• English Site
• > Europe
• > Galileo

Galileo's Fate

Will Military Interest Save Europe's Beleagured Navigation System?

By Manfred Dworschak

Part 2: A Typically European Compromise

But the bulk of the civilian demand can probably be met with the existing GPS navigation system, although perhaps not with quite the same level of precision. But that too will change. The EU itself has contracted out the construction of a network of 37 ground stations, known as Egnos, which will improve conventional GPS navigation using corrective signals. Egnos is nearing completion and is expected to begin operations next year. When the system is up and running, the accuracy of GPS will increase to one meter (accuracy is currently about 15 meters). This leaves little room for improvement.

Under these circumstances, no one was surprised when Galileo stalled in mid-May. The establishment of the consortium of operators was already a typically European compromise. The EU Commission suddenly decided to bring together the two multinational conglomerates that were vying for the business, a miracle brought about by political pressure from key member states. Suddenly dozens of companies found themselves forced to work together in a consortium, including arms manufacturers EADS and Thales, as well as T-Systems, a subsidiary of German telecommunications giant Deutsche Telekom. It wasn't until later that the EU bureaucrats realized that they would soon be dealing with a self-created monopoly.

National interests also came into play, and proved to be an obstacle. When a dispute erupted over the location of the control center, the solution was to pick three: one near Munich, one in Italy and one in Spain.

The Galileo project made little headway for years. In the end, the consortium argued with the EU Commission over liability issues. If there had been even the slightest prospect of fat profits, such disagreements would likely have been easier to overcome.

Military Interest Could Help Pay for Galileo

In mid-May, Transport Commissioner Barrot was forced to declare the marriage of convenience between politics and business a failure. The EU Commission now plans to assume full control over the construction of Galileo. Selected companies will only become involved as operations are gradually transferred to them.

The EU transport ministers are meeting this Thursday to negotiate where the project goes from here. It is seen as likely that the European Space Agency (ESA) will assume the leading role at Galileo. It could subcontract the necessary technology and supervise the development of the infrastructure.

The satellites themselves are not that difficult to produce. The Swiss clocks require the most sophistication, because they are required to set the time signal at an unimaginable degree of precision. The devices lose no more than one second every three million years.

European taxpayers will now have to provide the necessary funding. The EU Commission predicts a price tag of €10 billion between now and 2030. This is such a significant sum that tapping into defense budgets suddenly becomes an option.

The military itself has kept a low profile. Officials say that the Bundeswehr is satisfied the GPS system, which it shares with the United States under the auspices of NATO. Nevertheless, the German defense ministry has not ruled out the possibility of using Galileo for military purposes. "We will look into it," says a spokesman, "as soon as the underlying conditions for Galileo have been clarified."

From a military standpoint, one can never have enough satellites. A combination of Galileo and GPS would provide the best navigation, opening up all sorts of new options for waging war. In an extensive analysis, US military consultants James Hasik and Michael Rip conclude that improved navigation can offer decisive advantages, especially in urban areas. GPS alone is not particularly accurate in cities. During the Iraq war, soldiers often complained about breakdowns. The navigation signal was easily lost in the narrow streets of Iraqi cities, a problem caused by the navigation technology itself, which requires an undistorted connection to at least four satellites. But in a dense urban environment, the walls of buildings often get in the way of signals.

Thirty GPS satellites currently orbit the earth. If the 30 satellites planned for Galileo are added, walls would hardly present a problem anymore. "We now get a reliable GPS signal in only about half of the space in urban areas," says Hasik. "Coverage would increase to 95 percent with Galileo."

Navigation would also become more precise. As a result, urban combat -- which is gruelling and often associated with high casualties -- could lose some of its horror. Air support is currently difficult: Because GPS is too imprecise, pilots are forced to fly within visual range, putting themselves in danger. And dense cloud cover makes such operations altogether impossible. Galileo, on the other hand, would allow for targeted air strikes from far away and in any kind of weather, says Hasik. The strikes could be so precise that, ideally, there would be no collateral damage to one's own troops or to civilians.

Many dangerous tasks could also be transferred to machines. Hasik and Rip envision, for example, unmanned trucks providing supplies to troops on the battlefield. Galileo would make it possible to guide the trucks precisely enough so that they would be virtually guaranteed to reach their destinations.

Precise guidance signals can also be used with all kinds of robots. The US Army is currently testing 55 small drones made by Honeywell. The tiny, agile aircraft are small enough to fit into a backpack. When needed, soldiers would dispatch the drones up into the air on reconnaissance flights. The drones could then determine objects hidden behind hills or in buildings. The precise navigation data Galileo would provide would even allow the drones to fly towards a suspicious window in a multistory building.

All of this makes it seem all the more puzzling to Hasik that Galileo was so vehemently sold as purely civilian technology in Europe. "If you build a lighthouse, you can hardly claim that it's only good for commercial ships," says Hasik. "Naturally navigation systems are good for both."