Presentation to the 11^th Meeting of the PNT Advisory Board

The following is an abbreviated transcript of Don Jewell’s briefing to the PNT Advisory Board at its meeting on Tuesday, May 7. The slides from Jewell’s briefing and the other briefings to the board are available at pnt.gov under the heading 11th PNTAB meeting.

First, a prefatory note from Don Jewell:

Author Sets the Scene

The old adage “A picture is worth a thousand words” certainly applies to the atmosphere of a PNT Advisory Board meeting. And in this case, so does the oft repeated and entirely inadequate phrase “You had to be there.”

The atmosphere of an Advisory Board meeting is extremely dynamic. You have a very distinguished board of PNT subject-matter experts who are very passionate about their areas of expertise. Some, like Drs. Parkinson and Schlesinger, the co-chairs, have been involved with PNT and GPS matters for 45 years or more. Therefore, the danger of an abbreviated transcript of an emotion-filled briefing is always unsatisfactory at best, because you miss the give and take, the repartee of experts that have invested much of their lives in this arena. So it is important that the reader understand the context of the questions and answers and sidebar conversations that took place before, during, and after the briefing, to put it in context.

It would be easy after reading this transcript and others during the meeting to put the blame for antiquated PNT equipment on the manufacturers. But nothing could be farther from the truth. The truth is, the culprits here are numerous but identifiable. They are:

1.     Outdated government regulations, directives and procurement/acquisition procedures that seriously hamper equipment manufacturers from doing their best and updating equipment as necessary.

2.     Timelines that totally ignore the dynamics of Murphy’s Law — a law of ever-shrinking timelines battling a glacial process of ever-increasing requirements bounded by antiquated procurement procedures and fiscal indecision.

In the case of military user equipment (MUE), the warfighters, first responders, and government users are the unfortunate recipients of this morass of near-pandemonium and downright confusion. Dynamic and critical user requirements are sacrificed upon the altar of “the program of record” and an agonizingly glacial government bureaucracy. Be assured that the “program of record” delivered exactly what was asked for by the original RFP and subsequent contract award.

Take Rockwell Collins for instance. Rockwell is a great company,  building rugged, reliable, precision instruments. I have flown with Rockwell communications and aviation equipment in various aircraft cockpits for the last 40 years, and they are indeed the gold standard in that arena. Rockwell has been delivering GPS military user equipment since 1978 and the company has always delivered exactly what was asked for. The problem is that the operational and refresh cycle for government user equipment needs is inside the acquisition cycle, and unfortunately exceeds it by a factor of ten — hence Murphy’s Law.

The Defense Advanced GPS Receiver (DAGR) was an excellent device when conceived and was the only game in town as regards jamming and spoofing environments. I am confident that Rockwell would have continuously updated the DAGR and made it relevant today, given the opportunity, which they were not.

In my opinion, government regulations in the area of user equipment, especially electronics and highly dynamic technological areas, need to be drastically altered to follow the aircraft procurement cycle. For example, there are probably 50 or more different block versions of the F-16 aircraft, that in truth are radically different. In some respects the “Block 1″ F-16 resembles the capabilities of the “Block 50″ version only in that it is an airborne vehicle with wings, engine, and a fuselage. Electronically and technically, it is a totally different aircraft. But the contracts for General Dynamics and now Lockheed Martin were not recompeted every time the user requirements, and hence the capabilities of the F-16 changed. I hope you all agree that would be ludicrous — and yet that is exactly the situation with MUE. When the scope changes, the contracts are painfully and laboriously recompeted, with lag times that make the process laughable — if indeed it were not so sad.

Then there is the government’s serious lack of information and training concerning MUE devices. I have been around GPS user equipment for 35 years and yet I am sure I still do not understand all the capabilities of the Precision Lightweight GPS Receiver (PLGR) and DAGR. Imagine how befuddled a young warfighter becomes when  given the devices and only a cursory amount of training, that is not only inadequate but sadly many times misleading or just flat wrong.

In our interviews we founds trainers — those that taught warfighters how to use the PLGR and DAGR — who were not aware the unit could be “keyed” or encrypted for greater accuracy. Of course we also found excellent trainers, but they were the exception to the rule. Who trains the trainers?

Although it sounds trite and seems to be a copout, don’t blame the equipment manufacturers for the current state of MUE. Blame the system and then get involved and help us change it to what it should be.

Good morning, everyone.

A special thanks to Jim Miller, Dr. James Schlesinger and Dr. Bradford Parkinson for inviting me to speak this morning on the future trends of PNT user equipment, particularly as it pertains to warfighters and first responders — certainly a subject I have been passionate about for only…oh, let’s say about 35 years.

Why GPS World?

Ever since the agenda for the PNT Advisory Board meeting appeared online, I have been receiving emails and phone calls asking why I was speaking not as one of the IDA (Institute for Defense Analyses) subject-matter experts on GPS but as the Contributing Editor for Defense for GPS World. Frankly, the answer is simple. Wearing the GPS World hat gives me the freedom to say what needs to be said today, whereas the IDA think tank attribution and publication rules, which are absolutely necessary for an FFRDC (Federally Funded Research and Development Center) to operate effectively and efficiently, would unduly restrict my comments.

Plus, for 21 years GPS World magazine has been the publisher of the definitive GPS user equipment survey for global users. It’s free for everyone to use, and it covers PNT receiver information from 55 global manufacturers with data on all aspects of 502 PNT receivers. And it is a great boon for me personally, as I only receive on average about 50+ emails or letters per month from users simply wanting to know what GPS/PNT receiver they should purchase. It is wonderful to be able to point them to the GPS World Receiver Survey.

Also wearing my GPS World hat, I can easily refer to the several thousand warfighter and first responder inputs we have received over the last 10 years — generally expressing what they would like to see in a GPS/PNT receiver or sometimes specifically the Perfect Handheld PNT Transceiver (PHPNTT), which I first wrote about six years ago (and most recently in December) in GPS World magazine.

Top 10 Warfighter – First Responder Requirements for the PHPNTT

Adhering strictly to the latest fad in government briefing formats, it is now time for me to BLUF, or give you the Bottom Line Up Front. However, being a journalist, I also have to hold something back for the end. So here are the top 10 PHPNTT requirements, in order of preference, as submitted over the last 10 years by thousands of warfighters and first responders:

• Mil-Spec rugged – solid state drive – no moving parts
• Friendly, intuitive, familiar interface – easy to use
• Multi-GNSS – All signals available – space and terrestrial
  • Wi-Fi, eLORAN, space/terrestrial augmentations, networks, communications
• Wireless, portable, seamlessly networkable
• SWAP friendly, long battery life, with solar charger
• Real-time 3D map data, NGA, Google, satellite imagery
• Not a stand-alone PNT device
  • Embedded in a computer with multiple communication capabilities – one must be secure
• Must be able to download, store and utilize new applications
• Software-defined and expandable
• Act as a sensor with automatic reporting

All these “user requirements” are closely related to what our warfighters and first responders don’t like about the current GPS MUE or Global Positioning System Military User Equipment. I state that specifically because, make no mistake about it, the current MUE is strictly GPS-based. However, the current MUE only receives two of the many signals available today on the GPS SVs, and certainly not any of the other numerous PNT (position, navigation and timing) signals also available, which of course is the crux of the issue for user equipment of the future.

Most of the top 10 requirements, and there were more than 50 requirements identifiable in all, are self-explanatory, and time does not permit me to cover them all in detail. But bear with me for a couple of quick explanations. Certainly the rugged requirement is readily understandable, and there are numerous manufacturers around the globe today that make excellent Mil-Spec rugged devices. However, the one I am most familiar with and have been extremely happy with are the rugged units from Trimble Navigation produced in Corvallis, Oregon. Trimble also happen to be a certified SAASM (Selective Availability and Anti-Spoofing Module) supplier as well.  More on those units later.

The second bullet concerns the human-machine interface on the current MUE, which is so poor that a Marine three-star wrote me a few years ago to say that in his opinion, “If anyone wants an example of how not to design an operational equipment interface then they should refer to the PLGR or DAGR. Both are consistently and sufficiently horrendous, in my opinion.”  I could not have said it better. The PLGR and DAGR use the gold standard for PNT as a signal, but the human-machine interface (HMI) is, in my opinion and in the opinion of thousands of warfighters, so antiquated and non-user friendly as to be almost unuseable. However, the units do work well and provide outstanding signals when embedded with other equipment. They just do not work well as a handheld device. The other items on the list we will cover as we proceed through the briefing.

GPS MUE Historical Perspective

I have been involved with GPS user equipment for the last 35 years, and this behemoth of a receiver was my first unforgettable encounter.

First GPS MUE receiver developed under government contract by Rockwell Collins, circa 1977.

Yes, this huge device is GPS user equipment. Can you imagine? It weighs more than 300 pounds, without the two operators, and was the very first workable GPS receiver produced for the U.S. military by Rockwell Collins, who has been producing GPS MUEs ever since. Which is an example of the prodigious acquisition issues that also need to be addressed, or corrected, if you will. Our antiquated acquisition practices are to blame for many of the failings in MUE equipment today. While I feel it is critical to mention this as a major contributing factor to the state of MUE today, it is also a story for another time.

Other than being the first GPS MUE, the significance of this huge receiver is that in my estimation it is the first and last time the U.S. military possessed a purpose-built military GPS receiver clearly superior to the products being produced by commercial and civil manufacturers for global users.

First Significant Usable and Transportable GPS Civilian Receiver

Fortunately, a good friend and colleague, both at IDA and ION (Institute of Navigation), Philip Ward, came to the rescue of all GPS users in 1981 when he delivered the TI 4100 NAVSTAR Navigator Multiplex Receiver.

TI 4100 NAVSTAR Navigator Multiplex Receiver designed by Phil Ward for Texas Instruments.

The TI 4100 was indeed the first commercially viable receiver that could be considered a transportable by anything other than an aircraft. To be historically correct, there were some backpack models that were very short-lived and not as significant as the TI 4100. The main unit and two antennas weighed approximately 50 pounds and showed promise in station wagons and helicopters. I can see a few folks in the audience smiling, so I will reiterate that the TI 4100 was a significant milestone, both in SWAP (size, weight and power), accuracy and TTFF (time to first fix). TTFF was 15-20 minutes in search mode, however; after the four SVs were located and the unit was initialized, it could consistently present a fix location in just a couple of minutes. Plus, the TI 4100 was immune from most jamming signals of the day — an impressive receiver and accomplishment for 1981.

Evolution of Commercial GPS/PNT UE

Fast-forward several years and the following picture presents a view of how quickly GPS UE developed.

Trimble units from the mid 1980s until today.

The first unit on the right in the above photo is a Trimble unit that was about the same size as the TI 4100, but considerably more capable. As you follow the units around counter clockwise, you will see that they decrease in size and weight, but what you can’t see is that they also increase incredibly where acquisition and processing speed (TTFF), accuracy and capability are concerned. Note also that you start to see stand-alone units that appear to be antennas with separate handheld display units. This is a feature the commercial manufacturers incorporated over 20 years ago, and in some respects a feature the MUE manufacturers and services are just now considering.

The defacto Garmin standby device.

Note also the Garmin GPS wrist receiver (right), which until 2005 was the most prevalent civil receiver in both of the wartime AORs (Area of Responsibility). Compare this Garmin wrist unit to the 300-pound Rockwell Collins unit I first showed you and consider that where SWAP and performance are concerned, the wrist unit is hundreds of times more capable and portable.

Current MUE – Program of Record and the Future

The pictures below depict the current MUE – Program of Record equipment, again both manufactured by, you guessed it, Rockwell Collins. First is the PLGR or the Precision Lightweight GPS Receiver. Second is the DAGR or Defense Advanced GPS Receiver. The third unit, known simply as the “Puck,” is what the U.S. Army would like to field in the next couple of years along with that separate display unit I spoke of earlier. Starting to sound very commercial, right? By the way, the Puck measures only 2 x 2 x 1/2 inches and weighs just a few ounces.

Rockwell- Collins PLGR.

Rockwell Collins DAGR.

Army’s Future PUCK.

Between the PLGR, which was decertified by the Marine Corps in 2010, and the DAGR, there are approximately 500,000 of these MUE devices fielded today, and yet almost none of them are utilized as handhelds. Our research shows that indeed only 1 in 40 is used as a true stand-alone handheld. Most DAGRs are primarily used to interface with legacy communications equipment, primarily U.S. Army, that calls for fire support, read ordnance, and all the others are either stored or embedded with other equipment, which means the “horrendous user interface,” a common warfighter description, is not a major issue. The bottom line is the DAGR is very good at what it does, it is just that what it does (warfighter quote) “…stopped being functional, when compared with other more capable PNT equipment, almost the day is was delivered to the AOR in 2005.”

While the Puck is certainly a major improvement in SWAP and concept, it essentially provides the same two GPS signals and SAASM capability as provided by the DAGR, just in a smaller form factor, and it does away with the continuously vilified user interface. The Puck technology totally ignores current-day PNT, multi-GNSS platforms and the other 160 PNT signals available today. Review the GPS World 2013 Receiver Survey and you will only find a handful of receivers that are so incredibly limited, and they are invariably produced, you guessed it, for the U.S. government as part of a GPS program or alternate program of record.

MUE: How Not to Build a PNT Device, or Why Warfighters Use Garmins and iPhones

The list you are looking at now is comprised of the first 15 minutes of conversation with thousands of warfighters interviewed over the last 10 years — they just had to tell us what was wrong with the current MUE before they finally got around to telling us what, if they were king or queen for a day, they wanted to see in the PHPNTT. This is not my opinion but the actual words of the warfighters. First of all, understand that the PLGR is a single-frequency GPS-only receiver with a security module (PPS-SM) to access encrypted P(Y)-code for anti-jam purposes. It was initially fielded 1990-2004, replaced by the DAGR in 2005. There are approximately 165,000 PLGRs and 450,000 DAGRs fielded at a cost of more than $1 billion. Now the warfighter comments:

• Both the PLGR and DAGR have an antiquated, proprietary OS and “extremely unfriendly — non-intuitive” user interface.
• PLGR and DAGR are not functional as handheld units but function well as embedded devices — although typically not networked, and we are not even sure they can be networked.
  • Example: One STRYKER vehicle variant has nine separate DAGRs incorporated, each with its own antenna and operating totally independently of the others.
• PLGR was decertified by U.S. Marine Corps in 2010 due to friendly-fire incidents.
• DAGR used today primarily as embedded device only with a “ horrible user interface”:
  • Monochrome screen, no active maps, navigation direct waypoint only.  Provides user with PNT information as coordinates — requires paper map to be an effective tool.
  • For other than straight-line navigation — time, distance and ETA are incorrect.
  • Programming/mission planning require special cables, software and a laptop computer.
  • Additional cables, radios and hardware are required for PLGR or DAGR to communicate.
  • Proprietary OS — no capability for additional programs to be added or utilize.
  • SWAP issues — large, heavy, limited battery life (multiple batteries) for typical missions.
  • TTFF — warm, approximately 2 minutes; cold with almanac download, 30+ minutes.
  • Position accuracy expressed as PDOP (1-6) on separate screen from PNT data. Nominal accuracy of a coded DAGR is typically about 1 meter or more.
• Advantages: Anti-jam and legacy interface capabilities.

