Slashdot Log In
Lockheed Martin Awarded GPS III
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri May 16, 2008 04:21 PM
from the turn-off-gp3-get-a-galileo dept.
from the turn-off-gp3-get-a-galileo dept.
D Ninja writes "Yesterday, Lockheed Martin was awarded the $1.4 billion Air Force contract to build the next-generation global positioning satellite system. This occurred after a series of delays as the Air Force decided between Lockheed and the competing bidding contractor, Boeing Co. 'GPS III, will give new navigation warfare (NAVWAR) capabilities to shut off GPS service to a limited geographical location while providing GPS to US and allied forces. GPS III will offer significant improvements in navigation capabilities by improving interoperability and jam resistance. The procurement of the GPS III system is planned for multiple blocks, with the GPS IIIA portion currently underway. GPS IIIA includes all of the GPS IIF capability plus up to a ten-fold increase in signal power, a new civil signal compatible with the European Union's Galileo system, and a new spacecraft bus that will allow a growth path to future blocks.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Second Galileo Test Satellite Now in Orbit 157 comments
Simon (S2) writes to mention that Europe's second Galileo navigation satellite reached orbit this past weekend. Galileo is promising to offer several technological advances in comparison to the US-based GPS system but no longer promises to be a guaranteed service. "The Galileo programme now seems certain to go ahead, after a prolonged and painful shift from partly-private financing of the construction to public funds taken from unspent EU farm subsidies. This money would normally have been returned to donor nations, with the UK, Germany and the Netherlands as the biggest three. London MPs have expressed doubt as to whether the UK will receive value for the money it will pay, but have acknowledged that the British government doesn't actually have any choice about Galileo under EU funding rules."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
What is up with Boeing lately? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What is up with Boeing lately? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
brains in management.
This AC would be the prime example of an oxymoron. - While im here it was NGS not NVS (Northrop Grumman) FTFA which I clearly did not read until just now
The loss is Boeing's fourth straight in three months on a US defense contract valued at more than $500 million. Boeing lost to Northrop Grumman on a $US35 billion Air Force refueling tanker aircraft contest in February and a $US3.74 billion Navy unmanned spyplane order in April. Lockheed beat Boeing for a $US766 million radio contract in March. Northrop's partner on the tanker contract is the parent of Toulouse, France-based Airbus, Boeing's only bigger rival in commercial planes.
waste of money (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:waste of money (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Quick translation... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that translates to "ability to override the European Union's Galileo".
Re:Quick translation... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you think anyone in Europe would trust US military programs or give the US any control over european satellites after the Bush junta, you must be out of your mind.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quick translation... (Score:5, Interesting)
This sounds a bit far-fetched at first... if there's a conflict and it's sufficiently serious that the Europeans want to take up arms, wouldn't the U.S. want a piece of the action? But perhaps it involves a terrorist attack on an EU country, and to retaliate, the EU wants to drop some bombs or a few commando teams inside the territory of one of our close "allies" like Pakistan, where a lot of the terrorists currently hang out. But the U.S. doesn't want to risk upsetting the Pakistanis.
As I understand things, the U.S. could just say, "Fine. Go ahead. And have fun, guys... but you should remember to bring a map and a good compass, because we're not going to let you guys use our GPS system for navigation, targeting or troop maneuvers." As I understand things, the Europeans would be pretty much fucked. We could call off one of their military actions just by denying them GPS capability or degrading the signal, right?. Even if they were 90% certain they didn't actually want to use a military strike, just taking that card out of their hand would really reduce their power in a negotiation in a conflict.
In the past, I don't think this was so much of an issue. But with the fall of communism, it's less clear that the EU and US will stick together as closely as they have in the past. Furthermore, the U.S.'s foreign policy for the past 8 years, a belligerent "fuck you and get out of my way" attitude towards long-time allies like France and Germany, raises the possibility that U.S. and EU interests could come into direct conflict. Think about it this way. How would it change things if, say, France had control over the GPS system? Would the Iraq war even have been possible? The U.S. would never tolerate that state of affairs. Why should the EU?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Quick translation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Quick translation... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Guidance is accomplished via the tight coupling of an accurate Global Positioning System (GPS) with a 3-axis Inertial Navigation System (INS). The Guidance Control Unit (GCU) provides accurate guidance in both GPS-aided INS modes of operation (13 meter (m) Circular Error Probable (CEP)) and INS-only modes of operation (30 m CEP). INS only is defined as GPS quality hand-off from the aircraft with GPS unavailable to the weapon (e.g. GPS jammed). In the event JDAM is unable to receive GPS signals after launch for any reason, jamming or otherwise, the INS will provide rate and acceleration measurements which the weapon software will develop into a navigation solution."
