[Milsurplus] Mil HF rigs not NTIA compliant

[Peter Gottlieb]

> Does anyone check your selected radio for compliance with specifications? 
> If not, who cares what equipment is being used?
>
> For lower-powered (less that 100W) USB voice communications (as opposed to 
> high power or data communications), the required NTIA spec is nonsense. 
> It's just the sort of thing decreed, promulgated, and enforced by 
> government bureaucrats with very poor understanding of the technical 
> principles involved.


Well, *you* know that, and *I* know that, but bureaucrats are bureaucrats. 
The Wing DC told me quite a tale, and he was actually serious.  He said 
there are satellites monitoring CAP HF comms and they do transmitter 
signature analysis and will know if someone is using an "unauthorized" rig. 
I said that he couldn't possibly expect me to believe that and he got all 
huffy and that was that.

> I personally find recent (1960 to date) military HF equipment to be 
> interesting technically and historically, but such equipment is usually 
> *not* very reliable over the *long* run, nor easy to troubleshoot and 
> repair without the specialized test equipment and supply infrastructure of 
> the DoD.  I'd rather use a modern, light, compact, more capable, more 
> versatile, more efficient commercial ham set when it really counts (like 
> right now, if I were in the path of a hurricane).  A GRC-106 or -165, a 
> URC-32 or -58, a PRC-47, -74 or -70 or -104, an ARC-58 or -65 or 94? 
> Novelty use only!

The 104 is a brick, very sensitive, and fits nicely in a laptop carrying 
case along with it's fishing pole antenna, a 66 foot per side dipole and 
para cord, handset, and home made interface box to my laptop for digital 
modes.  I put NiMH cells in the battery case and at 8.8 AH 28 Volts it runs 
the radio a long time.  I have had it out in the field and I don't worry if 
it gets rained on.  It just works.

Peter