11175 KHz USB US Air Force GHFS

[ridgescan]

Since EAMs occur on more frequencies than just 11175 I would suggest we have a separate thread for commonly heard “EAMs”. That way when unique or unusual traffic pops up on 11175 it does not get lost in the more common EAM notices. I see no reason not to post about EAMs, no matter how common they are, if the poster wants to. But, I know I sometimes miss post about interesting stuff that happens on 11175 because of the EAM posts.

This would also leave the possibility of threads addressed as the “other” HF-GCS freqs, like 4724, 6739, 8992, 11175 (already mentioned) 13200, and 15016 and any interesting comms that might show up on those.

Maybe threads titled something like "EAMs" for common EAM and EAM like traffic, "11175 other than EAM" and "6739 other than EAM" ,etc for other types of HF-GCS traffic.

Anyone else think that would work?

T!

I personally see no problem with it-the original subject of this thread was me expressing my (tongue-in-cheek) frustration with hearing aircraft having trouble reaching a base, then the thread sort of morphed into a place where the group posts their observations of 11175 be they unusual or uneventful. You have made very good points on why we should keep them separate..but like N1RGR pointed out in a post, even the most "routine to the seasoned ear" 11175 transmission may be exiting enough to a new listener or sometimes interesting enough to guys like me to post up. So what exactly determines what transmissions are "important" enough to post? I believe there's a lot of gray area there, which is probably why people got spooked and the thread went dead.
If Hooligan is so annoyed by this thread, as I suggested before, he should maybe start a thread on 11175 building within it what he see as propor thread content better than being insulting towards those who have been most respectful towards him.

 

[Token]

So what exactly determines what transmissions are "important" enough to post? I believe there's a lot of gray area there, which is probably why people got spooked and the thread went dead.

To me it is "important enough" when the poster thinks it is worth his or her effort to post it. I don't think I have the right or the place to tell anyone "don't post that, it happens all the time". And you know, it does not cost me anything when anyone post anything, no matter how trivial, as long as it is somewhat on topic. Recently I turned a new listener on to a very common freq, and an aircraft asking to change flight level, it was new and exciting thing for him, even if it is something you can hear a thousand times a day.

I was just wondering if we could come up with a way to do it so that maybe certain types of traffic can be found in like posts. And yes, even if we do come up with a "good" way to do it that many people can agree with, there will still be posts to the wrong thread...so what? The goal, in my mind, would be to get everyone on the same page, and that means, sometimes, informing new posters. No one starts out “seasoned”, everybody starts out at the same place…not even knowing what they do not know. Shoot, as long as I know I still need to figure something out I guess I am still alive.

T!

 

[CalebATC]

Since EAMs occur on more frequencies than just 11175 I would suggest we have a separate thread for commonly heard “EAMs”. That way when unique or unusual traffic pops up on 11175 it does not get lost in the more common EAM notices. I see no reason not to post about EAMs, no matter how common they are, if the poster wants to. But, I know I sometimes miss post about interesting stuff that happens on 11175 because of the EAM posts.

This would also leave the possibility of threads addressed as the “other” HF-GCS freqs, like 4724, 6739, 8992, 11175 (already mentioned) 13200, and 15016 and any interesting comms that might show up on those.

Maybe threads titled something like "EAMs" for common EAM and EAM like traffic, "11175 other than EAM" and "6739 other than EAM" ,etc for other types of HF-GCS traffic.

Anyone else think that would work?

T!

I totally agree Token! No use to post EAM's, what are they going to do for us everyday monitors? Most of the newer people get all overwhelmed in amazement out over an EAM (I did when I first got my own radio), but they really aren't anything special. PS- I am not pointing a finger at anyone! We all get overexcited and that's fine!

As for "The King Of All Monitoring", please try to lower the harrasing and criticism. As Ridgescan said, so we don't scare off everyone!

As Token said, lets try to stop posting things on other frequencies on this thread. Lets try to stick to a few of these guidelines for posting:

1- large amount of EAM's in a short period of time (preamble if possible or desired)

2- large amounts of Skykings in a short period of time (preamble if possible or desired)

3- phone patches

4- other unusual things

As ridgescan said, I believe these are what the thread was intended for. I think that will make us all get the most out of this thread, and we will all be able to listen in on the fun! Most of the time, all of us follow these and keep in order Anyways, I'm glad we could get this thread started again and enjoy the amazing things we catch on the GCS!

 

[Token]

I totally agree Token! No use to post EAM's, what are they going to do for us everyday monitors? Most of the newer people get all overwhelmed in amazement out over an EAM (I did when I first got my own radio), but they really aren't anything special. PS- I am not pointing a finger at anyone! We all get overexcited and that's fine!

