[Milsurplus] thoughts on the SRR family of radios

[John Vendely]

Very interesting historical notes. It's true that the R-390A was not 
stable enough for multichannel VFT RTTY--unless it was used in 
conjunction with the CV-157 in pilot-carrier AFC mode (e.g., 
AN/FRR-41).  These systems were used extensively for this purpose 
through the 1950s and later, until supplanted and then replaced 
altogether with synthesized equipments.

All of the receivers listed below were fabulous designs, the state of 
the art for their time...

73,

John K9WT

On 5/9/2016 2:57 PM, Nick England wrote:
> Well, I wouldn't call the SRR-13 a "direct descendent" of the RBC as 
> that implies too much genetic material. It was a functional 
> replacement. I don't know if any of the RCA engineers worked on both. 
> It's possible I suppose.
>
> Here are some personal thoughts on USN rcvr evolution. No warranty 
> express or implied and I'd love to learn more.
>
> Bear in mind that the biggest revolution for the Navy post-war was the 
> switch to RTTY. There were huge advantages to doing this given the 
> Fleet Broadcast mode of operation and on-line crypto that the Navy 
> needed. So the SRR-13 was the first attempt at a shipboard rcvr that 
> would be stable and reliable enough for 24/7 RTTY service.
>
> The next step in Navy evolution was for synthesized frequency control 
> needed for VFCT tone-pack multiplexed multi-channel RTTY (85 Hz 
> shift). We hams tend to think of SSB for voice but that was pretty 
> secondary in navy thinking.
>
> So the Navy's next real step up was to the synthesized National WRR-2 
> (aka FRR-59).
>
> The R-390A was a transition rcvr in a way. It was far better than the 
> SRR-13 for RTTY and with the CV-591 did a fine job at SSB. It could be 
> used for multi-channel RTTY but I understand not normally and not 
> without occasional retuning. With a synthesized rcvr it was set and 
> forget.
>
> The WRR-2 was pretty expensive, big, and bulky so wasn't so widely 
> deployed. The R-1051 was the real answer to the Navy's need for a 
> synthesized receiver.
>
> It is somewhat amazing that the usual petty inter-service rivalry 
> didn't keep the Navy from adopting the R-390A in huge numbers, for 
> communications as well as intercept.
>
> So far as I know the Navy never had a program to develop anything 
> comparable to the R-390A. They just skipped that generation of 
> receiver architecture. They did fund Collins to develop a PTO-based 
> receiver as part of the URC-8 prototype but this was a sideline TCS 
> replacement, not a mainline fleet comms receiver.
>
> These observations may be worth exactly what you paid for them.
>
> Cheers
> Nick
>
> On Monday, May 9, 2016, Ray Fantini <RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu 
> <mailto:RAFANTINI at salisbury.edu>> wrote:
>
>     I stand corrected on the time line, and if you look at the RBA,RBB
>     and RBC dinosaurs and assume that the SRR was there direct
>     descendant that makes the radio remarkable to the extent that
>     almost nothing was carried over from the previous family of radios
>     to the SRR family.  Also interesting to note that the SRR
>     operational issues may have resulted them being replaced with a
>     land base receiver like the R-390, some years back there was a
>     discussion on what branch of the service pushed forward innovation
>     and some of the best equipment and it’s good to see that a radio
>     developed for the Army for teletype operation outperformed its
>     Navy counterpart and ended up on ships.
>
>     RF
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Nick England K4NYW
> www.navy-radio.com <http://www.navy-radio.com>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> 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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/milsurplus/attachments/20160509/4f8f288e/attachment.html>