From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 9:24 am

an old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:



BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have
got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty
slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size.

HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There
is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave
propagation phenomena.

Why do you keep beating this Dead Horse on "rapid transmission
of high speed digital transmission?"

Shannon's Law is absolute, proven by experiment, embraced by all
the OTHER radio services. Shannon's Law is 58 years old and
mature, both de facto and de jure.

"Vagaries of wave propagation phenomena" [at HF due to ionospheric
changes] has been well-known to academia, the commercial and
government users of HF since the 1930s. The most well-known
(to non-amateur communications on HF) is "selective fading,"
a relatively short-duration change of BOTH amplitude and phase
over a relatively narrow band-span. In commercial SSB (using
12 KHz bandwidth format of four 3 KHz separate voice-grade
circuits) this was much reduced in its effect by simply
sending TWO tone-pair sets for each AFSK TTY circuit, the pair
separated by about 1 to 2 KHz; voting circuitry at the receive
end picked out the "best" received signal. That reduced at
least 95 percent of the error effects of selective fading.

The "charge" that high-speed data transmission is "impossible"
due to some (unquantified) "phase changes" has been thrashed
and discarded by at least two HF digital voice transmission
methods, one of which (DRM or Digital Radio Mondial) has been
in test for five years and is now heard over two dozen HF
broadcasts. DRM can carry binaural ("stereo") audio. The
bandwidth occupancy is NO GREATER than a conventional monoaural
AM transmission. The key to such untilization of a relatively
narrow bandwidth for higher throughput lies in examination of
the environment and using coding theory to fit that environment.

Will it send "high-quality" digital pictures in data mode?
YES, but at relatively slow transmission rates depending on
the bandwidth used/allowed/allocated. Shannon's Law is
irrefutable. It will NOT carry "live, feature-length
motion pictures." [that seems to be your goal but that goal
is not possible to attain] It can send high-density image
data without problem, with a minimum of error, but a cost
of waiting a relatively long time for each image.

There are OTHER forms of on-the-fly determination of "the
vagaries of propagation" [on HF]. The U.S. government has
been using a standardized method for about five years now
called Automatic Link Establishment or ALE. While perhaps
not adapatable to amateur radio HF applications, it is a
system for continuously monitoring signal quality, a scan
of other predetermined frequencies to check their quality,
and automatic changeover to whichever predetermined
frequency signal quality is best. ALE on HF has been
devised and tested expressly for HF beginning about two
decades ago.

Both of the above mainly-HF systems have been little
publicized in the amateur radio press. That is a fault of
the amateur radio publishers, not the system. It is NOT
the simplistic basic-level radio theory (and coding theory)
which can be easily digested in a single reading sit-down.
They require THINKING, "non-traditional" thinking away from
what had been theory of a half century ago and propagated
as "state-of-the-art" long after its first appearance.

On pushing throughput to much greater rates in relatively
narrow bandwidths, consider the advances in amateur radio
HF techniques over the last half century. In the 1950s the
"standard" RTTY frequency-shift was 850 Hz for 60 WPM
TTY 5-level coding. Today it is 170 Hz for 100 WPM 8-level
TTY coding. AM voice used to take at least 6 KHz bandwidth
but single-channel suppressed-carrier sideband cut that in
half plus reducing the old AM heterodynes from CW carriers.
PKS31 innovated and devised in the UK, tested in Europe,
was a 30 WPM RTTY system using a bandwidth no larger than
a conventional on-off keyed "CW" (morse code) signal. Those
are now "accepted" methods because the amateur radio press
has publicized it.

However, in OTHER areas, look at the common, ordinary PC
modem operating with Plain Old Telephone System (POTS)
lines of 3 KHz bandwidth. The data rate over the "56K"
modem is about NINETEEN TIMES FASTER than "straight"
analog AM. MILLIONS are used each day in the USA alone.
You don't look into the WHY of such a large increase in
throughput and I don't understand why you don't. The
answer lies in combinatorial modulation PLUS some rather
simple coding theory to increase the data bit rate to
a top of 56 THOUSAND bits per second. The modulation of
the modem's audio tone carrier is a combination of AM
and PM. It does NOT violate Shannon's Law. Such an
EQUIVALENT system could be applied to HF (it is in the
TORs or Teletype Over Radio outboard boxes) but that can
be incorporated into an HF transceiver as an integral
part. All of the radio amateurs, duly licensed as part
of the "nation's service" and complete with federally-
authorized call signs, seem to be satisfied with the LAZY
way out...let someone else do the innovation and design.
They won't "accept" it until the product ad appears in
QST ready for shipment, has reviews from the "ARRL Lab"
and all can argue over the ad specifications. Packaged
innovation ready to go. Done by OTHERS. Everything for
"the bands" (meaning only HF). "Standardized." :-(

I've brought up "scaling" of data rates before but that
seems to be a non-understanding topic. It isn't in a
convenient QST or CQ or QEX article so it isn't "accepted."
Yet SCALING is done (has been for decades) in antenna
testing as well as data rate. Look at high-definition
television broadcasting that is now phasing in to
consumers. The image throughput is more than doubled PLUS
extra data is sent for quadraphonic sound (not just "stereo")
and closed-captioning in a channel space NO LARGER than
(in the USA) 6 MHz. It's a three times REDUCTION in
bandwidth...PLUS more than double the amount of video
data. The secret is in the MPEG (Motion Picture Experts
Group) digitized video data coding and compression. Not
only that, the image/sound quality is very nearly FREE
of all the "propagation vagaries" due to phase and analog
changes from moving reflections, greater immunity to
random noise (such as from tools or appliances). SOMETHING
EQUIVALENT might be done for audio on HF...perhaps scaling
down the present-day SSB bandwidth of about 2.1 KHz to just
700 Hz or maybe 1 KHz...more than double the band
occupancy for voice signals and with much greater immunity
to "flutter" and selective fading effects.

Look at the WLANs (Wireless Local Area Networks) now in
use by the hundreds of thousands daily, perhaps a dozen
or more in the local vicinity of other WLANs...AND in the
same band as cordless telephones (dozens more) and high-
data-rate systems such as CCTV monitors or music distribution
(dozens more). Each is NOT INTERFERED WITH by all the other
local systems, all can operate as if the others did not
exist. The secret to their success is Distributed Spread
Spectrum techniques plus coding theory. Every system
EXISTS in the same bandwidth yet each is separate and
undisturbed by others. No "heterodynes," no need for
fancy, expensive filters-in-the-IF, or ultimate
refinements of decades-old conventional techniques.

But, you don't seem to care about such possibilities or
even getting a hint of what might be possible. You, like
way too many others will only "accept" something if
someone else has worked it out and it is a PRODUCT on
the market. Then you can sit around and natter about the
advertising phrases and argue someone's "lab reviews"
and sound like "expert radiomen" of "extra" class when
you don't know dink about its insides. Intellectual SLOTH.
LAZINESS. All you wanna do is play wid yer raddios and
pretend to radio greatness. shrug

dit bit

an_old_friend wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

There are some pretty darn good reasons why high-speed digital HF won't
work well. And they aren't related to early "knowledge" that caused hams
to be relegated to those higher frequencies at the time.


agreed there are reasons of course as there were then

but it is folks like you with "it can not be Done.. therefore it should
not be disused etc. that insure it can't be done

I choose to look at a thorny problem and try to see if I can make
lemonaide, maybe brew those throns in a decent cup of Tea

Radio is a fairly mature field, and digital is getting there. Many
people have a pretty good idea what will likely work, based on education
and experience. And HF is an unruly beast, given to noisy and incredibly
variable conditions. We don't have to be rocket scientists to gain that
knowledge.

