What equipment is required to hear G. Lake security chatter?

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by boomer135

 

I think today the Groom Lake border is most famous for Geocaches. I am partially to blame since I put up some of the oldest caches in the area. The motels certainly appreciate the business.

I had to look up that term. You guys actually do that at groom? That's freaking awesome. Anything on your website about it?

At your link, ufomind.com, look at issue number 6:

Issue #6. April 6, 1994 (23K)

Cammo Dudes Raise The Ante (Film Seized from New York Times), How To Trap A Dude, Intel Bitties

So the term Cammo Dudes was at least around in 1994.

www.ufomind.com...

Whoa double post

reply to post by boomer135


The "hey check out..." you mentioned would be understood to be camo-dudes? Incorrect. As in the example I presented. Was it clear enough? Because it was from a Security Force, Police and Fire unit....in a regional locale. And not camo-dudes...(at least not that day).

So...you still wouldnt necessarily know if it was Security, Border patrol, HS...you just would not know for sure without some exact frequencies.

A good scanner I believe that scans and stops in searching....would be a cool thing to have. You never know what you'd randomly pick up!

Thanks

People gave them to these Groom Lake security guards the nickname of Camo Dudes, by the type of camouflage military clothing that they carrying like endowment uniform.

reply to post by mysterioustranger


If we were talking about Groom Lake, yes it would be understood to be the so called Camo Dudes. Groom Lake is the only place that I've ever heard them called that, and every time I hear the term, that's the first place and only place that I think of. Everywhere else they have a different name.

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
reply to post by boomer135

 

The "hey check out..." you mentioned would be understood to be camo-dudes? Incorrect. As in the example I presented. Was it clear enough? Because it was from a Security Force, Police and Fire unit....in a regional locale. And not camo-dudes...(at least not that day).

So...you still wouldnt necessarily know if it was Security, Border patrol, HS...you just would not know for sure without some exact frequencies.

A good scanner I believe that scans and stops in searching....would be a cool thing to have. You never know what you'd randomly pick up!

Thanks

Correct. I'll submit to that. It could be something else. But other than groom lake camo dudes, who else would be talking about checkpoint 3 out there? It was just a laymen's example to show a point. Don't take it too seriously.

reply to post by boomer135


When people are on completely secure comms, their protocol changes. They believe they can't be heard, so the jive becomes jive, so to speak. I was monitoring the FBI once when they had their crypto off. I caught one or two F-bombs over the air. You can't believe how the Ca. BNE talks. If you monitor the highway patrol, they talk differently on "talkaround" versus repeater.

When MDTs (mobile data terminals) first hit the scene, the chatter was pretty raunchy. Early MDTs were easy to monitor. When they had better cryto, the raunch returned. However MDT traffic started to be subpenaed and thus they returned to a mindset where the comms were not secure.

The camo dudes have code words for physical locations. They can be found on the UFOmind website in the security manual. Even the Janets use a bit of code. For instance a Janet 737 is a "large cargo" and the Beechcraft are "small cargo".

I doubt you could ever FOIA a camo dude recording from their secure system, so the dudes probably behave as if they don't need no stinkin' badges. After all, they don't need no slinkin' license plates.

reply to post by boomer135


I planted "Elvis Can't Drive" and "Golden Arrow." Elvis can't drive was the site of an abandoned car that ran off the road along Hancock Summit. I put some photos of the shot up car on my website as well as planting the cache. For some unknown reason, somebody stole the shot up car, but they left the hood. So now the cache sits under the hood. A kangaroo mouse lives under the hood too.

Golden Arrow is the site of an old mine. Because of the distance involved, I put decent stuff in that cache. I have placed a number of copies of Ben Rich's "Skunkworks" and other aviation books. Also some of Trevor Paglen's Groom Lake related books.

When geocaching first started, I found it somewhat amusing. To go back to the history of geocachine, at least the modern history, it had to do with Clinton/Gore deciding to turn off the SA (selective availability) in the GPS system. So now your 10 meter at best GPS was good to maybe 3 meters. Later came WAAS, bringing that error down to around a meter. With SA off, you could hide something with the expectation that somebody else could find it due to the enhance GPS accuracy. So I planted a few caches. Unfortunately, Geocaching has turned into this contest to find the most caches, rather than an excuse to explore some remote location. You can see car driving along side the ET Highway with the passenger hopping out to get the cache, sign it, then hop back in. Instead of savoring a fine wine, they are guzzling a wine cooler.

You can find the geocaches here:
www.geocaching.com...

The Nevada Highway Patrol ripped out a lot of the caches. They didn't want vehicles stopping by the shoulder of the road and creating a hazard. In most of rural Nevada, the shoulder is very soft and curved.Cars can actually get stuck on the shoulder. I suspect the only reason Elvis Can't Drive survived is there is a parking spot by the road near the cache.

There is a post somewhere in the Elvis Can't Drive log where someone was heading down to the cache and found a vehicle that drove off the road with the occupant injured but alive. Pretty cool. Hancock summit is very twisty and if you are not on your game, you can run off the road. In the case of this vehicle, I think it was reported that the driver said he was blown off the road.

If you look up the Golden Arrow geocache, one of the posters did a video of the "find". They even lowered their video camera using some "caution" tape that somebody left in the cache. I would like to state for the record that you should really avoid mine shafts as a rule, and I don't condone such behavior. Of course I got a chuckle out of the video.

reply to post by gariac


Now thats pretty damn cool. I've never heard of that before. I think it would be fun to do.

In regards to secure comms, we actually had the opposite affect. We used secure voice on a channel like 311.0 to speak with command post secretly, whatever the reason. Probably because of being in the military and that whole "keep your bearing" idea, we used the same lingo as if it was over the air non-securely. But I'm willing to bet that the camo dudes probably talk pretty open out there, with a little bit of professionalism when something comes up that needs their attention.

reply to post by boomer135

Thanks boomer...I wasnt taking it too seriously...just pointing out...that the term "the camo dudes" would yeild a variety of agencies...one would have to be more specific than that....

Anyone out there who knows which ones...let us all know! It would be an interesting evening listening in, Im sure!

reply to post by boomer135


I hate to break this to you, but 311.0 is not secret in any manner. It is just another frequency Typically this is "command post" at most bases.

I am reasonably sure there is no single frequency secure comm scheme in the mil air band. There are hopping schemes like Have Quick, but that isn't single frequency. [I'm willing to be proven wrong, but nothing single frequency is coming to mind.]

Now for some reason, command post doesn't go very far. I only hear it if I fence watch. Maybe it is low power.

reply to post by gariac


He didn't say it was secret. He said it was secure, so they could TALK secretly to command post, without people overhearing.

reply to post by Zaphod58

He didn't say it was secret. He said it was secure, so they could TALK secretly to command post, without people overhearing.

Substitute the word "secure" for "secrete" in my post. I stand by the statement.

Further, if you bother to do a google search, you will find "311.0 command post" gets about 17000 hits. It is a very common frequency at US air bases.

reply to post by gariac


I have heard that frequency encrypted at times though. Most of the time it's an open channel, but there are times when it's been encrypted for one reason or another. Usually not for very long though.

I have heard that frequency encrypted at times though. Most of the time it's an open channel, but there are times when it's been encrypted for one reason or another. Usually not for very long though.

reply to post by Zaphod58


It would help if you had a recording of the encryption in use. However, there are many good engineering related reasons why you wouldn't hear single channel encryption on 311.0. About the only encryption suitable for AM is frequency inversion. That is a scheme that doesn't need clock recovery, but it is terrible encryption. Otherwise, every single channel encryption I've seen uses a FM carrier. But unless you have some fancy radio or programmed in 311.0 in both AM and NFM, you wouldn't have demodulated the FM signal for a channel programmed as AM.

I spent about 15 minutes searching the internet and haven't found any posts claiming to hear encryption on command post. or 311.0. Nor could I find a single frequency encryption scheme for AM. Basically you wouldn't bother using AM since it can be easily jammed and the SNR is inferior to FM. Digital encryption schemes need high SNR.

Aircraft use AM voice comms for the ability TO BE jammed. AM demod cannot discriminate between multiple sources. In an emergency, a plane in distress can be heard mixed with normal comms. FM, due to the capture ratio of the limiter, will lock onto the strongest signal.

reply to post by gariac


Like I said it was extremely rare. I think there was one time I know it was, and one time that I think it was encrypted, once at Pease, and once at Hickam. The time at Pease, I was in the Maintenance Operations Center with my father, and there was an alert drill going on. They tested encryption on the radio, during a radio check, and then went back to normal radio use, as it was just a drill.

The second time at Hickam was also during an exercise, and that time I'm not entirely sure whether it was encryption, or just a radio problem that we were having. It might have been people walking on each other, or a temporary radio issue, I don't know for sure then.

reply to post by Zaphod58


The first event sounds more like land mobile radio, not 311.0 command post. I'm not sure about the second. I have no doubts about switching encryption on and off on land mobile radio.

Here's the deal with encryption. The encryption scheme is generally not a secret. In fact, you want it to be a published standard for at least two reasons. One, if it is published, then you can have multiple vendors for the gear. Two, if it is published, then it is possible for the academic types (Jasons, universities, etc) to determine the strength of the encryption.

You publish the encryption standard, in fact, make it s MIL-STD like DES, AES. You keep the encryption key a secret. With a secret key, you have secure comms. Keys are changed on a regular basis. [There is over the air keying, which to me always seemed like a bit of a security risk in itself, but I never studied that in detail.] The problem is you need the key to have successful encrypted comms, and it becomes a headache to manage.

That all said, it should be easy to find a mil air UHF radio with single channel encryption. [I have found radios that will operate on a single channel, but not encrypted, but do have encryption if hopping, i.e. multiple channels.] There should be multiple vendors and an associated MIL-STD, which I'm not finding. Of course, the encryption might not be published and the radio is a secret device, but still you have to put it on the plane. That would require a damn good Wilkenson to put them on the same antenna, or multiple antennas. Multiple antennas in the same band are always dicey due to mutual coupling between them. Inserting a splitter is generally a bad move since it lowers the reliability of the system. The second radio requires another microphone or a means of switching the audio source around, which can be done. [Depending on the plane, there is already a means to go from intercom to over the air.]

I just don't see single frequency secure comms on 311.0 to be likely. Have Quick, yeah sure, or any other published standard. It would be far simpler to just put in any number of FM radios with crypto on a military band not designated for air. Most frequency management schemes allow for low power aerial FM. Even complicated trunking systems. The power is kept low for channel reuse.

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by boomer135

 

I hate to break this to you, but 311.0 is not secret in any manner. It is just another frequency Typically this is "command post" at most bases.

I am reasonably sure there is no single frequency secure comm scheme in the mil air band. There are hopping schemes like Have Quick, but that isn't single frequency. [I'm willing to be proven wrong, but nothing single frequency is coming to mind.]

Now for some reason, command post doesn't go very far. I only hear it if I fence watch. Maybe it is low power.

I'm by no means a comm guy, but I'll try to explain what I'm talking about with secure voice. Maybe you know what I'm talking about and can explain it better to me. I've used this stuff for six years and never really knew how it worked! When we use secure voice, the boom operator loads it into the plane the same way that we load IFF Mode 4, using a KYK-13 shown here:



(website if pic doesn't work): www.cryptomuseum.com...

Towards the end of my flying career, we switched from the easy, "load mode 4 and secure voice in ten seconds", to the big, heavy, "load mode 4 and secure voice in ten minutes" device called an AN/CYZ-10 (website: en.wikipedia.org... Sorry for the wiki ref..). Secure voice is different that Have Quick. It doesn't hop around frequencies so there's no need to load twenty frequencies into the system.

