Navigation Warfare – Maintaining PNT in a Contested EM Environment

By Andrew White

PREPARING FOR THE “Day Without Space” – when satellites are denied the ability to enable long-haul communications, precision navigation, ISR and missile warning – is nothing new for military forces. Among these functions, however, Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) delivered through space platforms has become the most important for western military forces’ day-to-day operations.

The Russo-Ukrainian War, where both sides depend on PNT operations and jam each other’s PNT signals, serves to remind western armed forces that Navigation Warfare (NAVWAR) is here and affecting military operations across air, land and sea domains. Whether it’s an aircraft conducting a precision strike mission against ground targets, a fires network coordinating self-propelled howitzers using “shoot and scoot” tactics, or surface vessels navigating at sea, the capability to benefit from accurate PNT information remains an overriding consideration for armed forces to address.

According to Chris Shaw, CEO and co-founder of Sydney-based company Advanced Navigation, discussions in the West concerning NAVWAR have traditionally been focused on purely defensive mechanisms to protect against the jamming, spoofing and disruption of GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) signals, which include the US Government’s Global Positioning System (GPS), Russia’s Global’naya Navigatsionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema (GLONASS), the European Space Agency’s Galileo and the People’s Republic of China’s BeiDou system. However, Shaw suggested the market is now witnessing a broader engagement across industry and government on both the protective and strategic dimensions of NAVWAR. “This is guided by a commitment to operational responsibility and national security. The topic of NAVWAR is gaining increased attention, driven by the rise of GPS jamming and spoofing incidents in modern conflict zones. As the threat landscape evolves, there is a growing focus on developing sovereign, secure, and adaptable navigation architectures that reduce reliance on vulnerable signals and support operational resilience,” he explained.

Describing how PNT sits at the “core” of NAVWAR, Shaw warned, “In modern operations – on land, at sea, in the air, or in space – PNT enables everything from mission planning and targeting to communications, logistics, and system synchronization. When disrupted, entire operational capabilities are at risk.”

According to Ryan Arrington, Vice President, Navigation and Cockpit Systems at Northrop Grumman Corporation, threats facing armed forces’ ability to precisely navigate through contested battlespaces is growing more intense. “To stay ahead of these adversarial signal jamming threats, Northrop Grumman has been developing advanced navigation systems to protect our armed forces against sophisticated attempts to deny GPS signals or corrupt and spoof navigation data,” he said. “The threats that NAVWAR presents are multifaceted and really require comprehensive countermeasures across all domains to safeguard reliable and robust PNT that is essential for military operations. Some examples include, but are not limited to GPS jamming and spoofing across all domains where adversarial forces attempt to deny GPS signal data or compromise navigation signals to cause misdirection and confusion. GPS satellite signal jamming and cyberattacks are also causes for concern, being that GPS signal navigation relies on transmitting data from satellites,” he suggested. “With the essence of NAVWAR being the deliberate disruption or manipulation of PNT information – particularly those relying on GPS – through coordinated use of electronic warfare, space and cyber operations, customers are choosing to rely on our resilient, military code (M-code) capable navigators, as well as our state-of-the-art precision inertial gyros and accelerometers to stay ahead of threats and meet their needs to ensure successful missions and safe returns.”

NAVWAR’s Emerging Threat Landscape

According to a company spokesperson at Elbit Systems in Israel, who was unable to be named due to operational security concerns, GNSS including GPS remain the most widespread navigation capability used around the world today. But the spokesperson went onto describe emerging demand signals from armed force for more layered and hybrid system of systems approaches, designed to offer increasing levels in reliability of PNT in the face of EW threats across the battlespace. “Customers are now using both [GPS and Inertial Navigation Systems or INS] and hybrid solutions have become very common to cope with different types of interference,” the spokesperson explained. “Red [opposing] forces are also using different capabilities and different constellations and different receivers. We are also witnessing the use of adaptive steering to cope with jamming. It’s kind of a race with advanced algorithms inside a navigation system to understand if there is interference and how to cope with jammer. Is it a multi-directional jammer or several jammers? And how useful is artificial intelligence to understand whether a signal is real or not?” the spokesperson questioned.

