Callsign
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Hams Gain in Remodeled Army MARS

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-assoc
ad: l-innov
ad: l-tentec
ad: l-Waters
ad: l-WarrenG
ad: l-rl
ad: l-gcopper
  1. #1

    Default Hams Gain in Remodeled Army MARS

    Ft Huachuca, Ariz.--Army MARS Chief Stephen G. Klinefelter announced a major leadership realignment at a conference of the auxiliary’s Region Directors Sept. 12-14. Under the terms, volunteer hams assumed day-to-day management responsibility previously exercised from the MARS headquarters at Ft Huachuca.
    "You will tell us if you can take on a task and you will tell us the resources you need," he told the leaders at their meeting in Dallas."Our responsibility at HQ will be to provide the training and the resources and to support you."
    Specifically, each of the auxiliary’s 11 regions (10 in the U.S., one overseas) will be under command of its director. Together the 11 directors will form a policy-making "governance executive board" for the auxiliary as a whole. It’s a striking revision of the military’s traditional top-down chain of command, and it was symbolically activated at the first national leadership conference in the Military Auxiliary Radio System’s 87-year-history.
    There was no formal vote of acceptance, but the "RDs" (as they’re known), left little doubt. They immediately set about reviewing and updating policy and enlarged the "Chief’s Special Staff" of volunteer specialists..
    In a closed session, they were briefed by a Department of Defense staffer on recent Army MARS mission enhancements. An Executive Order issued by President Obama on July 6 had mobilized the entire federal establishment to tighten up preparations against cyber intrusion.
    Like battalion and company commanders in the active-duty Army, the Region and State Directors (the latter will carry much of the load of leadership) are circumscribed by Army-wide policy. Also, there was no discussion of changing HQ control of State and Region Director appointments. Their status is enhanced, however, by being volunteers themselves and thus representing membership interests to the chain of command above.
    Mr. Klinefelter’s innovative region-centric architecture doesn’t just reconfigure administration, it spotlights Army MARS as a survivable last-resort communications tool in any national-level calamity. A regional command that is accustomed to operating on its own in normal times is unlikely to be sidelined if cut off from HQ communications in time of crisis. That "self-healing" capability was said to have figured in the auxiliary’s updated DoD tasking.
    Army MARS reports to the Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) which manages Army computer networks and communications systems worldwide. Chief Klinefelter, who retired as a full colonel in the Signal Corps after 31 years, returned to NETCOM as a senior civilian employee and is Deputy Operations Officer G3. He added the MARS post last spring.
    "The Dallas conference greatly exceeded my expectations," Mr. Klinefelter said. "This one being our first, there were no guarantees that the board would work together. Until you do it, you don't know. Now, we are all looking forward to the future of the program, not just
    the next meeting."
    Mr. Klinefelter had previously constituted the RDs as his "MARS Government Executive Board (MGEB)" which he described as a more appropriate decision-making mechanism for volunteers than the Army’s traditional top-down chain of command.
    "That was never the vision of this proud volunteer auxiliary program," he said. "The program was always dependent on what the volunteers brought to the 'table' which the government then felt was valuable enough to cultivate and organize if possible.
    "Those valuable things on the table are (1) that they are already integrated into communities and states throughout the country, (2) that they are already sharing a common interest, equipped, interoperable, and trained to a certain extent, and finally (3) that they are a self motivated and patriotic group perhaps willing to take on a little more training and organization for a common purpose.
    ‘It is only fair," Mr. Klinefelter concluded, "that they have great say in the operations of
    the organization since they bring so much."
    Among other actions the panel adopted a fresh approach for managing support relationships with civil agencies. Three new volunteer leadership posts were created: Winlink 2000 liaison officer, chief technology officer, and overseas liaison. Tightened admission standards for new members and participation requirements for all were reaffirmed. These include obtaining general class FCC license and completing a package of FEMA courses.
    The third and final day brought an unscheduled program initiative from the board itself. Michigan State Director Dave Bock, representing Region 5, outlined a method of organizing training programs and tracking the results that the Army has used.
    Looking ahead , Mr. Klinefelter had a couple of priority to-do’s for his board: build "seamless" interoperation with Air Force and Navy-Marine Corps MARS and "recruit younger members."
    "You’re in charge," Mr. Klinefelter told the RDs. "You’re responsible."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Where ever SAM tells me.
    Posts
    114

    Default

    Nice article..thank you for the info.

    Not to be a stick in mud, but, I hope Mr. Klinefelter can use his new found clout to recover MARS frequency assignments, get the CIO G6 to ammend the DoDI/AR 25-6 with meaningful change(s) and overcome the current trend of $2000 Pactor modems. Volunteers are a great asset......but some of the selfless folks have shallow pockets.
    73, Trent
    The CODE that MATTERS: The Amateur's Code

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Posts
    120

    Default

    Hopefully we'll see NMC MARS institute a more proactive approach to modernizing the force. Army MARS has really been in the news a lot lately and I think it's great!
    73 de Brad
    KA3YAN
    NNNØKCR

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Baja California, MX
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Just be sure you provide accurate information; a Pactor 4 modem is 1498$. A Pactor 3 modem is 1148$
    This is full list price from USA distributor. Prices are even less with a MARS discount. Used even less still.



