[ARC5] ATA/ARA vs. ARC-5: An Inter-Service Story?

[Mike Morrow]

David Stinson wrote:

> Someone wrote to me that the ATA/ARA remained in
> production during the roll-out of the AN/ARC-5 because
> the Navy pushed-off all the ATA/ARA gear on the Marine
> Corps flyers and refitted themselves with AN/ARC-5,
> and that the Marines liked it that way just fine.

Hi David,

I would have assumed that the continued manufacture of ARA/ATA components after the point at which AN/ARC-5 components were available would most likely have been as replacement components.  Doubtless a vary large number of ARA/ATA installations were already in place.  As we all know, there was a considerable amount of incompatbility between the two systems, especially the transmitting equipment, the receiver control boxes, and the use of separate audio jack boxes connected to the MD-7 in the AN/ARC-5, rather than integral jacks on the main control boxes as found in the ARA/ATA.

It would have been easier to continue making ARA/ATA replacement components to maintain an existing installation than backfitting a new AN/ARC-5 system.  And a whole lot less expensive, I'd guess.  Seems I remember some research that appeared here of the individual item costs for the receivers and transmitters.  Wasn't a receiver with dynamoter about $400 in 1944?  That would be the equivalent today of about $2500 per receiver today.

As an aside not related to this question, I've come to believe that equipment utilization concepts had advanced remarkably by the time the AN/ARC-5 systems were available.  For example, rather than having a three-receiver MF+HF+HF and two-transmitter HF+HF system such as would be typical with the ARA/ATA, an AN/ARC-5 system might typically had homing (ARR-2)+HF+VHF receivers in the three-receiver rack, and VHF+HF transmitters in the two-transmitter rack.  That's a considerably more sophisticated electronics package than the earlier ARA/ATA.  I would guess that few AN/ARC-5 installations duplicated the simple MF+HF+HF receiver and HF+HF transmitter concepts of the earlier command sets.

When I was in the USN, we considered the USMC as part of the naval service, so I guess a USN vs. USMC rivalry would really be an intra-service rivalry.

73,
Mike / KK5F