Frequency Management--The Dilemma For Modern Communications CSC 1984 SUBJECT AREA C4 FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT--THE DILEMMA FOR MODERN COMMUNICATIONS The Writing Program Command and Staff College Major Dennis G. Courtnage United States Marine Corps April 4, 1984 FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT--THE DILEMMA FOR MODERN COMMUNICATIONS Outline Thesis sentence: The dilemma facing modern communica- tions is the management of the frequency spectrum. I. Introduction A. Challenge of Modern Requirements B. Management System C. USMC Management Structure II. Management Tools A. Standardization B. Spectrum Analysis C. CEOI III. The Future A. New C-E Systems B. Combined and Joint Operations C. Solutions FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT--THE DILEMMA FOR MODERN COMMUNICATIONS The modern battlefield is dramatically different from the battlefield of 40 years ago. Technology has rapidly changed the means and methods of conducting war. Advancements in weaponry, electronics, and transportation have not only increased the size of the battlefield and made it more accessible, but they have also made it a more complex environment in which to fight. More than any other combat area, command, control, and communications (C3) has gone through the most dramatic evolution. Solid state circuitry, minia- turization of electronic components, and computer technology have moved C3 into the space age. Today's "electronic battlefield" offers challenges that our modern military finds increasingly difficult to meet. The one requirement that electronic equipments normally have in common is that they have to be "linked" to like devices or systems to function. Whether it's tactical radios, radars, sensors, computer processors, or target acquisition systems, all component devices require a means of linking themselves. It is no surprise that the most popular medium for this "communi- cations" requirement is space itself. Space already exists. Space does not have to be made, moved, or replaced. It is always there. The electronic means of travel through space is the radio wave. A particular number of radio waves measured over a particular period of time is known as radio frequency. The radio fre- quency spectrum has become today's most popular means of communications because it is the simplest to access. However, there is one major shortcoming. The number of radio frequencies that can be passed through space is finite. The problem is further complicated by the fact that electronic devices being produced for the modern battlefield each emit signals that have varying characteristics which affect the radio spectrum differently. These "emission characteristics" include emitter power, signal width (bandwidth), modulation (AM--Amplitude or FM--Frequency), and how the intelligence is superimposed on the radio wave (Analog/Voice or Digital/Data). These emission characteristics have a direct effect on how far the signal may travel, how much of the radio spectrum it will take up, and where in the spectrum the signal must travel. It appears that the electronic battlefield is here to stay. Technology cannot win the next war by itself, but neither can our forces achieve victory without efficient command, control, and communications. The dilemma facing modern communications is the manage- ment of the frequency spectrum. The United States Marine Corps has not allowed itself to be excluded from the quest for modern elec- tronics on the battlefield. During the last three years, Marines have fielded numerous updated tactical communications equipment. They are but the tip of the iceberg. During the next five years, massive amounts of new electronics equipment will be fielded by Marines. The requirements to use the radio frequency spectrum by the Corps are increasing, as they are in other services, government agencies, and the civilian sector. Now, more than any time before, the Marine Corps will have to pay some attention to what it has long taken for granted, radio frequencies. Frequency managers and users must come to grips with the fact that there may not be enough frequencies to go around. Are there solutions or alternatives? A yes or no answer is probably not correct in every case. In order to solve the frequency problem, the frequency manager must know the allocation system. The hierarchy of the frequency management system has been around for awhile, but it is doubtful that many Marines and frequency managers know much about the system. To understand the hierarchy of the frequency manage- ment system requires the study of U. S. government agencies in their most typical bureaucratic form. The wire diagram in Figure 1 may be helpful in following the flow of management levels. It all started in 1934 with the National Telecommunications Act. This act estab- lished