    Quote Originally Posted by N2OBM View Post
    Nice article..thank you for the info.

    Not to be a stick in mud, but, I hope Mr. Klinefelter can use his new found clout to recover MARS frequency assignments, get the CIO G6 to ammend the DoDI/AR 25-6 with meaningful change(s) and overcome the current trend of $2000 Pactor modems. Volunteers are a great asset......but some of the selfless folks have shallow pockets.
    Mike, n6kzb/xe2

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Belleville, IL
    Posts
    14

    Default

    It's good to see a full timer running things. I'd like to see him take on the CODAR interference issue and speed out their demise on the MARS freq's.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by N6KZB View Post
    Just be sure you provide accurate information; a Pactor 4 modem is 1498$. A Pactor 3 modem is 1148$ ...
    PACTOR 4, from general consensus, isn't (yet?) legal in the US (on HF?).

    Who but the most dedicated, or with $1k to burn, wants a modem with essentially one mode? You could give me a P4Dragon and I'd just stick it on eBay and get more for less.

    Isn't there a mode that does better and already exists in cheaper TNCs or via software? Like GTOR, ALE, Packet or even MT63?

    If the price of getting into some of these MARS, ARES, etc. services didn't come with more than some hams make in a month, we'd find find more coverage and better acceptance.

    We can only do 300baud on HF anyway, so perhaps there's some other benefit justified by those more devout to Pactor-botting.
    Last edited by K2NCC; 10-09-2012 at 03:43 AM.
    vy 73, de frank, k2ncc

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Baja California, MX
    Posts
    255

    Default

    On amateur bands Pactor 4 is not yet available in the US, but is used on MARS frequencies.

    The other modes you mentioned do not compare to Pactor 3 or 4 for speed, reliability, or low signal operation.










    Quote Originally Posted by K2NCC View Post
    PACTOR 4, from general consensus, isn't (yet?) legal in the US (on HF?).

    Who but the most dedicated, or with $1k to burn, wants a modem with essentially one mode? You could give me a P4Dragon and I'd just stick it on eBay and get more for less.

    Isn't there a mode that does better and already exists in cheaper TNCs or via software? Like GTOR, ALE, Packet or even MT63?

    If the price of getting into some of these MARS, ARES, etc. services didn't come with more than some hams make in a month, we'd find find more coverage and better acceptance.

    We can only do 300baud on HF anyway, so perhaps there's some other benefit justified by those more devout to Pactor-botting.
    Mike, n6kzb/xe2

  8. #8

    Default

    Michael,

    $2K $1K $1,400... No dif...

    Most working-class former soldiers can not use that much disposable income on a toy.

    My more than adequate, MARS-prepped station cost a total of $700; rig, antenna, cables and the necessary accessories.

    $2K $1K $1,400... FAR too expensive.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by N6KZB View Post
    On amateur bands Pactor 4 is not yet available in the US, but is used on MARS frequencies.

    The other modes you mentioned do not compare to Pactor 3 or 4 for speed, reliability, or low signal operation.
    But Pactor comes with the price of excluding a great many ops. What about the idea of using the free software from NBEMS/FLDIGI/FLMSG/FLAMP (the NBEMS version of Amateur Multicast Protocol, currently in alpha) for gathering sitreps, ICS/HICS formatted messages and spreadsheet/databases then moving bulk traffic with the Pactor power-stations?

    NBEMS is easy to use, it's free, and in a pinch, you don't even need a direct interface. And, it's very easy to go portable/mobile. I'd encourage folks to check out the software and try it out. There are NBEMS nets on both HF and VHF/UHF all across the country who all report good success, even with first time ops. At the very least, install the software and monitor some nets. All you need is a computer with a working sound card and a mic (internal or a cheap plug in).

    -Dave, KB3FXI
    paNBEMS

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by W1YB View Post
    Michael,

    $2K $1K $1,400... No dif...

    Most working-class former soldiers can not use that much disposable income on a toy.

    My more than adequate, MARS-prepped station cost a total of $700; rig, antenna, cables and the necessary accessories.

    $2K $1K $1,400... FAR too expensive.
    I don't think the model is for each and every MARS operators home station to be PACTOR 4 equipped.

    Put the PACTOR 4 modems at the EOCs, and have a few available cached for field deployment. Operators on the air from home can still provide value, helping relay traffic that is short enough to not need high speed, or to pass traffic to the better-equipped stations. And hopefully operators who don't have PACTOR modems at home can be made familiar with their use through periodic training.

    The expensive toys are good for hub-hub communications. Less expensive solutions are valuable for bridging the gaps.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •