Recently, I was banned from a well-known CB radio site when I responded to assertions that some agencies DO use the HF areas above 20 MHZ. I was civil, I was polite and I only presented facts I know to be true as I am a member of one of the volunteer agencies that uses those frequencies. But after presenting FACTS (and other members of that forum have been banned there as well for so much as the slightest, but friendly, disagreement with that forums views on the subject).
Before we continue, let's not let THIS thread become a flame-fest nor a heated discussion pro or con of the practice of "freebanding". This simply is to give you something to visit and, perhaps, listen to on your general coverage receivers, that's ALL. Yet, at the same time, it shows that certain military and quasi-military agencies DO use their HF resources.
As I said, the subject of "freebanding' came up and I responded to it, disagreeing politely and listing the reasons why I would not want it done. A person whom, out of courtesy I will not reveal, replied that he was a member of the USAF, flew as a crew member of C-130's, attacked my referral to OPSEC (Operational Security) issues, questioned how or why I would know anything about such a thing, etc, THEN went on to say that, "The Air Force does not USE HF at all, only VHF/UHF" and I, in effect, should go pound sand, etc, etc".
Before I could refute his assertions, I was banned from the site so I could not even READ any additional comments! IMHO, that is an often too typical reaction to any rebuttal of long-held beliefs of a moderator or owner of a site. What it SAYS, by such banning is, ''THIS FELLOW IS RIGHT AND IS GETTING TOO CLOSE TO THE TRUTH, SO WE BETTER SHUT HIM BEFORE SOMEBODY BELIEVES HIM!!!"
They even fixed it so I couldn't even READ the site! LOL! Musta "skeered" 'em pretty bad!!!
In fact, it is the poster who alleges that "the Air Force doesn't use HF" that is completely devoid of knowledge of the subject!
So since I can't post the info I was going to post over there, I will post it here with the owners' permission so that you may freely read WHAT USAF uses or doesn't use. It is on the web so I can only surmise that they don't care if the info is posted: it was recently when I went and looked at it.
I am referring to USAF's Global HF Network called "Mainsail". I will not publish frequencies here, but if the info is still on the 'web, and you are interested, you can Google the info and tune in. Google "USAF Mainsail" which we have discussed here before.
The point is, despite the desperately held beliefs of some of us, the military DOES use HF and will continue to do so. Mainsail puts the lie to attacks and false assertions of people who don't know what they are talking about! USAF (and the other services) DO use HF! I find it absolutely amazing how people come into a forum knowing not one dadgum thing about other people and make--for lack of a better word-- DUMB statements when they don't know WHAT the other posters may or may not know! The other guy might be a multi-engine, commercial, jet-rated pilot, yet here's some fella lambasting an opponent whom he has not a clue about! He might be a GROL holder, an FCC engineer. But some clown can make statements that are just so-----well, I don't know what to call it! :roll:
WHY would the military and government use HF? Because they still need long-ranged comms, and 2) UHF/VHF/computer networks use fixed plant such as repeaters and phone networks. If an enemy wants to take down communications, an important infrastructural element, he can take out a few links in the chain, and the VHF becomes useless! Many of the
high command elements, both mobile and fixed, STILL use TUBE-TYPE Collins and Harris radios to keep EMP from destroying transistor-based radios during a nuclear strike! Did you know that? And to maintain effective HF communications, we NEED a wide range of HF frequencies so if the MUF (maximum usable frequency) is at certain level at a given time,
vital traffic can still be passed. IOW, if 7 MEGS is in the tank, 26 might handle the traffic, and it is why they use protocols such as ALE (automatic link establishment) to handle traffic; it's so if things fall apart quickly, they can still pass traffic and muster resources. It's also why those "freeband" frequencies are still listed. IOW, it doesn't MATTER IF, WHEN, or WHY they decide to use those frequencies, when they DO want 'em, they'll HAVE 'em!
Again, this is not a debate about freebanding, nor is it pro or con. It is simply truth and info we may be able to use. If you like to listen to shortwave, then you can perhaps listen into Mainsail. Be patient: military comms are NOT "fire in the wire, jabber, jabber, jabberjaw 24/7". You might hear 'em, you might not! It depends on the mission at the time. During 9/11 or other threats, it was/is high traffic levels. If things are "cool" 8) you might not hear 'em at all. Also listen to WWV, the time station on 2.5 5,10,15, 20 MHZ. This will tell you, generally, where the MUF is during your listening time, and give you a rough idea of what frequency to listen to.