According to Elbit, contemporary NAVWAR is very much focused on both defensive and offensive applications designed to not only protect a platform’s PNT receiver but also to disrupt opposing force platforms across the battlespace.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in Ukraine where both sides are using NAVWAR technology, as well as tactics, techniques and procedures, to facilitate and defend against drone attacks.

Elbit’s spokesperson highlighted the proliferation of uncrewed ground, air and surface platforms in the ongoing war in Ukraine and suggested NAVWAR capabilities could be used just as effectively as kinetic effects to deter and disrupt threats – but in a more cost effective manner. “The use [of uncrewed systems] has become very widespread and changed modern warfare. But if you intercept every threat with a kinetic capability, the cost of war can become very high,” he suggested.

Referencing Ukraine’s “Seababy” uncrewed surface vessel (USV) – a low silhouette craft carrying a 300-kg explosive charge and controlled by line-of-sight or satellite communications – which was also credited with successfully shooting down a Russian Mi-8 helicopter with an anti-aircraft missile in December 2024, Elbit’s spokesperson said, “[The USV is] a threat. But for an EW [electronic warfare] system, it’s an opportunity because of the fact that it relies upon different radio frequencies means you can detect and disrupt the signal in time [to avoid a successful attack]. These kinds of vessels need to be very precise. But because they have GPS receivers on board, they can be disrupted, so they offer opportunity for integrated EW capabilities,” the spokesperson added.

According to Mikael Brouillet, Business Development Manager for Navigation and Systems at French company Thales, PNT remains an essential capability in terms of achieving strategic and operational levels of effectiveness. “PNT accuracy enables our armed forces to execute precise maneuvers, enable precision targeting and coordinate operations effectively,” he said. “It’s also crucial for maintaining situational awareness in the battlespace, presenting real-time positions of all forces for planning, and for leaders in the field to make critical decisions.”

Brouillet described how vulnerability of GPS first became overtly apparent to armed forces during Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014. “The military started to understand their weakness about relying too much on GNSS, but at this stage, they were only considering there might be some mission types where GPS might not be available. Today, we don’t need to educate people anymore. It’s a reality that one day, you will not have [access to] GPS or GNSS, so you have to prepare to fight without this. If you have it, use it, but be careful before using it. So things have totally changed,” he proclaimed.

Referencing the war in Ukraine, Brouillet described the “massive usage” of commercial drones, which rely on GNSS signals for PNT. “So the first thing that prevents a drone attack is a GPS jammer, and the awareness of everybody for that has been a revelation. We no longer need to educate the military community. They know that they are vulnerable when they are relying only on GNSS,” he added, before warning that every platform across a multi-domain battlespace could be affected by GPS jammers. “Collaborative combat relies on two pillars: communications and positioning,” he said. “So if you don’t know where you are, it’s less collaborative. So every application is impacted by electronic warfare. And this is a game changer that has been shown in Ukraine.”

Also discussing lessons learned from the ongoing war in Ukraine, Advanced Navigation’s Shaw described how he had attended the “BRAVE1” defense forum in Ukraine in February, where he met customers and participated in technology discussions exploring how autonomy and robotics are reshaping the battlefield. “Unlike traditional procurement cycles that take years,” he explained, “Ukrainian forces are accelerating advancements with real-time, battlefield feedback and demanding software updates every three months to stay ahead. This rapid iteration is pushing the boundaries of autonomy and navigation in EW conditions, drone swarms and integrated defense systems – all at an unprecedented pace. The companies leading this charge aren’t just keeping up, they are shaping the global playbook.”

He continued: “NAVWAR threats today span all domains across land, air, sea, and space, reflecting an increasingly complex and contested electromagnetic spectrum environment. These include GPS jamming and deception, cyber attacks, anti-access or area denial systems that challenge the armed forces’ freedom of maneuver, among others. However, these threats can be compounded if armed forces aren’t quick enough to integrate and adapt to new technologies. While adversaries have demonstrated agility in deploying novel EW tools, many military organizations face institutional, cultural and logistical hurdles in rapidly fielding and integrating next-generation [PNT] capabilities. This gap can leave them exposed to increasingly dynamic and adaptive adversaries who understand the importance of speed and flexibility in NAVWAR. To address this, armed forces must invest in more agile acquisition and development processes, as well as in continuous operator training and innovation pipelines to ensure they can maintain an edge in the electromagnetic battlespace.”

