Wide Awake with No Back-up
November 20, 2009 By: Alan CameronComing in on a wing and a prayer
Coming in on a wing and a prayer
With our full crew aboard and our trust in the Lord
We're coming in on a wing and a prayer
Better start singing that old bombardier song, because we're flying those times again. Our wing is, of course, the GPS Wing, and our prayer is that they don't get taken off the air by solar-storm radiation, hostile jamming, unintentional interference (actually scarier and far more frequent), or lagging constellation replenishment. Because our farsighted President and Congressional leaders have left us without a working back-up.
It's not so much the military I'm thinking of. They have systems and systems. But the national financial, wireless communications, aviation, and transportation networks do not. They've got Loran. The soon-to-be-defunct Loran.
Is this any way to conduct modernization? We see daily how vulnerable the GPS signal is, and by extension other GNSS signals. A receiver, an antenna, and a satellite do not a secure system make. No matter how good they are.
Here's a smattering of the feedback I received to the news story, President and Congress Abandon National Infrastructure. Defense editor Don Jewell also wrote about the debacle in What the President Meant to Say Was . . . and has also received voluminous mail. We'll try to get some of that up soon as well.
This now, from our correspondents:
In reference to the article "President, Congress Abandon National Infrastructure" and articles on other similarly important issues, why are you not submitting these for publication in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, etc.? Here you are just preaching to the choir, fire up the masses and publicly expose the ignorance/stupidity of those in power instead of just hoping some lobbyist can maybe get an ear of a Congressman in a backroom deal. We need these issues to be public.
--- Vince Mendieta
I'm a sailor and can tell you nobody I know uses LORAN. New equipment isn't available at consumer pricing. Consequently, LORAN has a stagnant civil user base. What is the government LORAN user base? How many government vessels/aircraft are LORAN equipped? LORAN is a GPS backup only if users are equipped to use it that way.
--- Captain Charles
I have written the President, DHS Sec., my two senators and I will send a letter to my rep. I used your editorial with appropriate credits. It is a sad day indeed when we throw away such an important system.
--- Bill Thompson, Contributing Editor, GPS World
I read your article and as usual you make some good points. I am not yet convinced though that the President is not making the right decision. The termination of Loran has come up many times and IMO it was only throught congressional interest (from MA) that it has been able to be kept going. While I believe strongly that a back-up to GPS is needed, I think that there are other better solutions. For example, anyone with a modern cell phone can get location information even without a GPS chip inside (albeit to less accuracy). Also, while the CDMA system is itself dependent on GPS, I have been told that GSM and the more modern 3G systems are not dependent on GPS timing.
The main question I would love to hear the answer on is "who is currently using Loran?" The last answer I got (many years ago) was (drum roll) - researchers. If the Loran system doesn't currently have any meaningful numbers of operational users and the system is being kept on "in anticipation" of a future need, I think there are many better alternatives that would fill this gap. Anyway - would love to continue this dialog and get your feedback on my "two-cents".
--- Alison Brown, NAVSYS Corporation
Alan Cameron replies:
Let me try out this argument on you. I don’t know if it holds water.
The point is not who is currently using Loran. The point is, it would be there in a crisis. As an analogy (much as I don’t want to go back to the Cold War or global nuclear meltdown), consider the 1950’s and 60’s ICBMs and current (??) Peacekeeper missiles. How many people currently use ICBMs? Answer: zero. Less even than Loran! BUT — they are there to be used if needed. That is their role. Not to be used, but to be available.
And Alison Brown replies again:
I am not debating that a back-up solution is needed. The point I am making is that there are already other back-up options available that (IMO) would be easier to role out in the event of an emergency, and probably in less time/cost than doing a mass production and distribution of Loran equipment.
To follow your analogy, we now have many more options available to us for long range strike than ICBM's and these are being used effectively on a daily basis. As a tactical (rather than strategic example), we now the use of Predator in theater now is performing a long range strike mission that could previously only be accomplished by using long range missiles such as Tomahawk. In this analogy - we still have the need for long range strike for rapid response to tactical targets - but we don't need long range missiles to accomplish this. The new UAV solutions are more effective and the DoD's investment is going heavily towards more weapon systems of this type. When there are technology solutions that are "game changers" this needs to be considered.
