Whats really sad for aviation is there was already an extensive network of ground based navaids. As GPS has proliferated, they've slowly been decommissioned as they age out to save on cost. I'm specifically referring to VORs which provide azimuth and range to station.
GPS is fantastic and as a primary source everyone loves the benefits it brings. However, in a century of aviation, everyone has kinda sorted out that you can't have too many backups to critical items... unless you let the accountants and bureaucrats run the show.
VOR is extremely short range and requires an extraordinary number of transmitters to provide any volume of coverage. Additionally it cannot provide coverage over oceanic areas. We USED TO have a nearly global long-range land based navigation system called LORAN, which only required one master station and a few remote stations to provide continent-scale coverage. But it was decommissioned in a cost savings move after it was determined that it could be replaced by GPS. It worked perfectly fine until it was decommissioned in 2010, not that long ago.
In the '90s I used to fly light aircraft back and forth between Seattle and Alaska. You were frequently out of range of any VOR transmitters, but that LORAN always worked.
NDBs? That didn't work so great for Ron Brown.
Nothing is completely foolproof, but LORAN was much, much more resistant to jamming than GPS. GPS satellites orbit over 20,000 km from Earth and transmit at very limited power (less than 50 W). That makes it easy to overpower their faint signals. On top of that, GPS operates at a frequency over 1 GHz which means you can broadcast a jamming signal with a small antenna. LORAN was the opposite. It used low frequency, extremely high power signals transmitted from stations relatively closer to the receiver. Those design choices made it less precise but vastly more robust.
On VOR: It's also a PITA to use, and for inexperienced people, or someone who rarely uses it, they can confuse flying towards and away from the station.
If you are a general aviation goober like me, flying a 1960's propeller airplane, sure, that is true.
However, in a modern commercial aircraft, all position sources including VOR-DMEs, GPS, and IRS are cross-compared by the flight management system and turned into a latitude, longitude, and circular error of probability. There is no TO/FROM flag to worry about in a 777, and no reverse sensing on the back side of a localizer approach.
Yeah that makes sense. My experience is mostly in 70s to early 90's prop planes, I have had the opportunity to use a glass cockpit a few times and it was much easier. I guess i did the typical thing and contextualized this on my experiences and ignored that 99.9% of flights are not GA haha.
Time was, if you didn't understand how to use VORs, you couldn't really fly. We used them as primary en route nav, as well as for approaches, for many decades. As a CFI I think most of the confusion around VORs these days comes down to poor or inadequate training.
That's fair. I replied to someone else with a similar remark, but essentially doing most of my flying in 70s to 90s prop planes, I imagine the tools I'm most used to are just dated. Your point around training is likely very accurate, I had some great teachers but I also had a few instances of being given inaccurate information and having to teach the teacher so to speak.
A lot of those planes still exist and have not gotten panel upgrades, so IMO you still should learn how to navigate purely via only visual references and radio navigation. I believe you are still required to know how to use them to pass your private pilot check ride, too, but I may be wrong.
I don't fly and I wouldn't call my self someone that plays a lot of flight simulator. But I do enjoy navigation methods and I did learn the basics and practices of VOR navigation. I got an Android app that simulates flying courses, holding patterns etc, but only the navigation part. I would say I learned some intuition to it.
> Additionally it cannot provide coverage over oceanic areas.
It's really hard to jam oceanic areas though, you need a vessel capable of sustaining human life autonomously at least for days plus dealing with the high seas.
Buoys could theoretically be used for that purpose, yes, but good luck getting them stationary enough. Maybe some of the secret services could pull off such a trick but at least no ordinary civilian.
By stopping jamming for a few seconds every few hours , and navigating using dead reckoning in between? With just a compass, a log, and a watch I can sail for days and end up within two kilometers of my destination.
Eh, I doubt it, GPS signal is so weak, once the EM field in the air has so much power, I think the literal hardware ADC of any receiver would be overwhelmed/clipped with a high power jammer nearby. I mean it's possible that the front end will be literally fried, not just clipping the analog front end. GPS is usually -130dBM, it's absurdly weak.
A bunch of us old salty sailing nerds were actually discussing Decca Navigator System¹ the other day that was still very present in the 90s on the ships we were sailing. Now all replaced and removed.
Are there modern positioning systems that can automatically join all those data sources into one position? Traditionally navaids are treated as completely separate sources and are shown on different kind of instruments. But they could also be used as a replacement source for GNSS data on a modern map screen.
Depending on their kind they might not return a specific position, but in combination with other sources they often do via triangulation.
PS: INS (Inertial Navigation) also still exits. It often works for quite a long time really precisely. Also precision can be calculated. So it can start as a dot on a map which becomes a bigger circle as the precision decreases. It could be automatically recalibrated whenever high confidence positioning is available.
Yes, modern flight management computers in commercial airliners do exactly this. I can't speak to smaller aircraft.
