“GNSS interference is now considered a routine operational hazard in many maritime environments.” (Royal Institute of Navigation, 2026)

The issue of GNSS jamming and spoofing is of increasing concern to the maritime industry. Hundreds of vessels of vessels are reported to be exhibiting abnormal AIS behavior consistent with GNSS interference across the Arabian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, with similar reports from the Red Sea and Baltics. Add to which collisions or groundings in 2025 linked directly to GNSS interference, and it’s clear that the risks associated with GNSS denial are growing, and with considerable operational impact.

Ground Control recently hosted a webinar with Andy Proctor (Rethink PNT), VP Royal Institute of Navigation, to discuss some of the deeper impacts of this activity, how it’s affecting maritime operations on a global scale, and what can be done to tackle the increasing risks. Here are our five key takeaways from the session.

1. GNSS disruption is becoming part of normal operations

For many operators, GNSS interference is no longer an exceptional event that only occurs in conflict zones. Reports from UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), the Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC) and the Royal Institute of Navigation (RIN) demonstrate that jamming and spoofing are increasingly encountered in ports, strategic waterways and busy shipping routes. As interference becomes more widespread, voyage planning and bridge operations must account for the possibility that GNSS services may be degraded or unavailable during normal operations.

Preparing for GNSS disruption starts with understanding where interference is most likely to occur and ensuring bridge teams know how to recognize and respond when it does. Independent positioning technologies, such as Alternative Positioning, Navigation and Timing (A-PNT), provide an additional layer of resilience by maintaining an independent position reference when GNSS integrity is compromised.

Check: Do your crews know where GNSS disruption is most likely to occur on their routes?

2. Position data supports far more than navigation

Modern vessels share position and timing information across a wide range of onboard systems. ECDIS, AIS, radar overlays, communications, dynamic positioning, engineering systems and voyage reporting all rely, to varying degrees, on trusted GNSS-derived data. A single interference event therefore has the potential to affect multiple operational functions simultaneously, increasing bridge workload and reducing confidence in decision making.

Understanding these dependencies is becoming an important part of operational resilience. Mapping which systems consume GNSS data helps operators understand where additional verification, procedures or independent positioning capability may be appropriate. An A-PNT solution provides crews with an independent position reference that can be compared against GNSS to identify unexpected divergence before it affects operational decisions.

Check: Have you identified every system on board that depends on GNSS position or timing?

3. Spoofing creates a systemic integrity challenge

Unlike jamming, which generally results in an obvious loss of signal, spoofing introduces false but believable navigation data. Position and timing information may continue to be accepted by onboard systems, allowing inaccurate information to propagate throughout the vessel without immediately alerting the bridge team.

This makes early detection particularly important. Rather than simply identifying the loss of GNSS, resilient navigation increasingly depends on validating the integrity of the information being received.

Check: How would your bridge team recognise a spoofing event?

4. Recovery doesn’t end when the signal returns

Restoring GNSS reception doesn’t necessarily mean every onboard system has returned to a trusted operating state. Position, timing and dependent systems may all require verification before normal operations resume. Bridge teams therefore need clear recovery procedures alongside procedures for recognizing the initial interference event.

The Royal Institute of Navigation highlights that recovery should focus on restoring confidence in the vessel’s operational picture, rather than simply confirming that GNSS signals have returned. Independent position references can support this process by providing an additional source against which crews can validate navigation data during recovery.

Check: What procedures exist for validating system integrity after an interference event?

5. Resilience depends on preparation

Resilient positioning technology provides the foundation for maintaining reliable position and timing when GNSS is disrupted. Its effectiveness is strengthened by well-defined bridge procedures, crew training and a consistent approach to learning from operational incidents.

The webinar highlighted the importance of:

  • Crew awareness and training
  • Clear bridge procedures
  • Reporting and learning from incidents
  • Independent methods of verifying position and timing
  • Understanding system dependencies.

Operational resilience comes from combining dependable technology with people and procedures that are prepared to respond consistently.

Check: What procedures exist for validating system integrity after an interference event?

Actions to strengthen GNSS resilience

✓ Map GNSS dependencies across onboard systems
✓ Train bridge teams to recognize jamming, spoofing and system integrity issues
✓ Review bridge procedures for interference and recovery
✓ Combine resilient positioning technology with clear procedures, crew training and operational safeguards
✓ Test navigation and safety systems under realistic interference scenarios
✓ Capture and share lessons from interference events
✓ Provide crews with practical operational guidance before entering high risk areas
✓ Monitor interference hotspots and incorporate them into voyage planning.

 

To learn more about GNSS resilience and maritime PNT:

Watch: GNSS Spoofing & Jamming at Sea: Risks, Limits and Practical Responses

Hear directly from Andy Proctor, Vice President of the Royal Institute of Navigation, and Oliver Potter, COO at Ground Control, as they explore the operational impacts of GNSS interference, the latest industry research, and practical approaches to improving maritime resilience.