the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) (See Appendix 1 on last page for definition of acronyms and abbreviations to manage frequency usage by government agencies; and it also established the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to be responsible for frequency usage by non-government agencies. This was not the total responsibility for each agency, but it soon blossomed into large responsi- bilities for each. This is the only level of frequency management that appears to be simple. The Inter- dependent Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) was estab- lished to assist NTIA in the management of the govern- ment use of the frequency spectrum. IRAC membership is composed of numerous government departments and agen- cies, including the U. S. Navy. One of four standing subcommittees of IRAC is the Frequency Assignment Subcommittee (FAS). This subcommittee is responsible for approving government stations to NTIA. A subcom- mittee to FAS is the Military Assignment Group (MAG), which is chaired by the U. S. Air Force. MAG approves assignments in the Very High Frequency (VHF) and the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) bands.1 These two bands Click here to view image contain frequencies for the majority of USMC tactical communications equipment. The management level now for the first time reaches the Department of Defense (DOD), although, as noted, military membership is maintained at levels above DOD. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for C3 and Intelligence (ASD[C3]) is responsible for overall management and use of the radio frequency spectrum in DOD.2 The responsibility then filters down through JCS to the Military Communications-Electronics Board (MCEB). It is at this level that the Marine Corps first gets any significant membership into the manage- ment system. A permanent member of this board is the Director, Telecommunications Branch of C4 Division at Headquarters, Marine Corps. The MCEB is the primary agency for the coordination of military communications- electronics (C-E) matters among DOD components, DOD and other government agencies, and between DOD and foreign nation representatives. MCEB is chaired by the Director, Defense Communications Agency (DCA). The MCEB is made up of numerous panels, all of which play some role in spectrum management. The Joint Frequency Panel (JFP) of the MCEB is the principal coordinating agency on spectrum management. It allots and assigns frequen- cies within DOD. All military services seat a member on this panel. This assignment policy in actuality is differentiated even more within the Department of the Navy (DON), which is the next level down in the management flow. Responsibilities further filter down through the Director, Naval Communications Division and the Commander, Naval Telecommunications Command (COMNAVTELCOM) to the work horse of spectrum management within DON, the Naval Electromagnetic Spectrum Center (NAVEMSCEN). The Director, NAVEMSCEN assigns all radio frequencies for use by USN and USMC activities within the United States and Its Possessions (USIP).3 Fre- quency assignments outside of USIP for USN and USMC activities, to include fleet and air assignments, are made by the JFP. NAVEMSCEN is a member of JFP and often coordinates these requests from fleet, area, and joint commanders. Specified and unified commands can make their own assignments outside of the USIP, but normally must coordinate usage with foreign nation representa- tives of the country(s) they operate in. Requirements for frequency assignments for USN and USMC elements operating temporarily within a foreign country or its waters should be coordinated through NAVEMSCEN and JFP, who in turn coordinate with the host nation(s) and the area USCINC. This is one area of management that USMC elements (i.e., MAU, MAB, and MAF) have often been negligent in when deploying to foreign countries for joint exercises. Communication planners at these levels routinely go directly to the host nation's militay exer- cise director and request the required frequencies for USMC elements during the exercise. This method has managed to work for short term exercises, but it has left the JFP, the area CINC, and the assigned foreign nation representative/agency out of the planning and coordinating process. When deploying to a real contin- gency within a CINC's area of responsibility in a foreign country, the direct request method to a host nation exercise planner will probably not exist. Commu- nication-Electronics Officers (CEO) and frequency managers on Marine Corps Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) staffs need to understand this area of management and be prepared to plan as far in advance as possible to coor- dinate requirements for frequencies. Frequency management research requires analysis of international