[ARC5] RAT-1

[Mike Hanz]

I follow the parallel you are suggesting, but it is only true from a 
purely conceptual perspective, and in fact sidesteps the *huge* 
influence of Army/Navy political insularity in the nomenclature 
nomination process.  It was only *very* late in the war that the Navy 
began to accept AN/APR-4 equipment, and the Army never bothered to 
consider the Navy AN/APR-1 contract equipment at all, moving directly 
from the SCR-587 (which in fairness provided the same frequency coverage 
as the APR-1 tuning units, albeit without motor scanning) to the 
AN/APR-4 equipment.  "Nomenclature rules" back then were governed as 
much by politics as they were by logic, and there was no real pressure 
for a Navy nomination to be accepted by the Army, or vice versa, because 
of "Service Unique Requirements".  Examples abound in the airborne 
equipment alone...I'm not familiar with the rest of the logistics chain 
by choice, but I'll bet there are similar exemplars.  Duh...come to 
think of it, not a whole lot has changed....:'(

On 8/3/2011 7:35 PM, WA5CAB at cs.com wrote:
> RAT and RAT-1 weren't prototypes.  They were production models, albeit
> built in very small quantities.  RAT-1 receivers are the same, except for
> nameplates, as two of the RAV receivers.  AN/ARC-5 started as ARA-1 and ATA-1 but
> got caught in the nomenclature system change.  One could argue that ARC-5
> was actually built as AN/APR-4Y.  :-)
>
> GR P-540 built as GR P-540
> ARC-1 built as        ARC-1
> ARC-2 built as        AN/APR-1
> ARC-3 built as        AN/APR-4
> ARC-4 built as        AN/APR-4X
> ARC-5 built as        AN/APR-4Y
>
> FWIW, if then current nomenclature rules had been followed, AN/APR-4 should
> have been AN/APR-1A.  And there were both mechanical and electrical changes
> from ARA/ATA to AN/ARC-5.