[Boatanchors] Receiver Antenna Input Question

Mon Mar 2 11:14:20 EST 2009

No one is saying that "ARC"  wasnt an early Navy designator. However 
except for the purist it confused no one after the war.

The rest of your post drifts too far off the original ARC-5 subject.

Carl
KM1H

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <WA5CAB at cs.com>
To: <grimm at sbc.edu>
Cc: <boatanchors at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] Receiver Antenna Input Question

> No.  Technically it was a US military system.  Practically, most 
> contracts
> for components were from the Navy.  But in any case, AN/ARC-5 first 
> appeared
> about four years before USAF even existed.
>
> AN/ARC-5 (the nomenclature) is from the Joint Army-Navy Nomenclature 
> System
> (AKA the AN system or JAN system) for Communication and Associated 
> Equipment.
> The earliest  document I have listing the specifications of the system 
> is
> dated June, 1943 (six months older than I am) but I've seen 
> indications it was
> coming into use semi-officially as early as October or November 1942. 
> There are
> a few low-number sets whose official nomenclature is preceded by an 
> asterisk
> and one of the associated manuals explained that the asterisk means 
> that the
> nomenclature was assigned before the system was officially approved. 
> I can't
> turn up the reference quickly tonight but the official nomenclatures 
> of AN/ARN-1
> which was changed to AN/APN-1 are *AN/ARN-1 and *AN/APN-1.
>
> USAF didn't exist until 1948.
>
> I don't have documents to prove it but I'm sure that the reason that a 
> lot of
> Navy nomenclatured equipment was re-nomenclatured under the JAN system 
> (with
> no changes other than the nameplates) was that there were a lot of 
> conflicts
> or potential future conflicts between the two systems.  ARC versus 
> AN/ARC is an
> excellent bad example.  For the most part, this was not true of the 
> Signal
> Corps nomenclature system and many items first procurred under that 
> nomenclature
> system in the 30's or 40's continued to be procurred without change in
> nomenclature into the early 80's at least.  I've had GC-7's made in 
> the 70's and
> BA-38's and BA-48's made in the 80's.  Which isn't to say that no 
> Signal Corps
> equipment was re-nomenclatured.  Quite a bit was.  But it didn't have 
> to be, it
> just was.
>
> In the Navy system, ARA was the first aircraft radio receiver system
> procurred after the change from two-letter to three-letter 
> nomenclature.  ARB was the
> second.  ARC the third and ARD the fourth.  Suffix numbers (as in 
> ARC-1 or
> ARD-2) indicated modifications.  Under this system, the first two 
> letters meant
> Aircraft and Receiver.  The third was just the next unused letter in 
> the
> alphabet.  Suffix numbers (as in ARC-1 or ARD-2) indicated 
> modifications.  AFAIK,
> the three-letter system went up to ARK, a glide bomb receiver.  Under 
> the AN or
> JAN system, the three letters indicated where used (aircraft), type of
> emission (radio) and function (communication).  The suffix number was 
> assigned
> sequentially for differing equipment types (AN/ARC-1, AN/ARC-2, 
> ...AN/ARC-58, etc.).
> Modifications were indicated by a suffix letter following the number. 
> Such
> as AN/ARC-5X or AN/ART-13B.  Use or not use of hyphens was also 
> generally
> specifically specified in the controlling documents for the 
> nomenclature systems.
> The JAN system has no hyphen in front of the mod letter.  The Signal 
> Corps
> system does.  The Navy system, which used suffix letters to indicate
> modifications to components (not systems) is indeterminent.  Sometimes 
> the hyphen is
> there and sometimes it isn't.  Even in the same document.
>
> Anyway, probably more than you ever wanted to know about US Military 
> radio
> system nomenclature.  But as I said at the beginning and can support 
> with
> (literally) tons of documentation, there was never any US Military 
> radio set or
> receiver nomenclatured "ARC-5".  ARC-1 is as far as that set ever got. 
> What
> millions of lazy or simply misinformed people call "ARC-5" is actually 
> AN/ARC-5,
> SCR-274-N, ATA or ARA, RAV, RAT or RAT-1.
>
>
> In a message dated 3/2/2009 12:03:20 AM Central Standard Time, 
> grimm at sbc.edu
> writes:
>> WA5CAB at cs.com wrote:
>> >It was never anyone's designation.  Never existed.  But ARC is from 
>> >the
>> Navy
>> >system for aircraft electronics, not the later JAN, etc.
>> >
>> >In a message dated 3/1/2009 10:52:57 PM Central Standard Time,
>> >km1h at jeremy.mv.com writes:
>> >
>> >>ARC-5 was not a Navy designation.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Robert &Susan Downs - Houston
>> >wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
>> >MVPA 9480
>> >
>>
>>
>> I thought AN/ARC-5 was an Air Force designation.
>>
>> 73,
>>
>
> Robert & Susan Downs - Houston
> wa5cab dot com (Web Store)
> MVPA 9480
> ______________________________________________________________
> Boatanchors mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:Boatanchors at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html 