From: K0HB on Nov 21, 10:09 am


wrote

1. The U.S. military gave up using morse code modes for
long-haul HF communications in 1948, longer than a
half century ago. Plain, simple fact.

Plain and simply innaccurate, Len.

Whatever you say, Hans. :-)

I was referring to the major message traffic handling which
enabled the tremendous (and superior) logistics capability
of the U.S. military keeping its worldwide presence during
and long after the end of WW2.

I was not attempting to impugn the United States Navy with
any negative criticism. The USN was the chief encourager
and supporter of early radio communications in the United
States. So much so that, at one point, the USN wanted to
control ALL radio, military AND civilian! [reference:
"The Continuous Wave, Technology and American Radio 1900-
1932," by Hugh G. J. Aitkin, Princeton University Press,
1985] Early radio required morse code skill due to the
primitive technology restricting communications to using
on-off keying codes. Note: The vast majority of
communications used on-off keying codes then despite some
experimentation with voice, time-signal, and teleprinter
communications which worked but did not survive in those
exact modes, even when the vacuum tube became feasible.

The US Navy used Morse for long-haul HF
communications with its surface fleets well into the 1960's and with its
submarine fleet into the 1980s from stations NAA (Culter, ME), NLK (Jim Creek,
WA), NPM (Honolulu), NAU (Peurto Rico), and VKE-3 (Northwest Cape, Australia).

You forgot one station.

And it is "Cutler, ME" and "Puerto Rico" isn't it? :-)

The majority of communications insofar as message traffic
was done as I stated, by teletypewriter. Yes, there was
a Fleet capability using morse code mode as you say. I have
no conflict with that. However, looking at ALL
communications necessary to maintain that Fleet, my
historical sources still point to the teletypewriter as
being the major "traffic" handling device for all branches
since the beginning of the USA's involvement with WW2.

I WILL question that submarines NOW use ANY morse code for
either communications or Alert signalling or did in the
late 1980s. While I've had some contact with DoD on that,
I'm not permitted to say yea or nay. I will point to the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS) website where they
show a diagram with identifying nomenclature of all
equipment in a missle submarine's "radio room." None of
that has any indication of morse code capability.

The USAF promoted single-channel (single-user) SSB on HF
in the latter half of the 1940s for Strategic Air
Command communications. Of two major developers, RCA
and Collins Radio, Collins capitalized on that experience
to design, market, and sell "SSB" HF radio equipment to
amateurs and commercial companies alike. That started
the changeover from AM voice to SSB voice in amateur HF
bands. However, commercial and military SSB, multi-
channel (rather multi-circuit) radio equipment was up and
working on HF from the very early 1930s. During WW2 and
after, that multi-circuit SSB bore the brunt of messaging
traffic (via TTY) for all branches of the U.S. military.

The early top-level cryptographic communications in The
Fleet (from at least 1940) was the "rotor machine"
teletypewriters, according to at least two texts on
cryptographic history from the 1960s. Those enabled
unbreakable communications in the Pacific of decrypted
Japanese fleet instructions and is considered part of
the essential means to win the Battle of Midway. That
"rotor machine" method was never compromised by any
nation (friend or foe) until later-generation equipment
was captured intact on the USS Pueblo. An example of
that machine is on the USS Pampanito floating museum
website, there labeled as "SIGABA." From other sources,
those machines were, essentially, modified Model 15 or
Model 19 teletypewriters made by Teletype Corporation.

My use of "plain, simple fact" phrasing is just copying
Miccolis' use. He likes to use that in his technique to
destroy opposing viewpoints by claiming that the least
example of an exception totally and completely "destroys"
any rule expressed by an opponent. It does not, but he
persists. shrug

BTW, the only bell-bottoms I wore were as a civilian,
none of them in blue, and had zippers, not buttons. :-)

wrote:
From: K0HB on Nov 21, 10:09 am
cut
I WILL question that submarines NOW use ANY morse code for
either communications or Alert signalling or did in the
late 1980s. While I've had some contact with DoD on that,
I'm not permitted to say yea or nay. I will point to the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS) website where they
show a diagram with identifying nomenclature of all
equipment in a missle submarine's "radio room." None of
that has any indication of morse code capability.

Len it is my underststanding that one or more of the Navy sub systems
used or at least were desugned to able to use a non manual morse system
that would have allowed for decoding of the signal of the signals
manualy in the event that the sub suffered damage, and survived (
current comabt theory seems ot say that a hit is a kill but..) . I
heard rumors that this system was developed and used for some time very
slow haviely "fransworthed" Morse indeed a demo I heard once in an
unclisified army breifingwas slow enough and farnworthed enough I could
read it (take down the dot and dashes) for looking up on a chart. the
amry considered and rejected such system as I hear it, did look more
into a Non morse encoded OOKed CW system designed for machine use with
the abilty for a jerry rigged unit allowing manual decoding of the
coded gruops that barely (if at all) got off the ground (end of the
cold war killed it) that with the fact I have heard some signal at very
low freqs sending what could be morse and heard em till the navy shut
down the elf unit that sits within a 100 miles of my current home means
I think there was some use of NON manual Morse in Navy till quite
recently (since 9/11) My computer decoded them as seemingly random
letter groups using a Morse back ground they stopped comeing when the
Navy shut down the elf unit

From: "an old friend" on Mon, Nov 21 2005 3:01 pm


wrote:
From: K0HB on Nov 21, 10:09 am

I WILL question that submarines NOW use ANY morse code for
either communications or Alert signalling or did in the
late 1980s. While I've had some contact with DoD on that,
I'm not permitted to say yea or nay. I will point to the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS) website where they
show a diagram with identifying nomenclature of all
equipment in a missle submarine's "radio room." None of
that has any indication of morse code capability.

