Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Post Galileo

Old 1st Jun 2018, 10:52
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
It isn’t necessary to duplicate GPS/GLONASS/Galileo; simply leverage their existence to support a more robust LEO constellation to provide the equivalent of their precision service.
Wait, let me get this straight. The point of a separate, sovereign satnav system is to be independent of GPS/GLONASS/Galileo, but the system being proposed is completely dependent on GPS/GLONASS/Galileo. What's wrong with this picture?
KenV is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2018, 11:59
  #42 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 18,069
Received 2,125 Likes on 958 Posts
None of them are going to turn off their public signal - certainly never all three, they are all used to widely. The problem, as being mooted with Galileo, as access to their precision mode - which can be circumvented as described.
ORAC is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2018, 13:39
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
None of them are going to turn off their public signal - certainly never all three, they are all used to widely. The problem, as being mooted with Galileo, as access to their precision mode - which can be circumvented as described.
Really? One can create a high precision signal cheaply and easily be scabbing off the low precision signals of GPS/GLONASS/Galileo? And put it in LEO? And use low power omni directional transmitters? And not have to create a separate ground system all over the globe to update this system continually in real time? If you say so. But let's just say I'm skeptical.
KenV is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2018, 15:00
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Manchester U.K.
Posts: 92
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's been much talk recently of the resurgence of new generation stellar - inertial systems, along with emerging tech, such as the quantum compass.

Seems the very real potential for denial (by means various) of the GPS signal in a contested environment is suddenly on the agenda of many agencies.

Just sayin'...
JG54 is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2018, 15:58
  #45 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 18,069
Received 2,125 Likes on 958 Posts
KenV - Speak to the Japanese - they have one in service......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-...tellite_System

QZSS (Quasi-Zenith Satellite System) - Cabinet Office (Japan)

Centimeter Level Augmentation Service (CLAS)?Service Overview?QZSS (Quasi-Zenith Satellite System) - Cabinet Office (Japan)
ORAC is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2018, 16:56
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Jupiter
Posts: 116
Received 236 Likes on 176 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
KenV - Speak to the Japanese - they have one in service......
You're being fairly disingenuous here. I read back on post 22, it's interesting. It matches some of what I said in my rantpost, that with an altitude of 400km you basically have a 10 minute window during which the satellite will be visible and the ephemeris value will be valid.

You want to piggyback off the existing GPS constellation and use codeless p(y) dual frequency receivers on the cubesats so they can self-update their ephemeris. That works just fine. Many satellites in orbit today have GPS receivers.

Your derived system's error will be its own 'native' error (from the cubesats to the ground receiver) multiplied by the cubesats own GPS position error from when they self-located. The improved accuracies shown in the post 22 links can only be achieved when the cubesat ephemeris data is updated directly with reference to known fixed points i.e. using ground stations, the same way the GPS ephemeris is updated.

You are in reality totally dependent on the navigation message provided by the other system.

You gain only a perceived immunity from jamming which lasts only until your adversaries work out what frequency your cubesats are using and jam it.
Lascaille is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2018, 17:20
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Jupiter
Posts: 116
Received 236 Likes on 176 Posts
ORAC these are ground-reliant systems.

The QZSS satellites do act like 'special' GPS satellites located optimally for Japan but the attached enhancement services (CLAS, SLAS) rely on many many ground stations uploading their known vs measured position errors to the system.

An 'error map' is then calculated and capable receivers can obtain it from the satellite and then determine the system error that applies in their locality. That provides the sub-meter and centimeter level accuracy. No nearby ground stations = no improved accuracy.
Lascaille is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2018, 03:37
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lascaille
ORAC these are ground-reliant systems.

The QZSS satellites do act like 'special' GPS satellites located optimally for Japan but the attached enhancement services (CLAS, SLAS) rely on many many ground stations uploading their known vs measured position errors to the system.

An 'error map' is then calculated and capable receivers can obtain it from the satellite and then determine the system error that applies in their locality. That provides the sub-meter and centimeter level accuracy. No nearby ground stations = no improved accuracy.
To use that system, you say you need receivers “capable” of using it.
Do you know if receivers such as WAAS capable equipment?
Just trying to work out if in Japan the commonly available GPS navigation units are able to use the QZSS.
Hope I made myself clear??
rjtjrt is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2018, 06:08
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Jupiter
Posts: 116
Received 236 Likes on 176 Posts
Originally Posted by rjtjrt


To use that system, you say you need receivers “capable” of using it.
Do you know if receivers such as WAAS capable equipment?
Just trying to work out if in Japan the commonly available GPS navigation units are able to use the QZSS.
Hope I made myself clear??
http://qzss.go.jp/en/usage/products/list.html

Check this out.
Lascaille is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2018, 06:08
  #50 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 18,069
Received 2,125 Likes on 958 Posts
The Times: Brussels starts countdown to sideline Britain from Galileo

The European Union has taken the first step to creating its own space agency that would sideline Britain after Brexit and seal the control of Brussels over civil and military satellite systems such as Galileo. The power grab comes as the European Commission uses Brexit to push Britain to the margins of Europe’s satellite industry, which is increasingly significant for military and commercial uses.

