GPS has been getting better over time. The newest iteration of the system supports a directional spot beam for military users with +20dB gain for theater-level jamming resistance.
A +20dB gain means that the jammer is going to need roughly 100x its current power output to maintain the same effectiveness. An adversary ramping their transmitter by this much would turn into a blazing hot target in terms of electronic warfare. There are entire classes of weapons designed to lock directly onto signals like this. The AGM-88 is an example.
A part of why GPS is such a weak point is that existing receivers out there are pretty basic. Including receivers in things like JDAMs and other PGKs.
This is even worse in Ukraine, where a lot of "precision munitions" are cobbled together from civilian parts and duct tape, jammers are cheap and plentiful, and anti-radiation missiles are unicorns.
The simplest solution is to simply to resurrect the Loran infrastructure that the US (and others) run until the 2000s. The Koreans have been running eLoran for a while, and the UK and France are teaming up as well:
This is not rocket surgery: a working system that can giver you continent-wide coverage can be up and running a few years, with little technical risk (there's already kit available).
Throwing some money at the problem and instructing the DOT/DHS/whomever to issue an RFI/RFP would go a long way to moving the ball forward.
I was with a friend visiting O'hare approach control outside Chicago. As with our previous visit to the Regional air traffic control, I was there mostly to give my friend a ride. However, on this visit I asked a question when the opportunity arose
"What would you do if GPS went out, permanently?"
The whole room collectively didn't want to think about it. There doesn't appear to be a plan. We've collectively put all our eggs in one basket.
I think air traffic is probably the most resilient group - I’m surprised no one answered!
IFR was designed long before GPS and for the most part, GPS has been shoehorned into the “old” system. VORs around the country are still “primary” for navigations; airways are still primarily defined around VOR radials; and approach plates to large airports have plenty of non-GPS precision approaches. (Some smaller GA-only airfields that recently got IFR approaches might be WAAS/GPS only).
Losing GPS might increase workload for some sectors (en route sectors who won’t be able to clear aircraft direct to waypoints) but not likely TRACON who are vectoring aircraft on pre-defined approach plates.
If you pick a random commercial flight on your favourite flight tracker and check it’s route, 99% of the waypoints on it are defined as VOR intersections, not GPS coordinates. (The remaining 1% are likely en-route waypoints and not in the departure/approach area).
Also, the instrument proficiency requirements for pilots require multiple approach types to be logged every 6 months so they are definitely capable of non-GPS approaches.
I remember reading something about defunding some satellites, so I went looking. All I could find is articles about the US not providing backup satellites.
The US Military does use GPS, but ordinary civilians don't have access to high accuracy data. Commercial vendors can license for higher accuracy, but its a hybrid civilian/military system with higher quality data for military use cases.
GPS was built by the US military. Its existence was first revealed in Desert Storm back in 1990 when the US military used it to drive tanks into the desert, then come out where and when they wanted. The Iraqis were quite surprised, since they knew that desert, and knew that they would get lost if they tried to do the same maneuver.
Parts of the GPS signal are encrypted to be only useful for the military. The result is that civilian systems an average 4.9 meters of accuracy, while the military is precise to something like a meter instead. But that extra accuracy doesn't help if the signal is jammed.
And we can't trust the Pentago anymore, so the circle is completed (see the recent "Ukraine deal" which is basically just a sell-out toward the USA allying with Russia).
Can you explain why you think that deal is selling out? It seems reasonable from the point of view of the United States given they don’t want to pour more money into a conflict they don’t really care too much about. Surely there are some lessons learnt from the “war on terror”
But if we could actually ally with Russia against China that would be a massive strategic win. Russia is:
1. A massive nuclear power
2. On the border of China
3. Willing to take risks for geopolitical gain that the Europeans would never dream of
4. A natural enemy of China since China claims (unofficially) large areas of Siberia including Vladivostok (their only major port on the Pacific).
If Russia were an ally, that would put our alliance to the north, east, and south of China. More importantly it would put the threat of a land based attack on the table which is currently not the case.
Fabulously complicated and only producible with exotic emitters, sensors, and high frequency ICs.
Probably as easily jammed or forced into calibration state with a directed low frequency em pulse generator.
High tech garbage. We will not fare any better than Ukraine relying on tech like this.
Fortunately someone recently posted a real technological wonder - the F-14 cpu, old timers were messing with multithreaded compute while I was muddling along learning pong line by line from a hobbyist magazine.
[+] [-] bob1029|4 months ago|reply
A +20dB gain means that the jammer is going to need roughly 100x its current power output to maintain the same effectiveness. An adversary ramping their transmitter by this much would turn into a blazing hot target in terms of electronic warfare. There are entire classes of weapons designed to lock directly onto signals like this. The AGM-88 is an example.
