Author Topic: MAG Radio Standardization  (Read 11516 times)

Offline Jackalope

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
  • Karma: +11/-0
  • Free Citizen
MAG Radio Standardization
« on: October 05, 2023, 10:13:21 AM »
   A relatively large MAG(50+) has no direction regarding communications.  Their executive committee knows enough about radios to be dangerous, so I've been asked to give them some assistance.  A large part of the group do have their amateur radio licenses, but most of those have their technician licenses, and they have limited practical experience.  The group is promoting GMRS equipment, and many have obtained their GMRS licenses.

    I'm thinking of a layered communications system, using GMRS and CB's for neighborhood communications, and ham radio to tie it all together due to the size and topography of the area.  My thinking is to come up with some sort of standardization of the radios and the radio programming.  In my experience, standardization helps with troubleshooting, and it makes life easier for those that are not tech oriented.  Radios could be programmed for use on the ham bands and to receive on the GMRS frequencies.  I'm thinking of coming up with four model suggestions, two budget radios and two in the mid range price, so two portables and two mobile/base radios in different price brackets.  What have other groups done?  What models work for your group?

    In another MAG that I'm involved with, we have been using Yaesu System Fusion portables, and TYT DMR portables, but both of these models are in the mid to upper price range, though they have some interesting capabilities.  I will not be suggesting UV-5R's, as I consider those particular models to be disposable radios.  However, I do like the Baofeng UV-9R Pro's and the Baofeng AR-152 models, because they seem more durable and weather resistant.  So, what are your groups using, and how well do they work?
« Last Edit: October 05, 2023, 10:14:54 AM by Jackalope »

Offline JohnyMac

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15141
  • Karma: +23/-0
Re: MAG Radio Standardization
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2023, 11:45:07 AM »
Standardization is important. It is a necessity for training and actual field exercises. This is what MY MAG has agreed to and are using.

HF Xiego G90

VHF/UHF AnyTone AT-778UV

10/11m AnyTone AT-6666 11m = CB


 
Keep abreast of J6 arrestees at https://americangulag.org/ Donate if you can for their defense.

Offline Jackalope

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
  • Karma: +11/-0
  • Free Citizen
Re: MAG Radio Standardization
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2023, 01:35:32 PM »
     Thanks, Johny, for the feedback.  Gee, I already have two out of the three radios.  Went with a Stryker SR-94HPC for 10/11 meters.

Offline JohnyMac

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15141
  • Karma: +23/-0
Re: MAG Radio Standardization
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2023, 02:07:27 PM »
 :thumbsUp: :cheers:

Great minds think alike.  ;)
Keep abreast of J6 arrestees at https://americangulag.org/ Donate if you can for their defense.

Offline Trail Ninja

  • Prepper
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: MAG Radio Standardization
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2023, 12:58:25 PM »
   A relatively large MAG(50+) has no direction regarding communications.  Their executive committee knows enough about radios to be dangerous, so I've been asked to give them some assistance.  A large part of the group do have their amateur radio licenses, but most of those have their technician licenses, and they have limited practical experience.  The group is promoting GMRS equipment, and many have obtained their GMRS licenses.

    I'm thinking of a layered communications system, using GMRS and CB's for neighborhood communications, and ham radio to tie it all together due to the size and topography of the area.  My thinking is to come up with some sort of standardization of the radios and the radio programming.  In my experience, standardization helps with troubleshooting, and it makes life easier for those that are not tech oriented.  Radios could be programmed for use on the ham bands and to receive on the GMRS frequencies.  I'm thinking of coming up with four model suggestions, two budget radios and two in the mid range price, so two portables and two mobile/base radios in different price brackets.  What have other groups done?  What models work for your group?

    In another MAG that I'm involved with, we have been using Yaesu System Fusion portables, and TYT DMR portables, but both of these models are in the mid to upper price range, though they have some interesting capabilities.  I will not be suggesting UV-5R's, as I consider those particular models to be disposable radios.  However, I do like the Baofeng UV-9R Pro's and the Baofeng AR-152 models, because they seem more durable and weather resistant.  So, what are your groups using, and how well do they work?

This is a helpful topic Jackalope.  I've been using my spare time to take another look at licensing; getting my general class.  I've also taken a deep dive into GMRS and will be going that route as a quick solution to a no cell service scenario.  I have several BF-A58 radios, one Wouxun KG-UV6D and one BF-UV5R.  But, the BF-UV9R looks like a decent radio.  My main unit is the Yaesu FT-891, and I use it to tune into the net, but my antenna set is for portable operation and my current living situation lacks trees; I need another antenna config. 

I'm looking for direction on fast tracking the acquisition of my general license.  I know the Technicians comes first and I believe I can take the test on-line.  I have the ARRL General Class License Manual, Ninth Edition (yup, been procrastinating that long), and will be ordering the Technicians Class Manual 2-day.  Until then, what about GMRS and the use of repeaters?  I see that there are 8  GMRS channels (R15-R22) that can be used with repeaters.  Those same frequencies (467...MHz TX and 462...MHz RX) can transmit at 50 watts.  But, I could use some guidance with my handhelds because they only transmit at 5 watts max output.  I have been programming my radios manually, so I think I can add both TX an RX frequencies, but I'm not sure (yet) what "tones" are all about.