Building Resiliency with A-PNT RockFLEET Assured

If the webinar raises questions about your team’s resilience against GNSS denial and you’d like more information, or a demo of our RockFLEET Assured solution, complete the form and one of our technical team will be in touch.

Name
Privacy Policy

From the Solutions Team

This article was written by Michael Mitrev, Solutions Architect in Ground Control’s pre-sales Solutions team. Michael has been closely involved in the development and testing of the RockREMOTE Mini and RockBLOCK RTU, with a particular focus on data logger integrations. Here, he shares practical implementation guidance, configuration examples and lessons learned from hands-on testing and customer deployments.

If your device can send an email, it can send data over Iridium. No custom protocol, no firmware changes, no serial AT commands. Just point it at the Mini.

Quick Links: NRG SymphoniePRO | Campbell Scientific Loggers | Axis Communications Cameras

 

RockREMOTE Mini SMTP Server

RockREMOTE Mini runs a local SMTP server on its Ethernet interface, accessible at 192.168.250.1 port 25 by default. Any device on the Mini’s local network can connect to it and send a standard SMTP message with a file attachment. That’s it, as far as your device is concerned. The Mini takes care of everything that happens next.

Example screenshot showing an FTP server destination with NRG RLD files and Campbell DAT filesInternally, the Mini compresses the attachment and transmits it as one or more IMT (Iridium Message Transport) messages over the Iridium Certus 100 network to Cloudloop Data. Cloudloop decompresses it and delivers it to your configured destination, which could be an inbox, a webhook, FTP server, an S3 bucket, or any other destination Cloudloop Data supports. Your device never needs to know any of this is happening.

A few key constraints worth knowing upfront:

  • Max attachment size: 165 KB
  • Recipients: one To field, up to two CC fields
  • Authentication: none required (and none currently supported – leave username/password blank) with the exception of NRG Loggers
  • Port: 25 only

The SMTP server must be enabled in the Mini’s user configuration file, and you need an Email Destination set up in Cloudloop Data with your Mini in the relevant device group (select Payload, Plaintext, and Assume Destination from Source).

 

What’s the Point?

Using SMTP isn’t really about sending Email. While it absolutely can be used to send email end-to-end, I don’t really see it as an email feature. I see it as a universal file transport mechanism.

If you’ve worked with SBD or IMT products before, you’ll know that you’re normally just sending the raw data. If that data happens to be a file, it’s then up to your individual applications on both the sending and receiving end to preserve or reconstruct the filename, extension and format, as well as implement whatever message handling, retries and timeouts needed to get it there in the first place.

With the Mini’s SMTP server, we’ve already solved that. Your device simply sends what it thinks is a normal email with an attachment, and at the other end you receive the original file with its filename, extension and format intact.

It’s essentially a one time setup on your side that results in complete files arriving at their destination without having to write any file reconstruction logic – we’ve taken care of that and the internal message handling process for an almost-guaranteed file receipt.

 

Why IMT?

When your attachment lands at the Mini’s SMTP server, it doesn’t go out over IP; it goes out over IMT. That distinction matters for running costs.

IMT is Iridium’s message-based transport protocol. Unlike IP, it carries no per-packet header overhead, and its minimum billable unit is 25 bytes (1 byte increments thereafter) rather than IP’s 1 KB (100 byte increments thereafter). For periodic data delivery – a file every hour, or once a day – this makes a meaningful difference to your airtime bill over a long campaign. The Mini also compresses attachments before sending, which reduces the byte count further.

For most monitoring deployments, SMTP over IMT is the right choice for scheduled data delivery: low cost, reliable, and completely hands off once configured.

 

IP and IMT Simultaneously

The Mini runs IP and IMT at the same time. This is worth emphasising, because it means your scheduled data delivery over IMT doesn’t stop you from also using the IP link for other purposes.

The Mini’s public IP (assigned and managed by Ground Control) can be used with port forwarding rules to provide direct access to any device on the Mini’s local network – your logger, your sensor hub, a web interface. These rules are configured either in the Mini’s user configuration file, pushed over the air via Cloudloop Device Manager, or set up via the RockCONNECT IoT BLE app.

Cloudloop NOC also offers whitelisting of public IP addresses that are allowed to reach your Public IP, it’s a block-all by default.

A typical inbound rule – forwarding connections on a WAN port through to a specific device (NRG Logger in this case) on the LAN:

And if the logger needs to initiate outbound connections to a specific server (NRG’s in this case):

The Mini’s IP link runs at 22 Kbps Transmit and 88 Kbps Receive – more than enough for remote access, configuration changes, and live data viewing. IMT handles the low cost scheduled delivery; IP handles everything interactive. You get both, from the same device, on the same Iridium link and with five or more devices you can benefit from a shared data pool.

