Retour aux nouvelles

27 avril 2020 | International, C4ISR

Recalculating: GPS, L-band and the Pentagon’s untenable position on 5G

Daniel S. Goldin

Last week, Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communication Commission, submitted the L-band Ligado spectrum proposal for approval, which, he said, will “make more efficient use of underused spectrum and promote the deployment of 5G” with “stringent conditions to prevent harmful [GPS] interference.” All five FCC commissioners voted to affirm the proposal, which was formally published in a 70-page report.

L-band is a critical piece of spectrum that will help accelerate the deployment of U.S. 5G so we can compete and ultimately win against China. The Department of Defense argues that use of the L-band (as Ligado proposes) will interfere with GPS, which is essential to our military and economy.

The FCC's final order concludes that the testing upon which the DoD and other opponents based their GPS interference claims was invalid. L-band opponents' interference measurement (termed 1dB C/No) is “inappropriate” and “there is no connection presented in the technical studies” that prove this measure of interference “relates to performance-based metrics” of a GPS receiver.

In short, the FCC said there is no harmful GPS interference, and opponents have been using a flawed methodology and an invalid test with which the FCC “strongly disagree[s].”

The FCC's recent report is not the first time the Ligado proposal was determined to cause no GPS interference. In early 2019, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration under David Redl reviewed the Ligado proposal carefully — along with the 20 government agencies that comprise the review body — and determined there is no interference. The NTIA then wrote a recommendation for approval and, before it could get to the FCC, it was blocked, eventually leading to Redl's dismissal.

Further, over 5,000 hours of testing, including 1,500 hours at a high-tech U.S./DoD-sponsored and designed facility (performed by the world-recognized standard-in-testing National Institute of Standards and Technology scientists and engineers), proved no harmful GPS interference. Afterward, a DoD expert who monitored and confirmed the testing results told me “there is no interference problem, only a bureaucracy problem.”

Yet DoD has continued to blitz the executive and legislative branches, galvanizing opposition with a compelling plea: Ligado hurts GPS, which endangers military operations and will harm the economy. Powerful. But factually wrong. And if wrong, why is Defense Secretary Mark Esper continuing to lobby against the FCC?

The FCC is an independent agency. The Communications Act of 1934 charged the FCC with regulating communications for important reasons, including “for the purpose of national defense.” So why is the DoD employing principles of war — offensive operations to mass upon and seize the objective — toward the demise of Ligado's proposal and, perhaps implicitly, Ligado itself?

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee are weighing in on the DoD's behalf. They have been presented partial, one-sided information. Mr. Esper is a capable, reform-minded defense secretary who has brought much-needed change to the Pentagon. But he has also been advancing one-sided recommendations from his senior staff for GPS issues, some with longstanding connections to the highly influential Position, Navigation, and Timing Advisory Board — which enjoys a level of influence akin to a special interest group within the U.S. government.

A reading of the defense secretary's November 2019 letter to the NTIA reveals that even the DoD was never really sure about its own GPS interference claims, stating merely there are “too many unknowns,” the “risks are far too great,” testing shows “potential for” disruption and the Ligado system “could have a significant negative impact.”

Yet, once the Ligado proposal was presented for approval on April 15 — with no new testing or analysis since November — DoD leadership tweeted that Ligado's signal “would needlessly imperil” DoD capabilities that use GPS, and risk “crippling our GPS networks.”

If taken at face value, this means the DoD has spent over $50 billion over 45 years on a military GPS system that is so fragile it can be rendered useless by a 10-watt transmitter (a refrigerator light bulb) operating 23 MHz away. If true, this would represent one of the most egregious mismanagements of taxpayer dollars in federal procurement history.

The pandemic has shown that China is coercing nations in need of medical assistance to adopt Chinese 5G infrastructure. Coercion from Chinese dominance in 5G would be worse. Agencies like the FCC and NTIA are in the national security arena now. As Attorney General William Barr stated in February, “we have to move decisively to auction the C-band and bring resolution on the L-band. Our economic future is at stake. We have to bear in mind in making these spectrum decisions that, given the narrow window we face, the risk of losing the 5G struggle with China should vastly outweigh all other considerations.”

