The seven-minute video explains in simple terms how important GPS has become to everyday life — for aircraft and ship navigation, global financial transactions, precision agriculture, weather forecasting, disaster relief, and, of course, smartphones.

The recent testing of GPS III space vehicle 1 (SV 1) bus — the portion of the space vehicle that carries mission payloads and hosts them in orbit — assured that all bus subsystems are functioning normally and ready for final integration with the satellite’s navigation payload. Systems tested included: guidance, navigation and control; command and data handling; on-board computer and flight software; environmental controls; and electrical power regulation. The SV 1 satellite’s network communication equipment subsystem that interfaces with the ground control segment and distributes data throughout the space vehicle also passed all tests as expected.

This milestone follows February’s successful initial power-on of SV 1, which demonstrated the electrical-mechanical integration, validated the satellite’s interfaces, and led the way for functional and hardware-software integration testing.

“The successful completion of the SV 1 bus functional check out validates that the spacecraft is now ready to begin the next sequence of payload integration and environmental testing, prior to delivery,” explained Keoki Jackson, vice president of Lockheed Martin’s Navigation Systems mission area.

GPS III SV 1′s navigation payload, which is being produced by ITT Exelis, will be delivered to Lockheed Martin’s GPS Processing Facility (GPF) near Denver later in 2013. The hosted nuclear detection system payload has already been delivered and mechanically integrated. The satellite remains on schedule for flight-ready delivery to the U.S. Air Force in 2014.

GPS III is a critically important program for the Air Force, affordably replacing aging GPS satellites in orbit, while improving capability to meet the evolving demands of military, commercial and civilian users. GPS III satellites will deliver three times better accuracy and — to outpace growing global threats that could disrupt GPS service — up to eight times improved anti-jamming signal power for additional resiliency. The GPS III will also include enhancements adding to the spacecraft’s design life and a new civil signal designed to be interoperable with international global navigation satellite systems.

The U.S. Air Force has produced a video about the GPS satellite modernization program:

Lockheed Martin is under contract for production of the first four GPS III satellites (SV 1-4), and has received advanced procurement funding for long-lead components for the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth satellites (SV 5-8).

The GPS III team is led by the Global Positioning Systems Directorate at the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center. Lockheed Martin is the GPS III prime contractor with teammates ITT Exelis, General Dynamics, Infinity Systems Engineering, Honeywell, ATK and other subcontractors. Air Force Space Command’s 2nd Space Operations Squadron (2SOPS), based at Schriever Air Force Base, Colo., manages and operates the GPS constellation for both civil and military users.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 118,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration, and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products, and services. The corporation’s net sales for 2012 were $47.2 billion.

When a team of firefighters, first responders, or soldiers operates inside a building, in urban canyons, underground, in foliage, or under the forest canopy, the GPS-denied environment presents unique navigation challenges. An enhanced personal inertial navigation system (ePINS), based on a strapdown navigation solution using a mid-grade IMU and wavelet-based motion-classification algorithms, can track positions with errors of less than 2 percent of distance traveled in both indoor and outdoor environments.

By Yunqian Ma, Wayne Soehren, Wes Hawkinson, and Justin Syrstad

Numerous pedestrian navigation applications are currently available or proposed for development. Some of them include localization for coordinating firefighters, first responders, or soldiers. In these applications, the safety and efficiency of the entire team relies directly on the location and orientation of each team member. Operations in high signal interference areas such as cities, rugged terrain, forest, or indoor spaces deliver intermittent or no GPS signal. An alternative to GPS-based location is required.

In this article, we introduce an enhanced personal inertial navigation system (ePINS) solution specifically designed for environments where GPS is unavailable. ePINS combines an array of state-of-the-art sensors and fusion algorithms into a personal navigation system that provides accurate location information for pedestrian applications.

The ePINS concept.

The ePINS solution has the following benefits:

• Accurate positioning in GPS-denied environments;
• Small, lightweight unit can be easily carried by first responders, rescue workers, or soldiers;
• Ruggedized packaging to withstand difficult first responder and military environments.

