# Presentation: 516435

##   GPS Vulnerability Assessment

** **** ****GPS Vulnerability ****Assessment**

**CGSIC**
**International Sub-Committee Meeting**
**Melbourne, Australia**
**February 10,  20032**
- 
- 
**CAPT Curt Dubay**
**U.S. Coast Guard**

**Notes:**
Session Chair:

Bart Blue is the Coast Guard Liaison to the OST Radionavigation Policy Office.
He coordinated the Department’s review of the Volpe Vulnerability report.
And he is currently working with the operating administrations to implement the DOT’s mitigation  action plan

##                 Overview

**Background**
**Action Plan**
**Radionavigation Systems Task Force**
**The Way Ahead**

## 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 11****th**

##   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**

**Notes:**
#1  Convince service providers & users of need to mitigate the vulnerabilities.

#2  Routinely Validate GPS With Other Information Sources.

##           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 currently**** ****implementing **
**DOT Positioning and Navigation ****Executive Committee**** overseeing implementation**
**Task Force conducting ****Radionavigation**** ****Capabilities Assessment**

##                 Overview

**Background**
**Action Plan**
**Radionavigation Systems Task Force**
**The Way Ahead**

##           Action Plan Goals

**Ensure that**** ****GPS**** ****fulfills its potential as a**** ****key element**** ****of the nation’s transportation infrastructure**
**Ensure that the vulnerabilities identified in the report**** ****do not affect the safety and security**** of our transportation system**
**Contains 12 elements**

## Action Plan Elements

_**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**

##                 Overview

**Background**
**Action Plan**
**Radionavigation Systems Task Force**
**The Way Ahead**

## 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 in early 2003**

## 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**

**Notes:**
Evaluation criteria:
Performance
GPS backup
Cost
Operational impact to Government systems 
User equipage
Interagency & International agreements 
Political considerations

## 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**

**Notes:**
Evaluation criteria:
Performance
GPS backup
Cost
Operational impact to Government systems 
User equipage
Interagency & International agreements 
Political considerations

## 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**

**Notes:**
Evaluation criteria:
Performance
GPS backup
Cost
Operational impact to Government systems 
User equipage
Interagency & International agreements 
Political considerations

##            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**

## 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**

## 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**

## 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**
**    ****for 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**
**Working toward decision in early 2003**

## 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 **

## 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**

##                 Overview

**Background**
**Action Plan**
**Radionavigation Systems Task Force**
**The Way Ahead**

## The Way Ahead

**Developing ****Decision Memorandum**** for Secretary on Loran-C**
**Coordinating with Modal Administrators**
**Evaluating remaining ****4 mix options ****pending decision on Loran    **
**Forward ****recommendation to Secretary**** in early 2003**
**   **
**Establish foundation for development of 2003 Federal Radionavigation Plan**

## 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 in early 2003**
**Safety-critical transportation applications that use**** ****GPS ****currently have adequate backups**** in case of GPS disruptions**
**Ensure maintained in future**

##   GPS Vulnerability Assessment

** **** ****GPS Vulnerability ****Assessment**

**CGSIC**
**International Sub-Committee Meeting**
**Melbourne, Australia**
**February 10,  20032**
- 
- 
**Michael Shaw**
**U.S. Department of Transportation**

**Notes:**
Session Chair:

Bart Blue is the Coast Guard Liaison to the OST Radionavigation Policy Office.
He coordinated the Department’s review of the Volpe Vulnerability report.
And he is currently working with the operating administrations to implement the DOT’s mitigation  action plan