ISR Radios (future of)

[Spaceman3750]

Well a good replacement radio for the ISR would be the Wouxun KG-833 Single Band UHF Handheld Commercial Radio, for $99.99 (5 watts, accessories include AA battery pack)
http://www.powerwerx.com/wouxun-radios/wouxun-kg-833-single-band-uhf-handheld-commercial-radio.html

NTIA Redbook Chapter 4,
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/redbook/ed200801rev201009/4d_9_10.pdf
provides for up to 8 UHF frequencies (407-420 mhz band) if no interference otherwise only 4 simplex freqs for infrequent use.

Table 2 also provides for about 130 simplex UHF channels, and IF CAP agreed to only use 14 of those channels on a low power portable only basis, 5 watt output would likely get approval.

Another option for CAP is to get an FCC fleet license for low power 5 watt portables only working in the UHF range of 460.6625- 464.9875 mhz, on the splinter frequencies.  We could ask for 5, 10, 15, channels or more since we are using low power there wouldn't be much of a coordination issue.   In addition standard DCS codes would be used for each channel (as opposed to CTCSS) reducing interference issues.

The ISR's are really not very durable radios for field operations, and the example above is very durable.
RM

I would rather see that money used on more EFJ equipment, personally.

[Eclipse]

We're all discussing something which is "vapor" until someone cites the iComms are disco'ed.

[RADIOMAN015]

Re-reading the initial post, I wonder if the question the poster was asking was about using the Vertex on ISR frequencies? That would be naughty.

Major Lord

You really want to get naughty   See: http://www.powerwerx.com/wouxun-radios/kg-uv3d-dual-band.html
Rumor on the street is with the programming cable & software you've got the best of both CAP comm worlds (VHF & UHF), with appropriate transmitter deviation tolerance.  However the issue in CAP land is apparently the receive specs don't meet the standard  -- so it's not authorized (you know how many radios the network could gain with a waiver ).  Some hams have bought these radios for little as $89.00.   So at least the ISR and other CAP freqs can be monitored and amateur radio folks can use a discrete ham simplex frequency.
RM     

[davidsinn]

I would rather see that money used on more EFJ equipment, personally.

I wouldn't. We need ISRs or something like them. Mission bases would fall apart without them. Flightline would be a disaster without them.

[SarDragon]

It's too bad there's no more equipment around for that 11 m AM freq we used to use back in the 60s and 70s. That was perfect.

[sarmed1]

I wouldn't. We need ISRs or something like them. Mission bases would fall apart without them. Flightline would be a disaster without them.

I dont see how; I remember for years all we used were CAP VHF radios for all of our functions; and we really only had 4 frequencies available .150 & .125 simplex, and we used the repeater frequency inputs as alternate simplex channels.  (given anyone could by a $100 modified HAM radio then) And alternatively when I first came in we still used 26.620 on the CB type radio (the original FRS)   HMRS still used 26.620 radios up until the later 90's because they actually had better coverage in the mountain terrain over a line of sight non repeated VHF.....

mk

[cap235629]

seeing as how the word waiver was thrown out, why don't we stop trying to reinvent the wheel and ask for a waiver to use FRS??

[Eclipse]

seeing as how the word waiver was thrown out, why don't we stop trying to reinvent the wheel and ask for a waiver to use FRS??

Using FRS would be wholly in inappropriate in a world that purports OPSEC, which is why FRS can only be used for non-ES activities today.

It is one thing to operate with the knowledge that those with too much time on their hands can obtain the ability to intercept and interfere
with our communications, and a whole 'nother to do so in a way which provides a gateway to the lowest common denominator of radio user.

Besides, I'm throwing the BS flag on this whole thread until someone can cite the discontinuance of the existing iComm line (or its lineage). I can't find a single mention of this anywhere, yet we are discussing it as if it were a certainty.

[Major Carrales]

Besides, I'm throwing the BS flag on this whole thread until someone can cite the discontinuance of the existing iComm line (or its lineage). I can't find a single mention of this anywhere, yet we are discussing it as if it were a certainty.

This is an all to common occurance on CAPTALK these days on just about every subject we discuss.  Hearsay and unsubstantiated claims taken as fact.

As to the issue of cadets.  One has to insure that there is a culture in your unit where people protect equipment, are assigned responsibility for it and want to work to make sure they still have it.  Senior Members can also be just as lacks if said culture does not exist.

