Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [BCD396XT] Uniden will introduce it's new Digital Handheld Scanner next year 2012

Expand Messages
  • Lance
    It s still going to be shared by all the existing military aircraft...including the F-35 lightning. Unless Rockwell or Honeywell change their designs for the
    Message 1 of 27 , Nov 16, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      It's still going to be shared by all the existing military aircraft...including the F-35 lightning.

      Unless Rockwell or Honeywell change their designs for the future, pilots will still be able to transmit 380.00-399.975mhz...


      On Nov 16, 2011, at 3:52 PM, MCH wrote:

      > No, that is the new trunking band. It's no longer MilAir.
      >
      > Joe M.
      >
      > Lance wrote:
      > > The radio has a gap from 380-399.995
      > >
      > > Makes no sense, being this is still within the UHF Mil band 225-400mhz.
      > >
      > > The top part of the band is active...especially at air shows...
      > >
      > > This could be easily changed in firmware before the radio is released...
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > On Nov 16, 2011, at 2:47 PM, MCH wrote:
      > >
      > >> Looks like there will be a new USA model, but not digital.
      > >>
      > >> <<http://forums.radioreference.com/uniden-scanners/225939-bc125at-new-scanner-announcement.html>>
      > >>
      > >> Joe M.
      > >>
      > >> Frank Cardenas wrote:
      > >>> *This is for Australia only!!*
      > >>>
      > >>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Brian <mtnbiker2005ipn@...>wrote:
      > >>>
      > >>>> **
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >>>> Update from Uniden Facebook:
      > >>>>
      > >>>> Photo of the Uniden UBCD396XT.
      > >>>>
      > >>>> <
      > >>>> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150378493757655&set=a.95066767654.88955.92508157654&type=1
      > >>>> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Uniden/92508157654>
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >>>>
      > >>>
      > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>> ------------------------------------
      > >>>
      > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >>>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ------------------------------------
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Brian
      BC125AT - Yahoogroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BC125AT/ ... From: MCH Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 13:47 To: BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re:
      Message 2 of 27 , Nov 16, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        BC125AT - Yahoogroup
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BC125AT/


        -----Original Message-----
        From: MCH
        Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 13:47
        To: BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [BCD396XT] Uniden will introduce it's new Digital Handheld Scanner next year 2012

        Looks like there will be a new USA model, but not digital.

        <<http://forums.radioreference.com/uniden-scanners/225939-bc125at-new-scanner-announcement.html>>

        Joe M.
      • MCH
        They may be able to, but they will have no channel allocations there. So, effectively they would be transmitting out of their band. It s not going to be a
        Message 3 of 27 , Nov 16, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          They may be able to, but they will have no channel allocations there.
          So, effectively they would be transmitting out of their band.

          It's not going to be a shared band.

          Joe M.

          Lance wrote:
          > It's still going to be shared by all the existing military aircraft...including the F-35 lightning.
          >
          > Unless Rockwell or Honeywell change their designs for the future, pilots will still be able to transmit 380.00-399.975mhz...
          >
          >
          > On Nov 16, 2011, at 3:52 PM, MCH wrote:
          >
          >> No, that is the new trunking band. It's no longer MilAir.
          >>
          >> Joe M.
          >>
          >> Lance wrote:
          >>> The radio has a gap from 380-399.995
          >>>
          >>> Makes no sense, being this is still within the UHF Mil band 225-400mhz.
          >>>
          >>> The top part of the band is active...especially at air shows...
          >>>
          >>> This could be easily changed in firmware before the radio is released...
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 2:47 PM, MCH wrote:
          >>>
          >>>> Looks like there will be a new USA model, but not digital.
          >>>>
          >>>> <<http://forums.radioreference.com/uniden-scanners/225939-bc125at-new-scanner-announcement.html>>
          >>>>
          >>>> Joe M.
          >>>>
          >>>> Frank Cardenas wrote:
          >>>>> *This is for Australia only!!*
          >>>>>
          >>>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Brian <mtnbiker2005ipn@...>wrote:
          >>>>>
          >>>>>> **
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>> Update from Uniden Facebook:
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>> Photo of the Uniden UBCD396XT.
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>> <
          >>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150378493757655&set=a.95066767654.88955.92508157654&type=1
          >>>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Uniden/92508157654>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>>>
          >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>>>>
          >>>>>
          >>>>>
          >>>>> ------------------------------------
          >>>>>
          >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
          >>>>>
          >>>>>
          >>>>>
          >>>>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>> ------------------------------------
          >>>
          >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >>>
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          >
          >
          > No virus found in this incoming message.
          > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
          > Version: 9.0.920 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4020 - Release Date: 11/16/11 02:34:00
          >
        • Lance
          Joe, Are you aware a VHF radio in an F-16 can transmit 116.00-151.975mhz? This implies Sharing of the spectrum... Here s some of the comments from the Navy,
          Message 4 of 27 , Nov 16, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Joe,

            Are you aware a VHF radio in an F-16 can transmit 116.00-151.975mhz?

            This implies "Sharing" of the spectrum...

            Here's some of the comments from the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Army regarding their concerns over reallocation of 225-400mhz band.

            From NTIA:

            Currently the Federal Government through, the Federal Wireless Policy Committee (FWPC), the Federal Wireless Users Forum (FWUF), the Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG), and the Federal Wireless Review Office (FWRO), are examining the entire range of Federal use of wireless services, including the land mobile radio services. These groups are working to ensure that the emerging wireless services satisfy Government functional requirements. It is also the responsibility of these groups to ensure that Federal users of wireless services can smoothly transition to more spectrum efficient, interoperable, and cost-effective digital technologies.

            The 225-400 MHz band is allocated and used for military fixed and mobile communications, military mobile-satellite communications, aeronautical radionavigation functions, and radio astronomy observations. The Preliminary Report provided an overview of the Federal use of the band for fixed, mobile and satellite applications. DOD stated that the 225-400 MHz band is the single most critical spectrum resource of the military tactical forces. There are estimated to be over 75,000 Federal air-to-ground and ground-to-air radio equipments alone operating in this band. This does not include mobile-satellite equipments and backbone point-to-point capabilities, such as the Army's Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE) system. DOD reports that extensive peacetime training and alert exercises using these equipments are conducted at military bases throughout the United States to maintain combat readiness. DOD asserts that the military use of this frequency spectrum is predicated on the same technical reasons as the non-Federal users: low atmospheric and foliage penetration losses, availability of inexpensive components, and the ability to use short whip antennas for omni coverage by hand-held units.[EN 82]

