back to article UK getting ready to go it alone on Galileo

The UK is about to press the big red button on its own satellite navigation system as an agreement for access to the EU’s Galileo programme looks more and more unlikely. Following hot on the heels of the release of papers detailing the customs and tax implications of a no-deal Brexit come reports that the UK Treasury has …

Page:

        1. MyffyW Silver badge

          Re: That is going to be one hell of an expensive failure

          Expensive failure - are we talking about SatNav or Brexit preparations?

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: That is going to be one hell of an expensive failure

            "Expensive failure - are we talking about SatNav or Brexit preparations?"

            Yes

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: That is going to be one hell of an expensive failure

          "The Yanks are moving to linear magnetic motors for catapults and they just need electricity."

          They looked at developing them, but don't need them, thier nulcear powered carriers have loads of free steam.

          1. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: That is going to be one hell of an expensive failure

            "They looked at developing them, but don't need them, thier nulcear powered carriers have loads of free steam."

            They're still developing them. Steam catapaults require a _LOT_ of maintenance and have two acceleration settings: ON and OFF, unlike electric launchers.

            1. Robert Sneddon

              New CVNs don't have steam to spare

              The new Ford-class nuclear carriers are electric-drive like most if not all modern warships. They don't have external steam generators to provide propulsion steam and catapult steam like the earlier CVNs, instead their self-contained nuclear reactor installations produce electricity for the propeller drive motors in the same way the British QE carriers have gas-turbine generator sets for propulsion and, indeed, the new British Astute subs which do the same thing although they're nuclear-powered.

              The Ford-class carriers have two 300MW output reactors compared to the previous generation of similar-sized carriers which had two 150MW reactors. Part of that extra capacity is to drive the EMALS catapults (though they use a storage system to provide the instantaneous 30-50MW of electricity needed for a launch) but a lot of the extra capacity is because there are a lot more sparkly bits in a big ship like that than there used to be, plus redundancy of course.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: That is going to be one hell of an expensive failure

        They didn't forget the catapults, they just had nothing to power them with, catapults need steam, the carrier is powered by gas turbines, no steam, they needed a nuclear reactor

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Actually, BAE promised them electromagnetic catapults as a later upgrade, then jacked the price to the stratosphere to avoid having to make it work.

        The mistake wasn't catapults, it was where they bought the carriers, and the contracts they accepted.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: That is going to be one hell of an expensive failure

          "BAE promised them electromagnetic catapults as a later upgrade, then jacked the price to the stratosphere to avoid having to make it work."

          The price jackup was more or less what they would have lost in F35B maintenance costs. make of that what you will.

          As for the F35s, they're still in the process of eating the pentagon.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: That is going to be one hell of an expensive failure

        "catapults need steam, the carrier is powered by gas turbines, no steam, they needed a nuclear reactor"

        A bit right, but mostly wrong.

        No. Steam catapults need steam, but EM catapults just need electricity.

        Yes. The choice was made to fit gas turbines for propulsion. That was a choice, not inevitable. If the choice had been made to go with a steam turbine mechanical drive or steam turbine electric drive, that would not have been the case.

        A nuclear reactor is in no way needed for a carrier with steam catapults. One could include steam generators, or go with some form of steam propulsion. Steam catapult carriers predate not only nuclear powered ships but any form of controlled fission.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Meh

        Re: That is going to be one hell of an expensive failure

        They didn't forget the catapults, they just had nothing to power them with, catapults need steam, the carrier is powered by gas turbines, no steam, they needed a nuclear reactor.

        No, they don't *need* steam. It was just that between the 1910s and the 1970s high pressure steam was readily available because the usual way of propelling a large warship required lots of boilers. The first aircraft carrier catapults were actually powered by compressed air, not steam, and presumably something similar is still possible. There are chemical solutions too - e.g. German V1s, amongst other things, were launched by steam generated from hydrogen peroxide.

        1. Robert Sneddon

          Not enough energy

          The first aircraft carrier catapults were actually powered by compressed air, not steam, and presumably something similar is still possible.