Cloudloop Device Manager showing Firewall configuration of a RockREMOTE Mini

NRG SymphoniePRO + iPackACCESS

NRG-Systems-Logo

NRG Systems’ SymphoniePRO is one of the most widely deployed meteorological data loggers in the wind energy industry, used globally for resource assessment and power performance campaigns. It has had SMTP data delivery built in from the start, making it a natural fit for the Mini’s SMTP server.

The iPackACCESS is the communications and power module that attaches to the back of the SymphoniePRO. It provides the logger with an Ethernet interface and handles all outbound communications: SMTP delivery of .RLD data files on a scheduled basis, and MetLink connections for interactive remote access via the SymphoniePRO Desktop Application.

Cloudloop Data showing the message arriving from an NRG Logger

Body is Email delivered via RR-Mini and the attachmentFile is a .RLD NRG logger file

Cloudloop Data destination showing over 10 emails being delivered from NRG logger ranging from 1KB to 130KB in size

Integrating with the RockREMOTE Mini is straightforward:

  1. Connect the iPackACCESS’s Ethernet port to the Mini’s LAN
  2. In SymphoniePRO Desktop Application, assign the iPackACCESS a static IP in the Mini’s subnet (e.g. 192.168.250.90)
  3. Set the SMTP server to 192.168.250.1, port 25
  4. The logger delivers .RLD files to Cloudloop Data on its configured schedule, which can then be accessed via NRG Cloud or pulled directly into SymphoniePRO Desktop Application as normal.

 

For MetLink remote access – live data, configuration changes, manual data pulls – configure an inbound port forwarding rule in the Mini pointing to the iPackACCESS’s LAN IP. If using logger-initiated MetLink, add a corresponding outbound rule allowing the logger to reach your server. Ground Control assigns a static public IP to your Mini; SymphoniePRO Desktop Application connects to that IP on the forwarded port and communicates with the iPackACCESS exactly as if it were going over terrestrial WAN networks.

NRG Systems are trusted partners of Ground Control. They worked closely with us during development of the Mini’s SMTP functionality to ensure it integrates correctly with the SymphoniePRO and iPackACCESS system, so if you’re an NRG customer looking to add Iridium satellite telemetry, they’re fully across this solution and can handle the setup end to end. We’d strongly recommend reaching out to them directly!

Campbell Scientific Loggers

Campbell-Scientific-Logo-Landscape

Campbell loggers – CR1000, CR6, CR300, CR800, CR1000X and others – have had the EmailSend function in CRBasic for many years. It can stream data table records as file attachments on a scheduled basis, over SMTP.

Getting a Campbell logger talking to the Mini requires minimal changes to an existing program: set the SMTP server address to 192.168.250.1:25, and leave the username and password fields as empty strings. Your data tables, scan intervals, and field processing don’t need to change at all – just add the SMTP function and the only prerequisite is to have the logger connected via Ethernet to the RockREMOTE Mini and a static or DHCP IP set in the same subnet.

EmailSend with FileOption 8 produces TOA5-format output: headers, timestamps, and record numbers in the standard Campbell ASCII format, compatible with LoggerNet, PC400, and most downstream tools. The time-window arguments let you stream the last hour of records, the last day, or all records since the last reboot.

For remote access, the same port forwarding approach applies. IP at 88 Kbps Receive and 22 Kbps Transmit is more than comfortable for LoggerNet connections – editing programs, pushing updates, pulling live data or on demand table records.

PC400 Campbell Scientific software connecting to my CR1000 data logger

A CRBasic example is available below – I wrote and applied my entire test SMTP program over the Satellite Network! There’s also a more detailed IMT and IP Campbell-specific walkthrough in our previous post.

A Non-Logger! AXIS Cameras

Axis-Communications

Even though they’re not a logger, AXIS cameras are usually installed next to loggers due security reasons, they also support event-based email delivery with image attachments, which makes integration with the RockREMOTE Mini straightforward. Configure the camera to send images via SMTP to 192.168.250.1:25 with no authentication, and assign it an IP on the Mini’s LAN.

On trigger (motion, schedule, I/O), the camera sends a JPEG image as an email attachment. The Mini receives it, compresses it, and delivers it over IMT to Cloudloop Data, where it is forwarded to your configured destination.

For best results, keep to 1 image per event and avoid high trigger frequency to maintain efficient IMT usage. At the same time, IP can be utilised for live streams if required.

AXIS Cameras RockREMOTE Mini

 

Any Device That Can Send SMTP

The pattern here is simple enough that it applies far beyond branded data loggers. If a device can send a standard SMTP message with a file attachment, it can deliver data over Iridium via the Mini.