agencies. The International Telecommuni- cations Union (ITU) was organized to decide what organi- zations would be allowed to use portions of the frequency spectrum world-wide.4 The ITU has 159 member countries and is recognized by the United Nations as the agency for establishing international ground rules for spectrum use. Within the ITU is the International Frequency Registration Board. It is made up of 5 member countries elected every 5 years. This board records assignments by countries and furnishes advice on how to use the spectrum. Member countries must recognize the Table of Frequency Allocation produced by ITU. Addi- tionally, an International Register of Frequency Assign- ments is produced and recognized by member nations.5 In NATO, the Allied Radio Frequency Agency (ARFA) is responsible for C-E plans, policies, and engineering. The U. S. representative to ARFA is located at USCINCEUR headquarters. In SEATO or any equivalent organization, no equivalent to ARFA exists. U. S. spectrum planning with any of these organizations, as noted earlier, should be coordinated with the cognizant U. S. author- ity. Within NATO, for any assigned frequencies to be recognized and protected they must be on the Master Radio Frequency List (MRFL), which is coordinated by ARFA. NAVEMSCEN, as a member of the JFP, can coordinate requirements for USN and USMC elements planning to oper- ate in NATO. This coordination is made directly with USCINCEUR and AFRA. A recent example of this coordina- tion ability was when NAVEMSCEN coordinated the Second Marine Aircraft Wing's air-to-air transit frequencies for both a northern and a southern fly-over route to Norway for its participation in a 4th MAB cold weather exercise. Some of the countries included in the coordination effort were Canada, Portugal, and Norway.6 When U.S. forces plan operations in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, or Canada, coordination is made through the Combined Communications-Electronics Board (CCEB), of which all of these countries (including the U. S.) are members. Again, NAVEMSCEN coordinates Navy and Marine requirements with CCEB.7 The next level down in the spectrum management flow are the Navy Area Frequency Coordinators (AFC's). These AFC's are where the Marine Corps frequency managers interface into the management system. To simplify the understanding of the AFC's mission, management para- meters must be confined to CONUS and afloat commands only. There are three main Navy AFC's. The Joint Fre- quency Management Office, Atlantic (JFMO LANT) located in Norfolk, Virginia, supports both USCINCLANT and CINCLANTFLT. Its area of responsibility is all of the U. S. land mass east of the Mississippi River and afloat commands in the Atlantic theatre under CINCLANTFLT. The Naval Frequency Coordinator, Western U. S. located in Port Magu, California, coordinates all frequencies for USCINCPAC for all of the U. S. land mass west of the Mississippi River, to include Alaska. The Joint Fre- quency Management Office, Pacific (JFMO PAC), located in Hawaii, supports afloat commands under CINCPACLFT in the Pacific theatre. JFMO PAC also coordinates under both major Pacific commanders that are located in Japan, Okinawa, and the Philippines. All of the AFC's receive their frequencies for use within CONUS from NAVEMSCEN.* Frequencies assigned to the JFMO's for use outside of CONUS are obtained from JFP. *The exception to this rule are frequencies in outer space, to include satellite frequencies. These frequencies are coordinated through IRAC. It is also important to mention that the two Naval Com- munication Area Master Stations (NAVCAMS) for CINCLANT- FLT and CINCPACFLT coordinate ship-to-shore and shore- to-shore broadcast terminations (Examples are Fleet Broadcast circuits and DCS entry terminations).** The JFP receives its frequencies from NTIA and foreign nations. NAVEMSCEN receives all of its frequencies from NTIA. The Marine Corps has billets for its frequency mana- gers at FMFPAC and FMFLANT, at the MAF level, at the division/wing/FSSG level, and at major Marine Corps installations. MAB's and MAU's don't have billets for frequency managers. Within these commands, frequency management comes under the cognizance of the CEO or communications officer. In commands that rate frequency managers, that billet falls under the CEO. Marine frequency managers are assigned a formal MOS, 2581. To receive this MOS, a Marine must graduate from the Air Force Interservice Frequency Management Course located at Keisler Air Force Base in Biloxi, Mississippi. There are three classes conducted each year. The Navy/USMC are normally allotted six quotas per class, which historically are never completely filled.8 These school assignments are controlled through the C4 Division, **NAVCAMSLANT is located in Norfolk, Virginia and NAVCAMSPAC is located in