Essentially a position is calculated from VOR/DME, GPS, and INS. When there is disagreement it is flagged and procedures are in place to fall back.
The issue is VOR/DME is slowly being decommissioned eliminating one of those sanity checks. It hasn't been degraded to the point of creating massive gaps in coverage over land but it will slowly happen if the rate of decommissioning continues.
Ultimately, INS is sufficient for enroute navigation but if you're degraded to just that state, the impacts to traffic separation, particularly in congested airspace, are significant. Required Navigation Performance (RNP) levels dictate all of this.
Sorry but this sounds like nostalgia. loran-c was prone to error.
Yes, we can stop that with modern tech, but the problem with loran-c is you had location ambiguities. Decca was worse, unless you had a good initial fix, you were all sorts of fucked. There are of course modern alternatives, but they are not block proof, or turned on.
There is a very good reason why GPS was opened up, because the alternatives were not anywhere near as good.
Now, what are the alternatives? well hyperbolic navigation is still a thing, and with modern electronics you can get a pretty good fix without any of the nasty ambiguaty that loran-c had. If you are flying over land, then visual odometry is now at a point where you can locate pretty accurately autonomously (assuming cloud cover is your firend)
Small low power ceasium clocks are $4k now, and only really need a few hundred millitwatts to run, which opens up a whole load of other ways to navigate.
then there are IMUs, they are dirt cheap and way more accurate than 20 years ago. A calibrated array should be able to sustain reasonable accuracy after 30 minutes now
All VORs provide a radial that you’re on. Not all provide a distance to the station. VOR/DME or VORTACs provide both. Plain VORs do not.
As more and more are decommissioned, the percentage that support distance-measuring goes up, as the ones being decommissioned are more likely to be the less-useful ones, which are less likely to have supported DME in the first place. So most remaining ones support both, but it’s not assured without checking.
There's GPS jamming by the military, mostly in war zones. This seldom effects airliners because they steer clear of active war zones.
Then there's GPS jamming by delivery drivers who don't want their boss watching over their shoulder all the time. When the article mentions jammers as small as a cellphone and costing less than $100, those are sold to drivers.
Delivery drivers don't jam LORAN or VOR, though - so it's not jammed by the second type.
I’d bet a lot of money that the NTSB will determine that the pilots’ failure to maintain clearance from terrain during a visual approach will be the primary cause with contributing factors of dark, moonless night and GPS jamming.
That one’s going to be on the flight crew, not the GPS jamming test.
I'm not going to argue that as it's always easy to blame dead people, but there's two different types of jamming.
One is to actually jam the signal IOW preventing reception. The other is to overpower the satellites' signals and replace them with your own. That defeats the doppler calculations of GPS needed for triangulation, and instead the receiver believes it's where the jammer wants it to be.
If the latter includes altitude information, then it's a huge problem.
If you overpower a signal, is there a difference? I'm not saying you're right or wrong here. I'm just saying there's a long history of coverups in the government and military.
If you can say, "oh we were only jamming" when in fact you were spoofing, well that's certainly a super easy excuse to hide behind.
In either case, asking for and being cleared for a visual approach (as the crew did and was) puts the onus on them to maintain continuous visual contact with the airport and to maintain their own terrain and obstacle clearance, which it’s safe to say they didn’t do.
>If you overpower a signal, is there a difference?
Yes, obviously. Losing signal on your GPS unit, and having your GPS unit tell you that you are in a different position than you actually are, are two very different things.
Also, since other aircraft reported GPS issues, that is evidence that would speak to jamming or spoofing. All three other aircraft reported a loss of GPS, not inaccurate GPS. Coverups are real, government conspiracies are real. But the completely evidenceless “I’m just saying…” or “isn’t it weird…” or “I’m just asking questions” is tiresome.
IMO tracking is just way too useful. You know when things are about to arrive (so you dont miss a parcel because you went to the toilet or you can even intercept your driver once he's in the area, removing most of the last-mile problem), routes can be changed on the fly (e.g. for on-demand public transport pickup, trunking or delay mitigation) or, well, you can track your vehicles, allowing you to find them quickly in case of theft, optimize routes or have decent evidence in case of disputes.
The real problem is not really drivers being tracked, but how the tracking data is or might be used. Timestamped delivery notifications might be just as bad in this regard.
As often, the solution is probably more about accessible and pro-human law. No idea how that should work, maybe certain sensitive data services having to be provided by a third party or even the government itself? There are probably much smarter ideas or variations of this...
So as a business owner, I'm not allowed to know where my $100,000 asset is? My insurance carrier requires me to track the vehicle as a condition of coverage, they also require a dashcam be operating at all times.
Antenna tech has moved way beyond what was possible in the days GPS was invented. Planar arrays and MIMO are ubiquitous and cheap.