It is time for bold, forward-looking leadership and a wartime mindset. Chairman Pai deserves credit for setting this example. His courageous decision, coupled with support from the FCC commissioners and the strong statements of support from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Barr, signals a new determination to win the 5G race.

L-band spectrum will enable other key elements of the U.S. 5G strategy and private sector innovation faster than any other option. It also demonstrates that a science-based approach to technology and policy is critical, otherwise we will grind to a near halt on every major decision — like this one — to China's benefit.

America is truly “exceptional,” and the envy of every political system the world over, because our system is anchored on the rule of law and institutions that allow stakeholders' competing interests to be adjudicated. All parties have had many years to make their cases. The FCC's world-class scientists and engineers have come to a conclusion. The DoD has no new information; it just does not like the result.

After all the internal policy battles are fought, there is only one constituency that matters: the American people and their national and economic security, consistent with U.S. policy objectives grounded in facts. This is why we must embrace this scientifically sound and strategically wise decision by the FCC and move forward, guided by another more apt principle of war: unity of effort.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/04/24/recalculating-gps-l-band-and-the-pentagons-untenable-position-on-5g/

Sur le même sujet

  • NATO's East Is Rearming, But It's Because of Putin, Not Trump

    14 août 2018 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR

    NATO's East Is Rearming, But It's Because of Putin, Not Trump

    Ott Ummelas Donald Trump has taken credit for a rise in military spending by NATO states, but in the alliance's eastern reaches, it's his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, who's driving the rearming effort. Last month, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg thanked the U.S. President for “clearly having an impact” on defense spending by allies while Trump said his demands had added $41 billion to European and Canadian defense outlays. But the jump in acquisitions behind the former Iron Curtain of aircraft, ships and armored vehicles began when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, well before Trump's 2016 election victory, according to analysts including Tomas Valasek, director of Carnegie Europe in Brussels. While the median defense expenditure of NATO members is 1.36 percent of gross domestic product, below the alliance's requirement of 2 percent, eastern members comprise seven of the 13 members that are paying above that level. “Countries on NATO's eastern border do not need Donald Trump to boost defense spending,” Valasek said. “They decided this long before he came to power. The spending boost was because of a president, but it was Vladimir Putin, not the U.S. President.” Constant overflights by Russian aircraft into NATO airspace, cyberattacks on government and military installations, wargames on the borders of the Baltic states and accusations that Russia was behind a failed coup in newest member Montenegro have put NATO's eastern quadrant on alert for what it says is an increasingly expansionist Russia. Of the 15 members exceeding the bloc's guideline that 20 percent of total defense spending should go to equipment, six are from eastern Europe. At the time of the NATO summit in Brussels, Romania said it would buy five more F-16s from Portugal, raising its squadron to 12, after it signed a $400-million deal to acquire a Patriot missile air-defense system with Raython in May. The country of 20 million people bordering Ukraine, Moldova and the Black Sea plans to buy 36 more F-16s, four corvettes, at least 3,000 transport vehicles and coastal gun batteries over the next five years. Slovakia also announced the purchase of F-16 fighter jets at the summit to replace its aging Russian Mig-29s in a deal that was years in negotiating. And last month, Bulgaria asked for bids for at least eight new or used fighter jets by October at a total cost of 1.8 billion lev ($1 billion). By end-2018, the government in Sofia plans to buy 1.5 billion lev worth of armored vehicles and two warships for 1 billion lev. Neighboring Hungary said in June that it had agreed to buy 20 Airbus H145M multi-purpose helicopters, the country's largest military purchase since 2001. NATO's European members are expected to spend around $60 billion on equipment this year, with the 13 eastern members accounting for about 10 percent, said Tony Lawrence, a research fellow with the International Center for Security and Defense in Tallinn. The newer members will together spend about $2 billion more on equipment this year than last, he said. According to NATO, seven of its 10 biggest spending increases will be in the east. “Since these nations' membership in NATO, there has been a clear inclination to foster and strengthen their link with the U.S.,” said Martin Lundmark, a researcher with Swedish Defense University in Stockholm. “By procuring strategic defense systems, they willingly become interdependent and inter-operable with the U.S.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-13/nato-s-east-is-rearming-but-it-s-because-of-putin-not-trump