So, the bottom line as far as the warfighters are concerned is that if you want to operate legacy equipment that requires a GPS input, such as calling in “fires” or artillery or if you are in a jamming environment, then you need the DAGR or its capability. Our survey shows, however, that only 1 in 40 use the DAGR as a handheld, and yet every single one of our respondents — that’s 100 percent, a rarity in statistics — stated they had a backup unit, primarily a Garmin, until 2005, and then popular backup units were more than likely an iPhone, iPad or Trimble unit.

One of the Most Popular PNT Devices in Theater Today – More than 365M Sold to Date

Today there is no question concerning the most prevalent PNT unit in both AORs. It is, you guessed it, the Apple iPhone and/or the Apple iPad. Let’s take a brief look at the capabilities of this non-ruggedized but still amazing device, which can easily be made Mil-Spec rugged with aftermarket cases and enclosures such as those produced by Otterbox, which I have personally tested and reviewed numerous times.

The Apple iPhone 5.

The attributes you see listed here are for the iPhone and iPad, and are those that assist in some aspect of PNT and/or integrity and accuracy.

• Assisted GPS SBAS — WAAS (PNT)
• Assisted GLONASS — (SBAS) (PNT)
• Digital compass (PN)
• Wi-Fi (Communications-Data + PNT)
• Cellular (Communications-Data + PNT)
• Bluetooth (Communications-Data + PNT)
• Skyhook Wireless (PNT)
• Three-axis gyro (PN)
• Accelerometer (PN)
• Pedometer (PN) – Application
• Internet (Communications-Data) Skype application (PNT)
• Real-time accuracy and integrity representation (PN)
• 361+ navigation applications in the App Store ready for instant download and designed for iPhone and iPad. The majority of these applications are available at no cost to the user.
• Real-time 3-D maps — Google maps — satellite imagery — updated continuously
• Automatic location-based services (LBS) — warfighter support
• BFT (Blue Force Tracking) + other .mil App Store apps including multiple mil-GRID systems.
• Warfighter discounts and mil-spec hardened cases (http://www.apple.com/r/store/government/).
• One-button combat application.

All this capability available in just four ounces — truly a SWAP and capability revolution.

Of course, what really makes the list of iPhone and iPad capabilities revealing is that the first two attributes alone more than double the number of PNT signals received and utilized by the iPhone versus the DAGR, and that number does not account for the GPS L2C (second civilian signal) and L5 (DOT safety of life signal) with CNAV, which when activated will be the strongest GPS signal broadcast to date. The CNAV data is an upgraded version of the original NAV or navigation message. It contains higher precision representation and nominally more accurate data than the nominal NAV data. There are 26 more PNT satellite signals available today in the iPhone and iPad, and they are comprised of multi-GNSS signals and augmentations. The kicker for me is that in addition to all the additional space signals are terrestrial signals, and almost any map or grid system the user desires. Plus there are apps (software applications) that translate between grid systems. And if you don’t like the interface of the navigation program you are using, then there are literally 360+ other choices. I also find the pedometer function interesting, in that firefighters now use this capability along with the Blue Force Tracking app in buildings when they are momentarily without GPS, GLONASS (Russian GNSS), WAAS (U.S. Wide Area Augmentation System), EGNOS (European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service) or other SBAS (Satellite Based Augmentation System) signals.

Realistically, to defeat the current unencrypted MUE today, an adversary only has to jam one GPS signal, but to defeat the iPhone or iPad an adversary has to jam all the GPS signals, all the GLONASS signals, all the Wi-Fi signals, all the mobile 3G and 4G CDMA and GSM (read as different mobile telephone systems) signals and still the iPhone or iPad will use the accelerometer, gyro, compass and pedometer functions to determine position. Indeed, it will continue to function as a PNT device. All this in just four ounces at a cost about one-sixth of the DAGR displayed on a screen that has 100 times greater resolution and is in color. Remember, the DAGR has a monochrome screen. No contest. Plus try saying, “Take me home, Siri” to a DAGR and see what happens.

Garmin

What about Garmin, you ask? At the beginning of the current conflicts, Garmins were the prevailing additional PNT device. There are still thousands of them in theater, and they have saved many lives, as we will see. However, just look at this sales chart for smart PNT devices.

Products                                                             Total Units Sold (approximate)

iPhone (since 2005)                                            250,600,000 (M)

iPad (since 2010)                                                115,000,000 (M)

Garmin Sales                                                     ~100,000,000 (M)

iPhone/iPad App Store (since 2008)

Downloads of the 361+ navigation apps         2,200,000,000+ (B)

(Note: Total App Store downloads will exceed 50 billion by the time this is published.)

The Future

The future of PNT devices globally, especially for warfighters and first responders, is clearly with rugged mobile devices capable of downloading, storing, updating and utilizing applications. The Garmin cannot do that, although it can be updated, and just look at the numbers. Garmin started business as a GPS device provider in 1989. In that time, while branching out into marine and aviation devices, some of the best in the world for those purposes, they are still primarily GPS only (with SBAS). They have sold approximately 100M devices in 24 years compared to Apple’s iPhone and iPad numbers, which total more than 365M devices in less than eight years. The iPad alone outsold all Garmin products in just three years. I confess that I happily own several Garmins, think that are fantastic PNT devices, and it is really tough to beat the $99 wrist Garmin. When all is said and done, the Garmin gives you better information in a non-jamming environment than the DAGR. And Garmin units are still saving lives. Take this vignette from SSG Kyle Dorsch:

“My name is SSG Kyle Dorsch…a Reconnaissance team leader in the 2-30 Infantry Battalion, 10th Mountain Division, deployed to the Logar province, Afghanistan. I have used my Garmin eTrex Vista H throughout my deployment…it has been a lifesaver in more than a literal sense. In fact, there isn’t a leader in our establishment without a Garmin product…my Garmin guided me and my four-man team seamlessly through some of the toughest areas of Afghanistan…it also literally saved my life.”

SSG Dorsch goes on to explain that the eTREX, which was placed strategically on his combat vest, actually stopped an enemy bullet meant for him, and just like Timex the eTREX kept on ticking.

My Obligatory Caveat

Note that SSG Dorsch has always had a Garmin with him in theater and indicates that his leadership has as well. There is no doubt the eTrex saved his life, literally. However, I would never tell a warfighter to not use their government-issued MUE. In a severe jamming environment, it may prove to be a lifesaver, and it may be the only equipment that interfaces with legacy communications and fire support equipment. Take that advice for what it is worth today, because hopefully this will not be the case much longer.

DARPA and Smart COTS Devices on the Battlefield Now

DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the real inventors of the Arpanet and the Internet), a much-storied DoD research arm, launched an effort recently called “Transformative Apps.” It developed a few dozen smart applications that work on a number of mobile devices. In addition to mapping, navigation and smart routes, the apps identify explosives and various weapons, and help navigate and locate parachute drops.

A screenshot of the DARPA Smart Routes application. The green routes are safe routes and the red are routes that have been traveled too many times or indicate where problems may exist.

DARPA builds prototypes that are transferred to the Services and become official applications used by hundreds of thousands of warfighters. The challenge is to rapidly adapt COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) technology to the unique circumstances of the military, which often operates over large, hostile areas with little to no formal communications infrastructure.

DARPA reports that more than 1,000 war fighters in Afghanistan now use the DARPA Transformative Apps technology as it continues to be rolled out to the Services.

The most interesting aspect of DARPA’s participation in PNT software is that it will definitely accelerate the multi-GNSS and all-signals-available scenario, because it is not constrained by woefully out-of-date DoD regulations. DARPA does what is smart, what cutting-edge technology will support, what makes sense, and ultimately what saves lives.

This good bit of news from DARPA combined with the following statement from the DoD in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month should give us all some hope for the future of PNT and MUE.

Pentagon Expects to Enlist Apple, Samsung Devices

The U.S. Department of Defense expects in coming weeks to grant two separate security approvals for Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones, along with iPhones and iPads running Apple’s latest operating system — moves that would boost the number of U.S. government agencies [ed. legally] allowed to use those devices.

–  Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2013

In my humble opinion, this announcement is simply outstanding…albeit about 10 years late to need. Indeed, Ms. Teri Takai, the current DoD CIO (Chief Information Officer) gest it and is trying hard, but she can’t do all the heavy lifting alone.

Old Adages Die Hard

I remember an old GPS adage that portentously proclaimed, “If it is not supported on the GPS satellite, it cannot be supported in the user equipment.” Unfortunately, there are those still holding to this totally fallacious belief. Today in the current budget environment, amazing capabilities are being implemented with user equipment that multiply the capabilities of the PNT satellite, other satellites and space signals, terrestrial signals and synergistic augmentations. Indeed, the total price of the PLGR and DAGR program combined would barely pay for some NRE (non-recurring engineering) costs and two launches of the GPS III satellites that should be ready for launch in 2014. Today we need to look even harder at what is doable with user equipment, especially in the military, because it is all we can afford. As Winston Churchill was once quoted as saying, “Gentlemen, we have run out of money; now we have to think.” However, having said that, let’s not forget that the multi-GNSS environment has multiplied many fold the number and capabilities of PNT signals on orbit today.

PNT User Equipment TRENDS — Space SIGNALS available

Jim Doherty, USCG Captain retired, and I are friends and colleagues at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA). We are both old retired navigators as well. We both still have the skills to successfully navigate an aircraft or ship, for that matter, from San Francisco to Tokyo using only a sextant. While we are proud of that talent or ability, one that very few possess today, we would much rather accomplish the feat with an exceptional multi-GNSS device, and they exist today like never before. These next lists show all the signals that are available today compared to what the GPS MUE can receive and use for PNT purposes. Plus, Jim and I both share a firm belief in another old navigators’ adage: Receive Everything – Trust Nothing!

Civil-commercial multi-GNSS UE receives more space and terrestrial signals than U.S. GPS MUE.

• GPS MUE “officially” utilizes L1(CA), L2 P(Y) with SAASM.
  
• There are NO commercially viable M-code receivers available today and there will not be for several years to come.

PNT civil UE philosophy: Track and use all PNT signals available.

• GPS L1-CA/L2-codeless and ready for L2C, L5, L1C (GPS III & QZSS)
• SBAS (WAAS, EGNOS, MSAS, GAGAN, SDCM) + NDGPS & many other augmentations
• GLONASS L1/L2/L5
• Galileo E1/E5 (CBOC & Alt BOC)
• Compass B1/B2/B3 (carrier signals only- no full signal specifications)                           
• QZSS (Japanese GEO – highly elliptical) broadcasting L1 CA/C/SAIF, L2C, L5, LEX Pilot
• Wi-Fi, 3G-4G, Skyhook, eLORAN (UK), networks, CORS, VRS, GVRS

And do not be deceived: there are plenty of PNT receivers available today to receive all these signals and they have existed for some time. Equipment manufacturers have been ready to receive, process and utilize all the GPS and multi-GNSS signals for years. For example, Trimble built and shipped an L2C receiver in 2003, and that signal has still not been activated on any U.S. GPS payloads although, as we heard from Major General Marty Whelan (USAF – AFSPC/A5) earlier today, General Shelton (USAF), the four-star commander at AFSPC (Air Force Space Command) has announced a six-week test of the L2C signal and full CNAV message in June of this year. A great step forward.

One of these days we might even catch-up with the Japanese – more on that in a moment.

Trimble built and shipped receivers for GLONASS signals in 2006, even though GLONASS did not reach FOC or Full Operational Capability until late in 2010. A designation it is having serious problems maintaining. Trimble also ships L5 receivers as well as commercial SBAS receivers that result in extremely accurate and reliable positions. Lest you think all these signals have gone to waste, remember that Japan’s QZSS-1 broadcasts both L2C and L5 with a full CNAV message today, and the Trimble receivers and others with the multi-GNSS capability work well with those signals, as we shall see.

Global Virtual Reference Stations

Trimble (VRS) and John Deere (StarFire) PNT receivers have the capability Trimble has designated as Global Virtual Reference Stations, which — along with real-time kinematic (RTK) processing — provide users with an unprecedented number of signals and a real-time processed signal with corrections. This results in centimeter-level accuracy for any of their receivers that have the capability to receive and process the signals. For both manufacturers, that will soon be almost all of their receivers. Sure, there will probably be a small monthly fee involved, but the accuracy difference between 1 meter (~3 feet) and 3 centimeters can mean life and death if you are unlucky enough to be in the collateral damage zone or in the sights of a Hellfire missile during war time.

Multi-GNSS SVs and Signals in View

To highlight this point, just glance at the following graphical log file generated by software in the latest Trimble Multi-GNSS PNT receiver. The chart depicts a log file from a receiver located in Singapore. The location is significant only because in that location the receiver is in full view of the Japanese QZSS-1 PNT SV and all its extra U.S. originated PNT signals (L2C & L5) mentioned earlier. This particular Trimble receiver is networked and reports results automatically and continuously to a web page, while receiving GVRS updates and corrections plus other PNT information, such as an updated almanac, over the same network. The question becomes, is it a PNT device with a computer and embedded communications? Or is it a computer with communications and an embedded PNT function? You be the judge. Regardless of which you choose, this is the future of PNT and MUE.

This civil receiver reports 40+ SVs with 169 separate signals in view and usable. This does not count the number of Wi-Fi and/or GVRS signals it is capable of receiving. Meanwhile, a GPS MUE receiver in the same location only observes a total of 10 SVs it can process for a total signal count of 20. However, one of the key points on this log depiction has to do with integrity. Notice the orange and red lines. They indicate that the receiver has labeled these signals as “suspect” and has automatically dropped them from the solution for any of a host of reasons — a failed integrity check, jamming, spoofing, wrong way path, a runaway clock, etc. You name it, and if it is suspicious, the receiver will drop that SV and its signals from its PNT calculations. Built-in integrity.

The obvious question becomes just how accurate is this Trimble receiver over a 24-hour period? The next graphical log file denotes that it is accurate within 3 centimeters.

Trimble multi-GNSS receiver web page log file denotes continuous availability of PNT signals with an average accuracy of 3 cms.

Assured PNT

When we asked warfighters what was more important to them in a combat zone — availability or accuracy of the PNT signals, the answer was, not surprisingly, both. But, of course, they need to receive the signal first, and then they can worry about accuracy.

So, if you were Ms. Teri Takai and you were worried about “assured PNT,” would you rather do that with 20 signals from 10 SVs or 169 signals from 49 SVs and some very strong, difficult to jam, terrestrial signals as well — adding up to, on average, 33 times more accuracy than the GPS-only signal? To me, the answer is obvious. And of course, all that is on the line with every mission the DoD performs, as is the safety of our critical national infrastructure as this next chart depicts.

