[MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995

[DSP3]

Concur with other comments....   Good question, though.  I've been 
around and around with them for a long time, now.  To no avail.  CAP 
opted not to even try and get partial waivers, not for stability or 
transmit spectrum of course, but some onerous specs, especially for both 
HF and VHF for receivers.  Bottom line, 99% of really good ham gear is 
no longer said to be usable (truth told, for the last 25 years). The 
amateur population in CAP is about nil.  There are some great folks who 
are hams and have stuck it out, though.  CAP mortgaged its soul with the 
AF and had them buy $2000 Motorola 100 watt rigs with a some B&W "flying 
dummy loads" (no tuners, of course, so ERP is about 20-60 watts), some 
with ALE. ALE program has no computer interface so radios must be 
attended for any traffic be passed.  There is no "ALE message system". 
VHF FM (NB) were procured from EFJ for over $1k, each.  I have both 
Kenwood and other ham-type FM with NB capability that will run the pants 
off the EFJ.  Of course, the EFJ's have P25 digital mode, but its never 
really used.  On missions, in the air-ground scenario, the Kenwood would 
copy aircraft much further out that the EFJs. Interesting note, though, 
many State and Federal plus MARS entities use "ham" gear and it works 
fine in the SHARES and other comms programs.  Go figure.  But, after 56 
years, I elected to retire but with no regrets, whatever. Things 
changed, better and worse, since 1957 but a good ride!!!

Jeep K3HVG



On 3/22/2018 12:42 PM, Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> Has CAP comms recovered from that decision?  I remember it going from 
> a huge series of nightly voice nets to a much smaller, unwieldy ALE 
> very basic messaging system. Just wondering how that ended up playing 
> out.
>
>
> Peter
>
> On Mar 22, 2018, at 12:29 PM, scottjohnson1 <scottjohnson1 at cox.net 
> <mailto:scottjohnson1 at cox.net>> wrote:
>
>> Doubtful. As a past CAP wing DOC, I can tell you that in 1995, all  
>> CAP comm gear needed to be NTIA compliant.  The PRC-74 is not on the 
>> list.  I would say reenactment, or some lame advertising stunt.
>>
>>
>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20180322/0f5fc8f8/attachment.html>