That includes Linux systems using mutt or swaks; embedded boards with a TCP/IP stack and an SMTP client library; industrial instruments, PLCs, and weather stations with a built-in email function; or any custom application — a Python script, a shell cron job… Any SMTP client really!

 

Further Reading

 

Discuss Your Integration

Have a specific integration in mind? Our Solutions team works with developers every day to help connect existing equipment over satellite.

If you have a technical question, get in touch via the form, or by emailing hello@groundcontrol.com.

Name
Privacy Policy

For decades, maritime operations have relied on GNSS technologies such as GPS as the foundation of navigation. From ECDIS and AIS to fleet tracking, dynamic positioning, voyage optimization and security monitoring, almost every aspect of a vessel’s operational picture depends on accurate positioning, navigation and timing data. As a result, many operators have come to view GPS as a permanent, dependable utility that simply works in the background.

However, the maritime operating environment is changing. According to the 2026 Royal Institute of Navigation (RIN) Maritime GNSS Interference Report, 75% of mariners surveyed believe GNSS interference is increasing in frequency and severity. The report concluded that jamming, spoofing and other forms of interference now represent a significant safety and security concern for global shipping.

At the same time, the maritime industry is becoming more dependent on positioning data than ever before. Navigation, compliance, fleet management, security operations and digital reporting systems all rely on trusted location information. When GNSS integrity is compromised, the consequences extend far beyond the bridge and affect navigation, AIS, communications, timing systems and fleet monitoring simultaneously.

This growing challenge is driving interest in Assured Positioning, Navigation and Timing (A-PNT) technologies, but it is also creating confusion. What exactly is A-PNT? How does it work? Can it replace GPS? Is it accurate enough? And why are more maritime operators looking at solutions such as RockFLEET Assured powered by Iridium PNT?

To answer those questions, let’s separate fact from fiction.

Myth 1: If GPS shows a position, it must be correct

One of the most dangerous assumptions in modern navigation is that a displayed position is automatically a trusted position. Most maritime operators have experienced temporary GPS outages or degraded signals, but spoofing presents a very different challenge.

Unlike jamming, which often causes signal loss and triggers alarms, spoofing manipulates GNSS signals to convince a receiver that a vessel is somewhere it is not. The vessel’s navigation systems may even continue to display what appears to be a perfectly valid position, complete with plausible course, speed and track information. To the bridge team, everything may appear normal.

This is what makes spoofing particularly concerning. A vessel can be provided with a believable but entirely false navigational picture while vessel operators, bridge crew and shore-side teams remain unaware that anything is wrong. The real challenge is having an independent way to verify that the reported position is genuine and trustworthy.

Myth 2: GNSS interference is only a military problem

There was a time when jamming and spoofing were largely associated with military operations and conflict zones. Today, that assumption no longer reflects reality, with commercial vessels operating in regions such as the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean, Red Sea and Persian Gulf increasingly encountering GNSS disruption. What was once considered an exceptional event is becoming a routine operational risk. Maritime operators are discovering that navigation resilience is not confined to defense but has become a commercial, safety and compliance issue as well.

As shipping becomes increasingly digitalized, the consequences of GNSS disruption extend far beyond the bridge. Fleet management systems, voyage reporting, security monitoring and regulatory compliance processes all depend on accurate positioning data. When that data becomes compromised, the effects can be felt throughout an organization.

Myth 3: The bridge crew would know immediately if GPS was being attacked

Many people assume that any interference with GPS would be obvious. But in reality, the nature of the attack determines how visible it is.

Jamming is often relatively straightforward to identify because GNSS/GPS receivers lose access to the signals they require. Position fixes may be lost, alarms may activate and navigational systems may indicate degraded performance, making operators generally aware that something has happened.

Spoofing, on the other hand, is far more subtle. Because the GNSS/GPS receiver continues to calculate a position, there may be no immediate indication that the data being presented is false. In some cases, a spoofed position may drift very gradually from reality, making it even harder to detect through normal operational procedures. This distinction is one of the key reasons why maritime organizations are increasingly looking beyond traditional GNSS-only navigation architectures.

Myth 4: A-PNT is simply another GPS

A common misunderstanding is that A-PNT exists to replace GPS. In reality, A-PNT is not a single technology, and it’s not shorthand for a satellite-based GPS alternative.

GPS and other GNSS constellations provide positioning, navigation and timing information, but the signals arriving at the Earth’s surface are extremely weak. By the time a GPS signal has traveled approximately 20,000 kilometers from Medium Earth Orbit, it can be vulnerable to interference, intentional jamming and sophisticated spoofing attacks.

This vulnerability is one of the reasons GNSS disruption has become such a significant concern for maritime operators.

