Account  |  Mobile  |  Help    
 
Home Database Live Audio Forums Wiki Classifieds Submit Info About

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Topic Specific Forums > Marine Monitoring Forum


Marine Monitoring Forum This is the place to discuss monitoring marine communications

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 10-17-2009, 10:22 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: maryland
Posts: 28
Default CG Sectors using the new cg/lant freqs for routine ops

With most CG sectors,stations and now most of the SafeBoats, MLBs, and the new UTBs all equipped with Rescue 21 radio gear it seems that there is a general shift away from using the customary operations channels (21, 23, 81 and 83) for routine communications.

Example: Sector LI Sound which in the past always used Ch 23 for SAR has now abandoned Ch 23 for the new "CG121" (they seem to add an extra "1" to the CG21 designation).

Sadly, when I have programmed the "CG" channel (16X.XXXMhz) into my scanner all I hear is hash/static. Can anyone tell me if the CG is using digital emission which could be heard if I invested in a newer scanner that decodes digital transmissions OR is the Coast Guard actually encrypting as well?

I understand that the CG might want to make their Law Enforcement operations impossible to monitor... but it's a shame that the Coast Guard is moving away from keeping SAR operations readily listenable to by the multitude of boaters whom the CG openly asks to be their 'eyes and ears' every time an UMIB urgent marine information broadcast is sent out.

Can anyone who really knows whether its digital or encrypted being used on the CG/lant channels clue me in please?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-17-2009, 11:03 AM
Member
   
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 210
Send a message via AIM to Lynch_Christopher
Default

I believe that on their new LANT frequencies they are using P25 Digital and do have the capability to go encrypted.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 10-17-2009, 03:07 PM
ecps92's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quincy, Mass
Posts: 1,724
Send a message via AIM to ecps92 Send a message via Yahoo to ecps92
Default

Yes it is a P25 System. Enc depends on the Operation and Sector.
Your milage will vary. Boston is 98% Enc, while Southern New England is 98% Un-Enc.

Depending on your Sector, they still use CG-## or NET-### or CG-###
all the same frequency, just a different Alpha-Tag designator

Typical NAC will be $293

Quote:
Originally Posted by archduke View Post
With most CG sectors,stations and now most of the SafeBoats, MLBs, and the new UTBs all equipped with Rescue 21 radio gear it seems that there is a general shift away from using the customary operations channels (21, 23, 81 and 83) for routine communications.

Example: Sector LI Sound which in the past always used Ch 23 for SAR has now abandoned Ch 23 for the new "CG121" (they seem to add an extra "1" to the CG21 designation).

Sadly, when I have programmed the "CG" channel (16X.XXXMhz) into my scanner all I hear is hash/static. Can anyone tell me if the CG is using digital emission which could be heard if I invested in a newer scanner that decodes digital transmissions OR is the Coast Guard actually encrypting as well?

I understand that the CG might want to make their Law Enforcement operations impossible to monitor... but it's a shame that the Coast Guard is moving away from keeping SAR operations readily listenable to by the multitude of boaters whom the CG openly asks to be their 'eyes and ears' every time an UMIB urgent marine information broadcast is sent out.

Can anyone who really knows whether its digital or encrypted being used on the CG/lant channels clue me in please?
__________________
Bill Dunn N1KUG
Cruise Ship Frequencies
http://www.scanmaritime.com
Feeding USCG Sector Boston at
http://www.scannewengland.net/index....geid=nesflogon

Last edited by ecps92; 10-17-2009 at 03:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 10-17-2009, 04:20 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: maryland
Posts: 28
Default

Thank you to both Christopher_Lynch and ecps92 for the instant responses. Very helpful!

"Typical NAC will be $293" Does this mean what I would be likely to pay for a digital capable scanner?
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 10-17-2009, 04:31 PM
ecps92's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quincy, Mass
Posts: 1,724
Send a message via AIM to ecps92 Send a message via Yahoo to ecps92
Default

I don't know, might you ?? Or might Santa !

Quote:
Originally Posted by archduke View Post
Thank you to both Christopher_Lynch and ecps92 for the instant responses. Very helpful!

"Typical NAC will be $293" Does this mean what I would be likely to pay for a digital capable scanner?
__________________
Bill Dunn N1KUG
Cruise Ship Frequencies
http://www.scanmaritime.com
Feeding USCG Sector Boston at
http://www.scannewengland.net/index....geid=nesflogon
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 10-17-2009, 05:08 PM
Wiki Admin
 
Database Admin
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Glen Burnie, Md.
Posts: 8,960
Default

Below is a link to our wiki base glossary about NACs, what they are and what scanners can handle them...