Seeking New Solutions

Echoing Elbit System’s suggestion for a more layered approach to NAVWAR, Thales also offers armed forces a system-of-systems approach to protecting platforms on land, in the air and at sea. “There are several ways to ensure that you have a continuity of the [PNT] signal,” Brouillet suggested before highlighting the company’s inventory of inertial navigation systems, multi-mode GNSS and controlled reception pattern (CRP) or multi-jamming antennas.

“CRP is a smart antenna which will suppress the effect of a jammer and allow a platform to continue to receive the GPS signal,” he explained. “For example, you have a ratio of 1:100 which means you can gain 100 km for the signal. So this is the first thing to use. But at a certain point in time, if you have too many jammers or a powerful jammer, it will not be able to receive the signal. So in this case, you need to develop alternative navigation systems which are not based on GPS,” Brouillet said, before citing 5G communications as an example. “In a conflict, it will be more complex to rely on ‘signals of opportunity.’ But you can use either LEO [Low Earth Orbit] or MEO [Medium Earth Orbit] constellations. But again, it’s a radio signal, so that means it can be vulnerable to jamming.”

Brouillet went on to describe alternative approaches to PNT. “The other thing is to use is an inertial navigation system [INS], where the system doesn’t rely on any external means. It just physically measures the displacement of the platform so it cannot be jammed or attacked. INS measures the physical displacement of the platform, and I would say is now probably one of the safest solutions for navigation, certainly when it comes to countering EW.” But, he warned, “There is no perfect system. No technology is perfect. So it will be a combination of different data from different sources that you can use from time to time, depending upon what you’re doing, and depending on what you want to do. For example, if you want to use drones, weight will be an issue, so you can’t use very accurate [and large] INS. So you need to use an alternative. It’s always a trade-off between availability, cost and accuracy.”

According to Northrop Grumman, the role of inertial navigation solutions enable navigation which is “highly resistant” to signal jamming. “It also serves an independent check on GPS,” Arrington claimed. “A good example of this within our portfolio is the LR-500 Quad Mass Gyro (QMG) inertial measurement unit (IMU) – a smaller IMU [0.35 lb, 6.3 cubic inches and consuming 2.5W] that brings the benefits of inertial navigation to more platforms and uses. It also offers some of the inertial navigation features of EGI-M (see below) that provide more protections to GPS.”

Arrignton continued: “In addition, Northrop Grumman continues upgrading several PNT systems with M-code capabilities, such as our LN-251M, the first airborne navigation system for the US Navy. M-code offers a more robust and jam-resistant navigation signal that’s highly secure and designed to provide enhanced PNT capabilities for military operations. It features advanced encryption with more reliable and accurate data for military users, compared to the standard civilian GPS signals,” he said.

“Our next generation PNT system is already being flight tested by the US Air Force and SOCOM,” he said. “The LN-351 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System – Modernized (EGI-M) is an advanced navigation system that integrates both GPS and inertial technologies, providing pilots their choice of reliable, accurate PNT data, depending on the threat environments they may face. EGI-M overcomes threats that other navigation systems can’t,” Arrington said. “It is designed to maintain operational capabilities, even in air spaces where GPS signals are jammed, compromised or denied – ensuring uninterrupted, real-time PNT data processing for critical missions. Furthermore, EGI-M’s modular architecture allows for rapid multi-sensor integration to address evolving threats,” he added, before describing how Northrop Grumman also plans to introduce a software-defined M-code GPS receiver capable of being rapidly updated to address new threats as they arrive.

Advanced Navigation remains exclusively focused on defensive applications within NAVWAR. “In today’s contested operating environments, the priority is ensuring uninterrupted access to trusted PNT data despite the growing threats of jamming, spoofing, and system denial. We deliver resilient, sovereign navigation technologies that safeguard mission continuity and enable assured operations when traditional systems like GPS are compromised,” Shaw stated. “True navigation resilience requires more than just GPS. That’s why [we have] developed and demonstrated a hybrid navigation system that fuses inertial navigation with laser-based velocity measurements, delivering superior performance in GPS-denied and contested environments.”