            Navy states that by their very nature ships and aircraft are very crowded which results in considerable cosite problems that require all the frequency flexibility available to accommodate their requirements in this band. "Aboard ship the intermodulation products inevitably caused by exposure of metallic joints to salt spray combined with the requirement for dozens of UHF communications nets presents a major problem which has been the focus of major efforts for the past 30 years."[EN 83] Navy further states that the need to take these effects into account while various forces shift their tactical relationships and missions on a real-time basis has required a major effort to develop spectrum management programs for task force commanders. Navy contends that any reduction in the 225-400 MHz band available for this spectrum management will have serious consequences in training and operational capability, particularly in joint exercises and operations, such as Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

            Subsequent to release of the Preliminary Report, DOD provided further amplification on use of this band.[EN 84] Reports from numerous military commands throughout the country expressed concern that loss of access to portions of this band would cause severe spectrum crowding in the remaining portions, leading to significantly increased training costs, degradation of command and control, and possible safety concerns. However, DOD stressed that the most serious factors affecting reallocation are the extensive use of radios having the HAVEQUICK II frequency hopping architecture, mobile-satellite communications, and backbone point-to-point transportable capabilities. Air Force further states that other uses of this spectrum include support of critical missile and Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) launch operations, test range telemetry, remote control of targets, communications supporting Air Defense Sectors, reliable training communications, and support of the President of the United States.

            Air Force states that the HAVEQUICK family of radios is extensively deployed by the military services in a wide variety of fighter, tanker, close air support, reconnaissance, and bomber aircraft. Typical functions include approach/departure control at military airfields, air-to-air re-fueling operations, vectoring of fighter aircraft to engage hostile threats, and coordination between strike aircraft. Air Force reports that over 15,000 units are in their current inventory. The HAVEQUICK II radios have the capability of frequency hopping across many individual frequencies over the 225-400 MHz band. Air Force states that this basic architecture is necessary to provide two fundamental aspects that enhance the electronic countermeasures (ECM) resistance of frequency hopping radios: a large number of channels and a wide spread in the bandwidth covered by those channels. Air Force adds, "Interoperability between equipments is mandatory and frequency hopping radios must have the capability to hop on the same frequencies and under the control of a master clock."[EN 86] To maintain the necessary interoperability, Air Force asserts that all of the HAVEQUICK radios would have to be returned for reprogramming. Based on the conversion of HQI to HQII, Air Force maintains that such reprogramming is very costly and time consuming.[EN 87] Air Force indicates that to allow communications to continue while the modification is in progress, the modified radios must retain both the old and new capability until a specified change-over date. Existing radios without space for two sets of control software must be discarded. DOD expressed further concern over the loss of the anti-jam capability inherent to the HAVEQUICK II radios that would result from any loss of access to the full band. Reported costs from the various military commands that would result from reallocating any portion of the 225-400 MHz band total well over $1 billion.

            The Air Force Satellite Communications System (AFSATCOM) and Milstar Satellite Communications System use the 225-400 MHz band, including the 380-400 MHz band segment, to provide survivable, jam-resistant communications for strategic and tactical military over the horizon requirements. Examples include communications to base from aircraft flying close to the ground to avoid hostile radar, over the ocean connectivity with cargo aircraft, extraction of personnel from areas far from friendly forces, and quick communications establishment with National authorities at the start of and during humanitarian missions. DOD reports that if reallocation of any portion of the 225-400 MHz band occurred, AFSATCOM and Milstar systems users would be subjected to interference from non-Federal users, severely reducing the usefulness of critical communications during certain missions. Air Force adds that the on-orbit and in storage satellites cannot be retuned and military missions must still be performed. In addition to unavoidable interference to non-Federal users, DOD investment in equipment estimated at over $1 billion would be jeopardized.

            Army states that they are the primary user of line-of-sight multichannel radios in the 225-400 MHz band that are integrated as part of a theater wide network. Army uses these radios for terrestrial communications linking the functional areas of communications, command and control, intelligence, air defense, artillery fire support, aviation support, and logistical support. Army further states that this portion of the spectrum is critical to land force dominance.

            From the preceeding discussion it can be seen that the 225-400 MHz band is crowded with many disparate kinds of military telecommunications systems. These systems are able to work in the same environment at the same time due to disciplined users operating in a hierarchical command structure, an acknowledgment by users that interference will occur, and a highly structured military spectrum management system. DOD believes that none of these conditions necessarily exist for non-Federal users. At the very least, military use of this spectrum indicates that sharing by dissimilar services is a possibility worth considering. As directed by Congress, NTIA has initiated a strategic planning program to develop long-term spectrum planning. The first effort of the strategic planning program will identify the long-term spectrum requirements of both the Federal agencies and the non-Federal users. The long-range spectrum requirements identified below 1 GHz will be considered together with various spectrum management options, and as necssary, reallocation decisions will be made.

            Furthermore, the FCC has been directed by Congress to identify the spectrum needs of the public-safety agencies, and to report its findings to Congress. In response to this Congressional mandate, on February 9, 1995, the FCC released the "Spectrum Needs through the Year 2010" report. NTIA, as well as, the Federal wireless working groups (e.g., FLEWUG, FWPC, and FWRO) will consider these spectrum needs in their long-term spectrum planning programs.

            ---

            From NTIA Ch. 4, USA Allocation is on the right hand column:




            Seems shared, interoperability...



            On Nov 16, 2011, at 8:02 PM, MCH wrote:

            > They may be able to, but they will have no channel allocations there.
            > So, effectively they would be transmitting out of their band.
            >
            > It's not going to be a shared band.
            >
            > Joe M.
            >
            > Lance wrote:
            > > It's still going to be shared by all the existing military aircraft...including the F-35 lightning.
            > >
            > > Unless Rockwell or Honeywell change their designs for the future, pilots will still be able to transmit 380.00-399.975mhz...
            > >
            > >
            > > On Nov 16, 2011, at 3:52 PM, MCH wrote:
            > >
            > >> No, that is the new trunking band. It's no longer MilAir.
            > >>
            > >> Joe M.
            > >>
            > >> Lance wrote:
            > >>> The radio has a gap from 380-399.995
            > >>>
            > >>> Makes no sense, being this is still within the UHF Mil band 225-400mhz.
            > >>>
            > >>> The top part of the band is active...especially at air shows...
            > >>>
            > >>> This could be easily changed in firmware before the radio is released...
            > >>>
            > >>>
            > >>>
            > >>>
            > >>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 2:47 PM, MCH wrote:
            > >>>
            > >>>> Looks like there will be a new USA model, but not digital.
            > >>>>
            > >>>> <<http://forums.radioreference.com/uniden-scanners/225939-bc125at-new-scanner-announcement.html>>
            > >>>>
            > >>>> Joe M.
            > >>>>
            > >>>> Frank Cardenas wrote:
            > >>>>> *This is for Australia only!!*
            > >>>>>
            > >>>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Brian <mtnbiker2005ipn@...>wrote:
            > >>>>>
            > >>>>>> **
            > >>>>>>
            > >>>>>>
            > >>>>>>
            > >>>>>> Update from Uniden Facebook:
            > >>>>>>
            > >>>>>> Photo of the Uniden UBCD396XT.
            > >>>>>>
            > >>>>>> <
            > >>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150378493757655&set=a.95066767654.88955.92508157654&type=1
            > >>>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Uniden/92508157654>
            > >>>>>>
            > >>>>>>
            > >>>>>>
            > >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >>>>>
            > >>>>>
            > >>>>>
            > >>>>> ------------------------------------
            > >>>>>
            > >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >>>>>
            > >>>>>
            > >>>>>
            > >>>>>
            > >>>
            > >>>
            > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >>>
            > >>>
            > >>>
            > >>> ------------------------------------
            > >>>
            > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >>>
            > >>>
            > >>>
            > >>>
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ------------------------------------
            > >
            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > ----------------------------------------------------------
            > >
            > >
            > > No virus found in this incoming message.
            > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
            > > Version: 9.0.920 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4020 - Release Date: 11/16/11 02:34:00
            > >
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • MCH
            It appears much of that information is outdated, and some even appears to be a response to the proposed (at the time) reallocation of the 380 MHz band to
            Message 5 of 27 , Nov 17, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              It appears much of that information is outdated, and some even appears
              to be a response to the proposed (at the time) reallocation of the 380
              MHz band to Federal trunking systems.

              As for radio capabilities, are you aware that the Wolfsburg radios used
              in many aircraft can transmit on any public safety frequency (and
              virtually any frequency). That does not mean the VHF public safety band
              is shared with aircraft. Virtually any business radio can be programmed
              on ham frequencies. That does not mean the ham bands are shared with
              business users.

              The point is that just because someone has a radio that *can* transmit
              somewhere does not mean they are legally allowed to transmit there. I
              will also add the caveat that in military operations, they can (and
              likely do) use any frequency across the entire spectrum - regardless of
              the legal allocations.

              Early on there was question about the MilAir users in the 380-400 MHz
              range, and it was stated that these users would be moved to the
              remaining MilAir spectrum (225-380 MHz). In fact, it's been some time
              since I can recall hearing MilAir users on 380-400 MHz. Not saying there
              are not some still there, but they should be moving so as not to cause
              interference to the new users of that band segment.

              Joe M.