These antennas have a very good idea of where the signal is coming from, due to delay measurements and can detect and filter ambient noise. They are super hard to jam. The reason why drones have become such a PITA is that these inexpensive antennas are very hard to defeat even with military jammers.
If this becomes a geniune need in the civilian sector, then I'm sure the tech is up to the challenge.
The tech is already there, but the reason those antenna are not widely used is that they used to fall under ITAR, so no US companies want to touch those for civilian uses. Of course Turkey and China is not US so they don't give a damn about ITAR compliance, and so you can buy those anti jam antennas out of alibaba.
Brad Parkinson, the father of GPS and PNTAB, they've been trying to lobby the US government to remove ITAR from that technology so the civilian can benefit from anti jamming, and finally they managed to do it sometime last year. Now it falls under EAR
There's also a bunch of Western stuff you can buy off the shelves. MIMO tech is standard in every Wifi 5+ router, Cars have pretty sophisticated electronically steered radars nowadays, boats even more so. 5G towers also have phased array antennas. This tech is everywhere in consumer or industrial stuff.
Not sure what makes an antenna/sensor ITAR restricted, I suspect if you try optimizing it to military use-cases, you'll get hit with ITAR, but I suspect Brad Parkinson is right - security through obscurity just doesn't cut it any more.
I remember in the 90s, computer security was either missing or an afterthought (you could bypass the Win98 password prompt by pressing escape in the release version). Thankfully the industry got together and figured it out.
Now everyone else needs to follow suit. We already have a bunch of examples of assuming security does not matter (hackable cars, meters that can be switched with a Flipper zero).
GPS jamming is fairly detectable right? I wonder if we could create some crowd souced map of jammers. I think this kind of already exists as fairly course data but if a bunch of people installed fixed GPS sensors at home and wired them up to note every time their location lock is lost or moves. It could create a hyper detailed map of where the jammers are and track them moving in realtime.
> if a bunch of people installed fixed GPS sensors at home
Similar things already exist - although it's used for increasing GPS precision and detecting faulty satellites, moreso than detecting jamming, so the networks might not be dense enough to detect small areas of jamming.
For one state's example, see [1] - choose 'RINEX archives' if you want historical readings.
They're easy to find, but not necessarily with stuff from off the shelf. Professionals with the right equipment though have no trouble locating them. The FCC is happy to hand out 5 and 6 digit fines for operating a GPS jammer and has fined retailers tens of millions for selling them.
If you wanted to exactly pinpoint it with a single device sure, but I'm thinking of a map where nodes just report that they are experiencing jamming, and then with the whole network you can see a radius of the jam, see it moving around, and assume it's somewhere in the center. All with cheap off the shelf hardware.
The police could probably combine this data with license plate scanners and see the single truck that always exists in the jammed location.
I know we all like to jack ourselves raw to the big powerful government handing out ruinous fines for things we don't like but realistically none of that is gonna stick to some McDonalds manager who's got a side gig importing Alibaba stuff or some delivery driver who bought it. You can't get blood from a stone. You're just guaranteeing the stone always stays a stone.
Yeah the FCC could probably pull an ATF and shoot a bunch of people over fairly petty crimes but that costs political goodwill that I'm not sure the FCC has to burn.
The FCC takes the public commons very seriously. Given how easy it is to make radio frequencies unusable, they need to hammer hard and fast to discourage people from trying. They don’t wait for a report to be filed, they can proactively search for violators. They may only be able to fine you but they can get law-enforcement involved. Especially if your city or state has laws against what you’re doing. You usually see this when you start messing with airplanes.
Yesterday's actions include 7 $25k fines apparently all for companies illegally importing banned drones (a procedural fine just for ignoring the investigation attempts). You can peruse that list and find plenty of things, lots of pirate radio recently. They absolutely do go after apparent small fry and your "mcdonalds manager" absolutely has assets that can be seized.
>Yeah the FCC could probably pull an ATF and shoot a bunch of people over fairly petty crimes but that costs political goodwill that I'm not sure the FCC has to burn.
This is exactly the kind of circle jerk commentary I was complaining about. You elevate your tone, or heck, I'll settle for educating yourself.
The stuff the FCC posts to their website are not final orders. They're the federal equivalent of when your zoning sends a notice saying "your patio is 6in too close to the property line, according to the aerial photos it's been there since <years ago>, you owe use <insane number of dollars>". It's essentially civil enforcement speak for "hey asshole, lawyer up and take this seriously".
Most of these end in the subject of the enforcement simply changing their behavior and paying a trivial fine (the lawyers are the real winners).
To quote those numbers as if they're final is no less dishonest than to quote lawsuit claims as if they're final judgements.
