[MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995

Fri Mar 23 09:27:54 EDT 2018

If we are going to talk about CAP, I would suggest a change in the thread title.

Clearly, people being people will try to circumvent a rule, sometimes for good reasons (such as this situation), sometimes just to show they can.

The NTIA specs were developed in good faith, but applied poorly.  The CAP suffers from trickle down effects, and the USAF budget keeps getting smaller.

I was involved in caps as a cadet from 1978-82, and as an adult from 1986 to about 2000.  I watched as our capabilities ebbed and waned, and the NTIA fiasco didn’t help.  Communications did suffer after implementation of the rules, but eventually improved.  I guess the Wing DOC’s must turn a blind eye in some states, but not in the states in which I was involved (in the rocky mountain states).

Scott V. Johnson W7SVJ

5111 E. Sharon Dr.

Scottsdale, AZ 85254-3636

H (602) 953-5779

C (480) 550-2358

 <mailto:scottjohnson1 at cox.net> scottjohnson1 at cox.net

 <mailto:scott.johnson at ieee.org> scott.johnson at ieee.org

From: jeepp <jeepp at comcast.net> 
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 4:49 AM
To: Scott Johnson <scottjohnson1 at cox.net>; 'Mkdorney' <mkdorney at aol.com>; 'Peter Gottlieb' <kb2vtl at gmail.com>; mrca at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995

Well, let me let the cat peek out of the bag.  Many do, in fact, use other than NTIA compliant gear.  By that, I mean gear that operates benignly in the affected spectrum.  Frequency, bandwidth, harmonics, et al are totally compliant, however.  CAP has no capability to test and measure, much less certify equipment, although they have a "list".  NTIA disavows any such lists.  At any rate, There have been incredibly few, complaints filed from a user or adjacent user over the past 30 years.  Now, we did have a jammer or two come up.  Bottom line, and paraphrasing one of Geo. Patton's comments..."Well, they have their schedules, and I have mine.

K3HVG

Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: Scott Johnson <scottjohnson1 at cox.net <mailto:scottjohnson1 at cox.net> > 
Date: 3/22/18 23:08 (GMT-05:00) 
To: 'Mkdorney' <mkdorney at aol.com <mailto:mkdorney at aol.com> >, 'Peter Gottlieb' <kb2vtl at gmail.com <mailto:kb2vtl at gmail.com> >, mrca at mailman.qth.net <mailto:mrca at mailman.qth.net>  
Subject: Re: [MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995 

The CAP is an auxiliary of the USAF, so that would probably be the end of the management for that particular squadron.

Scott V. Johnson W7SVJ

5111 E. Sharon Dr.

Scottsdale, AZ 85254-3636

H (602) 953-5779

C (480) 550-2358

 <mailto:scottjohnson1 at cox.net> scottjohnson1 at cox.net

 <mailto:scott.johnson at ieee.org> scott.johnson at ieee.org

From: mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mailto:mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net>  <mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net <mailto:mrca-bounces at mailman.qth.net> > On Behalf Of Mkdorney via MRCA
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 2:34 PM
To: Peter Gottlieb <kb2vtl at gmail.com <mailto:kb2vtl at gmail.com> >
Cc: mrca at mailman.qth.net <mailto:mrca at mailman.qth.net> 
Subject: Re: [MRCA] PRC-74 Active Duty 1995

I wonder what’s would happen if the individual wings in CAP simply told the powers that be that they weren’t going to use the crap that the stuffed shirts in Washington wanted them to use. 

Mark

WW2RDO

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 22, 2018, at 5:00 PM, Peter Gottlieb <kb2vtl at gmail.com <mailto:kb2vtl at gmail.com> > wrote:

I was able to bench test the Motorola (a brand new one) and it didn’t meet IMD specs. When I inquired, I was pointed to fine print in the manual which states the radio does not meet specs on all frequencies. 

I contend there were political and profit reasons behind the scrapping of existing radios and replacement with a particular vendor’s equipment. Just my humble opinion. 

Peter

On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:53 PM, MICHAEL ST ANGELO <mstangelo at comcast.net <mailto:mstangelo at comcast.net> > wrote:

Jeep,

What makes the Motorola radio so special - frequency stability, carrier suppression, lower IMD products?

Does the radio switch the filters with relays in the ALE mode? If so, what is the lifetime of those relays?

Mike N2MS

On March 22, 2018 at 3:16 PM DSP3 <jeepp at comcast.net <mailto:jeepp at comcast.net> > wrote:

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.

______________________________________________________________
MRCA mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:MRCA at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
MRCA mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:MRCA at mailman.qth.net

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
MRCA mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mrca
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:MRCA 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/mrca/attachments/20180323/4905ae1d/attachment-0001.html>