[GreenKeys] Military Mark High to Mark Low change - FWIW

Mon Mar 11 13:45:37 EDT 2024

Hi Daniel

This is very interesting material, and thanks for digging it up. The 
documents indicate that the U.S. military switched to MARK-low FSK for 
compatibility with new STANAGs prescribed by its European NATO partners. 
The documents do not indicate just why the European countries chose 
MARK-low, so this remains a mystery, at least to me.  It was either an 
arbitrary choice, or based on some prior European convention I'm unaware 
of.  Both MARK-high or MARK-low shift polarity provide equal 
performance, and one has no advantage over the other, provided everyone 
agrees on a convention.

Memorandum SGM-223-61 suggests the NATO Standing Group prescribed 
MARK-low as the standard in 1961, but was then informed that the U.S. 
already had a standard which was the "conjugate" of this (that is, 
MARK-high).  The memorandum states the U.S. would accept the new STANAG 
if the following sentence was added: "For universal compatibility, 
keying polarity reversing facilities will be provided in both receivers 
and transmitters, to permit operation on either the keying standard 
prescribed in this STANAG or on its conjugate which is the U.S. standard."

As it happened, the U.S. did not provide reversing facilities for BOTH 
transmit and receive in all their FSK equipment.  Some FSK modems, like 
the MD-522, provided only reversible receive capability, and transmit 
was fixed at MARK-low.  This met the NATO standard yet maintained 
compatibility with the MARK-high AN/GRC-46 (also reversible on receive) 
and other legacy U.S. equipment.

The other documents are primarily concerned with setting standards for a 
new generation of synthesized SSB equipment which would be used with 
AFSK modems, and has some bearing on the choice of tone center 
frequency.   Of interest here is IMSM-0216-67, which sets requirements 
for SSB filter characteristics, including passband width, ripple, group 
delay, and stopband rejection.  A BW of 2700 Hz was chosen, extending 
from 350 Hz to 3050 Hz, minimum, with +/- 2 dB ripple.

The upper band edge of earlier military SSB equipment was a bit wider, 
typically at 3250 Hz, and 2550 Hz tone center was often used (upper tone 
2975 Hz).  This was cutting it too close for the proposed new NATO 
standard SSB radios, so the tone center was reduced to place it nearer 
the passband center, which was 1700 Hz.  However, 2000 Hz was an 
alternative AFSK tone center already in use with SSB equipment having 
narrower filters, so this was chosen instead.  Again, either 1700 or 
2000 Hz tone center would have worked equally well from a purely 
technical viewpoint, and the choice was dictated by a prior convention.

So the transition to MARK-low FSK can be traced to a European NATO 
standard, and the use of 2 kHz tone center for AFSK equipment was chosen 
for compatibility with new NATO SSB radios with an upper passband limit 
of 3050 Hz.

