I don't know for sure but it could be associated with the FM capture
effect. In other words the greater local FM repeater signal swamps the
PAVE PAWS radar return signal. Not knowing the sensitivity of the radar
or its ability to select out individual frequencies prevents me from
knowing if this is true or not.

Dave WD9BDZ


Bill Powell wrote:
Anyone with some level of technical knowledge might wonder why a
billion dollar (boondoggle) "radar system" can't discriminate between
a fixed, known "target" (like a repeater)and one that is moving, comes
from over the horizon which might be something nasty?

Sounds like some real shoddy engineering took place at taxpayer
expense. I can think of 3 or 4 ways to remove false targets w/o
loosing any system level accuracy or sensitivity. In fact, didn't
they perfect that during the cold war?

Gee... Thinking about it some. All Abdulah (or Ivan or whoever)
needs to do is buy a 440 rig, an amp and a yagi and go out as a
"rover"; 3 or 4 kW ERP down the bear's craw for a while then move.

Sigh....


On Sat, 3 May 2008 23:16:09 EDT, Bill Horne wrote:

Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
If I recall properly we're secondary to the military in
that [70cm] band as well. Indeed, 70cm repeater operators are learning that the
hard way... as many repeaters are having to reduce power or even go QRT
at the request of our military, to protect a radar system.

But the motorsports folks have no regular authority in that band at all.

I'm not sure I understand why they thought they needed amateur spectrum
for that project.


The Pave/Paws system that is pushing some repeaters off 70cm predates
the complaints by several decades, and I take the military's new
attitude to be another nail in the coffin of ham radio's former
"favorite son" status at the Pentagon.

It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could be
pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis. Now, with
Morse as deeply buried as its creators and military electronics too
secret to be entrusted to soldiers and sailors who haven't been vetted
for security clearances, we're yesterday's news in the E ring.

We'll have to find another reason to justify the allocations we enjoy.
It's going to be hard work, and not nearly as easy as learning Morse
(not that that would help now). We're going to have to get better - in
fact, much better - at public relations: the Red Cross and other
disaster relief agencies have known the importance of image all along,
but now hams have got to get in the game and advertise ourselves as an
anlternative to traditional communications during hurricanes, floods,
earthquakes, etc.

Of course we've had this debate before. Older hams such as I feel that
we followed the program and did what was expected of us, and now I
resend being pushed aside in favor of a Federal Emergency Management
Agency which is, to my jaundiced eye, proficient only at promising what
others will have to deliver and claiming credit for what others have
done. It's a cold, cruel world, and we must get better at telling the
public and the their elected officials how much we do.

Bill

Bill Horne wrote on Sat 3 May 2008 under the thread 'Discussions' in
RRAM:

The Pave/Paws system that is pushing some repeaters off 70cm predates
the complaints by several decades, and I take the military's new
attitude to be another nail in the coffin of ham radio's former
"favorite son" status at the Pentagon.

As a veteran of the US Army Signal Corps 1952 to 1960 and as an
engineer who has been involved in DoD electronics during my
civilian career, I've seen NO evidence that US amateur radio
was ever in some "favorite son" status in the US military.

It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could be
pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.

Perhaps this was true in 1941. It was NOT true in 1952 when I
voluntarily entered US Army service (during the Korean War active
phase), trained at the Signal School at Fort Monmouth, NJ, and
subsequently assigned to long-distance, high-volume message
traffic handling on a 24/7 basis at a Far East Command Hq
station in Tokyo. I served in that assignment for three years,
had access to documents and reports on communications within
the military and queried many on the (then) modern methods of
communications by radio.

From the military point of view of 56 years ago, having an
interest in radio or the more general electronics field is only
important towards assignment in a particular military occupation
specialty (still familiarly called 'MOS'). Knowing on-off keying
CW skills via amateur radio MIGHT get one assigned to Field Radio
school (then the only Army MOS actually requiring OOK CW skill).
Field Radio MOS then involved using HF from a truck-transportable
station that was also equipped with teleprinters; teleprinted
messaging was the norm in the Korean War (active phase '50-'53).
The MAJORITY of 'radio' communications back then, a half century
ago, was by VOICE and that over line-of-sight ranges. Military
radio plans in the field were already organized into three
overlapping radio bands from high HF into low VHF, the bands
subdivided for infantry-artillery-armor unit use. No one needed
any morse code skills to operate those radios then. Indeed, it
was more akin to one-way talking on a telephone, something that
most civilians had already done in the 1950s.