The military does not depend solely upon GPS for any navigational necessity. We had a half dozen GPS devices in my squad in Afghanistan, but we also had a map and compass and knew how to use them. It's like that all the way up to the B-2 Spirit: use GPS, but don't make it your only resource.
Parent
Re:Quick translation... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Quick translation... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While there is a lot of political posturing going on, the fact is that Europeans and Americans have a lot more in common than they have in opposition.
However, if th
Re:Quick translation... (Score:4, Funny)
They're afraid someone will jam their sextants?
Parent
Not valid (Score:4, Insightful)
1) the EU possibly starts (possibly collaboration with the Chinese) to destroy all US satellite, including KH and GPS one.
2) all intellectual property of the US are forfeited
3) the US lose ANY support whatsoever. For a VERY long time. And it find itself isolated politically, and as much isolated economically as the world can bear (I doubt there is anything the US physically produce which could not be produced/built over a few month/years in another part of the world)
4) escalation of conflict in nuclear war. Remember, some country in EU still have the same nasty nuke that you have. Then we have 2 sets of loser (EU/US) and one winner : the rest of the world.
Anybody which think that the US can kill any satellite of the EU or China because they dislike it, should have its head examinated, because there would be pretty hefty consequence.
Parent
Re:Quick translation... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
What's the point? (Score:2, Insightful)
Day 1, 0900: War Declared
Day 1, 0915: All GPS satellites blasted out of the sky
Day 1, 0930: US surrenders due to lack of any ability to locate their troops and organise them
GPS in a military situation has always seemed to me kind of a bad idea to rely on too much. You put all this technology in your air crafts, your tanks, all your hummers, but when these precious badly defended satellites get knocked out the planes cant fly and
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think the only way the U.S. can organize it's troops is through GPS? Do you think that missiles rely solely on GPS for guidance? You can't possibly think that.
Your perceived vulnerability is completely non-existent. GPS merely augments our ability to fight along with a lot of other technologies. You never rely on a single point of failure and the military practices better than most.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What makes you think we are overly dependent upon them? Sure they are convenient, and if working why not use them, but do you really think that they have stopped teaching people how to use compasses at West Point and Quantico? I'm pretty sure ground commanders have considered this issue. Hell, in the Marines when recruits were introduced to the K-Bar, a 7 inch combat knife, they were told it was the most reliable
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great News (Score:5, Insightful)
Does interoperate with Galileo also mean JAM? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if the capability to "interoperate" with the Galileo system also includes "Jamming". Seems like the satellite could produce a good military GPs signal while at the same time transmit a corrupt L1C signal to "interoperate" with the Galileo system.
Re:Does interoperate with Galileo also mean JAM? (Score:5, Insightful)
In case of war, it won't be the US that will shut down GPS. It will be the US enemies.
Satellites are extremely vulnerable. They would be the first thing to be hit in case of a major war, this was already predicted in this thirty-year-old book [amazon.com]
Parent
Re:Does interoperate with Galileo also mean JAM? (Score:5, Insightful)
Satellites are extremely vulnerable. They would be the first thing to be hit in case of a major war, this was already predicted in this thirty-year-old book [amazon.com]
Parent
GPS outage (Score:3, Insightful)
People not just in the U.S. but around the world have come to rely on it like it's public infrastructure.
Spacecraft Bus! (Score:4, Funny)
Don't Tailgate Me... (Score:3, Funny)
GPSIII Galileo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GPS Shutoff (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even with GPS and Galileo and Beidou, it's still good to learn pilotage, dead reckoning, and celestial navigation. Sailing without them is similar to not knowing how to make change without the computer telling you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:GPS Shutoff (Score:4, Funny)
Unless the INS is too busy arresting Mexicans.
Parent
I am a little more concerned... (Score:5, Insightful)
The insistence on a NAVWAR backdoor is rather stupid. In the last three wars in which it has been involved, the U.S. has pretty much had its rear kicked by enemies using what amounts to 1940s technology. The danger to US troops is not from WMDs, it's from IEDs made in peoples kitchens using easily obtained ordinance, generally with U.S. serial numbers on it.
