LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11   Report Post  
Old November 22nd 05, 04:33 AM posted to rec.radio.amateur.policy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Windy Anderson's 11/14 Reply to Comments

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. :-)



 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Power Industry BPL Reply Comments & Press Release Jeff Maass Antenna 38 June 29th 04 11:19 PM
Power Industry BPL Reply Comments & Press Release Jeff Maass Antenna 0 June 25th 04 11:25 PM
BPL pollution - file reply comments by August 6 Dave Shrader Antenna 4 July 30th 03 05:25 AM
BPL pollution – file reply comments by August 6 Peter Lemken Antenna 0 July 27th 03 09:47 AM
BPL interference - reply comments - YOUR ACTION REQUIRED Allodoxaphobia Antenna 2 July 10th 03 11:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017