Now, with
Morse as deeply buried as its creators and military electronics too
secret to be entrusted to soldiers and sailors who haven't been vetted
for security clearances, we're yesterday's news in the E ring.

I have NOT seen any of that "burial" nor of the "secrecy" alleged
to any Pentagon "ring" in my Army service nor in the many years
that followed as a civilian working on DoD contracts involving
communications. The "secrecy" is actually on a very low
Confidential level, the lowest of the three classifications. As
a matter of fact, most Army radios of a half century ago where
NOT used by signal personnel nor did they ever require any sort
of security classification; no more so than revealing ANY military
information to the enemy on anything.

I have no personal knowledge of what actually transpires in ANY
"ring" of the Pentagon. I must depend on periodicals and documents
published by defense electronics and electronics professional
associations to yield such information. In those, and in archived
copies of "Signal" (a quarterly of the Army Signal Corps, available
new to signal personnel) there has been NO such statements of any
"favoritism" expressed from a half century ago to today.

SECRECY in communications is regularly carried out today by UNvetted
"soldiers and sailors" using a variety of cryptologically embedded
(but selectable) means within radios. The standard small-unit
(battalion or below) field radio is the SINCGARS family operating
30 to 88 MHz. The first SINCGARS went operational in 1989, almost
two decades ago. Over 300,000 R/Ts basic to the AN/PRC-119 man-pack
transceiver have been built by ITT, Fort Wayne, IN. More are
available in HTs built by other firms plus the contracts awarded to
Harris Corporation for newer, smaller SINCGARS-compatible multi-
band radios. All of that family have their coding set by a "hopset"
entry (encryption key and frequency-hopping sequence settings) which
IS controlled by a "vetted" signal officer. The actual coding
method is digital, beginning with a pseudo-random sequence generator
involving digital feedback of a digital shift register could be
known by an unfriendly...but the permutations of possible keys is
so large that it is impractical for them to carry around super-
computers in the field to defeat the cryptology in time to be
effective. Note: The electronics technology to do all that has been
known (and most things published about it openly) for over three
decades, some of it public for four decades. In short, today's
US military CAN use very robust, secure codes to allow UNvetted
military personnel to communicate. They have had the capability
to do so for nearly two decades.

PAVE PAWS has been around for decades. It is in the technology
classification using multiple receivers to decrease the antenna
beam width with an ability to enhance phase shifting of the incoming
wavefront (allows other processing refinements of returns). Anyone
can gather information on its general technological structure.
Since it IS primary in its assigned operating frequency and IS part of
National Defense, that National Defense ought to be considered
primary by US citizens who wish to survive. Is a radio hobby
more important than national survival?

We'll have to find another reason to justify the allocations we enjoy.
It's going to be hard work, and not nearly as easy as learning Morse
(not that that would help now). We're going to have to get better - in
fact, much better - at public relations: the Red Cross and other
disaster relief agencies have known the importance of image all along,
but now hams have got to get in the game and advertise ourselves as an
anlternative to traditional communications during hurricanes, floods,
earthquakes, etc.

Please leave the morse code test issue OUT. That has been settled
for US amateur radio by the FCC after much, much debate for too long
a time.

IMAGE for the general public MUST be aimed OUTSIDE of amateur radio
publications. It cannot remain the insider topic WITHIN amateur
radio groups or publications. If it is REALLY there then it could
(and should) get out into the mainstream. Such emergency good works
news just haven't gotten out to the general public. The public sees
FCC issues as they affect broadcasting and cell phones in the national
news. maybe something about business radio of public safety radio.
Amateur radio news is not an important issue for such media.
The public has rarely seen amateur radio communications during
emergencies during national news...it HAS seen various National Guard
units and local government agencies doing communications on the news,
including FEMA equipment (going back to 1994 and the Northridge
Earthquake in January with quickly-transported video message displays
relayed by satellite for their own health-and-welfare messages seen
in handwriting of senders and shown on local TV).

I'm not going to comment on the Katrina hurricane situation. That
involves many more NON-amateur radio policies among local and state
agencies. The Katrina hurricane happened over two years ago and
the USA has had more emergencies since then. Rehashing the Katrina
situation does NO good in attempting to get the word out to the
general public about amateur radio. If ham radio is really as good
as some declare it, it should be worth national attention. It has
gotten very little on the national news in the last half century.
QED.

