1 / 23

GPS Vulnerability Assessment

GPS Vulnerability Assessment. International Loran Association October 28, 2002 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s Michael Shaw U.S. Department of Transportation. Overview. Background Action Plan Radionavigation Systems Task Force The Way Ahead. Background.

ihaynes
Download Presentation

GPS Vulnerability Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GPS Vulnerability Assessment International Loran Association October 28, 2002 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s Michael Shaw U.S. Department of Transportation

  2. Overview • Background • Action Plan • Radionavigation Systems Task Force • The Way Ahead

  3. Background • PDD-63 tasked DOT to assess vulnerability of transportation infrastructure relying on GPS • Analyze civil aviation, maritime, and surface use to assess the ways each is impacted by GPS outage • Steps to minimize impacts of GPS outages • Safety, operational, environmental, and economic • Overall Finding • GPS key element of nation’s transportation infrastructure • GPS is vulnerable to interference/disruption • Independent backup systems/procedures needed in critical applications Study released the day before Sep 11th

  4. Background (cont’d) • 16 specific recommendations to mitigate the impact on transportation systems • Continue GPS modernization to include GPS III • More civil signals/higher broadcast power • Implement appropriate mitigation strategies • For each individual mode, maintain appropriate backup systems or procedures • Reflect impact of interference in application designs • Monitor/report/locate sources of interference • Applicability of military anti-jam technology • DOT develop Navigation Infrastructure Roadmap for the future

  5. Background (cont’d) • Dec 01 -DOT Pos/Nav Exec Committee • Operating Administrations concurred with report recommendations • Endorsed proposed mitigation action plan • March 02-Secretary approved plan • Department currentlyimplementing • DOT Positioning and Navigation Executive Committee overseeing implementation • Task Force conducting RadionavigationCapabilities Assessment

  6. Overview • Background • Action Plan • Radionavigation Systems Task Force • The Way Ahead

  7. Action Plan Goals • Ensure thatGPSfulfills its potential as akey elementof the nation’s transportation infrastructure • Ensure that the vulnerabilities identified in the reportdo not affect the safety and security of our transportation system • Contains 12 elements

  8. Vulnerability Mitigation Ensure adequate backup systems/procedures Continue GPS modernization Continue spectrum protection Enhance interference location capabilities Risk Awareness Emphasize education programs Conduct periodic public outreach Send letters to industry, state/local DOTs Work with GPS Industry Council GPS Receiver Enhancement Facilitate transfer of DoD AJ technology Certify safety-critical GPS receivers Develop GPS receiver standards Future Direction Intermodal radionavigation capabilities assessment Make decision on the future of LORAN-C by end of CY02 Develop Roadmap for 2003 Federal Radionavigation Plan Action Plan Elements

  9. Overview • Background • Action Plan • Radionavigation Systems Task Force • The Way Ahead

  10. Radionavigation Systems Task Force • Chartered to conduct a multi-modal capability assessment of radionavigation systems • Complete assessment of the future mix of systems to meet all requirements of the U.S. Transportation infrastructure • From both a capability and cost perspective • Consider requirements of non-transportation users of Federal Radionavigation Systems • Forward recommendation to Secretary to support a decision by end of CY02

  11. Technical Approach • Identify requirements of transportation modes • Define capabilities of different systems • Conduct technical assessment of systems • Capabilities vs. Requirements • Develop alternatives of system mixes • Reduce to 4-6 alternatives • Criteria for evaluation of remaining alternatives • Cost, performance, backup • Political, impact to others • Provide recommendation on best alternative • To satisfy national need for positioning and timing services for at least the next 10 years

  12. Assumptions • 2001 Federal Radionavigation Plan (FRP) • Baseline for radionavigation systems • Include GPS capabilities only through GPS modernized Block IIF (i.e., 2 new civil signals) • GPS III will be evaluated once system is defined • Augmentations to GPS are not backup radionavigation systems for GPS • WAAS, LAAS, and NDGPS (includes MDGPS) • All depend on receiving basic GPS position • If GPS position lost, value of augmentation lost