Just as an exercise, how much information can be carried by a 1.8 MHz
signal? How much error correction will be needed during the summer, and
how much during the winter? Why is there a difference? Why would a
wireless digital transmission system use UHF and above for data
transmission?


in sprict order asking I don't know, don't know, difering weather
conidctions, and becuase comercail needs relaiblity where we hams are
free to spend on trying stuff

Yep, that is what I figured.

- Mike KB3EIA - -

wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Aug 7, 9:24 am


an old friend wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:




BTW, CQ has an article on HF digital transmission. Seems that they have
got it all wrong too. They have a method that works, but it is pretty

slow for images (or files) of any appreciable size.

HF will never be the place for high speed digital transmission. There
is too much noise and signals are subject to the vagaries of wave
propagation phenomena.


Why do you keep beating this Dead Horse on "rapid transmission
of high speed digital transmission?"

Dave wrote that last. But I agree with him

And the answer to "why" is that other people bring it up. So I answer.

Is that not allowed?

The "charge" that high-speed data transmission is "impossible"

Who said that? It is most certainly possible. We just have to be
patient, very patient.


- Mike KB3EIA -

Of course, but Communism is done, right??? hi hi.

Russia has NOT dropped Morse. Nor has most of the ex Eastern Block
countries.

Years ago when I was in Germany in the US Army it was decided to fire back
up on CW training. The reason was because the Ruskies were having a field
day trashing our HF nets. We were on AM/SSB/RATT (RTTY), and they would
get close, or right on top of them on CW.

It was a total flop because hardly anyone in the US Military new Morse well
enough to copy it.

Point is this. The Russians and their close neighbors are smart enough to
realize Morse is a worth while mode and will continue its use.

Dan/W4NTI

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Dan:

What communist counties do is almost always in the interest of the shadow
gov't really running the country. That is supposed to be surprising?

John

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:06:36 +0000, Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Minor correction "John Smith". If the USA decided not to drop CW, it
would NOT be alone in world. Russia and her ex Soviet Block nations
have
all decided to keep CW.

Dan/W4NTI

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dave:

Well, there is debate and argument for good and reason, and then there
is
not...

Then there is religious devotion to a test which serves only a select
few...

It would be interesting if the powers that be were to decide in keeping
CW--and then explain why they alone in the world community made that
decision, frankly, I would be happy not to have that task...

There are plentiful examples of insanity in this world... that old book
which bears the title something like "The Emperor Wore No Clothes" is as
meaningful today as the day it was written...

John

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
nk.net...
John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

Nice attempt at "spin doctoring" for the weak minded...
It is like fishing, you bait your hook, toss it in the water and see
what
bites...

John

At least that's how you do it, "John".

Dave K8MN

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:36:54 -0700, N2EY wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old
key
tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes...

http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html

As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN
LIARS!"


Omission of relevant facts can be a form of lying.

Here's the whole story:

I read that bit of W5YI propaganda, and also the original articles in
"200 Meters And Down" and the QSTs of the time.

(have you done so?)

The referenced article does not give all the relevant facts.

For one thing, the article claims that "higher speed" code testing has
been
used to "limit the number of hams since the very beginning of ham
licensing".
The fact is that all US hams were licensed in the US by 1912, 24 years
before the 1936 happenings cited. The code test speed after 1919 was
10
wpm, and the 1936 increase to 13 wpm - hardly a quantum leap.

To get a clear picture of what was actually happening, it is important
to
understand what ham radio was like back in those days. After WW1, ham
radio
almost ceased to exist. It was brought back to life by the dedicated
efforts
of a few enthusiasts.

Amateur radio was not even recognized by international treaty until
1927. The
1927 treaty resulted in stricter new rules and much-narrowed bands.

By 1929 there were about 16,000 hams in the US. Almost
all of them were on the 160, 80, 40, and 20 meter bands. A typical ham
transmitter was a self-controlled power oscillator, and a typical ham
receiver
was a three tube regenerative. Sure, more advanced techniques existed,
but few
hams could afford them in thos Great Depression years.

