[Milsurplus] item of interest - UK vs. USA VHF/UHF
Mike Hanz
AAF-Radio-1 at cox.net
Wed Sep 6 15:29:43 EDT 2006
Mike Morrow wrote:
>For VHF comms, at least the US Navy had the W.E. 233 (AN/ARC-4) stop-gap VHF set. Does anyone know what year the W.E. 233 first appeared?
>
Built from an ARINC prototype finalized in 1939, IIRC. From the ARINC
web page -
http://www.arinc.com/aeec/aeroline/articles/july_s1_aeec_history.html
"January 17, 1940 – A decision was made to implement VHF-AM for
air-ground communications as a supplement to HF.
(Although extensive flight tests in regular scheduled operation had been
undertaken several years previously to evaluate the usefulness of VHF-AM
for air-ground communications, a controversy of AM versus FM had
developed after the release of the ARINC Specification A-509 to Western
Electric Company for production, however, this "FM-troversy" was
resolved with the decision on January 17, 1940 to move ahead rapidly
with the implementation of VHF AM.)"
ARINC's history (unfortunately brief) is at
http://www.arinc.com/corp_info/history.html
>But there are many pictures out there of WWII US Navy aircraft that have a SCR-522 installation, which was obviously superior the the AN/ARC-4 for most purposes. I believe that the SCR-522 played a much more important role than did the ever-popular SCR-274-N. Pilots reported much greater satisfaction with the four push-button channels of the 522 over the easily upset, not-easily netted to a transmitter, coffee grinders of the 274. The 522 was a happy marriage of UK and USA talents in what was then called the UHF domain.
>
Not so sure it was a happy marriage - the Signal Corps had to redesign
the set (originally conceived by the Brits as two sets) into one that
could be built using US techniques, and since it was in competition with
their pet rock 274N/ARC-5 VHF set, they were none too happy about it.
Reminds me of the news story last night that has one part of DoD touting
the Israeli anti-RPG defense system that is now going into Israeli tanks
after the Lebanese experience, and the Army resisting buying any because
they have a competing system in development. Delivery of the Army
version? 2011.... What comes around goes around.....
73,
Mike
More information about the Milsurplus
mailing list