GNSS diagram for RockFleet AssuredA-PNT technologies are designed to address this challenge by adding independent sources of trusted positioning, navigation or timing information when GNSS integrity becomes unreliable. The objective is to help operators determine whether the position information they are using can be trusted.

RockFLEET Assured takes this approach using Iridium PNT technology as an independent source of assured positioning. Unlike GPS satellites operating approximately 20,000 kilometres above the Earth, the Iridium constellation operates in Low Earth Orbit, meaning its satellites are around 25 times closer to the Earth’s surface than traditional GNSS satellites.

That difference matters. The stronger LEO signal makes Iridium PNT more resilient to many forms of interference and harder to overwhelm through conventional jamming techniques.

Just as importantly, Iridium PNT provides authenticated positioning information that can be used independently of GNSS. This gives operators a trusted reference point against which GPS-derived positions can be compared.

So A-PNT is not “another GPS”. It’s a way of improving confidence in position, navigation and timing when GNSS can no longer be assumed to be reliable. In RockFLEET Assured, Iridium PNT provides the independent reference that makes that assurance possible.

Myth 5: A-PNT is intended to replace existing navigation systems

Modern maritime navigation has always been based on cross-checking information from multiple sources. Experienced mariners do not rely on a single radar, a single sensor or a single chart reference. Instead, navigational confidence comes from verification.

The same principle applies to positioning.

Radar, visual observations, ECDIS, AIS, gyrocompasses and GNSS all contribute to situational awareness, and A-PNT fits naturally within this layered approach. The ability to compare independent sources of positioning information gives operators greater confidence when data aligns and provides an early warning when it does not.

Rather than replacing existing systems, A-PNT provides an independent reference that allows bridge crews and shore-side teams to validate critical navigation data to confirm whether it can be trusted, identify potential GNSS anomalies and make more informed decisions.

Myth 6: Shore teams will always spot a spoofing incident

Fleet monitoring centres can be a valuable safeguard against navigational anomalies, but effectiveness is often limited by the fact that they rely on the same GNSS-derived data the vessel is using. If a ship’s navigation system is receiving a spoofed position, that incorrect information may also be transmitted through AIS, fleet tracking platforms and operational reporting systems.

As a result, both the vessel and the shore team can end up sharing the same inaccurate picture. Rather than providing an independent check, the entire operational chain becomes dependent on compromised data. This is where A-PNT provides significant value by offering a trusted reference point independent of GNSS signals.

Myth 7: Accuracy is all that matters

When evaluating positioning technologies, many operators instinctively focus on accuracy; while accuracy remains important, it’s only one part of the equation.

In a spoofing scenario, a GNSS receiver may report exceptional accuracy while still providing a completely incorrect position. A-PNT shifts the focus from accuracy alone to integrity and trustworthiness. In GNSS and GPS denied environments, understanding whether a position can be relied upon becomes just as important as knowing how many meters of accuracy it claims to provide. For maritime decision makers, trusted positioning often matters more than marginal differences in precision.

RockFLEET Assured combines authenticated positioning with practical operational accuracy. Performance improves when multiple Iridium satellites are overhead and, because the Iridium constellation naturally clusters towards the polar regions, positioning performance becomes even stronger at higher latitudes. For example, typical median positioning accuracy is approximately 25 meters in Norway (69°N) and around 42 meters in the Red Sea (19°N), providing a reliable independent position reference across global shipping routes.

For large commercial vessels, tankers, bulk carriers and container ships measuring well over 100 meters in length, this level of accuracy is highly operationally valuable. Whether validating a vessel’s reported position, supporting fleet monitoring or identifying GNSS anomalies, a trusted position accurate to within a few tens of meters is far more valuable than a highly accurate GPS position that has been spoofed or disappears altogether due to jamming.

Myth 8: Assured positioning means replacing existing systems

RockFLEET Assured Installation Image (with Transparent Background)

A common misconception is that improving positioning resilience means making extensive modifications to a vessel’s existing navigation systems.

In practice, this doesn’t have to be the case. A-PNT is a broad approach to improving confidence in positioning, navigation and timing when GNSS cannot be assumed to be reliable. How it is implemented depends on the vessel, the operational requirement and the technology being used.

RockFLEET Assured has been developed with practical vessel installation in mind. The system comprises a compact Above Deck Unit that can be mounted in a suitable location with up to 100 meters of cabling, giving installers flexibility across a wide range of vessel types and layouts.

Once installed, RockFLEET Assured integrates with existing bridge and operational systems using standard maritime interfaces, including NMEA protocols. This means assured positioning data can be shared with navigation, monitoring and reporting systems already in use, without requiring major changes to established bridge workflows or operational procedures.

For fleet operators, this helps minimize installation complexity, reduce downtime and avoid the need for wholesale replacement of existing navigation equipment.

