The Perils of LORAN: an Endangered Life

August 25, 2009

Although the Independent Study of LORAN chartered by the U.S. government’s own Secretary of Transportation produced an unequivocal recommendation to keep LORAN and modernize to eLORAN as a vital back-up to GPS and the national infrastructure, the program remains mired in Congress, and in danger of sinking under the ooze. The Obama administration has used it as a political football, a misguided example of how to save money in the budget. Sufficient members of Congress have climbed aboard the ignorance bandwagon, abetted by drones in the Department of Homeland Security. A recent debate in the Senate provides yet another example how a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

The following excerpt comes from the Senate floor on July 8, 2009, in debate over Senator McCain’s Amendment 1406 to HR 2892.

The amendment proposed by Senator McCain called for halting the LORAN system immediately and not letting it operate for the remaining five months of the year, as stated in the original bill. The $18 million sum mentioned is one estimate of the operational costs of the system for those five months.

Senator Tom Coburn, Republican, Oklahoma: Mr. President, in 2007 I offered this direct amendment. We spent 3 hours on it on the Senate floor. Everybody agreed we needed to get rid of this program then. We had some concerns. The thing I do not understand is why we are waiting the extra 5 months to shut down a program. There is nobody who needs this program. That 5 months — just that 5 months of continuing the program — costs the American taxpayers $18 million. First of all, nobody is using this system now. Nobody is using it. Why can't they notify in 3 months all the people — which is zero — who are using this today? The other question is, why does it take $35 million? Where is the backup detail that shows what the costs will be? Maybe it is $18 million.

Senator Patty Murray, Democrat, Washington: It is $18 million.

Senator Coburn: So why does it take $18 million? There are only seven stations left, and we are talking about facilities that are smaller than these four desks. Tell me how it takes $2.5 million per buoy to shut them down. Only from Washington would it take that much money. Where is the basis for the knowledge that it takes $18 million?

Editor’s Note: The Senator refers to the LORAN system as “seven stations left,” “facilities that are smaller than these four desks,” and “buoy.” None of which is even remotely correct. Perhaps the reason he does not understand is because he does not know what he is talking about.

Senator Susan Collins, Republican, Maine:
Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona.

Let me start with some background on the LORAN system since it may not be familiar to many of our colleagues. This is a radio navigation system with 24 land-based transmitters which are operated by the Coast Guard that can be used to determine the location and speed of the receiver. Some mariners and aviators use the current system, which is known as LORAN-C, for navigation, while others have switched to the GPS system. An upgraded LORAN system, which is known as eLORAN, would use LORAN-C transmitting stations as its foundation and it would serve as a backup to GPS as well as a primary navigational tool.

This infrastructure would provide the foundation that is necessary to have a backup for the GPS. If we abandon the LORAN-C system, as Senator McCain has advocated, we would lose the considerable investment of $160 million we have already made to deploy the eLORAN system, and this system is one that a joint Department of Homeland Security and Department of Transportation assessment team has recommended as the backup for GPS.

Why do we need a backup for GPS? The fact is GPS is vulnerable to atmospheric interference and jamming. A loss of the GPS signal for even a short duration and in an isolated region would adversely affect cell phone coverage, the national power grid, and air traffic.

Our nation needs a reliable backup. This isn't just my opinion. This is the considered opinion of an independent assessment team that just filed its final report in January of this year. One of the previous speakers referred to a GAO report that is over 25 years old. I am talking about an assessment that was just completed in January of this year. DHS and the Department of Transportation jointly commissioned an assessment team that included a diverse group of senior decisionmakers and experts from government, academia, and industry. This team reviewed 40 previous reports, interviewed the key stakeholders, industry representatives, and other experts, and received 980 comments on what should be done, and 93 percent of those comments were in favor of maintaining the LORAN system — 93 percent.

Listen to who some of the commentators were. Sprint Nextel, which is the supplier of critical communications capabilities, and the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration both stated that they currently use the LORAN system and that they support upgrading to eLoran as a backup and complement to the GPS system. The Department of Energy moves controlled nuclear material around the country and uses LORAN-C as "an active and robust supplement to GPS.'' This is the Department of Energy's Nuclear Security Administration telling us it needs and relies on the LORAN-C system. They describe it as an active and robust supplement to GPS. The Department of Energy uses LORAN-C to provide location information on nuclear material in the event of blocked visibility, solar storms, and intentional jamming of the GPS system.

In January of this year, when the team released its report, it unanimously concluded that the eLORAN should serve as the national backup system for GPS and that the LORAN-C infrastructure should be maintained until we have full deployment of the eLoran.

Think what we are doing if this amendment passes. What we are proposing is to discontinue a system that is being relied upon by the Department of Energy and countless other users. That is why this independent assessment team — this isn't my opinion, this is the independent assessment team's conclusion — says we must maintain the current system until we have fully transitioned to the eLORAN system, which will be the backup for GPS. What is being proposed by this amendment is to discontinue the LORAN-C system prior to having a backup in place. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, I would emphasize that this was a unanimous conclusion of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation's independent assessment team as of January of this year. It is the newest assessment we have. It is the most complete review that has ever been done.

The fact is, the weaknesses in the GPS system are well known. A GAO report published in May raised serious concerns regarding the near- and long-term health and reliability of the GPS network, noting that there is a high risk — that is GAO's assessment — that the Air Force will not be able to meet its schedule for the deployment of GPS satellites. The Department of Defense predicts that over the next several years, many of the older satellites will reach the end of their operational life faster than they will be able to be replaced.

A Wall Street Journal article in June concluded that the GPS satellite system — the article cited new interference problems with the signals being transmitted by recently launched GPS satellites, raising additional serious concerns about the timeline for the deployment of the next generation of GPS satellites.

The assessment team reported on a GPS interference incident in San Diego that lasted 3 hours. The GPS system is not failproof. It can be intentionally interfered with or it can stop operating due to atmospheric conditions.

The eLORAN would fulfill the requirement established in National Security Presidential Directive 39 for a backup to GPS. This is a modest investment of funds to make sure we do not experience a dangerous gap.

Another myth we keep hearing is that there hasn't been sufficient study into the issue of whether a backup is needed for the GPS system. In fact, as I have indicated, eLORAN has been exhaustively studied. The result of these successive scientific and budgetary analyses is that eLORAN represents the most cost-effective backup to GPS.

Again, that is not just my opinion. That is the unanimous conclusion of the independent assessment team that was established by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation.

I urge the defeat of the amendment.