Code skill was important in almost all radio services. 10 wpm was not
considered as anything like professional level - 25 or 30 wpm was more
like it. (This was with semiautomatic keys for sending and manual
typewriters for
highspeed copy).

1929 saw two big changes to ham radio. The treaties signed in 1927
came
into
effect, which cut deeply into the 40 and 20 meter hambands (70% of 40
was lost, and 80% of 20). The treaties also required much cleaner
signals from ham rigs. The Great Depression followed soon afterwards.

But the Depression and the new regs had a surprising effect on ham
radio. The
number of hams took a sharp upturn in the early thirties. By 1935
there
were
over 46,000 hams - almost TRIPLING the number of just five years
earlier! But the turnover in amateur radio was approaching 40% per
year.

This meant that most hams were raw newcomers, with relatively little
technical
knowledge or operating skills. A ham with 5 years on the air was a
veteran, one with 10 years was a grizzled old timer. Problems of
interference and crowding abounded. Complaints from other services
threatened the existence of ham radio.

The problem was that thousands of newcomers were learning just enough
to pass
the tests, assembling simple stations with little understanding of
proper
design, adjustment, or operation, and putting them on the air. Many of
these
newcomers lost interest quickly, particularly when the limitations of
their
knowledge and skills became apparent. The newly formed FCC was
concerned, as
was the ARRL.

The action proposed by the ARRL to the FCC was in two parts: Raise the
code
speed SLIGHTLY, (10 to 12-1/2 wpm) and make the written test more
comprehensive. The changes to the written tests are all but ignored by
the NCI
article.

The goal was NOT to limit the total number of hams, nor to hinder or
deter anyone from getting a license, but to control the flood of
newcomers, and make sure that the new folks had the necessary skills
and knowledge.

Look at the complete picture, and the action of the FCC in 1936 makes
sense.
73 de Jim, N2EY

"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
Minor correction "John Smith". If the USA decided not to drop CW, it
would NOT be alone in world. Russia and her ex Soviet Block nations
have
all decided to keep CW.

and you WANT the US to keep such company


Absolutely I want us to keep such company.

Hows the old saying go? Keep your enemies close and your friends closer.

Dan/W4NTI

Dan:

Too bad the americans had not developed HS Digital Checksum Error
Corrected Voice Transmission Packet methods over spread spectrum... could
have filtered the CW audio and went right on, would have pi$$ed 'em off in
style! Oh well, too late for back then, but today we can!

John

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 22:27:35 +0000, Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Of course, but Communism is done, right??? hi hi.

Russia has NOT dropped Morse. Nor has most of the ex Eastern Block
countries.

Years ago when I was in Germany in the US Army it was decided to fire back
up on CW training. The reason was because the Ruskies were having a field
day trashing our HF nets. We were on AM/SSB/RATT (RTTY), and they would
get close, or right on top of them on CW.

It was a total flop because hardly anyone in the US Military new Morse well
enough to copy it.

Point is this. The Russians and their close neighbors are smart enough to
realize Morse is a worth while mode and will continue its use.

Dan/W4NTI

"John Smith" wrote in message
news
Dan:

What communist counties do is almost always in the interest of the shadow
gov't really running the country. That is supposed to be surprising?

John

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:06:36 +0000, Dan/W4NTI wrote:

Minor correction "John Smith". If the USA decided not to drop CW, it
would NOT be alone in world. Russia and her ex Soviet Block nations
have
all decided to keep CW.

Dan/W4NTI

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dave:

Well, there is debate and argument for good and reason, and then there
is
not...

Then there is religious devotion to a test which serves only a select
few...

It would be interesting if the powers that be were to decide in keeping
CW--and then explain why they alone in the world community made that
decision, frankly, I would be happy not to have that task...

There are plentiful examples of insanity in this world... that old book
which bears the title something like "The Emperor Wore No Clothes" is as
meaningful today as the day it was written...

John

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
nk.net...
John Smith wrote:
N2EY:

Nice attempt at "spin doctoring" for the weak minded...
It is like fishing, you bait your hook, toss it in the water and see
what
bites...

