Saturday was evidently the last day for the old Coast Guard Loran
system. Now it's all GPS and of course the speculation is that the
increasing sun spots will foul it up. I don't think we had much
problem with sun spots in the previous cycle.

I think that the Air Force forced the Coast Guard away from e-Loran
which was designed to supplement the current GNSS system. e-Loran
would have used the old Loran-C stations with a new front end that
sent out the same signals that GPS currently does. Europe is looking
at it as it is far cheaper than launching satellites. I think that
the AF just does not want the competition.

There are advantages with respect to eLoran having a lot more power at
lower frequencies thus harder to jam. Plus it is easy to add
differential corrections to GPS signals. Makes precision navigation
possible.


http://www.crossrate.com/loran-status
http://www.insidegnss.com/node/1615#...hnologies_Inc_
http://www.congrex.com/nnf/iain2009/...ng/Or%2003.htm
http://www.loran.org/Meetings/Meetin...rl d/s1n2.pdf

On Feb 14, 1:03*pm, Soldier in a Combat Zone
wrote:
Saturday was evidently the last day for the old Coast Guard Loran
system. *Now it's all GPS and of course the speculation is that the
increasing sun spots will foul it up. *I don't think we had much
problem with sun spots in the previous cycle.

I think that the Air Force forced the Coast Guard away from e-Loran
which was designed to supplement the current GNSS system. *e-Loran
would have used the old Loran-C stations with a new front end that
sent out the same signals that GPS currently does. *Europe is looking
at it as it is far cheaper than launching satellites. *I think that
the AF just does not want the competition.

There are advantages with respect to eLoran having a lot more power at
lower frequencies thus harder to jam. *Plus it is easy to add
differential corrections to GPS signals. *Makes precision navigation
possible.

http://www.crossrate.com/loran-statu...0Loran%20Statu...

I doubt the USAF could care less about competition from eLORAN or
those 'superior' GNSS systems that have yet to achieve full
operational capability. The primary mission of GPS is to support the
military. I'd bet that the Air Force would welcome an opportunity to
escape from the distractions presented by civil users. Of course,
they cannot say that.

--- CHAS

On Feb 14, 5:47*pm, HIPAR wrote:
On Feb 14, 1:03*pm, Soldier in a Combat Zone
wrote:





Saturday was evidently the last day for the old Coast Guard Loran
system. *Now it's all GPS and of course the speculation is that the
increasing sun spots will foul it up. *I don't think we had much
problem with sun spots in the previous cycle.

I think that the Air Force forced the Coast Guard away from e-Loran
which was designed to supplement the current GNSS system. *e-Loran
would have used the old Loran-C stations with a new front end that
sent out the same signals that GPS currently does. *Europe is looking
at it as it is far cheaper than launching satellites. *I think that
the AF just does not want the competition.

There are advantages with respect to eLoran having a lot more power at
lower frequencies thus harder to jam. *Plus it is easy to add
differential corrections to GPS signals. *Makes precision navigation
possible.

http://www.crossrate.com/loran-statu...nss.com/node/1.......

I doubt the USAF could care less about competition from eLORAN or
those 'superior' GNSS systems that have yet to achieve full
operational capability. *The primary mission of GPS is to support the
military. *I'd bet that the Air Force would welcome an opportunity to
escape from the distractions presented by civil users. *Of course,
they cannot say that.

--- *CHAS-

It always comes down to funding. The AF did not want UAVs, the Navy
did. So guess who funded it. Now the AF wants control back.

On Feb 14, 1:03 pm, Soldier in a Combat
wrote:
I think that the Air Force forced the Coast Guard away from e-Loran
which was designed to supplement the current GNSS system.

What utter and complete tripe. The military began GPS in part because
the various services were operating a wide range of navigation systems
resulting in high cost and poor combined arms operations. Hell, even
operations within a service were hard to coordinate because the 160th
used system X and the Cav something else.

The main reason was to improve the accuracy of inertial navigation
systems on aircraft, missiles, ships and subs. Whatever drift inertial
systems experience is well contained using GPS range-rate data.

Further, other radio based nav systems (whether TACAN, VLF/Omega, Loran,
etc.) were all easy to jam and otherwise interfere with). This is less
the case with GPS where P/Y code has inherent anti-jam in its wide
bandwidth and the ability to use null steering antennas to reduce or
eliminate jamming from affecting the receiver. Not to mention anti-spoof.

GPS has eliminated a lot of nav systems from the military inventory and
put services from top to bottom on the same sheet, navigation and time wise.

LORAN lived long beyond its desirable usability.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.