• Assured PNT or lack thereof impacts all missions, across all platforms and domains
• Assured GPS MUE PNT today depends on:
  • L1(C/A), L2 P(Y), SAASM (Future M-Code)
  • Accuracy ~ 1m

• Assured Multi-GNSS MUE PNT with all signals available depends on:
  • GPS L1/L2/L5/L1C/L2C/M-Code/SAASM
  • SBAS (WAAS, EGNOS, MSAS, GAGAN, SDCM+)
  • GLONASS L1/L2/L5
  • Galileo E1/E5 (CBOC & Alt BOC)
  • Compass B1/B2/B3
  • QZSS GEO – L1 CA/C/SAIF, L2C, L5, LEX Pilot
  • Two-way communications, Networking, PNT servers, each PNT device with unique IP address and each PNT device serves as a sensor
  • Software definable devices
  • Multiple software applications (Apps)
  • Accuracy ~ 3 cm

Army Making Strides

I spoke above about DARPA getting into the PNT business, and that is a good thing. But how about the largest military user of PNT, the United States Army? The U.S. Army is making some interesting changes as well. The Army announced a few months ago that there would be no more purchases of DAGRs, and that it was pursuing smartphones as a communications and small computing platform as well as an alternate PNT tool and display device. This is where the Puck comes into play.

Inside the Puck.

While it is a wonderful idea I fully endorse, the problem with the Puck is that under the current design scheme it will still only transmit the current two GPS signals to a smartphone or other PNT display device. And warfighters lament that it is another device run by batteries for which our warfighters need to carry spares. Why not make the Puck a multi-GNSS device? we asked. The answer we received is that it would make it too power hungry and just require more batteries. So to misquote Shakespeare “…for want of a battery, the war was lost?” The Army is definitely on the right track, but they need to figure out how to make the Puck a multi-GNSS device. Can you say Lithium ION and solar charger – Hoorah!?

The Army Hub

The Puck is moving in the right direction. However, with the addition of another device, the Army is definitely on the right track. This device is designated the “Hub,” and while it is again GPS-oriented, it contains multiple terrestrial and internal signal augmentations and backups, as the image depicts.

Inside the U.S. Army’s Hub.

With apologies to the U.S. Army, I unabashedly modified the chart, and I made it very obvious. The red text depicts my addition of a multi-GNSS card or module versus or in addition to the CGM (Common GPS Module) and GB-GRAM or Ground-Based GPS Receiver Application Module. The multi-GNSS card/module already exists today. Several PNT receiver manufacturers manufacture it with 28-nm technology versus the 95-nm technology — for the as-yet-unavailable for about four more years if the rumors are correct — GPS-only CGM. For me, the addition seems to be an easy fix, as there is lots of room in the Hub. But this fix or module (CGM) is years and millions of dollars down the road, versus a solution that exist today.

YUMA 2 or Hub or Both

The solution, frankly, is one of the smart tablets available today from numerous manufacturers — seven, actually, that have the wherewithal to produce a secure multi-GNSS device with a SAASM module.

The Trimble Yuma 2.

The Army Hub.

This is an example of the solution in the form of a Yuma 2 tablet computer from Trimble, which I am in the processing of reviewing for GPS World. The Yuma 2 has all the multi-GNSS features we have been discussing and more, plus it can in time accommodate all the modules scheduled to be incorporated into the Hub. Why build a whole new display device when the core already exists with many more capabilities than were imagined or real estate would ever allow for the Hub? Plus, it is available today as a rugged Mil-Spec device with a full color, high-resolution touch screen. And in the end it will provide a 3-cm solution versus a 1-meter solution. What more could you want? And it is available today with an outstanding and intuitive interface.

Conclusion – Services PNT UE Trends

I have been focusing on the Army today not simply because they are the biggest U.S. military user of PNT devices, but because they are moving in the right direction for the future of PNT and MUE devices. Of course, all the services and many agencies need a well-thought-out and secure PNT solution, and if we have learned anything it is that one size does not fit all. Indeed, our national security and our national infrastructure depend upon future PNT devices. For security purposes alone, they should have a certain degree of application and signal diversity.

Now let’s review:

• Army has a way ahead with an assured PNT program.
  • Includes end of PLGR and DAGR and adding new networkable devices.
  • Plans for fourth-generation multi-GNSS and multi-function handheld devices and embedded PNT devices as sensors to include the Puck and Hub.
• Marine Corps: Decertified PLGRs in 2009 and attempts to limit the use of DAGRs.
  • DAGRs used primarily as embedded devices.
  • Purchasing approved SAASM devices from commercial vendors.
• USAF: Outfitted 70% of aircraft with modern, integrated, networkable and upgradeable PNT devices.
• Navy: More than 60% of the fleet outfitted with modern PNT networked devices.
• The Bottom Line is – One size does not fit all but one conclusion is clear – while GPS may and will always hopefully be the Gold Standard – multi-GNSS solutions are the future.

The Future of PNT Devices

This last list depicts the future of PNT as best as I can define it; indeed, as it has already been defined for us by our warfighters and first responders or, as Kirk Lewis would have me say, government users. The users are not waiting around, nor have they bothered to adhere to woefully out-of-date regulations. It is what they desire, and since their lives depend on it, it is what they should have.

• Multi-GNSS — Utilize all PNT signals available.
  • Space and Terrestrial (GPS, GLONASS, eLORAN).
  • Traditional and non-traditional (Wi-Fi, GVRS, carrier signals).
• Multi-function COTS devices with non-proprietary OS (operating System), intuitive interfaces and Mil-Spec ruggedized.
  • Multiple methods of communications: Wi-Fi, Skype, 4G, text, auto-text, satellite.
• Software Downloads – Applications
  • COTS applications plus .mil apps store.
• Networked devices for SA, updates and PNT,
  • Real-time satellite imagery and mission data injects.
  • Defense and intelligence LBS.
• Each device will be a sensor on a network,
  • Automatically report jamming, interference and location data.
• Utilize SAASM and anti-jam military signals only as required.

Thanks you for your time and kind attention today. And remember, Happy Navigating!

Loosely Translated, Herodotus, Histories (8.98)

…attendees at the 29^th National Space Symposium from their appointed rounds.

Seriously, folks, with apologies to postal workers everywhere, here in the Rocky Mountains it was 72 degrees on the eighth of April, the first day of the largest space symposium in the world. This morning, the ninth, the startled thermometer hovered around eleven degrees with snow, high winds and attendees searching for any outer wear they could find. And except for NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) personnel, everyone braved the weather and soldiered on.

NASA, of course, one of the few government agencies with space in its name, decided they did not need to attend the National Space Symposium this year. But that is NASA’s loss and a story for another time, because more than 9,000 other dedicated space professionals did attend, and more than 170 companies provided major exhibits that filled to capacity the largest pillar-less exhibition hall west of the Mississippi. Just writing this makes my feet hurt. And the best part is this all takes place at the five-star Broadmoor Resort in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, hence Mother Nature’s raucous spring weather shenanigans.

Broadmoor resort.

This is truly a watershed event for the global space community, and it improves every year. I have had the honor of attending 25 of the 29 National Space Symposiums, and as usual there are always a few major topics of interest that everyone wants to discuss. This year I can literally not walk ten feet without someone stopping me to discuss:

1. The error-plagued GAO (Government Accountability Office) OCX (Next Generation GPS Operational Control System) report and subsequent regrettable sensationalized news reports
2. The actual status of the OCX program
3. Lockheed Martin’s GPS III program
4. NavSat – Nee Parkinson’s NibbleSat – real or imagined
5. Software-defined GPS receivers and GPS user equipment in general

When it comes to opinions, informed or otherwise, concerning each of these topics, the resulting litany reminds me of the old saw about asking three psychologists to comment on a patient’s diagnosis, and you will invariably wind up with four opinions. But have no fear: I spoke directly with the prime companies developing each of these programs, and the following is straight from the horse’s mouth, or some other part of their anatomy as the case may be. You be the judge.

GAO and OCX

The Government Accountability Office, which historically is anything but, released a report on March 28titled “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs,” in which it seems to claim that the original $886 million GPS OCX program awarded to Raytheon Information Systems in Aurora, Colorado, in February 2010, has grown by 43 percent and ballooned to $3.695 billion. In fact, the report does not actually say that exactly, but you have to dig deep to determine that. Most readers won’t take the time to do that and will assume that the OCX program is grossly over budget. It is not. In fact, to reach that extraordinary number, OCX cost overruns would need to have grown by 43 percent for each year since it was awarded, and that is ludicrous. According to Raytheon VP and OCX Program Manager Ray Kolibaba, the $3.695 billion number probably comes from including “…programmatic costs beyond OCX development costs and pessimistic projections from the government” that in my experience no acquisition agency, nor Congress for that matter, would ever include when determining true program cost adherence parameters. Such ancillary costs would certainly never be included in a Nunn-McCurdy-Sarbanes-Oxley-Graham-Rudman-Harry Potter fiscal responsibility evaluation.

Speaking from personal experience, in 1990 I was appointed the very first Legislative Liaison Director for Headquarters Air Force Space Command. I had a small office and staff and spent most of my time on Capitol Hill meeting with congressmen and senators, where I advocated the latest space programs, and/or sat in on congressional hearings and then advised senior U.S. Air Force space officials on what budget and policy decisions they could expect from Congress. And I can tell you now, using the methods the GAO concocted to compile this report, I could cause any space program to come under close and unwarranted scrutiny. However, using time-tested congressional oversight rules of engagement (ROE), OCX has not come close to triggering any of the automated congressional watchdog cost overrun tripwires. The truth of the matter is OCX has grown in scope and schedule due in part to government change requests, mainly in the cyber and information assurance areas, along with affordability mandates due to schedule slips and sequestration. According to Stephen Moran, Raytheon mission solutions director, the true cost of OCX today is approximately $967 million, which means the total program cost to date has grown by approximately 10 percent, a far cry from the fictitious annualized 43 percent increase claimed by the GAO. While the GAO goes to great lengths to justify its inflated numbers, it is comparing or rather sensationalizing apples and oranges.

Some may say, so what? Who outside of Washington D.C. reads or believes GAO reports? Unfortunately, Congress, the congressional staff and congressional budgeters read these reports, since the GAO is officially the investigative arm of Congress. In fact the GAO is an independent, nonpartisan agency that works for Congress. Often called the “congressional watchdog,” GAO investigates how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars. And many times they do a great job. But in this case they are wide of the mark. It would be a shame if Congress cancelled OCX because of a flawed or, at a minimum, a poorly explained report.

Ray Kolibaba and Stephen Moran assured me during our talks at the 29^th NSS that OCX was alive and well and on track to meet a re-baselined time and costs schedule. OCX Block One RTO should occur as planned in the first quarter of 2017 and will include the ability to launch and control GPS IIF and GPS III satellites and payloads, but not GPS IIA satellites and payloads. That mission, along with the responsibility for maintaining residual satellites, still falls to the LADO (Launch Anomaly and Disposal Operations) contractor Braxton Technologies, which is an OCX subcontractor to Raytheon.

The bottom line is the OCX schedule has slipped and the budget has grown, but within historically acceptable parameters; certainly, it is not even close to triggering congressional oversight. However, having said that, in this budget sequestration environment, the overall GPS budget has taken some significant hits so that even the slightest cost overrun is of concern. Still, let’s hope that Congress makes funding decisions using actual historically acceptable numbers and not overblown rhetoric.

LMCO and GPS III

Keoki Jackson

Let me say right up front that I really like Keoki Jackson and what he has accomplished on the GPS III program at Lockheed Martin. Keoki is the vice president of Navigation Systems, and as such heads the GPS III program. Keoki has an honest and open demeanor and just oozes integrity. He runs a very open program and, indeed, has extended an open invitation to me, wearing multiple hats, to visit the LMCO GPS III facility in Waterton, Colorado, to discuss GPS III anytime. Believe me, I have and will continue to take him up on his offer. To someone in my line of work, that confidence speaks volumes. Keoki obviously has supreme faith in his people, and is assured the GPS III program is on the path to success. I spoke with Keoki on Monday, April 8, as I toured the GPS III facility with him. He was like a father with pictures of his children. Happy, smiling, engaging — he could not wait to show off their latest accomplishments.

My bottom line is this is a rare attitude among senior execs and PMs on major space programs. And that may be because so many of them are under congressional scrutiny. Not the case for GPS III, however. The back-to-basics GPS III program is on schedule and budget, and is set to deliver GPS III SV-01in May 2014, exactly six years after program award. The USAF has said it may not launch the first GPS III until April 2015, but that is a separate ground support and commanding issue. It has nothing to do with the schedule and availability of the GPS III satellites.

Historically, LMCO-built satellites are some of the best in the world. According to LMCO statistics, and verified by yours truly, LMCO GPS satellite vehicles have accumulated more than 175 operational years on orbit with a reliability record better than 99.9 percent. Keoki also proudly pointed out that the Lockheed Martin heritage dates back to the production of the Oscar and Nova Transit satellites — programs that paved the way for the current GPS gold standard on orbit today.

Now, don’t let the back-to-basics approach fool you. That just means sound, solid, proven engineering and management practices are employed, but the technology is anything but basic. The kingpin of the LMCO GPS III approach is an artifact known as the GNST, or pathfinder spacecraft. The GPS III Non Flight Satellite Testbed (GNST) gives everyone confidence that Lockheed is on the right track. The pathfinder goes through all the rigorous steps a flight article goes through, only it completes them first and allows LMCO personnel to find all those schedule-busting, expensive glitches that show up in any program. As Keoki said, “Our endeavor is to find any anomalies now before the satellites and payloads are on orbit.” The GNST, along with cutting-edge 3-D motion studies with avatars (an amazing story and teaser for another time), will hopefully allow a smooth transition for SV-01 through SV-09 when the program plans to initiate programmatic and hardware changes to allow for the first-ever GPS dual launch.

This is a far different approach from the Boeing GPS IIF spacecraft and payloads, which experienced major anomalies on orbit for the first two SVs. Changes were made to subsequent ground space vehicles before launch, but the first two SVs on orbit are stuck with those anomalies. The LMCO approach hopes to eliminate or at least minimize that risk. If the full LMCO GPS III program comes to fruition, there could eventually be as many as 32 GPS III satellites in various configurations on orbit. Which means Keoki will probably be referring to GPS IIIs not as children but grandchildren, and he will need a much bigger scrapbook. Bottom line, GPS III is alive and well, on schedule and budget.

NavSat or NibbleSat

For those of you who have not heard about the NavSat or NibbleSat, it is a small GPS satellite endeavor by AFSPC, SMC, and AFRL to determine the feasibility of building a GPS-only small satellite, one without NDS, SAR, or any other auxiliary payloads. However, this is not solely a Weight Watchers program — it is about far more than a slimmed-down GPS. It addresses technological aspects of the GPS program as well as SWAP (size, weight, and power) issues that have plagued the GPS program since its inception.

Since 1978 when the very first GPS satellite was launched, the program has grown in complexity and size with ancillary payloads, more signals, more power, and more flexibility, which all add up to a heavier, more complex satellite — and in space, where weight and complexity equal greater costs. GPS III has finally reached the point that it will cost nearly $450 million to place a single GPS SV and payload in orbit.