              Lance wrote:
              > Joe,
              >
              > Are you aware a VHF radio in an F-16 can transmit 116.00-151.975mhz?
              >
              > This implies "Sharing" of the spectrum...
              >
              > Here's some of the comments from the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Army regarding their concerns over reallocation of 225-400mhz band.
              >
              >>From NTIA:
              >
              > Currently the Federal Government through, the Federal Wireless Policy Committee (FWPC), the Federal Wireless Users Forum (FWUF), the Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG), and the Federal Wireless Review Office (FWRO), are examining the entire range of Federal use of wireless services, including the land mobile radio services. These groups are working to ensure that the emerging wireless services satisfy Government functional requirements. It is also the responsibility of these groups to ensure that Federal users of wireless services can smoothly transition to more spectrum efficient, interoperable, and cost-effective digital technologies.
              >
              > The 225-400 MHz band is allocated and used for military fixed and mobile communications, military mobile-satellite communications, aeronautical radionavigation functions, and radio astronomy observations. The Preliminary Report provided an overview of the Federal use of the band for fixed, mobile and satellite applications. DOD stated that the 225-400 MHz band is the single most critical spectrum resource of the military tactical forces. There are estimated to be over 75,000 Federal air-to-ground and ground-to-air radio equipments alone operating in this band. This does not include mobile-satellite equipments and backbone point-to-point capabilities, such as the Army's Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE) system. DOD reports that extensive peacetime training and alert exercises using these equipments are conducted at military bases throughout the United States to maintain combat readiness. DOD asserts that the military use of this frequency spectrum is predicated on the same
              tec
              > hnical reasons as the non-Federal users: low atmospheric and foliage penetration losses, availability of inexpensive components, and the ability to use short whip antennas for omni coverage by hand-held units.[EN 82]
              >
              > Navy states that by their very nature ships and aircraft are very crowded which results in considerable cosite problems that require all the frequency flexibility available to accommodate their requirements in this band. "Aboard ship the intermodulation products inevitably caused by exposure of metallic joints to salt spray combined with the requirement for dozens of UHF communications nets presents a major problem which has been the focus of major efforts for the past 30 years."[EN 83] Navy further states that the need to take these effects into account while various forces shift their tactical relationships and missions on a real-time basis has required a major effort to develop spectrum management programs for task force commanders. Navy contends that any reduction in the 225-400 MHz band available for this spectrum management will have serious consequences in training and operational capability, particularly in joint exercises and operations, such as Desert Shield and
              Des
              > ert Storm.
              >
              > Subsequent to release of the Preliminary Report, DOD provided further amplification on use of this band.[EN 84] Reports from numerous military commands throughout the country expressed concern that loss of access to portions of this band would cause severe spectrum crowding in the remaining portions, leading to significantly increased training costs, degradation of command and control, and possible safety concerns. However, DOD stressed that the most serious factors affecting reallocation are the extensive use of radios having the HAVEQUICK II frequency hopping architecture, mobile-satellite communications, and backbone point-to-point transportable capabilities. Air Force further states that other uses of this spectrum include support of critical missile and Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) launch operations, test range telemetry, remote control of targets, communications supporting Air Defense Sectors, reliable training communications, and support of the President of the U
              nit
              > ed States.
              >
              > Air Force states that the HAVEQUICK family of radios is extensively deployed by the military services in a wide variety of fighter, tanker, close air support, reconnaissance, and bomber aircraft. Typical functions include approach/departure control at military airfields, air-to-air re-fueling operations, vectoring of fighter aircraft to engage hostile threats, and coordination between strike aircraft. Air Force reports that over 15,000 units are in their current inventory. The HAVEQUICK II radios have the capability of frequency hopping across many individual frequencies over the 225-400 MHz band. Air Force states that this basic architecture is necessary to provide two fundamental aspects that enhance the electronic countermeasures (ECM) resistance of frequency hopping radios: a large number of channels and a wide spread in the bandwidth covered by those channels. Air Force adds, "Interoperability between equipments is mandatory and frequency hopping radios must have the
              cap
              > ability to hop on the same frequencies and under the control of a master clock."[EN 86] To maintain the necessary interoperability, Air Force asserts that all of the HAVEQUICK radios would have to be returned for reprogramming. Based on the conversion of HQI to HQII, Air Force maintains that such reprogramming is very costly and time consuming.[EN 87] Air Force indicates that to allow communications to continue while the modification is in progress, the modified radios must retain both the old and new capability until a specified change-over date. Existing radios without space for two sets of control software must be discarded. DOD expressed further concern over the loss of the anti-jam capability inherent to the HAVEQUICK II radios that would result from any loss of access to the full band. Reported costs from the various military commands that would result from reallocating any portion of the 225-400 MHz band total well over $1 billion.
              >
              > The Air Force Satellite Communications System (AFSATCOM) and Milstar Satellite Communications System use the 225-400 MHz band, including the 380-400 MHz band segment, to provide survivable, jam-resistant communications for strategic and tactical military over the horizon requirements. Examples include communications to base from aircraft flying close to the ground to avoid hostile radar, over the ocean connectivity with cargo aircraft, extraction of personnel from areas far from friendly forces, and quick communications establishment with National authorities at the start of and during humanitarian missions. DOD reports that if reallocation of any portion of the 225-400 MHz band occurred, AFSATCOM and Milstar systems users would be subjected to interference from non-Federal users, severely reducing the usefulness of critical communications during certain missions. Air Force adds that the on-orbit and in storage satellites cannot be retuned and military missions must still
              be
              > performed. In addition to unavoidable interference to non-Federal users, DOD investment in equipment estimated at over $1 billion would be jeopardized.
              >
              > Army states that they are the primary user of line-of-sight multichannel radios in the 225-400 MHz band that are integrated as part of a theater wide network. Army uses these radios for terrestrial communications linking the functional areas of communications, command and control, intelligence, air defense, artillery fire support, aviation support, and logistical support. Army further states that this portion of the spectrum is critical to land force dominance.
              >
              >>From the preceeding discussion it can be seen that the 225-400 MHz band is crowded with many disparate kinds of military telecommunications systems. These systems are able to work in the same environment at the same time due to disciplined users operating in a hierarchical command structure, an acknowledgment by users that interference will occur, and a highly structured military spectrum management system. DOD believes that none of these conditions necessarily exist for non-Federal users. At the very least, military use of this spectrum indicates that sharing by dissimilar services is a possibility worth considering. As directed by Congress, NTIA has initiated a strategic planning program to develop long-term spectrum planning. The first effort of the strategic planning program will identify the long-term spectrum requirements of both the Federal agencies and the non-Federal users. The long-range spectrum requirements identified below 1 GHz will be considered together wit
              h v
              > arious spectrum management options, and as necssary, reallocation decisions will be made.
              >
              > Furthermore, the FCC has been directed by Congress to identify the spectrum needs of the public-safety agencies, and to report its findings to Congress. In response to this Congressional mandate, on February 9, 1995, the FCC released the "Spectrum Needs through the Year 2010" report. NTIA, as well as, the Federal wireless working groups (e.g., FLEWUG, FWPC, and FWRO) will consider these spectrum needs in their long-term spectrum planning programs.
              >
              > ---
              >
              >>From NTIA Ch. 4, USA Allocation is on the right hand column:
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Seems shared, interoperability...
              >
              >
              >
              > On Nov 16, 2011, at 8:02 PM, MCH wrote:
              >
              >> They may be able to, but they will have no channel allocations there.
              >> So, effectively they would be transmitting out of their band.
              >>
              >> It's not going to be a shared band.
              >>
              >> Joe M.
              >>
              >> Lance wrote:
              >>> It's still going to be shared by all the existing military aircraft...including the F-35 lightning.
              >>>
              >>> Unless Rockwell or Honeywell change their designs for the future, pilots will still be able to transmit 380.00-399.975mhz...
              >>>
              >>>
              >>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 3:52 PM, MCH wrote:
              >>>
              >>>> No, that is the new trunking band. It's no longer MilAir.
              >>>>
              >>>> Joe M.
              >>>>
              >>>> Lance wrote:
              >>>>> The radio has a gap from 380-399.995
              >>>>>
              >>>>> Makes no sense, being this is still within the UHF Mil band 225-400mhz.
              >>>>>
              >>>>> The top part of the band is active...especially at air shows...
              >>>>>
              >>>>> This could be easily changed in firmware before the radio is released...
              >>>>>
              >>>>>
              >>>>>
              >>>>>
              >>>>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 2:47 PM, MCH wrote:
              >>>>>
              >>>>>> Looks like there will be a new USA model, but not digital.
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> <<http://forums.radioreference.com/uniden-scanners/225939-bc125at-new-scanner-announcement.html>>
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> Joe M.
              >>>>>>
              >>>>>> Frank Cardenas wrote:
              >>>>>>> *This is for Australia only!!*
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Brian <mtnbiker2005ipn@...>wrote:
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>> **
              >>>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>> Update from Uniden Facebook:
              >>>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>> Photo of the Uniden UBCD396XT.
              >>>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>> <
              >>>>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150378493757655&set=a.95066767654.88955.92508157654&type=1
              >>>>>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Uniden/92508157654>
              >>>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>>
              >>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>> ------------------------------------
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>>>
              >>>>>
              >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >>>>>
              >>>>>
              >>>>>
              >>>>> ------------------------------------
              >>>>>
              >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
              >>>>>
              >>>>>
              >>>>>
              >>>>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>> ------------------------------------
              >>>
              >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>>
              >>> ----------------------------------------------------------
              >>>
              >>>
              >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
              >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              >>> Version: 9.0.920 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4020 - Release Date: 11/16/11 02:34:00
              >>>
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >
              >
              > No virus found in this incoming message.
              > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
              > Version: 9.0.920 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4020 - Release Date: 11/16/11 02:34:00
              >
            • MCH
              Correct spelling is Wulfsberg. That s one of those names I can never seem to remember how to spell. Joe M.
              Message 6 of 27 , Nov 17, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Correct spelling is Wulfsberg. That's one of those
                names I can never seem to remember how to spell.

                Joe M.

                MCH wrote:
                > As for radio capabilities, are you aware that the Wolfsburg radios used
              • Lance
                ... The date on the allocation chart is a year old. ... Yes Joe, I m aware of that radio. I have been around Air Attack (Air Tanker lead aircraft) utilized
                Message 7 of 27 , Nov 17, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:42 AM, MCH wrote:

                  > It appears much of that information is outdated, and some even appears
                  > to be a response to the proposed (at the time) reallocation of the 380
                  > MHz band to Federal trunking systems.
                  >

                  The date on the allocation chart is a year old.
                  >
                  > As for radio capabilities, are you aware that the Wolfsburg radios used
                  > in many aircraft can transmit on any public safety frequency (and
                  > virtually any frequency). That does not mean the VHF public safety band
                  > is shared with aircraft. Virtually any business radio can be programmed
                  > on ham frequencies. That does not mean the ham bands are shared with
                  > business users.
                  >
                  Yes Joe, I'm aware of that radio. I have been around Air Attack (Air Tanker lead aircraft) utilized by the CDF.
                  I think the word "shared" is a semantic issue here.
                  >
                  > The point is that just because someone has a radio that *can* transmit
                  > somewhere does not mean they are legally allowed to transmit there. I
                  > will also add the caveat that in military operations, they can (and
                  > likely do) use any frequency across the entire spectrum - regardless of
                  > the legal allocations.
                  >
                  Yes, that was my point in bringing up the F-16 UHF radio.

