41–50 of 134 posts
As a lay person in this area... There are more navigation systems around: The EU Galileo, Russia's GLONASS, etc. Assuming it's unlikely that all system are down/jammed/compromised in the same area at the same time, receivers for multiple systems should be OK...? (Again lay person here)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s for military protection. I had a flight canceled due to GPS jamming. I think it was to protect a U2 flight. Putin also flies around with GPS jammers.
Wouldn't that mean that Putin's flights can't use GPS to navigate? But maybe he worries more about someone intercepting his plane than he does about crashing due to a navigation mistake. And his risk assessment may in fact be accurate...
The SR-71 was a cool example of a system that used a hybrid of automated celestial navigation and inertial. Fully self-contained.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it’s for military protection. I had a flight canceled due to GPS jamming. I think it was to protect a U2 flight. Putin also flies around with GPS jammers.
Wouldn't that mean that Putin's flights can't use GPS to navigate? But maybe he worries more about someone intercepting his plane than he does about crashing due to a navigation mistake. And his risk assessment may in fact be accurate...
Of course, the VC-25A used as Air Force One has a cockpit station for a navigator, specifically so that it can use old-style navigation methods if access to GPS and other navigational aids is lost. Putin's modified Il-96-300PU may well also have one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't it just make sense to tell them not to use GPS?
That's like saying just pretend the internet is down. The goal is to find unanticipated uses.
As a lay person in this area... There are more navigation systems around: The EU Galileo, Russia's GLONASS, etc. Assuming it's unlikely that all system are down/jammed/compromised in the same area at the same time, receivers for multiple systems should be OK...? (Again lay person here)
It really annoys me how far into an article you have to read before it becomes clear that they're only telling one, disputed side of the story. > The US Army takes the safety of its operations extremely seriously. Calls for a cease buzzer are taken seriously and range control has not denied or ignored any cease buzzers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't that mean that Putin's flights can't use GPS to navigate? But maybe he worries more about someone intercepting his plane than he does about crashing due to a navigation mistake. And his risk assessment may in fact be accurate...
You can jam 99.99% off the time except when your software takes a reading. So you get clear signal everyone else can’t.
What kind of deranged person messes with GPS risking to crash an airplane?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well keep in mind that US GPS was developed by and is owned/operated by the US military. They're just letting us use it.
The military serves the taxpayers.
> "Aircraft are greatly affected by the GPS jamming and it's not taken seriously by management," reads one report. "We've been told we can't ask to stop jamming, and to just put everyone on headings." This is the military practicing, but I would hope that civilian airline transport operations are also robust to GNSS unavailability or denial. Even private pilots in little Cessnas are taught to navigate using radio-nav…