Will Military baseses or depots go to secure all???

[poltergeisty]

I was wondering, well there be a possibility of our listening enjoyment being hampered by possible secure coms. at bases and depots or coast guard facilitys some time in the future due to the popular and wide spread of comy. secure communication on the public systems now days and for so called "anti terrorist listing" ? :shock:

 

[N_Jay]

I was wondering, well there be a possibility of our listening enjoyment being hampered by possible secure coms. at bases and depots or coast guard facilitys some time in the future due to the popular and wide spread of comy. secure communication on the public systems now days and for so called "anti terrorist listing" ? :shock:

More and More over time.

 

[DaveNF2G]

It seems unlikely. The IRAC list was classified back in 1982, but Congress has been reluctant to provide much money for domestic military facilities since then - note the many bases that have been closed, and they aren't done yet.

The military is not as paranoid as the civilian "Homeland Security" agencies, so there probably will not be a great rush to talk Congress into funding unnecessarily secure radio systems. The money is more urgently needed for weapons, salaries, and such activities as armoring military vehicles that are being used in combat.

 

[poltergeisty]

It seems unlikely. The IRAC list was classified back in 1982, but Congress has been reluctant to provide much money for domestic military facilities since then - note the many bases that have been closed, and they aren't done yet.

The military is not as paranoid as the civilian "Homeland Security" agencies, so there probably will not be a great rush to talk Congress into funding unnecessarily secure radio systems. The money is more urgently needed for weapons, salaries, and such activities as armoring military vehicles that are being used in combat.

Glad to hear it, amen. This makes absolute sense. Save the money for weapons systems and so forth. The better our technology the better off we are. I know that the military has secure radio equipment up the wazu but was interesting that they don't use it on base. I just thought of why.

Because if they where to, a spy or some one would be able to analyze the technology and dissect what it is. This may be a very good reason. I'm funny this way I think about the question as I type and I come up with an answer. :lol:

When I said comy. and paranoid I don't want to sound like I'm anti government or something I just think that it's a waste of money and Homeland security needs to have better check writing habits. I think they need to say that the money can ONLY be used for -PPE- (Personal protection equipment) and other technology which would aid in the event of a terrorist attack or other disaster. This is what really makes sense not some fancy ass radios.

And this is why I'm glad to be an American. The first amendment baby!!! :wink:

Can we get an American flag emoticon? With this said I guess one would be needed for each of the, I believe 5 countrys with a trunked radio system that is represented here on the site.

Please, please, please, No soap box, no soap box

:arrow:EDIT: And let there be a soap box.

 

[N_Jay]

From my understanding most bases are going to P25 with encryption capability.

Once the $$ are spent it will be up the commanders.

They won't have all the old issues like lost range and poor audio, so it will be used more then in the past.

As for the $$, don't worry, they ARE being spent.

I go back to my first answer.

"More and More over time"

 

[poltergeisty]

Well I guess we have to wait and see wont we. I don't know, if they are then.


WHY!!!

Lost range, poor audio. Up the watts! There not paranoid now why would they really want to spend money on this s**t? This is not a priority for our military bases. What is priority is weapon systems, protection and new technology which will be used on the battle field. Knowing this is done all the time and right now as I type. But to add a new budgetary spending issue for this digital radio capability is absolutely ridiculous. I don't know, you got funding here funding there but it all adds up to the tax payer.

And they have the nerve to shut down bases all over hell. Makes sense I guess, in 1991 the Army had 28 divisions now we have 18 :shock: Well I guess everything has a reason.. May be the right one may be the WRONG one.

 

[N_Jay]

Well I guess we have to wait and see wont we. I don't know, if they are then.


WHY!!!

Lost range, poor audio. Up the watts! There not paranoid now why would they really want to spend money on this s**t? This is not a priority for our military bases. What is priority is weapon systems, protection and new technology which will be used on the battle field. Knowing this is done all the time and right now as I type. But to add a new budgetary spending issue for this digital radio capability is absolutely ridiculous. I don't know, you got funding here funding there but it all adds up to the tax payer.

And they have the nerve to shut down bases all over hell. Makes sense I guess, in 1991 the Army had 28 divisions now we have 18 :shock: Well I guess everything has a reason.. May be the right one may be the WRONG one.

1) Older encryption systems had poor audio and less range relative to clear. Simply adding more power is not posible with portable radios.

2) It's not new spending as much as it's new systems as old one are replaced.

3) I do not think that all the spending on communications equals the expense of one base. This stuff is in the noise compared to total base expenses or new weapons systems costs.