John

At least that's how you do it, "John".

Dave K8MN

On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 09:36:54 -0700, N2EY wrote:


John Smith wrote:

Here the NCI offers proof and spells it out, just in case these old
key
tappers are in danger of pulling some wool over your eyes...

http://www.nocode.org/articles/filter.html

As some have noted in the past, "There are liars, and there are DAMN
LIARS!"


Omission of relevant facts can be a form of lying.

Here's the whole story:

I read that bit of W5YI propaganda, and also the original articles in
"200 Meters And Down" and the QSTs of the time.

(have you done so?)

The referenced article does not give all the relevant facts.

For one thing, the article claims that "higher speed" code testing has
been
used to "limit the number of hams since the very beginning of ham
licensing".
The fact is that all US hams were licensed in the US by 1912, 24 years
before the 1936 happenings cited. The code test speed after 1919 was
10
wpm, and the 1936 increase to 13 wpm - hardly a quantum leap.

To get a clear picture of what was actually happening, it is important
to
understand what ham radio was like back in those days. After WW1, ham
radio
almost ceased to exist. It was brought back to life by the dedicated
efforts
of a few enthusiasts.

Amateur radio was not even recognized by international treaty until
1927. The
1927 treaty resulted in stricter new rules and much-narrowed bands.

By 1929 there were about 16,000 hams in the US. Almost
all of them were on the 160, 80, 40, and 20 meter bands. A typical ham
transmitter was a self-controlled power oscillator, and a typical ham
receiver
was a three tube regenerative. Sure, more advanced techniques existed,
but few
hams could afford them in thos Great Depression years.

Code skill was important in almost all radio services. 10 wpm was not
considered as anything like professional level - 25 or 30 wpm was more
like it. (This was with semiautomatic keys for sending and manual
typewriters for
highspeed copy).

1929 saw two big changes to ham radio. The treaties signed in 1927
came
into
effect, which cut deeply into the 40 and 20 meter hambands (70% of 40
was lost, and 80% of 20). The treaties also required much cleaner
signals from ham rigs. The Great Depression followed soon afterwards.

But the Depression and the new regs had a surprising effect on ham
radio. The
number of hams took a sharp upturn in the early thirties. By 1935
there
were
over 46,000 hams - almost TRIPLING the number of just five years
earlier! But the turnover in amateur radio was approaching 40% per
year.

This meant that most hams were raw newcomers, with relatively little
technical
knowledge or operating skills. A ham with 5 years on the air was a
veteran, one with 10 years was a grizzled old timer. Problems of
interference and crowding abounded. Complaints from other services
threatened the existence of ham radio.

The problem was that thousands of newcomers were learning just enough
to pass
the tests, assembling simple stations with little understanding of
proper
design, adjustment, or operation, and putting them on the air. Many of
these
newcomers lost interest quickly, particularly when the limitations of
their
knowledge and skills became apparent. The newly formed FCC was
concerned, as
was the ARRL.

The action proposed by the ARRL to the FCC was in two parts: Raise the
code
speed SLIGHTLY, (10 to 12-1/2 wpm) and make the written test more
comprehensive. The changes to the written tests are all but ignored by
the NCI
article.

The goal was NOT to limit the total number of hams, nor to hinder or
deter anyone from getting a license, but to control the flood of
newcomers, and make sure that the new folks had the necessary skills
and knowledge.

Look at the complete picture, and the action of the FCC in 1936 makes
sense.
73 de Jim, N2EY

From: John Smith on Sun 7 Aug 2005 10:31

Len:

With each passing year mother nature war on the ancient brass pounders
continues. This story has been told in many different countries in many
different forms, here we are probably most familiar with "The Rabbit and
the Hare."

Slow and steady stay the course, in the end progress and determination
succeed...

Thanks for a mediocre Obi Wan Kenobi imitation. sigh

Problem is, I ain't Luke Skywalker...but all the pro-coders
think they are Dearth Voder.

