[ARC5] "Geoff" on VHF vs HF

Mon Jul 9 16:42:44 EDT 2012

Mike:

Although I certainly will not, and cannot, argue with WHAT you say, I most certainly WILL 
comment on HOW you are saying these things below: you are coming across to me as 
pedantic and arrogant.

Is that your intention? From past experiences with you, I actually think not, but you are 
certainly giving that impression.

It also appears to me that the two of you are arguing from two completely different 
viewpoints, and neither one of you is seeing the other's.

Mac's experience might be the connection between those two viewpoints.

Ken W7EKB

On 9 Jul 2012 at 15:16, Mike Morrow wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.2195 / Virus Database: 2437/5121 - Release Date: 07/09/12
> 