Features of  the ePINS unit include:

• State-of-the-art micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) gyros and accelerometers, barometric altitude sensor, and advanced navigation software;
• Advanced motion classification algorithms that accurately identify and measure user activity;
• Immunity to magnetic disturbances.

Related Work

In the field of personal navigation, it is common to find systems that rely on sensors that need infrastructure (for example, Wi-Fi positioning) or sensors that actively emit electro-magnetic radiation (such as Doppler radar). These requirements are major drawbacks for communities such as dismounted soldiers in hostile environments.

Other approaches exploit the so-called Zero-velocity update (ZUPT) mechanism, which resets the inertial measurement unit (IMU) velocity errors during the stationary phase of motion. However, implementation of such schemes relies on sensors embedded in footwear, which is not readily accepted in many user communities.

To address these drawbacks, Honeywell has been developing advanced aiding techniques for personal navigation that do not rely on infrastructure and compute a self-contained, relative-navigation solution based only on passive sensors. One technique that Honeywell has developed uses displacement estimation from human-motion models. This technology has been implemented in the ePINS prototype and shows promising performance.

The human-motion model uses IMU measurements as inputs and was developed to infer distance traveled. It generates a displacement estimate that is used as a measurement in the navigation filtering process. The first version of this model was matured under the DARPA individual Precision Inertial Navigation System (iPINS) program. The iPINS system used an IMU, GPS, barometer, and motion classification to estimate a person’s position in both indoor and outdoor environments. In this system, IMU signal characteristics (e.g., peaks and valleys in the accelerations induced by walking) were exploited to differentiate between walking and running. Honeywell recently expanded the human-motion model to identify more specific motion types using a new wavelet motion classification method.

System Description

Figure 1 displays the hardware architecture of the ePINS, a small battery-powered, highly integrated electronic system. The ePINS processing platform is an ARM11-based, i.MX31 system-on-module, paired with support electronics. In addition to the processing platform, the ePINS assembly includes a MEMS IMU, a barometric pressure sensor, a digital magnetometer, and a GPS receiver.

Figure 1. ePINS hardware architecture.

The MEMS IMU provides inertial measurements for strapdown navigation. The IMU’s small package size, light weight, low power consumption, and impressive performance make it attractive for use in the ePINS system. The device is less than 5 cubic inches and weighs less than 0.35 pounds. It consumes about 3 watts of power with a typical current draw of 600mA at 5V.

The ePINS software system is shown in Figure 2. The navigation software runs within Honeywell’s Embedded Computing Toolbox and Operating System (ECTOS IIc), which provides a layered, customizable, and reusable software architecture for implementing navigation, guidance, and control software. A Honeywell-developed simulation tool for offline analysis and development of ECTOS-based software was also used in ePINS development and testing.

Figure 2. ECTOS IIc hierarchical software structure.

The ePINS demonstration device can achieve path performance of less 2 percent distance traveled for walking motion after 1 hour of operation, independent of the magnetic environment. Current performance, packaging characteristics, and interfaces are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. ePINS performance objectives and physical specifications.

Algorithm Description

Figure 3 depicts the overall sensor integration and data processing scheme used in the ePINS device.

Figure 3. Sensor integration using the ECTOS extended Kalman filter.

Extended Kalman Filter (EKF).  The EKF estimates the navigation and sensor errors and computes the resets applied to the strapdown navigation solution to increase its accuracy. Error models for the navigation sensors (IMU, barometric altimeter, magnetometer, GPS, and motion classification) are contained in the EKF. For the ePINS device, the virtual measurements from the step-length model and the strapdown navigation solution are fused by the EKF to assist in bounding the time dependent error growth of the strapdown navigator, which in turn helps maintain calibration of the inertial sensors. A key output of the EKF is the navigation confidence, which is an estimate of the accuracy of the navigation solution.

An important aspect of the EKF and step-length modeling is the residual test that the EKF supports. This test provides a reasonableness comparison between the step-length model estimate and the distance predicted by the strapdown navigation system. This capability significantly increases the robustness of the navigation solution, especially when the user is engaged in motions not recognized during motion classification.