The result is a practical enhancement to a vessel’s navigation resilience, rather than a complete redesign of its navigation infrastructure. Bridge teams can continue using familiar systems, while RockFLEET Assured provides an independent source of authenticated positioning information that helps them validate GNSS data and make more confident navigational decisions.

Myth 9: GNSS only affects navigation

The term GNSS often leads people to think exclusively about chart displays and route planning, but in practice, positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) data underpins a much broader range of maritime operations.

Accurate position information influences AIS transmissions, fleet monitoring, voyage reporting, security operations, geofencing, compliance requirements and incident investigations. Timing information also plays a critical role in synchronising systems and maintaining operational consistency.

When GNSS integrity is compromised, the effects extend far beyond the bridge. An inaccurate position can quickly become an inaccurate operational picture across the entire organization.

Myth 10: A-PNT is only relevant in high risk regions

GNSS jamming and spoofing are most frequently reported in geopolitical hotspots, but navigation resilience should not be viewed as something only needed when operating in high risk waters.

Commercial vessels rely on trusted GNSS/GPS and PNT data throughout every voyage and as fleets become more connected and digitalized, dependence on this data continues to grow. That means the consequences of compromised positioning extend far beyond navigating through a conflict zone; it can affect operational efficiency, regulatory compliance, fleet visibility and decision-making across an entire organization.

Forward-thinking shipowners and fleet operators are therefore beginning to view A-PNT as part of a broader navigation resilience strategy rather than a solution reserved for exceptional circumstances. The independent position verification that A-PNT delivers provides an additional layer of resilience, helping bridge teams and shore-based operators maintain confidence in the information they rely on, wherever their vessels operate.

Further, as digital shipping and increasingly automated vessel operations continue to evolve, trusted positioning is likely to become a fundamental requirement for safe, resilient and efficient maritime operations, not just in high risk regions, but across the global shipping industry.

Building Confidence in a Contested Navigation Environment

While the maritime industry’s utilization of GNSS has delivered enormous operational benefits, it has also introduced new vulnerabilities. Jamming and spoofing are not concerns discussed only in military circles, but are real world incidents across the world’s busiest shipping lanes.

The focus is shifting from simply obtaining a position to ensuring that the position can be trusted. That’s why A-PNT solutions such as RockFLEET Assured, powered by Iridium PNT, play an increasingly important role. RockFLEET Assured provides maritime operators with something increasingly valuable in today’s contested navigation environment: an independent, authenticated and resilient source of positioning information.

In a world where navigation systems can be deceived, resilience comes not from having more data but from having greater confidence in the data you use. The future of maritime navigation will therefore be defined not solely by accuracy, but by assurance, integrity and trust.

Any more questions?

If you didn’t find the answer you were looking for, or if you’d like to discuss how A-PNT could enhance your GPS and GNSS architecture, our team is here to help.

Simply fill out the form, and one of our experts will get back to you to talk through your requirements, explore the solutions, and help you plan your next steps.

Whether you’re just starting to explore A-PNT or are ready to move ahead with an A-PNT solution, we’ll work with you to find the right device for your application.

Name
Privacy Policy

The USV market is growing quickly. Allied Market Research says it’s projected to reach $2.7 billion by 2032, growing at an 11.5% CAGR. MarketsandMarkets points in the same direction, forecasting growth from $0.82 billion in 2025 to $1.59 billion by 2030 at a 14.1% CAGR. Behind those forecasts is a simple idea: operators want to do more offshore, for longer, with less risk to crew and a better cost profile.

As missions become longer and more complex, connectivity becomes a bigger part of the operating model. Operators need to know they can maintain oversight of the mission, receive alerts when conditions change, and keep essential data flowing even when the primary link is under pressure.

That matters because offshore environments are rarely forgiving. Sea state affects antenna performance, weather can affect signal quality, and coverage isn’t always consistent across an entire mission. Communications systems need to be designed around those realities, rather than around best case assumptions.

 

Why connectivity has such a direct impact on the business case

Connectivity affects both operational performance and commercial performance. If a vessel loses its main link but can continue operating safely while still sending health data, position reports, and exception based alerts, the mission may continue with only limited disruption. If the vessel goes dark in a way that removes visibility and confidence, the cost picture changes much more quickly.

Published data on the cost of recovering a USV is limited, but offshore operating cost studies show the broader dynamic clearly. Once a crewed vessel, personnel, mobilisation, and weather related delays are back in the loop, costs rise fast. In one NREL offshore operations model, a relatively modest crew transfer vessel scenario was estimated at around $4,100 per day. That’s not a dedicated USV recovery figure, but it does illustrate why operators want to avoid reintroducing crewed intervention unless they absolutely have to.