  • A Closer Look At European Aerospace And Defense Programs

    13 juillet 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

    A Closer Look At European Aerospace And Defense Programs

    Tony Osborne July 10, 2020 https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/closer-look-european-aerospace-defense-programs

  • Fin d'une 5eme campagne d'essais pour le Neuron, structurante pour le SCAF

    24 février 2020 | International, Aérospatial

    Fin d'une 5eme campagne d'essais pour le Neuron, structurante pour le SCAF

    Une nouvelle campagne d'essais en vol du démonstrateur technologique de drone de combat furtif nEUROn vient de s'achever à DGA Essais en vol (Istres). Le drone furtif de Dassault Aviation s'est essayé au combat collaboratif. A Paris ce 20 février, la ministre Florence Parly recevait les délégations allemandes et espagnoles pour la signature du contrats de développement des démonstrateurs du SCAF. Ci-dessus: une vue d'artiste datant de plusieurs années montrant un drone de combat aux côtés du Rafale - Dassaut Aviation La DGA (Direction générale de l'armement) a annoncé la fin de la cinquième campagne d'essais en vol du démonstrateur nEUROn. Mandatée par elle-même au profit de l'Etat, elle "a été menée en coopération avec Dassault Aviation pour la mise en œuvre du vecteur aérien et avec la participation des forces. Un de ses objectifs était d'étudier l'utilisation d'un drone de combat furtif dans un contexte opérationnel, impliquant également une réflexion sur les tactiques de défense face à un tel vecteur." L'information principale concernant cette nouvelle campagne est la réalisation d'un vol d'essai en ambiance de combat collaboratif réalisé avec 5 Rafale et 1 Awacs, "dans des configurations tactiques multiples". Les résultats sont en cours d'analyse approfondie. Ils apporteront selon la DGA des éléments majeurs pour aiguiller les choix d'architecture et de technologie du SCAF. Programme à - seulement - 450 millions d'euros entamé il y a une douzaine d'années, le Neuron prouve une nouvelle fois toute la pertinence d'une politique active dans le domaine des démonstrateurs. Et si l'on parle aujourd'hui surtout des "remote carriers" dans le cadre du SCAF (système de combat aérien futur), il ne fait pas de doute qu'un drone de combat furtif aura toute sa place dans cette architecture, aux côtés du Rafale, du futur chasseur européen, et autres effecteurs déportés... Signature du contrat de démonstrateur du SCAF Et ce 20 février à Paris, près d'une semaine après l'aval du Bundestag (voir lien ci-dessous), la ministre des Armées Florence Parly recevait les autres parties au programme SCAF, à savoir les Allemands et les Espagnols, pour la signature du contrat de démonstrateurs. Lire aussi: Lancement de la phase de démonstrateur du SCAF Comme convenu, Dassault Aviation (qui pour l'occasion exhibait des maquettes du "NGF") hérite de la maîtrise d'ouvrage pour le futur chasseur, avec Airbus DS comme "main partners". Airbus est maître d'oeuvre pour les remote carriers, avec la collaboration de MBDA, collaboration qui était déjà affichée au Bourget en juin 2019, et est également en charge avec Thalès du "Air combat cloud" (ACC), à savoir l'architecture numérique du SCAF. Safran et MTU s'occuperont de la motorisation, mais le démonstrateur du chasseur utilisera lui vraisemblablement les moteurs M88 du Rafale. Le tout est chapeauté par la DGA, manager du programme. Si les démonstrateurs, dont l'avion, doivent voler en 2026, et qu'environ 150 millions d'euros ont été apportés au programme pour ces études préliminaires, il s'agira de trouver 4 milliards d'euros d'ici 2025, et 8 au total d'ici 2030. S'agissant de la participation espagnole, qui doit se clarifier durant les prochains mois, trois entreprises s'ajoutent à la participation de Madrid, principalement sur les drones. Il s'agit de GMV, SENER Aeroespacial et Tecnobit Grupo Oesia, qui ont annoncé ce 17 février un accord dans le cadre du plan industriel coordonné par le ministère espagnol de la Défense. La problématique Indra, que l'Espagne insiste pour intégrer au développement de l'ACC en dépit des réticences d'Airbus, reste à régler cependant. http://www.paxaquitania.fr/2020/02/fin-dune-5eme-campagne-dessais-pour-le.html

Toutes les nouvelles