One thing that should NOT continue is to keep thinking in the
paradigms of pre-WWII 'radio' as is often presented in amateur
radio magazines. Technology has gone through several plateau jumps
of advancement since that long-ago time. Fantasies of some amateur
radio licensees are still rooted to back then. Those are lost in
the reality of today's radio capabilites and uses. The general
public has its own fantasies and it is foolish to attempt trying
to tell them other fantasies.

Amateur radio is a HOBBY. Let's try to focus on that.

Model vehicles are a hobby for others. The Academy of Model
Aeronautics doesn't pretend to advance the state of the art of
aviation but it was successful in lobbying for a hundred
frequency channels for radio-control two decades ago. Consider
that hobbyists are citizens and that the US government does
listen to its citizens. Work from that basis.

Leonard H. Anderson AF6AY

(Life Member)

On May 5, 8:38�pm, AF6AY wrote:

One thing that should NOT continue is to keep thinking in the
paradigms of pre-WWII 'radio' as is often presented in amateur
radio magazines.

What paradigms do you mean?

�Technology has gone through several plateau jumps
of advancement since that long-ago time.

In some areas, that's true, but in others (such as simple practical HF
antennas and transmission lines) things haven't changed very much.

�Fantasies of some amateur
radio licensees are still rooted to back then. �Those are lost in
the reality of today's radio capabilites and uses. �The general
public has its own fantasies and it is foolish to attempt trying
to tell them other fantasies.

Could you give some specific examples of the paradigms you mean, the
"plateau jumps" in technology, and the fantasies you describe?

Amateur radio is a HOBBY. �Let's try to focus on that.

Amateur radio isn't *just* a hobby, though. The record of public
service communication by radio amateurs shows there is a lot more to
it, to give just one example.

Model vehicles are a hobby for others. �The Academy of Model
Aeronautics doesn't pretend to advance the state of the art of
aviation but it was successful in lobbying for a hundred
frequency channels for radio-control two decades ago.

Let's consider that idea in detail...

Model control radio frequencies consist of those 100 channels near 70
MHz. Power output is limited to 1 watt and the transmitting antenna
can be no larger than a quarter-wave monopole.

Model control isn't about using radio for its own sake, which IMHO is
the heart-and-soul of amateur radio. Model control is about using
radio for a single purpose, as a means to an end.

Does anyone think amateur radio should be limited by rules similar to
those for model control? Or that the kind of allocations given to
model-control enthusiasts would be adequate for amateur radio?

�Consider
that hobbyists are citizens and that the US government does
listen to its citizens. �Work from that basis.

It seems to me that you are saying that radio amateurs should not talk
about their roles in emergency communication (Hurricane Katrina, for
example), public service communication (New York City Marathon),
experimentation (K3TUP and cancer research), education (Space Shuttle
hams), etc. IOW, all that should be deemphasized and ignored.

It seems to me that you're saying we hams should define ourselves as
hobbyists *only*, and expect that to be the sole reason we have
amateur bands and FCC/ITU protection.

Is that correct?

Jim, N2EY

On May 3, 11:16�pm, Bill Horne wrote:
Doug Smith W9WI wrote:
If I recall properly we're secondary to the military in
that [70cm] band as well.

But the motorsports folks have no regular authority in that band at
all.

I'm not sure I understand why they thought they needed
amateur spectrum for that project. �

They obviously don't understand what amateur radio is all about.

The Pave/Paws system that is pushing some repeaters off 70cm predates
the complaints by several decades, and I take the military's new
attitude to be another nail in the coffin of ham radio's former
"favorite son" status at the Pentagon.

Maybe - or maybe not. Secondary status means no interference need be
tolerated by the primary.

There used to be a 50 watt limit on 420-450 MHz for amateurs due to
the possibility of interference to radar.

It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.

That's still the case. But it doesn't mean that the primary users of a
band have to put up with interference from secondary users.

Now, with Morse as deeply buried as its creators and military
electronics too
secret to be entrusted to soldiers and sailors who haven't
been vetted
for security clearances, we're yesterday's news in the E ring.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Morse as deeply buried as its
creators".

We hams continue to use Morse Code on the air - extensively, too!
MARS is running Morse Code nets again, on an experimental basis.

It's true that Morse Code has all but been eliminated by the US
military for its own communications uses. That's no surprise, even
though Morse Code was used extensively by the US military in both
World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. But that doesn't mean hams should stop
using Morse Code.

We'll have to find another reason to justify the allocations we
enjoy.

How about these:

1) Public service communications (not just in emergencies, but for
events like parades, marathons, bike races, etc.) Remember the search
for Space Shuttle debris a few years back? Amateurs provided
communications for at least some search groups, and it turned out to
be more useful and flexible than cell phones or other radio services.