          A typical aircraft of the 1910-20 period suitable for launch from an aircraft carrier would weigh a couple of tonnes with a low takeoff speed. A mission-ready F-35B or indeed any existing strike fighter can weigh up to 25 tonnes loaded for a mission and can require the plane to be travelling at over 150mph at the end of the catapult to clear the front of the carrier successfully and avoid becoming a sea dart (tm).

          Finding space to fit air or steam plant into the existing carrier spaces and the surplus power to produce stored energy to launch aircraft using some kind of catapult wasn't really a goer for the QE-class carriers. The EMALS electromagnetic launcher was a possibility, it has a lot of good features but it also sucks a lot of electrical power and the QE-class gas turbine engines weren't specced to produce bursts of surplus energy of that size. Some kind of battery/spinning storage might work but again there wasn't much space left to put it somewhere in the hull and if it ever broke then nothing could be launched at all.

          1. anothercynic Silver badge

            Re: Not enough energy

            @Robert Sneddon, and remember that the QE-class carriers were first specced in the late nineties and refined early in the new millennium. A colleague of mine was seconded to BAe in Bristol to look at how to to bring the price of each down by nearly half.

            1. Alan Brown Silver badge

              Re: Not enough energy

              "A colleague of mine was seconded to BAe in Bristol to look at how to to bring the price of each down by nearly half."

              So BAE saved a shitload, but did they lower the bill?

          2. DropBear
            Trollface

            Re: Not enough energy

            "Some kind of battery/spinning storage might work but..."

            Looks like we just need to nerd harder. Hmmm... rubber bands?

          3. Alan Brown Silver badge

            Re: Not enough energy

            "A mission-ready F-35B or indeed any existing strike fighter can weigh up to 25 tonnes loaded for a mission and can require the plane to be travelling at over 150mph at the end of the catapult to clear the front of the carrier successfully and avoid becoming a sea dart (tm)."

            Sea dart or not, It's going to need that vertical landing capability to dodge the holes in the deck after the DF21-D or DF26s have paid a visit.

            Battleships were obsolete by 1925, but kept being made for quite a while after that - pretty much until a wee party in 1941 made the point they'd had their day.. Aircraft carriers have passed that knee point too (having a swedish submarine sneak up and "sink" an American supercarrier was a wakeup call for them too, but that's not the primary direction they're vulnerable from ) "Projecting power" is of no use whatsoever if you're forced to keep your boats a "safe distance offshore" that happens to be beyond the operational range of the aircraft that fly off it.

    1. RegGuy1 Silver badge

      Re: That is going to be one hell of an expensive failure

      Oh yeah, they built a new aircraft carrier, but forgot the catapults.

      ... and the aircraft.

      1. Steven 1

        Re: That is going to be one hell of an expensive failure

        It's had aircraft on it since it commenced sea trials...

        If you're referring to F-35B's then we are taking delivery of them right when we need them and in accordance with the test program.

        https://goo.gl/images/TXqAew

  1. Joeman

    Would be a shame if the British satellites included signal jammers for Galileo satellites would it...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Galileo blocking BeiDou

      wouldn't it be a shame if that chinese signal didnt work...

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: Galileo blocking BeiDou

        We don't need to jam Galileo. Without correction, the atomic clocks drift. A small fraction of a second is a meter inaccuracy, so you have a bunch of ground stations that collect data to spot them drifting so they can be updated precisely.

        One such station is located on Ascension Island, and another is on the Falklands Islands. If we depart on bad terms with the EU and somebody pulls the plug then this is quite sufficient to cause Galileo problems without going the extra mile.

        1. bsdnazz

          Re: Galileo blocking BeiDou

          The French and Dutch have enough territories spotted around the world for Galileo base stations.

          Denying the use of Ascension Island and the Falklands Islands is not going to damage Galileo, just result in some more spending for the EU.

          1. Peter2 Silver badge

            Re: Galileo blocking BeiDou

            The French and Dutch have enough territories spotted around the world for Galileo base stations.

            Could you highlight which French or Dutch territories exist in the south Atlantic?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Galileo blocking BeiDou

              Can you highlight the constitutional provisions that would allow the UK government to order the 'independent' governments of these overseas territories to do something like sabotage Galileo?