Honolulu, Hawaii. Telecommunications Branch and the Manpower Division at Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) for all Marine person- nel. Normally, only E-6/7's are assigned to the school. This author's experience has also shown that requests by FMF commands for school quotas are rarely denied by HQMC. The CEO and frequency manager receive all of their CONUS frequencies (permanent or temporary) from the responsible AFC. As mentioned before, frequencies required for use outside of CONUS should be coordinated through the senior fleet command to NAVEMSCEN. The business of actually managing the world's fre- quency spectrum, as one can readily imagine, is very complex. A means had to be developed to standardize terminology and assignment policy. The ITU pioneered the first international standards. The NTIA and FCC regulate the standards in the U. S. A detailed review of national standards is beyond the scope of this paper. The Manual of Regulations and Procedures for Federal Frequency Management, published by NTIA, lists frequency bands that are authorized for specific use by government agencies. Various government and military publications list standard emission designations and codes for the multitude of different communiction emitters. These emission designators are a tremendous management tool in limiting spectrum use. All Marine Corps electronic equipments that emit a radio signal are coded with an emission designator. A good example of how emission standards can limit frequency use is simply the power of the emitter. If a frequency is assigned to a command, chances are there is a limitation imposed as to how much power may be used to transmit on it. This may allow another user adjacent to this command to use the same frequency with an identical power restriction. The power restriction would prevent either signal on that frequency from traveling into each other's area and interfering. This emission restriction allows dual use of a frequency and helps to maximize the use of the radio spectrum. A management tool that Marine Corps frequency mana- gers can use is spectrum analysis. Electronic equip- ment is designed to operate within a particular band of the radio spectrum. Many factors contribute to fre- quency range design, but for Marine Corps tactical radio equipment the biggest determining factor is the distance the radio signal must travel. Radio power, antenna design, terrain, and atmospheric conditions all affect how far a radio signal will travel. Frequency managers must engineer the signal path to accurately determine what frequency(s) is necessary to make the transmission successful. These calculations are especially critical in the HF and UHF bands when skywave* signals are used. *Radio signal is bent or reflected off the ionosphere to extend signal distance. The frequency manager has numerous aids in performing spectrum analysis. The DOD agency specifically created to perform spectrum analysis is the Electromagnetic Compatibility Analysis Center (ECAC) located in Annapolis, Maryland. All DOD communication planners have access to this agency. ECAC can analyze any part of the radio spectrum all over the world. It is unfor- tunate that few Marine frequency planners take full advantage of this agency. Technology has also ushered in the means to automate spectrum management at the user level. ECAC produces a program designed for a Hewlett Packard hand-held calculator to engineer HF radio nets. A similar program exists for a Texas instrument calcu- lator. DON sponsors a computer terminal and program called "PROPHET" to locally engineer skywave communica- tions. The Marine Corps has recently purchased a new tactical spectrum analyzer called the TRQ-35 or Chirp- sounder. It actually transmits over frequencies in the HF band to distant station receivers to provide real- time frequency analysis. The significance of spectrum analysis to frequency management is that it prevents valuable frequency assets from being assigned to requirements where they will not work. Consequently, they are not used and are wasted. Frequencies necessary for FMF units to operate within their routine training environment are what the AFC's call tactical and operation (T and O) frequen- cies. This area of management has been facilitated by the introduction of the automated Communications-Elec- tronics Operations Instructions (CEOI). Training CEOI's are published for all FMF commands and the U. S. Army by NSA to enhance communications security (COMSEC) for military radio communications. The CEOI's contain the command's unit callsigns and assigned T and O frequen- cies (which are programmed to change every 24 hours), and also contain special communication coordinating and operating instructions. Training CEOI's are published in 10 day increments and shipped by NSA in 60 day pack- ages. To create changes in a