NAC - The RadioReference Wiki

Keep in mind that you don't necessarily need NAC capability to copy a P25 signal - a 396T or 996T from Uniden, for example, can't decode NACs but it will handle the P25 just fine

73 Mike
__________________
links editor, Utility Monitoring Central
Wiki Administrator, HF Forum moderator, RadioReference
Friends don't let friends buy Scancat Lite Plus!
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 10-18-2009, 01:49 PM
kb2vxa's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Point Pleasant Beach, N.J.
Posts: 4,124
Default

Just to set the record straight, my P25 scanner is unable to decode their digital signals. That leads me to believe they're not using P25 but rather another codec, or possibly 3DES encryption which has been used by federal law enforcement for decades. Being reception of Long Island Sound is spotty at best I'll reserve comment on that particular group.
__________________
73 de Warren
Amateur Radio KB2VXA
Station powered by atomic energy, operator powered by natural gas.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 10-18-2009, 02:15 PM
pro106import's Avatar
Member
 
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: ct
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kb2vxa View Post
Just to set the record straight, my P25 scanner is unable to decode their digital signals. That leads me to believe they're not using P25 but rather another codec, or possibly 3DES encryption which has been used by federal law enforcement for decades. Being reception of Long Island Sound is spotty at best I'll reserve comment on that particular group.
Sector LIS is about 50-50 clear and encrypted.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2009, 03:12 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17
Default Coast Guard

The Coast Guard is P25 capable but aren't currently using it. There really is not a need yet. They are however using DES encoding due to the whole CNN thing. Any and all operations and training missions must now be DES encrypted. Question: Is the Coast Guard using P25? Answer: No, the Coast Guard is not using P25.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2009, 10:44 AM
kb2vxa's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Point Pleasant Beach, N.J.
Posts: 4,124
Default

"Any and all operations and training missions must now be DES encrypted."
That's odd, I hear Manasquan on a regular basis and they're in the clear. Rarely is anything encrypted and then only one boat while the shore station and others are clear. That's odd in itself, maybe like the cops they haven't figured out what that switch is for. (;->)

As an aside, had that exercise in the Potomac a while back been encrypted the media frenzy over the Coast Guard shooting at a terrorist would never have happened.
__________________
73 de Warren
Amateur Radio KB2VXA
Station powered by atomic energy, operator powered by natural gas.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2009, 11:08 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Rockland, MA
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NML-21 View Post
The Coast Guard is P25 capable but aren't currently using it. There really is not a need yet. They are however using DES encoding due to the whole CNN thing. Any and all operations and training missions must now be DES encrypted. Question: Is the Coast Guard using P25? Answer: No, the Coast Guard is not using P25.
In the Sector Boston area the only use of DES/Analog is on the VHF-FM Marine channels, with little use of DES encryption. ALL traffic on the CG-### channels is P-25 with varying percentages of encryption.
__________________
Kenny
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2009, 11:19 AM
ecps92's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Quincy, Mass
Posts: 1,724
Send a message via AIM to ecps92 Send a message via Yahoo to ecps92
Default

Hmmm, All the new LMR[listed in the WIKI] former LANT now CG-33 or CG-### or NET-### are P25 and the only Sector running P25/Enc is Boston [unless a boat comes in with the wrong or outdated key]

Sector Southern New England, Long Island and Northern New England are P25 w/o the Encryption

Quote:
Originally Posted by NML-21 View Post
The Coast Guard is P25 capable but aren't currently using it. There really is not a need yet. They are however using DES encoding due to the whole CNN thing. Any and all operations and training missions must now be DES encrypted. Question: Is the Coast Guard using P25? Answer: No, the Coast Guard is not using P25.
__________________
Bill Dunn N1KUG
Cruise Ship Frequencies
http://www.scanmaritime.com
Feeding USCG Sector Boston at
http://www.scannewengland.net/index....geid=nesflogon
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 10-19-2009, 02:56 PM
DPD1's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,251
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NML-21 View Post
The Coast Guard is P25 capable but aren't currently using it. There really is not a need yet. They are however using DES encoding due to the whole CNN thing.
You for sure know this to be true? Because that would be a real shame.
__________________
Dave
www.DPDProductions.com
Antennas & Accessories for the RF Professional & Radio Hobbyist
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All information here is Copyright 2009 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2009 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions