time, but only from the MoD’s preferred supplier, whose track record is nothing short of abysmal. (So why continue to pander to them? One of today’s leading defence expenditure questions given the sheer cost of power). Other products using the same technology are lighter, longer lasting and cheaper – often by a long way. And what’s the deal with bespoke batteries for each radio? Barking. Battery technology has gone a long way even since contract award in 2001. Look at your mobile phone. In battery manufacture, product quality varies enormously between, and within, production runs for numerous reasons at almost every stage of the process. For this reason, it is not sufficient to select one company, without competition if rumour is true, and stick with them. More than in any other product, you need a second or third source, with continual assessment – for quality, competitive and surge requirement reasons. The cost of our policy, recharging as opposed to primaries, is made economical only if the product can be cycled as per spec, is readily recharged correctly and has trustworthy state of charge electronics. And it’s handy if they don’t burst into flames.

I too have seen/heard a BMN HF work. But, vitally, not first time every time. If you want HF to do that, you need the correct frequency and antenna. That is what conserves power, reduces weight, increases tempo, gets inside the oppos’ decision cycle and saves lives – not buying more batteries (and presumably chargers).

Accept what you say about aircraft, although you don’t mention the one type whose drawings have incorporated BMN for 11 years and was then deleted from BMN. Thereby reducing tempo……

Despite our opinions, rants and rumours – which we’re all entitled to - the bottom line is that D/Inf says it’s not fit for purpose. He’s an infantryman (RS) and knows what he’s talking about. He’s looking after his troops. Politicians would do well to follow.

[engineer(retard)]

Tuc

Wow, I cannot type as much as that, it's already been a long week.

The battery contracts would have been let in the same timescale as the main contract. With a 2.5 year lead time from contract let to delivery, any manufacturer would go for off the shelf and available. No time for a development programme, too much risk to await ongoing developments. These would have captured technology at the cost during the time the RFP went out, so probably 1999 ish. Every time you change battery suppliers after that will count as a mod because of the configuration and qualification effort. This also come as at a cost.

I do not deny the users right to get in there and have an opinion. Having been a user, I have a strong opinion on the subject. But again, with such a short flash to bang on the contract, there is no time for long assessments because the production lines have to roll. Standing on the industry side now, that is having your cake and eating it.

There were 2 major problems, the procurement timescale was too short for proper assessment and tailoring and the requirements were not re-visited in sufficient depth between the programmes to put right what was wrong first time round.

Disgree with you about the SA, it was a KUR. Agree with you about the missing aircraft but believe it was predicted to go out of service a couple of years ago.

regards

retard