[FedCom] Satellite Fixed/Mobile Federal Users

[Greg Brazil]

Slow down Chief, this wasn't meant to be an insult, just a comment.  I 
thought that is what this group was for.  I too was in the Navy (AX)& I 
too am a ham, although almost never on the air.  If you look at this 
link http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ratings/navrate.html you will 
indeed see there are no more radiomen (RM) in the Navy, they are 
Information Systems Technician (IT). "Formerly known as RM (Radioman). 
DP  (Data Processing Technician) merged into the RM (Radioman) field in 
1997. The CTO (Cryptologic Technician - Communications) rating was 
merged into the IT rating on 1 Mar 2006" from the Navy web site.  I 
think the Navy no longer teaches CW.  Also I never said the Navy does 
not use HF SSB & MF SSB, if fact they are quite active. And thanks for 
your service.
Greg (SF Bay Area)

Tom Ziko wrote:

> I am a Ex Navy Radioman, RMC, and I was a CW operator in the Navy, 
> NEC2304, and I would never give it up because I happen to enjoy CW. That 
> is also why I have been an Amateur Radio operator since 1975. There are 
> many Hams that use CW on a daily basis and we have no intentions of 
> giving it up. CW will still be around for a very long time. When all 
> other forms of communications fail CW will work. F.Y.I. the Navy 
> Radioman rating is not gone, it was reclassified to include IT, get your 
> facts straight.  They still have equipment for HF & VHF, i.e. 
> transmitters, receivers, antennas that they use quite often, as evident 
> to all the Naval HF SSB traffice that is active.
> 
> Tom
> Tallahassee, FL.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Brazil" <baycomm at earthlink.net>
> To: "Discussion of Federal Government Communications" 
> <fedcom at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 9:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [FedCom] Satellite Fixed/Mobile Federal Users
> 
> 
>> Almost nobody used CW any more.  The radio man rate in the Navy is 
>> gone. Hams are almost the only ones using CW & I for one think they 
>> should give it up.
>> Greg (SF Bay Area)
>>
>> I COLLECT TRAINS wrote:
>>
>>> it would be an act of stupidity to give up HF SSB/CW allocations in 
>>> favour
>>> of SatComms. They should at a minimum keep HF as a backup. satellites 
>>> can be
>>> shot down or easily jammed. HF/CW is excellent advantage of being 
>>> able to
>>> punch through even intentional jamming. and if an HF station gets 
>>> destroyed
>>> they can be re-deployed in minutes at another location.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken" <rfinder1 at verizon.net>
>>> To: "Discussion of Federal Government Communications"
>>> <fedcom at mailman.qth.net>
>>> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 6:31 PM
>>> Subject: [FedCom] Satellite Fixed/Mobile Federal Users
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Check this source out, there's some surprises:
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/6-21-06CavossaTestimony.pdf#search=%22Iridium%20Satellite%20Services%22 
>>>
>>>
>>>> Again, this seems to indicate that HF/SSB usage is going to diminish.
>>>>
>>>> Ken
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> FedCom mailing list
>>>> FedCom at mailman.qth.net
>>>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FedCom mailing list
>>> FedCom at mailman.qth.net
>>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FedCom mailing list
>> FedCom at mailman.qth.net
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/437 - Release Date: 9/4/2006
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FedCom mailing list
> FedCom at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fedcom
> 
>