>They absolutely do go after apparent small fry and your "McDonalds manager" absolutely has assets that can be seized
Once again, you can't get blood from a stone. You might get a little but it's not worth the squeeze It is not politically sustainable to make a habit of ruining small time businesses and individuals (we're not talking about the Sackler family here) over nonviolent violations in technical laws where there is no clear chain of causation from the violation to some sort of harm to life or limb.
The reason I brought up the ATF is because they have a track record of forcing compliance with arcane arbitrary laws and they do it through flamboyant violence. This comes at political cost.
>The FCC doesn't have guns, they can't arrest you
Right, they'd get the FBI be the muscle like all the other Feds that don't have entry teams do.
The feds effectively all have guns. It's just a question of how many desks the papers must cross before they turn into bullets.
If I was a concerned boss, I would likely use GSM cell info to track my drivers. While not good enough to do turn-to-turn navigation it certainly is good enough to tell where people are.
Btw, don't smartphones have this built in? I remember some old and cheap Android phones without GPS that came with this.
Eh a month or two before the October 2023 Israel conflict - there were many reports of GPS jamming in the middle east impacting air transport aircraft. To the point where it basically caused various failure modes that shouldn't have happened with avionics (think the things you'd expect in a fuzzing scenario). It was pretty eye opening example of just how poor modern avionics are (and their integrations) when they get unpredictable inputs & the dependant downrange systems that rely upon that data.
Being much closer to the receiver and tied into terrestrial power grids, ground-based beacons can transmit at higher powers than GNSS signals and be received at much higher powers.
Received GNSS power is on the order of -130dBm (10e-16 W) - you can jam that with a 1W terrestrial source for hundreds of meters around. Way more if you're willing to scale the power from car USB power levels to bigger grid-connected supplies.
LORAN, from my quick googling, looks to be about 6-7 orders of magnitude higher received power.
What about terrain following? I would guess decent topographical maps of the world aren't that hard to come by today, to get a good idea of where you are.
Although that approach depends on you being able to see the ground neither of which is guaranteed over a body of water or in poor visibility.
My guess would be that the best solution is multi sensorial anyways. So you have GPS, but then you would have an Inertial Measurement Unit, based purely on acceleration and inertia, radar and barometric systems and maybe optical systems for terrain identification and celestial navigation.
I have recently heard an episode of Amp Hour podcast¹ where they talked about using Bluetooth from satellites as a GPS replacement for asset tags. So maybe alternatives to GPS on different bands are on the verge.
Another interesting idea would be to have an antenna array on the plane that captures different radio sources and the angles from which they seem to come from and create a always updating radio activity map that maps a certain "radio landscape" to a position on the planet. AFAIK this is currently being worked on as well under the name "radio-SLAM" (with SLAM standing for Simultaneous Localization and Mapping). This means, jammers could maybe even be used as potential beacons themselves.
I would be curious on and interested in guidance from a GNSS expert on what the risk profile is when you're using jam resistant frequencies with a multi GNSS constellation chipset (GPS, Galileo, BeiDou), WAAS (GNSS corrections received via satellite), and when close enough to airports that support it, LAAS (GNSS corrections broadcast from airports). Follow up questions would be what countermeasures are available to bolster GNSS reliability during critical phases of flight (takeoff and landing), as well as how cellular tower networks could be used as distributed sensor fabrics for constantly monitoring for and triangulate GNSS jamming using SDR (or perhaps start with a handful of GNSS reference monitoring stations at major airports for this monitoring).
Because GPS and other GNSS have only a very weak signal strength there are no jam resistant frequencies, you can jam them all very efficiently, or you can jam them very efficiently in selective way (jam BeiDou, but not GPS).
GPS was jammed even as early as Iraq war.
"Coalition troops also got a glimpse of GPS’s greatest weakness during the Gulf War. Iraqi forces installed jammers, for example, on top of landmarks such as Saddam Hussein’s palaces to prevent them from being hit, Mastalir says. This helped the military realize early on that it would have to further develop its laser-guided munitions and other weapons that acquire targets when GPS is unavailable"
I think Starshield (Starlink for the military) is going to use lasers as the means of communication (and location). Those are highly directionaly, and likely not possible to jam. Though I'm not sure how resistant are they to atmospheric interference, and the sats need to know where your receivers are, which I can't imagine the military is too happy about.
A lot of work is being done to make GPS more jam resistant, and - just as important - more spoof resistant. The latest batch of satellites has a whole raft of countermeasures to help a receiver to identify whether the received signal is genuine or whether it was spoofed. Receivers too can do a lot to detect spoofing by just observing the signal (for instance: unrealistic power levels on reception, impossible response to vehicle movement and others besides), but quite a few of those are unrealistic or too expensive for regular (non military) applications. Jam resistant frequencies do not exist as you already mentioned, from a physics perspective. But GP might mean this to refer to the new M-Code signal, and these are sent out on different frequency offsets from the main carrier, so effectively different frequencies.