                  Obviously, we both understand, my point was intraoperability was a partial solution to such
                  an involved and diverse use of the UHF P-Band. The Kenwood NX-8000 mobile radio will
                  TX/RX in Digital mode either 6.25 or 12.5khz to fulfill Narrow Band requirements. Military
                  Aircraft radio's most granular tuning is 25khz. This is an example of intraoperability within
                  380-400mhz.
                  >
                  > Early on there was question about the MilAir users in the 380-400 MHz
                  > range, and it was stated that these users would be moved to the
                  > remaining MilAir spectrum (225-380 MHz). In fact, it's been some time
                  > since I can recall hearing MilAir users on 380-400 MHz. Not saying there
                  > are not some still there, but they should be moving so as not to cause
                  > interference to the new users of that band segment.
                  >

                  Show me the NTIA Redbook section(s) or a document that reads the final outcome of this dilemma, the reallocation of
                  the P-band, as to resolve this question.

                  The last two airshows I attended with fellow radio users was in October. At both shows, the common UHF Demo Freq. which falls
                  within the 380-400mhz was still being used...not sure what part of the country you reside in, or how much of your hobby is
                  devoted to listen to P-Band coms, however, I continue to hear activity in the reallocated band. UHF AM along side newer federal trunk systems.


                  Send me links of the final outcome. Thanks.

