Tag: National Timing Resilience and Security Act of 2018

eLoran: Part of the solution to GNSS vulnerability

Opposite and complementary

Though marvelous, GNSS are also highly vulnerable. eLoran, which has no common failure modes with GNSS, could provide continuity of essential timing and navigation services in a crisis.

GPS fits Arthur C. Clarke’s famous third law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Yet, it also has several well-known vulnerabilities — including unintentional and intentional RF interference (the latter known as jamming), spoofing, solar flares, the accidental destruction of satellites by space debris and their intentional destruction in an act of war, system anomalies and failures, and problems with satellite launches and the ground segment.

Over the past two decades, many reports have been written on these vulnerabilities, and calls have been made to fund and develop complementary positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) systems. In recent years, as vast sectors of our economy and many of our daily activities have become dependent on GNSS, these calls have intensified.

A key component of any continent-wide complementary PNT would be a low-frequency, very high power, ground-based system, because it does not have any common failure modes with GNSS, which are high-frequency, very low power and space-based. Such a system already exists, in principle: it is Loran, which was the international PNT gold standard for almost 50 years prior to GPS becoming operational in 1995. At that point, Loran-C was scheduled for termination at the end of 2000.

However, beginning in 1997, Congress provided more than $160M to convert the U.S. portion of the North American Loran-C service to enhanced Loran (eLoran). In 2010, when the U.S. Loran-C service ended, its modernized and upgraded successor was almost completely built out in the continental United States and Alaska. During the following five years, Canada, Japan, and European countries followed the United States’ lead in terminating their Loran-C programs.

Today, however, eLoran is one of several PNT systems proposed as a backup for GPS.

The National Timing Resilience and Security Act of 2018 required the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to “provide for the establishment, sustainment, and operation of a land-based, resilient, and reliable alternative timing system” as a backup to GPS. In January 2020, the DOT awarded contracts to 11 companies to demonstrate their technologies’ ability to act as a backup for GPS. Of these companies, two were working on eLoran projects.

Technical advisers to the federal PNT Executive Committee have been advocating and recommending that the government implement eLoran for the past 11 years. Yet, while the U.S. government announced in 2008, and again in 2015, its intention to build an eLoran system, it has not done so yet.

Not Your Grandfather’s Loran

In the 1980s, I used Loran-C to navigate on sailing trips off the U.S. East Coast. It had an accuracy of a few hundred feet and required interpreting blue, magenta, black and green lines that were overprinted on nautical charts. The system was a modernized version, launched in 1958, of a radio navigation system first deployed for U.S. ship convoys crossing the Atlantic during World War II. Its repeatability was greater than its accuracy: lobster trappers could rely on it to return to the same spots where they had been successful before, though they may have had some offset from the actual latitude and longitude.

By contrast, eLoran has an accuracy of better than 20 meters, and in many cases, better than 10 meters. It was developed by the U.S. and British governments, in collaboration with various industry and academic groups, to provide coverage over extremely wide areas using a part of the RF spectrum protected worldwide. Unlike GNSS, eLoran can penetrate to some degree indoors, under very thick canopy, underwater and underground, and it is exceptionally hard to disrupt, jam or spoof.

Unlike Loran-C, eLoran is synchronized to UTC and includes one or more data channels for low-rate data messaging, added integrity, differential corrections, navigation messages, and other communications. Additionally, modern Loran receivers allow users to mix and match signals from all eLoran transmitters and GNSS satellites in view.

Finally, eLoran can be used for integrity monitoring of GPS — and vice versa. “Think of a resiliency triad, consisting of GNSS (global), eLoran (continental), and an inertial measurement unit, a precise clock, or a fiber connection,” said Charles A. Schue, CEO of UrsaNav. “It is extremely difficult to jam or spoof all three sources at the same time, in the same direction, and to the same amount.”

For the eLoran system to cover the contiguous United States, between four and six transmission sites could provide overlapping timing coverage, and 18 transmission sites could provide overlapping positioning and navigation.
U.S. Developments

The INVEST in America Act authorizes $157 million for the Department of Homeland Security to conduct research in five separate areas, one of which is positioning, navigation and timing resiliency; however, none of this money is for eLoran per se. The regular DOT appropriation for next year has $17 million for PNT-related research, $10 million of which is for “GPS Backup/Complementary PNT Technologies Research.” However, neither of these bills has yet been finalized, let alone passed into law, so they may change.