As I said earlier, the GPS III payload may last 30 years, which equates to a sizeable return on your investment (ROE) for space assets, but in this constrained sequestration budget environment Congress is not looking down the road 30 years; it is barely able to consider the FYDP or the next five years’ development plan budget. So $450 million per GPS III on orbit is a big number. Even with dual launch, according to Lockheed’s Keoki Jackson (see above, “LMCO and GPS III”), from SV-09 forward the savings will only amount to about $70M per launch because it will require a larger launch vehicle. Certainly, $70 million is not a number to disregard, especially if you could build and launch a small GPS-only SV for that same amount. I know it sounds nearly impossible, but that is what the NavSat program hopes to achieve. To date, no less than 20 companies, U.S. and European, have expressed an interest in making NavSat happen. Most companies I spoke with are convinced it is not a technological issue, but a commitment and funding issue on behalf of the U.S. government. So what else is new? In my book, NavSat is a real possibility, and the recent plethora of BAAs (Broad Area Announcements) from SMC (Space and Missile Systems Center), AFRL (Air Force Research Laboratory), and SPAWAR (Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command) attest to that fact. Stay tuned for more.

GPS Payloads, Receivers: Software-Defined and Otherwise

It is a fact of life where GPS is concerned that when you talk about GPS technology, you are talking about ITT Exelis. There is not a single U.S. GPS payload on orbit today that was not built in whole or in part by ITT Exelis. There are few companies in the world today that can claim such a prestigious record for space assets that are arguable the best in the world. The ITT Exelis record of providing proven GPS payloads for 35 years is unequaled in the space arena, and the company continues to innovate and grow. So, it should come as no surprise that Exelis provided LMCO with the GPS payload for the GNST pathfinder mentioned earlier. The bottom line is, when it comes to GPS payloads, nobody does it better than ITT Exelis.

Therefore, I took the opportunity to sit down with Mark Pisani, a vice president and general manager in the geospatial systems business at ITT Exelis, to discuss the recent $2.15 million contract award from AFRL to research navigation payloads to support the current GPS program and the NavSat program specifically. Mark stated that the technologies being investigated could easily translate to the entire GPS program.

Mr. Pisani stated that over the next 18 months, the company will conduct research into potential methods to reduce payload size, weight, and power, and improve GPS signal strength and reception for disadvantaged users, especially warfighters, in either urban canyons or mountainous terrain. ITT Exelis is also working on new methods of tamper-proofing for its GPS reference and monitor receivers, which will deployed around the globe to ensure GPS accuracy for all global users. So it appears that where GPS is concerned, you name it and ITT Exelis is working some aspect of the program.

NSS Wrap-up

Space Foundation Leadership Team.

NSS 29 is still in full swing as I write this. Indeed, my old friend and colleague in uniform, General William (Willie) Shelton, just gave his state-of-the-military-space-community address, and he did it in his usual exemplary manner. Few generals can match his grace and style. But to paraphrase Robert Frost, “…deadlines, time and tides wait for no man,” so I will wrap up with a few personal observations.

As many of you have heard me say, year after year, the National Space Symposium is like no other space event in the world. It gets bigger and better every year, and this year events extended all the way to LMCO in Denver and to Broadmoor properties that have never been used for this event previously. The NSS agenda and speakers are top notch and international in nature. Just a sampling are George Nield, associate administrator for commercial space transportation at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Jean-Jacques Dordain, director general of the European Space Agency (ESA), and Yasushi Horikawa, chairman of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Officials from commercial space leaders such as LMCO, SpaceX, Boeing, XCOR Aerospace, Sierra Nevada Space Systems, and others will also speak, while actress Sigourney Weaver, star of the Alien films among others, is the featured speaker at the Space Technology Hall of Fame gala tomorrow night. So there is literally something for everyone.

Sigourney Weaver

I have known Elliot Holokauahi (yes, it is a mouthful) Pulham (CEO), Chief Chuck Zimkas (USAF, Ret) who serves as president of the Space Foundation, and Holly Roberts, the CFO, for many, many years, and they are always striving to make the National Space Symposium better every year; in my book, they have succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Their zeal is combined with the dedicated support of Steve Bartolin, CEO and president of the Broadmoor. I first met Steve more than 25 years ago when he ran the famed Greenbriar Resort in White Sulphir Springs, West Virginia, the playground of congressmen and senators. Steve has always had a penchant for living in places that ended in Springs, as well as for perfect service, while going to great lengths to make sure his employees are happy and enjoy their work. It shows at the Broadmoor, which is a Triple AAA Five Diamond Resort, and has been for more than 20 years. Together, Steve’s commitment to perfection and the vision of the Space Foundation make the National Space Symposium not only the world’s largest but by far the best space symposium in the world today.

Braxton Technologies Sets the Example

The Braxton Technologies booth.

Personally, I enjoy the exhibit hall and tend to spend most of my time there. The event along with the Cyber presentations lasts for four full days, but you cannot see and do everything in that time, which leads me a personal observation. Many of the vendors and exhibitors in the past several years have begun to offer refreshments in their booth space, to help draw in the huge crowds always roaming the exhibition floor. Some offer ice cream, coffee, even beer and pretzels, but personally I like what Braxton Technologies has developed. Remember, this is a Space Symposium, so Braxton decided to mount small-scale full working models of various satellites above their booth space and allow attendees to actually send wireless commands to control the satellites. You can sit at one of their control stations, see a real spacecraft commanding (TT&C) screen, send commands to the scale-model satellites, and watch the satellites react in real time.

Now, Fred (I call him the model builder and engineer extraordinaire) is the one who built the majority of the models, and they are an excellent example of fine craftsmanship. Indeed, the first night there were some issues with one of the older models, and Fred stayed in the booth working the problem from closing time on Monday evening until 0700 on Tuesday morning. And his hard work paid off, because there is always a crowd around the Braxton booth waiting to control or just watch the satellites respond. The Braxton folks are very good at and very proud of what they do, and it shows. They automated GPS scheduling, on their own nickel last year, and this year offer a glimpse at the future of GPS mission planning. Plus, they have an application for unimproved aircraft landing sites around the world that is simply amazing.

But, in the end it is watching the children, the future space operators and astronauts, who gather in huge crowds around the Braxton booth, waiting with thinly veiled anticipation to send a command to a satellite. It has been a long time since I was a child, but you should have seen the smile on my face when Fred allowed me to send a command and I could see the satellite model respond. Both Frank Backes, Braxton CEO, and Kenny O’Neil, Braxton president, and most of the Braxton employees are former space operators, and they have not forgotten the thrill of actually commanding satellites. Now they have made that thrill available for our future space operators. I think they hit it out of the park.

There’s still time. Drop by the Braxton booth, speak with Fred, and send a command to a satellite. Oh, and you are allowed to smile!

Until next time, happy navigating, and go fly a satellite!

I mentioned at the time how incredulous I was at the question, but that I answered it with a straight face. Now, while professional courtesy prevents me from ever revealing the name of the female journalist, I will say that she evidently started an uncomfortable trend. Much of my correspondence lately has concerned the connections between time and position and/or navigation and why we are so concerned about time.

I won’t bore my more sophisticated readers with GPS 101, or certainly not Time and Frequency Metrology 101, but I will tell you that I think we (this is not the royal “we” but includes all of us who work with and promote GPS on a daily basis) need to do a better job describing just how GPS works and more importantly how critical precise time and frequency is to position and navigation solutions, whether GPS is utilized or not. And I don’t have the time here to take up the argument concerning how important GPS is to our critical national infrastructure. Indeed, a topic and column for another time.

I am sure my time and frequency metrology friends and colleagues at NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado) and USNO (U.S. Naval Observatory — read as UTC — home of Coordinated Universal Time and the Master Clock) would probably go about this differently. They tend to approach these problems strictly from a metrology viewpoint. While there is nothing wrong with that perspective, I hope to give you a more hands-on operational view of time and how it relates to position and navigation.

Smithsonian Institution and Time Exhibit

An operational backup of a Transit 5-A satellite.

Of course, I could take the easy way out and advise all my readers to visit the latest Smithsonian time exhibit entitled: Time and Navigation – The Untold Story of Getting From Here to There. The new exhibit opens in April.

Here are a few quick Smithsonian facts, with commentary added, for those who want to visit and learn just what time has to do with GPS and navigation in general:

What: The Relationship Between Time and Navigation

When: Opens in April 2013.

Where: The Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum, Independence Avenue at Sixth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

Responsibility: “Time and Navigation — The Untold Story of Getting From Here to There” is being produced jointly by the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum and the National Museum of American History. This is one of the few times, if not the first, that two museums have jointly produced a major exhibit of this importance.

Sponsors: The exhibition is made possible through the generous contributions of Northrop Grumman; Exelis Inc.; Honeywell; National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency; U.S. Department of Transportation; Magellan; National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing; Rockwell Collins; and ION the Institute of Navigation. Note: The sponsors are listed in order of the amount they gave to present the exhibition, but it should be noted that ION was among the first contributors, making the museums’ decision to go ahead with the exhibit a more comfortable one. More on that and why it is significant later.

The USS Alabama.

Artifacts: (Don’t you just love the word artifact? Indeed, someone once told me, and not unkindly, that I resemble that word.) The time exhibition features 144 artifacts, drawn primarily from the collections of the participating museums. Highlights of the exhibition include a representation of a 19th-century ship from the U.S. Exploring Expedition; the first sea-going marine chronometer made in the United States; the submarine navigation system for the USS Alabama; a TRANSIT navigation satellite (a major naval predecessor to GPS); Wiley Post’s airplane, the Winnie Mae; and Stanley, originally from the Stanford University Racing Team and written about many times by yours truly in GPS World. Stanley is a robotic vehicle that can drive itself. Stanley is a 2005 Volkswagen Touareg, which has been considerably modified to navigate without remote control and without a human driver onboard. Stanley handily won the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), a robotic vehicle race. Stanley successfully navigated 212 kilometers (132 miles) across desert terrain and has had his (here we go, anthropomorphizing automobiles) own robotic exhibit at the Smithsonian since 2009.

An official DARPA photograph of Stanley at the 2005 DARPA Grand Challenge. Stanley, created by the Stanford University Racing Team, won the race.

Organization: The current time exhibition is organized into five sections: Navigation for Everyone; Navigating at Sea; Navigating in the Air; Navigating in Space; and Inventing Satellite Navigation.

Theme: If you want to know where you are, you need an accurate clock. In other words, you need to know when you are. About 250 years ago, sailors first used accurate clocks, later known as chronometers, to navigate the oceans. Today, we locate ourselves on the globe with synchronized atomic clocks in orbiting satellites (GPS is the primary method today). Among the many challenges facing navigation from then to now, one stands out: keeping accurate time.

For centuries, nations have invested enormous resources to determine time and place for geopolitical reasons, and their research has changed people’s view of the world. Advanced technology that was once available only to the military has become commonplace and downloadable to cell phones, iPADS and computers. Instead of unfolding a map or stopping at a gas station to ask for directions, drivers can now consult their car’s GPS (Global Positioning) system. The new gallery examines the cultural and technological history of precise timekeeping and navigation at sea, in the air, and in space and the impact of satellite navigation on our everyday lives. Which of course are also the missions of the Institute of Navigation and GPS World magazine.

When Am I?

Many of you have heard the old saw about those who don’t know history being doomed to repeat it, and if you don’t know where you have been, how can you know where you are? There are probably numerous maxims that fit the bill when it comes to the history of time and navigation, and the Smithsonian Exhibit certainly does a great job of hitting all the high points, but beyond that, they will take you into about as much detail as you can stand. If possible, plan on attending the exhibit several times and delving into each of the five major themes. But if you can’t visit Washington, D.C., and the Smithsonian exhibit, then visit virtually on their excellent website.

For our purposes, suffice it to say that you can’t really know where you are unless you know when you are. That requires a clock, the more precise the better, and consequently the more accurate your position.

History Lesson

More than 200 years ago, sailors sailing between Europe and the New World knew where they were only in relationship to their latitude, but had no idea other than dead reckoning of their longitude.

Enter Boston clockmaker William Cranch Bond who, although he was not the first, constructed a specialized timepiece, which later became known as the Bond Chronometer, which sailors used to determine longitude at sea. But still there were problems. Sailors used a maritime sextant and chronometer to determine position, but both devices depended on the other. On cloudy or foggy days, either the horizon or the sun and stars or both were unavailable, and positioning/navigation was relegated to, in all seriousness, dead reckoning with a dubious magnetic compass, a rock and a rope. The problem being, of course, that dead reckoning made many mariners resemble the first word in that very unfortunate navigational phrase.

Time and Air Navigation

Fast forward almost a century (1903), and aeroplanes are now on the scene along with all the problems attendant in navigating a machine easily traveling ten times faster than most ships. But of course the U.S. Navy rationalized that if a watch and a sextant were good enough for navigating maritime ships, then they were good enough for ships of the air — even if the horizon was often obscured or moved around a great deal, or turbulence made balancing a sextant difficult.

The result was most aviators gave up on the sextant, especially solo aviators, and just used a watch and, you guessed it, dead reckoning, which is exactly what happened to many aviators in 1927 who attempted to win the Raymond Orteig $25,000 prize for being the first solo aviator to cross the Atlantic nonstop from the East Coast of the U.S. — in fact, it had to be New York to Paris, France. For you trivia buffs, it had to be New York to Paris because the person offering the prize, Monsieur Raymond Ortieg, was an emigrant from France who did well for himself and went from a penniless restaurant busboy to owning two of the most prestigious hotels in New York City at the time. Hence the connection between New York and Paris. But I digress.

Charles Lindbergh (left) and Raymond Orteig.

Enter Lindbergh

As most of you are aware, then captain, later colonel, Charles Lindbergh took up that dare and won the Orteig-prize on the 21 of May, 1927, when he landed in Paris after a grueling 33½-hour solo flight across the Atlantic. When Lindbergh hit land after being “feet wet” for more than 30 hours and 3500+ miles, he was less than three miles from his intended European entry point, a feat that would be hard to duplicate today without GPS, as even with an unaided inertial system the drift can sometimes be as high as one kilometer per hour.

One part I always find amusing about the Lindbergh transatlantic saga is that after flying with “dead reckoning” as his only means of navigation for 30 hours across the Atlantic, he followed the Seine river all the way to Paris, so he essentially converted from VFR (Visual Flight Rules) to the IFR or “I fly rivers” navigation method for the last part of his journey.

Meteorologists and the sealed barometric equipment Lindbergh carried on board — to prove he never landed enroute or that it was indeed a non-stop flight — would not only verify that fact but also verify that he navigated the Atlantic in what we might call today The Perfect Calm. Indeed, Lucky Lindy picked the perfect 48-hour period for his flight. For those of you who read the book, saw the movie, or were there, will remember that in New York the weather during the night preceding his historic takeoff from the dirt-churned-into-mud runway at Roosevelt Field, Long Island, New York, was less than cooperative. There was a major thunderstorm with lots of lightning and several inches of rain; consequently, many counseled Captain Lindbergh to postpone his flight. But he would have none of it and the rest is history.

