No, that's a *fact*. Show me *one* emergency in the US where
long haul communications was disrupted to the point that more
than one VHF/UHF link was required to reach the nearest working
long haul terminal. On the other hand, the official after action
reports of agency after agency show no use of, or need for, HF data
links in large scale emergencies for the last 25 years.
Emergencies are nearly always defined by significant local
disruptions with the availability of fully functioning backbone
networks *on the periphery* of the disaster area.
73,
... Joe, W4TV
On 12/11/2013 3:33 PM, John Becker wrote:
On 12/11/2013 1:47 PM, Joe Subich, W4TV wrote in part
No, the "get serious" issue with emergency communications is that
there is *no need* for PACTOR III or PACTOR IV on *HF* for EMMCOMM.
Well (as Reagan would say) that's a option and we all know what is said
about options.
John, W0JAB
P4 equipment
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|