“These are very complex systems, with five- to seven-year sales cycles,” pointed out Schue, “and the process is even slower now due to the pandemic. With adequate funding, eLoran signals could start becoming available in the contiguous United States within a year of a service contract being signed. We should recall that GPS — as, indeed all of the GNSS — was brought online gradually as satellites were developed and launched into space. There should be no expectation that any other nationwide system would be available at the flip of a switch instead of through gradual implementation.”

the former Loran-C transmission antenna at Værlandet, Norway. (Photo: UrsaNav)

International Developments

Loran-C and eLoran operate internationally. Saudi Arabia, China and Russia continue to operate Loran-C or Chayka systems. In October 2020, a Chinese paper described how the nation is expanding Loran to its west to cover the whole country to protect itself from disruptions of space-based services. A previously published report made it clear that they are upgrading or have upgraded from Loran-C to eLoran. South Korea has an ongoing project to upgrade its Loran-C to eLoran. It also seems the project will ensure that the South Korean system will be useable on its own, even if the Russian and Chinese systems with which it normally cooperates are not available for some reason, according to Dana Goward, president of the Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation.

The United Kingdom is still committed to eLoran, and operates one station that has been used as an alternative time reference to GNSS. “However, as the sole station still transmitting in that area of Europe it’s of no use for positioning,” said Nunzio Gambale, CEO of Locata Corporation. “Unfortunately, the EU’s shutdown of their old Loran sites seems to have been completed, and no EU-based Loran sites remain operational. Their actions leave scant hope for Loran’s resurrection any time soon as an alternative to GNSS positioning in Europe. That’s a shame, because eLoran has beneficial PNT characteristics that other alternate technologies will struggle to replicate.”

A deck officer on a ship takes a relative bearing using a pelorus. Loran-C was developed in large part for maritime navigation. (Photo: aytugaskin/iStock/Getty Images Plus/Getty Images)

Advocacy

“There is fairly good agreement across the PNT community that there is no sole solution [to GPS vulnerabilities],” Schue said. “It needs to be a system of systems.”

The PNT community, he said, is working with Congress and the administration “to move ahead with actual RFPs to start the contracting process — instead of continuing to admire the problem.” UrsaNav, NextNav, OPNT and other companies and organizations “are working together as best as we can to tell the federal government that we all believe in a system-of-systems approach and that there ought to be some tangible forward motion.”

While DOT has the lead on providing PNT resiliency, it and the departments of Defense and Homeland Security need to cooperate on this, Schue argued. “Many, if not all, of the other departments — such as Commerce, Energy, State, Interior and Agriculture — also have a stake.”

GNSS will remain for a reason. “Unless a new national terrestrial PNT system moves the game forward for many markets, it’s just far too easy to remain with the GNSS system, which is fundamentally free,” Gambale said. “That’s a really difficult price point to compete with, unless you’re delivering significant new value to the market.”

The time to act is now. “This issue has been studied to death for more than 20 years,” Goward said. “There are technologies ready to deploy. It is time for action. A failure of national PNT will be catastrophic.”

November 3, 2021
RNT Foundation proposes attributes for resilient timing RFP
A National Resilient Timing Architecture should include delivery by fiber and RF along with space-based, according to the RNT Foundation. (Image: RNT Foundation)

The Resilient Navigation and Timing (RNT) Foundation has published a white paper proposing attributes for a government Request for Proposal (RFP) to acquire timing services.

“A National Resilient Timing Architecture – Now for an RFP !” builds upon the foundation’s October 2020 white paper “A Resilient National Timing Architecture.”

Timing services, most of which are now sourced directly or indirectly from GPS, are essential for myriads of network, transportation, financial, industrial, and other applications. The National Timing Resilience and Security Act of 2018 (NTRSA) requires establishment of one or more systems to serve as alternatives and back up GPS timing.

