Contested Spectrum: When Cellular and GPS Aren't Available

The Ukrainian military reported losing GPS guidance on 90% of their precision munitions during certain operations in 2023. Not occasionally. Not in specific high-threat areas. Ninety percent.

This isn’t a technical glitch or equipment failure. It’s the new reality of peer-to-peer conflict, where adversaries treat spectrum dominance as a prerequisite for military operations, not an afterthought. And while most coverage focuses on weapons guidance, the logistics implications are far more pervasive and far less discussed.

Consider a standard logistics convoy approaching a contested river crossing. At 0847, the lead vehicle’s GPS receiver shows the route ahead. At 0848, every navigation system in the convoy displays conflicting positions, some showing vehicles kilometers from their actual location. Simultaneously, cellular and satellite communications drop. The convoy commander has no position data, no contact with command, and no way to coordinate with air cover or adjacent units.

This scenario isn’t hypothetical. It’s the expected operating environment in any conflict with a near-peer adversary. Modern military logistics has spent three decades optimizing for efficiency using GPS and cellular/satellite connectivity. That optimization created dependencies adversaries have studied, mapped, and prepared to exploit from day one.

The Spectrum Battlefield

Electronic warfare capabilities have proliferated faster than most defense planners anticipated. Equipment that once required state-level resources now fits in a vehicle-mounted system or even a backpack. Jamming and spoofing technology has become both more accessible and more sophisticated, creating a layered threat environment that degrades navigation and communications across multiple frequency bands simultaneously.

The conflict in Ukraine has provided unprecedented open-source visibility into how these capabilities function operationally. Russian forces have deployed GPS jamming systems that create denial zones extending dozens of kilometers from the front lines. Ukrainian forces have responded with their own electronic warfare capabilities, creating contested spectrum environments where neither side can rely on satellite-based navigation or communications.

What’s particularly concerning for logistics planners is the systematic nature of these operations. This isn’t opportunistic jamming during specific engagements; it’s persistent spectrum denial as a baseline operational condition. Adversary doctrine treats the electromagnetic spectrum as terrain to be controlled, not a resource to be shared.

The implications extend beyond the immediate conflict. Every potential adversary with peer or near-peer capabilities has observed these operations, learned from them, and incorporated the lessons into their own planning. GPS denial and communications disruption are now assumed conditions for operational planning, not edge cases requiring special consideration.

GPS and Satellite Communications: Related but Different Vulnerabilities

One of the most persistent gaps in planning discussions is conflating GPS with broader satellite communications. They’re related (both involve signals from space) but their vulnerabilities and solutions differ significantly.

GPS is a one-way system. Satellites broadcast navigation signals; receivers listen and calculate position. These signals are remarkably weak by the time they reach Earth’s surface, roughly equivalent to a 25-watt light bulb viewed from 10,000 miles away. This makes GPS signals trivially easy to jam with relatively low-power equipment. Spoofing (broadcasting false GPS signals to mislead receivers) requires more sophistication but remains well within adversary capabilities.

Satellite communications, by contrast, involve two-way links. Ground equipment both receives and transmits, typically at much higher power levels. Different constellations use different frequencies, orbital configurations, and architectures. Some systems are more resilient than others: low Earth orbit (LEO) constellations with thousands of satellites present a harder target than a handful of geosynchronous birds. Higher frequencies can be harder to jam but more susceptible to weather interference.

Why does this distinction matter? Because adversaries typically target multiple spectrum bands simultaneously, both GPS and satcom often fail together in contested environments. But the solutions differ fundamentally. GPS alternatives focus on deriving position without satellite signals. Communications alternatives focus on maintaining connectivity through different paths, frequencies, or architectures.

Planning that treats “satellite systems” as a single vulnerability category will misallocate resources and leave gaps in resilience architectures.

Beyond the Grid

Expeditionary and remote deployment scenarios already operate with degraded connectivity. Logistics in austere environments, whether Pacific islands, Arctic regions, or African infrastructure gaps, can’t assume terrestrial cellular coverage exists. These operations have developed workarounds: satellite-based tracking, pre-positioned supplies, greater unit autonomy.

Contested environments compound these challenges exponentially. The workarounds themselves become targets. Satellite uplinks reveal positions. Pre-positioned supplies become objectives for adversary interdiction. Unit autonomy without communications creates coordination failures and fratricide risks.