              And then work out exactly what effect losing two sensor stations (which don't actually uplink anything - they downlink data and send it to Germany and Italy).

              I am fairly sure that the Chileans or Argentinians would happily host the Falklands Sensor station - and push comes to shove, if the Ascension Island station was 'lost' the gap in the network would be no bigger than already exists in the Pacific - so no reason to think it would have material effect,.

              1. Tigra 07

                Re: Galileo blocking BeiDou

                "Can you highlight the constitutional provisions that would allow the UK government to order the 'independent' governments of these overseas territories to do something like sabotage Galileo"

                Wouldn't be necessary since we still cover defence spending of a lot of these overseas territories. They could be convinced to pull the plug quite easily. Then there's always financial incentives...

            2. pklausner

              Re: Galileo blocking BeiDou

              How about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerguelen_Islands ?

            3. anothercynic Silver badge

              Re: Galileo blocking BeiDou

              @Peter 2, you don't necessarily need territories in the South Atlantic either. The South Pacific works (France), as does the Southern Indian Ocean (France), and if necessary, you make friends with Chile and Argentina (surprisingly, the French have done that before)...

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Galileo blocking BeiDou

          That daily mail myth has been well and truly debunked. Galileo would work just fine without the British territories.

        3. Adrian Midgley 1

          Re: Galileo blocking BeiDou

          It might require two ships bieng in those vicinities which otehrwise would not, but it probably wouldn't.

    2. Andrew Moore

      doubt it, as they are likely to be sharing the same frequencies...

      1. Why Not?

        doubt it, as they are likely to be sharing the same circuitry...

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Would be a shame if the British satellites included signal jammers for Galileo satellites would it..."

      I don't know.

      What the rest of the world would do to the UK for that kind of wholly illegal vandalism would be an excellent lesson to anyone else who was tempted by such idiocy.

  2. Pen-y-gors

    All a bit unnecessary?

    This seems a lot of money, when the UK won't have any. An alternative...

    Stockpile satnav positions and routes. The government can download a lot of Google Streetview photos, together with their grid refs. Then issue a booklet to everyone with a few sample ones. If you're lost, you flip through the booklet until you find a photo of where you are and bingo. If that doesn't work you phone a special government helpline (usual rates) and describe where you are and the person at the other end of the line (in Mumbai?) will look through the photos for you. They will also then be able to give you turn-by-turn instructions (provided you hold the line)

    1. SolidSquid

      Re: All a bit unnecessary?

      As I understand it, the issue is specifically Military usage of Galileo. Specifically that they won't have the ability to make encrypted queries to the satellites (so could be tracked) and they won't have access to the more accurate data which is only opened up to the military (for things like drone strikes)

      1. Chris G

        Re: All a bit unnecessary?

        The military version of the booklet would just need to have 'Aide Memoir' and 'Classified' printed on the cover and perhaps include details of the Brecon Beacons and pubs in Heredfordshire, for the RAF add a section from Google Earth.

        You know BAE are not serious when they quote a 'cheap' figure like £5 billion, they couldn't make a cheese and onion sandwich to UK Gov' specs for that money.

        Oh and the gov' would probably forget to spec the onions.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

      3. Cuddles

        Re: All a bit unnecessary?

        "As I understand it, the issue is specifically Military usage of Galileo."

        That's the story that gets spun a lot to justify it. It's nonsense.

        "Specifically that they won't have the ability to make encrypted queries to the satellites (so could be tracked)"

        There's no such thing as making queries to GPS satellites, encrypted or otherwise. The satellites simply broadcast a signal that can be picked up by any passive receiver. There is no way to know who might be doing that or to track them in any way.

        "they won't have access to the more accurate data which is only opened up to the military"

        This is the part actually given as justification. It is not true. The Public Regulated Service is identical to the commercial one, with exactly the same accuracy. The only difference is that the commercial one can be turned off, while there is a commitment not to do that for the military one. Unless we go to war with the EU, there is no meaningful difference between the two.