Thoughts?

TN

Offline Jackalope

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2478
  • Karma: +11/-0
  • Free Citizen
Re: MAG Radio Standardization
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2023, 02:12:03 PM »
     GMRS has a niche in prepper communications, but it has limited usefulness.  It's great for local simplex communications, like a 1-3 mile range.  Otherwise, you become dependent upon repeaters, which increase your radio coverage area, but repeaters add a possible failure point.  GMRS also limits both your available channels and your output power of 50 watts.  I typically use FRS/GMRS frequencies for neighborhood operations, i.e., looking for a lost dog, or checking in on snowed-in neighbors, etc.  GMRS frequencies, which are located in the UHF band, don't propagate as well in rural areas, but they work well in urban areas, and they penetrate concrete reasonably well.

     I have always stressed the importance of simplex (point-to-point direct) communications, whether VHF, UHF, or HF.  Repeaters are wonderful devices, but they do go out of service, just like cell phone towers.  The amateur radio simplex alternative offers flexibility in frequencies and output power up to 1500 watts.  Simplex doesn't work everywhere due to topography, but in most cases there's a work around, whether improving antennas, using a different band or mode, or increasing transmit output.

     Handheld radios are compromised devices, they're not designed to be used as base stations, or mobile radios.  Use the appropriate device for specific applications.  Sure, mobile radios can be used as a base station, or vice versa.  Handheld radios are meant for portable operations.  I've seen many newly licensed radio operators damage handheld antenna connectors or blow transmitter finals because they're trying to use the device outside of its design parameters.

     






   

     

Offline Trail Ninja

  • Prepper
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: MAG Radio Standardization
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2023, 10:35:50 AM »
Thanks for your feedback.

I was originally planning on using HH's for neighbors and patrols, but thought repeaters might give my wife and I an option if cell service went down.  It doesn't sound like HH's alone would do the trick.  Although, from each of our work locations (approx. 6 mile apart) there is a repeater located in the middle, according to a repeater map.  The only way to find out if it will work is to test it.  And if HH reception doesn't cut it, I had thought about vehicle mounted 50W GMRS radios.  But at $200 to $300 each for a 50W GMRS radio, why not buy transceivers designed to handle the bands that a General Class license would grant me?  My thinking is evolving.   

What are your recommendations for an inexpensive solution?  And like I mentioned, I have the Yaesu FT-891, but I want to reserve that radio for field days and SOTA.

Offline Sir John Honeybucket

  • Committed prepper
  • *****
  • Posts: 628
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: MAG Radio Standardization
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2023, 10:50:44 AM »
My back-up 'big rig
 is the Xiegu G90.  I am VERY pleased with it for Cw, SSB and digital modes. The entire back-up kit, including linked , multiband dipole fits into a 30 cal ammo can for storage and transport.  Personally, it is a VERY good 'bang for the buck'.  Do view/read and implement the recommended gain settings found on the internet. Mine arrived with them all set at 100% which made the receiver very, very noisey. Once I set the RF gain lower, it worked quite well.

Sir John Honeybucket
Prepper or Survivalist ?

A Prepper keeps survival rations for his pets.

A Survivalist  keeps pets as survival rations.

Offline pkveazey

  • Hardcore Prepper
  • ******
  • Posts: 2383
  • Karma: +5/-1
Re: MAG Radio Standardization
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2023, 06:45:42 PM »
We all know that in the beginning, everything will be business as usual. Then things will start to fall apart, and we'll lose the Internet and Cell service. Then we'll lose the repeaters and have to operate Simplex. I've got my MAG all set up to go simplex on MURS (2 meters). Anybody in the MAG who wants more range than a rubber ducky can install themselves an outdoor antenna system. Now, here's an idea that folks might want to consider: The new CB radios are now allowed to operate on AM and FM. The thing that I hated about CB when I was a CB'er was that it was AM. Can you imagine how nice it would be to operate on 11 meters in FM mode? From what I've read, the FM'ers would stay above channel 20 and the AM'ers would use the lower end of the band. That's not a requirement but that's the plan. Ahhh... How nice it would be to operate without having to put up with overmodulated jackasses splattering all over the place. On FM, if you over deviate too much the signal entering the receivers passband will reject the signal and the over deviator's won't be heard at all. At best, they would be cutting in and out. Since the wife and I are the only Hams in our MAG, we will have to be the ears to the outside world and pass info to the other MAG members using MURS. Why MURS? Well, MURS uses Part 95 rules and the antennas can be 60 feet up or 25 feet above whatever structure they are mounted on top of. The nearest airport is 20 miles away so I don't have to do antenna height calculations based on how close I am to an airport. As a Ham, I can go as high as 200 feet but then I'd have to add flashing beacons starting at 125 feet. Hmmm.... 200 feet, well that's just wishful thinking.

Offline Trail Ninja

  • Prepper
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: MAG Radio Standardization
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2023, 08:39:04 PM »
It appears that I have several options, with the price not being too obnoxious.  I like the idea, for a MAG, that primary comms are headed by two operators; not everyone needs all bands if you're in a MAG.  On the other hand, I think everyone should be prepared to go simplex.  I can see now, that every situation is different and your equipment is primarily dictated by distance and geography.  I'll take all of this into consideration - appreciate your input.