If they want to blow me up, they're going to do it by setting up a bomb that reacts to the RFID in my "Real ID" card, U.S. Passport, or the pressure sensors in my tires, all of which are government mandated, and all of which go where I go, and so are really useful for targeting me both generally ("look, and American!") or personally. Or they'll use my IMEI on my cell phone, which on differs in that I'm not required to carry it, but probably will anyway.
If someone can build a missile that can get to me from where they are, then unless I am sitting in a bunker, a few hundred feet for going inertial or using airport beacons instead of GPS isn't going to matter much one way or another.
-- Terry
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't harm to repeat this once again. I believe it's Bruce Schneier who came up with the line that fortunately for us the terrorists are stupid; if they weren't, they'd build a bomb that detonates when there are five American passports in range.
By mandating that we have RFID chips in our passports, our authorities are not only violating our civil liberties; they're actually risking
Re:I am a little more concerned... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your superiority only matters if you can use it to accomplish goals that actually further your purposes. If it came down to an all-out war between the US and anyone else, then the US would win hands down, no question. But this doesn't serve any purpose of the US -- the local and international political ramifications of obliterating another country are unacceptable, even for the most gun-ho president. And no other country is going to start an all-out war with the US, because they know they'll lose. Being able to obliterate any country in the world doesn't matter if there's no way you'd ever do that.
Being able to kick the "bad people" out of a country like Iraq while allowing the rest of the population to enjoy the economic and social benefits of capitalist democracies is absolutely something the US wants to be able to do. It appears that, as mighty and all-powerful as your military is, they're unable to achieve the actual objectives required of them.
Also, what makes you think you'd only have to kill 150 million Chinese to destroy the country? I think you're grossly underestimating either the lengths people will go to to protect their country, or the population of China.
Parent
Re:1.4 billion dollars for what ?! (Score:4, Insightful)
PS. I completely agree with the sentiment in your last sentence. - with that money you could probably mount a significant effort toward eliminating malaria in subtropical/tropical areas of the world, saving millions of children. Or you could provide an absurd amount of aid to prevent water born diseases in the 3rd world - or you could mount a tremendous anti-hunger campaign. Bottom line - bigger batteries on a satellite are more important to the people in charge.
Parent
Re:1.4 billion dollars for what ?! (Score:5, Informative)
Also, this cost would likely have occurred anyway - the current satellite constellation won't live forever. The satellites will run out of orbital maintenance fuel, or their clocks will begin to drift erratically, and at some point in the foreseeable future, the constellation will lose enough satellites that it will be mostly unusable. So if we'll be launching new ones anyway, why not make them better?
I also understand your humanitarian question, however, the support that GPS provides in science and education (even though it was and is a military project in the USA) truly does humankind a great service. Oh, and it lets me find good pizza no matter where I am in the city, which is truly humanitarian
Parent
Re:1.4 billion dollars for what ?! (Score:4, Funny)
The same way it coses $400 million to drive a remote-controlled car across a red desert?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps I've been in the computer industry for far too long, but how could it possibly cost 1.4bn to essentially add access control and a bigger amplifier to existing tech ? Will it realistically provide 1.4bn back in value, either by gaining efficiency in war planning, or enabling new civilian tech to make our lives easier ?
Because the 1.4bn is used for more than what you trivialize it to be for. The 1.4bn is for the entire contract but the initial goal is to only have 2 satellites launched with the option for 10 more. They will be integrating with the existing EU Galileo system and provides who knows what else in additional features. As one guy in the article said "'You are guaranteed a lot of business for the next 20 years. It may be enough to drive the losing competitor out of this market.'" In addition to the materials,
Re: (Score:3)
Turning off GPS doesn't give us any more ability to kill people. Simple keeps the enemy from killing us.
Don't underestimate the potential impact it could have on saving lives. Sure perhaps it's selfish to want to save our own lives, but hey I'm only human. If the enemy uses GPS technology to launch an attack on us we only have ourselves to blame.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Satellite DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
The civilian signal is unencrypted.
The military signal is encrypted.
All they do is flip a switch and the civilian signal is gone
A warcrime for a Sovereign Nation to control their property?
Why do you think the EU lofted their own GPS network?
Why do you think the Soviets began lofting GLONASS during the Cold War?
If you don't control it, don't depend on it.
Parent