HR 4344 Introduced – Resilient PNT Demonstration
Back in July Rep Mullin (D,CA) introduced HR 4344, the Resilient Low Earth Orbit Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (Resilient LEO PNT) Act. The bill would require the Department of the Air Force (DAF) to “carry out a capability demonstration project, to be known as the “Commercial Low Earth Orbit Resilient Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Capability Demonstration””. The “Pathfinder Program” would be conducted subject to the availability of appropriations, effectively passing the spending authorization requirement to the appropriations committees.
I can find no bills in the 118th Congress that look to be similar to HR 4344. ‘Positioning, navigation and timing’ topics are of interest here because of the use of the ‘timing’ feature in these systems by a number of SCADA systems to coordinate operations at disparate locations.
Definitions
Subsection 2(g) provides the definitions of three key terms used in this bill. Two of the definitions are of interest here:
Covered service provider (CSP), and
The first definition includes the requirement that the CSP “[currently?] provides low earth orbit positioning, navigation, and timing services”. While not referenced in this bill, there is an interesting May 2025 letter from the NTIA to the FCC discussing the issue of current PNT providers, that provides (in Appendix A) a current list of such providers that includes an annotation of those providing ‘Space-based PNT’.
Path Finder Program
Section 2 of the bill outlines the requirements for the proposed ‘Path Finder’ program. It would require DAF to develop a list of potential CSP that can carry out a capability demonstration project, and to seek to award a contract to at least one such covered service provider.
That project would be required to demonstrate a satellite system that has:
The ability to operate in the absence of Global Positioning System services,
Compatibility with user equipment that uses the civilian Global Positioning System L1 or L5 services without performing hardware modifications of receiver equipment,
Greater resistance to jamming and spoofing threats compared to existing Global Positioning System services, to an extent determined by the Secretary,
The ability to provide timing accuracy of less than 10 nanoseconds and position accuracy of less than 30 centimeters for stationary and mobile users, and
The ability to restore service if some or all satellites in the satellite system are disabled, in a cadence as that substantially decreases the time to service restoration compared to what is possible under existing Global Positioning System service.
After a successful capability demonstration project, the DAF would be required to award a follow-on production contract “to at least one covered service provider that carried out such successful capability demonstration project for the purpose of achieving operational deployment”.
Moving Forward
While Mullan is not a member of the House Armed Services Committee to which this bill was assigned for consideration, one of this two cosponsors, Rep Wittman (R,VA) is a member. This means that there may be sufficient influence to see this bill considered in committee. Lacking any specific funding authorization, I see nothing in this bill that would engender any organized opposition. Having said that, I also suspect that there could still be some resistance to supporting a bill that would potentially cost an unspecified, but significant, amount of money. Still, I would suspect that there would be some level of bipartisan support for this bill were it to be considered.
Commentary
The ability to ‘restore service’ in a timely manner is going to be an increasing requirement for DOD satellite services. This means that the vendor is going to need to demonstrate the capability to launch replacement satellites on a near demand basis. Depending on the size and weight of the satellite, there are an increasing number of launch providers that could provide relatively quick response launch capabilities. This also means that the PNT service provider is probably going to have to have some number of satellites on hand, available to launch and activate when needed.
Interestingly, there is nothing in the requirements in this bill that would address the issue of survivability of the PNT satellites. With the increasing military reliance on GPS navigation and timing, it is becoming increasingly apparent that US forces need a resilient PNT network. While a launch on need capability is an important part of that resilience, potentially cheaper method of achieving resiliency it to make the satellite more resistant to attacks and incidental damage from space debris (a worsening problem in increasingly congested orbitals). The bill partially addresses that in §2(c)(3) in it referral to ‘jamming and spoofing threats’, but it does not address the space junk issue. I would suggest rewording that paragraph to read:
“(3) greater resistance to jamming and spoofing threats, as well as resistance to operational damage from orbital debris, compared to existing Global Positioning System services, to an extent determined by the Secretary;”