[ARC5] "Geoff" on VHF vs HF

Mon Jul 9 15:50:49 EDT 2012

In October 1956 SAC responded to the Suez Crisis by putting B-47s on station 
over the Caribbean.

I was the Special Weapons NCO in the 27th SFW. We were using F-84Fs at the 
time. The 27th as stationed at Bergstrom AFB, Austin Tx.

We were flying cover for the B47s. On one mission our Wing Commander was the 
commander of the escorts.

The F-84Fs has ARC-33 UHF Command radios. The escorts were flying at 39000' 
and could not get to the same altitude as the bomber.

Our Wing Commander called 27th Operation at Bergstrom and instructed them to 
call McDill and request the B-47s descend to 39000' where the escorts could 
cover them. The B-47 command declined and the escorts returned to Bergstrom.

This is using what the USAF called a UHF radio.

On other long distance missions the fighters communicate through the 
tankers. The fighters talk to the tankers on the Command Radios and the 
tankers communicate with operations on the HF Liaison radios.

I had supervisors in the USAF that had been 8th AF radio operators in WWII. 
One of them taught me CW.

Bob Macklin
K5MYJ
Seattle, Wa.
"Real Radios Glow In The Dark"
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Morrow" <kk5f at earthlink.net>
To: <arc5 at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 12:16 PM
Subject: [ARC5] "Geoff" on VHF vs HF