 

[poltergeisty]

True true. But, the key word. At what percent dose a base talk on the air. I would say 10% of the time and 90% on a hard wire such as fiber or copper. 10% being air coms., security, training and transportation. Of course if you talk about -NORAD- thats a whole new thing. I don't know if the KY-57 or 58 encryption is that bad and I know the dsp 9000's and other equipment are really good.

I don't see how government facilities is/are geting away with using the same thing as public safety. The -NSA- has come up with two types of encryption definitions. One for government one for public safety for a reason. I'm not sure however if the encryption offered on a digital system that we know them to be classifies as a government form of encryption, for lack of a better word or designation as such.

Now I know the secret service I believe uses Fascinator I wonder why the bases won't use Fascinator? Probably all about proprietary radio bs. The reason why I say this is because I don't think I have heard any complaints from the secret service about there encryption mode and sense this is an encryption mode for government only why would bases and other goverment facilitys not use it instead? If, there current encryption is not good, I think it is. :lol:

Don't these digital or non digital trunked systems have a anual fee?

Anyone know if Fascinator is the same as KY-57-58?

 

[N_Jay]

The federal government uses a LOT of poratble radios that are basically the same as public safety equipment.

They are a big suporter of the P25 standards, especially encryption.

And yes, the P25 encryption is federally approved (I don't know to what level)

BTW, there are way more than two types.

They own their systems whether trunked or conventional so fees are not an issue.

 

[Tophtoh]

re:

I think it's crazy every base going encrypt because of possible terrorist and what not. If they're going to do something, they're going to do it regardless of the traffic of the radio.

 

[N_Jay]

Are they going to encrypt everything? Probably not

Are they going to encrypt more than they do now? Probably

Are they spending huge amounts of money just to encrypt? NO

Are they spending money on new systems with the capability of encryption? Yes

Do you and I know more about communications security then they do? PROBABLY NOT!

So (IMHO), it would be CRAZY for us imply that we do!

 

[Toad_77]

"Anyone know if Fascinator is the same as KY-57-58?"

in a word NO.

C.A.

 

[poltergeisty]

"Anyone know if Fascinator is the same as KY-57-58?"

in a word NO.

C.A.

Thanx.

The federal government uses a LOT of portable radios that are basically the same as public safety equipment.

BASICALLY?

They are a big suporter of the P25 standards, especially encryption.

And yes, the P25 encryption is federally approved (I don't know to what level)

I was referring to the designation of two standards of encryption. One for public safety and the other for government. Not approval. Unless this means for federal approval use. I always thought that government agencys were in tilted there own high grade encryption. I don't think that the stranded p25 type would pass flying colors for government agencys to use.

BTW, there are way more than two types.

I am referring to the standards not types. Federal vs. public.

They own their systems whether trunked or conventional so fees are not an issue.

Thanx for answering my question?

 

[poltergeisty]

Re: re:

I think it's crazy every base going encrypt because of possible terrorist and what not. If they're going to do something, they're going to do it regardless of the traffic of the radio.

I could not agree more.

 

[N_Jay]

Yes, basically the same.

Look at the portabnle radios that the Border Patrol, the Nationa Guard, and lots of other agencies use.
You can buy the same model for commercial use (just a different band split)

As for encryption, its a moving target. Yes there are some that are Fed only, but LOTS of systems are used for both Fed and Public Safety.

Fasinator is a type of encryption, not a device.

I think it has been superceeded.

 

[poltergeisty]

Fasinator is a type of encryption, not a device.

Oh, did I spell that wrong? :lol: Don't you mean superseded?

So Toad_77 do you really know if it is the same? or are you joking?

 

[grem467]

i know of 2 bases right now that are using DES on their old analog systems... and for the record, encrypted astro suffers no loss of audio quality or range as opposed to non-encrypted.

 

[rescue161]

Fascinator encryption is a pain in the ass to use, because you can NOT use a standard KVL to load a key. You have to use the same fill device that most of the "green" gear uses.

It's also OLD.

Every single (military) Motorola radio that I've ever had my hands on (that is actually CAPABLE of encryption) had a module in it. Most were DES-XL or plain DES.

Yes DES and DES-XL suck at coverage/audio,

BUT

Digital audio is the same whether encryption is used or not. There is also no coverage loss when in digital mode as compared to regular digital without encryption. You also don't need a CCI device to load a DES/DES-XL key into a radio. If the military is already paying for the hardware (see above statement), then why not use it?

Sure it sucks for the scanner community, but what can you do?

 

[rescue161]

Grem467 beat me to it!

 

[INDY72]

Not to mention that you forgot to mention-
AES

So you have the old dog- DES
Old dog with a new collar- DES-XL
Old dog with some cool chains- DES-XL-OFB
New dog- AES
Retiring dog- Fascinator