[+] [-] ACCount37|4 months ago|reply
This is even worse in Ukraine, where a lot of "precision munitions" are cobbled together from civilian parts and duct tape, jammers are cheap and plentiful, and anti-radiation missiles are unicorns.
[+] [-] throw0101a|4 months ago|reply
* https://rntfnd.org/wp-content/uploads/National-Timing-Resili...
A roadmap was published in 2021:
* https://www.transportation.gov/pnt/national-timing-resilienc...
And also from 2021, NATIONAL R&D PLAN FOR POSITIONING, NAVIGATION, AND TIMING RESILIENCE:
* https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021...
The simplest solution is to simply to resurrect the Loran infrastructure that the US (and others) run until the 2000s. The Koreans have been running eLoran for a while, and the UK and France are teaming up as well:
* https://insidegnss.com/uk-and-france-renew-ties-resilient-pn...
* https://rntfnd.org/2025/11/12/s-korea-leads-meeting-with-u-k...
Chinas has had a completely built out network (including fibre networks for high-precision timing) for over a year:
* https://rntfnd.org/2024/10/03/china-completes-national-elora...
This is not rocket surgery: a working system that can giver you continent-wide coverage can be up and running a few years, with little technical risk (there's already kit available).
Throwing some money at the problem and instructing the DOT/DHS/whomever to issue an RFI/RFP would go a long way to moving the ball forward.
[+] [-] icegreentea2|4 months ago|reply
They don't particularly help with striking Chinese assets. Which is what the DoD funding is primarily about.
[+] [-] mikewarot|4 months ago|reply
"What would you do if GPS went out, permanently?"
The whole room collectively didn't want to think about it. There doesn't appear to be a plan. We've collectively put all our eggs in one basket.
[+] [-] digitalPhonix|4 months ago|reply
IFR was designed long before GPS and for the most part, GPS has been shoehorned into the “old” system. VORs around the country are still “primary” for navigations; airways are still primarily defined around VOR radials; and approach plates to large airports have plenty of non-GPS precision approaches. (Some smaller GA-only airfields that recently got IFR approaches might be WAAS/GPS only).
Losing GPS might increase workload for some sectors (en route sectors who won’t be able to clear aircraft direct to waypoints) but not likely TRACON who are vectoring aircraft on pre-defined approach plates.
If you pick a random commercial flight on your favourite flight tracker and check it’s route, 99% of the waypoints on it are defined as VOR intersections, not GPS coordinates. (The remaining 1% are likely en-route waypoints and not in the departure/approach area).
Also, the instrument proficiency requirements for pilots require multiple approach types to be logged every 6 months so they are definitely capable of non-GPS approaches.
[+] [-] jmclnx|4 months ago|reply
https://www.npr.org/2024/09/27/nx-s1-5127737/losing-gps-woul...
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/business/money-report/losing...
[+] [-] tokai|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] neuralkoi|4 months ago|reply
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ
[+] [-] unknown|4 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] standardUser|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] ACCount37|4 months ago|reply
GPS isn't poorly designed - it's well designed within its design constraints, which those systems share.
[+] [-] jszymborski|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] a_humean|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] btilly|4 months ago|reply
Parts of the GPS signal are encrypted to be only useful for the military. The result is that civilian systems an average 4.9 meters of accuracy, while the military is precise to something like a meter instead. But that extra accuracy doesn't help if the signal is jammed.
[+] [-] CamperBob2|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Jtsummers|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bariumbitmap|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 months ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] phplovesong|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] Kurd|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] jayknight|4 months ago|reply
no paywall: https://www.wsj.com/tech/the-pentagon-cant-trust-gps-anymore...
[+] [-] shevy-java|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] nine_k|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] baiac|4 months ago|reply
[+] [-] terminalshort|4 months ago|reply
1. A massive nuclear power
2. On the border of China
3. Willing to take risks for geopolitical gain that the Europeans would never dream of
4. A natural enemy of China since China claims (unofficially) large areas of Siberia including Vladivostok (their only major port on the Pacific).
If Russia were an ally, that would put our alliance to the north, east, and south of China. More importantly it would put the threat of a land based attack on the table which is currently not the case.
[+] [-] chasing0entropy|4 months ago|reply
Fortunately someone recently posted a real technological wonder - the F-14 cpu, old timers were messing with multithreaded compute while I was muddling along learning pong line by line from a hobbyist magazine.
[+] [-] ahuth|4 months ago|reply
> We will not fare any better than Ukraine relying on tech like this.
Ukraine is faring amazing well, aren’t they?
Russia controls a fraction of the territory, has suffered a million casualties, and lost many many armored vehicles and combat aircraft.