Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: MARS-specific capability of current new transceivers - is there a diff ?  (Read 913 times)

SOCAL_RADIODUDE

  • Posts: 8
    • HomeURL

As someone returning to the air and interested in contributing to MARS, wondering if the MARS community has opinions about the suitability of any of the current crop of transceivers ? Thinking IC 7100 vs 7300 vs Yaesu vs TS590SG... or ?   Looking for thoughts on MARS-specific functionality (or lack thereof)... is there really any difference ? Thanks!

 
Logged

K6AER

  • Member
  • Posts: 7159

All of the big three and smaller manufactures are all capable of MARS modification. The big question is why MARS still exists?
Logged

W4GRJ

  • Posts: 3
    • HomeURL

virtually all modern ham transceivers are capable of easy modification to operate outside amateur freqs.

To answer K6AER question "why does MARS exist" ...why does ARES/RACES exist?
As a AFMARS MARS member, I have significantly more real activity on MARS than ARES
they are both valued services i.e. ARES by NGO's and MARS by DOD

Additional info
 https://www.mars.af.mil/Portals/59/images/USAF%20MARS%20Tri-fold%20July%202017.pdf

Jack
W4GRJ
AFMARS
SHARES
Logged

WA2EIO

  • Member
  • Posts: 278

As someone returning to the air and interested in contributing to MARS, wondering if the MARS community has opinions about the suitability of any of the current crop of transceivers ? Thinking IC 7100 vs 7300 vs Yaesu vs TS590SG... or ?   Looking for thoughts on MARS-specific functionality (or lack thereof)... is there really any difference ? Thanks!

I can't imagine any feature that any of today's rigs has that would not be applicable to HF MARS operation, and don't think there are any MARS-specific units.   As has been mentioned, most of today's rigs can be 'officially' modified (by the company) to operate on MARS freqs.
Logged

W5OT

  • Member
  • Posts: 60

Just because a radio is "capable" of using MARS, doesn't mean it's suitable. There has been much discussion on how Icom 703/746 series radios can burn out the bandpass filters and that Icom specifically does not recommend the mod for them.  https://www.eham.net/forum/view?id=topic%2C133959.0.html
Logged

G8FXC

  • Member
  • Posts: 533

Given that MARS is specifically a US concept, and all the modern rigs are manufactured in the far east to be sold all round the world, I think it is the case that these are not "MARS mods" - they are wideband mods that happen to be useful to MARS operators. In the old days, the transmit chain was pretty narrow band and you could only alter the frequency coverage by adding or replacing one or more tuned circuits. These days, rig design is inherently wide band with very little tuning other than in the output stages - and even there it is pretty wide band-pass filters. The firmware imposes band limits on transmit and those limits can be switched with simple configuration options - the IC7300 that sells in Britain is physically the same as that which sells in the USA despite the fact that you guys on the west side of the pond have wider allocations on several bands than we have.

Martin (G8FXC)
Logged

WI9MJ

  • Member
  • Posts: 31

MARS has also gone mostly digital so you want a radio capable of a 100% duty cycle on RTTY. Not all radios are rated for that.
Logged

K0UA

  • Member
  • Posts: 9589

MARS has also gone mostly digital so you want a radio capable of a 100% duty cycle on RTTY. Not all radios are rated for that.

I can unequivocally state the the Icom 7300 is capable. It is the coolest running rig I have ever seen. And that includes other older and current Icom radios.
Logged
73  James K0UA

WA8NVW

  • Member
  • Posts: 367

Current and future MARS operators will require new transceivers capable of higher digital signal bandwidths and speeds than are available today, along with encryption interface connections that are not available on current production amateur radios.  Amateur radio manufacturers will need to accurately mimic both the performance and interface characteristics of military transceivers which are sold to the US government in bulk purchases for prices starting at several thousand dollars each. 
Logged

G8FXC

  • Member
  • Posts: 533

Current and future MARS operators will require new transceivers capable of higher digital signal bandwidths and speeds than are available today, along with encryption interface connections that are not available on current production amateur radios.  Amateur radio manufacturers will need to accurately mimic both the performance and interface characteristics of military transceivers which are sold to the US government in bulk purchases for prices starting at several thousand dollars each.

I very much doubt that amateur radio manufacturers will do anything of the sort - MARS is an exclusively American concept and has no relevance to modern amateur radio manufacturers. Few of the "MARS Mods" that are carried out are done in order to be able to talk to military stations - when I bought my last radio, I asked for it to be MARS modded and I live in Britain - no US military station is going to want to talk to me! MARS mods for the current generations of radios are simply selecting firmware configurations that remove all restrictions on transmit frequency...