The RNT Foundation’s October 2020 white paper discusses how a national timing architecture fulfilling the requirements of NTRSA could be established relatively easily and inexpensively. It proposes that, rather than building its own system, the government contract for services with commercial providers.

The new white paper outlines some of the requirements and evaluation criteria the government might use when acquiring timing services.

Goals

The paper postulates that the goal of such a procurement should be to establish a federal timing “backbone.” This would fulfill the requirements of NTRSA, which recognizes that timing is critical for many applications and is also the basis for most electronic positioning and navigation systems.

Establishing this backbone will provide users with an alternative and a safety net for GPS disruptions, and at other times enable more resilient and reliable services. As a backbone, it would provide basic, foundational services upon which others would be able to build. The new services would be expected to:
- support a wide variety of public and private applications across the nation
- be entirely independent from and have minimal or no common failure modes with GPS and other GNSS
- provide multiple and diverse methods of timing delivery
- serve both fixed and mobile users.
Regarding this last point, the paper notes that mobile devices must know their location before they can make use of timing signals. Thus, the selected system or combination of systems also will have to provide GPS-independent location information at a basic level to mobile users.

Requirements

Successful proposals, the paper envisions, will need to meet a number of requirements including
- serving the entire U.S. land area, airspace, and coastal waters to about 200 miles offshore
- enabling all fixed and mobile users to access at least one non-space-based source (to ensure no common failure modes with GPS/ GNSS)
- timing accuracy in all locations to within 500 nanoseconds of universal coordinated time (UTC); this accuracy should be within 100 nanoseconds of UTC for the 50 largest metropolitan areas
- one or more integrity measures to provide users confidence in system(s) accuracy
- a very high rate of continuity and availability, similar to that of navigation beacons for aircraft
- a performance monitoring and control system.
Evaluation Criteria

Fortunately for the government, numerous systems and companies are already able to provide the needed services. Deciding which to select will likely be a significant effort. Some of the evaluation criteria suggested by the RNT Foundation white paper are:

Annual Cost – While cost will not be the only consideration in this acquisition, the government always has a responsibility to taxpayers to weigh it as an important factor.

Infrastructure Required Per Unit of Coverage Area – This has been cited by the Department of Transportation as a very important consideration. Not only does the amount of infrastructure affect cost, but it also has implications for environmental and community impacts.

Spectrum – Signal disruption by in-band and out-of-band transmissions has been a significant issue for GPS. New PNT wireless and radio-frequency services should pose as few spectrum concerns as possible. Spectrum band reservations, licenses, pre-allocated bands, other bands and adjacent band uses will all be given consideration.

Penetration – While the government may not list this as a requirement, the ability of a service to reach underwater, underground and indoor locations will likely be desirable and part of proposal evaluation.

Resilience – The vulnerability of GPS signals to disruption will undoubtedly make the resilience of potential backup and complementary systems a major issue. The RNT Foundation paper discusses two kinds of resilience – operational and recovery.

Operational resilience is defined as “the ability of a system, combination of systems, or service to resist disruption (e.g.: jamming, spoofing, physical damage negatively impacting service).” One measure of resilience might be the energy needed to disrupt signals.

Recovery resilience is described as “The speed and ease with which a service can return to normal operation” after a disruption.

Cybersecurity – Similarly, cybersecurity is seen as having two components. The first is network security, defined as the degree to which systems are isolated from or connected to networks. Second is signal security, and is how well signals can be protected from infiltration and imitation.

Endorsements for GPS Alternative Timing

Since the “National Resilient Timing Architecture” white paper was issued in 2020, calls for GPS alternatives have intensified, and the white paper itself has received an important endorsement.

On May 7, the telecommunications industry standards group Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) vigorously supported federal funding for GPS alternatives. In letters to leaders in both houses of Congress, ATIS cited “the urgent need for funding the deployment and adoption of Alternative Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) Systems in U.S. critical infrastructure, including the U.S. telecom industry.”

The need for federal support for timing and positioning backups for GPS was also supported by a two-year old study released by RAND Corporation in May. While the paper went to great lengths to argue against a duplicate GPS-like capability (something no one has supported to the best of our knowledge), it quietly suggested federal support for both a national timing system and location services to serve E-911 systems.