                  -Lance


                  >
                  > Joe M.
                  >
                  > Lance wrote:
                  > > Joe,
                  > >
                  > > Are you aware a VHF radio in an F-16 can transmit 116.00-151.975mhz?
                  > >
                  > > This implies "Sharing" of the spectrum...
                  > >
                  > > Here's some of the comments from the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Army regarding their concerns over reallocation of 225-400mhz band.
                  > >
                  > >>From NTIA:
                  > >
                  > > Currently the Federal Government through, the Federal Wireless Policy Committee (FWPC), the Federal Wireless Users Forum (FWUF), the Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG), and the Federal Wireless Review Office (FWRO), are examining the entire range of Federal use of wireless services, including the land mobile radio services. These groups are working to ensure that the emerging wireless services satisfy Government functional requirements. It is also the responsibility of these groups to ensure that Federal users of wireless services can smoothly transition to more spectrum efficient, interoperable, and cost-effective digital technologies.
                  > >
                  > > The 225-400 MHz band is allocated and used for military fixed and mobile communications, military mobile-satellite communications, aeronautical radionavigation functions, and radio astronomy observations. The Preliminary Report provided an overview of the Federal use of the band for fixed, mobile and satellite applications. DOD stated that the 225-400 MHz band is the single most critical spectrum resource of the military tactical forces. There are estimated to be over 75,000 Federal air-to-ground and ground-to-air radio equipments alone operating in this band. This does not include mobile-satellite equipments and backbone point-to-point capabilities, such as the Army's Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE) system. DOD reports that extensive peacetime training and alert exercises using these equipments are conducted at military bases throughout the United States to maintain combat readiness. DOD asserts that the military use of this frequency spectrum is predicated on the same
                  > tec
                  > > hnical reasons as the non-Federal users: low atmospheric and foliage penetration losses, availability of inexpensive components, and the ability to use short whip antennas for omni coverage by hand-held units.[EN 82]
                  > >
                  > > Navy states that by their very nature ships and aircraft are very crowded which results in considerable cosite problems that require all the frequency flexibility available to accommodate their requirements in this band. "Aboard ship the intermodulation products inevitably caused by exposure of metallic joints to salt spray combined with the requirement for dozens of UHF communications nets presents a major problem which has been the focus of major efforts for the past 30 years."[EN 83] Navy further states that the need to take these effects into account while various forces shift their tactical relationships and missions on a real-time basis has required a major effort to develop spectrum management programs for task force commanders. Navy contends that any reduction in the 225-400 MHz band available for this spectrum management will have serious consequences in training and operational capability, particularly in joint exercises and operations, such as Desert Shield and
                  > Des
                  > > ert Storm.
                  > >
                  > > Subsequent to release of the Preliminary Report, DOD provided further amplification on use of this band.[EN 84] Reports from numerous military commands throughout the country expressed concern that loss of access to portions of this band would cause severe spectrum crowding in the remaining portions, leading to significantly increased training costs, degradation of command and control, and possible safety concerns. However, DOD stressed that the most serious factors affecting reallocation are the extensive use of radios having the HAVEQUICK II frequency hopping architecture, mobile-satellite communications, and backbone point-to-point transportable capabilities. Air Force further states that other uses of this spectrum include support of critical missile and Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) launch operations, test range telemetry, remote control of targets, communications supporting Air Defense Sectors, reliable training communications, and support of the President of the U
                  > nit
                  > > ed States.
                  > >
                  > > Air Force states that the HAVEQUICK family of radios is extensively deployed by the military services in a wide variety of fighter, tanker, close air support, reconnaissance, and bomber aircraft. Typical functions include approach/departure control at military airfields, air-to-air re-fueling operations, vectoring of fighter aircraft to engage hostile threats, and coordination between strike aircraft. Air Force reports that over 15,000 units are in their current inventory. The HAVEQUICK II radios have the capability of frequency hopping across many individual frequencies over the 225-400 MHz band. Air Force states that this basic architecture is necessary to provide two fundamental aspects that enhance the electronic countermeasures (ECM) resistance of frequency hopping radios: a large number of channels and a wide spread in the bandwidth covered by those channels. Air Force adds, "Interoperability between equipments is mandatory and frequency hopping radios must have the
                  > cap
                  > > ability to hop on the same frequencies and under the control of a master clock."[EN 86] To maintain the necessary interoperability, Air Force asserts that all of the HAVEQUICK radios would have to be returned for reprogramming. Based on the conversion of HQI to HQII, Air Force maintains that such reprogramming is very costly and time consuming.[EN 87] Air Force indicates that to allow communications to continue while the modification is in progress, the modified radios must retain both the old and new capability until a specified change-over date. Existing radios without space for two sets of control software must be discarded. DOD expressed further concern over the loss of the anti-jam capability inherent to the HAVEQUICK II radios that would result from any loss of access to the full band. Reported costs from the various military commands that would result from reallocating any portion of the 225-400 MHz band total well over $1 billion.
                  > >
                  > > The Air Force Satellite Communications System (AFSATCOM) and Milstar Satellite Communications System use the 225-400 MHz band, including the 380-400 MHz band segment, to provide survivable, jam-resistant communications for strategic and tactical military over the horizon requirements. Examples include communications to base from aircraft flying close to the ground to avoid hostile radar, over the ocean connectivity with cargo aircraft, extraction of personnel from areas far from friendly forces, and quick communications establishment with National authorities at the start of and during humanitarian missions. DOD reports that if reallocation of any portion of the 225-400 MHz band occurred, AFSATCOM and Milstar systems users would be subjected to interference from non-Federal users, severely reducing the usefulness of critical communications during certain missions. Air Force adds that the on-orbit and in storage satellites cannot be retuned and military missions must still
                  > be
                  > > performed. In addition to unavoidable interference to non-Federal users, DOD investment in equipment estimated at over $1 billion would be jeopardized.
                  > >
                  > > Army states that they are the primary user of line-of-sight multichannel radios in the 225-400 MHz band that are integrated as part of a theater wide network. Army uses these radios for terrestrial communications linking the functional areas of communications, command and control, intelligence, air defense, artillery fire support, aviation support, and logistical support. Army further states that this portion of the spectrum is critical to land force dominance.
                  > >
                  > >>From the preceeding discussion it can be seen that the 225-400 MHz band is crowded with many disparate kinds of military telecommunications systems. These systems are able to work in the same environment at the same time due to disciplined users operating in a hierarchical command structure, an acknowledgment by users that interference will occur, and a highly structured military spectrum management system. DOD believes that none of these conditions necessarily exist for non-Federal users. At the very least, military use of this spectrum indicates that sharing by dissimilar services is a possibility worth considering. As directed by Congress, NTIA has initiated a strategic planning program to develop long-term spectrum planning. The first effort of the strategic planning program will identify the long-term spectrum requirements of both the Federal agencies and the non-Federal users. The long-range spectrum requirements identified below 1 GHz will be considered together wit
                  > h v
                  > > arious spectrum management options, and as necssary, reallocation decisions will be made.
                  > >
                  > > Furthermore, the FCC has been directed by Congress to identify the spectrum needs of the public-safety agencies, and to report its findings to Congress. In response to this Congressional mandate, on February 9, 1995, the FCC released the "Spectrum Needs through the Year 2010" report. NTIA, as well as, the Federal wireless working groups (e.g., FLEWUG, FWPC, and FWRO) will consider these spectrum needs in their long-term spectrum planning programs.
                  > >
                  > > ---
                  > >
                  > >>From NTIA Ch. 4, USA Allocation is on the right hand column:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Seems shared, interoperability...
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > On Nov 16, 2011, at 8:02 PM, MCH wrote:
                  > >
                  > >> They may be able to, but they will have no channel allocations there.
                  > >> So, effectively they would be transmitting out of their band.
                  > >>
                  > >> It's not going to be a shared band.
                  > >>
                  > >> Joe M.
                  > >>
                  > >> Lance wrote:
                  > >>> It's still going to be shared by all the existing military aircraft...including the F-35 lightning.
                  > >>>
                  > >>> Unless Rockwell or Honeywell change their designs for the future, pilots will still be able to transmit 380.00-399.975mhz...
                  > >>>
                  > >>>
                  > >>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 3:52 PM, MCH wrote:
                  > >>>
                  > >>>> No, that is the new trunking band. It's no longer MilAir.
                  > >>>>
                  > >>>> Joe M.
                  > >>>>
                  > >>>> Lance wrote:
                  > >>>>> The radio has a gap from 380-399.995
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>> Makes no sense, being this is still within the UHF Mil band 225-400mhz.
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>> The top part of the band is active...especially at air shows...
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>> This could be easily changed in firmware before the radio is released...
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 2:47 PM, MCH wrote:
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>>> Looks like there will be a new USA model, but not digital.
                  > >>>>>>
                  > >>>>>> <<http://forums.radioreference.com/uniden-scanners/225939-bc125at-new-scanner-announcement.html>>
                  > >>>>>>
                  > >>>>>> Joe M.
                  > >>>>>>
                  > >>>>>> Frank Cardenas wrote:
                  > >>>>>>> *This is for Australia only!!*
                  > >>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Brian <mtnbiker2005ipn@...>wrote:
                  > >>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>>> **
                  > >>>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>>> Update from Uniden Facebook:
                  > >>>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>>> Photo of the Uniden UBCD396XT.
                  > >>>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>>> <
                  > >>>>>>>> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150378493757655&set=a.95066767654.88955.92508157654&type=1
                  > >>>>>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Uniden/92508157654>
                  > >>>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>> ------------------------------------
                  > >>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>>>
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>> ------------------------------------
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>>>
                  > >>>
                  > >>>
                  > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >>>
                  > >>>
                  > >>>
                  > >>> ------------------------------------
                  > >>>
                  > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >>>
                  > >>>
                  > >>>
                  > >>>
                  > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------
                  > >>>
                  > >>>
                  > >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
                  > >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  > >>> Version: 9.0.920 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4020 - Release Date: 11/16/11 02:34:00
                  > >>>
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ------------------------------------
                  > >
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > ----------------------------------------------------------
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                  > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                  > > Version: 9.0.920 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4020 - Release Date: 11/16/11 02:34:00
                  > >
                  >



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • George
                  I believe the change was directed by MCEB-M-001-04 Annex G of 1 April 2004. There was also an August 2001 SecDef memo. The entire 380-399.9 band became DOD
                  Message 8 of 27 , Nov 17, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I believe the change was directed by MCEB-M-001-04 Annex G of 1 April 2004.
                    There was also an August 2001 SecDef memo. The entire 380-399.9 band became
                    DOD Land Mobile. Everything is supposed to be P25, 12.5 kHz or less.

