Civilian radio equipment on military airfields
Thread Starter
Civilian radio equipment on military airfields
Hi folks
For a long time, and certainly as recently as a few months ago, people taking electronic equipment onto military facilities were sometimes (far from always) asked to provide information on any gear that's capable of making radio transmissions. I work in the film and TV industry, and in our case the list tends to be quite long. We have video links, remote control gear for camera and lenses, radio microphones, and voice communications gear, and much more besides.
It's not a big deal - another day, another form - but I find myself wondering why they care.
Most of this will presumably be visible to military equipment, though in most cases it would not look appreciably different to home wireless network, wireless TV extenders or garage door openers in the 433MHz, 2.4GHz and 5 to 5.8GHz ISM bands. If any attempt was to be made to monitor what we're doing - and I can't think why anyone would have the time or interest to do that - you're going to have every cellphone in everyone's pocket on the same screen.
It's clearly a very old form and I wonder if this is some ancient requirement that could easily be done away with. Is anything actually done with this information?
Thanks,
-Phil
For a long time, and certainly as recently as a few months ago, people taking electronic equipment onto military facilities were sometimes (far from always) asked to provide information on any gear that's capable of making radio transmissions. I work in the film and TV industry, and in our case the list tends to be quite long. We have video links, remote control gear for camera and lenses, radio microphones, and voice communications gear, and much more besides.
It's not a big deal - another day, another form - but I find myself wondering why they care.
Most of this will presumably be visible to military equipment, though in most cases it would not look appreciably different to home wireless network, wireless TV extenders or garage door openers in the 433MHz, 2.4GHz and 5 to 5.8GHz ISM bands. If any attempt was to be made to monitor what we're doing - and I can't think why anyone would have the time or interest to do that - you're going to have every cellphone in everyone's pocket on the same screen.
It's clearly a very old form and I wonder if this is some ancient requirement that could easily be done away with. Is anything actually done with this information?
Thanks,
-Phil
In a word “Tempest”
You would be highly unlikely to get any explanation or amplification as to do so could indicate areas of interest, vulnerability or compromise. There are a multitude of examples of what may be gleaned from quite innocuous open sources. In the end, the opposition usually know what you’re up to but not how good you are at it.
Best advice, smile and know your head!
YS
You would be highly unlikely to get any explanation or amplification as to do so could indicate areas of interest, vulnerability or compromise. There are a multitude of examples of what may be gleaned from quite innocuous open sources. In the end, the opposition usually know what you’re up to but not how good you are at it.
Best advice, smile and know your head!
YS
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi folks
For a long time, and certainly as recently as a few months ago, people taking electronic equipment onto military facilities were sometimes (far from always) asked to provide information on any gear that's capable of making radio transmissions. I work in the film and TV industry, and in our case the list tends to be quite long. We have video links, remote control gear for camera and lenses, radio microphones, and voice communications gear, and much more besides.
It's not a big deal - another day, another form - but I find myself wondering why they care.
Most of this will presumably be visible to military equipment, though in most cases it would not look appreciably different to home wireless network, wireless TV extenders or garage door openers in the 433MHz, 2.4GHz and 5 to 5.8GHz ISM bands. If any attempt was to be made to monitor what we're doing - and I can't think why anyone would have the time or interest to do that - you're going to have every cellphone in everyone's pocket on the same screen.
It's clearly a very old form and I wonder if this is some ancient requirement that could easily be done away with. Is anything actually done with this information?
Thanks,
-Phil
For a long time, and certainly as recently as a few months ago, people taking electronic equipment onto military facilities were sometimes (far from always) asked to provide information on any gear that's capable of making radio transmissions. I work in the film and TV industry, and in our case the list tends to be quite long. We have video links, remote control gear for camera and lenses, radio microphones, and voice communications gear, and much more besides.
It's not a big deal - another day, another form - but I find myself wondering why they care.
Most of this will presumably be visible to military equipment, though in most cases it would not look appreciably different to home wireless network, wireless TV extenders or garage door openers in the 433MHz, 2.4GHz and 5 to 5.8GHz ISM bands. If any attempt was to be made to monitor what we're doing - and I can't think why anyone would have the time or interest to do that - you're going to have every cellphone in everyone's pocket on the same screen.
It's clearly a very old form and I wonder if this is some ancient requirement that could easily be done away with. Is anything actually done with this information?
Thanks,
-Phil
Secondly, as above, Tempest. A quick Demo below. If you can do this with a mobile with everything disabled, you can imagine how much more you can do with compromised equipment transmitting hundreds of MB of data.
Thread Starter
Interesting. What you refer to as "tempest" is something that the wider world of computer security refers to as "van Eck phreaking," and it's not what's being shown in that video - the technique shown there requires the computer to be compromised beforehand, which van Eck's technique doesn't. Though in a more general sense, none of this has anything to do with third-party radio communications gear anyway. I suppose that, in extremis, something we'd bought in could be used to transmit data out, which is true, but then you could equally say that for a cellphone.
And really, you'd much rather someone did it with a cellphone. The technology to intercept and analyse cellphone traffic exists, whereas some of the video links we use have encryption that's at least as robust as anything used by the military. If I wanted to transmit something off a military establishment, that's how I'd do it, and nobody's ever tried to stop me using gear which has that feature.
I'm left with the feeling this is probably being done because someone wrote a rule about it decades ago and it just hasn't been looked at. It wouldn't be the first time!
And really, you'd much rather someone did it with a cellphone. The technology to intercept and analyse cellphone traffic exists, whereas some of the video links we use have encryption that's at least as robust as anything used by the military. If I wanted to transmit something off a military establishment, that's how I'd do it, and nobody's ever tried to stop me using gear which has that feature.
I'm left with the feeling this is probably being done because someone wrote a rule about it decades ago and it just hasn't been looked at. It wouldn't be the first time!
The rule extends back at least until the advent of CB radio in the UK (1981). There was no requirement for such devices to be tested for spurious emissions which might affect military systems, including bomb fuzes. Also the 'Mac Gregors' used by the PIRA worked on 27 MHz, so there was perhaps some concern that CB might set off one hidden in a package?
There was concern that truckers using illegal high-powered CB on the A1 outside Cottesmore might upset Tornados on the approach; fortunately legal CB posed less of a risk. Use of mobile amateur radio was also prohibited on MoD sites.
Transmitting equipment installed in cars was only permitted if the equipment was registered with the station authorities; the registration form gave details of restrictions on use.
Having once got stuck on the M6 for hours, I decided that I'd have a CB in the car when it became legal - this was years before mobile phones were affordable. I'm glad that I did as it once warned me of an accident on the M40 in time for me to take another route to Gatwick where I was going to pick up Her Loveliness. But a year or so later CB became useless as kids infested it. But that didn't stop nosy gate-plods from asking whether I had approval for the radio - which I did.
There was concern that truckers using illegal high-powered CB on the A1 outside Cottesmore might upset Tornados on the approach; fortunately legal CB posed less of a risk. Use of mobile amateur radio was also prohibited on MoD sites.
Transmitting equipment installed in cars was only permitted if the equipment was registered with the station authorities; the registration form gave details of restrictions on use.
Having once got stuck on the M6 for hours, I decided that I'd have a CB in the car when it became legal - this was years before mobile phones were affordable. I'm glad that I did as it once warned me of an accident on the M40 in time for me to take another route to Gatwick where I was going to pick up Her Loveliness. But a year or so later CB became useless as kids infested it. But that didn't stop nosy gate-plods from asking whether I had approval for the radio - which I did.
The other issue is whether your EM transmissions will affect any extant systems through interference or even cause the safety of live-armed systems to accidentally operate (highly unlikely). So for example, you mention that you operate on some of the commercial bandwidth - depending on the power and the quality of the equipment, these may interfere with in-use wireless equipment that are either operating on the same frequency or a harmonic thereof. Further, if the MOD has equipment that is operating on the same frequency, towards the maximum range of the equipment (such as wireless tx/rx for CCTV, monitoring data, etc...) then it will be keen to ensure that your equipment, that may be placed closer to the MOD’s tx/rx, does not reduce the performance through co-channel interference and raising the noise threshold.
Finally, some establishments may well have live armed aircraft and we are extremely careful of EM emissions around these - some systems can be susceptible to unwanted EM radiation and that is why there are many High Intensity Radio Transmission Areas (HIRTAs) marked on aerial charts. This is not just for military aircraft as some transmissions may disrupt fly-by-wire systems, navigation systems or radio intercomms, which is why you are asked to switch off mobile devices on airliners. I have heard errant mobile phones interfering with the aircraft intercomm in the past and it is really annoying.
So there are reasons and the MOD is being cautious in checking your equipment. It is highly unlikely that you will cause issues, but it is better to be wise before an issue occurs than after.
Finally, some establishments may well have live armed aircraft and we are extremely careful of EM emissions around these - some systems can be susceptible to unwanted EM radiation and that is why there are many High Intensity Radio Transmission Areas (HIRTAs) marked on aerial charts. This is not just for military aircraft as some transmissions may disrupt fly-by-wire systems, navigation systems or radio intercomms, which is why you are asked to switch off mobile devices on airliners. I have heard errant mobile phones interfering with the aircraft intercomm in the past and it is really annoying.
So there are reasons and the MOD is being cautious in checking your equipment. It is highly unlikely that you will cause issues, but it is better to be wise before an issue occurs than after.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,566
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Radio equipment has always been a bugbear. Back in early May 1944, a US Army unit, newly arrived in the UK for the invasion of Europe, set up its radio station and without any coordination began broadcasting dance music. Unfortunately, this was on the same frequency as the Master Controller's radio for Bomber Command's raid on Mailly-le-Camp, the HQ of 21st Panzer Division. Being in France, the Master Bomber had to approve the target marking and instruct bombing to start, but this instruction was not heard because of the dance music blaring over his frequency. To make matters worse, his secondary radio didn't work and the deputy bomber controller was shot down early in the piece. As a result, the main force of 346 Lancasters backed up into a stack over the target for 30 minutes while they awaited the instruction to bomb. Around 60 German night fighters penetrated the bomber stream and 42 Lancasters were shot down inside an hour - one of the highest loss rates of the War.
Although this is a somewhat extreme example, it goes some way to explaining why the RAF is fussy about radio equipment just starting up on its territory, and why they ask about it.
Although this is a somewhat extreme example, it goes some way to explaining why the RAF is fussy about radio equipment just starting up on its territory, and why they ask about it.
Classy comment. May I, on behalf those of us who have spent many hours in the cold and rain on Gate Guard duty, apologise for delaying someone as (self)important as you for a few moments.
Thread Starter
Thanks, folks.
The thing that strikes me most is the idea that some military aircraft seem, from this discussion, to be incredibly electronically fragile. I'd have thought ordinarily that they'd be designed to be reasonably proof against mere radio interference, of all things. Sure, it's easy to jam things like GPS, but you'd have thought the military would want to be able to operate without that sort of outside service.
Aren't these things supposed to be able to survive the electromagnetic pulses of a nuclear war?
For what it's worth, most of what we have is ISM band stuff at a matter of a few hundred milliwatts EIRP, things to which anything that exists in the modern world will have been exposed on numerous occasions. If we were likely to be a problem, you'd know by now.
The thing that strikes me most is the idea that some military aircraft seem, from this discussion, to be incredibly electronically fragile. I'd have thought ordinarily that they'd be designed to be reasonably proof against mere radio interference, of all things. Sure, it's easy to jam things like GPS, but you'd have thought the military would want to be able to operate without that sort of outside service.
Aren't these things supposed to be able to survive the electromagnetic pulses of a nuclear war?
For what it's worth, most of what we have is ISM band stuff at a matter of a few hundred milliwatts EIRP, things to which anything that exists in the modern world will have been exposed on numerous occasions. If we were likely to be a problem, you'd know by now.
The RF Environment Generator at Boscombe Down is (or was) used to check that ‘equipment that is potentially susceptible to electro-magnetic influence produced by radio frequency environments is tested to ensure correct and safe operation’. This also covers ensuring electrically initiated explosives do not suffer false detonation and, for example, rotor bonding checks for helicopters.
Be assured the tests are comprehensive and the bar is set high. They cover the complete HF/VHF/UHF bands, plus microwave frequencies up to around 35GHz; by means of (e.g.) Low Level Sweeps and Bulk Current Injection, and can be carried out in the hangar or by a mobile unit.
The REG is (or was) a UK Strategic Asset.
If you need more information, I’m afraid you’ll have to ask MoD. Or you could pay QinetiQ to play with your equipment, but all that’ll achieve is a lengthy report recommending years of follow-on work!
This is not the same as TEMPEST testing.
Be assured the tests are comprehensive and the bar is set high. They cover the complete HF/VHF/UHF bands, plus microwave frequencies up to around 35GHz; by means of (e.g.) Low Level Sweeps and Bulk Current Injection, and can be carried out in the hangar or by a mobile unit.
The REG is (or was) a UK Strategic Asset.
If you need more information, I’m afraid you’ll have to ask MoD. Or you could pay QinetiQ to play with your equipment, but all that’ll achieve is a lengthy report recommending years of follow-on work!
This is not the same as TEMPEST testing.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Phil, you have received much detailed and informed advice. This is a professional forum. In the field, so to speak, you will have hundreds of people who are not so experienced and only able to restrict the general and lack the expertise to permit exceptions.
I venture to suggest that the same expertise might be lacking on your side too. You might know everything you need to know about your widget but not how it might interfere with a strange military widget.
Digressing, it was in the papers yesterday about exam cheats. False nail microphones and blue tooth hearing aids for instance. Smart watches are so last year. Security in its broadest sense will always play catch up.
I venture to suggest that the same expertise might be lacking on your side too. You might know everything you need to know about your widget but not how it might interfere with a strange military widget.
Digressing, it was in the papers yesterday about exam cheats. False nail microphones and blue tooth hearing aids for instance. Smart watches are so last year. Security in its broadest sense will always play catch up.