L5 is considered to be more jam resistant, but it is still in the process of being rolled out and most receivers do not have that capability. It will take the better part of a decade to be rolled out completely but the space side should be done by 2027 so if you need it you can get it but you'll need a completely new receiver.
For obvious reasons hard information about all this is tricky to come by, you can read what is available from non-classified sources though and you can glean quite a bit from there.
> L5-band signals are 30x harder to jam and interfere with compared to L1, and they offer superior performance in difficult-to-navigate areas such as urban canyons and tree-covered regions.
If Russia’s proof of concept moves to active use, those satellites (Kosmos 2546 and any others) will need to be removed from service with anti satellite technology (either munition or X-37B equivilent). Clearly Russia is attempting to shield an overt military capability behind the satellite’s early warning launch detection primary mission to dissuade attempts to disable it. Remove the orbital capability, deny them access to replace it.
Ongoing Ukrainian strikes against Rassvet satellite production and launch sites contribute to further impairment of Russia's ability to get any new or replacement satellites to orbit.
Probably be easier and more reliable to use star navigation with modern cameras, computers and atomic clocks. Especially for commercial aircraft flying above the weather.
With a quick calculation 50 ms time offset would mean about 20 meter difference. You can get that accuracy with NTP over residential internet and a better TCXO could hold that for a day. You could sync clocks and download the almanac at each airport. The almanac could be digitally signed and NTP has an option for authentication, too. That's about 10 USD of hardware (plus what you need for image capture and processing).
I'm pretty sure with dedicated hardware and better solutions you could get much better accuracy.
Maybe the starlink clocks could continuously calibrate from gps? Clock drift is usually a slow thing (like thermals). Their inter-satellite data links have all sorts of relative clocking info.
The orbit accuracy of starlinks are (to me) and unknown. I would suggest that as they are on a lower orbit, they decay much faster.
However, because of the way they communicate node to node, they do need to know where their nearest neighbour is to a very high degree. So relative position is probably easy to obtain.
But if you're gonna do that, you're better off with 4g/5g masts. there are loads of them and they don't generally change position that much. They are clow enough together to do odometry.
IIUC, GPS picks one satellite and 3 more to establish time differences between the first one and the other 3. There's only one point in universe where the set of differences would match what was observed, given the broadcast orbital data of satellites, and that gives the location of the receiver. It's like you are provided radii and center coordinates of 3 circles on a paper that intersect at 1 point and you are to math that point.
So GPS-like systems need precise orbital data and coherent clock from each satellites, or otherwise the receiver cannot figure out those radii.
Presumably you can have each sats reflect a clock from the same master ground station but that's not how GPS is implemented currently.
Coherency is a state. My question is if that state can be achieved by just tuning the individual clocks/locations based on GPS as a master. And, there's other tricks, with all the inter-satellite communication [1].
And, there's a contextual difference here between civilian GPS and military GPS. Much of the precision in the existing GPS satellites is to support the military use of GPS, with intentionally error injected into the civilian side.
And, by the nature of the hostile environment the military operates, military craft don't have as strong of a reliance on something that's ephemeral, like a GPS signal on a battlefield.
What you describe is very normal in telecom and has been for a long time. 4G, 5G, etc are all totally dependent on every device syncing to the one higher up in the chain. These days typically a digital control loop is used to tune a high frequency voltage-controlled oscillator which feeds a counter. An event (like GPS PPS, or an ethernet frame arriving on the cable) is extracted from the signal and the counter generates a timestamp. The chips to do this are incredibly cheap and the performance is hard to comprehend.
I am a volunteer coach in a rec soccer league for 6th graders. Bluetooth jamming could literally kill one of my diabetic (type 1) players during a game because of this scenario.
Clearly you don’t have a family member who uses CGM’s. They are extremely sensitive to RF disruptions, and often fail for mind bogglingly dumb reasons.
2s on / 2s off would completely disable all of their functionality until the interference was gone. And possibly much longer - they are finicky.
So they are sensitive to RF but for some reason all the RF around you, from the power lines in the walls, the WIFI, the towers, they are immune to those?
This is such a first world problem. The speakers the post refers to are probably in a third world country where no medical equipment uses Bluetooth so jamming it poses no danger.
The reason why they don't use Bluetooth is because, they don't exist at all. People either die first before receiving the device, or the condition that requires it is rare in that part of the world
i’m delighted to report that it’s actually possible for people to talk about a second, related topic in a comment section without invalidating the problems of the main post being commented on
Who said a GPS jammer is okay? They are highly illegal in the US and the FCC will hand out large fines when they find one. GPS jammers are cheap though and so it is unlikely the FCC will catch the majority of users.
Though most GPS jamming is by countries at war. Russia has a large GPS jamming operation around Ukraine, and this often affects GPS in other parts of Europe as well. I have no information, but I would be surprised if Iran wasn't also jamming GPS (off and on depending on the current state of their war). You can safely assume every military in the world has some GPS jammers that they have plans to use if it makes sense to them.