I believe that in a crisis it would be quicker/easier to revert to the newer "game changing" technologies that are available for navigation rather than reverting to the older Loran-C system. I also think it is smarter to make investments to protect GPS infrastructure and have means for rapid replenishment if infrastructure is damaged so that any potential interuption to service would be mitigated. The $$ being spent on Loran-C (IMO) would be much better invested in these areas.
Now from a final correspondent (for this installment at least):
Not so fast. As with many things in Washington, all may not be as it seems.
First of all, I don't believe that the Commandant can make an honest
declaration that Loran-C is not needed for navigation. A Federal Register
notice a couple of years ago drew an overwhelmingly positive response to
retaining Loran-C and indicated that many mariners still use it. He also
can not make that declaration without consultation with the Department of
Transportation/FAA since air navigation would also be affected.
Federal regulations provide for Loran-C as one of the accepted ways to meet
requirements for a radionavigation system. This can't be changed without a
notice and comment period and a phase-in period following a final
rule. So, I believe that an immediate shut down of the Loran-C system
would violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
Then there is the matter of the Coast Guard Authorization Bill. It has
been passed by the House and placed on the Senate's calendar. The
Senate's report is Report 111-95. Here's what is says on p. 10:
LORAN-C. Title VI would authorize the appropriation of $37
million for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to the Department
of Transportation to reimburse the Coast Guard for operating the
current system of long-range aids to navigation (known as
LORAN-C). Appropriating the authorized amounts would cost $74
million over the 2010-2014 period.
Under the Appropriations Act, in addition to the Commandant's finding that Loran-C is not necessary for
navigation, he must also find that the Loran-C infrastructure is not needed
as a GPS backup before turning off the signal. I don't believe he can do
that until after the Supplemental Positioning System study required under
Sec. 222 of the Authorization Bill (if it is passed) is complete and has gone through the required
publication and public notice and comment process required by that
section. Given the recent findings of the Independent Assessment Team, and
the revised cost-benefit analysis just completed by the Department of
Transportation's Volpe Center, it's inconceivable to me that eLoran would
not be found to be essential.
Senate Report 111-95 also says on p. 24:
Section 603. Coast Guard maintenance of LORAN-C navigation
system
This section would put in place certain requirements related to
the LORAN-C navigation system. LORAN-C is a terrestrial navigation
system maintained by the Coast Guard for use by general
aviators, recreational boaters, commercial fishermen, and the military
as a back-up to the satellite-based Global Positioning System
(GPS). GPS has been shown to be vulnerable to jamming and other
interference. The eLORAN system is already in use in other countries
and is considered by many to be a logical choice to replace
LORAN-C as a GPS back-up. Despite the vulnerabilities of GPS,
the President's budget proposal for FY 2010 includes no funding request
for the phasing out of LORAN-C or for the development and
deployment of a next generation GPS back-up, such as eLORAN.
Furthermore, the Coast Guard has indicated that after LORAN-C
is terminated, it plans to sell the 24 LORAN-C station sites located
throughout the United States, even though similar sites will be required
to deploy a new terrestrial back-up to GPS like eLORAN.
This section would require the Secretary of the Department of
Transportation to maintain the LORAN-C navigation system until
the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating
is authorized by statute to stop operations of LORAN-C but
expedite modernization projects necessary for transition to
eLORAN technology. It would authorize appropriations to the Secretary
of the Department of Transportation in the amount of $37
million for each of FY 2010 and 2011 for capital expenses related
to the LORAN-C infrastructure, in addition to funds authorized to
the Coast Guard under section 101 of this Act for continued operation
of the LORAN-C system. Finally, it would require the Secretary
of Transportation, in cooperation with the Secretary of the
Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, to provide a report
to Congress no later than six months after the date of enactment
of the Act providing a detailed 5-year plan for transition from
LORAN-C to eLORAN technology as a national back-up to GPS.
--- Bob Markle, Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services
RSS
Become a Fan
Join our Network
Follow Us
Please send any technical comments or questions to our webmaster.