David Davis, the Brexit secretary, yesterday accused the EU of putting dogma before security by pushing Britain out of the Galileo satellite programme, with military capabilities Britain had helped pay for and design. “The commission’s position seems to be shooting itself in the foot just to prove the gun works,” he said.......

Jan Wörner, director-general of the European Space Agency (ESA), a non-EU inter-governmental organisation that includes the UK as well as Canada and Norway, has protested that the commission’s proposals would be costly, divisive and bureaucratic. “Europe, this is to say at least the EU, ESA and their respective member states together, must join forces,” Dr Wörner wrote on his blog. “There is no need to develop a new space agency in parallel in Europe, the ramp-up of which would take decades and cost billions and would therefore in itself be a major risk to the programmes it manages. We need to streamline, not double administrative layers.”

Under proposals published yesterday, the EU would directly control the civil-military Galileo and Copernicus satellite projects after 2020, potentially relegating the ESA to a technical and advisory role. The EU has rejected a British demand for access to Galileo’s heavily encrypted Public Regulated Service signal, used for military purposes, on grounds of security. The plan envisages control of the satellite projects becoming an “EU agency for the space programme” with powers to “ensure the security of all the components of the programme” by ensuring key contracts are only issued to EU member states.

Commission officials dismissed Dr Wörner’s comments as “unfounded”. “The security component is increasingly important,” a commission official said in reference to Britain’s exclusion from the military elements of Galileo.

Bleddyn Bowen, a space policy researcher at Leicester University, said: “Brexit seems to be accelerating the process of dovetailing ESA into EU space policy. This institutional action and its name shows that having a big member [the UK] in the ESA that is able to threaten to complicate the governance of EU-funded space projects seems to have increased the desire of the EU to increase its governing muscle in European space policy.”.......

ORAC is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2018, 06:24
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,900
Received 350 Likes on 123 Posts
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, yesterday accused the EU of putting dogma before security...
"Pot calling kettle....."

The gift that keeps on giving.
BEagle is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2018, 11:22
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
..au contraire, Mr Davis has made clear all along his desire for a deal based on pragmatism rather than dogma. By contrast it's hard to view spending 7billion Euros to largely duplicate the role of an existing agency as anything other than dogmatic.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2018, 12:52
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,146
Received 177 Likes on 92 Posts
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, yesterday accused the EU of putting dogma before security...
Sorry, I had to stop reading there as I was laughing so hard.

..au contraire, Mr Davis has made clear all along his desire for a deal based on pragmatism rather than dogma.
Brexit IS dogma!

By contrast it's hard to view spending 7billion Euros to largely duplicate the role of an existing agency as anything other than dogmatic.
How much are we going to have to spend to create our own system, ShotOne? Is that dogma to you?
melmothtw is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2018, 13:00
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I'm sorry to hear you disagree with the referendum result.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2018, 13:04
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,146
Received 177 Likes on 92 Posts
I didn't agree with the last general election result either, so what?
melmothtw is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2018, 19:29
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Exactly. (FWIW I didn’t vote for Brexit either but, as you say, so what?)
ShotOne is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2018, 09:54
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Axminster Devon
Age: 84
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ShotOne
I'm sorry to hear you disagree with the referendum result.
I am sorry to hear the referendum result discussed here. It is a most contentious topic and has absolutely nothing to do with a professional pilots' rumour network. This talk is as distracting as the sentimental complaints made when we discuss fatal accidents.

Beagle is a respected veteran of this site. He has more than once unnecessarily imposed on us his views on the referendum and on what follows. He sets a very bad example and spoils his previously admirable record.
rlsbutler is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2018, 12:12
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Beyond the M25
Posts: 536
Received 62 Likes on 32 Posts
It keeps coming up in this and other threads rlsbutler because it pervades every facet of life in this country right now, and is likely to do so for years to come. Military aviation is no exception.

I get that Brexiteers don't want to hear about it (with good reason), and believe me Remainers wish we didn't to have to be talking about it. But that's democracy, eh?
Mil-26Man is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2018, 12:23
  #59 (permalink)  
Cunning Artificer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As usual the argument has been twisted arse-about-face by the European Commission. The reality is that an independent United Kingdom cannot entrust its security to the European Union. When it comes to security we need our own military system that is not reliant upon a political-economic entity that includes former Warsaw Pact nations that are only in it for the money.

Need I remind anyone on here that it has traditionally been Britain that has come to the aid of Europe ever since the days of the thirty years war and not the other way round?
Blacksheep is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2018, 12:28
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Beyond the M25
Posts: 536
Received 62 Likes on 32 Posts
an independent United Kingdom
The United Kingdom was and is independent!! All talk of 'no control over our own borders' is tosh - the government could deport any EU citizen who had not found gainful employment within 3 months of arriving, but CHOSE/CHOOSES not to do so. And the rules that the EU sets - we AGREED to them all!

When it comes to security we need our own military system that is not reliant upon a political-economic entity that includes former Warsaw Pact nations that are only in it for the money.
Like Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia? Go read up on the Battle of Britain. Also, all of these 'former Warsaw Pact nations' are now part of NATO - should we leave that?

Need I remind anyone on here that it has traditionally been Britain that has come to the aid of Europe ever since the days of the thirty years war and not the other way round?
And it is largely because of the EU that we haven't had to do so since 1945!!
Mil-26Man is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.