        As is so often the case, the real reason is simply money - the government doesn't want everyone involved in building satellites to up sticks and head to the continent, as Airbus are already doing. Losing access to the PRS goes hand in had with losing contracts to build parts for the satellites, since they both rely on being either in the EU or negotiating to become a partner, and losing those contracts means losing a lot more in the future as industry and experts move away. This "feasibility study" is just the latest desperate attempt to persuade everyone that the UK will totally still be relevant for space industry and there will be real money coming along any minute now if you'll just stay and give us another chance.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: All a bit unnecessary?

          The risk of the commercial service being switched off, meaning that organisations have to use the Public Regulated Service relies on the organisations in question having equipped themselves with sufficient receivers to make use of PRS.

          Compare to the state of GPS during the first Gulf War. The military realised that they didn't have enough receivers and so had to go out and buy off-the-shelf units from outdoor/camping shops. These were only capable of receiving the public GPS signal, and so selective availability was switched off - this allowed the military to operate with the required level of accuracy.

          Fast-forward to present day - it could be likely that bean-counters have prevented military, etc. from buying enough PRS-capable units, and so that reduces the likelihood of the commercial Galileo service being switched off.

      4. Chairman of the Bored

        Re: All a bit unnecessary?

        So if its just the crypto bits I can hear Turing rolling in his grave "Encrypted you say? Let me have a go!"

      5. Dr Dan Holdsworth

        Re: All a bit unnecessary?

        I rather suspect that the moment a war against an opponent who is even slightly clued up about positioning systems goes hot, that opponent will start doing their very best to both jam the signals. A slightly smarter opponent would also, in addition to signal-jamming, start launching false-flag terrorist attacks against major players like the USA and Russia, to encourage them to think of Galileo as a national security risk.

        I am however surprised that the EU is not more mercenary in its approach. The UK cannot get automatic access as a member state, but pay-for access given a set of conditions such as partial upholding of EU military goals and not attacking EU allies could surely be arranged. Indeed, using Galileo as a bargaining chip to keep the UK and its really rather potent military on the EU's side ought to be a goal of the EU.

        1. MyffyW Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: All a bit unnecessary?

          Again - are we talking SatNav or Brexit?

          I'm here all week ... unless somebody offers me £350M (for the NHS - honest)

        2. Jon 37
          FAIL

          Re: All a bit unnecessary?

          > I am however surprised that the EU is not more mercenary in its approach. The UK cannot get automatic access as a member state, but pay-for access given a set of conditions ...

          The rules that the UK helped write say that PRS is only available to EU members, so any work on PRS has to be done in an EU member country. Partner countries can work on Galileo, but not the PRS part of it. The UK insisted on this, to help the UK to win a lot of the PRS-related work.

          Ooops!

          Also, changing the Galileo rules would mean that France and Germany get less work. That's not a votewinner for French or German politicians, and the Brexit deal can't pass without their agreement. Why would they agree to that?

          > such as partial upholding of EU military goals and not attacking EU allies could surely be arranged.

          We're still in NATO, which covers most of that. And we're not going to agree to have our forces fight and die as part of an EU armed forces under EU command, that would clearly be political suicide for the UK government to suggest. So there's nothing significant for us to offer there - certainly nothing to persuade the French or German politicians to vote for it.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: All a bit unnecessary?

            The rules that the UK helped write say that PRS is only available to EU members, so any work on PRS has to be done in an EU member country. Partner countries can work on Galileo, but not the PRS part of it. The UK insisted on this, to help the UK to win a lot of the PRS-related work.

            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            True, but I have read that the UK was acting as a spear-carrier for the US, and the other purpose of the changes the UK insisted on was to block China from joining Galileo - which the US really didn't like.

        3. Cuddles

          Re: All a bit unnecessary?

          "I rather suspect that the moment a war against an opponent who is even slightly clued up about positioning systems goes hot, that opponent will start doing their very best to both jam the signals."

          It probably depends on whether said opponent is also trying to use the same systems.

          "I am however surprised that the EU is not more mercenary in its approach. The UK cannot get automatic access as a member state, but pay-for access given a set of conditions such as partial upholding of EU military goals and not attacking EU allies could surely be arranged."