73,

John K9WT

On 3/10/2024 12:03 PM, Daniel Jones wrote:
> I was reading some old notices on NATOs website (Very interesting all 
> the available orders and rule changes, Just look up RATT and things 
> like that)
>
> While I can’t find an exact change I wonder if it was just a way to 
> force standardization.  I read some earlier STANAG 5003 notices that 
> specified everyone needed to use 50baud except for the USN (Probably 
> because of the installed base) Then the USN switched to 75 Baud which 
> was still not the NATO standard in 1968 with a caveat that everyone 
> convert to 75 on an agreed upon date.
>
> This combined with the fact the Mark would be at the top end of the 
> frequency as others have stated in this thread probably forced the issue.
>
> Either way still not a definitive answer but a lot of interesting 
> reading that spans about 10 years time from 1957-1968 and the changes 
> that happened in NATO communications.
>
>
> This link still shows Mark High in 1961
>
> preview.png
> SGM-0223-61_ENG_PDP 
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/b/6/3/b63f7b729941bdb65957c2c1e9bd7a44f0e006263adcf2486250d075f2a48095/SGM-0223-61_ENG_PDP.pdf>
> PDF Document · 1.1 MB 
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/b/6/3/b63f7b729941bdb65957c2c1e9bd7a44f0e006263adcf2486250d075f2a48095/SGM-0223-61_ENG_PDP.pdf>
>
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/b/6/3/b63f7b729941bdb65957c2c1e9bd7a44f0e006263adcf2486250d075f2a48095/SGM-0223-61_ENG_PDP.pdf>
>
> This one talks about the limits of bandwidth, not really specifying 
> RATT in particular but they do worry about bleed over if I am readying 
> right.
>
> preview.png
> IMSM-0216-67_ENG_PDP 
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/9/f/2/9f2d7c59d12232335b8cea1fcb5ba5991fa6de4a3eb78f9017987eebe100fd66/IMSM-0216-67_ENG_PDP.pdf>
> PDF Document · 1.4 MB 
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/9/f/2/9f2d7c59d12232335b8cea1fcb5ba5991fa6de4a3eb78f9017987eebe100fd66/IMSM-0216-67_ENG_PDP.pdf>
>
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/9/f/2/9f2d7c59d12232335b8cea1fcb5ba5991fa6de4a3eb78f9017987eebe100fd66/IMSM-0216-67_ENG_PDP.pdf>
>
> This one specifies the use of USB only
>
> preview.png
> IMSM-0468-68_ENG_PDP 
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/f/4/d/f4d506d0915455ddae55956910c7c98e661681da693a45d2be710f2ff26e6344/IMSM-0468-68_ENG_PDP.pdf>
> PDF Document · 4.6 MB 
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/f/4/d/f4d506d0915455ddae55956910c7c98e661681da693a45d2be710f2ff26e6344/IMSM-0468-68_ENG_PDP.pdf>
>
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/f/4/d/f4d506d0915455ddae55956910c7c98e661681da693a45d2be710f2ff26e6344/IMSM-0468-68_ENG_PDP.pdf>
>
> preview.png
> SGM-0488-63_ENG_PDP 
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/4/4/d/44d13bbd4bd51d7a4067110a8bc797323c72772661314b5ce89f66636baf1802/SGM-0488-63_ENG_PDP.pdf>
> PDF Document · 521 KB 
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/4/4/d/44d13bbd4bd51d7a4067110a8bc797323c72772661314b5ce89f66636baf1802/SGM-0488-63_ENG_PDP.pdf>
>
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/4/4/d/44d13bbd4bd51d7a4067110a8bc797323c72772661314b5ce89f66636baf1802/SGM-0488-63_ENG_PDP.pdf>
>
>
> preview.png
> IMSM-0429-68_ENG_PDP 
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/5/5/c/55c2a8aef7bafe4f2f254a0e324f254c5d4e5c35175891bd8fbc57e278a4b053/IMSM-0429-68_ENG_PDP.pdf>
> PDF Document · 651 KB 
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/5/5/c/55c2a8aef7bafe4f2f254a0e324f254c5d4e5c35175891bd8fbc57e278a4b053/IMSM-0429-68_ENG_PDP.pdf>
>
> <https://archives.nato.int/uploads/r/nato-archives-online/5/5/c/55c2a8aef7bafe4f2f254a0e324f254c5d4e5c35175891bd8fbc57e278a4b053/IMSM-0429-68_ENG_PDP.pdf>
>
>
> Daniel Jones (K6YIC)
> DJones at k6yic.com
> http://K6YIC.com
> HH Phone #11973
>
> PastedGraphic-2.tiff
>
>> On Mar 8, 2024, at 16:16, Dave Horsfall <dave at horsfall.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024, John Vendely wrote:
>>
>>> The reason for various military branches switching from MARK high to
>>> MARK low is surely one of the world's great mysteries, on par with the
>>> construction of the pyramids.  From an engineering perspective, the
>>> choice is entirely arbitrary, but so far as I can see, prior to the 
>>> U.S.
>>> Army's introduction of the MD-522 in 1967, MARK high was the
>>> convention.  So why change?  This must have been a bit confusing at
>>> times for Army RATT operators, since their existing GRC-26 and GRC-46
>>> equipment was MARK high...
>>
>> Perhaps it may have something to do with higher frequencies being
>> attenuated or something?
>>
>> -- Dave 
>> (vk2kfu)______________________________________________________________
>> GreenKeys mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/greenkeys
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:GreenKeys at mailman.qth.net
>>
>>>>> Jordan Spencer Cunningham's GreenKeys Search Tool: 
>>>>> https://teletype.net/gksearch
>>>>> 2002-to-present greenkeys archive: 
>>>>> http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/greenkeys/
>>>>> 1998-to-2001 greenkeys archive: 
>>>>> http://mailman.qth.net/archive/greenkeys/greenkeys.html
>>>>> Randy Guttery's 2001-to-2009 GreenKeys Search Tool: 
>>>>> http://comcents.com/tty/greenkeyssearch.html
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> Message delivered to djones at k6yic.com
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> GreenKeys mailing list
> Home:http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/greenkeys
> Help:http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post:mailto:GreenKeys at mailman.qth.net
>
>>>> Jordan Spencer Cunningham's GreenKeys Search Tool:https://teletype.net/gksearch
>>>> 2002-to-present greenkeys archive:http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/greenkeys/
>>>> 1998-to-2001 greenkeys archive:http://mailman.qth.net/archive/greenkeys/greenkeys.html
>>>> Randy Guttery's 2001-to-2009 GreenKeys Search Tool:http://comcents.com/tty/greenkeyssearch.html
> This list hosted by:http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list:http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> Message delivered tojvendely at cfl.rr.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/greenkeys/attachments/20240311/5952f433/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: preview.png
Type: image/png
Size: 258000 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/greenkeys/attachments/20240311/5952f433/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: preview.png
Type: image/png
Size: 305090 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/greenkeys/attachments/20240311/5952f433/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: preview.png
Type: image/png
Size: 292195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/greenkeys/attachments/20240311/5952f433/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: preview.png
Type: image/png
Size: 284202 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/greenkeys/attachments/20240311/5952f433/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: preview.png
Type: image/png
Size: 312737 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/greenkeys/attachments/20240311/5952f433/attachment-0009.png>