Len it is my underststanding that one or more of the Navy sub systems
used or at least were desugned to able to use a non manual morse system
that would have allowed for decoding of the signal of the signals

Mark, it is really irrelevant what the USN uses for Alert
messaging to submarines in this newsgroup. "We" aren't
supposed to talk about anything non-amateur...:-)

Suffice to say that those boats DO use code. It just isn't
morse code. Alert messages WERE sent on very low frequencies
using very slow data-rate DATA. The reason for very slow
data rate was signal-to-noise ratio and a very narrow
bandwidth at ELF or even VLF and to allow submarines to
pick up Alerts while still submerged. While ELF and VLF
does penetrate water, water still has attenuation of the
radio signal so the S:N ratio puts a limit at the depth
they can be to receive the Alert. There WAS automatic
decoding equipment in the boat's "radio room" for Alerts.

I used past tense because I do not know what the boats use
NOW. I'm not going to inquire, either. I've got confidence
in the USN and NSA being able to Alert Boomers and Sharks
as needed without fear of being compromised.

I no longer have any confidence that our country's leadership
can use their intelligence reports intelligently...but that
is a subject for a separate newsgroup. :-)

The information on the FAS website (a considerable amount)
is interesting. Whether it represents the "truth" or not
is a subject for the intelligence community's analysis. So
far the FAS has continued to function, stay on-line without
any closures from the government.

There IS some information about the NSA and DIA and CIA
that has been cleared for publication. I have some of those
books. Amazon has them on sale.

But, amateur radio is forbidden by the Commission regulations
from using any encipherment that obscures the meaning of a
communication. Hans has not been forthcoming on lecturing
us on the precise sub-parts on that. Since I am unlicensed
in the amateur service, several others are attempting to
forbid my mentioning anything. :-)

wrote:
From: "an old friend" on Mon, Nov 21 2005 3:01 pm


wrote:
From: K0HB on Nov 21, 10:09 am

I WILL question that submarines NOW use ANY morse code for
either communications or Alert signalling or did in the
late 1980s. While I've had some contact with DoD on that,
I'm not permitted to say yea or nay. I will point to the
Federation of American Scientists (FAS) website where they
show a diagram with identifying nomenclature of all
equipment in a missle submarine's "radio room." None of
that has any indication of morse code capability.

Len it is my underststanding that one or more of the Navy sub systems
used or at least were desugned to able to use a non manual morse system
that would have allowed for decoding of the signal of the signals

Mark, it is really irrelevant what the USN uses for Alert
messaging to submarines in this newsgroup. "We" aren't
supposed to talk about anything non-amateur...:-)

that is the Stevie postion but i don't agree with him anything radio is
at least more ontopic than the endless discussion of everyone stevie
dislikes sex life

Suffice to say that those boats DO use code. It just isn't
morse code. Alert messages WERE sent on very low frequencies
using very slow data-rate DATA. The reason for very slow
data rate was signal-to-noise ratio and a very narrow
bandwidth at ELF or even VLF and to allow submarines to
pick up Alerts while still submerged. While ELF and VLF
does penetrate water, water still has attenuation of the
radio signal so the S:N ratio puts a limit at the depth
they can be to receive the Alert. There WAS automatic
decoding equipment in the boat's "radio room" for Alerts.

I used past tense because I do not know what the boats use
NOW. I'm not going to inquire, either. I've got confidence
in the USN and NSA being able to Alert Boomers and Sharks
as needed without fear of being compromised.

me too

I no longer have any confidence that our country's leadership
can use their intelligence reports intelligently...but that
is a subject for a separate newsgroup. :-)

definately a differently newgruops My doubts is that the intel world
can express an opinion that they will stand behind 2 days later but as
you say a different NG

The information on the FAS website (a considerable amount)
is interesting. Whether it represents the "truth" or not
is a subject for the intelligence community's analysis. So
far the FAS has continued to function, stay on-line without
any closures from the government.

There IS some information about the NSA and DIA and CIA
that has been cleared for publication. I have some of those
books. Amazon has them on sale.

But, amateur radio is forbidden by the Commission regulations
from using any encipherment that obscures the meaning of a
communication. Hans has not been forthcoming on lecturing
us on the precise sub-parts on that. Since I am unlicensed
in the amateur service, several others are attempting to
forbid my mentioning anything. :-)