Tsk. I was giving you only a little insight how things
were IN HERE about 6 to 7 years ago. Was no "John Smith"
in here then.

obi wan

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
"an old friend" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan/W4NTI wrote:
Minor correction "John Smith". If the USA decided not to drop CW, it
would NOT be alone in world. Russia and her ex Soviet Block nations
have
all decided to keep CW.

and you WANT the US to keep such company


Absolutely I want us to keep such company.

Hows the old saying go? Keep your enemies close and your friends closer.

Nice comeback I honestly didn't think you had it in you, well done



Dan/W4NTI

Len:

As long as evil exists in the world, there will always be a "John Smith"
to oppose it--a thousand deaths and the spirit of John Smith will live on.
This man is invincible and immortal, death is only a tunnel to the next
life, and to pick up the fight of evil men once again!

We stand at a unique time in history. The "Cult of the arrl" has fallen,
yet refuses to die an easy death. The ancient cloistered walls of blood
sucking amateurs is being thrown open to air the uncounted ancient pharts
which have polluted these halls. The evil deeds which have been done here
haunt the walls like insane spirits of ill will and dangerous plans.

The candle of progress threatens to cast light into even the darkest
corners of this ancient monastery. Those ancient ones (amateurs) who have
halted progress and kept radio as their personal "Moose Lodge" will have
their names despised and stricken from the records as a movement on the
scale of a "Biblical Event" slays the evil spirits who have brought radio
to its knees and sucked the blood from it veins. The stake is poised over
these black hearts of these evil men and the mallet begins its deadly
plunge towards its target...

A bright day is coming, "God Bless Amateur Radio!" We move towards the
day when extras and chicken banders will live in harmony!

Those brave men who still exist move to pick up their light-sabers and
enter the fray....

On the 'morrow we pray the battlefield be littered and deep with the
bodies of our enemies...

Luke Skywalker --AKA-- John Smith

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:47:28 -0700, LenAnderson wrote:

From: John Smith on Sun 7 Aug 2005 10:31

Len:

With each passing year mother nature war on the ancient brass pounders
continues. This story has been told in many different countries in many
different forms, here we are probably most familiar with "The Rabbit and
the Hare."

Slow and steady stay the course, in the end progress and determination
succeed...

Thanks for a mediocre Obi Wan Kenobi imitation. sigh

Problem is, I ain't Luke Skywalker...but all the pro-coders
think they are Dearth Voder.

Tsk. I was giving you only a little insight how things
were IN HERE about 6 to 7 years ago. Was no "John Smith"
in here then.

obi wan

From: John Smith on Aug 7, 3:38 pm

Dan:

Too bad the americans had not developed HS Digital Checksum Error
Corrected Voice Transmission Packet methods over spread spectrum... could
have filtered the CW audio and went right on, would have pi$$ed 'em off in
style! Oh well, too late for back then, but today we can!

The only thing WRONG with this back-and-forth is Dan's claim
of Disability from Vietnam. The Vietnam War ended in 1975,
THIRTY YEARS AGO. Had he been in communications with the
military in Yurp "after" that, he wouldn't have any "disability"
since he would be on active duty. If Dan Jeswald got out of
the military DUE to warfare in Vietnam, then his personal
experience from Yurp military exercises is THIRTY YEARS OLD.

Present-day, and back in the FIRST Gulf War times, U.S. land
forces most definitely have COMSEC (COMmunications SECurity)
which pretty well defeats old-style jammers. The first instance
of that was the AN/PRC-119 family, "SINCGARS," which is a
selectable digital-voice/data, single frequency or frequency
hopper on 30 to 88 MHz. It became operational in the U.S.
Army in 1989, first sets to Army in Korea. At frequency hops
of 10 per second, it is virtually immune to standard (old-style)
jamming and very resistant to "noise jamming." [it's damn hard
to detect, let alone jam] Later ("SIP") versions available by
the SECOND Gulf War ("Revenge of the Shrub") had fully built-in
COMSEC (voice scrambler no longer an external box) and half
the size of the original manpack. A QUARTER MILLION R/T sets
(manpack, vehicular, airborne) have been produced to the end
of 2004 and all fielded.

