3 ms·
> But I'm a situation where GPS or Glonass would be considered 'hostile', there would also be the possibility of them being shot down which is not possible to d
by bigiain 6y ago
> But I'm a situation where GPS or Glonass would be considered 'hostile', there would also be the possibility of them being shot down which is not possible to defend against.
Sounds like "the hostiles" wouldn't actually need orbital shoot down capability, they'd just need to knock out a bunch of those 20 ground stations. A team of guys with consumer drones and a half a kg of C4 each ought to be enough I'd guess. That's only "criminal gang" grade opponents, not even close to state level. (Or, you know, a bunch of random conspiracy nut QAnons or ProudBoys wound up on social media to believe the ground stations cause Covid or are part of a Jewish global banking conspiracy...)
- GekkePrutser 6y agoGood point! But I suppose those uplinks could be hardened in times of war.
- kryptiskt 6y agoThere the somewhat absurd ground station locations like Troll and Kerguelen helps. No one can go there on a whim.
- jccooper 6y agoIn a "hot" situation, the ground segment is, well, "vulnerable" doesn't quite cut it. EU power projection isn't vaguely close to enough to protect all those far-flung islands that make the system work. But there are "cold" scenarios where bombing ground stations wouldn't be kosher but denying GNSS services might be. That's what Galileo insures against. I don't think those scenarios are particularly likely, so it's awful pricey insurance, but it's also a very important capability so opinions may differ.