Human-Motion Model. The human-motion model includes two components: wavelet motion classification and step-length model estimation. The wavelet motion classification identifies the type of motion the user is performing, and the step-length model acts as a virtual sensor that quantifies the motion as a distance-traveled estimate.

Wavelet Motion Classification. Human motions are very diverse and highly irregular. Determining what motion is being performed is a challenging problem of classification. Honeywell’s solution is based on wavelet transformation of IMU data. Predefined, or known, characteristics of a variety of motions (such as walking, running, crawling, etc.) are cataloged and stored to a device’s memory. Estimates of those same characteristics for a user are then computed in real time and compared to the catalog of stored information to find the best match.

Generating the catalog of stored information is an offline task that begins by “segmenting” recorded IMU time domain data into individual steps. An example of the output of the segmentation process is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Segmentation of the IMU data using the y-axis accelerometer signal.

Figure 5 displays the segmentation results for two different walking styles (in red and blue) across approximately 15 example steps. As is evident from the graph, walking has characteristics that are common across users, for example, the sharp peaks in the z-axis acceleration caused by foot-ground impacts. Once the data has been segmented, a wavelet transformation on each data channel is performed. Wavelet transformation for many users over many different motion types takes place offline. Subsequently, a wavelet descriptor is built for each motion type based on the transformations into the wavelet domain. With this method, a wide variety of information (that is, descriptors) suitable for input to a classifier is captured about each motion. These descriptors are then cataloged and stored in memory on the ePINS device.

Figure 5. Sample steps for two subjects (red) and (blue).

Finally, for the online phase, the wavelet descriptor of the incoming IMU data is calculated by performing a wavelet transformation on each data channel. This descriptor is then compared to the pre-computed and stored descriptors to classify the motion. FIGURE 7 shows an example of the motion classifier output, where a running motion was used as an input. The classifier successfully determined the motion type (blue field), frequency and phase of the input motion, depicted by the tallest rectangle in the figure.

Figure 7. Classification results from a query of running at a certain frequency and phase (depicted by the dark sphere).

Step-Length Modeling. Once the current motion is identified, a step-length model specific to that motion is used to aid the navigation algorithms. The model for each motion type is obtained by first collecting data that measures step length and step frequency. From this data, the step-length models can be computed by performing a regression analysis of the step-length vs. step-frequency data. Since the step-length models act as a virtual sensor, the models must be as accurate as possible to achieve better system performance. To attain model accuracy, an accurate data collection method is needed.

For ePINS development, step-length models for multiple users have been identified from step-length and timing information using a precise GPS truth reference system. Step-length regression calculations then determine the step length as a function of step frequency (that is, inverse of the step time period).  An example of GPS truth data and the corresponding regression model are shown in FIGURE 6 for walking motions.

Figure 6. Step length versus frequency for the walking of subject.

Although basic step-length models are created offline, online calibration of the step-length model can be performed by the EKF if GPS is available during operation. Online calibration tends to increase the overall position accuracy, as variations in the step-length models are likely due to slight variations in biometric differences across humans, terrain features, and even mission plans and duration.

Heading Determination. Heading initialization is one of the key concerns during system start up. In its current operational use, the ePINS device may perform a dynamic or a static initialization of heading. The static method requires the user to survey the system’s initial heading to an accuracy value that is usually specified by mission performance objectives; the absolute position accuracy is dependent upon the accuracy of the initial heading.

The dynamic method is a general method for heading initialization; it is performed without input from the user, but is possible only when GPS is available. This method of heading initialization does not use any a priori information about heading and requires an EKF implementation with a large-azimuth error model. This method requires an additional period of time in which the heading error uncertainty converges.

User Interface. During a mission, the user can interact with the navigation system and monitor its output on a display. The current ePINS prototype offers two-way communication via a serial connection. The serial communication is made wireless by the addition of a Bluetooth interface. Users can use this link to monitor the status of the navigation solution and to send commands to the device.