          Unfortunately it's not the EU's approach that is the problem. Several non-EU countries have already negotiated such access. The key word there being "negotiated". As with so much of the nonsense surrounding Brexit, the problem is not actually inherent to Brexit itself, but has been caused by those at the top basically refusing to acknowledge that anyone could ever have a different opinion from them. If they'd started off with "Technically we'll lose access once we're no longer in the EU, what would it take to come to a deal similar to Israel/Norway/Switzerland/Ukraine/China*/etc.?", it would most likely all be sorted by now. But for some reason just stating "We want this, give it to us now." hasn't had quit the same result. Especially since when the EU replied with a simple "Nope", everyone has apparently been at a complete loss what to do next other than blindly repeat the same demand over and over again.

          * China dropped out fairly early on to do their own system, but it should say something that even they were able to get a deal as a Galileo partner despite all the worries about Chinese companies being security risks.

          1. Phil O'Sophical Silver badge

            Re: All a bit unnecessary?

            If they'd started off with "Technically we'll lose access once we're no longer in the EU, what would it take to come to a deal similar to Israel/Norway/Switzerland/Ukraine/China*/etc.?", it would most likely all be sorted by now.

            That presupposes that the EU wants it sorted, but there is nothing to suggest it does. No matter what the UK asked for, the response would have been "Nope". The EU believes that it has to make an example of the UK to prevent anyone else trying a *exit in the future. The UK cannot be allowed to win from Brexit, so fair negotiations are not on the table.

            1. Smirnov

              Re: All a bit unnecessary?

              "The UK cannot be allowed to win from Brexit, so fair negotiations are not on the table."

              The thing is that this aren't negotiations.

              This isn't like a business deal where both sides try to squeeze out as much as possible, the UK decided to leave so it's up to the UK to declare how it plans to do that, including the Irish border, and what it future status it seeks (mind you that this can't involve talks about trade deals). Simple as that. The EU may offer a little help here and there but from side of the EU there isn't really anything to negotiate, which is why their position has not shifted from day one.

              If only Brits, and especially Britain's government, weren't so utterly clueless about how the EU works, BREXIT wouldn't turn out to be such a drama.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: All a bit unnecessary?

                The thing is that this aren't negotiations.

                Oh they are, EU negotiations:

                "These are our negotiations, so you will negotiate the way we tell you. If you don't, we will make you negotiate again until you get it right."

                1. Lars Silver badge
                  Happy

                  Re: All a bit unnecessary?

                  "These are our negotiations". Well you intend to leave the EU, the EU is not kicking you out. And now you are negotiation on you future relations with the EU. How hard is it to understand that the EU will decide what is possible and what is not for the EU.

                  Britain seemed to be proud of being able to opt out of Galileo to later opt in (proudly!), and now some Brits seem to be upset because they cannot opt in to Galileo just like that when first opting out of the EU.

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: All a bit unnecessary?

        As I understand it, the issue is specifically Military usage of Galileo. Specifically that they won't have the ability to make encrypted queries to the satellites (so could be tracked) and they won't have access to the more accurate data which is only opened up to the military (for things like drone strikes)

        --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Reality check!

        Is not the civilian Galileo signal accurate to 1 meter?

        Find me an attack drone that needs - and can use - a higher accuracy to any useful effect.

    2. Frenchie Lad

      Re: All a bit unnecessary?

      Goodnes Gracious, I think you meant Bangalore!

    3. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

      Re: All a bit unnecessary? / booklet

      The booklet would be a truly British solution.

      Probably including having it printed in France, like the blue passports.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    UK has the resources

    UK has several options, not necessarily satellite based only. For instance eLoran has been discussed and can in many ways be far more resilient than satnav where all systems (GPS, Glonass, Galileo, Beidou, QZSS etc.) all use the same bands while eLoran is on a very different band.

    Also a UK only system can be based on 3 x 3 satellites in Molnya orbits, reusing Japanese QZSS tech. Reusing tried technologies with few satellites would be a lot cheaper than Galileo will be.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon