[Milsurplus] Curiousity... (AN/SRR-11/12/13)

[Robert W. Downs]

Don & Ken,

I don't think so.  They were contemporaries of (and competitors of) the
R-390.  They worked OK when they worked but were very difficult to work o=
n,
much harder than the AN/PRC-8/9/10 which also used the subminiature tubes=
. =

I joined the Naval Reserve in 1964.  The only places that I ever saw them=

(and the AN/SRT-13/14/15 for that matter) were in Reserve Centers and in
the ET rate training manuals, which tended to lag 5 to 8 years behind wha=
t
was in the fleet.  My take is that they were pretty quickly replaced by t=
he
R-390A/URR and the AN/SRR-?? (I think it was -15 - big unit about the siz=
e
of the RBA/B/C) VLF/LF receiver.  And then the R-390A's were replaced by
the AN/WRC-1 family (R-1051, AN/URC-35, AN/URT-23).  This latter
replacement was nearing completion when I transferred to the Mine Force i=
n
1975.  In 1967/68, the Amphibs at least still had the R-390A/URR.  USS
Valley Forge (LPH-8) had more than 70 R-390A's and either two or four
R-1051's.

>My guess:   Built later than the R390, and replaced by newer, better
solidstate units.  These used wired, sub-min tubes, so were a stop-gap
between tubes & solid state.  Note that the R1051 probably replaced one o=
r
2
of these, but still used 2 tubes - in the front end for EMP protection.

Don Davis   AD6PB


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth G. Gordon" <keng@moscow.com>
To: <milsurplus@mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 11:02 PM
Subject: [Milsurplus] Curiousity...


> Can anyone in the group explain why the SRR-11/12/13 and the
> FRR equivalents were never used as much when compared with
> the R389/390 series?
>
> I was under the impression that they were pretty good receivers
> overall.
><

73
Robert Downs
CWO4 USNR Ret'd.
<RWDowns_WA5CAB@compuserve.com>
Houston