HF on Airfields

04 Jan 2012 18:07 #1 by canberra
HF on Airfields was created by canberra
And back on the subject of HF on airfields! The only airfields I was at with HF in ops were Deci and Goose Bay. Some of the ex comms techs may be able to confirm this, but AFAIK because HF is so powerful the aerials have to be kept well away from people and also from RADARS and radio tranmitters. This may explain why even in wwii HF wasnt used on airfields.

And having had a think about thew Canberra the only mark I can think of that had may have had HF fitted was the T17 for its jamming role.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

04 Jan 2012 19:59 #2 by 698
Replied by 698 on topic HF on Airfields

And back on the subject of HF on airfields! The only airfields I was at with HF in ops were Deci and Goose Bay. Some of the ex comms techs may be able to confirm this, but AFAIK because HF is so powerful the aerials have to be kept well away from people and also from RADARS and radio tranmitters. This may explain why even in wwii HF wasnt used on airfields.

And having had a think about thew Canberra the only mark I can think of that had may have had HF fitted was the T17 for its jamming role.


I'm certain you are correct about the T17.
Looking at an old photo, taken at Alconbury, there is a T17 that has a wire running from the fin along the fuselage to the nose (almost)

There was a big thing in the HAM radio world, back in the days when Rory Underwood was a celeb and based at Wyton, when they flew a T17 and operated on the HF amateur bands while airborne.
"Aeronautical Mobile" as it was called , at that time anyway, was a rare thing.

I think the in their day, the V force had to always monitor HF when in the air but I think there was a specific site, or maybe sites, for them where the transmitters and receivers were located and I guess these were 'connected' to High Wycombe or some such.
Transmitter and receiver sites are usually well away from one another especially if the transmitters are using high power.
I understand that those used in the 80's were 10 kilowatt.

I know the Herc's used to use HF to call Architect and I have just noticed on GE what may be old HF antenna bases on the western edge of Abingdon, perhaps these date back to it's days as a transport base.

Looking that the present antennas at Waddington they are quite close to buildings, some with quite exotic looking aerials on them, but they do look to be of quite light construction so perhaps are only for low power transmission or just reception ?
I can't believe they are man enough for anything else.

Its a fascinating subject anyway, and I will accept that HF at Rayneham was for the Canberra, until someone comes up who knows better :-)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

05 Jan 2012 11:01 #3 by cbrjock
Replied by cbrjock on topic HF on Airfields


I had understood that all RAF bases had HF comms up to the early 90's at least.
Does anyone know if this is a fact ?
If not I wonder why Rayneham had it, the other bases I can understand but why Rayneham ?

698


All if not most had HF. Primarily used so squadrons on deployment could contact, or be contacted by, their home base direct.

My experience was that scheduled servicing would be carried out as per AP whatever it was, but the kit would be tested twice a year at most. Strike would send a signal advising us to be on air at a particular time and to report on what was heard.

As an aside, Q-GC-RLHF was the first quali awarded to Ground Radio Techs as part of their fitters/DE course.

Pete

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

05 Jan 2012 12:09 #4 by mawganmad
Replied by mawganmad on topic HF on Airfields
Likewise didn't a fair proportion of RAF aircraft have HF, especially the long-range and reconnaissances types, for both global and distress use?

James Thomas

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

05 Jan 2012 17:40 #5 by canberra
Replied by canberra on topic HF on Airfields
Jock, in my experience most RAF airfields (and I was in 78-01) did NOT have HF comms, and the aircraft on the squadron I was on didnt have HF. You mention kit that was to be tested every six months, that sounds to me like good old HDRCN aka Home Defence Radio Communication Network. Yes this was HF , but it was a wartime last ditch comms system and yes it was tested every six months.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

05 Jan 2012 20:12 #6 by 698
Replied by 698 on topic HF on Airfields
Never having served in the RAF I cannot comment with any authority on this subject whatsoever !

Google does not seem to throw up too much on the issue, however I did find this www.rnmuseumradarandcommunications2006.o...-%20PART%20THREE.pdf

It is Naval based but does make mention of 'STCICS' which of course Architect was a callsign of and looks to be dated in the early 80's.
Interestingly I did not see any mention of Chelveston, this was rumored to be part of STCICS but now seems to be not the case.

The link above comes from the RN museum at HMS Collingwood by the way and this place is well worth a visit if you are in the area, the museum is under threat of closure again I understand.

The thing is that GE does show up these images with what I am sure are vertical HF antenna locations, the one at Waddington was right next to the existing main comms mast.
You do have to go back in time to find some of them though so possibly some RAF bases that don't show them may have had developments over them to no longer show up?
I really don't know.

On reflection about my comments of radios at North Luffenham for repair I don't think they were waiting to be repaired to go back into service but that they were to be fixed for use at NL.

As we have wandered off of the topic of WR a bit I hope the mods are sleeping !

Keith
698

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

06 Jan 2012 09:43 #7 by 698
Replied by 698 on topic HF on Airfields
I scanned this in for another group some time ago.
It was taken from a 1970's copy of the RAF En Route Supplement.

This image is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.



698

Edit.

Could these "HF antennas" really be navigational beacons such as NDB ?
The Lat and Long quoted in the document above puts a navaid at 52.47.12N 00.44.58E
According to GE this is over in the Bloodhound area by the boundary fence(ish).
This seems a strange place to put a beacon of some sort ??

Looking again at GE there is a hexagon shape on one of the old spectacle dispersals almost at the above co-ordinate.
Perhaps there was something on there once.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

06 Jan 2012 18:30 #8 by canberra
Replied by canberra on topic HF on Airfields
Looking at the entry it says they had Eureka (well Im assuming thats what eur means in the nav section), could the aerials have been for this????

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

06 Jan 2012 21:26 #9 by 698
Replied by 698 on topic HF on Airfields

Looking at the entry it says they had Eureka (well Im assuming thats what eur means in the nav section), could the aerials have been for this????


Canberra you are correct EUR is indeed Eureka.

I have rummaged in my attic and found the publication, it is dated June 1975 and the abbreviations section confirms this.

Now.
RAF bases listed as having Eureka at that time.

Brawdy 51.53.00N 05.07.24W
Cottesmore 52.43.30N 00.39.58W
Finningley no location given
Leconfield no location given
Linton on Ouse 54.03.13N 01.14.55W
Shawbury 52.47.45N 02.39.35W MP
Thorney Island 50.48.20N 00.54.44W
Valley 53.15.26N 04.32.36W
WR
Wittering 52.37.04N 00.27.38W

GE does put some of these in peculiar places and none on the locations of my so called HF antennas.

A picture of a Eureka antenna can be found on this page www.hariggers.co.uk/places.htm

I'm not convinced that this is what I'm looking at.
The layouts of the bases I'm questioning look, to me at any rate, to have had a center section of some sort and three guy wires going out to ground mounts and with a circular fence of sorts to keep people away from the rigging.
Probably similar to the present ones I keep mentioning at Waddington but with a more robust construction.

This image is hidden for guests.
Please log in or register to see it.



These look a little dainty compared to most HF setups I've seen (and hope that posting is not a hanging offence)

698

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

07 Jan 2012 16:02 #10 by canberra
Replied by canberra on topic HF on Airfields
Interesting that it doesnt list Leuchars as having Eureka as we still had it when I got there in 85!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.059 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum

We use cookies to improve our website and your experience when using it. Cookies used for the essential operation of this site have already been set. By continuing to use this site you are agreeing to this. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our privacy policy.

  
EU Cookie Directive Module Information