Now it took some research, but I'm almost 99% right that we had this system:
AN/ARC-210
Manufacturer: Rockwell-Collins Number Produced: 10764 Watts: 1 to 22
Modes: UHF/VHF, SINCGARS, SATCOM, Have Quick I & II
Frequency Range: 4 Channel - VHF FM 30-87.975 MHz, VHF AM 108-156 MHz, VHF FM 156-174 MHz, UHF AM 225-399.975 MHz, Guard Receive: 121.5 & 243.0 MHz
Spacing: 5 kHz & 8.33 kHz (5 kHz tuning w/remote control 2.5 kHz via 1553)
Platforms: USN: F/A-18C/D/E/F, EA-6B, KC-130 F/R/T, C-9B, C-40A, AMCM Van, NAVICP, Vertical Takeoff UAV, AV-8B, CH-46E, AH-1W, C-2A, KC-130J, MH-60R/S, VP/EP/NP-3, UH-1N, C/MH-53 D/E, MV-22, E-6B, E-2C, P-3C, CVN, DDG, LPD, LCAC, MATCALS, Various Shore Stations. USAF: B-52H, B-1B, RC-135, E-4 B, E-8, U-2, C-135C, UCAV, YAL-1A Airborne Laser, C-17A, HH-60G, F/A-22, LC-130, C-5A/B, WC-130J, Predator UAV, Global Hawk UAV, KC-135, CV-22, C-40B (Various) ASC-15B, C-12D, UC-35A, Hunter UAV, C-29 FAA, P-3 Customs, MH-68 USCG

There's a lot more info on this site: www.dpdproductions.com... Go a little farther than half way down the page and you'll see it. But I want to post this paragraph:
Notes: The AN/ARC-210 Multimode Integrated Communications System provides 2-way multimode voice and data communications over the 30-400 MHz frequency range in either normal, secure or jam-resistant modes via line-of-sight (LOS) or satellite communications (SATCOM) links. The ARC-210 family of equipment is made up of several variants of the receiver-transmitter, each providing a specific combination of functionality to meet user platform requirements.

Note the LOC Secure. Could explain why command posts don't go very far...And I believe it's low power for command post too.
Here's a pic of our IACP radio panel:



Note the different modes: Comm's 1, 2, and 3. HF 1 and 2. SATCOM 1 and 2. When were using secure voice, we load 311.0 or whatever freq we need to talk secure into Comm 1. Then, the co-pilot has a panel next to his right knee that basically has a knob and a selector switch labeled clear/plain and green/secure. He flips the switch and viola! Were now talking in secure voice. Here's a little checklist I found in my pubs about doing a flight check comm test with the other planes in the flight:
Gassr XX flight check Comm 1
Gassr XX flight check Comm 2
Gassr XX flight check Comm. 3
Gassr XX flight check HF 6761
Gassr XX flight go 311.0 Comm 1
Gassr XX flight check Comm 1
Gassr flight, Mickey in 5 sec (send TOD per checklist)
Gassr flight go A00.1
Gassr flight check HAVE QUICK Comm 1
Gassr XX flight go 311.0 Comm 1
Gassr XX flight check Comm 1
Gassr XX go green/secure Comm 1
Gassr XX check secure Comm 1
Gassr XX go plain, Ch 11, Comm 1
Gassr XX flight check Comm 1

If your ever listening to a plane talking on a channel like 311 and they say "go green", the radio will sound like squelch when they talk. All you will hear instead of people talking is squelch. You can actually tell it's a conversation, but you won't be able to understand anything.

If any of this makes sense let me know, and if you know how it works let me know that too. I think that's all of it but if I left anything out, i'll add it later.

reply to post by boomer135


Your description of "secure" comm sounds exactly like frequency inversion. There are lots of chips on the market to do this. I found an example of one on youtube.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngOiY0rIzm8

Does this sound like your "secure" comms.

Frequency inversion might stop a kid in middle school today, but a sharp high school kid could decrypt it. The bad thing about frequency inversion is it give a false sense of security, so you might say something that you wouldn't normal say on an open channel.

As I said in my other post, frequency inversion would work fine on AM. However, the security is virtually non-existent since the PC era, and with a soldering iron and a few chips, I could roll together a decoder box with 70s technology. This is quite easy since the mixers and filters are all in the voice band, i.e. low frequency.

On this page, they put frequency inversion under the title voice scramblers:
www.cryptomuseum.com...

Here is a decoder chip:
www.cmlmicro.com.../Products/WTelecom/FX128.htm&searchvalue=atwr&setindex=1

I'll explain some of the other modes you listed later, depending on what documents I can dig up. I like that TOD thing. The guy on the radio always says "Give me a Mickey", which I assume is related to a Mickey Mouse watch.