  13. Evaluation • Produced detailed matrices of requirements • 2001 Federal Radionavigation Plan • GPS Operational Requirements Document (Feb 2000) • Other validated requirements • Produced detailed matrices of systems capabilities • Evaluated Capabilities vs Requirements • Integrity, availability, coverage, accuracy, and continuity

  14. Alternatives • Developed 12 alternatives from the baseline • Based on assumptions and capabilities vs requirements assessment • Guidance from the POS/NAV EC on several issues • FAA Navigation and Landing Transition Strategy • Forwarded to the DOT on Aug 21, 2002 • Results integrated into Task Force evaluation • Reduced to 4 for further evaluation • Pros & cons for each alternative

  15. Issues Should radionavigation systems in R&D be considered in current alternative mixes? • LAAS Cat II/III (FAA); High Accuracy NDGPS (FHWA); enhanced Loran (FAA, Coast Guard); GPS III (DoD/AF); and Galileo (EU) Decision: Do not include R&D systems until completion of R&D • Performance and lifecycle costs for systems are unknown at this time • Modes continue investments in R&D systems • Each R&D effort should assess feasibility to meet other mode performance requirements

  16. Issues Can a single augmentation system (i.e. WAAS or DGPS) meet cross-modal transportation requirements? • 1994 National Augmentation Study • Field both the NDGPS and WAAS systems to meet individual mode requirements • Coordinate all Federal augmented GPS systems • Ensure optimal use of resources by maximizing commonality of system components • Task Force validated 1994 Study Decision: Continue both WAAS and NDGPS • FAA/CG examine co-location of future WAAS and NDGPS monitor stations

  17. Issues What is decision path for Loran-C in 2002? • Transportation requirements not met by Loran-C • The POS/NAV EC examined three options • Option 1: Terminate Loran-C • Option 2: Complete enhanced Loran evaluation • Option 3: Fully endorse enhanced Loran now • Evaluation of enhanced Loran required to: • Determine performance for non precision approach or aviation and harbor approach for maritime • Will take until March 2004 and ~$10M to complete • Based on current spending levels • Does not include recapitalization costs thru 2008 • Still working toward decision by end of 2002

  18. Radionavigation Alternative Mixes • Baseline Mix • Satisfies user requirements for primary and backup systems • May be viewed as failure to reduce proliferation of systems • Mix 1 – Baseline w/Loran-C terminated • Cost savings to Government w/termination of Loran-C • Negative user and political impact • May be viewed as not satisfying Volpe Report

  19. Radionavigation Alternative Mixes (cont’d) • Mix 2 – Baseline w/ optimizing future systems convergence, Loran-C terminated • Some cost savings with termination of Loran-C • Negative user and political impact • May be viewed as not satisfying Volpe Report • Mix 3 – Baseline w/ optimizing future systems convergence to include Loran • Meets requirements for primary and backup systems • Requires completion of enhanced Loran evaluation

  20. Overview • Background • Action Plan • Radionavigation Systems Task Force • The Way Ahead

  21. The Way Ahead • Developing Decision Memorandum for Secretary on Loran-C • Coordinating with Administrators • Evaluating remaining 4 mix options • Forward recommendation to DOT Secretary in late-Dec 2002 • Plan public outreach meeting concurrent with FRP User Conferences in Spring 2003

  22. Summary • Department concurs with all recommendations of the Volpe Study • Critical infrastructure protection a continuing issue • Department is implementing Action Plan • Completing assessment of future radionavigation mix to maintain adequate backups in the future • Working toward Loran decision by end of CY02 • Safety-critical transportation applications that useGPS currently have adequate backups in case of GPS disruptions • Ensure maintained in future

  23. GPS Vulnerability Assessment International Loran Association October 28, 2002 s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s s Michael Shaw U.S. Department of Transportation

More Related