Martin (G8FXC)
Logged

WA8NVW

  • Member
  • Posts: 367

Martin G3FXC -
I volunteered 39 years in Navy MARS and concur totally with your analysis, as do numerous other experienced mid-level folks in the MARS program.  W5OT observed "Just because a radio is "capable" of using MARS, doesn't mean it's suitable."  Dig into the (very limited) public information about current DoD plans to upgrade their communications modes and methods.  It is apparent that any crossover value of amateur radio operating talents and budgets has recently decreased and soon will be wholly incompatible with the armed forces.
Logged

KT4WO

  • Member
  • Posts: 425
    • homeURL
Re: MARS-specific capability of current new transceivers - is there a diff ?
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2021, 05:25:24 AM »

" radio capable of a 100% duty cycle on RTTY"

I want a 100% duty cycle CCS radio....haha
(Put a rock on the key and come back next week)
You wont find any AR that does that.
Logged

N2CKH

  • Member
  • Posts: 28
    • homeURL
Re: MARS-specific capability of current new transceivers - is there a diff ?
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2022, 11:42:37 AM »


I wrote a paper addressing this and related topics that was last updated about a year ago now that can be had at: http://www.n2ckh.com/MARS_ALE_FORUM/MARS-ALE_Radio_Control_The-Road-Ahead.pdf

The most physical stress on the HF transceiver at present in MARS operation is 2G ALE scanning if there is no way to bypass those pesky PA spectral purity filter selection relays found in most greater than 50w transceivers during ALE scanning. The next most stress is in heat dissipation during PSK data modem (and in the near future MELPe Digital Voice) transmissions using any MIL-STD Serial Tone modem waveform, which in the future will include 3G ALE.

There are current radios in use that I see having a future moving forward to include with 3G ALE and even 3kHz bandwidth 4G ALE. I do not see MARS being assigned the required FAUs for more than 3kHz 4G ALE outside of perhaps back channel forwarding between server stations. Thus wide band radios will not be required by all. At present there is only one make of Amateur transceiver that can do wide band but only out to 20kHz whereas MIL-STD WBHF has been out to 24kHz for years and is now out to 48kHz with MIL-STD-188-11D Appendix D and MIL-STD-188-141D.

The thing that MARS members cannot go and spend their hard earned money on beyond 2G ALE and basic MIL-STD data modem use is COTS radios that provide things like MELPe and 3G ALE as its not fully interoperable with all manufacturers of such equipment, especially not with Harris, the standard to which MARS needs to achieve a level of interoperability. Thus MARS must continue to develop MARS tools for use with MARS members radio equipment to achieve that required level of interoperabilty.

Please read the .pdf file before asking qUestions or making any comments.

/s/ Steve, N2CKH
Logged

K2CMH

  • Member
  • Posts: 396
Re: MARS-specific capability of current new transceivers - is there a diff ?
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2022, 01:41:18 PM »

virtually all modern ham transceivers are capable of easy modification to operate outside amateur freqs.

To answer K6AER question "why does MARS exist" ...why does ARES/RACES exist?
As a AFMARS MARS member, I have significantly more real activity on MARS than ARES
they are both valued services i.e. ARES by NGO's and MARS by DOD

Additional info
 https://www.mars.af.mil/Portals/59/images/USAF%20MARS%20Tri-fold%20July%202017.pdf

Jack
W4GRJ
AFMARS
SHARES

You being a member of AFMARS, what is your opinion on Army Mars vs AF Mars?  I'm not trolling or trying to start a flamewar, I'm genuinely interested in hearing an informed opinion.
Logged

ND3U

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
Re: MARS-specific capability of current new transceivers - is there a diff ?
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2022, 09:38:36 AM »

Each MARS service provides almost identical services to their respective branches but provides the same services to the DoD. While the operating methods may be different, the goals are the same. What different between MARS and ARES/RACES is the amount of training we go through in MARS. I know there are very active ARES groups out there, in my neck of the woods it basically boils down to a weekly VHF net, no training that I've heard. One of the reasons why the local counties around me think the ARES is a joke.

Brandon, ND3U



virtually all modern ham transceivers are capable of easy modification to operate outside amateur freqs.

To answer K6AER question "why does MARS exist" ...why does ARES/RACES exist?
As a AFMARS MARS member, I have significantly more real activity on MARS than ARES
they are both valued services i.e. ARES by NGO's and MARS by DOD

Additional info
 https://www.mars.af.mil/Portals/59/images/USAF%20MARS%20Tri-fold%20July%202017.pdf

Jack
W4GRJ
AFMARS
SHARES

You being a member of AFMARS, what is your opinion on Army Mars vs AF Mars?  I'm not trolling or trying to start a flamewar, I'm genuinely interested in hearing an informed opinion.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up