Numerous recent media releases from U.S. Space Force have revealed serious military threats to GPS and other space-based systems. A variety of killer-satellites, lasers and other weapons have turned space from a sanctuary into a potential battle ground. While not specifically calling for alternatives to GPS, the Space Force announcements have made it clear the nation needs to “get the bullseye off GPS.” Establishing at least one terrestrial alternative system similar to those operated by our adversaries will make U.S. satellites and signals much less attractive targets, according to Greg Winfree, former assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Transportation.

Federal Funding Needed

Federal funding for improving national timing was specifically supported by a group of CEOs and senior executives from major telecom companies. Acting as the National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC), the group’s May report to President Biden discussed GPS vulnerabilities and threats, and urged establishment of a capability

“…similar to that reflected in the Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation’s paper entitled A Resilient National Timing Architecture. Further, to enhance the ability of commercial entities to afford leveraging this architecture, the Administration should appropriate sufficient funds to lay the foundation for creating this timing architecture, with the Federal Government being the first customer for what will ultimately become a resilient, interconnected network for PNT delivery.”

Federal funding support is necessary, according to NSTAC, because free GPS services greatly suppress market demand for alternatives.

Dana Goward is president of the Resilient Navigation and Timing (RNT) Foundation.
October 14, 2021
$17M proposed for DOT resilient PNT initiatives

Photo: E4C/E+/Getty Images

The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) seeks to extend Trump policies and repeal timing law counter to its own study and industry input

The Biden administration’s budget proposal delivered to Congress last week includes $17 million for the small Department of Transportation (DOT) office responsible for leading civil positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) efforts for the nation. This is a marked increase over the $2 million allocated in 2020 and estimated $5 million being spent this fiscal year.

At the same time, it seeks to repeal the National Timing Resilience and Security Act of 2018 that mandated DOT establish a terrestrial timing backup for GPS. This, despite the findings of a recently published RAND study completed for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and other input from a telecommunications industry group.

Proposed Spending

The administration’s budget proposes $17 million for the DOT Office of Research and Technology to be split among three areas of effort.

Monitoring and detection. The first is a $3.5 million “(GNSS) performance monitoring and interference detection” project. This is a one-time request that is expected to be followed by a request for $1 million in yearly funding to maintain and operate the capability.

While these may not seem like sufficient funds to many, DOT is tasked with working with other departments and agencies, and to leverage existing capabilities. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is specifically named as an important partner with DOT in this effort. NGA already has responsibility for issuing worldwide navigation warnings for U.S. interests. It also has access to a wide variety of information that could be used for the project.

Signal authentication. Another $3.5 million is proposed for Executive Order (EO) 13905 Implementation and GPS Signal Authentication. The EO was issued in February 2020. It seeks to leverage market forces and education to create additional sources of PNT and encourage users to access them. This approach has been criticized by many as unworkable without extensive regulation and mandates for users, while still not addressing the majority of American companies and users.

$1.5 million of this $3.5 million will go to further implement the EO through development of a “PNT threat space model” and otherwise support inter-department PNT profile and research and development efforts.

$2 million would be allocated for a one-time investment in GPS signal authentication to “result in the development and validation of requirements for data and signal authentication capability for civil GPS,” reads the proposal. DOT has regularly requested much greater sums to establish civil signal monitoring, leading many to believe the requirements are already well known. One industry observer suggested this could be “a study in lieu of action.”

GPS Backup. $10 million would be spent for “GPS Backup/Complementary PNT Technologies Research,” essentially follow-on studies to the DOT GPS Backup Technologies Demonstration. “These efforts will further develop PNT modeling, simulation, and testing tools, as well as standards and performance monitoring tools needed to evaluate integration of diverse positioning, navigation, and/or timing technologies into end-user applications. This work will also support development of cyber-secure receivers,” reads the proposal.

Proposed Repeal of Timing Law

More surprising to many than the significant increase in proposed funding is inclusion of a proposal to repeal the National Timing Resilience and Security Act of 2018 (NTRSA).

