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
  • 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 1 of 27 , Nov 17, 2011
      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 It appears much of that information is outdated, and some even appears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
      > 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.


      > 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
      > >
      > > 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
      > >
      > > ---
      > >
      > >>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
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> The top part of the band is active...especially at air shows...
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> This could be easily changed in firmware before the radio is
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>> On Nov 16, 2011, at 2:47 PM, MCH wrote:
      > >>>>>
      > >>>>>> Looks like there will be a new USA model, but not digital.
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>> Joe M.
      > >>>>>>
      > >>>>>> Frank Cardenas wrote:
      > >>>>>>> *This is for Australia only!!*
      > >>>>>>>
      > >>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Brian
      > >>>>>>>
      > >>>>>>>> **
      > >>>>>>>>
      > >>>>>>>>
      > >>>>>>>>
      > >>>>>>>> Update from Uniden Facebook:
      > >>>>>>>>
      > >>>>>>>> Photo of the Uniden UBCD396XT.
      > >>>>>>>>
      > >>>>>>>> <
      > >>>>>>>>
      > >>>>>>>> <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
      > >

      [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.