The most interesting part of the story, however, is that the entire flight was accomplished with “dead reckoning,” a compass and a watch, the very same tools that Captain Lindbergh used during his tenure as a U.S. Mail pilot. So, in fact, Lucky Lindy actually knew very little about navigating an airplane or avigation, as many called it at the time. Indeed, according to Roger Connor from the National Air and Space Museum and his wonderful article in this month’s Smithsonian Air & Space magazine, Even Lindbergh Got Lost, Captain Lindbergh did not learn to properly navigate with a sextant, chronometer and star charts until more than a year after his famous flight to Paris.

I won’t spoil the story for you, but he learned to navigate as did his famous wife, Ann Morrow Lindbergh, from then Lieutenant Commander Philip V.H. Weems of the U.S. Navy. LCDR Weems set up the nation’s first independent navigation school, and went on to instruct such notables as General Curtis LeMay, the Commander of Strategic Air Command (SAC), who went on to serve as the Chief of Staff of the USAF. Most people are not aware, but General LeMay was dual-qualified as a pilot and a navigator in the USAF. As the Commander in Chief of SAC or CINCSAC, he mandated that all SAC flight crews be able to navigate from Point A to Point B using only passive means that were always available and did not involve transmitting a signal outside the aircraft. In other words, celestial navigation, using a sextant, chronometer, special plotter and star charts, much as was taught by LCDR Weems.

I was one of the lucky SAC flight crew members who learned to navigate with those basic instruments. And checking my logbooks, I find that I made just short of 200 flights (99 round-trips) across the big pond, the Pacific that is, using those basic instruments. I mentioned this to a group of USAF aircrews recently during a speech, and when I asked how many of them could accomplish that feat if required to do so today, I was informed that sextants are no longer carried on USAF aircraft and most do not even have sextant ports. In other words, it is a lost art among flight crews today, and it is a shame, but it is also a topic for another time.

The important fact concerning navigation and time is that time — indeed, precise time — is and always has been critical to accurate navigation, especially aircraft navigation, no matter whether you are flying from New York to Paris, Texas, or New York to Paris, France. And GPS Atomic Reference Systems (Atomic Clocks) on orbit today, which deliver time accurate to millionths of a second, are even more critical since they are the heart of the system. So I would say to my journalist enquirer, GPS and atomic clocks are one and the same. You can’t navigate accurately without precise time.

Weems Legacy

Now, to bring this full circle, I first heard about the proposed Smithsonian Time Exhibit about two years ago from a friend and professional colleague, James Doherty, Captain, USCG retired. Jim, who once served as the Commander of the United States Coast Guard Navigation Center, is a past President of ION (Institute of Navigation), one of the few U.S. members of the Royal Institute of Navigation (RIN) in London, England, and now serves as the Chairman of the newly created Military Division at ION. And for full disclosure purposes, I must say that I have been a proud member of ION for more than 30 years.

Jim, who was serving on a Smithsonian panel as a subject-matter expert on navigation, told me that the Smithsonian had the idea for the time exhibit, but was looking for support, and the first organization to pledge support was indeed ION. The Institute of Navigation certainly does not have the deep pockets of Northrop and Exelis or the other major sponsors, but they are very serious about navigation and they are always looking for ways to promote their vision. This was the perfect opportunity.

And just in case you were wondering, the legacy that Captain, U.S. Navy, V.H. Weems left the world is a method of celestial navigation that persisted as the primary means, especially in the U.S. military and military forces around the world, for more than 60 years and is still the only reliable means of navigation available to us when everything else goes away. For with the Weems Method, as long as you have a sextant and an accurate clock, you can navigate anywhere.

Oh, and one other legacy: Captain V.H. Weems was the founder of the Institute of Navigation, which is the leading society devoted to the advancement of navigation in the world today. And for you trivia fans, the ION predates the RIN by two years.

Sequestration and Cancellations

Normally I would wrap it up here and say grab your sextant and happy navigating, but just as I wrap this up I have been told by informed sources at SMC and AFCEA that the GPS Partnership Council scheduled for May this year has been postponed. Sources at ION tell me that ION/JNC in Orlando has been cancelled for this year due to the restrictions on travel for U.S. government and military officials. In other words, more victims of sequestration and a Congress that can’t make the decisions we elect and pay them to make.

At ION they have always had the mantra, do it right or don’t bother doing it at all, and this year the travel restrictions are just too great. Certainly Jim Doherty and I were in the process of setting up another great Warrior Panel for the classified day, but that will have to wait for another time. However, I am assured by ION Executive Director Lisa Beaty that the ION GNSS meeting from September 16-20 at the Nashville Convention Center is definitely a go, so I look forward to seeing everyone there. Stop by the GPS World booth and say hello. Plus, I hope to see many of you at the 29th Annual National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs from April 8-11, 2013.

Until then, Happy Navigating – blow the dust off your sextant and give it a shot.

• BYOD – Disaster Waiting for Government Networks
• BYOD – Bring Your Own Disaster to the Government Enterprise
• BYOD – Are the Military Networks Ready?
• BYOD – Bring Your Own Destruction
• BYOD – A Huge Security Risk?
• BYOD – A Smart Choice or a Cyber Disaster?

Historical Perspective

The naiveté of the authors that penned these stories astounds me, as frankly they are out of step with the times by about 2,000 years. BYOD and the military go hand in hand. During Roman times, except for conscripts or slaves, Roman soldiers were expected to furnish their own supplies, their own weapons, their own horses and their own support. Often they brought their own slaves/servants to care for them in camp. In our (U.S.) Revolutionary War, many of the ragtag regiments were formed from state volunteers and local militias who were commanded by officers who, having paid for their commissions, supported the soldiers they brought to the fight, with food and uniforms; many were even expected to bring their own weapons and ammunition. The same applies to our (U.S.) Civil War, the War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression, as my Southern colleagues are wont to constantly remind me.

Since warfare began, warfighters have supplied their own equipment (BYOD), and today’s warfighters are no different, especially when it comes to personal electronic equipment, even though antiquated DoD (Department of Defense) regulations frown on such behavior. Hopefully you can see where I am going with this, especially as it relates to GPS/PNT user equipment. Unfortunately, DoD regulations also specify our warfighters in all services must utilize the government-supplied GPS equipment known as MUE (Military User Equipment), and even specifies the consequences of not adhering to that inane policy. Consequently, warfighters generally have the GPS MUE readily available if it is embedded, thereby avoiding the horrendous user interface, but they invariably also have their own personal GPS/PNT devices close at hand.

These BYO-GPS-D are, without a doubt, more useful, certainly more user friendly, and actually provide a modicum of situational awareness, with such incredible features as actual moving color maps, annotated roads and rivers, up-to-date geographical features and even voice guided navigation — all features not available on the GPS MUE as a stand-alone unit today. Some PNT devices answer verbal inquiries from their users. Can you say, “Hi Siri, where am I?”

Fast Forward: First Gulf War

Consider the first Gulf War in 1990, which in GPS lore is touted in military aviation circles as the turning point for GPS transitioning from just another en route navigation system to a weapons systems multiplier and situational awareness tool that made believers of even the most jaded fighter pilots and land warriors. Suddenly fighter pilots and weapons systems operators were scoring “shacks” or direct hits on targets, on every sortie. Instead of using four bombs to hit one target, four bombs now equaled a direct hit on four targets — a phenomenal increase in accuracy, with minimal collateral damage, all due to the Global Positioning System.

For land warriors, the famous “left hook” strategy, employed during the midst of a major, once-a-decade sandstorm that placed American warriors behind the Iraqi forces occupying Kuwait, was widely credited with bringing the ground war to a close in just four days, and it could never have been accomplished without GPS. However, the part of this story that often gets misinterpreted is the sudden appearance of BYOD GPS devices during that extremely short duration conflict (August 2, 1990, until February 28, 1991).

Newspapers and military magazines carried numerous pictures of commercial/civil GPS devices taped to military vehicle windshields, windows on ships bridges, in fighter cockpits, inside tanks and fighting vehicles — and of course carried by individual warfighters, despite regulations to the contrary.

I Don’t Know Where It Came From Sir…It Just Magically Appeared!

What we tend to overlook is that these BYOD or personal PNT devices, despite warfighter protestations to the contrary (“Methinks thou dost protest too much…”) did not just appear overnight. Warfighters carried them in flight-suit pockets and briefcases for years. They saw minimal use, and then the U.S. decided to fight a war on and over a featureless desert. And I can confirm first-hand that navigating over a featureless desert without any external navigation aids is particularly troublesome. No landmarks, no ground-based navigation aids, no radar returns, and frequent sandstorms that obscure everything in sight and radically change the landscape make life a real challenge for warfighters prosecuting a war. Navigation in this environment is challenging at the best of times; add the fog of war and it becomes a nightmare. General William Tecumseh Sherman said “War is hell!” and while it can certainly never be a walk in the park, add GPS and precise navigation along with precision targeting/bombing becomes infinitely doable.

Personal Experience

I sat in my first aircraft cockpit and took my first flight more than 50 years ago. Contrary to popular belief, neither Orville or Wilbur Wright were my first flight instructors, just close friends, but I did learn a great deal from Charles Lindberg. Seriously, I can tell you that in the “good ol’ days” an inordinate amount of airborne time was spent determining your position/location, airspeed, altitude and heading to your destination or next waypoint, often with wildly varying degrees of accuracy. Ask any aviator hailing from that era and they will tell you we really had to work at it. It was a constant struggle where IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) frequently equated to “I Fly Roads.” Certainly it was gratifying when it all worked out, but also extremely frustrating when it did not, and there was no alternative.

Nature of the Beast

Fighter pilots by nature tend to be vain and querulous creatures that by definition are the best at what they do. Did you ever meet one who wasn’t? Just ask them and they will be quick to tell you they are the best fighter pilot in the world, every one of them. And they hate to ask for directions or admit they are lost, male and female alike, hence the old adage, “You can always tell a fighter pilot, but you can’t tell them much.” Indeed, just ask any fighter pilot worth their wings and they will invoke the Daniel Boone response when asked about being lost. When asked if he had ever been lost, that great woodsman, statesman and explorer replied, “Lost? No I can truly say that I have never been lost… I was mighty bewildered once for about four days, but never lost.”

Unfortunately pilots and/or navigators don’t have the luxury of pulling over and checking for moss on the south side of trees. But one glance at a GPS device in flight (it does not have to be an aviation-grade receiver) will tell you your current heading, time and desired heading to your next waypoint and final destination, speed along the ground, altitude, and of course current position down to a meter or better. This wonderful device leaves the intrepid aviator with time to concentrate on putting weapons on target, which, if they are also GPS guided, is almost a cinch.

Now you understand why aviators were among the first warfighters to embrace BYO-GPS, and why they seemed to just “pop-up” during the first Gulf war. Today’s ultra modern jets, such as the F-22 and F-35, have built-in GPS/PNT systems with redundant inertial systems, Doppler systems, and of course radars that are all tightly integrated. Some smart weapons even have their own GPS and laser systems on board. But you can bet your next paycheck there is a backup civil/commercial battery-operated BYO-GPS in a flight-suit pocket or helmet bag, just in case, as fighter pilots also have a great sense of self-preservation.

Warfighter GPS Equipment Database

I have personally compiled a “Warfighter GPS Equipment Database” over the last 10 years, since we have been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The database is comprised of more than 8000 entries from warfighters from all services, U.S. and allies alike. Only 1 in 40 warfighters utilize issued GPS MUE as a stand-alone handheld device, but every single warfighter (that’s 100 percent, a rare event in statistics) in the database proudly possessed and freely spoke about their own personal BYO-GPS device, with the majority of them being various iterations of a Garmin device, with Trimble devices and iPhones coming in a close second and third; although the iPhone and other smartphones are rapidly gaining ground on all the PNT devices in theater. So the bottom line is when it comes to BYOD, GPS is alive and well and has been for the last 23+ years with no end in sight.

BYOD Here to Stay

While thousands of warfighters have written me to say, “I love my Garmin, Trimble, iPhone, etc.” I do not have a single letter or email saying I love my PLGR or DAGR (precision lightweight and defense advanced GPS receivers or MUE). However, I will and must caveat my BYOD position by stating, as I always do, that while the PLGR and DAGR are, in my opinion, woefully inadequate as handheld PNT devices, they are extremely functional and sometimes the best/only option warfighters currently have as an embedded device, especially in a GPS-denied environment. Anything that improves on the display, battery life and user interface of the current GPS MUE is to be applauded.

So to be clear, I would never advise a warfighter not to utilize the GPS MUE issued to them, but would certainly encourage them to have a backup or two. Fortunately that encouragement is totally superfluous as I have yet to meet a warfighter who did not have at least one civil/commercial PNT receiver as a backup, even in the cockpit. During a recent visit to a local firefighting C-130 squadron, the navigator utilized the on-board, original equipment MAGR GPS unit, a Trimble unit, Velcroed to the navigation console, and two laptops with different independent GPS capabilities, such as color real-time moving map displays, and the navigator had a BYOD Garmin in his flight suit pocket. QED!

BYOD is here to stay!

Let’s embrace the technology of the 21st century, stop asking if our warfighters, government employees and government contractors should be allowed to use their own PNT, computer and communication devices, and begin incorporating the smartest and best devices in the world into our networks and enterprise infrastructures. For all the hype to the contrary, there really is no alternative.

Until next time, don’t forget to BYOD and happy navigating!

Don Jewell

With apologies to the Bard of Avon, as I paraphrase his prose, 2C or not 2C — that is the question for millions of GPS users and has been for several years. Indeed, over the past seven years hardly a week has gone by without an email or inquiry about the status of the GPS L2C signal.

The name “L2C” refers to the radio frequency used by the signal (1227 MHz, or L2) and the fact that it is for civilian use, but of course it will also be used by the military. There are also two military signals on the L2 frequency. In the past couple of months inquiries concerning L2C have become an almost everyday occurrence. Plus I have it on good authority that it was a topic of conversation at recent a PNT EXCOM or Executive Committee Meeting.

However, when I started making inquiries I was met with an interesting dichotomy. One group of users actually laughed and accused me of having a Don Quixote complex and tilting at windmills, since this debate has been continuing for over seven years, while other more sanguine user groups are seriously interested in the future of L2C. Here is what I discovered.

What is L2C?

According to the official U.S. government website concerning GPS, “L2C is the second civilian GPS signal, designed specifically to meet commercial needs. When combined with L1 C/A [ed. coarse acquisition] in a dual-frequency receiver, L2C enables ionospheric correction, a technique that boosts accuracy. Civilians with dual-frequency GPS receivers enjoy the same or better accuracy as the military. For professional users with existing dual-frequency operations, L2C delivers faster signal acquisition, enhanced reliability, and greater operating range. L2C broadcasts at a higher effective power than the legacy L1 C/A signal, making it easier to receive under trees and even indoors. The Commerce Department estimates L2C could generate $5.8 billion in economic productivity benefits through the year 2030. The first GPS IIR(M) satellite featuring L2C launched in 2005. Every GPS satellite fielded since then has included an L2C transmitter.”