2) Education in radio and electronics. Learn-by-doing, IOW. Recently,
ARRL ran a homebrew contest to design a 40 meter CW/SSB transceiver
that would use less than $50 in parts. Several entries met all the
requirements, and a winner was recently announced. What better way to
learn radio than by building an operating a homebrew station?

3) Historical preservation. We have museums, historic districts, etc.,
in other areas, why not in radio? We hams have shown that old and new
technologies can coexist, and an active operation is so much better
than a dry nonfunctional museum display.

4) Experimentation/wilderness area. Most of the rest of the radio
spectrum is channelized, digitized, and carefully planned as to its
users and uses. The amateur bands are like a wilderness area, without
all the central planning and channelization, where operator skill and
technical knowhow can try all sorts of new and old things.
And where all citizens who can pass the basic tests for a license have
access to lots of spectrum, modes, and activities.

It's going to be hard work, and not nearly as easy as learning
Morse (not that that would help now).

Morse Code is still worth learning, IMHO.

We're going to have to get better - in
fact, much better - at public relations: the Red Cross and other
disaster relief agencies have known the importance of image all
along,
but now hams have got to get in the game and advertise ourselves
as an
anlternative to traditional communications during hurricanes,
floods, earthquakes, etc.

Agreed - but also as a fun thing to do. Emergency and public service
comms are just one part of what hams do.

The key factor is that the "served agencies" want different things
today in the way of communications. In some emergencies they won't
need hams at all, in others they will really need amateurs to help
out. But they're the customer, as it were.




73 de Jim, N2EY

In ,
typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:

[snip]

: Maybe - or maybe not. Secondary status means no interference need be
: tolerated by the primary.

Not always, we're the primary users of 2m over here, but we can't complain
about interference.

: There used to be a 50 watt limit on 420-450 MHz for amateurs due to
: the possibility of interference to radar.

Don't recall we ever had that over here, but I may be wrong.
:
: It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
: be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.
:
: That's still the case. But it doesn't mean that the primary users of a
: band have to put up with interference from secondary users.

Ah, but who is the primary user..? Here it's the military. Amateurs have
to put up with anything and everything. On all bands.

73 Ivor G6URP

On May 6, 5:12 am, "Ivor Jones" wrote:
,
typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: Secondary status means no interference need be
: tolerated by the primary.

I should have been more clear, and qualfied the above as "here in the
USA"

Not always, we're the primary users of 2m over here, but we can't complain

about interference.

: There used to be a 50 watt limit on 420-450 MHz for amateurs due to
: the possibility of interference to radar.

Don't recall we ever had that over here, but I may be wrong.

It was a US restriction a long time ago.
:
: It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
: be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.
:
: That's still the case. But it doesn't mean that the primary users of a
: band have to put up with interference from secondary users.

Ah, but who is the primary user..? Here it's the military. Amateurs have
to put up with anything and everything. On all bands.

Well, here in the USA amateurs are definitely the secondary users of
420-450 MHz.
So while we can complain, we don't have the same "standing", as it
were.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On May 5, 8:04Â pm, wrote:
On May 3, 11:16�pm, Bill Horne wrote:

It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.

That's still the case.

Incorrect. Amateur radio operating protocol is nothing like what
is used in the US military.

That "case" might have been valid prior to WWII but that time
period was 67 and more years ago.

Now, with Morse as deeply buried as its creators and military
electronics too
secret to be entrusted to soldiers and sailors who haven't
been vetted
for security clearances, we're yesterday's news in the E ring.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Morse as deeply buried as its
creators".

I would suggest you borrow a 'communications receiver' that can
tune in the HF spectrum OTHER than amateur radio band allocations.

For one thing, the US military had all but abandoned morse code
mode before 1953 for any mass-volume messaging connecting North
America to military bases around the rest of the world.

For another thing, the US military has abandoned HF for any mass-
volume messaging and now uses secure military communications
satellites, troposcatter, and the DSN (Digital Switched Network)
for 24/7 communications. DSN has very robust security and is the
major system of 'flash' alerts to land bases. Alerts for
submarines (to listen to HF thru microwaves for the main message)
are slow-speed encrypted data at VLF that can be received while
submerged. The US military still keeps HF radios on a standby
basis but only uses them for periodic operational checks. MARS
is not a part of the daily US military messaging routine, although
it is much closer to the use of operations protocol than amateurs.

We hams continue to use Morse Code on the air - extensively, too!

Please define "extensively" (with or without exclamation mark).