One congressional staff member expressed shock at seeing that provision. “The act was the epitome of thoughtful, bipartisan congressional effort,” the staff member said. “It was co-sponsored in the Senate by Markey and Cruz, for crying out loud. You can’t get more bipartisan than that. To have this dumped on us without any notice or consultation is amazing. It is not something I would expect from this White House. I am not sure how serious a proposal it is.”

Some observers on the hill and elsewhere have opined that, rather than the repeal proposal being a well-vetted administration policy, it is an effort by OMB staff held over from the previous administration to carry forward and preserve President Turmp’s Executive Order 13905 and other PNT policies. Rather than focusing on establishing a GPS backup capability, they instead urged PNT users to find and pay for alternatives on their own.

Harsh Tone, False Assertions

Compounding the surprise is the exceptionally harsh tone in the proposal, and assertions that many claim are outright false.
Among the problems with the language seen by observers is its assertion that NTRSA seeks to establish a single backup for GPS services.

“It’s unclear to me where such an assertion is supported in the record,” said Greg Winfree, former Assistant Secretary at DOT in the Obama administration. “NTRSA requires the department to incorporate findings from the GPS back-up demonstration program. That project found a variety of systems are needed to protect America,” he said. “NTRSA does require establishment of at least one system, which is incredibly important. Without at least one alternative in place, GPS is one of highest priority targets for our enemies. We have to get the bullseye off of GPS. NTRSA does that.”

This point on national security was reinforced by Scott Pace, head of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University (GWU). Pace was executive director for the Space Council in the Trump administration. At a recent GWU webinar on the topic, he commented that 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, he said.

China, Russia, and other nations have terrestrial PNT alternatives to GNSS already in operation. This imbalance creates strategic and tactical problems for the United States, according to many analysts.

The proposed budget also describes NTRSA’s goal of providing at least one backup as “inefficient, anti-competitive and potentially harmful to the existing market for back-up/complementary PNT services.”

“Exactly the opposite is true,” according to Diana Furchtgott-Roth, GWU economics professor. Until January of this year, she led civil PNT issues within the Trump administration as a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology at DOT. “DOT’s Complementary PNT and GPS Backup Technologies Demonstration Report, published in January, specifically stated that a variety of technologies are needed to complement GPS. What is the most cost-efficient in an urban area is not necessarily the most cost-efficient in a rural or maritime area.”

“PNT is a utility used by every American. Having affordable complementary service available to people in rural and urban areas is the height of efficiency. It is unquestionably in the interests of national and economic security. In fact, access to at least one alternative should be free so to encourage adoption and best protect the nation,” she said.

“GPS is now a free service provided by the government, and the government is responsible for making sure that it is reliable. GPS outages would cause harm across a broad range of economic activities, including emergency services, general aviation, pipelines, and the electricity grid,” according to Furchtgott-Roth.

No-So-New and Contradictory Research

The proposal to repeal NTRSA cites “recent federal analyses” as part of its justification. One of these is likely a report done for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by the RAND Corporation. Touted in a press release last month as “new research” and labeled “Published 2021,” the work was actually completed in 2019. DHS representatives have said the delay in publication was needed for review and approval.

Yet the report was the basis for a DHS report to Congress submitted in April 2020. This has caused some to opine that its publication was timed to reinforce OMB’s effort to repeal NTRSA. “You don’t submit reports to Congress based on un-reviewed, un-approved material,” said a retired DHS official. “The timing of its release is clearly deliberate.”

The study, “Analyzing a More Resilient National Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Capability,” takes a cost-benefit approach to the issue. One of its high-level findings is that government investment in a duplicate, GPS-like backup capability is not warranted.

At the same time, it found that government investment in a national timing network, such as the one mandated by the NTRSA, is likely warranted. Saying that a complete backup for all GPS services in all parts of the country is not cost-beneficial, the study says there are some “…federal initiatives that do appear to be cost effective or close to cost effective.” These include “Timing-only backup through fiber/FirstNet, eLoran, or STL [Satelles].”

According to the retired DHS official, this directly contradicts OMB’s assertion that NTRSA should be repealed. “Either they didn’t read the whole thing, or they counted on most people not reading farther than the top-level recommendations,” he said. “And those top recommendations were clearly selected to match OMB’s desired outcome.”