                    George KD4UKH

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com [mailto:BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
                    Of Lance
                    Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 10:42 AM
                    To: BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [BCD396XT] Uniden will introduce it's new Digital Handheld
                    Scanner next year 2012


                    On Nov 17, 2011, at 4:42 AM, MCH wrote:

                    > It appears much of that information is outdated, and some even appears
                    > to be a response to the proposed (at the time) reallocation of the 380
                    > MHz band to Federal trunking systems.
                    >

                    The date on the allocation chart is a year old.
                    >
                    > As for radio capabilities, are you aware that the Wolfsburg radios used
                    > in many aircraft can transmit on any public safety frequency (and
                    > virtually any frequency). That does not mean the VHF public safety band
                    > is shared with aircraft. Virtually any business radio can be programmed
                    > on ham frequencies. That does not mean the ham bands are shared with
                    > business users.
                    >
                    Yes Joe, I'm aware of that radio. I have been around Air Attack (Air
                    Tanker lead aircraft) utilized by the CDF.
                    I think the word "shared" is a semantic issue here.
                    >
                    > The point is that just because someone has a radio that *can* transmit
                    > somewhere does not mean they are legally allowed to transmit there. I
                    > will also add the caveat that in military operations, they can (and
                    > likely do) use any frequency across the entire spectrum - regardless of
                    > the legal allocations.
                    >
                    Yes, that was my point in bringing up the F-16 UHF radio.

                    Obviously, we both understand, my point was intraoperability was a partial
                    solution to such
                    an involved and diverse use of the UHF P-Band. The Kenwood NX-8000 mobile
                    radio will
                    TX/RX in Digital mode either 6.25 or 12.5khz to fulfill Narrow Band
                    requirements. Military
                    Aircraft radio's most granular tuning is 25khz. This is an example of
                    intraoperability within
                    380-400mhz.
                    >
                    > Early on there was question about the MilAir users in the 380-400 MHz
                    > range, and it was stated that these users would be moved to the
                    > remaining MilAir spectrum (225-380 MHz). In fact, it's been some time
                    > since I can recall hearing MilAir users on 380-400 MHz. Not saying there
                    > are not some still there, but they should be moving so as not to cause
                    > interference to the new users of that band segment.
                    >

                    Show me the NTIA Redbook section(s) or a document that reads the final
                    outcome of this dilemma, the reallocation of
                    the P-band, as to resolve this question.

                    The last two airshows I attended with fellow radio users was in October. At
                    both shows, the common UHF Demo Freq. which falls
                    within the 380-400mhz was still being used...not sure what part of the
                    country you reside in, or how much of your hobby is
                    devoted to listen to P-Band coms, however, I continue to hear activity in
                    the reallocated band. UHF AM along side newer federal trunk systems.


                    Send me links of the final outcome. Thanks.