I think that quite often it has more to do with making sure the missiles and drones can't easily hit their targets. Not that this is an excuse for jackasses doing it just for shits and giggles. Fuck those people.
BLEeding is a tool that allows you to jam Bluetooth (BR/EDR) and BLE devices. It can be used to spam DeAuth requests or L2CAP ping requests. It supports Linux, macOS, Windows and Raspberry PI.
This guy was caught for jamming cell phones on his commute to "keep people off their phones". I heard of a similar case of someone doing the same on their bus commute but don't have a link for that handy atm
Where do you hike where it’s a problem? I mean if I meet perhaps 10 people max over 2 hours. If all of them were blasting music it still wouldn’t worry me at all.
If passing one person the trail playing audible music ruins your entire experience I'd check on your mental health. Seriously. I too can get mad at ridiculous things (line cutters, rude drivers, loud movie goers) and have to make a conscious effort to stop, take a deep breath and ask myself why I'm letting this innocuous thing effect my day.
Many (surprisingly more reachable ones) parts of European Alps. But very few actually do that, I think they would experience a lot of aggression from others (certainly from me)
These takes are unreasonable IMHO. When you pass someone on the trail, even with a BT speaker blasting you hear the music for what.. maybe 15-20 seconds? Is that really ruining your day? Sometimes when I walk or bike with my wife we bring a BT speaker and I can BARELY hear it and I'm walking side-by-side with her getting no more than 15-20 feet away. Let. People. Enjoy. Things.
Why not use the even smaller speakers that you put in your ears, and then you can hear it. And it's inaudible to every other human.
FWIW, both Spotify (Jam) and Apple Music (SharePlay) have a feature to sync audio playback and give both participants the ability to control the music from their phone. It was probably targeted at CarPlay/shared speaker situations, but it works great for this.
Or just sounds of nature. I'm out hiking to enjoy this place and experience. It's like I'm enjoying a meal, and some jackass coming along throwing random seasonings on it - fuck off with it.
What I want is a tiny portable bluetooth jammer for those who insist everyone in public must be listening to their music. Sadly they are too clunky to haul around each day.
If I am not mistaken, this type of jammer can severily affect people with pacemakers. But, as a Brazilian citizen, I can understand the feeling of being forced to listen other's people music.
its myth youre mistaken because that would mean all the wifi devices and normal bt devices will also stop pacemaker. only early version of pacemaker before internet would be affected modern pacemakers have protection as long as you keep a safe 6 inch distance
I'd imagine temporary (15 minutes?) disruption would be considered in the design of pacemakers or blood glucose monitors, but if you're using this in close proximity for a long period of time... then wouldn't there be problems?
In a third world country which are the most affected by this, Pacemakers are very rare and if you have one chances are you live in a rich area where you don't live with neighbors who do that. People die before they ever get a chance at having a pacemaker and the very conditions that require it are very rare in those areas in the first place
These "solutions" always seem too broad with too much collateral damage. Would this be doable to do with a directional antenna or something instead, so you could aim at the specific speaker (in your own house) you want silenced?
You can brute-force jam the entire 80MHz range. However, it would require roughly 13dB more power compared to jamming a narrow-band signal.
In theory, you could try to exploit the adaptive frequency hopping that bluetooth does, nudging it to switch to specific bands, which you will then jam; this could save on energy, but I don't know if anybody's done it.
This really shouldn't be a problem. We were lazy with GPS. Maps, compasses, altimeters, etc all still exist. They might not offer the same precision as GPS, but they can easily fill the gaps. We already have inertia guidance systems for munitions. That's pretty accurate and similar in theory.
With all the man made EM emitters in the world, it seems like passively matching what can be “seen” to a database of known emitters (with signal profiles and locations) could be extremely accurate where people are (less helpful on the open ocean and remote wilderness). Similar to what’s already being done with Wi-Fi and Bluetooth but general purpose, perhaps?
They record spots for all wireless access points too, unless you opt-out by naming them certain ways and the surveillance-capitalism company decides to honor it. (e.g. The _nomap suffix.)
I hope some future Wifi standard makes it much easier to anonymize or obscure persistent access points.
That's always existed with Hidden SSID. If you are particularly paranoid you can set it up like that. But unless you insert personally identifiable info in your wifi name there is not really any privacy risk for this data being mapped.
> That's always existed with Hidden SSID. If you are particularly paranoid you can set it up like that.
It's actually the opposite, a hidden SSID will backfire and hurt your privacy when it comes to phones and laptops.
With a normal network, your phone can passively listen for when it approaches MyHomeNetwork and then connect. If you change that to a 802.11 hidden SSID, then whenever you aren't connected your phone will be constantly emitting a very distinctive mating-call: "Any hidden networks? Hello, if you're MyHomeNetwork, please then let me in." That makes it easy for someone to uniquely identify your phone as it moves around, and it also takes up more battery power with the often-fruitless transmissions.
