What if: GPS and all Western satellites are successfully neutralised

[JAD_333]

IMV it would be the point where without the tech you can't get the job done in reasonable time.

If no one had access to the tech, all things being equal, a reasonable time would be whatever time it takes people to the job the old way.

[lemontree]

Premise: Let's just say China (for example) is capable of disabling US satellites in a near future engagement..... The point is, would the US/Nato/West be able to conduct effective operations without all the goodies they've become so dependent upon? Never mind civilians driving off a cliff because their Tom Tom went tits up, what about the military? Are they still drilled in the traditional, non-technological, methods of manoeuvre? If so, would they be able to coordinate sufficiently to perform their duties?

Sorry, I saw this thread a bit late.
If all GPS systems are down, then the military can still so it's job.
Basic army training still teaches map reading and use of a magnetic compass.

But without real time info, we would be back to the tactical and strategic skills of the WW2 Generals, though.

PPS - I broach this subject because I wonder, as we move into a new age with more and more unmanned weaponry, what would happen if all the drones suddenly didn't work? Are we still training enough people to fly? Same goes for every other aspect of conflict. Your considered responses are very much appreciated

I'm sure you have enough of pilots, even the drone pilot is a real pilot, except that he/she cannot order a pizza while taking out a target. They would have to fly through the gauntlet of lead.

[JAD_333]

Frankly, I'm more concerned with what personal electronics are doing to society, period. The other day I was sitting in the car waiting for my daughter to get done with her shift at a local boutique and I was watching two 20-somethings walking out of another store, looking intently at their iPhones or whatever, and they literally stepped in front of a moving car without looking. Had the guy not stood on his brakes he'd have hit them . . . and they would have deserved it. I used to think kids on bikes were an issue, but the things I see regularly these days are well beyond the pale of common sense. When I used to teach my masters course "on ground" I'd enter the back of the lecture hall, all heads would be looking down at their widgets whatever they may be, and never once would they look up at me for the next 90 minutes. WTF is that? If I could find the person that thought up the cell phone, I'd cut his nuts off and stuff them up his nose. I won't have one. I have On Star in the car and that's as connected, beyond exchanges like this, as I want to be.

I'm a big cell phone fan, especially since the smart phone came out. Mainly I use it to make business calls and stay in touch with the family. But having immediate access to a camera, GPS, weather reports, messenger, internet browser, and being able to check the market and make trades all from one little box can't be beaten for efficiency and convenience. I go back to the original Motorola brick. I think it cost around $2k at the time, and you had to stand by a window to get reception.

I understand how you feel about cells. Being old school I would never sit around in company pecking away at one like so many young people do these days. It seems impolite to me. But kids do it without batting an eyelash. One positive; it's made my son and daughter better spellers.

[Doktor]

I can't tell whether you are concerned about technological over-reliance bringing down nations or you are not concerned. I see technology replacing human problem solving to the extent that cutting the power could make us virtually helpless. But what I want to understand is the term over-reliance. At what point does it become 'over' versus simply 'reliant"?

IMV it would be the point where without the tech you can't get the job done in reasonable time.

[Doktor]

One more time; how does the drone know where it is?

Captain,

Wouldn't the UAV take off from a known location? There is your starting point.

Assuming you can get the speed and the direction right from there you would always know where your bird is.

[desertswo]

I can't tell whether you are concerned about technological over-reliance bringing down nations or you are not concerned. I see technology replacing human problem solving to the extent that cutting the power could make us virtually helpless. But what I want to understand is the term over-reliance. At what point does it become 'over' versus simply 'reliant"?

Frankly, I'm more concerned with what personal electronics are doing to society, period. The other day I was sitting in the car waiting for my daughter to get done with her shift at a local boutique and I was watching two 20-somethings walking out of another store, looking intently at their iPhones or whatever, and they literally stepped in front of a moving car without looking. Had the guy not stood on his brakes he'd have hit them . . . and they would have deserved it. I used to think kids on bikes were an issue, but the things I see regularly these days are well beyond the pale of common sense. When I used to teach my masters course "on ground" I'd enter the back of the lecture hall, all heads would be looking down at their widgets whatever they may be, and never once would they look up at me for the next 90 minutes. WTF is that? If I could find the person that thought up the cell phone, I'd cut his nuts off and stuff them up his nose. I won't have one. I have On Star in the car and that's as connected, beyond exchanges like this, as I want to be.

[JAD_333]

[B]

It would be a long, slow slide and enough to stretch the wildest imagination must occur before armies and nations are brought to their knees because of technological over-reliance. You are correct, however, that older technologies might regain some relevance.

I can't tell whether you are concerned about technological over-reliance bringing down nations or you are not concerned. I see technology replacing human problem solving to the extent that cutting the power could make us virtually helpless. But what I want to understand is the term over-reliance. At what point does it become 'over' versus simply 'reliant"?

[S2]

"But how often do you practice them [land nav] in the field exercises?"

I'll have a partial answer in a few weeks. Curious to see how a co-employee, newly-commissioned 2Lt infantry officer, reviews his OBC (or whatever they call it now) experience. Particularly land nav and how it's practically integrated. It's only partial as that's institutional training. What goes on at the troop level is more telling. I know this-I have utter disdain for any soldier above the rank of PFC and any officer regardless of rank who can't land navigate.

It would be a long, slow slide and enough to stretch the wildest imagination must occur before armies and nations are brought to their knees because of technological over-reliance. You are correct, however, that older technologies might regain some relevance. PADS (Position Azimuth Determination System) might, for instance, make a re-emergence. A cool, HUMVEE mounted gyro-nav system that had to periodically re-orient over a known point and a limited range (about twenty miles max from the orienting station). Still, a quantum leap forward for artillery survey. New and utterly revolutionary in 1985.

Outmoded by 1991.

[gf0012-aust]

Oh, I know. That wasn't my point. It's just that I know a whole lot more about this stuff than most, as I was on the ground floor of drone technology and its applications in C4ISR. So while I'll offer observations on this or that, I won't go into too many grim details. Like elaborating on your post. Bad juju for all concerned.

ack

ditto this end on C4ISR

[desertswo]

Not referring to you making an assumption...

Oh, I know. That wasn't my point. It's just that I know a whole lot more about this stuff than most, as I was on the ground floor of drone technology and its applications in C4ISR. So while I'll offer observations on this or that, I won't go into too many grim details. Like elaborating on your post. Bad juju for all concerned.

[gf0012-aust]

No, it's not. However, that's as far as I'm going with that one.

Not referring to you making an assumption...

[desertswo]

There's an assumption going on in here that UAS are all using satellites to do their shopping - that's not necessarily so.

No, it's not. However, that's as far as I'm going with that one.

[gf0012-aust]

There's an assumption going on in here that UAS are all using satellites to do their shopping - that's not necessarily so.

[FJV]

As long as the UAV can receive 3 ground stations, the position of the UAV can be triangulated from the ground stations. (it can fly anywhere in such an area)

You could also triangulate directly from the ground stations, but the UAV's would extend the range.

[gf0012-aust]

But I think having a UAV orbiting a landmark defeats the purpose in this scenario. A fixed orbit around a known location means that the enemy knows where to look for your UAV, just like he did with your satellite.

without going into detail....

the landmark is a point in time

the landmark can also be virtual - it can be a random geolocation that makes no sense to a human or an analyst but is a waypoint or marker as big as the eifel tower as far as the UAS control system is concerned

UAS behaviour is entirely dependent on its mission set