Built upon a layered inertial architecture and powered by intelligent software and a modular, multi-sensor approach, Advanced Navigation’s solution is designed to maintain trusted PNT in the most complex domains regardless of signal disruption, Shaw claimed. “Navigation capabilities must outpace evolving threats. To maintain reliable positioning across contested and dynamic environments, defense forces must adopt software-defined systems that enable rapid updates without hardware redesign. This approach delivers mission-specific adaptability, precision, and resilience – critical for autonomy, situational awareness, and operational success,” he continued before highlighting possible applications on board UAS, armored and tactical vehicles, radar and counter-UAS systems, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platforms and even autonomous underwater vehicles.

Predicting the Market

Considering the future of NAVWAR, Elbit’s spokesperson described how primary and alternative PNT solutions should continue to be reduced in terms of size, weight and power (SWAP), as well as cost. “Low SWAP [parametrics] will enable them to integrate on board missiles or bombs or a jet aircraft. Payloads should be very sophisticated, with different algorithms designed to cope with different threats and optimize artificial intelligence for next-generation capabilities,” the Elbit official urged.

According to Thales’ Brouillet, the NAVWAR market will continue to witness a trend towards alternative navigation solutions, including LEO and MEO satellite constellations in addition to developments in visual-based navigation, although he stressed this latter capability could be adversely affected by obscurants on the battlefield.

But Brouillet also offered that INS technologies would benefit from significant “breakthroughs” in terms of quantum navigation, although he did concede this would not take effect for at least a decade or two. “[Quantum navigation] is very accurate. So that means in terms of navigation, there will be more combinations of different sources and more data fusion between different sensors and sources. But there will always be a trade off. This is how we see the future,” he said.

Elsewhere, Northrop Grumman’s Arrington suggested the next decade would likely witness a “blend of navigation warfare strategies incorporating cutting-edge technologies, enhanced international cooperation, and a focus on ensuring the resilience and robustness of PNT systems in contested environments. As adversaries evolve their [NAVWAR] tactics, so too will our measures to counter and mitigate these threats, ensuring that US armed forces maintain navigational superiority. As more advanced jamming and spoofing techniques are deployed by enemy forces, including the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning to create more effective interference strategies, our mission is to develop alternative PNT systems covering air, land, sea, space and cyber that always stay a step ahead in shielding against signal-hacking and spoofing threats as well as other intrusions.”

Arrington also highlighted the company’s focus on certain “emerging fields” of technology, including quantum navigation, as well as hypersonic technologies. In May, Northrop Grumman announced the successful completion of two flight tests of its Advanced Hypersonic Technology (AHT) Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU). The company was unable to comment on the location of the tests, but a company statement confirmed Stratolaunch’s reusable hypersonic Talon-A airplane, was used to carry the hemispherical resonator gyroscope. A company statement described flight tests as a “major accomplishment due to the harsh environment hypersonic speed presents and the intense forces experienced as the technology operates within Earth’s atmospheric boundary.”

Arrington added: “On recent flight tests, our AHT IMU performed successfully at hypersonic speeds. The intense forces experienced in these types of tests magnify the types of future, challenging environments that will raise the bar on PNT expectations. Furthermore, we are making advancements in quantum sensing technology to deliver world-class, next-generation navigation tools. Quantum will significantly enhance sensors’ ability to locate, synchronize and detect, helping our customers precisely determine where they are, get to where they are going or locate signal sources of interest.”

Finally, Advanced Navigation’s Shaw warned industry must continue to develop navigation capabilities as threats associated with NAVWAR continue to evolve. “Strengthening the resilience of our PNT infrastructure is not just a technical necessity – it’s a strategic imperative. Traditionally, defense forces face challenges when it comes to integrating new technologies. The factors range from contractual obligations and strict export controls to integration challenges and hesitancy to move on from legacy systems. As EW and political uncertainties continue to unfold, it calls for a more aggressive and strategic approach to multinational collaboration among global armed forces. This means building a cross-border ecosystem centered around receptiveness to innovation and interchangeability where systems and components from different allied countries and their manufacturers can be seamlessly integrated,” he explained. “As military operations grow increasingly complex and span multiple frontiers across land, air, sea and space, the need for Alternative PNT technology is imperative for ensuring mission success. The time to build resilience is now.”