No one has stated or implied that amateur use of morse code was
not "extensive." In an unofficial poll at the ARRL website some
time ago, #1 communications mode on amateur bands was voice.

MARS is running Morse Code nets again, on an experimental basis.

Military Affiliate Radio System mission was changed about five
years ago to act in accord with other US government agencies to
(ostensibly) link them together. Army MARS Hq is at Fort
Huachuca, AZ, the same military base that houses the Army
Military Intelligence training facilities.

It's true that Morse Code has all but been eliminated by the US
military for its own communications uses.

That is not true. For routine tactical or strategic communications
the US military has abandoned morse code.

The M.I. school at Fort Huachuca still trains some in morse code
signal intercept analysis but that is NOT communications per se.
To attempt stating that SIGINT operations "use morse code" is like
saying the Army still uses muskets and Revolutionary War uniforms
because one Army unit in Washington, DC, has them for ceremonial
duties.

That's no surprise, even
though Morse Code was used extensively by the US military in both
World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam.

Morse code was used "extensively" in World War ONE. In that 1914
to 1918 period voice communications was relegated to wireline
communications circuits. Teleprinter circuits had already been
established before the US entry into WWII, including its use on
USN ships (see the 'SIGABA' descriptions on various websites for
online encryption capability over teleprinter as early as 1940).

As a soldier during and just after the Korean War, doing mass-
volume communications via HF, I can assure you that morse code
was NOT used for such communications about logistics or military
planning plus (in a secondary basis) broadcasting news and
'health and welfare' messages carried for the Red Cross and
other agencies to military members.

The vast majority of communications carried on during the
recognized active period of US involvement in Vietnam was voice
and teleprinter. Like the Korean War, the Vietnam War was not
a 'true' war yet service members were killed or wounded as a
part of that actual warfare.

During the prosecution of the Korean War, the US military
routinely handled about a quarter million messages a month
through military facilities. That was nearly doubled for the
Vietnam War. Morse code communications MIGHT have been used
in rare instances for both wars but its role was so minor as
to be discounted compared to the MASS of messaging needed to
maintain troops and equipment far from the USA.

All of that military communications information is public and
available to anyone who cares to look for it. I would suggest
the U.S. Army Center For Military History as a starting point
for very detailed historical accounts of the US Army since the
Revolutionary War.

But that doesn't mean hams should stop using Morse Code.

NOBODY has said "hams should stop using" it. Please try to
restrain generating another sub-thread about it. Please try
to educate yourself about radio uses outside of amateur radio
as described other than the ARRL publications or website.

In order to EDUCATE THE PUBLIC, I would suggest channeling
your promotion OUTSIDE of amateur radio venues. The general
public and lawmakers don't much look into ham radio venues.

AF6AY

In ,
AF6AY typed, for some strange, unexplained reason:
: On May 5, 8:04 pm, wrote:
: On May 3, 11:16�pm, Bill Horne wrote:
:
: It used to be that we hams were a corps of operators who could
: be pressed into service quickly during a war or other crisis.
:
: That's still the case.
:
: Incorrect. Amateur radio operating protocol is nothing like what
: is used in the US military.

[snip]

Well, I seem to have sparked quite a debate..!

However, a lot of it seems to have gone more than a little OT (which
doesn't surprise me and is actually quite interesting, so don't consider
it a moan..!)

But.. what are the thoughts on my original point, that of the differences
in attitude of the authorities in the US and UK about protection from
interference from commercial operators using frequencies within the
amateur bands..? It seems to me, unless I've misunderstood, that in the US
you can still claim a certain degree of protection from other users,
whereas here we can't.

73 Ivor G6URP

On Sat, 3 May 2008 16:25:37 EDT, Doug Smith W9WI
wrote:

But the motorsports folks have no regular authority in that band at all.

I'm not sure I understand why they thought they needed amateur spectrum
for that project.

Because they probably bought cheap amateur equipment, opened it out,
and then found out that there weren't any channels available in the
450-470 MHz band that they could get licenses and frequency
coordination for. Several sports events did just that until they got
caught. One of my "day jobs" is as frequency coordinator for systems
in the 450 MHz band, and we run into this all the time. The Congress
refuses to give the FCC the necessary funding to apprehend them, and
the Justice Department refuses to prosecute what they claim is petty
offenses.

I've ranted about this before. I'm glad that Chris Imlay (ARRL
General Counsel) got on this thing as hard as he did. We all owe a
round of thanks to him.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
ARRL Volunteer Counsel

email: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net