Problems

So while this would appear to be a “no brainer” as it were, especially the $5.8 billion in economic benefits, it appears the Global Positioning System is actually at a crossroads and the decision makers are apparently on the horns of a dilemma. For some groups of users, the laudable global PNT (position, navigation and timing) gold standard is looking a bit tarnished of late but has an opportunity to shine once again. The question and future perception of GPS by many global users simply revolves around implementing full navigation messages on signals that are already in place, namely L2 and L5 with CNAV and M-code with MNAV. So, what’s the issue, you say? The signals are there, and in the case of L2C and M-code, have been for seven years — simply upload a full navigation message and be done with all the ambiguity that has become unwelcome baggage for these modern day signals. Au contraire, mon ami, if it were only that simple.

Now grant you this, should be a simple decision, but remember this is the U.S. government we are talking about — apropos failed budgets, endless continuing resolutions, health care fiascos, and the fiscal cliff — important but in the end actually simple decisions all. Unfortunately, history reflects when the U.S. government is involved, nothing is ever easy and timely decisions are hard to come by. So as not to confuse anyone, especially the players, let’s take this process one step at a time and see what all the fuss is about, shall we?

Problem Statement: The L2C and M-code signal capability has been on orbit for more than seven years, since 2005. In 2009, the 2SOPS began uploading and broadcasting a Message Type Zero on L2C, which, while not a navigation message, does put data on the channel. What users are now asking for is the full navigation message on L2C or CNAV, which is a modern-day navigation message and will have significant advantages for all users. Plus, the signal would be available to potentially more than 3 billion users versus the small subset today that utilizes the L2C carrier phase for RTK (real-time kinematic) operations. Indeed, when compared to the L1 C/A (coarse acquisition) signal, L2C has 2.7 dB greater data recovery (with a navigation message) and 0.7 dB greater carrier tracking.

The bottom line is that, with the addition of a valid and updated CNAV message on L2C, all users, the military included, would immediately have ten more potential navigation signals available, and that number would grow with each new GPS launch. Obviously, the same is true for military users with M-code and for all users with an L5 capability. However, the upgrade process needs to start somewhere, and L2C is the obvious choice since there are essentially no M-code receivers available today and there are approximately between 450,000-500,000 L2C capable receivers already in the hands of users.

Assets

Hardware – Simply put, there are currently 10 satellites (SVs) capable of broadcasting a full navigation message or CNAV message on the L2 signal and MNAV message on the M-code signal, also on L2 and three L5 CNAV capable SVs:

7 – IIRM SVs (does not include SVN-49 which, while capable, is currently in residual and/or test status).

3 – IIF SVs (same capabilities as the IIRMs and also capable of broadcasting an L5 signal with CNAV).

While the lack of L2C monitor stations has historically been used as a reason for not broadcasting the new CNAV navigation messages, today there are literally more than one hundred L2C- and L5-capable monitoring stations, which includes the NASA JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) monitoring stations. Logs from several independent monitoring stations show that at any given time there are from one to three L2C SVs visible for the majority of global users, including our warfighters, who in the mountains of Afghanistan need all the signal availability we can provide.

Plus, of the estimated 450,000-500,000 fully capable L2C receivers, several thousand of those are in the hands of our warfighters. Trimble started building in the L2C and L5 CNAV capability as far back as 2003, a full two years before the first L2C launch, for users that wanted the option. However, that option has never been fully tested with live on-air CNAV coded transmissions and they need to be. More on testing later.

From a global user perspective, Japan has essentially leapfrogged the U.S., since the L2C and L5 signals with full CNAV messages are already being broadcast on the Japanese QZSS navigation satellite QZSS-1.

Software was initially thought to be an issue, but according to my sources, the current MNAV or M-code full navigation message is remarkably similar, as to be almost identical to the CNAV messages for L2C and L5, and MNAV has already been shown to work well on the ten GPS SVs capable of broadcasting the M-code signal. Granted, it is not fully integrated into the current OCS or operational control system known as AEP or Architecture Evolution Plan, but then not many future capabilities are, so this is really not an issue since manual processes abound in the current OCS. The L2C, L5 and M-code full navigation messages are supposedly still part of the plan for OCX or the future operational control system for GPS, which should be up and working sometime in early 2017. This would be twelve years after the L2C and M-code signal capability was first placed on orbit.

Timelines

Given those timelines, some would say, hey that’s only four years from now, maybe five if you count testing, and the full navigation message might actually be turned on. But, alas, rumors abound that there is a government agency apparently objecting to the immediate activation of L2C and L5. This agency, and it is not hard to ferret out exactly which one, wants extensive testing to ensure there will be no complications with the WAAS or Wide Area Augmentation System broadcasts, and as an alternative plan it proposes waiting until all the L5 satellites are on orbit before activating navigation messages on L2C or L5. Let’s do the math – that’s 24 L5 SVs, before the L2C and L5 PNT signals are activated with full navigation messages. At one launch per year, the current GPS launch rate, and it matters not whether it is a IIF or a III, and with three L5 SVs already on orbit, that effectively means we will see all 24 L5 SVs on orbit sometime in 2034, if indeed the II-F SVs are truly the first 30-year GPS SVs. If not, then it could be as late as 2037.  However, given the average life span of GPS SVs today, it is more than likely that by 2037 every single L2C, L5 and M-code capable satellite on orbit today will have been disposed of without ever having broadcast any of the new signals for which they were designed. Now, how’s that for a lachrymose plan?

Fortunately, this alternate long-term “plan’ has not a prayer of passing, dare I utter the words, the dreaded Washington Post test. Never having purposely written anything for the Washington Post, even though several of my articles have been quoted and misquoted there, it is still a force to be reckoned with in our nation’s capital, simply because the Washington Post continually asks the question, “Is this a wise use of taxpayer’s money?” The answer for the alternative GPS L2C and L5 plan is obvious.

Personnel and monetary issues are always mentioned in the context of new GPS capabilities; however, I have no doubts that the absolutely superb blue suit operators, tacticians and support contractors at 2SOPS are more than capable of performing the simple actions of uploading the new navigation messages on their own.

Sure, times are tough but the blue suit operators and their on-site support staff, at the 2SOPS, have proven themselves time and again to simply be the best in the business. They have brought GPS SVs back from the dead, they (with Braxton Technologies Software) maintain residual satellites that everyone thought for years was an impossible task, and they have saved SVs for important missions that everyone else thought should have been abandoned. We don’t give the fine men and women at Schriever AFB, the 50^th Space Wing and the 2SOPS (2^nd Space Operations Squadron) enough credit, and I am not about to sell them short. I am convinced the signals in question can be uploaded with full navigation messages, tested and made operational, even if only on a test basis, within six months without expensive outside help.

Full-Scale Testing

This brings us back to the full testing proposal, which actually makes a lot of sense. We (all users) need immediate full scale and extensive operational evaluations that confirm “we have it right” with the CNAV and MNAV data messages. We should encourage manufacturers to participate in this testing process to ensure their GPS devices meet specifications and are not flawed because of a misinterpretation of an interface specification. The GPS equipment manufacturers would be the first to embrace this approach. The manufacturers and users need open-air full-scale testing with valid CNAV messages being broadcast by numerous satellites to ensure they have coded the L2C, L5 and M-code receivers properly.

Immediate testing is the key here, because otherwise under one proposed plan we will only find out if there is a problem with full end-to-end testing of the L2C CNAV signal and user equipment 13 years after manufacturers began fielding the supposed and promised capability. Under the wait for L5 FOC (full operational capability) plan, we won’t find out if the implementation of specifications are correct for another 20-plus years. Personally, I find this to be unacceptable. We need to begin the immediate six-month test plan now. 

The aviation community has the mantra, “Test it as you fly it.”  We should not do any less.  A full six-month evaluation is absolutely appropriate and should be undertaken now. We cannot afford to repeat the 5.5C debacle. [ed. click to read more about 5.5C].

Users, of course, are the prime concern. If you or your organization, including the military, can benefit from 23 more navigation signals today (and three additional signals each year from now until 2034), one of them being the strongest GPS signal to ever be broadcast (L5 with CNAV), and you want/need those signals active now, then please let us know. You may email me at djewell@gpsworld.com.

Stand up and Be Heard

Although some of my comments have been a bit tongue-in-cheek, this is indeed your chance to be heard and to make a difference. Let there be no mistake: there is no other PNT system in existence today, planned or unplanned, on the drawing boards or on PowerPoint slides that approaches the capability, availability, reliability, longevity, accuracy and integrity of the Global Positioning System. The folks at Air Force Space Command have been and continue to be admirable stewards. We just need to let them go about their business without undue restrictions.

Dare to Compare

If you want to know exactly how the GPS compares to other PNT systems, consider that the Russian GLONASS (Globalnaya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema), which came into existence in 1979 only one year after the first GPS launch, has only been Fully Mission Capable (FOC) as a global PNT system for about two years, and that dubious status is literally day-to-day as it teeters on that magic number of 24 available SVs broadcasting multiple PNT signals simultaneously. Contrast that to the GPS, which currently has 32 active SVs with several additional SVs in residual status. Three GPS SVs are nearing, have attained or will soon attain 20 years on orbit. One of our SVs has been on orbit for more than 22 years. GLONASS has serious problems merely attaining an average SV life of less than five years on orbit. Even the vaunted Chinese are experiencing serious technical, longevity and integrity issues with their multiple PNT constellations. It is just not as easy as it sounds. So yes, GPS is the global PNT gold standard, and its stewards must always strive to improve and lead the way. The GPS must continue to grow and innovate or risk being left behind. This is your chance to contribute to that leadership role. Let your opinion be heard.

Until next time Happy New Year, happy navigating, and keep those card, letters and emails coming.

Don Jewell

By Don Jewell

Cards and Letters

It happens every year and it is an emotional rollercoaster.  It generally starts a couple of weeks before Thanksgiving and continues until just after New Years – and it is simply heartbreaking. The letters and emails start arriving just like clockwork before the holidays and they all ask the same question – where can I buy the PHGPST or the Perfect Handheld GPS Transceiver?

As many of you know, who are faithful readers, I receive hundreds of letters and emails like this throughout the year from our warfighters and first responders, but the letters and emails over the holidays are special because they are from the wives, sisters, children, parents and grandparents of war fighters. They want nothing but the best for their loved ones. It breaks my heart to have to tell them that the PHGPST does not exist – yet.

Without a doubt, our warfighters and first responders, who put their lives on the line so that we may continue to live and thrive in a free world, where innovation and response to customer needs are hopefully met with success both emotional and fiscal, deserve nothing but the best, and that is the goal I continue to pursue on their behalf.

Dissatisfaction

Paraphrasing Walter Kaufman, “Otherworldliness or ‘belief that there is a better world’ is the child of disenchantment with this world.” To say our warfighters are disenchanted with the antiquated legacy MUE or military user equipment they are forced by policy to utilize today is an understatement. DoD’s antediluvian MUE is a joke compared to what is available in the commercial marketplace today. Studies indicate our warfighters are aware of this dichotomy and have shown their disdain in the last ten years by using commercial and civil PNT equipment in theater 40/1 over the government’s archaic MUE handheld devices. Studies further show that MUE is utilized by our warfighters only as a last resort and as a matter of necessity due to the outdated policies and technologies that continue to prevail. However, I am happy to say these anachronistic restrictions are reportedly rapidly coming to an end.

Consider that the USMC (US Marine Corps) decertified the PLGR in 2009 because “the PLGR or Precision GPS Lightweight Receiver is an obsolete GPS military receiver” [ed. PLGR was designed circa 1988] and almost all Services today use the DAGR or Defense Advanced GPS Receiver [ed. the DAGR was designed circa 2002]. The DAGR was a major capability improvement ten years ago but today is technologically obsolete and primarily used as an embedded solution only. As an embedded device the DAGR serves its purpose — providing an antiquated, unfriendly user interface to legacy government equipment. For example, rumor has it that one version of the Stryker, of which the Army has more than 4,200 in service, described as a technologically advanced combat fighting vehicle, uses nine, count them, nine individual DAGRs. Draw your own conclusions. I suspect this has more to do with the inadequacies of the DAGR vice the capabilities of the Stryker. The good news here is that my sources in the DoD tell me there will be no further DAGR purchases. Now if I were giving this as an oral presentation, I would pause here for thundering applause and a standing ovation. Can I have an Amen?

Several years ago, I penned the following: “MUE is necessary because it is the only platform that currently provides SAASM (selective availability anti-spoofing module) protection, along with a second military frequency giving the military user an advantage over his civilian counterpart.” Today none of that statement is true from a purely intrinsic or commercial point of view. There are much more capable receivers with all these capabilities and more, to include real-time centimeter-level accuracy, available on the commercial market today.

Marketplace Responds

This year the PNT (position, navigation and timing) marketplace has finally responded, and I am able to reply to warfighter family enquiries with more positive information. In just the last 18-24 months, the path to an actual PHGPST has been blazed by several major GPS manufacturers, and well-informed pundits say DOD policy changes may be in the wind as well.

The PHGPST

I had a three-hour lunch several weeks ago with the chief PNT engineer from one of the companies pursuing the PHGPST. It was enlightening to hear him wax eloquent concerning their new PNT device and the capabilities it will provide the warfighter, first responders and commercial/civil users as well. Indeed, there is a real possibility, if DoD policy changes lag technology (can you imagine that ever happening?) that civil/ commercial users may be the first recipients of this technological manna from the gods. But not to worry — if the actions of our warfighters during the last ten years of warfare are any indication, the warfighters and first responders will merely purchase what they need, from whatever sources are available, regardless of antiquated policy and doctrine. As one Marine lieutenant colonel warfighter commander so eloquently phrased it, “So please tell me where I can purchase the PHGPST…because when your life and those of your fellow Marines is on the line, who gives a damn about policy … give me the best solution possible  … because the current #@*&% MUE is not even in the same ballpark as the best.”

Unfortunately, the chief engineer declined to allow me to use the name of his company, but they have promised me a pre-production unit to test and write about. As to time frame, he assures me there will still be plenty of snow banks and icy mud puddles in Colorado for my exhaustive real-world tests. Ever since that lunch I have been like a kid at Christmas… I just can’t wait for the test unit to arrive.

Trimble

However, while I am waiting with bated breath, another major PNT company/manufacturer pursuing the PHGPST has gone public with its intentions, and that is Trimble. I had the pleasure of visiting with Ann Ciganer and other Trimble executives in San Jose for a day recently, and then in early November attended Trimble Dimensions for the first time. I was simply amazed. Talk about feeling like a kid in a candy store – and that feeling had nothing to do with the venue – the Mirage in Las Vegas. Seriously, Jim Sheldon, general manager of Trimble’s Mobile Computing Solutions (MCS) Division and his team in Corvallis, Oregon, have outdone themselves. Their rugged line of PNT devices is simply jaw dropping in appearance and capability. I was privileged to sit in on some MCS planning meetings and I was blown away by what I heard — none of which I can relate here because of NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) and such — but suffice it to say that Trimble has been listening to its customers (what a concept) including warfighters/first responders, and it shows in the devices hitting the market now and in the next few months.

