[Milsurplus] [milsurplus] AN/BRR-3

[Thomas Adams]

No AN/BRR-3 here, but I still have an AN/WRR-3. A damned good receiver, IMHO.

It sure as hell was designed for submarine service all right; it's so 
damned heavy
that without it the sub would submerge a whole lot slower!

Mr. T. W9LBB




At 12:07 21-11-09, David Edsall wrote:
>Mike and the group,
>
>You mentioned the AN/BRR-3 VLF receiver used on subs.
>I had one of these back in the 1980s, got it at a military auction at one of
>the facilities in the Baltimore-Washington area.
>I let it go when I moved to Mass., and sorry I am about that.
>I may still have the manual for it.
>Like the AN/WRR-3 it was a nice package.
>Does anyone else on the list have one?
>Best 73,
>David W1TDD
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike Morrow" <kk5f at earthlink.net>
>To: <milsurplus at mailman.qth.net>
>Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 11:02 AM
>Subject: Re: [Milsurplus] SRR-13 question - LF Receiver Sets
>
>
> > The most important communications receiver used by the submarine
> > force 30 years ago was the AN/BRR-3, which covered only 14 to
> > 30 kHz.  I've never heard of one of these receivers in private
> > hands, though there'd be no real reason for there not to be with
> > all the US submarines that have been decommissioned in the past
> > 25 years.  The limited frequency range would reduce interest
> > (overall I'd prefer the AN/WRR-3), but it would make a nice cold
> > war relic.
> >
> > Mike / KK5F
>
>______________________________________________________________
>Milsurplus mailing list
>Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/milsurplus
>Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>Post: mailto:Milsurplus at mailman.qth.net
>
>This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html