Both issues could be reduced by restricting it to only auto-seek the SSID based on other clues, like GPS regions or neighbors' public SSIDs, but that usually isn't a feature.
> But unless you insert personally identifiable info in your wifi name there is not really any privacy risk for this data being mapped.
How often do you reset/rename it? Surely it's at least weird that some big companies, via sensors carried by your neighbors, know you moved your apartments from X to Y even when you don't use any of their products.
Some phone-apps will have access to the network name too, but that seems just marginally worse compared to other identifying info they could track and exfiltrate.
These are valid points, but I think the utility of being able to get location on your phone without power sucking GPS running all day is greater than the privacy risk of seeing when a wifi AP moved address. Which if you were so inclined, could be avoided by changing the wifi name each move.
This is what I wonder about. Do GPS receivers, aviation class ones, just accept signals coming from whatever location (maybe not from the sky), at whatever strength and reporting whatever location? Also I imagine inertial navigation still works. Using a last "known good" position, can that be used to do a sanity check and too weed out bad actors?
It's like the internet all over again, where adversarial players were just not considered.
It likely is the case that most GPS receives, even aviation class ones just accept signals.
Until a couple years ago this was a theoretical issue that few real world people ever dealt with. Military class GPS likely has some form of protection (but what is classified) since military use of jammers have been known for a few decades - but they were very limited use and so non-militaries just ignored them.
Today things are different. Russia's military is jamming GPS on a large scale and that is affecting areas outside the war zone. GPS jammers are also cheap enough that the FCC and similar organizations (most non-poor countries have one) are unable to keep up with all the illegal uses (most countries have laws predating GPS that make these jammers illegal)
The US has done tests with eLoran as well. The receivers are quite expensive and the signal isn't permanent yet, so it's more of a lab thing right now. Also experiments with BPS (Broadcast Positioning System) using high power TV transmitters to distribute time and position in urban areas (very hard to overpower that signal).
"In trials conducted by the General Lighthouse Authorities of UK and Ireland, a 1.5W radio jammer was able to knock out GPS signals over a range of 30 kilometers. However, to do the same to the Loran system, you'd need a 40ft tower — and around 25kW of juice to power it."
Well certainly, no one thing is impervious. But if you have GPS, LORAN, VORs, NDBs, astronavigation, etc. you have many more options at your disposal and present a much more complex attack target.
It's 2026: we have more ways to defeat jamming, or make it irrelevant, at unit costs trivial for commercial and most private applications. 1) atomic clocks can be smaller than a closed fist and allow GPS to work with 3 satalites with ocassional drops to 2. 2) the same clocks can be used to filter out radio sources from the wrong direction. 3) star navigation (commercial is often above weather, most weather is clear in some IR bands) 4) Terain following (easy to store maps now) 5) Inertial. 6) magnetic
When combined it is very hard to break the position fix. I expect the issue with the system is it's a military tech. with all it's that'll associated legal problems. After all. it'd bypass most the protections built into GPS modules.
Good luck finding a pilot trained on doing this, or an aircraft with high enough window cutouts that allow for the use of a sextant. Old Boeings had them [1], but no modern aircraft does.
I think even among navies you'll be hard pressed to find a navigator who still can do astronavigation. IIRC even the US Navy discontinued astronavigation, but recently-ish reintroduced training for it again.
In the 21st century you don't do astronavigation by hand, you use cameras, computers and software.
Astro-inertial guidance is used for example in submarine-launched ballistic missiles.
"Astro-inertial guidance, or stellar-inertial guidance, is a sensor fusion-information fusion of inertial guidance and celestial navigation. It is usually employed on submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Unlike silo-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, whose launch point does not move and thus can serve as a reference, SLBMs are launched from moving submarines, which complicates the necessary navigational calculations and increases circular error probable. Stellar-inertial guidance is used to correct small position and velocity errors that result from launch condition uncertainties due to errors in the submarine navigation system and errors that may have accumulated in the guidance system during the flight due to imperfect instrument calibration."
Yeah but good luck getting that approved for new airliner designs, much less retrofitting it into existing airliners. For the older ones, you'd probably need to rework half their computers.
Approval in aviation is hard, no argument there. Everybody making a GPS is aware of jamming issues and looking at what their options are. I doubt there is any option that isn't expensive and years out from airplanes. However they are likely to start rolling things out in the next few years just because they need to do something.
Don't forget there is a lot more than aviation. Hikers will want jamming protection if it isn't too expensive (depending on what protection we are talking about it come be cheap or expensive)
Not so simple. For one the distances to the transmitter are much smaller, for another the amount of power available to the transmitters is pretty much whatever you want to hook it up to, whereas GPS satellites are on a pretty strict power budget. On the reception side the power levels are many orders of magnitude apart.