I was very impressed, and I guess it showed because one company PR/marketing pundit commented that I could probably write about nothing but Trimble rugged equipment for the next twelve months. Although he said it in jest, he was more correct than he knew. Indeed, another person in that group commented that I could write nothing but reviews for the next twelve months and become known as the Gunnery Sergeant Lee Emery military twin for GNSS. You may remember Emery hosted two History Channel programs: Mail Call, where he answered military questions, both modern and historic; and Lock N’ Load with R. Lee Ermey, which focused on the development of different types of military equipment, mostly weapons. I personally never missed an episode of either program and while I am flattered at the comparison, frankly I prefer the written word. But it does offer up the possibility of conducting even more PNT/GNNS equipment evaluations – the only issue being that it takes me about six weeks to properly evaluate a piece of PNT equipment, and it really helps if there is are lots of snow banks and deep icy puddles around. And remember, my rules of engagement are to never write a bad review, because why should you spend your time reading about something you can’t use, and, if at all possible, I won’t review equipment I have not personally used in the field under the most austere conditions available.

So in the next twelve months we will be looking hard at candidates vying for the title of the PHGPST, and I will do my best to keep you abreast of all the technological advancements and policy changes that make that possible. And maybe next year as the holidays approach, I will be able to respond with a plethora of choices for the PHGPST.

Until next year, semper fi and happy navigating.

GPS is no exception, of course. We put our signatures and seals on these things; enterprising competitors, adversaries, and curious people find a way to steam open our envelopes, create seals indistinguishable from the original, or simply use products in ways unexpected.

We exist in a world headed pell-mell toward the product consumerization, as GPS World tells us, as if this is new. We BYOD [bring your own device, a business policy of employees bringing personally owned mobile devices to their place of work and using those devices to access privileged company resources such as email, file servers, and databases, as well as their personal applications and data.  — Ed.] to work with its purchase by credit card and reimbursement by petty cash. This is nothing new than a newer terminology for mass-merchandizing.

Wars will be fought that way too, as if they always weren’t. Soldiers built their own grenades, brought their own weapons, horses, uniforms, and food to the contested game … always. Patton had his own pair of pearl-handled Colt sidearms.

The pressure for encrypted GPS and inconvenient milspec devices misses this reality. Our every weapon will fail unintentionally, get repurposed by knowledgeable adversaries, and be turned intentionally against us. We cannot engineer away these consequences. We can only be better readers. We must be flexible competitors. We have to be open to the reality that everything fails in ways we will not anticipate but should expect.

War is not fought in rows with toy soldiers equal and alike arrayed with fair rules. Fourth generation warfare is here. War is an expediency when diplomacy, economics, and reason fail with adversaries and friends alike. It is fought with a dangerous expediency.

— Marty Nemzow
Miami, Florida

By Don Jewell

Ray Kolibaba, Raytheon vice president and program manager for OCX.

DJ: Ray, thanks for taking time to be with us today. Perhaps we should start off with your title, your bona fides if you will, and just what you do at Raytheon in Aurora, Colorado.

RK: Don, I am a vice president at Raytheon here in Aurora and the GPS OCX program manager.

DJ: Concentrating on the OCX program, how many people do you oversee and how many people do you have on your team including sub-contractors? In other words, just how big an effort is OCX when it comes to manpower?

RK: We currently have 450 people at Raytheon working OCX, and with our subs, an additional 300 personnel. Altogether we have 750 personnel working GPS and OCX issues. This does not include the military and civilian personnel at AFSPC and SMC. [ed. Air Force Space Command and Space and Missile Systems Center].

DJ: It sounds like a thousand people when you account for all the different players. An important part of the Raytheon team has to be your subcontractors. Let’s talk about your subs and the roles they play, just so our readers have an idea of the expertise required for OCX to succeed.

RK: Don, our subs are a critical part of our team and we could not succeed without them. First of all, our major subcontractors on board include ITT Exelis — their primary role is navigation, along with JPL [ed. Jet Propulsion Laboratory]. JPL is active in the Kalman Filter area. Key management and global monitoring station receivers are also part of Exelis’ efforts. They are based in New Jersey and have been a key part of this team from the beginning. I am happy to say they survived the recent storms and did not miss a beat. For the overall GPS enterprise, ITT Exelis also supports the navigation side with Lockheed Martin for the space vehicle.

We have a number of small company subcontractors — all experts in their chosen fields of endeavor. First, we have Infinity Systems, from Colorado Springs, Colorado, and they do primarily training, technical documentation, and opscon [ed. Operations Concepts] work. We are also teamed with Braxton Technologies, which you know well, also out of Colorado Springs. Braxton does our modeling and simulations as well as the command and control or C2 segment. We also have Soladyne Solutions, from Colorado Springs, supporting C2 and mission management and some of our infrastructure support. Geologics Corporation primarily provides staffing support and other key resources. RT Logic is on board for front-end processor work. All in all about 10% of the entire OCX program is being handled by our small business partners.

We also have several large subcontractors such as Boeing out of Aurora and Colorado Springs. Boeing is focused on the transition from AEP, the current operating C2 system, to OCX as well as operational activities, such as networking and data storage. Then we have our own Raytheon Network Centric Systems (NCS) folks out of Fullerton, California, who are our key connectivity into the FAA [ed. Federal Aviation Administration] and the civil world. NCS developed the GPS-based Wide Area Augmentation System or WAAS for the FAA and similar systems for Japan and India.

So, as you can see, this a very specific and highly qualified team put together to address OCX requirements.

DJ: Thanks, Ray. Perhaps this would be a good time to review the history of the OCX program and how we arrived where we are today.

RK: Absolutely. The history of OCX at Raytheon goes back much farther than you might think. There are actually two aspects of the history. Let’s start by looking at the OCS, or the operational control system for GPS that came on board in 2007.

When I was here at Raytheon in the 2002-2003 time frame, one of the primary objectives that we had was based on my and others experiences in space and ground development projects. The issue was this — the majority of space programs’ critical decisions were primarily based on the need to support the space segment. Most space programs contracted with a single space prime to build the ground, payload, and space segments. When push came to shove, decisions were made favoring the space and payload needs thereby often depriving the ground segment. Too many trades were made from the space segment perspective. For most of my career in the US Air Force and in the aerospace industry, decisions were made the same way. In other words, the ground segment would suck it up and do whatever it had to do to make it work with what assets remained.

DJ: It sounds like you are saying the ground segment was often an afterthought.

RK: Exactly, Don. It was truly an afterthought. When additional money was needed to pay for issues on the spacecraft or payload side, it was always an easy decision to go pull money out of the ground segment, because management was always primarily spacecraft or hardware guys. Now many of these decisions may have been the best decisions given the flexibility of the ground segment and its ability to respond to changes in space, but the ground was not always an equal partner when it came to system level trades. Now I have to admit that the hardware, the spacecraft, and the sensors are sexy because it is great to be able to go out and touch and feel something, but it just does not work without the core capability of the ground segment and software that makes the system truly operational. This mindset, as I said, goes all the way back to my ops days in the Air Force in Sunnyvale, California, in the 1970s. Some of the stuff I saw back then helps me with OCX today from an ops viewpoint, because knowing what it takes to build and deliver a system and then make it operational are often two totally different areas of expertise. So having operational experience in running a ground control system and seeing what it takes to get there is important.

Don, this brings me to an item concerning testing that I will talk more about later, but in Sunnyvale in the 1970s we often found system software deliveries with numerous problems. We were launching three vehicles a year and had 30-60 days between missions. We had issues primarily because the software developers — and this goes back to a whole “day in the life” testing, or “test it as you fly” paradigm — did not test software against real life databases or actual flight commands, like we do today. So in the ’70s we went down to the contractor’s integration facility and started running our own tests before the software ever officially came into the facility; this added step greatly improved our capability to test and run the system. They delivered the right stuff the first time and it actually worked.

These are the types of things that, when you have a ground segment and operations background, help you improve the overall system. That history is part of the motivation for the changes we are looking at with the government today; it applies to OCX as well as other space programs. There is a genuine need to separate ground and space acquisitions. So that is part of the history of what this organization, Raytheon, started to do and was pushing for in the early 2000s in Air Force Space Command. Fortunately for GPS, we were able to get the ground segment broken out as a separate acquisition. This is a concept we have been chasing and pushing since the early 2000 time frame.

For instance, in 2007 the competition for OCX was between Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin. I think our separate ground approach really helped us put together a winning bid and a system and capability that in the end will optimize and drive the overall system performance so that we all benefit. We have a very operable system, and we support the navigation needs of the civil and the military user.

DJ: So, Ray, what you are saying is that Raytheon, since the early 2000s, came to the realization that just because a company knows how to build a rocket does not necessarily mean they know anything about the ground system, the command and control system, or even the satellite and payload. They may have some expertise in those areas but it is not a given.

RK: That is absolutely correct, Don. Those are all different specialties, and as you go forward you need people that are smart in all regimes so you can figure out how to optimize the system and work from the system perspective.

DJ: Ray, you mentioned your Air Force career several times and the perspective it gave you. Give us just a bit more background and clarify how you wound up as the OCX PM.

RK: Sure, Don, I was very fortunate. I spent from 1971-79 in the U.S. Air Force. The first couple of years I attended graduate school at AFIT in Dayton, Ohio, at Wright Patterson Air Force Base [Ed: Air Force Institute of Technology]. Then I went off to Sunnyvale, California, to the Air Force Satellite Control Facility, or the Blue Cube as it was often called at the time, for four years, where I did my satellite operations stint. I did satellite ops in the days when we generated our command messages to the satellite on an old IBM 29 keypunch card and a CDC 3800 computer. We used telephone networks to transmit the data to the remote tracking stations where it was uploaded to the satellites. It was a totally different world of Command and Control in the days before relay satellites. We had remote tracking stations. We were ready with our data every ninety minutes in a message format that was sent up to the vehicle. It taught us a lot about schedule and timeliness and the ability to respond to the needs of the system.

After Sunnyvale I went down the road to Los Angeles to work in the Special Projects Organization. I worked the mission SPO and the ground systems for some future space capabilities. I spent two and a half years in LA, and then got out of the Air Force after nine years. I really enjoyed my time in the Air Force and I learned a great deal, but I made a personal decision to get out based on family considerations. Plus I really did not enjoy moving all the time.

I kept working in the industry and I worked for a small company doing orbit determination and mission management work for a number of programs. We had an opportunity to support a couple of programs in the Denver area with the old Martin Marietta Company, and one thing led to another, and in 1981 we moved to Colorado and we have been here ever since. I worked various programs for Martin Marietta and then Lockheed Martin. Then I worked for the Hughes Raytheon Group, and Northrop Grumman, basically working ground support systems for DoD and intelligence programs.

I left Raytheon in 2006, spent five years with Northrop Grumman, and decided to retire. I quickly got bored with retirement, and Bill Jones at Raytheon allowed me to come back as his deputy. So I returned in February 2011, and since we were making changes on the OCX program, I volunteered to run the program. I really thought I could come in, make a difference and help. I came to this job last December [ed. 2011].

I know you want to talk about the management changes made back then and why they came about. I can only give you Raytheon’s viewpoint. You should talk to the government about its changes. For Raytheon, part of the reason for change is because there is a huge difference — as I found out when I was working for Lockheed Martin with some really creative people who know how to put a concept and a message together concerning what you should build and why — between the planners and marketers and how you actually get it done. The same group that sells the program is not always the best group to go off and execute and make a program successful.

DJ: So, Ray, even though some old-school types make think this is heresy, you’re saying that a good or even great capture manager does not always a good or great program manager make.

RK: Yeah. Most of my background has been on the mission execution side of the house. When management discussed making changes, I talked with Bill Jones and Lynn Dugle about OCX and managing the program to see if we could move it in the right direction. So far, we have been successful in making changes that have benefited the program. We have more challenges to tackle, but that happens on big programs — and GPS OCX is a big program. We are making progress.

The changes we made on the program would not be possible without the partnership of an exceptional government team. They have solid program management and development experience. In particular Mr. Leonard, who is running the ground system for the GPS Directorate, and Lt. Col. Blevins [ed. USAF] who is our COTR or Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative, understand what it takes to build a complete system. Still, we continue to work through the new mindset of separate ground segment development. This is the first major program where the Air Force has separate space and ground primes. It takes a strong partnership across the enterprise to make this work.

DJ: Ray, pardon my interruption, but I think you are being a bit too modest. You have been on board since last December, and I will frankly tell you that my sources, and they are considerable and closely connected to the GPS program, indicate that a year ago OCX was in dire danger, some would even say imminent danger of being cancelled. The PMs for both Raytheon and the government were both pointing fingers at each other, acrimonious arguments ensued, and I’m told the Raytheon PM at the time blamed the customer for most of the problems. It was, so my sources say, a “my way or the highway” paradigm on the part of Raytheon… Then you stepped in and changed all that. It was a sea-state change of major proportions and a complete change of attitude, a more mature attitude if you will. Of course the government also changed its program managers around the same time, and now things seem to be back on an even keel. Plus, since you successfully negotiated Milestone B, things are looking up.

In all seriousness, I am sanguine that a year ago the whole OCX program was within a hair’s breadth of being cancelled, and you have to or should take some of the credit for saving the program. It goes back to the earlier assertion that a good capture manager does not always translate or make the transition to a good program manager. It is nothing for anyone to be ashamed of, and in my opinion the positions just require different strengths. Raytheon obviously saw the need for a change, and I for one think and the evidence bears out that they made the right decision.

RK: Don, in all modesty, I do too, but once again if it had just been a change with me coming over I am not sure if we would have been successful. The government made changes as well, and it is a partnership at this point, and that is how we have been able to work with the customer and that is the only way we are going to be successful on this program. And we have been successful. As you said we successfully negotiated Milestone B and we have to keep our nose to the grindstone and make it happen if we are going to continue to be successful. We still have a lot of work to do. We also needed our technical team to buy into a new way of doing business on the program. We have an excellent team that is building a quality product and, we and the government, are focused on program execution. This was demonstrated by our achievement of program performance milestones that were used as part of the Milestone B decision.

DJ: Ray since you took over, there have been several programmatic changes. Capabilities have been modified, deleted, and moved to the right in some cases. Talk about what Raytheon originally hoped to achieve on OCX and how the contract changes and modifications have affected those original goals and if they are even achievable today.

