I read that Icom is no longer manufacturing ISR radios. If that is true, what will we use in their place? The Icoms that I have seen are often in a state of disrepair, with missing/broken antennas, knobs, etc. and parts seem to be made of Unobtainium.
I noticed that Vertex makes a nice little HT (VX-354) which will do 1 or 5 watts, 16 channels, 380-470 MHz for less than $200. There don't appear to be too many choices when it comes to inexpensive radios for the 380-420 MHz frequency range.
Is NTC looking for an ISR The Next Generation? Or will we be "forced" to hand over $$$$ EFJ portables to folks on the flightline or encampments?
john
Forced to hand over? The EFJs and other corporate radios are there to support the CAP missions. If that means they need to go onto the flightline or into TACO hands then that's what it means. That's why they're there.
"Forced to" -- I meant that they cost a lot of money (to buy AND to repair) for the application.
Quote from: jks19714 on May 10, 2011, 07:04:20 PM
"Forced to" -- I meant that they cost a lot of money (to buy AND to repair) for the application.
Fair enough.
Quote from: jks19714 on May 10, 2011, 07:04:20 PM
"Forced to" -- I meant that they cost a lot of money (to buy AND to repair) for the application.
Yes....but that implies that the TACOs and FLMs are less deserving and/or less responsible for the proper care and use of issued equipment.
:(
Quote from: lordmonar on May 10, 2011, 07:11:49 PM
Quote from: jks19714 on May 10, 2011, 07:04:20 PM
"Forced to" -- I meant that they cost a lot of money (to buy AND to repair) for the application.
Yes....but that implies that the TACOs and FLMs are less deserving and/or less responsible for the proper care and use of issued equipment.
:(
I interpret it to mean that were deploying $1800 worth of equipment to do the job of an $80 radio.
Yes. It is the case of using a $1800 hammer when a $100 hammer will do.
Please do not jump to the conclusion that I am suggesting the use of an ISR radio as a hammer. ;) I use the EFJ 5300's for that --
Quote from: jks19714 on May 10, 2011, 07:26:02 PM
Yes. It is the case of using a $1800 hammer when a $100 hammer will do.
Please do not jump to the conclusion that I am suggesting the use of an ISR radio as a hammer. ;) I use the EFJ 5300's for that --
;D ;D
Quote from: jks19714 on May 10, 2011, 06:53:22 PM
I read that Icom is no longer manufacturing ISR radios.
Cite please.
just remember that ISR and our VHF Radios serve 2 completely diffrent purposes.
They are not interchangeable.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 10, 2011, 07:14:29 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on May 10, 2011, 07:11:49 PM
Quote from: jks19714 on May 10, 2011, 07:04:20 PM
"Forced to" -- I meant that they cost a lot of money (to buy AND to repair) for the application.
Yes....but that implies that the TACOs and FLMs are less deserving and/or less responsible for the proper care and use of issued equipment.
:(
I interpret it to mean that were deploying $1800 worth of equipment to do the job of an $80 radio.
Oh I would buy that.....two caviates.
1. The ISR ran about $130 IIRC.
2. We are not allowed to use FRM/GRMS frequencies for ES by law.
So ICOM may not make the ISRs anymore....but someone may make them. If the military does not need the ISR freqs anymore, then we can always find someone who will make and ISR radior for us or modify their exiting FRS radios to use th ISR freqs.
what are you doing to your ISR's?
we have 11 and they are all in very good condition.
we use them pretty hard / regularly... including in field conditions.
sheesh.
One word on who uses them: "Cadets"
Quote from: EmergencyManager6 on May 10, 2011, 07:38:09 PM
just remember that ISR and our VHF Radios serve 2 completely diffrent purposes.
They are not interchangeable.
I would not say "completely different". They serve the same purpose of providing easy communications.
One is for short range (under .5 miles) and the other is for longer range.
If all you got is VHF use it as best fits your needs.
If you got the ISR...use them in the short range nich to free up the VHF freq for long distance traffic.
Quote from: Senior on May 10, 2011, 09:08:59 PM
One word on who uses them: "Cadets"
so do mine, i guess
Quote from: Senior on May 10, 2011, 09:08:59 PM
One word on who uses them: "Cadets"
And the other one is seniors. The distinction should be based on need, not membership status or age.
As to the comments regarding breakage, this is generally due to abuse, especially with the antennas, but when they break, they get fixed.
My Wing has parts in stock and we just send them up for repair, occasionally paying for the parts if it was our fault. Considering how
seldom most members use radios at all, with proper care they should still be like new in a decade.
We have about 14 ISRs and have lost two of them in the last five years. One was run over by a Senoir Member the other I (also a senior member) pulled the antenna off while doing ops checks.
Mishandeling of equipment is not limited to just cadets.
The USMC moved to slightly modified and encrypted XTS2500i Motorola handhelds; I see no reason why we couldn't do the same, save for expense...
http://www.marines.mil/unit/pandr/Documents/Concepts/2008/PDF/CP08Ch3P1_Integrated_IntraSquad_Radio.pdf (http://www.marines.mil/unit/pandr/Documents/Concepts/2008/PDF/CP08Ch3P1_Integrated_IntraSquad_Radio.pdf)
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
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
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 12, 2011, 11:35:17 PM
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.
We're all discussing something which is "vapor" until someone cites the iComms are disco'ed.
Quote from: Major Lord on May 13, 2011, 01:21:57 AM
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
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 13, 2011, 01:39:22 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: davidsinn on May 13, 2011, 04:20:16 AM
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
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?????
Quote from: cap235629 on May 13, 2011, 03:32:40 PM
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 (http://smiliesftw.com/x/bsflag.gif)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.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2011, 03:54:44 PM
Besides, I'm throwing the BS flag (http://smiliesftw.com/x/bsflag.gif)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
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.
Quote from: Major Carrales on May 13, 2011, 04:00:10 PMI 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.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 13, 2011, 04:07:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Major Lord on May 13, 2011, 01:21:57 AM
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.
Quote from: jks19714 on May 13, 2011, 05:28:40 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on May 13, 2011, 01:21:57 AM
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.
Quote from: jks19714 on May 10, 2011, 06:53:22 PM
I read that Icom is no longer manufacturing ISR radios.
Where?
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2011, 05:30:42 PM
Quote from: jks19714 on May 13, 2011, 05:28:40 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on May 13, 2011, 01:21:57 AM
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.
Quote from: jks19714 on May 10, 2011, 06:53:22 PM
I read that Icom is no longer manufacturing ISR radios.
Where?
Someone said it on the CAP_COMM list. I don't remember who.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 13, 2011, 05:32:59 PM
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.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 13, 2011, 05:40:24 PM
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on May 13, 2011, 05:32:59 PM
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
Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on May 13, 2011, 11:26:50 PM
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 >:D.
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.
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.
ISRs are still in the system for repairs @ NTC. They will be with us until, I suspect, we run out of them. It is a shame that the production has been halted by ICOM, but CAP still has quite a few standing by. I'm sure a suitable sub is being worked on, but with so many in the inventory, I'd bet on this not being a priority project.
Bill Collister
SDWG DC