GPS World

Tag: RAND report

Meeting the autonomy promise: Advanced navigation for sea, land and air

A 2019 RAND report for the U.S. Navy concluded that autonomy could still be in the distant future. The Navy should take care that a number of claimed autonomy applications could be more aspirational than practical, the report stated, with the applications nowhere near to operational capability. The authors wrote that huge investments may be required to achieve autonomous naval weapon systems, not only in autonomy.

Around the world in recent years, most armed forces and many advanced technology companies, along with government agencies, have been investing in AI and automation. Perhaps now, just six years later in 2025, we already are looking foward to unmanned vehicles that display not just fundamental autonomy, but also quite advanced “auto-capability.”

In the world’s water

The U.S. Navy (USN) has been operating a number of unmanned surface vessels (USV) over the past several years. In a 2023/2024 Pacific Fleet exercise, four USV models (Sea Hunter, Sea Hawk, Mariner and Ranger) were mostly operated autonomously. Ranger has a small bridge manned only for harbor maneuvers.

An Orca extra large UUV (XLUUV) is tested in a tank. With a range of 6,500 nautical miles, the submarine can perform long missions. Its navigation system features a Kalman-filtered inertial unit supported by Doppler velocity logs and depth sensors. Photo: Boeing

The USN has unmanned autonomy programs for large, small and underwater vehicles. The Orca submarine program is slated to consist of five 51-foot-long vehicles, and includes variants fitted with an added 30-foot payload section. To operate for several months underwater, it is likely that a similar degree of autonomy has been incorporated. ORCA surfaces regularly and can be given new routing if required.

Saildrone’s autonomous research vessel (Photo: Saildrone)

Other types of vessels collect ocean and seafloor data. The environmentally friendly Saildrone can operate independently — we could say autonomously — for more than a year. The Saildrone company, based in Alameda, California, contracts out its USVs, providing its technology to agencies and governments and taking on the risks of ocean surveying to acquire valuable data. Saidrones are equipped with satellite communications, GNSS navigation, weather sensors and sub-surface sensors.

Wheels on the road

Autonomy applications on land are dominated by commercial self-driving cars, Tesla being the leading manufacturer in the U.S. However, full autonomy is still a considerable way from being ready. At the full-autonomy level, known as Level 6 in the auto industry, the vehicle does all the driving, including obstacle avoidance, under all conditions, without any geographic limitation. Nevertheless, we appear to have progressed from basic manual control (Level 0) to somewhere around Level 3, where the vehicle is largely aware of its environment, and does most of the driving. Even so, human monitoring and control are still required.

Tesla’s autopilot technology in its Model S and Model X electric vehicles could be referred to as an advanced driver assistance system — or as Tesla calls it, “Full Self-Driving (Supervised)” — and is reported to handle emergency steering and braking, autonomous steering, lane changing, vehicle following, curve negotiation, and automatic parking. Autopilot sensor inputs are provided by 12 ultrasonic sensors and eight cameras providing a 360° field of view.

Tesla Autopilot intelligence can identify more than 250 traffic signs 50 countries, including turn signs and speed limits. It can identify and interpret traffic lights and road markings, and decide what to do when coming across things such as traffic cones and pedestrians.

Nevertheless, Tesla’s have been involved in quite a few accidents, the cause of which has been analyzed to be mostly a lack of driver attention (supervision), and in a number of cases, a failure of the autonomous system to recognize unusual road conditions.

Another company, Leo Drive, specializes in providing scalable software and hardware solutions, offering an end-to-end, one-stop service for integration of autonomous systems. Its mission is to make autonomous technology more accessible and widely adopted across various industries.

For its autonomous test vehicle, Leo Drive is using the Ellipse-D, a dual-antenna RTK inertial navigation system (INS) from SBG Systems. The company chose the Ellipse-D for its accuracy, reliability, and advanced features — all essential for autonomous vehicle development and testing. The Ellipse-D INS was integrated into Leo Drive’s, a passenger car converted for autonomous operations.