Not really. It uses 2MHz band, with the wavelength of around 160m.
This means that it's easy to receive via a ferrite bar antenna but hard to transmit. You need an antenna of at least around 40m size for that to be efficient.
Even a 160m guy-wire tower is cheap. 40m.. my friend installed 32m one just to have better internets, not exactly out of pocket cash, but nothing compared to say swapping a car.
The systems jamming in Hormuz and Ukraine aren't exactly cheap and low powered, nor are those used by the US military in one of their many jamming exercises every year. Cheap GPS jammers fit in a cigarette lighter and are used by truckers who don't want their boss snooping on them, but they don't quite threaten aviation.
That aside, you don't need to give up on GPS just yet. As expensive as airplanes are, there is no reason not to have at least 8 element CRPA receivers in them. Mostly a military niche product in the past they are rapidly proliferating, and most fuselages make for a great ground plane.
> Cheap GPS jammers fit in a cigarette lighter and are used by truckers who don't want their boss snooping on them, but they don't quite threaten aviation.
They absolutely do threaten air and maritime navigation, because those trucks drive in and near ports and airports.
This is likely just the start. With growing consumer reliance on GPS, jammer proliferation will mirror what we see in military contexts. Same thing will happen to starlink and jamming in contested zones
Better use a software defined radio like hackrf or a more dedicated gps thingy, esp32 with gps addon and some machine learning? (‘Some’ doing a lot of heavy lifting here)
I feel like gps nav software should start considering the jamming and spoofing cases as real conditions they will encounter that should throw up an INOP warning.
It wouldn't take much smarts for it to consider the type of vessel it's in and the max and current speeds. If the calculated position of a 10 knot vessel suddenly jumps 100 km away in seconds, that sure seems like a spoof. And if you had 10 satellites locked and then you have none, that sure seems like jamming, or you're in a tunnel; INOP either way.
First of all, starlink has been jammed in conflict zones.
Secondly, the number of satellites doesn’t really matter, the jamming happens at the end user level not at the satellite.
Finally, where are you getting that 20k number from? It’s not like there’s 20k starlink satellites in LOS to your station at all times. The earth will be obscuring many of those, they are below your feet on the other side of the planet.
They don't need atomic clocks on board. NTP is close enough for most purposes. Sure your error goes up, but often within 100 meters is good enough. The exceptions though do need accurate clocks and are a problem.
That's near orders of magnitude more than reality. The only number that matters is the number of satellites that are in communication line of site. A satellite on the other side of the world doesn't help you.
You also need to know where the satellites are meant to be at any one time. That means a stable orbit. Starlink isn't really designed for that.
It then also needs to be signed/secure so that its not spoofed.
Then your signal that your measuring time from needs to be transmitted often enough and robust enough. Plus your time source on the transmitter needs to be accurate enough.
It might be possible with starlink, but you'd also have to trust musk....
It's not rocket science to make a GPS jammer. GPS Spoofing is more complex and causes way more damage or chaos. I would seriously avoid touching this subject whatsoever this is the kind of thing that will have the FBI and FCC so far up your ass you will feel it in the back of your eyeballs. On the off chance the feds don't catch you and you cause a serious accident you will be charged with 1st degree murder of how many people were on the aircraft that crashed along with a litany of other federal offences meaning life without parole is basically a guarantee.
The magnetic approach is very interesting. I can't imagine it would ever be reliable enough for a primary instrument since its susceptible to solar weather and certain regions with more geological activity.
I'm sorry, but a multi-kilogram (at a guess), five-figure-priced (at a conservative guess) device with kilometer-scale error (per their actual press release) is not a substitute for a GPS.
And you probably can't improve on many of those specs no matter how much "inventing" you do. There's just not that much information in magnetic fields, especially if you don't spend an infeasible amount of money on keeping maps up to date. You're probably jammable, too.
The same applies to the gravitational hacks, and the mapping issue applies even to visual navigation.
Those guesses, by the way, are because not only is AQNav's "data sheet" worthless fluff, but they seem to be allergic to letting anybody even see a picture of the product. Which makes me doubt that they actually have what a normal person would think of as a "product" to begin with.
Datasheets that look like that are a pretty strong indicator you're dealing with something that is giga export controlled, not as in "can only go to some countries, you have to declare it and theres a LOT of paperwork", more "attempting to, or even making plans about trying to leave the country with one is a pile of federal crimes"
Virtually anything navigational that cannot be easily or reliably jammed falls into this category far before meeting any of the accuracy/drift requirements.
GPS is fantastic and as a primary source everyone loves the benefits it brings. However, in a century of aviation, everyone has kinda sorted out that you can't have too many backups to critical items... unless you let the accountants and bureaucrats run the show.
reply