Honeywell has developed an application for the Android platform for this purpose. One of the key features of the interface design is that the navigation system outputs data in a standard NEMA format. Thus, publically available Android applications, not just proprietary applications, can also receive and display the navigation solution output by the ePINS device.

Honeywell’s personal navigation application displays the user’s traveled trajectory in real-time. The application can be adapted to include building floor plans as well as other navigation information.

Results

The ePINS prototype has been evaluated both in simulations and indoor/outdoor experiments. The navigation results presented here were obtained in February 2012 at a Honeywell facility (FIGURE 8). First, the user completed the heading calibration, and then online step parameter estimation in the presence of GPS was performed. Once calibration and training was completed, the GPS was disabled to simulate a GPS-denied environment outdoors. The user than transitioned to indoors (with GPS still disabled), and walked a course inside that included walking up and down stairs (FIGURE 9) and ended in a conference room (FIGURE 10).

Figure 8. Course for the Honeywell facility demonstration.

Figure 9. The user walking up stairs.

Figure 10. The user at the end of the demo.

Over these conditions, the ePINS system performed robustly and within performance specifications. Live demonstrations and testing showing similar levels of performance were performed at the 2012 Joint Navigation Conference (JNC) and at military test sites in California and Indiana.

Summary

The technical approach of the ePINS solution to the problem of personnel navigation in GPS-denied environments is based on a strapdown navigation solution maintained using a mid-grade IMU and advanced motion-classification algorithms. We integrated an array of sensors and software into a system that provides accurate position information and is suitable for use by first responders, soldiers, and other personnel where GPS is unavailable. ePINS works well for a variety of pedestrian motion types, including walking, running, crawling, walking upstairs, walking downstairs, sidestepping, and walking backwards. The motion classification and modeling method is extensible to other motion types.

We tested the ePINS system in indoor and outdoor environments. FIGURE 11 depicts the future ePINS concept, and TABLE 2 presents its future physical characteristics.

Figure 11. Future ePINS concept and mounting position.

Table 2. Packaging characteristics of the future ePINS.

Acknowledgments

This article is based on a presentation made at ION GNSS 2012.

Manufacturers

The ePINS processing platform uses Honeywell Agile Navigation and Guidance Integrated Electronics support electronics. It includes a Honeywell HG1930 MEMS IMU, a Bosch Sensortec BMP085 barometric pressure sensor, a Honeywell HMC6343 digital magnetometer, and a NovAtel OEMStar GPS receiver.

Yunqian Ma is a principal scientist at Honeywell Aerospace. He received his Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. He is currently the program manager of the GPS-denied navigation program and the next-generation personal navigation program.

Wayne Soehren is a senior technical manager at Honeywell Aerospace. He was the program manager for the development of Honeywell’s first MEMS-based GPS/INS, which developed the core capability now used in Honeywell’s IGS-2XX family of MEMS-based GPS/INS products. He holds an MSEE from the University of Minnesota.

Wes Hawkinson is an engineering fellow at Honeywell Aerospace. He holds a BSEE/CE from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Justin Syrstad is a guidance and navigation scientist. He received a master’s degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Minnesota.

Sun Jiadong, chief designer of BDS and an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, made his comments in an interview with The Beijing News, as reported by the Chinese government’s website.

He added that this compatibility is the only way to ensure the protection of national information. “Safety issues abound in economic areas,” said Sun. “Ordinary people may have few concerns about the security of information but it is of vital significance.”

The development of Beidou also largely depends on the government’s involvement. “Even though the enterprises spare no effort in developing the system, the products they make would not be available for mass production, which will in turn be reflected by the prices. The government has to promote the research and development of the system,” Sun said. Sun cited the governments of Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou as examples of local governments that were effectively helping to develop the BDS.

The use of Beidou could go beyond basic navigation functions and extend to the civilian market. It would take longer for the BDS to be available for civilians, said Sun. The use of Beidou on mobile phones relies on the development of a small and power-efficient chip. Otherwise the phone cannot be used.

