Low-tech communications

Warship design and construction, terminology, navigation, hydrodynamics, stability, armor schemes, damage control, etc.
Keith Enge
Member
Posts: 138
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:36 am

Low-tech communications

Post by Keith Enge »

I have recently reread Lundstrom's "The First Team" and noticed a communication method. I wonder how unique it was, how long it lasted, and if other navies did the same? Early in the war, if a plane was near the carrier and didn't want to break radio silence, it dropped a message in a bean-bag onto the flight deck. This seems viable because the flight deck makes a very large and flat target. Later in the war, high frequency radios were available which were inherently short range and thus very likely undetectable by any enemy. Therefore, I imagine that bean-bags weren't used in the later war years. Anyway, I wonder if scout planes from non-carrier warships ever did anything similar? Also, did other navies do something similar?
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Low-tech communications

Post by RF »

An interesting proposition - but why use bean-bags when the said plane can land on the carrier?
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
dunmunro
Senior Member
Posts: 4394
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:25 am
Location: Langley BC Canada

Re: Low-tech communications

Post by dunmunro »

RF wrote:An interesting proposition - but why use bean-bags when the said plane can land on the carrier?
It might not be CV capable or have a pilot onboard familiar with flight deck operations. For example not all USMC pilots were carrier certified, even though they flew carrier capable aircraft. Also a landing entails risk to both the aircraft and the ship.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3822
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Low-tech communications

Post by lwd »

Droping a message also wouldn't require the carrier (and formation) to turn into the wind and come up to speed. If it was a time sesative message dropping the beanbag might be considerably quicker.
USS ALASKA
Member
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:05 pm

Re: Low-tech communications

Post by USS ALASKA »

Sirs, high frequency literally means just that - High Frequency (HF). HF refers to the spectrum band of 3.000 to 30.000 MHz. HF is known for it’s long distance coverage due to skywave propagation. A whole bunch of factors go into just how far and where it can be received but High Frequency is generally understood to be a VERY long distance communications freq band. (Think BBC, Voice of America, Radio Moscow) If what you meant by ‘high frequency’ was higher frequency bands like VHF (30.000 – 300.000 MHz) and UHF (300.000 MHz – 3.000 GHz) then that would be more correct since they are Line-of-Sight (LOS) communication bands. Although atmospherics can do strange and cool things to them also, the effects are not as predictable and repeatable as those effects on HF. Also, VHF / UHF transmissions can be made that are low probability of intercept (LPI) using directional antennas but I believe that aircraft comm transmit antennas for US carrier aircraft of WWII were omni-directional (Yes / No ?). So anyone within LOS of the transmission can detect them with the proper equipment.

Why not just land on the carrier? If I’m already flying, I have a good aircraft (hopefully). If I land it takes me longer to get back on station, I could break, I could crash and foul the deck, just easier to drop the message and continue on with the mission.

Cheers
User avatar
RNfanDan
Supporter
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: USA

Re: Low-tech communications

Post by RNfanDan »

USS ALASKA wrote: Although atmospherics can do strange and cool things to them also, the effects are not as predictable and repeatable as those effects on HF.
ARRL DXCC 50MHz.

73
Image
Post Reply