> Mike/KK5F (aka "I") wrote in an earlier post (in lines with >>):
>>> ...the UK helped get the USA away from attraction to its marginally
>>> effective MF/HF command sets to VHF.
>
> Carl/KM1H (aka "Geoff") responded (in lines with >):
>> I think not as VHF has severe distance limits that only HF could cover.
>> Both had their purpose and were widely used with excellent results by US
>> forces.
>
> I wrote:
>>> What we've got here is...failure to communicate.
>
> "Geoff" responds:
>> Not really, there is a big difference between book reading and combat 
>> needs
>
> The thread of this discussion is not
>             'HF vs. VHF for any aircraft communications',
> just simply
>             'HF vs. VHF for aircraft **command** communications'.
>
> The distinction in function and purpose between command sets and liaison
> sets has always been very clear and unambiguous, surviving to this day.
>
> Carl, you do no service to the discussion if you can not recognize its
> topic.  If you are going to argue against anyone's points, you must 
> address
> them in the original context of their declaration.
>
> But...please pause a moment to explain how your declaration of a "big
> difference between book reading and combat needs" applies to *any* 
> discussion
> in *this* thread, Carl?  Failing that, your statement is a non sequitur
> that appears pointless, petulant and puerile.  I have the honor to point
> out that reduces the statement's effectiveness.
>
> Now...back to thread topic: Your view appears to be that there is no
> important difference between command or liaison requirements and 
> functions...
> and that a MF/HF command set is valuable because it could possibly 
> function
> as some sort of long range liaison set.  However...the great majority of 
> US
> military aircraft during the past 65 years have lacked any HF capability.
> Pilots in, say, Vietnam-era F-4s, A-37s, OH-6s, F-105s, etc. did not have
> AN/ARC-94 or -102 HF sets installed, and there have been no new MF/HF 
> command
> set designs since the 1943 AN/ARC-5.  Were (and are) modern-era military
> aircrews in these types of aircraft needlessly endangered because they
> depend only on UHF or VHF?
>
> I wrote:
>>> My statement above clearly indicates its application to *COMMAND* sets,
>>> not liaison sets.
>>>
>>> Command sets are used for plane-to-plane communication in formation,
>>> and for short range communication to air fields on departure and
>>> approach.
>
> "Geoff" responds:
>> As it says in the book
>
> That is not a satisfactory response, Carl.  Do you dispute my statement, 
> or
> do you in fact agree with it but didn't wish it to appear obvious?
>
> I wrote:
>>> With respect to those "severe distance limits", the operating 
>>> instructions
>>> for many US VHF sets contain a graph of line-of-sight-to-ground range
>>> at VHF frequencies.  The one in the 1944 AN/ARC-1 manual indicates the
>>> range to be greater than 200 miles for an aircraft at 30000 feet.
>>> Many of us have used two-meter FM HTs to talk with someone flying
>>> at 30000 feet several states away.  It's not theory...it's real.
>
> "Geoff" responds:
>> Then I suppose all pilots stayed at high altitudes in your view of 
>> things.
>
> That's a rather poor yet obvious attempt at a 'straw man' argument, Carl.
>
> Command sets have *never* been designed to provide long range 
> communications,
> nor would such be desirable.  In WWII and later, enemy interception of VHF
> communications from aircraft at altitude was a very real concern for which
> cautions were frequently cited in applicable manuals.
>
> In the ETO during the pre-VHF set era, enemy interception of HF command
> set signals before and at the beginning of a flight was feared capable
> of giving advance warning.  One of the desirable characteristics of VHF
> command sets was the reduced probability of such early detection.
>
> In short, for command communications, long range is *not* a positive
> attribute.  VHF sets provide the aircraft in a flight or on approach or
> departure the ability to communicate with each other or with terminal and
> way points.  It should do nothing else.  Thus your earlier expressed
> concerns about the "severe distance limits" of VHF command communications
> is specious.
>
> "Geoff" continues:
>> What about crippled planes, those seperated [sic] from their group by
>> weather or combat? Were they supposed to simply "deal with it"
>
> Since most fighter and attack and similar aircraft for more than 60 years
> now have flown without HF gear, the situation must now be pretty dire
> and dangerous, then!
>
> "Geoff" continues:
>> I suppose that Spitfire pilot of the plane recently discovered in the 
>> desert
>> died happily knowing that he likely could have been rescued if a real 
>> radio
>> was available, and it wouldnt have been VHF.
>
> His little **HF** set really helped him out, didn't it?  But what could 
> the Brits
> have otherwise installed?  The most common UK HF aircraft gear was the 
> T1154/R1155,
> or possibly a Bendix RA-10/TA-12 set...but there was no chance of either 
> being
> on board such an aircraft.  One could propose a VHF TR1143 or TR5043 
> (SCR-522-A)
> instead.  That likely would not have been any better, but it could have 
> not been
> any worse than the 5 MHz battery powered TR9D that was on board. 
> Sometimes,
> when you're screwed, you're screwed.
>
> I wrote:
>>> No one has ever cited a credible condition where, if VHF sets *had* been
>>> available, they would not have better served the command set function 
>>> than
>>> MF/HF sets.  The UK helped to bring the US forces into that realization.
>>> I challenge anyone to find a pilot's memoir that bemoans the replacement
>>> of the SCR-274-N gear with the SCR-522-A.  Pilot praise for the 
>>> SCR-522-A
>>> and the later AN/ARC-3, expressed as great preference for the "push 
>>> button"
>>> rather than the "coffee grinder" command sets, can be found with little
>>> difficulty.
>
> "Geoff" responds:
>> As long as pilots could communicate with their limited number of VHF
>> channels they were happy. Granted that changing frequencies on the fly 
>> with
>> ARC-5/SCR HF gear was no fun but if channelized sets had been available 
>> it
>> may have been a different story.
>> Nothing was even close to ideal during WW2.
>
> It was often ideal, for wartime of *that* epoch of technology.  War brings
> out more than any other condition the advancement of technology and its
> quick placement "in the field".  It would be nonsense to define, say, 2012
> technology as ideal, and then bemoan its absence in WW2 as non-ideal.  In
> 2100, someone will be able to say "Nothing was even close to ideal during
> 2012".  But we get by thinking some of it is nearly so in present-day 
> 2012.
>
> An end with philosophical musings!  Carl, I think we've bonded.
>
> Mike / KK5F
> ______________________________________________________________
> ARC5 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/arc5
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:ARC5 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> 