Possibly I was misunderstood. I do not have a thing against posting EAMs if a listener wants to post them. I personally might not post them unless there was something noteworthy about a particular transmission but if someone feels it is worth their time to post then let them do so. Far be it from me to tell them what is interesting or not. EAMs are kind of like numbers stations in that aspect, some people do not understand why I listen to certain specific numbers stations, since I will never understand what is being said, that’s' OK, it is because I want to.

What I meant was, just as a possible suggestion to kind of clear things up, I think there might need to be a separate EAM thread, since EAMs appear on more than just one frequency, and frequency specific threads for the other traffic heard on those frequencies. Example, an EAM is heard on 8992, it would get posted to the EAM thread. An interesting callsign, be it attached to an EAM or other traffic, might be posted to the 8992 kHz thread instead. It would be up to the poster, is he posting it because of the callsign? Or is he posting it because of the EAM? But at least then all of the non-EAM traffic would clearly be seen in the frequency specific threads, and not lost amongst the potentially much more common EAM posts. Yeah sure, there would be some cross-contamination of the threads, as long as they are not double posted I see no reason to get wound up about it.

T!

 

[SCPD]

(OMNI-04) A-10 172ND ANG BATTLE CREEK MI calling up a phone patch on 11175. Request return to home plate with only 2hrs of fuel on board. Was unable to make contact with JOY. (Tanker?)

Time 0029z

 

[karldotcom]

Barely hearing several stations calling each other on 11175 right now



Delphone?
Housetop
a couple others

now Reach 6155 with a radio check....... Offutt answered 0255 UTC

 

[karldotcom]

I hear you McClellan...

I have heard at least 10 FDM/EAMs and 3 Skyking messages from McClellan tonight. Is Andrews down after Hurricane Irene (the antennas) Haven't heard any other stations.

 

[CalebATC]

Lots of "For Doggie (Doggy)" EAM's tonight.

Any idea maybe what this is about?

 

[WisconsinRailfan]

Lots of "For Doggie (Doggy)" EAM's tonight.

Any idea maybe what this is about?

I also heard that on Wed. evening, was wondering what it was.

 

[Hooligan]

(OMNI-04) A-10 172ND ANG BATTLE CREEK MI calling up a phone patch on 11175. Request return to home plate with only 2hrs of fuel on board. Was unable to make contact with JOY. (Tanker?)

Time 0029z

Just wondering how you know that the station was an A-10 of the 172nd, based at Battle Creek ANGB? Is that based on data you found for the callsign?

 

[zguy1243]

Just wondering how you know that the station was an A-10 of the 172nd, based at Battle Creek ANGB? Is that based on data you found for the callsign?

Never seen a A-10 with a HF radio...

Some F-15's had HF installed but I have never heard one on HF. The EA-6B has HF radios but as far as fighter types I think thats about all that have HF radios.

 

[SCPD]

Just wondering how you know that the station was an A-10 of the 172nd, based at Battle Creek ANGB? Is that based on data you found for the callsign?

Yaaa...I probibly should have put a question mark after that statement. C/S "OMNI" is listed in a reliable military call sign list as a A-10 from that base. I know that does not mean it is so.....so it should not have been posted as such unless otherwise confirmed. It was an aircraft who was on station trying to rendezvous with a tanker for fuel but was unsuccessful and was returning to home plate due to its low fuel condition. That much I can say with pretty good certainty after listening to the phone conversation..

 

[CalebATC]

Never seen a A-10 with a HF radio...

Some F-15's had HF installed but I have never heard one on HF. The EA-6B has HF radios but as far as fighter types I think thats about all that have HF radios.

Same here Jody....

No F-15's with HF have been brought to my attention, BUT that doesn't mean there isn't any. I do know they don't have them in them standard. A avionics tech I know told me no F-15E's at his base have HF.

Some (all maybe?) F-16's have HF radios (source: an actual pilot of an ANG), but, they must be equipped with a tuner to work, which is optional, and installed for the deployed F-16's and any other surplus ones goes to where ever. After research, I am not sure if all have them, or just some. See remarks.

I thought F/A-18's had them, but after reviewing some F/A-18E NATOPS manuals tonight, nothing found. See remark below.

As for the A-10, I have never heard of an HF radio on one. Nothing found online. I dobt it was an A-10, probably just the call as you stated in question.

Remarks- After doing some research, the AN/ARC-190 HF radio was used on the F-16, along with a newer Bendix King AN/ARC-200 that is able to be installed on a F/A-18 (all models) and the F-16's, along with F-15's. Maybe always installed? I'll ask some pilots at the Oceana airshow.... I'm sure I'll come back with an answer.

Hope this helps!

 

[SCPD]

Never seen a A-10 with a HF radio...

Some F-15's had HF installed but I have never heard one on HF. The EA-6B has HF radios but as far as fighter types I think thats about all that have HF radios.

Well since we eliminated the chances of it being an A-10...Does anybody have any ideas who c/s OMNI flight might have been? Does anybody recall any AMC aircraft using that call sign in the past?