                    -Lance


                    >
                    > Joe M.
                    >
                    > Lance wrote:
                    > > Joe,
                    > >
                    > > Are you aware a VHF radio in an F-16 can transmit 116.00-151.975mhz?
                    > >
                    > > This implies "Sharing" of the spectrum...
                    > >
                    > > Here's some of the comments from the Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Army
                    regarding their concerns over reallocation of 225-400mhz band.
                    > >
                    > >>From NTIA:
                    > >
                    > > Currently the Federal Government through, the Federal Wireless Policy
                    Committee (FWPC), the Federal Wireless Users Forum (FWUF), the Federal Law
                    Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG), and the Federal Wireless Review
                    Office (FWRO), are examining the entire range of Federal use of wireless
                    services, including the land mobile radio services. These groups are working
                    to ensure that the emerging wireless services satisfy Government functional
                    requirements. It is also the responsibility of these groups to ensure that
                    Federal users of wireless services can smoothly transition to more spectrum
                    efficient, interoperable, and cost-effective digital technologies.
                    > >
                    > > The 225-400 MHz band is allocated and used for military fixed and mobile
                    communications, military mobile-satellite communications, aeronautical
                    radionavigation functions, and radio astronomy observations. The Preliminary
                    Report provided an overview of the Federal use of the band for fixed, mobile
                    and satellite applications. DOD stated that the 225-400 MHz band is the
                    single most critical spectrum resource of the military tactical forces.
                    There are estimated to be over 75,000 Federal air-to-ground and
                    ground-to-air radio equipments alone operating in this band. This does not
                    include mobile-satellite equipments and backbone point-to-point
                    capabilities, such as the Army's Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE) system.
                    DOD reports that extensive peacetime training and alert exercises using
                    these equipments are conducted at military bases throughout the United
                    States to maintain combat readiness. DOD asserts that the military use of
                    this frequency spectrum is predicated on the same
                    > tec
                    > > hnical reasons as the non-Federal users: low atmospheric and foliage
                    penetration losses, availability of inexpensive components, and the ability
                    to use short whip antennas for omni coverage by hand-held units.[EN 82]
                    > >
                    > > Navy states that by their very nature ships and aircraft are very
                    crowded which results in considerable cosite problems that require all the
                    frequency flexibility available to accommodate their requirements in this
                    band. "Aboard ship the intermodulation products inevitably caused by
                    exposure of metallic joints to salt spray combined with the requirement for
                    dozens of UHF communications nets presents a major problem which has been
                    the focus of major efforts for the past 30 years."[EN 83] Navy further
                    states that the need to take these effects into account while various forces
                    shift their tactical relationships and missions on a real-time basis has
                    required a major effort to develop spectrum management programs for task
                    force commanders. Navy contends that any reduction in the 225-400 MHz band
                    available for this spectrum management will have serious consequences in
                    training and operational capability, particularly in joint exercises and
                    operations, such as Desert Shield and
                    > Des
                    > > ert Storm.
                    > >
                    > > Subsequent to release of the Preliminary Report, DOD provided further
                    amplification on use of this band.[EN 84] Reports from numerous military
                    commands throughout the country expressed concern that loss of access to
                    portions of this band would cause severe spectrum crowding in the remaining
                    portions, leading to significantly increased training costs, degradation of
                    command and control, and possible safety concerns. However, DOD stressed
                    that the most serious factors affecting reallocation are the extensive use
                    of radios having the HAVEQUICK II frequency hopping architecture,
                    mobile-satellite communications, and backbone point-to-point transportable
                    capabilities. Air Force further states that other uses of this spectrum
                    include support of critical missile and Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV)
                    launch operations, test range telemetry, remote control of targets,
                    communications supporting Air Defense Sectors, reliable training
                    communications, and support of the President of the U
                    > nit
                    > > ed States.
                    > >
                    > > Air Force states that the HAVEQUICK family of radios is extensively
                    deployed by the military services in a wide variety of fighter, tanker,
                    close air support, reconnaissance, and bomber aircraft. Typical functions
                    include approach/departure control at military airfields, air-to-air
                    re-fueling operations, vectoring of fighter aircraft to engage hostile
                    threats, and coordination between strike aircraft. Air Force reports that
                    over 15,000 units are in their current inventory. The HAVEQUICK II radios
                    have the capability of frequency hopping across many individual frequencies
                    over the 225-400 MHz band. Air Force states that this basic architecture is
                    necessary to provide two fundamental aspects that enhance the electronic
                    countermeasures (ECM) resistance of frequency hopping radios: a large number
                    of channels and a wide spread in the bandwidth covered by those channels.
                    Air Force adds, "Interoperability between equipments is mandatory and
                    frequency hopping radios must have the
                    > cap
                    > > ability to hop on the same frequencies and under the control of a master
                    clock."[EN 86] To maintain the necessary interoperability, Air Force asserts
                    that all of the HAVEQUICK radios would have to be returned for
                    reprogramming. Based on the conversion of HQI to HQII, Air Force maintains
                    that such reprogramming is very costly and time consuming.[EN 87] Air Force
                    indicates that to allow communications to continue while the modification is
                    in progress, the modified radios must retain both the old and new capability
                    until a specified change-over date. Existing radios without space for two
                    sets of control software must be discarded. DOD expressed further concern
                    over the loss of the anti-jam capability inherent to the HAVEQUICK II radios
                    that would result from any loss of access to the full band. Reported costs
                    from the various military commands that would result from reallocating any
                    portion of the 225-400 MHz band total well over $1 billion.
                    > >
                    > > The Air Force Satellite Communications System (AFSATCOM) and Milstar
                    Satellite Communications System use the 225-400 MHz band, including the
                    380-400 MHz band segment, to provide survivable, jam-resistant
                    communications for strategic and tactical military over the horizon
                    requirements. Examples include communications to base from aircraft flying
                    close to the ground to avoid hostile radar, over the ocean connectivity with
                    cargo aircraft, extraction of personnel from areas far from friendly forces,
                    and quick communications establishment with National authorities at the
                    start of and during humanitarian missions. DOD reports that if reallocation
                    of any portion of the 225-400 MHz band occurred, AFSATCOM and Milstar
                    systems users would be subjected to interference from non-Federal users,
                    severely reducing the usefulness of critical communications during certain
                    missions. Air Force adds that the on-orbit and in storage satellites cannot
                    be retuned and military missions must still
                    > be
                    > > performed. In addition to unavoidable interference to non-Federal users,
                    DOD investment in equipment estimated at over $1 billion would be
                    jeopardized.
                    > >
                    > > Army states that they are the primary user of line-of-sight multichannel
                    radios in the 225-400 MHz band that are integrated as part of a theater wide
                    network. Army uses these radios for terrestrial communications linking the
                    functional areas of communications, command and control, intelligence, air
                    defense, artillery fire support, aviation support, and logistical support.
                    Army further states that this portion of the spectrum is critical to land
                    force dominance.
                    > >
                    > >>From the preceeding discussion it can be seen that the 225-400 MHz band
                    is crowded with many disparate kinds of military telecommunications systems.
                    These systems are able to work in the same environment at the same time due
                    to disciplined users operating in a hierarchical command structure, an
                    acknowledgment by users that interference will occur, and a highly
                    structured military spectrum management system. DOD believes that none of
                    these conditions necessarily exist for non-Federal users. At the very least,
                    military use of this spectrum indicates that sharing by dissimilar services
                    is a possibility worth considering. As directed by Congress, NTIA has
                    initiated a strategic planning program to develop long-term spectrum
                    planning. The first effort of the strategic planning program will identify
                    the long-term spectrum requirements of both the Federal agencies and the
                    non-Federal users. The long-range spectrum requirements identified below 1
                    GHz will be considered together wit
                    > h v
                    > > arious spectrum management options, and as necssary, reallocation
                    decisions will be made.
                    > >
                    > > Furthermore, the FCC has been directed by Congress to identify the
                    spectrum needs of the public-safety agencies, and to report its findings to
                    Congress. In response to this Congressional mandate, on February 9, 1995,
                    the FCC released the "Spectrum Needs through the Year 2010" report. NTIA, as
                    well as, the Federal wireless working groups (e.g., FLEWUG, FWPC, and FWRO)
                    will consider these spectrum needs in their long-term spectrum planning
                    programs.
                    > >
                    > > ---
                    > >
                    > >>From NTIA Ch. 4, USA Allocation is on the right hand column:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Seems shared, interoperability...
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > On Nov 16, 2011, at 8:02 PM, MCH wrote:
                    > >
                    > >> They may be able to, but they will have no channel allocations there.
                    > >> So, effectively they would be transmitting out of their band.
                    > >>
                    > >> It's not going to be a shared band.
                    > >>
                    > >> Joe M.
                    > >>
                    > >> Lance wrote:
                    > >>> It's still going to be shared by all the existing military
                    aircraft...including the F-35 lightning.
                    > >>>
                    > >>> Unless Rockwell or Honeywell change their designs for the future,
                    pilots will still be able to transmit 380.00-399.975mhz...
                    > >>>
                    > >>>
                    > >>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 3:52 PM, MCH wrote:
                    > >>>
                    > >>>> No, that is the new trunking band. It's no longer MilAir.
                    > >>>>
                    > >>>> Joe M.
                    > >>>>
                    > >>>> Lance wrote:
                    > >>>>> The radio has a gap from 380-399.995
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>> Makes no sense, being this is still within the UHF Mil band
                    225-400mhz.
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>> The top part of the band is active...especially at air shows...
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>> This could be easily changed in firmware before the radio is
                    released...
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 2:47 PM, MCH wrote:
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>>> Looks like there will be a new USA model, but not digital.
                    > >>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>
                    <<http://forums.radioreference.com/uniden-scanners/225939-bc125at-new-scanne
                    r-announcement.html>>
                    > >>>>>>
                    > >>>>>> Joe M.
                    > >>>>>>
                    > >>>>>> Frank Cardenas wrote:
                    > >>>>>>> *This is for Australia only!!*
                    > >>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Brian
                    <mtnbiker2005ipn@...>wrote:
                    > >>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>>> **
                    > >>>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>>> Update from Uniden Facebook:
                    > >>>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>>> Photo of the Uniden UBCD396XT.
                    > >>>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>>> <
                    > >>>>>>>>
                    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150378493757655&set=a.95066767654.8
                    8955.92508157654&type=1
                    > >>>>>>>> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Uniden/92508157654>
                    > >>>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>> ------------------------------------
                    > >>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>>>
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>> ------------------------------------
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>>>
                    > >>>
                    > >>>
                    > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >>>
                    > >>>
                    > >>>
                    > >>> ------------------------------------
                    > >>>
                    > >>> Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >>>
                    > >>>
                    > >>>
                    > >>>
                    > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------
                    > >>>
                    > >>>
                    > >>> No virus found in this incoming message.
                    > >>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                    > >>> Version: 9.0.920 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4020 - Release Date:
                    11/16/11 02:34:00
                    > >>>
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ------------------------------------
                    > >
                    > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > ----------------------------------------------------------
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > No virus found in this incoming message.
                    > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                    > > Version: 9.0.920 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4020 - Release Date: 11/16/11
                    02:34:00
                    > >
                    >



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                    ------------------------------------

                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.