That’s why resilient connectivity matters commercially as well as operationally. It helps preserve confidence in the vessel’s status, the payload’s output, and the economics that justified using a USV in the first place.

Image-of-USV-in-open-ocean

What operators are actually evaluating

One of the clearest signals in this market comes from the kinds of conversations already happening around offshore connectivity. In our role as a remote connectivity specialist, we receive inquiries from USV operators and manufacturers who are actively evaluating how to keep vessels safe, visible, and manageable when the primary link is under pressure.

Those discussions are often less about maximum throughput in the abstract and more about what needs to keep working when conditions aren’t ideal. The priorities tend to be safety override, basic telemetry, vessel tracking, low rate command traffic, and a backup path that can take over if the main link drops.

We also see strong interest in backup satellite communications and last resort systems that can preserve continuity when a richer link is unavailable. That suggests the market is moving beyond a simple question of whether a USV can connect offshore. The more practical question is which functions need to be protected, and which link is best suited to carrying them.

 

Why primary and backup links should be treated differently

A useful way to think about offshore USV connectivity is to separate the role of the primary link from the role of the backup. The primary link supports the fuller operating picture. Depending on the mission, that may mean higher rate telemetry, software updates, larger payload files, imagery, video, or more responsive command and control. High bandwidth satellite services have expanded what is possible here and have made remote offshore operations much more practical than they once were.

The backup link has a narrower role, but it’s no less important. It exists to preserve essential functions when the primary link is constrained or unavailable. In practice, that often means vessel health, alarms, mission status, low rate command traffic, and, in some cases, compressed imagery or short bursts of additional data. It doesn’t need to recreate the entire primary link experience; it needs to provide enough continuity for the vessel to remain safe, visible, and manageable until the richer link is available again.

That distinction is reflected in the way these requirements are typically framed. The fallback path is often defined in terms such as safety override, telemetry, tracking, or a “Hail Mary” communications layer.

That tends to lead to better architecture decisions because it matches the way communications are actually used at sea. Not every function needs the richest link, but some do need to keep working almost regardless of conditions. Onboard autonomy has a role here, but operators still need enough visibility and control to stay confident in what’s happening offshore.

Image-of-USV-in-open-ocean-2

Why a single broadband satellite link leaves gaps offshore

Broadband satellite has changed offshore connectivity for the better; it supports a much richer operating model, and it can make remote operations far more practical for larger USVs. But relying on one broadband service on its own still creates a dependency on a single communications path.

That means one antenna setup, one service profile, one network architecture, and one main route back to shore. If that route is affected by weather, vessel motion, local obstructions, hardware issues, or service constraints, the mission can lose the level of connectivity on which it was relying. Starlink itself notes that significant weather can degrade service, that moderate to heavy rain, snow, and hail can cause momentary dropouts, and that storms near a local ground station can also affect performance. Its maritime service information also says that once Priority Data is exhausted, users fall back to rates of up to 1 Mbps down and 0.5 Mbps up.

That risk is one reason many operators are actively evaluating layered satcoms rather than a single broadband path. In our conversations with USV manufacturers and operators, a recurring theme is the need for backup communications that can preserve control, visibility, and essential status data if the primary service drops, even briefly. A strong primary link is valuable, but resilience usually depends on having a second path for the functions that matter most.

 

Why layered satcoms make sense for offshore USVs

This is where layered satellite communications start to make sense. A primary link supports the richer operating picture when conditions allow. A secondary link helps preserve the essentials if the main path is constrained. For many offshore USV applications, Iridium Certus 100 is a good example of what that secondary communications layer can look like. It’s well suited to telemetry, alerts, command traffic, and other continuity functions that don’t need broadband throughput.

It also aligns with the way missions behave in practice. Data needs aren’t constant across a deployment. There will be times when high throughput is useful and times when the priority is to maintain visibility of vessel health, mission progress, and any exceptions that require attention. A backup link is well suited to those moments, particularly when the vessel can keep operating in a controlled way while communications are degraded.

That matches what we see in the market, where operators are increasingly focused on which functions need to be protected if the main path is interrupted, rather than on preserving full bandwidth at all times.

RockREMOTE-Mini-Blue-BG

What operators should be asking as the market grows

As the USV market expands, connectivity deserves to be discussed with the same realism that is now routinely applied to autonomy, payload design, and endurance. What happens when the primary link is degraded? Which functions are preserved? What information still gets through? Can the vessel continue operating safely? Can the operator remain confident in the mission without immediately considering recovery?

Those questions matter because offshore operations are shaped by constraints, not just capabilities. A communications setup that works well in a demo or a short mission close to shore may not be enough for a longer deployment in more variable conditions. By contrast, a layered approach that combines a richer primary link with a lower bandwidth backup can give operators a more dependable path through the realities of offshore operations.