RK: Don, part of what we originally wanted to achieve with OCX goes back to my earlier comments about expertise. We demonstrated that separating the ground from the space segment and making the ground segment agnostic from the space segment is important…that is really objective one as we get into working with different GPS vehicles. Particularly as we look at the future and installation options, one of the abilities we have, here at Raytheon, is that we continue to build that agnostic mindset, and let’s say an expandable ground system. So if we come in with different kinds of smaller vehicles, different kinds of obits with different capabilities, we are in a position to build architectures that are able to accommodate those. We are not tethered to a given hardcore set of requirement. I think that gives the government a lot of capability in the future to transform GPS operations and really make it a much more active and dynamic kind of environment that provides the necessary data for both civil and military users.

We truly need to look at how we automate and allow easier access for the end user to some of the navigation data. We are looking at this as part of our CIP team or Capability Insertion Program. We are looking at future enhancements to expedite the process rather than requiring everyone to go to a central node to get things taken care of.

A little bit more on CIP: Today all major developments, on a back-to-basics approach, have a CIP to help mature technologies for on-ramping new capabilities in the program. In fact, Don, if you remember, you actually saw the outcome of one of our CIP demos at the National Space Symposium last year.

The key is getting data to the user faster and helping them in their situational awareness and planning activities. These are the keys we have in place and now we need to perform and demonstrate that the concepts we had up front make sense for the Air Force and the civil community.

DJ: Ray, that is an excellent historical synopsis, and with that perspective, just where are we today in the OCX program? Outline some recent highlights and give us a current status.

RK: One of the highlights is successfully passing Milestone B — which, while it is not an official contractor event, it is a government event and it is certainly a strong message that we do have an executable program. We now better understand what it is going to take to get us there. The government has the FYDP [ed. Future Years Defense Program] budget dollars to make it happen. I think that message, especially given the concerns we had with the program less than a year ago, is a substantial highlight for the whole program.

DJ: Ray, did you read the tea leaves as many of us did — had Raytheon failed to successfully negotiate Milestone B, recognized official pivotal event or not, it could have spelled the end of the OCX program?

RK: Yep, we understood that and so there was pressure. And I will once again say that I really admire the work accomplished by the program office to prepare and get us there. They busted their tails in making sure they responded to all the requests from OSD [ed. Office of the Secretary of Defense].

DJ: As you said previously, both sides are now cooperating to make OCX a success. However, there are still major issues concerning cyber and information assurance. Almost every program today is struggling with these requirements. Is OCX any different?

RK: During the whole Milestone B process, there were issues regarding information assurance or IA, and whether we have the right approach. Initially, there was clearly some doubt. I will say that some early comments were not necessarily clear…they were misinterpreted or misstated, which led folks to say, “gee we don’t think you have a solution.” Consequently, we got to spend a quality day with the OSD CIO [ed. Chief Information Officer] team. Actually I think that was probably one of the most beneficial days we spent with any of the government review groups. When the CIO group came in… Well, to say they were skeptical is probably an understatement. One of the statements from the chairman was, “I don’t know why I’m here… I don’t think you have the right answer.” That is how it started.

At the end of the day, and again I give credit to Lt. Col. Blevins and the government team, the IA team had a solid understanding of exactly what we were doing for information assurance, how we were looking at things. How we ensured that all the STIG [ed. Defense Information Systems Agency’s Security Technical Implementation Guides] updates came out and how we updated and drove forward with our coding standards. We had the right approach to work the security vulnerabilities for our legacy code, which is still an issue, in that we have a lot of old C and C++ that was never designed to operate in this kind of IA world; even with test plans, and I know we will spend more time with them on test plans. I think getting the acknowledgement that we have a solid activity going forward was a big message. Then last week we learned that, according to Lt. Col. Blevins and Mr. Leonard, it now appears our IA program is the poster child for DoD and space programs.

DJ: Ray, my colleagues and I have been hearing those same IA and cyber concerns and what you just said is huge for OCX. It appears that you made believers out of what is known to be a tough bunch of critics from OSD and even 24^th Air Force.

RK: Success can be good and bad, Don, because it now puts additional pressure on us and gains us additional visibility from DoD, but I think it also speaks for the quality of the Information Assurance activity. And let’s face it, IA and cyber security are critical for the enterprise given the dependence of the system by both the DoD and civil users.

DJ: You alluded to the fact that many IA concerns are due to code reuse, which if I remember correctly was a large part of your response to the initial RFP for OCX. In other words, reusing legacy code is a big part of your program and planning going forward. Correct?

RK: Indeed, some concerns were over code reuse. We showed what we had accomplished to solve problems with regards to code reuse and how we isolate and treat vulnerabilities. Some issues are simple, like typically when you use C and C++, memory leaks are a common occurrence, but with IA you can’t allow that to happen. If you go to some of the old C-code stuff, one of the big issues is that C-code typically requires a root authority or a system administrator authority for the code, and you can’t do that in an IA environment. So we need to solve those issues going forward in the legacy code. Now, let’s face it, as you said, there is a lot of legacy code in the OCX program and we need to address it. There is a lot of COTS [ed. Commercial Off The Shelf) code on this program, and the COTS and the hardware require a lot of capabilities be built in to support hardening and configuring the system. So there is a lot of effort going into these solutions. We must ensure we’ve got the secure coding standards right as we develop our modified or new code going forward and most importantly we have to test it all.

DJ: Ray, that is a testimony to all the hard work Raytheon and the government team have put into the OCX program. I can tell you that a year ago most pundits thought if OCX was going to be a poster child, it would be simply be for how not to conduct a program of this complexity and magnitude. However, it appears you have turned it around. I think we all better understand the comment by General Shelton during our conversation last month when he said, he was sanguine that, “OCX had turned the corner.”

RK: Thanks, Don, and we hope he is right. Another important event is Exercise One. Exercise One completed in August of this year, and it was our first exercise with Lockheed Martin and the GPS III Team. Actually, it was amazing because we started delivering data back in April that were crucial to the August test. Exercise One was the first of five exercises and five rehearsals that led up to the first launch of a GPS III space vehicle. Exercise One was primarily a command and telemetry exercise utilizing Lockheed simulators and our Iteration 1.4 core system. Part of the importance of the Exercise One process is the HMI [ed. Human Machine Interface]. We used the event to sit down with Lockheed Martin and make sure they understand the HMI, focusing on how to inject commands into the system, how to build command plans that go into what we call “procs” or procedures that basically are a linked number of commands that will command, in this case, the simulator, or ultimately the vehicle, to do whatever…turn on the command unit, turn on power or heat… whatever is required. We ingest command measurement lists from Lockheed, which are basically here are the commands and here is the format, back to bits in zeroes and ones to send out, and then these are the responses or telemetry coming back. Then we look for the nominal or yellow and red range where you would have the telemetry. Getting that done was Exercise One, a huge event for the enterprise. It put everybody, all segments of the program, in a great position going forward.

Next is Exercise Two, which is scheduled for January or February. Exercise Two moves into mission management aspects: planning, scheduling, orbit determination, maneuver determination, and maneuver simulation. It demonstrates some of the navigation capabilities, but the real test is to make sure we have all the capability to do the launch and checkout of the GPS III system when it is ready for launch in 2014.

Along the way we are going to do a significant amount of parallel testing and ultimately when we deploy the system there will be parallel ops with regards to OCS and OCX. We will conduct parallel ops until folks say, “OK, I am ready to start the real transition.” During that time, we will do some basic forward and backward data migration to ensure that ultimately with the switch over to OCX we have not lost access to the historical data the program requires.

DJ: I am assuming that, while you can run the systems in parallel, only one can be active. They can’t both be active and simultaneously commanding the GPS constellation, correct?

RK: That’s right, they can’t. We run parallel for testing only, and that is why the actual transition needs to take place sooner rather than later.

DJ: Ray, I was present for the whole buildup phase and ultimate transition from OCS to AEP, and while it went well, it was not without issues. I personally never cared for the metaphor of changing an engine on a car traveling down the freeway without the driver noticing. That is simply ludicrous, and the transition did not go that smoothly. Plus, if the users do not notice the difference, then why are we spending a billion dollars to make the change? I would hope your philosophy on transition is a bit more realistic and is built around dealing with the contingencies that invariably arise.

RK: I totally agree, Don. We are looking at it now, totally separate from the development of the minimized crew manning and automation study, and how we move forward. Reportedly the government will brief General Shelton [ed. Commander AFSPC] on these issues sometime just before the holidays.

DJ: Ray, since you took over as the new PM, there has been talk of capabilities and functions that have been deleted or moved to the right on the schedule to make the program more affordable and timely — fact or fiction?

RK: Frankly, I cannot address some of these issues in this venue. I will tell you that neither we nor AFSPC have moved much functionality to the right. The most important program that has moved is global M-code.

One of the areas that is straightforward and we can address here concerns ground antennas. OCX will use the ground antennas we have today. There will be a toggle switch, determining whether the ground antennas support OCX or OCS, and we will toggle that switch as necessary. We are working out the protocols for exactly how that will work and who makes the decisions on the position of the switch. It sounds like a simple thing, but frankly nothing is simple. Except for maybe the AFSCN [ed. Air Force Satellite Control Network] where OCS and OCX are totally transparent.

DJ: Ray, one of the big issues from a user standpoint is that OCX is currently not tasked to support the remaining active and residual GPS IIA satellites when transitioned. Rumor has it that IIA functionality is delegated to one of your subs, Braxton Technologies, which conducts LADO [ed. Launch, Anomaly, and Disposal Operations] today and maintains the residual satellites as well. We currently have GPS IIA satellites that have been in orbit and operating for more than 20 years. There could still be quite a few GPS IIAs in orbit if OCX sticks to the original deployment schedule. Any comment?

RK: Don, I knew you would ask about GPS IIAs, and right, that issue is still up in the air. As soon as these issues are finalized we can have a discussion about GPS IIAs and residual satellites. Sorry I can’t be of more help.

DJ: So now to a more timely topic, cost and schedule. Where is the OCX program in the budget and do you think it will be affected by sequestration, should it occur? Plus what is the RTO date? Is it the date OCX comes on line, or the date you do a DD250 handover to the government?

RK: Basically we are nearly on cost for the OCX contract. The current contract value is $925M; the original cost estimate was $886M. We are driving forward on that and the Block 1 date or Ready to Operate (RTO) date. Right now, the customer team is working on finalizing a new enterprise schedule that will show the PMD [ed. Program Management Directive] dates. So, we don’t know the exact date the government envisions. I expect an official date either late this year or early next year. I encourage you to ask Colonel Gruber [ed. Director GPS Directorate] this question and maybe then we will also get an answer. We have given them our recommendations.

Concerning sequestration, I am not worried. I believe we have a reasonable level of support from Congress to maintain and continue OCX. That doesn’t mean something won’t change. Our Washington folks tell us that OCX appears to be on solid footing. The Air Force FY13 RDT&E [ed. Research, Development, Test & Evaluation] budget request for OCX, to include Raytheon, support contractors, the GPS Directorate, FFRDCs [ed. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers] and the like, was $371.6M, and the CR or Continuing Resolution amount was $369.4 — given the current budget environment that is strong Congressional support.

DJ: Whether you know it or not you are echoing General Shelton’s comments in our last conversation when, to paraphrase, he indicated that in his view space programs were so important to the nation that he thought they would fare well in the budget debates and allocations.

Now Ray the bottom line is, so what? What will the successful deployment of OCX mean to civil and military users? Where’s the real bang for the buck?

RK: Don the successful completion of OCX will make a huge difference on a number of fronts. For instance even though the FAA and DOT don’t have a whole lot of funding to ante up, we are going to make a difference in how they operate in the future. Some actions are transparent, but not all, as we implement their requirements and as we move forward with OCX.

For example, you and I both do a lot of flying in our respective jobs; the sooner we implement the true capabilities of GPS on airliners and stop adhering only to the fixed air routes, the sooner we will start saving time and money with a vastly more efficient and flexible air routing system.

So, from the civil side, there is certainly a difference, and when we bring other signals in they will be key for us, such as L2C, L5, and L1C. We have the solutions to do that with our receivers at this point in time and I think it is fairly low risk. Indeed that is probably another of my unofficial milestones.

We accomplished a lot of work with ITT Exelis to ensure we have a good solid solution in Block 1 and Block 2 for URE or User Range Error. We are working to get the receiver elements deployed, which at one point was considered to be a high-risk item, but that is now in the works. This will allow all users to achieve greater accuracy.

I have not addressed the navigation side, but GPS accuracy will noticeably improve, and we will use a new Kalman Filter. We are working the new Kalman filter with ITT Exelis and JPL to enhance capabilities. Couple that with better information assurance, increased integrity and predictability, along with system safety, and you have many of the key differences in the OCS system going forward.

DJ: Ray, Steve Moran from Raytheon and I were in meetings last week where we discussed the requirements for and capabilities and accuracy resulting from adding a significant number of new GPS monitoring stations to the mix. Will OCX be able to handle the increase?

RK: We will accommodate them. We can always add more nodes to the system and building additional receivers is not an issue, unless you are an anti-tamper guru.

DJ: More pragmatically we have an arbitrary 31 PRN limit on the current AEP system. Can you tell me what the number of permissible PRNs will be with OCX, everything else being equal? Without any artificial constraints, what will OCX support?

RK: We are required to support 40 PRNs at a minimum, with growth potential to 63 PRNs, and we may be able to support more. I’m not sure there is a limit on the system as such.

DJ: Ray, thank you for your time today, and this wonderful conversation about one of my favorite topics. Considering there are more than 3 billion GPS users worldwide, it should be the favorite topic for lots of folks. Any closing comments?

RK: Having dealt with space programs all my career, I can say that it is not often that you see a program that generates developments in your career that make such a difference.

GPS and its utilization is such that the people in this country and around the world would not know what to do without it. How many cars or cell phones do you find today that do not have GPS? Something that started as a program to support military objectives has made such a substantial change in everyone’s lives around the world, whether they realize it or not.

Unfortunately, GPS is a lot like NASA space programs: most people don’t realize the impact these programs or other space programs have on their lives. It is truly a unique program from that aspect. Most of the stuff I dealt with earlier in my career has stayed behind closed doors and that is where it will remain. The GPS program is out there where you can see the benefit for everybody in the global community. That has probably been one of the best parts of the last 10-12 years in my career, because GPS supports so many of the programs I worked. What we do from space today, supporting this country and the rest of the world, along with the real applications that enhance activities and benefit individuals, is phenomenal and I think we have just scratched the surface.

My conversation with Congressman Pearlmutter’s Legislative Director was interesting from the aspect that he looked at what we could do concerning Tropical Storm Sandy. For instance the subways in New York pump over one million gallons of water out of the tunnels on a normal day. Using GPS, you can now determine vulnerable areas with respect to tidal and wave actions. It is amazing what you get when you connect weather and GPS data; it allows you to prevent some events that typically occur during these storms. Hopefully, the next generation will be able to use this data much more effectively.

There are people like Dr. Penny Axelrad at the University of Colorado and Professor Per Enge at Stanford, that I work with routinely on GPS matters, and I know they are working to make GPS data more useful and effective for all users. GPS adds extreme value to what we can do as a country at home and around the world. I am proud to be part of that.

So, that’s the story on GPS OCX, past, present and future.

Until next time, Happy Navigating.

— Don Jewell