Consider the specific logistics functions at risk:

Resupply coordination requires knowing where units are, what they need, and when they need it. Without navigation, units can’t report accurate positions. Without communications, they can’t report at all.

Asset tracking in GPS-denied navigation environments means losing visibility on vehicles, equipment, and supplies the moment they enter contested areas. The supply chain becomes opaque precisely when visibility matters most.

Casualty evacuation depends on accurate position reporting and real-time coordination with medical assets. Degraded spectrum conditions directly translate to delayed evacuation and preventable deaths.

Command and control across dispersed units requires communications that contested spectrum specifically targets.

The gap between exercise conditions and actual operational environments has never been wider. Most training occurs with full spectrum access or brief, scripted denial periods. Actual contested logistics may face persistent denial for days or weeks.

The Homeland Dimension

This isn’t exclusively a deployed-forces problem. Domestic critical infrastructure shares many of the same spectrum dependencies, creating vulnerabilities that extend well beyond military operations.

GPS timing signals, not navigation but precise timing, underpin systems most people never associate with satellites. Power grids use GPS timing for synchronization. Financial systems timestamp transactions with GPS-derived time. Telecommunications networks coordinate handoffs and backhaul using GPS clocks. A Congressional Research Service report noted that GPS disruption could cascade across multiple critical infrastructure sectors within hours.

Cellular networks present their own concentration risks. A handful of switching centers handle traffic for entire regions. Physical or cyber attacks on these nodes could create communications blackouts affecting millions.

Military logistics supporting homeland defense or disaster response operates within this same fragile infrastructure. A major earthquake, solar storm, or adversary action that degrades GPS and cellular nationally would leave domestic logistics operations facing the same denied-environment challenges as expeditionary forces, but without the specialized equipment or training to adapt.

Emerging Approaches to Spectrum Resilience

Alternative approaches to GPS-denied navigation and communications disruption exist across multiple technology categories, each with distinct tradeoffs.

Inertial navigation systems use accelerometers and gyroscopes to track movement from a known starting point. They’re completely self-contained and unjammable; no external signals required. The limitation is drift: small measurement errors accumulate over time, degrading accuracy. High-quality inertial systems minimize drift but can’t eliminate it entirely. They work best paired with other systems that periodically correct accumulated errors.

Mesh networking creates decentralized communications where each node can relay traffic for others. If one node goes down, traffic routes around it. These networks are resilient to node loss but require sufficient density. Too few nodes and the mesh fragments. They also typically operate at shorter ranges than satellite systems, limiting utility for widely dispersed operations.

LEO satellite constellations offer lower latency and greater resilience than traditional geosynchronous systems. Thousands of satellites in low orbits create redundancy and make comprehensive jamming more difficult. They still involve space-based infrastructure with associated vulnerabilities and dependencies.

Terrestrial alternatives like eLoran (enhanced long-range navigation) use powerful ground-based transmitters that are far harder to jam than GPS. Coverage is limited to areas with transmitter infrastructure, but the technology is proven and mature for regions where it’s available.

The critical insight: no single solution replaces GPS and cellular entirely. Spectrum resilience requires layered architectures combining multiple approaches, so degradation of one system doesn’t create complete capability loss.

Building Resilience Into Requirements

Technical realities translate into specific planning considerations for logistics planners and procurement officers.

Assume degraded conditions for all contested scenarios. Systems and procedures designed for full connectivity will fail when spectrum is denied. Start planning from degraded as the baseline, not the exception.

Build redundancy across different technology types, not just backup systems using the same spectrum. A backup GPS receiver provides no resilience against GPS jamming. Diverse approaches, combining inertial systems with mesh networking and terrestrial alternatives, create genuine redundancy.

Train for manual and degraded operations regularly, not as annual checkbox exercises. Units that only practice with full connectivity won’t adapt when that connectivity disappears.

Evaluate supply chain dependencies for navigation and communications equipment itself. If replacement parts require contested shipping lanes or compromised manufacturing sources, resilience planning is incomplete.

The question isn’t whether spectrum will be contested. Ukraine has demonstrated that adversaries consider it a primary domain of conflict. The question is whether logistics operations will maintain effectiveness when primary systems fail, or whether optimization for efficiency will become a vulnerability adversaries exploit from the first moments of conflict.

Hubble Network’s satellite-connected Bluetooth sensors operate independently of cellular and GPS infrastructure. Learn more →