 

[brandon]

callsign list shows the following
OMNI E-2
OMNI E-3 AWACS
OMNI C-130T VR-62, NAS Jax
OMNI USCG HC-130 or USN P-3C on counterdrug mission

 

[Hooligan]

Yaaa...I probibly should have put a question mark after that statement. C/S "OMNI" is listed in a reliable military call sign list as a A-10 from that base. I know that does not mean it is so.....so it should not have been posted as such unless otherwise confirmed. It was an aircraft who was on station trying to rendezvous with a tanker for fuel but was unsuccessful and was returning to home plate due to its low fuel condition. That much I can say with pretty good certainty after listening to the phone conversation..

Did you hear who the OMNI aircraft asked for a phone patch to? For example, if they asked for a patch to Battle Creek ANGB & the context of the dialog indicated to you that was their home plate, the OMNI ## most likely would have been a C-21A, as that's what the 172nd (now Airlift Squadron) of the 110th AW, MI ANG operates.

In their early days, A-10s having HF/SSB would have made some sense, since most of their mission causes them to operate at low altitudes where VHF/UHF range would be minimized (this is why many US military helos like AH-64s have provisions for HF radio), but I don't think most A-10s did, because also as part of their mission, they'd be controlled by an AWACS, Forward Air Controller, Airborne Battlefield Command Control Center, etc.

These days, A/OA-10s have UHF SATCOM, mostly for their forward air control & combat search & rescue missions.

Anyway, it's just a good example of not really putting too much reliance on a callsign/callword list floating around the internet, especially with all the changes in military units that have occurred over the past couple years.

If you'd been able to copy down the phone # that the OMNI requested, and then you heard the OMNI pretty much ID that phone # as being associated with their home unit, we could look-up the phone (DSN) exchange & ID the base location & that would provide good COMINT as to who/what the OMNI was.

 

[Hooligan]

Never seen a A-10 with a HF radio...

Some F-15's had HF installed but I have never heard one on HF. The EA-6B has HF radios but as far as fighter types I think thats about all that have HF radios.

A good number of fighter/interceptor types used to have them back in the old days. Sometimes, to save space the HF radio wasn't actually installed unless the mission called for it. That is still the case with some helos, such as CH-47s.

F-15s & F-16s assigned to ADC used to have HF but the capability went away when ADC lost dedicated interceptor units.

These days, the size/weight of HF gear is a lot less, but the modern VHF/UHF transceiver in the aircraft is already capable of UHF SATCOM, so it's easier to get a SATCOM-capable antenna on the aircraft, rather than put in HF.

The original block of FA-18E/F Super Hornets had HF/SSB but I don't know about the current block.


Other countries who don't have such a good system of VHF/UHF remote comms sites, AWACS, etc. put HF in their fighter aircraft as the primary long-haul comms system. One example is the batch of F/A-18 Hornets that the Royal Australian Air Force bought long ago. They had King KHF-950 HF/SSB transceivers).

Back in the 1980s, 9014USB was a popular freq used by the F-111s & EF-111As based at Cannon AFB. They used it for their interplane channel during a lot of night flights so it was great for me as a kid in Michigan to tune them in & hear them BS'ing while doing a lot of low-level stuff in MOAs.

During daytime flights, they used to use those same HF radios to tune in the Rush Limbaugh show on whatever US-based shortwave station (WRNO?) that used to broadcast it.

Per arrangement with him, the pilot of the very last EF-111A flight made a special HF transmission to me on 9014USB back in 1998, but due to stupidity on my part, I wasn't able to hear & thus QSL it.

 

[instrumentphilip]

Back in the 1980s, 9014USB was a popular freq used by the F-111s & EF-111As based at Cannon AFB. They used it for their interplane channel during a lot of night flights so it was great for me as a kid in Michigan to tune them in & hear them BS'ing while doing a lot of low-level stuff in MOAs.

During daytime flights, they used to use those same HF radios to tune in the Rush Limbaugh show on whatever US-based shortwave station (WRNO?) that used to broadcast it.

Per arrangement with him, the pilot of the very last EF-111A flight made a special HF transmission to me on 9014USB back in 1998, but due to stupidity on my part, I wasn't able to hear & thus QSL it.

That is awesome.

 

[CalebATC]

That is awesome.

Word!!

I know a Delta pilot I am going to try to set up a HF QSO with... Anyways, that's awesome.

I'd believe that with the HF in the F/A-18 Rhino models.... now that I think about it, it may have been removed for classification reasons, as a good part of the good stuff is, yet it is still around 700+ pages! I'll ask some pilots at Oceana, they will have an answer. I do know a F-16 pilot told me F/A-18's do have HF though.

 

[SCPD]

Just got "RAVEN-06" (Tanker?) utilizing a phone patch through McCellan stating to his command post that he was on the AR-Track but was unsucessful making contact with (unid aircraft) and was heading back.

Time 0148z