GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Pentagon urged not to use ability to degrade GPS signals

• 29191
  

  Guess we missed this one too! None of the Muslims who murdered civilians on 9/11 needed the Selective Availibility feature of the GPS network. No bombers in the Middle East or England, or Spain needed a GPS receiver for their work. So why is this article banging the drums? Just another example of misguided and childish reaction to a real terrorist threat. I'm sure that boaters and hikers wouldn't appreciate the SA feture being switched on when they are trying to come home in the fog! Follow the reccomendations of the 9/11 report, use common sense, and stop wasting our time.

  Christmas Tree Posted July 24, 2007 9:24 AM
• 28936
  

  The gentleman who stated that "commercial avaiation (sic)will have to actually "fly" the airplane" seems unaware that states where US operators fly (including the US) are scheduling the retirement of the ground-based navigation infrastructure. The industry has quickly become reliant - worldwide - on GPS (GNSS) and at 400kts it is no place to be trying something new (or is it old?) with 600 passengers following close behind you.

  B Stine Posted July 20, 2007 10:45 AM
• 28866
  

  1) SA is a last resort national emergency tool that has been used just one time - translation: it is reliable and can be used for civilian commerce (see Verizon, Sprint-Nextel, TomTom, On-Star, etc.) Does anyone have a problem when the cellular towers are commandeered by officials and emergency responders in a civil emergency (e.g. tornado)and no one can make a call?

  2) It is a competitive edge for our military

  3) If the rest of the world wants to send up and maintain their own system, let them. We owe them nothing. Repeat just for you Zeegoman: We owe the world nothing when it comes to our GPS system and our military. And they're doing such a great job getting Galileo off the ground arent't they?

  BigTires Posted July 19, 2007 5:08 PM
• 28827
  

  The rules for SA are not arbitrary. Civilan use of GPS is a great benefit of defence technology. No matter how dependant the non-military world has become, GPS remains a national defense asset. When it is needed in the opinion of the combatant commander, it needs to be in the control of our military to defend our nation. For those emergent times, OnStar users will have to break out the paper maps, commercial avaiation will have to actually "fly" the airplane, those who are allies will be included...and the enemy will be foiled. Simple.

  GPS User Posted July 19, 2007 11:10 AM
• 28783
  

  The use of this as a weapon is obviously not the smartest move. To start with the targeting ability is probably blunt to say the least so its likley to affect bordering allied countries at the very least (I wouldn't be surprised if it was simply a global turn on/off function). Secondly, current enemies are relying on the lo-tech approach and so this is unlikley to affect their forces as much as US (high-tech) forces. And third, if it is used against another high-tech force it would also affect all the civillians in that region, although currently our reliance is not that heavy this US policy is a risk consideration which is hampering development. For example the UK is currently considering a GPS road tax system, any chance that the signal would be affected has to be mitigated and this reduce flexibility and increases costs.

  Non US view Posted July 19, 2007 6:33 AM
• 28782
  

  Since I started using GPS in the civilian world I have been suspicious of our military using SA. As a military guy, I have no problem in the military using SA; however, because of the widespread use of GPS, it would now be wrong to use SA. I believe the manufacturers of GPS units have made too much of the science without thought as to what happens when the military might need to use SA. The fact that the FAA is eliminating NDBs, VORs, and trying to eliminate LORAN, it scares me to think that our general aviation safety rests with a bunch of generals who don't care an iota about general aviation, or individuals in the high halls of the FAA who are more concerned about making a name for themselves.

  William Due Posted July 19, 2007 6:31 AM
• 28781
  

  This is exactly why the rest of the world does not trust America. They want to control everything up to and including throwing the switch. The attitude expressed is 'It's my ball so if I don't want to play nobody plays'. The rest of the world is setting up new systems and the USA will find itself sidelined and irrelevent in the future if attitudes don't change.

  Zeegoman Posted July 19, 2007 6:03 AM
• 28746
  

  I was in charge of the U.S. Army Special Forces R&D of GPS for special operations missions during its inception. The capabilities for selective ability, as well as precise positioning were designed to aid the commander on the battlefield down to the platoon leader level. It was always intended to be a military constellation of satellites and the DOD should dictate how is it used in our best interest.

  Larry Richardson Posted July 18, 2007 12:52 PM
• 28729
  

  I've navigated airplanes for decades without the use of GPS, so it is not essential for aviation. It makes life (precision navigation under adverse conditions) better, but it is not essential. If GPS needs to be turned off for military/national security reasons, then that capability is essential.

  Charles Wentz Posted July 18, 2007 10:07 AM
• 28727
  

  And the reason I should care whether other countries trust GPS is? How much money did they contribute to its funding? GPS is a military system and the thought that we should never use it to mess up our enemies' planning and operational capabilities is ridiculous. I personally like the idea of programming GPS so that any missile being fired by our enemies will receive the coordinates that will return it to the sender...ah, sweet justice, and a worthy expenditure of my tax dollars.

  ammo guy Posted July 18, 2007 9:45 AM
• 28698
  

  This looks like a good argument for taking GPS away frome the Pentagon and putting it under a department like Commerce or DOT, but definitely not DHS.

  Jim Reaves Posted July 18, 2007 7:21 AM