[FedCom] Plattsburg ICE

[john wilson]

    Let me see if I understand the logic.  One stares at a spectrum
analzyer trace input from a modified Wavecom/MMDS downconverter signal
source looking for a military aircraft radar signature.  When a radar
signature is seen, he then tunes or scans 225-400 mhz. for an aircraft
voice transmission.  Would  not common sense dictate it would be more
practical to buy one or more 1,000 channel scanners and scan those
frequency segments excluding FLTSATCOM ranges, encrypted downlinks, ILA
frequencies, etc.?  I have a spectrum analzyer and having the choice of
staring at a trace waiting for an aircraft to fly within range or
activating a scanner, I'll choose the scanner option everytime.  I can
scan all 7,000 225-400 mhz. frequencies simultaneously.  My experience
has shown only a relatively small number of voice frequencies are used
compared to the total available.  It is not necessary to have 7 1,000
channel scanners.  One scanner will suffice quite well.  One major
monitoring annoyance I thankly infrequently experience is when a form a
spread spectrum is used and the audio is sliced so only a portion of a
word is briefly present on one frequency.

    Not me, but like I said to each his own.  Good luck.


Tom KB1LKV wrote:

> The big thing around here (Northwestern Connecticut/Southern
> Berkshires) in the ~2 GHz. region are 802.11b (and now 802.11g)
> Wireless LANS. One of the local DSL providers offers it as standard
> equipment to their customers. Coming in second are the Wavecom video
> transmitters that everyone seems to have a use for these days.
>
> Anyway, the rationale behind being able to detect the radar signal
> besides soley as an intellectual exercise is that it would indicate
> the possibility of other (voice) radio traffic of interest. I knew a
> few hobbyists who did this with the DME/TACAN channels usually
> reserved for air-to-air refuelling.
>
> -Tom KB1LKV