The land forces use a variety of radios and pieces of the EM
spectrum, NOT so totally dependent on HF as Dan would have
you believe. For MOST of the message transmissions, those
go through VHF, UHF, troposcatter, and microwave radio systems
with microwave dominating the major relays through military
comm sats...one reason why CENCOM could command the 2nd Gulf
War from Florida.

As to HF radios in the military land forces, the AN/PRC-104
family (20 W manpack through 400 W PEP vehicular) is a synth
frequency control unit for a full 3 to 30 MHz span and with
automatic antenna tuner (even in the manpack!) and direct
connections to COMSEC boxes. Designed and built by Hughes
Aircraft Ground Division, it became operational first in
1986. It will be replaced by the AN/PRC-150 family designed
by Harris, called by them "Falcon II." The "150" is more
resistant to jamming and has built-in COMSEC.

What these very amateur "military analysts" don't understand
is that the RUSSIAN comm equipment "sold" to Iraq in the
1st Gulf War ALSO HAD SS-LIKE RF SCRAMBLING. That was back
in 1990, 15 years ago. [they also had very Russian armor
in which they carried those NON-morse-code radios]

As to the alleged "CW intel from behind the lines" BS spouted
by a few in here back some 6 to 7 years, the U.S. Army had
the (now obsolete and replaced with newer) UHF portables
with built-in data, "chiclet" keyboards, LCD mini-screens
and with three different portable antennas to shoot to the
comm sats or to orbiting comm relay aircraft. None of this
nonsense of easy-to-DF HF slow-speed "CW" where the RF
was spraying in all directions from omnidirectional antennas.
Data rate then was 1200 BPS and the antennas directional.

Whatever the Russians do in amateur regulations is a FAR cry
from what they field in their army...as modern as any even
if they have meager maintenance and not as much of the good
stuff as the US military has. "WE" know HOW to jam them,
or at least most of what they have for radios...the reverse
has NOT been true for at least 15 years.

You can take my word of it or not. I didn't "stop" working
in communications for any part of DoD after my Honorable
Discharge in 1960. I've played with SINCGARS and entered
enough hopsets through its touch-screen front panel. I would
have personally liked to work on the PRC-104, at least in
operational testing, but other contract work called. What
I've remarked on in public here is FROM public information
that anyone can get, on paper or electronically.

Instead, we have all these other "military analysts" claiming
ten kinds of "knowledge" (some allegedly personal) which, in
all likelyhood, comes from Popular Mechanics or old TV shows.
Even the "FAS" (Foundation of American Scientists) is behind
the times with old data from the 1980s. Better than nothing,
I suppose. One thing for sure, the Russian amateur radio
regs are NOT formulated to "build up a pool of trained
morsemen" to serve in their military for their national
whatevers.

Geez, if all these renowned AMATEUR military radio experts
were telling like it is, the USAF recruiting posters would
feature "Air Crews For B-17s and B-24s" and the USA would
still have sojer pictures with pre-1940 'dish' helmets
and lace-up leggings a la 1940. :-)

Unless something new has come up, WT Docket 05-235 is NOT
concerned whether or not the Russkies still test for morse
code. The FCC doesn't regulate in Russia...any more than
Stebie Wundermurine "regulates" Somalian radio.

Whatever Russia cares to do after WRC-03 is THEIR concern,
not ours. We and the Brits have to help them raise their
mini-subs or record their interceptor comms as they shoot
down Korean civil airliners (played back in front of the
UN some time ago). On the other hand, a regular columnist
at ANTENNEX website is Russian and they are NOT sticking
with 1950s technology these days.

But, there's some ruff-and-tuff commie sympathizers talking
at ya, John, and don't nobody step in THEIR way! :-)

Dosvedanya droog Ivan

day off