Telecommunications Industry Cites Need for NTRSA Provisions

The May 2021 “Report to the President on Communications Resiliency” also runs counter to claims made in the budget proposal. In it, the president’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (coordinated by DHS) cites the need for GPS alternatives in telecommunications and urges President Biden to fund them. It specifically mentions the need for a national timing architecture, and cites the provisions of NTRSA several times as a step in the right direction.

The industry group Alliance for Telecommunications Solutions also sent letters in May to congressional leaders urging funding for GPS alternatives.

Continuing the Discussion

Congress has become increasingly dissatisfied with executive branch actions on resilient PNT over the last decade.

The most recent evidence of this is an extensive and highly critical report of the Department of Defense’s approach to PNT resilience released May 10 by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Among its recommendations was to not rely on GPS as a primary PNT source but look to more resilient technologies.

While President Trump’s 2020 Executive Order did not make precisely the same recommendation to civil users, it did focus on “responsible use” of PNT and transitioning to using additional, non-GPS dependent sources.

The question still under discussion is how far the government should go to support such a transition.

Seasoned observers regularly comment that Congress has the “power of the purse” and every president’s budget is “dead on arrival” regardless of which party controls the White House.

It seems clear that resilient PNT will be a topic of lively debate between the Congress and the White House, as well as internally on the hill, for the foreseeable future.

Controversial GAO report on DOD nav webinar June 15

June 4, 2021
First Fix: National timing architecture needed now

Dana Goward, President, Resilient PNT Foundation

The Empire State Building sits atop a massive and solid foundation that hardly anyone ever sees. Above ground it has 2.8 million square feet of offices and hundreds of businesses. It houses 15,000 workers. Yet it would all come crashing down if the underlying and unseen foundation weren’t incredibly strong and dependable.

Timing is the unseen foundation of every networked technology, digital broadcast, financial transaction, electrical grid management and of most navigation systems, just to name a few applications. Yet, as GPS World readers know, signals from our dominant source of timing — GPS — are very faint and easily disrupted.

Short term, localized disruptions happen all the time, and many systems have adapted. A delivery driver using a jammer to hide from his boss is unlikely to disrupt a cell base station as he passes by, for example.

Photo: Georgijevic/E+/Getty Images

But more serious threats are out there. More and more hobbyists are finding ways to spoof receivers. Every few decades the sun flares strongly enough to fry satellites or charge the ionosphere. And because there are so few alternatives, GPS and other GNSS have become huge, tempting targets for adversary nations, terrorists, and sophisticated hackers.
Instead of Manhattan bedrock, our timing foundation is sometimes more like shifting sands.

Systems engineering tells us that, if something is essential, there ought to be two, three or more independent ways of receiving it. Most aircraft, for example, have two or three systems powering the flight controls — because controlled flight is important!
The white paper “A Resilient National Timing Architecture” outlines how the United States can leverage existing infrastructure and provide all citizens two, and many of them three, independent paths to coordinated universal time (UTC).

It proposes a national timing back- bone of mature technologies with very different failure modes — GNSS, eLoran and fiber. This combination will provide rock-solid timing at the 500 ns or better level of accuracy relative to UTC everywhere across the nation, and at 100 ns or better in major metro areas. Users accessing two or more systems would be nearly bulletproof to timing service disruptions.

The National Timing Resilience and Security Act of 2018 mandated a terrestrial system to back up GPS timing. Our white paper provides a path forward.

Complying with the law while benefiting current and future technologies should be sufficient motivation. If it isn’t, we must also realize that not acting on this will continue to place us behind other nations such as the United Kingdom, South Korea, Russia and China — all of whom are actively reinforcing their national timing systems.

The task will not be a simple one. Yet America was able to overcome the expense and difficulties of building GPS, at the time the world’s most refined and complex technology, and put it in space. By comparison, establishing a resilient national timing architecture using existing technology in our homeland would be child’s play.

Timing is essential. It is infrastructure for our infrastructure. If our national timing is weak, so is everything that is built upon it.

We will profit from ensuring our timing is as strong, resilient, and easily accessed as possible.

And we will suffer if it is neglected.

December 14, 2020