Oshkosh Defense integrated autonomous technology onto Palletized Load System vehicles as part of the Expedient Leader Follower program. Photo: Oshkosh Defense

The U.S. Army has been using automation in its weapon systems for some time. How much autonomous behavior, of which these systems are truly capable, may be difficult to determine. The General Atomics Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is largely controlled over long-distance satellite links by operators in control stations. It’s possible that the same set up is true of most of the Army’s automated weapons — probably motivated by the need to avoid systems independently determining their own targets and firing without human confirmation.

It’s difficult to determine just what army programs are underway, other than to acknowledge that programs have been launched in the past. There doesn’t appear to be any open, clear indication of the degree of autonomy to be included. A couple of programs have produced at least visible hardware, but how much or little human control is involved is unclear.

Taking flight

Up in the air, new autonomy contender Mayman Aerospace is offering the Razor, a jet-powered vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) UAV. Development of Razor is funded by private investment and U.S. Department of Defense contracts.

The RAZOR VTOL with gimbled jet pods passed tests at a military base in California in September 2024. Photo: Mayman Aerospace

Razor is imbued with a degree of AI that enables autonomous decision-making, as well as navigation. Its autonomous AI brain — the SkyField flight-control system — navigates independently in a GPS-denied environment, possibly involving ground beacons and eventually integrating with battlefield management systems. With a 5- to 6-foot-long airframe and sculpted shape, the aircraft presents a low radar cross section and has a degree of stealth to assist in the penetration of enemy defenses. Its top speed of 500 mph provides new options for both military and commercial applications, according to Mayman.

Razor also can aid disaster recovery, rescue operations, and the delivery of urgently needed life-saving cargo.

Many VTOL unmanned aircraft have struggled with the transition from vertical to horizontal flight. On its first vertical lift-off and climb-out on four jet engines, Razor paused briefly at altitude. Then its jet pods tilted slightly toward horizontal before the aircraft went directly into horizontal flight. An earlier flying testbed may have assisted the development of transition software, perhaps with a boost from machine learning.

Designed for deliveries, the EHang 216 heavy cargo, 16-rotor unmanned aircraft can carry a payload of 551 pounds over almost 22 miles with a top speed of 80 mph, according to the EHang company. The UAV is fully autonomously operated while being monitored over a 4G/5G data link at a manned control center. The system has an automatic fail-safe mode in which the UAV will return to base if the communications link goes down or if battery power drops too low.

EHang also uses a redundant design, with two GPS receivers and double rotors, ensuring a low likelihood of failure during a delivery run.

More In development

So while land vehicle autonomy is moving forward — with Tesla cars and Army vehicles that apparently can take control with close human monitoring — we still have some distance to go to achieve fully independent autonomous behavior on the road.

The Ehang 216 heavy-cargo UAV EHang 216L is designed for deliveries, including life-saving ones. Photo: Ehang video screenshot

Autonomous applications on the sea are more common, with U.S. Navy applications showing substantial progress. Still, precise navigation in crowded harbors remains under human control. Humans are still watching and monitoring, ready to intervene should military or commercial UAV applications make untoward execution errors.

We will continue to follow developments of significant autonomy programs such as the U.S. Air Force Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), a new type of uncrewed weapon system. The CCA and other programs are maintaining high investment levels, so it’s possible that we may see full autonomy fielded quite soon. Perhaps then our belief in its capability will become fully justified.

May 12, 2025
RAND: Federal investment in timing network for GPS backup likely worthwhile

Study’s emphasis, timing of release, work against that, some say

Image: Panuwat Sikham/iStock/Getty Images Plus/Getty Images

The stated goal of a recently published RAND study was to answer a question from Congress about what should be done to back up and complement the nation’s GPS. One of its findings was that the government should consider investing in a national timing network.

Yet the study’s report emphasizes the wrong things, according to some. So much so that it is working against establishment of a timing network to reinforce GPS.

Report Misleading

“The main thrust of the study’s report is that we don’t need another GPS-like, system,” said Pat Diamond. “That has always been fairly obvious. I don’t know anyone who has ever advocated for duplicating GPS.” Diamond is CEO and founder of a network company and is a member of the president’s National Space-based Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Advisory Board.

“By pounding so hard on the ‘don’t duplicate GPS’ drum, RAND hides its more important findings,” he said. “The public message comes across as there is no need to do anything.”

