[Milsurplus] HF SigInt, airborne platform

[Mike Morrow]

Mike Hanz wrote:

>So I guess there was never an instance of airborne HF ELINT for the US Navy.
>They were totally blind.  I suppose that's why Pearl Harbor occurred, come
>to think of it. <huge grin>

Hey, Mike...I refuse to get into ANY speculation on the ELINT-use issues, other
than to say simply that I don't believe that ELINT motivated the "as designed"
frequency coverage of the RAT, RAV, and RAX!

But admittedly, I'm drawing lines between widely-spaced dots...it's all
just my speculation based on the liaison equipment time lines and capabilities
cited in my earlier posting.  I also believe the "designed for ELINT" claims
are based on dots even more widely-spaced.  Liaison receiver-use is a simpler
explanation for the coverage of the RAT, RAV, and RAX than ELINT-use.  Occam's
Razor tells us that the simplest explanation is usually the most probable
explanation. 

It could also have been serendipity if this coverage later proved to be useful
for those "other purposes."

But...an aside...I would love to come across a manual on the GE GO-4, -5,
or -6.  It amazes me that there were production transmitters in 1938 for 
that high a frequency.  I wonder how useful it was.  (Even the 1950's 
AN/ARC-38 did not go above 25 MHz.)

73,
Mike / KK5F