I really can't see how flight line communications might be a violation of OPSEC, unless "holding fast" before approaching is somehow a state secret.  lol

[Spaceman3750]

Well, I googled IC-4008M with no luck, though I did learn that some have been selling these online. The Icom brochure says "US Marine Corps Transceiver" and somehow folks have boiled that down to "marine radio" and sold them by the lot... Wonder where they came from given that (I thought) Icom wasn't supposed to sell these to non-government entities.

[Eclipse]

I really can't see how flight line communications might be a violation of OPSEC, unless "holding fast" before approaching is somehow a state secret.

Like everything else, it is a piece of the puzzle. 

Someone on the flightline asking or being directed about VIP's or victims being transported could tip off outsiders to the nature or other info regarding
operations, etc.

[Eclipse]

Well, I googled IC-4008M with no luck, though I did learn that some have been selling these online. The Icom brochure says "US Marine Corps Transceiver" and somehow folks have boiled that down to "marine radio" and sold them by the lot... Wonder where they came from given that (I thought) Icom wasn't supposed to sell these to non-government entities.

They pop up on eBay occasionally, mostly ex-military who "brought one home", etc.

[jks19714]

Re-reading the initial post, I wonder if the question the poster was asking was about using the Vertex on ISR frequencies? That would be naughty.

Major Lord

No, I am suggesting that National consider something along those lines as a replacement/augment for the Icom 4008-M.  I am NOT suggesting doing anything "naughty" or "covert".  I know better.

[Eclipse]

Re-reading the initial post, I wonder if the question the poster was asking was about using the Vertex on ISR frequencies? That would be naughty.

Major Lord

No, I am suggesting that National consider something along those lines as a replacement/augment for the Icom 4008-M.  I am NOT suggesting doing anything "naughty" or "covert".  I know better.

I read that Icom is no longer manufacturing ISR radios.

Where?

[Spaceman3750]

Re-reading the initial post, I wonder if the question the poster was asking was about using the Vertex on ISR frequencies? That would be naughty.

Major Lord

No, I am suggesting that National consider something along those lines as a replacement/augment for the Icom 4008-M.  I am NOT suggesting doing anything "naughty" or "covert".  I know better.

I read that Icom is no longer manufacturing ISR radios.

Where?

Someone said it on the CAP_COMM list. I don't remember who.

[Eclipse]

Someone said it on the CAP_COMM list. I don't remember who.

Not exactly an unimpeachable source unless the source for the comment can be ascertained.

[RADIOMAN015]

Someone said it on the CAP_COMM list. I don't remember who.

Not exactly an unimpeachable source unless the source for the comment can be ascertained.

The ICOM ISR model is NO longer in production by ICOM, and this was (I believe) mentioned by the Deputy Communications Team leader.   It basically was in the same hardware shell as their FRS radio model IC4088, which is no longer manufactured.  I don't think ICOM is in the FRS business anymore. 

I've NEVER seen any military personnel using this radio.  I know the Army Guard had a homeland security mission at a major airport and tried to use these and it didn't work very well so instead they utilized the State Police Trunking Radio System, by borrowing some 5 watt portable from them. 

Personally I never liked the idea of ANY radio being used by CAP that couldn't be also utilized in an aircraft in flight because things do happen, and that VHF portable with the stock battery just might go dead at the wrong time.  The ISR's can't be used to transmit inflight (but there's no restriction on listening/monitoring passively)  and most CAP members lack the skill to utilize an alternative receiver with the ground team to monitor an appropriate used cap Aero or CAP FM frequency.
RM   

 

[Spaceman3750]

and most CAP members lack the skill to utilize an alternative receiver with the ground team to monitor an appropriate used cap Aero or CAP FM frequency.

That's the fanciest way I've ever heard "being a scanner jockey" described .

[lordmonar]

I don't know....I know I teach all my ground teams how to use the ISRs, the VHF repeaters/simplex and how to use comercial AVCOM radios to talk to the aircraft.

The ISR is intersquad.  It is so your FLS can call the ops room and/or his marshallers.  It is so the GTL can dispatch his guys over thei hill to get a better DF bearing.   It is NOT to talk to the airplane....thats what the EF Johnsons are for.

[thatonekid]

regardless of the durability of said device if you treat them kindly they will work perfectly fine in a reasonably long period of time, you just need to stress to your cadets and senior members that they need to treat them kindly if they want to be allowed to use them.