The Largest Security-Cleared Career Network for Defense and Intelligence Jobs - JOIN NOW


Frequency Management--The
Dilemma For Modern Communications
CSC 1984
                      MODERN COMMUNICATIONS
                       The Writing Program
                    Command and Staff College
                      Major Dennis G. Courtnage
                     United States Marine Corps
                       April 4, 1984
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
    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
    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.
    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,
    9U.S. Army,Communications-Electronis Operation
Instructions, "The CEOI," TC 24-1 (Washington, D.C.,
   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,
   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,
    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.
    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.
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,
3.  Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Guide to Frequency Planning,
      ACP 190, U.S. SUPP-1(B).  Washington, D.C. October
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,
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,
10. U. S. Army.  SINCGARS Project Manager.  Acquisition
      Plan for Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio
      System.  Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, November 9,
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.
		Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACES - Automated CEOI Elements System
AFC - Area Frequency Coordinator
ARFA - Allied Radio Frequency Agency
BASIS - Battlefield Automated SINCGARS Information
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
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
TACAN - Tactical Air Navigation (System)
TCO - Tactical Combat Operations (System)
ULCS - Unit Level Circuit Switch
USIP - United States and Its Possessions

Join the mailing list

One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger - by Matthew Yglesias