CEOI takes an average of 90 to 120 days. NSA requires a 7 to 9 month lead time to create a new CEOI. The frequencies that are placed in the CEOI must come to NSA from the command's frequency manager. NSA also produces a program tape that can be run on local computers to generate a command's own CEOI. This capability is especially help- ful to the frequency manager when an exercise is being conducted in an area outside of the approved geographi- cal area for assigned T and O frequencies. A new set of frequencies must be requested and assigned to the CEOI for that particular exercise. The NSA published CEOI takes into account COSITE interference problems when assigning VHF frequencies to units. The locally gener- ated program produces a COSITE Exception Report to iden- tify interference problems for the frequency manager prior to the exercise starting. The Army's publication, TC 24-1, contains specific data on CEOI's.9 NSA is currently developing CEOI's to meet specific wartime contingency plans. It is also developing CEOI's for the U. S. Coast Guard and reviewing designs for potential Allied Ground Force CEOI's in NATO.10 Future demands by the Marine Corps on the frequency spectrum are going to be exorbitant. MCDEC's Landing Force Integrated Communication System (LFICS) design for future C3 is mind boggling. Acronyms and terms for new equipments, like PLRS, MIFASS, MAGIS, TCO, ULCS, Fre- quency Hoppers, and SATCOM "Hubbers," may become every- day language for future Marines, but frequency managers may file them away under "too hard." Current demands have already outstripped assets. The squad level radio, the new reorganized infantry battalion weapons systems, and the introduction of TOW platoons into infantry regimental headquarters have produced new frequency requirements not yet resolved. At JFMO LANT, the problems surfacing with FMFLANT commands may not have solutions. There are no more permanent VHF frequencies available for assignment to Marine commands at Camp Lejeune. Part of the problem is that Marine VHF radios tune only in 50 khz channels and of the 920 channels available in the 30 to 75 mhz VHF radio band only 113 are available for military use. In fact, JFMO LANT routinely borrows frequencies from the local FCC repre- sentative to meet exercise requirements.11 Possibly the most frightening development on the horizon for Marine frequency managers is ITT's SINCGARS* "frequency hopping" radio. It is programmed to replace the Corps' reliable old AN/PRC-77 and the VRC-12 family of VHF radios. SINCGARS is designed to operate on a single frequency or "frequency hop" (the radio moves over numerous programmed frequencies at high speed) to defeat enemy jamming. The radio has an increased frequency range and 25 khz tuning to provide 2320 total chan- nels.12 But when one ponders that a single radio net may have a "hopset" of 150 frequencies, the increase in channels seems to have little bearing. The unanswered question about SINCGARS is whether frequencies used in a "hopset" will be interfered with or whether the hopping will be transparent to those frequencies. If interfer- ence is caused, then SINCGARS may have to be assigned smaller and specific bands of frequencies to hop on vice using the entire VHF spectrum of radio. The Army's Organizational Test and Evaluation Agency (OTEA) is currently testing SINCGARS on this problem. If the test proves negative, SINCGARS will become a nightmare for *Single Channel Ground/Airborne Radio Subsystem. frequency managers. A test conducted on SINCGARS by the Naval Ocean Systems Center at Camp Pendleton in 1983 showed COSITE interference to be a problem.13 ECAC has contracted the IIT Research Institute to produce a field generated management system for SINCGARS for the U. S. Army. IITRI responded by producing a hand-held computer (HHC) with a program called BASIS (Battlefield Automated SINCGARS Information System) to manage frequency hop- sets. ECAC currently has a HHC system called ACES (Automated CEOI Elements System) used to produce a CEOI on the battlefield.14 The Marine Corps has shown some interest in ACES and BASIS. NSA has not approved either system and one can only guess if any of the services will acquire the systems. Combined and joint operations continue to be a major dilemma for frequency managers. Putting any two or more fighting forces together with dissimilar organization and training, and without proper frequency planning, will insure C3 failures. NSA's move to produce CEOI's for U. S. contingency plans is a step in the right direction. But what about contingencies without an existing plan, such as the recent operation in Grenada? If time permits, prior coordination of C-E plans is essential to good C3. If time is short, the simple exchanging of CEOI's or C-E plans between forces can greatly reduce C3 problems. Commanders in joint and