Again, this was not meant to start a debate--I've been a "good" boy on here, and I present the info for your enjoyment, not to start a flamefest. If one starts, I'll quickly bow out!
73
CWM
Before we continue, let's not let THIS thread become a flame-fest nor a heated discussion pro or con of the practice of "freebanding". This simply is to give you something to visit and, perhaps, listen to on your general coverage receivers, that's ALL. Yet, at the same time, it shows that certain military and quasi-military agencies DO use their HF resources.
As I said, the subject of "freebanding' came up and I responded to it, disagreeing politely and listing the reasons why I would not want it done. A person whom, out of courtesy I will not reveal, replied that he was a member of the USAF, flew as a crew member of C-130's, attacked my referral to OPSEC (Operational Security) issues, questioned how or why I would know anything about such a thing, etc, THEN went on to say that, "The Air Force does not USE HF at all, only VHF/UHF" and I, in effect, should go pound sand, etc, etc".
Before I could refute his assertions, I was banned from the site so I could not even READ any additional comments! IMHO, that is an often too typical reaction to any rebuttal of long-held beliefs of a moderator or owner of a site. What it SAYS, by such banning is, ''THIS FELLOW IS RIGHT AND IS GETTING TOO CLOSE TO THE TRUTH, SO WE BETTER SHUT HIM BEFORE SOMEBODY BELIEVES HIM!!!"
They even fixed it so I couldn't even READ the site! LOL! Musta "skeered" 'em pretty bad!!!In fact, it is the poster who alleges that "the Air Force doesn't use HF" that is completely devoid of knowledge of the subject!
So since I can't post the info I was going to post over there, I will post it here with the owners' permission so that you may freely read WHAT USAF uses or doesn't use. It is on the web so I can only surmise that they don't care if the info is posted: it was recently when I went and looked at it.
I am referring to USAF's Global HF Network called "Mainsail". I will not publish frequencies here, but if the info is still on the 'web, and you are interested, you can Google the info and tune in. Google "USAF Mainsail" which we have discussed here before.
The point is, despite the desperately held beliefs of some of us, the military DOES use HF and will continue to do so. Mainsail puts the lie to attacks and false assertions of people who don't know what they are talking about! USAF (and the other services) DO use HF! I find it absolutely amazing how people come into a forum knowing not one dadgum thing about other people and make--for lack of a better word-- DUMB statements when they don't know WHAT the other posters may or may not know!
The other guy might be a multi-engine, commercial, jet-rated pilot, yet here's some fella lambasting an opponent whom he has not a clue about! He might be a GROL holder, an FCC engineer. But some clown can make statements that are just so-----well, I don't know what to call it! :roll:WHY would the military and government use HF? Because they still need long-ranged comms, and 2) UHF/VHF/computer networks use fixed plant such as repeaters and phone networks. If an enemy wants to take down communications, an important infrastructural element, he can take out a few links in the chain, and the VHF becomes useless! Many of the
high command elements, both mobile and fixed, STILL use TUBE-TYPE Collins and Harris radios to keep EMP from destroying transistor-based radios during a nuclear strike! Did you know that? And to maintain effective HF communications, we NEED a wide range of HF frequencies so if the MUF (maximum usable frequency) is at certain level at a given time,
vital traffic can still be passed. IOW, if 7 MEGS is in the tank, 26 might handle the traffic, and it is why they use protocols such as ALE (automatic link establishment) to handle traffic; it's so if things fall apart quickly, they can still pass traffic and muster resources. It's also why those "freeband" frequencies are still listed. IOW, it doesn't MATTER IF, WHEN, or WHY they decide to use those frequencies, when they DO want 'em, they'll HAVE 'em!
Again, this is not a debate about freebanding, nor is it pro or con. It is simply truth and info we may be able to use. If you like to listen to shortwave, then you can perhaps listen into Mainsail. Be patient: military comms are NOT "fire in the wire, jabber, jabber, jabberjaw 24/7". You might hear 'em, you might not! It depends on the mission at the time. During 9/11 or other threats, it was/is high traffic levels. If things are "cool" 8) you might not hear 'em at all. Also listen to WWV, the time station on 2.5 5,10,15, 20 MHZ. This will tell you, generally, where the MUF is during your listening time, and give you a rough idea of what frequency to listen to.
Again, this was not meant to start a debate--I've been a "good" boy on here, and I present the info for your enjoyment, not to start a flamefest. If one starts, I'll quickly bow out!
73
CWM