Diamond thinks the study should have better highlighted the things the federal government should do. “That is really the question Congress wanted answered,” he said.

RAND’s study supports four federal initiatives that “… appear to be cost-effective or close to cost-effective.” Included are a “timing-only” GPS-backup and support of high performance “geographically limited” systems.

Timing Essential, GPS Backup Needed

Cover: NSTAC

GPS timing signals are used in a wide variety of technologies including cell phones, IT networks, digital broadcast, first responders’ hand-held radios, and to synchronize electrical grids. Yet these signals from space are weak and easily disrupted.

A recommendation for a GPS timing backup was part of a report to President Biden last month from the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC). The group of telecom CEOs and senior executives urged the administration to fund “a National Timing Architecture.”

A timing backup for GPS is also a long-standing recommendation of the president’s National Space-based PNT Advisory Board.

“There are few things more important to tech infrastructure today and tomorrow than timing,” according to Marc Weiss who was a lead researcher at the National Institutes of Standards and Technology for 35 years.

Weiss, along with Pat Diamond, co-authored the white paper “A Resilient National Timing Architecture” cited in the NSTAC report to the president.

Cost-Benefit Might Be Wrong Approach

Cover: Thomas Dunne Books

The RAND study was a cost-benefit analysis, which some have argued was not the best approach.

“Cost-benefit is always tricky,” says Greg Winfree, Director of the Texas Transportation Institute. “There are always a lot of assumptions. Small changes to any of the inputs can radically change the outcomes.” Winfree led civil PNT efforts during the Obama administration as an official at the Department of Transportation (DOT).

“One of my big concerns is that GPS is so important to so many things in America, that it is one of the most attractive targets for our adversaries. At least one alternate PNT that most people can access takes the bullseye off GPS,” Winfree said.

Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University (GWU) agrees a diversity of PNT sources is important. At a recent GWU event, Pace commented having an alternative to GPS will contribute to national security and improve global stability. It will “lower the pressure on us to escalate and respond” should GPS satellites be damaged, or services disrupted. Pace was the Executive Secretary of the National Space Council in the Trump administration.

In the book The Russia Trap, author George Beebe has similar concerns, citing the lack of a backup for GPS as a technology resilience gap. Russia, China, and Iran all have terrestrial backups for PNT signals from space while the United States does not. Beebe says this is a weakness that can be exploited and could lead to an escalating series of exchanges resulting in all-out war.

Government Investment in Location Services

The RAND study suggestion for the government to invest in highly accurate PNT services in some limited geographic areas cited emergency responders’ needs for precise location. Federal investment will likely be required, it says, as commercial entities cannot make a business case everywhere service is needed.

GWU economics professor Diana Furchtgott-Roth has written that the federal government needs to provide a complement to GPS. She served as a Deputy Assistant Secretary at DOT from 2019 to 2021 leading civil PNT issues for the government.

“Without federal participation, commercial providers won’t ensure adequate resilient services for everyone. Some sectors, such as finance, will have it, but others won’t. This is a matter of national and homeland security. The RAND report did not emphasize this sufficiently.”

Questionable Timing and Motivation

“This is a particularly bad time for a confused message,” said a congressional staff member speaking about the RAND study. “Congress mandated a timing backup for GPS in 2018, though the project was never funded. There is real momentum this year to provide that funding, but the way this study reads works against that.”

Others see the structure of the study’s report and the timing of its release as a deliberate effort to derail budget negotiations. One retired Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official sees a pattern but is at a loss to explain the motivations behind it.

“RAND’s study was completed in 2019, and it was used as the basis for a DHS report to Congress in April 2020. But DHS didn’t tell Congress about RAND’s findings on a timing network and other actions the government should take,” they said.

“The study being made public now saying ‘do not back up GPS’ smells like a deliberate attempt to derail funding for the timing system. Something two presidential advisory boards, telecom leaders, RAND and so many others agree is needed.”

“Why would someone want to do that?” they asked. “Why would they want to keep America’s PNT so much weaker than China’s, Russia’s, and those of other countries?”

June 22, 2021