Why shouldn't this break military plane GPS as much as anything else. It will also remove the ability of USAF to GPS target missiles onto US population centres, which they have no need to do anyway. They can still bomb the rest of the world no problem.
Military GPS receivers operate on two carrier frequencies, only one of which is used by most civilian models. (And it's the shared military/civilian frequency which is adjacent to the spectrum in question.)
Using two frequencies makes the military receivers more robust, and also lets them do some clever ionospheric distortion cancellation that you can't do with one channel. (Basically they get the benefits of WAAS without actually needing to receive the WAAS signal.)
That said, neither the FAA or the military are going to tolerate any significant degradation of GPS, domestically or otherwise.
Comments
Descend until you can see the freeway and follow that is always popular!
It's obvious now that I think about it. Even with GPS, they're going to be told landmarks and indicators (roads and stuff) during a briefing.
Why shouldn't this break military plane GPS as much as anything else. It will also remove the ability of USAF to GPS target missiles onto US population centres, which they have no need to do anyway. They can still bomb the rest of the world no problem.
Military GPS receivers operate on two carrier frequencies, only one of which is used by most civilian models. (And it's the shared military/civilian frequency which is adjacent to the spectrum in question.)
Using two frequencies makes the military receivers more robust, and also lets them do some clever ionospheric distortion cancellation that you can't do with one channel. (Basically they get the benefits of WAAS without actually needing to receive the WAAS signal.)
That said, neither the FAA or the military are going to tolerate any significant degradation of GPS, domestically or otherwise.