When asked about when and how the cost of developing the BDS will be recovered, Sun reiterated that Beidou was developed to ensure the security of national information, and not to make profits.

The Beidou global navigation system will be available by 2020 with the launching of more than 30 satellites.

The NexNav Circuit Card Assembly (CCA) will integrate with FreeFlight’s upgraded automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B) avionics to fulfill the requirements of the second phase of the FAA Capstone Project.

“This is an excellent example of how we are working closely with FreeFlight Systems to create state-of-the-art NextGen solutions that are not only meeting upcoming mandate requirements but doing it in a cost effective manner,” stated Hal Adams, Chief Operating Officer for Accord Technology, LLC.

The Accord Technology NexNav product line revolves around two key receivers, NexNav mini and NexNav MAX. The receivers are at the heart of embedded customer solutions whether as a Circuit Card Assembly (CCA) or embedded in the Line Replacement Unit (LRU) as a stand-alone GPS solution.

NexNav mini was the industry’s first GPS receiver and sensor qualified to fully support the known worldwide and U.S. FAA ADS-B GPS source requirements The NexNav mini and MAX are compatible with EGNOS and other Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS) to the extent they are is compatible with WAAS.

Signal Sentry 1000, formerly known as GPS Interference, Detection and Geolocation, may now be deployed to collect actionable intelligence for law enforcement, such as tracking high-value targets and protecting critical infrastructure.

Signal Sentry 1000 is a proprietary product that leverages GNSS signal domain knowledge; it is based upon patented technology developed by Exelis through many years of designing and fielding electronic intelligence systems, ITT Exelis said.

“Exelis developed Signal Sentry 1000 to help protect critical infrastructure and to deliver intelligence to law enforcement operations that depend upon GPS availability,” said Kevin Farrell, positioning, navigation and timing general manager for Exelis Geospatial Systems. “Jamming devices can transmit signals capable of disrupting the synchronization of critical infrastructure, such as utility power grids, and timing information of financial transactions. This is why we are continually making improvements in our technology, and the latest milestone achievement is a testament to our goal to deliver actionable interference intelligence to agencies that rely upon GPS operational availability.”

Signal Sentry 1000 technology is a network of threat-detection sensors, which are part of a centralized server executing Exelis‐developed proprietary location algorithms. These sensors can be strategically located around areas of critical infrastructure, such as shipping ports, utilities and government facilities to automatically sense and locate any intentional or unintentional GPS jamming source. Should a threat be detected, users would receive accurate location information and actionable intelligence in order to determine an interference-mitigation plan.

“Signal Sentry 1000 builds upon Exelis expertise in the field of GPS and positioning, navigation and timing. Exelis payloads and payload components have been on board every GPS satellite for nearly 40 years,” said Farrell.  “Today, Exelis is involved in GPS modernization initiatives, building tomorrow’s GPS III satellite constellation by developing and integrating the navigation payloads. Exelis is also providing navigation processing components, precision monitor station receivers, and key components of the system security design for the GPS Operational Control System, also known as OCX.”

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!

MA11M GPS Amplifier.

GPS Source, Inc., has released the latest addition to its military product line, a military qualified, in-line GPS amplifier, MA11M.

The MA11M is a military-grade device used to strengthen the signal and reach of GPS. It is designed for GPS conditions where there is a weak signal. This amplifier is designed to work with an external, active antenna, and is primarily for use by military applications (both ground and air) around the world.

“GPS Source realizes the importance of protecting our national assets by designing products that can handle rigorous military environmental demands,” said Robert Horton, CEO of GPS Source. “This amplifier has been qualified for temperature, altitude, explosive atmosphere, humidity, vibration, among many other challenging conditions. The qualifications allow the military to use this device without reservation.  Test summaries (MIL-STD-810 and EMI) are available upon request.”

The ruggedized MA11M GPS amplifier is designed with the thin link margins of satellite navigation systems in mind, and is a single-stage gain block that covers the GPS, Galileo, and GLONASS frequencies. The device features 30 dB of gain and excellent gain flatness of less than 1 dB.