combined operations cannot afford to ignore frequency management and assume things will work themselves out. C3 is a command responsibility, not the CEO's. The agencies listed in this paper provide the commander with the proper channels for coordinating frequencies anywhere in the world. Not utilizing these channels defeats a system ready to help. The frequency management system was put in place to provide continued control over the radio spectrum. Solutions to problems will not come easy. NAVEMSCEN uses the Government Master File of Frequencies (main- tained by IRAC) to plan its frequency allocations. It meets each month with the Frequency Assignment Subcom- mittee of IRAC to review both new frequency requests and renewal of existing assignments. All permanently assigned frequencies have to be reviewed every five years, including those assigned to Marines from the AFC's.15 JCS tasked ECAC to develop and maintain a Fre- quency Resource Record System (FRRS) to allow all DOD frequency managers the opportunity to coordinate fre- quency related information. FRRS stores all military assigned frequencies and associated management data, provides easy user access, provides propagation and interference predictions, and is computerized to reduce time-consuming research.16 NAVEMSCEN also uses a variety of computers to assist in its day-to-day alloca- tion and assignment functions. This naval system also provides a reliable back-up to the FRRS.17 JFMO LANT in Norfolk uses a WANG 2200 system to manage its fre- quency data. JFMO updates its data base each month with the FRRS. Despite these elaborate computer systems, the challenges are great. The frequency spectrum is being crowded in all levels. The UHF spectrum of 225-400 mhz has normally not been a problem for Marines, until now. The introduction of new communication satellites in space by numerous countries has saturated this particu- lar band. TACAN frequency ranges (960-1215 mhz), used by the USN and USMC to guide its aircraft, has almost bottomed out with the increase of commercial use (particularly commercial T.V.) of the band.18 This paper has made the complete circle and returned to the original problem; there simply may not be enough frequencies to go around. The military services may have to decide to go on a C3 diet. The answer may be to reduce tactical communications on the battlefield instead of increasing them. Reduction of doctrinal radio nets, utilization of data links, and integration of circuits are all methods that future Marine communi- cation planners must consider. Frequency managers must stay in tune with the new technology. Time sharing, geographical assignment, automated planning, and system coordination are their tools for creating success. One theme that continued to surface during the research for this paper was the need for advanced planning. Marine commanders must stop ignoring C3 and improve their chances of success by getting their frequency planners involved early in the planning cycle. NOTES 1Interservice Radio Frequency Management School, U.S.A.F., Guide to Spectrum Regulation and Management, Lesson Plan 7801-701 (Kiesler, AFB), pp.6. 2JCS, Guide to Frequency Planning, ACP 190, U. S. SUPP-1(B) (Washington, D.C.), pp. 2-1. 3CNO; Department of the Navy; Management and Use of the Radio Frequency Spectrum Within the Department of the Navy (DON, OPNAV INSTRUCTION 2400.20D (Washington; D.C., Jan 1983), pp. 6. 4COS, MCDEC, U.S.M.C., Frequency Management, COS- 0745-B (Quantico; Virginia, 1980), pp. 2. 5Interservice Radio Frequency Management School, U.S.A.F., International Spectrum Management, Lesson Plan 7801-701 (Kiesler, AFB), pp. 5. 6Don Zimmer, Head; Below 30 MHZ Assignment Branch, NAVEMSCEN, personal interview about frequency management, Washington, D.C., March 5, 1984. 7COMNAVTELCOM, USN, Spectrum Management Manual, NTP 6(A) w/Ch. 1 (Washington; D.C., Oct 1982), pp. 2-12. 8Ray Davis, CONUS Frequency Manager/Joint Exercise Coordinator, JFMO LANT, personal interview about frequency management, Norfolk, Virginia, February 15, 1984. 9U.S. Army,Communications-Electronis Operation Instructions, "The CEOI," TC 24-1 (Washington, D.C., 1982). 10Art Wright, Field CEOI Representative, National Security Agency, personal interview about CEOI's, Quantico, Virginia, February 24, 1984. 11Ray Davis, CONUS Frequency Manager/Joint Exercise Coordinator, JFMO LANT, personal interview about frequency management, Norfolk, Virginia, February 15, 1984. 12SINCGARS Project Manager, U.S. Army, Acquisition Plan for Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, Nov 9, 1982), pp. 1. 13Kershaw, J. E., Naval Ocean Systems Center, Inter- ference Between Colocated VHF (30-88 MHZ) Frequency Hopping and VHF-FM (30-76 MHZ) Tactical Radios in a "Command Post" Configuration (San Diego, California, September 7, 1983). 