HF combat net radio lesson learned again

Army Communicator, Spring, 2004 by David M. Fiedler

Myth 6--Levels of manmade, atmospheric, cosmic and internal electrical noise are greater in the HF frequency range and cannot be compensated for.

--False, The combination of ALE that selects the best authorized channel based on the best signal-to-noise ratio, higher transmitter power, and the system gain derived from the use of powerful voice and data digital signal processing techniques including Mixed Excitation Linear Predictive coding allow HF communications to proceed in an extremely degraded environment. Some techniques internal to modern army HF radios such as MELP will actually recover signals from near or below the noise level.

Myth 7--BLOS HF communications OTM don't work.

--False, like everything else in radio system engineering success in OTM/BLOS HF communications depends on the critical selection of antennas and frequency. Vehicle mounted vertical monopole (whip) antennas work and will produce "surface-wave signals". Surface wave signals will propagate out to a certain distance along the earth and then due to their contact with the earth become to weak for use in tactical communications. Depending upon the type of ground or water under the signals, signals at HF frequencies can go relatively short distances to the horizon or in the case of seawater and certain ground conditions tend to bend along the surface of the earth and travel well beyond line of sight. Signals designed to take advantage of ionospheric reflection by using mobile antennas that produce high angle energy (loops and bent over whips) will commonly cover Army Corps/ Theater size areas of operations without gaps in coverage. Only signals in the HF frequency band can be used since the ionosphere will not reflect signals at higher frequencies. While the U.S. Army has yet to deploy a loop antenna we do have plenty of various length whip antennas and adaptor fittings that should make OTM, BLOS tactical communications commonplace in the Army.

Myth 8--HF doctrine does not exist in the U.S. Army.

--False again. Despite Soviet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov's often quoted dictum that it is "fruitless to study U.S. doctrine because they don't study it and if they did would feel no obligation to follow it". In this case doctrine is there and valid. There is a huge list of field manuals, technical manuals, military handbooks and training aids that detail solid doctrinal concepts in HF communications that are available. On top of that there is an equally huge pile of similar doctrine in DoD and other service publications. Some of this information dates back well into the early 1920s. Lack of doctrine cannot be an excuse for S/G-6s not to employ tactical HF communications.

Over the past three-plus decades (roughly the time the Signal Center and School moved from Fort Monmouth to Fort Gordon), belief in these myths has been handed down from generation to generation of Signal Officers until "HF is no damn good" has become a mantra recited by the uninformed in order to conceal their lack on knowledge and education. This is the root cause of why Wallace was not able to emulate the performance of Guderian, Rommel and the Panzer's of the 1930s not the lack of doctrine or equipment.