The story of this 'Bowman' radio system is a story of massive

The Ministry of Defence has down-sized the serving officer complement
of the ministry and there is virtually nobody in there now who has
seen active service. After the war and for the next (about) 40 years
there were those with active service experience amongst the civilian
staff as well as the military.

They haven't a clue what they are doing and they don't listen or care
a damn. It doesn't matter how much they are told; they don't
understand the nature of war. Mens lives are at risk and the
number killed by the civil servants in Whitehall is a tragic scandal

xxxxxxxxx cs
[They are quite good in finding £10,000 armchairs for their offices
though. ]
===========================
SUNDAY TELEGRAPH 24.8.08
'Broken' £2.4bn radio put troops' lives in danger
Soldiers' lives are being put at risk by failings with the Army's
£2.4 billion radio system, senior generals have been warned.

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent

An infantry commander in Helmand described the system, the second
most expensive piece of equipment in British military history after
the RAF's Eurofighter, as "astonishingly bad".

The radio's coverage sometimes does not extend from one side of a
base to the other, while a shortage of batteries means soldiers are
being ordered to turn off radios until they come under attack.

The Bowman communication system was supposed to revolutionise command
and control in the Army. Its encryption software allowed commanders
to talk securely for the first time without the need to encode
messages. But in Afghanistan Bowman has been written off as a failure
by many senior officers.

Lt Col Nick Borton, the commanding officer of the 5th battalion the
Royal Regiment of Scotland (5 Scots) told Gen Sir David Richards, the
Army's second most senior officer, that Bowman "was a broken system".

The infantry commander made his criticisms known during a visit to 5
Scots' headquarters in Musa Qala by Gen Richards, Lt Gen Graeme Lamb,
the commander of the Field Army, and Brig Mark Carleton-Smith, the
British task force commander in ?Helmand.

Col Borton told the senior officers that Bowman was hampering
operations against the Taliban. He complained that the radio's
coverage in Helmand had been reduced to under three miles, when it
should, in theory, be limitless.

Col Borton said: "The coverage on VHF is just a few hundred metres,
so we use HF or UHF but that only gives us five kilometres. In some
cases we cannot even get coverage from one side of the base to the
other."

Col Borton also said that a shortage of batteries meant that in an
effort to save power, junior commanders were often forced to turn the
radios off until they came under attack. He added: "The only way to
tell how much power a battery has left is to remove it from the radio
- that's a serious design fault.

In a bid to preserve power, my section commanders only have their
radios working when they are in contact. As far as I am concerned,
Bowman is astonishingly bad; it is a broken system," he told commanders.

Col Borton raised his concerns over Bowman when Gen Richards asked
him directly what problems his unit was facing. All of the senior
officers present at the meeting, which was witnessed by The Sunday
Telegraph, accepted Col Borton's comments without question. Junior
officers in Col Borton's battalion were equally critical of Bowman,
describing the radio as "utterly useless".

One said: "The only good thing about Bowman is that it provides
secure communications. But what is the point of that if it doesn't
work? We could end up with a situation where soldiers are being
killed or injured because of communication problems."

Another added that troops would prefer the 20 year-old Clansman
system, which Bowman replaced, because the older radio was more
reliable.

Bowman has had problems since it entered service with the Army in
2004. It was 10 years late and almost £500 million over budget. When
the communication system was introduced, frustrated soldiers said
Bowman was an acronym for "Better Off With Map and Nokia". It has
also been reported that some soldiers have suffered radiation burns
when transmitting.

Bowman's reputation was further undermined in a report by the House
of Commons public accounts committee last year which found that
despite being better than the previous radio system, it was far too
heavy for foot soldiers. MPs said the project team which developed
Bowman consistently failed to listen to senior infantry commanders
who were concerned about the radio's weight and whether it was portable.

However, senior officers are at a loss as to why Bowman should not
work properly in Afghanistan, given that trials found that the system
functioned in both desert and mountainous environments.

The Ministry of Defence said: "Bowman has many advantages over its
predecessor system, but the harsh conditions and challenging terrain
under which it operates in southern Afghanistan would seriously
stretch the performance of any modern digital radio communications.

"Improvements have already been made to enhance Bowman connectivity
in the Musa Qala area and further improvements will happen as
solutions are identified. Bowman, however, is just one part of an
array of systems used in theatre to provide a robust communications
network which allows commanders at all levels to exercise required
command and control." [in other words - er - Blah Blah! They
haven't a clue and don't care! -cs]