14Brooks E. Remencus, Research Communications Analyst, IITRI; personal inteview about frequency man- agement for SINCGARS, Annapolis, Maryland, February 3, 1984. 15Don Zimmer, Head, Below 30 MHZ Assignment Branch, NAVEMSCEN, personal interview about frequency manage- ment, Washington, D.C., March 5, 1984. 16COMNAVTELCOM, USN, Spectrum Management Manual, NTP 6(A) w/Ch. 1 (Washington, D.C., Oct 1982), pp. F-1/2. 17Ibid., pp. F-1. 18Joe Josephson, Head, Over 30 MHZ Assignment Branch, NAVEMSCEN, personal interview about frequency manage- ment, Washington, D.C., March 5, 1984. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Commander, Naval Telecommunications Command. Spec- trum Management Manual, NTP-6(A) w/Ch. 1. Washington, D.C., October 1982. 2. Davis, Ray. CONUS Frequency Manager, JFMO LANT, U. S. Navy, Norfolk, Virginia. Personal interview about frequency management. Norfolk, February 15, 1984. 3. Joint Chiefs of Staff. Guide to Frequency Planning, ACP 190, U.S. SUPP-1(B). Washington, D.C. October 1977. 4. Josephseon, Joe. Head, Over 30 MHZ Assignment Branch, NAVEMSCEN, Washington, D.C. Personal interview about frequency management. Washington, D.C., March 5, 1984. 5. Kershaw, J. E. Interference Between Colocated VHF (30-76 MHZ) Frequency Hopping and VHF-FM (30-76 MHZ) Tactical Radios in a "Command Post" Configur- ation. San Diego, Naval Ocean Systems Center, September 7, 1983. 6. Military Communications-Electronics Board. Joint Spectrum Management Policies and Procedures, Memo USMCEB-M-January 11, 1983. 7. Remencus, Brooks E. Research Communications Analyst, IIT Research Institute, Annapolis, Maryland. Personal interview about frequency management for SINCGARS. Annapolis, February 30, 1984. 8. U. S. Air Force. Interservice Radio Frequency Man- agement School. Guide to Spectrum Regulation and Management, Lesson Plan 7807-705. Kiesler AFB, Biloxi, Mississippi. 9. U. S. Air Force. Interservice Radio Frequency Man- agement School. International Spectrum Manage- ment, Lesson Plan 7801-701. Kiesler AFB, Biloxi, Mississippi. 10. U. S. Army. SINCGARS Project Manager. Acquisition Plan for Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System. Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, November 9, 1982. 11. U. S. Army. Communications-Electronics Operations Instructions "The CEOI," TC 24-1. Washington, D.C., May 28, 1982. 12. U. S. Marine Corps. MCDEC. Communication Officers School. Frequency Management, Lesson Plan COS- 0745-B. Quantico, Virginia, 1980. 13. U. S. Navy. USCINCLANT. Joint Frequency Management and Spectrum Engineering Office (JFMO), Atlantic Charter. Norfolk, April 15, 1981. 14. U. S. Navy. Management and Use of the Radio Fre- quency Spectrum Within the Department of the Navy DON, OPNAV INSTR 2400.20D. Washington, D.C., November 4, 1982. 15. Wright, Art. CEOI Representative, NSA, Fort Meade, Maryland. Personal interview about CEOI's and frequency assignments. Quantico, Virginia, February 24, 1984. 16. Zimmer, Don. Head, Below 30 MHZ Assignment Branch, NAVEMSCEN, Washington, D.C. Personal interview about frequency management. Washington, D.C., March 5, 1984. APPENDIX Acronyms and Abbreviations ACES - Automated CEOI Elements System AFC - Area Frequency Coordinator ARFA - Allied Radio Frequency Agency BASIS - Battlefield Automated SINCGARS Information System CCEB - Combined Communications-Electronics Board CEO - Communication-Electronics Officer CEOI - Communication-Electronics Operations Instruction CINC - Commander in Chief CONUS - Continental United States COMSEC - Communications Security DCA - Defense Communication Agency DCS - Defenses Communication System ECAC - Electromagnetic Compatibility Analysis Center FAS - Frequency Assignment Subcommittee FCC - Federal Communications Commission FRRS - Frequency Resource Record System HHC - Hand-Held Computer IRAC - Interdependent Radio Advisory Committee ITT - International Telephone and Telegraph ITU - International Telecommunications Union JFMO - Joint Frequency Management Office JFP - Joint Frequency Panel LFICS - Landing Force Integrated Communications System MAG - Military Assignment Group MAGIS - Marine Air-Ground Intelligence System MCEB - Military Communications-Electronics Board MIFASS - Marine Integrated Fire and Air Support System MRFL - Master Radio Frequency List NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization NAVCAMS - Naval Communication Area Master Station NSA - National Security Agency NTIA - National Telecommunications and Information Administration OTEA - Organizational Test and Evaluation Agency PLRS - Position Location Reporting System SATCOM - Satellite Communications SEATO - Southeast Asia Treaty Organization SINCGARS - Single Channel Ground/Airborne Radio Subsystem TACAN - Tactical Air Navigation (System) TCO - Tactical Combat Operations (System) ULCS - Unit Level Circuit Switch USIP - United States and Its Possessions