That’s why resilient connectivity has become such an important consideration in USV design and deployment. It supports visibility, continuity, and operational confidence, and it helps ensure that a temporary link issue doesn’t become a much more expensive problem.

Need help with offshore USV connectivity?

If you’re looking at offshore USV connectivity and weighing up primary and backup options, it’s worth having that conversation early. The right architecture depends on the mission, the data you need to move, and the functions that have to keep working if the main link is interrupted.

At Ground Control, we work with operators and manufacturers on exactly these kinds of remote connectivity challenges. If you’d like to talk through a specific use case, get in touch with us either by completing the form, or emailing hello@groundcontrol.com. We’ll reply within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

For teams managing remote conservation areas, wildfire risk is becoming harder to predict and harder to plan for, even in regions that have not historically been considered fire prone. Rising temperatures and longer dry periods are changing how fire behaves across forests, reserves, and protected land. One recent study found that 83.9% of wildfire-vulnerable species are now exposed to increased fire risk, with fire seasons projected to more than double in some regions. This isn’t limited to traditionally fire-prone zones. Fire seasons are lengthening, and fire behaviour is becoming less predictable and harder to contain.

You may already be seeing the signs: vegetation staying dry for longer, water sources becoming less reliable, and more ignition points across a wider area. For smaller teams covering large territories, this shifts wildfire from a seasonal concern to an ongoing operational risk.

Why remote sites are exposed

Remote conservation areas come with structural challenges that make wildfire response harder. Teams often work across large, varied terrain with limited visibility, minimal infrastructure, and inconsistent or absent cellular coverage. Ranger teams are small, but the areas they cover are not.

When a fire starts, response depends heavily on what you can detect and communicate locally. In Madagascar, one protected reserve lost around a third of its forest in a single year due to wildfire pressure linked to rising temperatures and prolonged dry conditions. Events like this highlight how quickly impact scales when detection or response is delayed.

Distance from emergency services also increases pressure on conservation teams, while budget constraints shape what can realistically be deployed. And when habitats support endangered species, even a single event can cause long-term ecological damage.

Wildfire-Image

What monitoring looks like today

Wildfire monitoring is typically shaped by scale and budget. In practice, teams may rely on ranger patrols and visual observation, weather tracking such as temperature, wind, and humidity, external satellite data sources, camera systems, or WAN sensor deployments.

These tools are valuable. They provide signals, support situational awareness, and in some cases trigger real time responses. However, while the capability to monitor exists, the limitations of existing approaches are largely practical. Detection may depend on chance observation and can come too late, while reliance on cellular communication can fail under the stress of an unanticipated emergency that disrupts the very channels needed for response.

Even when sensors are deployed, reliably transmitting alerts can be difficult. Data may be captured but not delivered effectively, creating a gap between detection and awareness. Constraints like these become more visible as wildfire risk increases.

 

Why time is of the essence

Delays in detecting early-stage fires reduce the available window for intervention. In fast-moving conditions, even short delays can significantly increase the scale of an incident. At the same time, teams may be distributed across the landscape, and lone workers need reliable communication for both safety and coordination.

The 2024 Jasper National Park wildfire shows how quickly situations can escalate, even in well-managed environments. The event led to around 25,000 evacuations and the loss of hundreds of structures. In more remote settings, with fewer resources, the margin for delay is even smaller.

 

Detection works. Delivery is the problem

Deploying sensors to monitor temperature, humidity, and smoke across high risk areas can provide meaningful early signals from systems that run for long periods on minimal power.

The FireFly project in Northern Thailand is a strong example. Distributed sensor nodes monitored forest conditions and identified early fire risk, with UAVs used to confirm ignition points. The system was designed specifically for remote, low infrastructure environments with cost in mind. But field observations highlighted a recurring issue: antenna placement and enclosure design affected system reliability, while dense vegetation and uneven terrain disrupted connectivity. Environmental conditions directly influenced whether data could leave the site. In other words, detection worked, but alert delivery didn’t always follow.

The same pattern appears in field-based wildfire and peatland monitoring projects more broadly. Sensors can detect early stage fire risk, land degradation, or changing environmental conditions, but the value of those systems depends on whether data can leave the site quickly and reliably. Studies of IoT wildfire detection systems highlight communication reliability, limited cellular coverage, packet loss, latency, and energy consumption as practical deployment challenges in remote environments. The communication channel, or “last mile” connection, is therefore critical to whether early detection becomes timely awareness.

 

Solving the last mile with Satellite IoT

In remote conservation areas, terrain, vegetation, and distance from infrastructure all affect signal performance. Systems that depend on terrestrial networks introduce gaps and points of failure. Satellite IoT removes that dependency.

By integrating a compact modem such as RockBLOCK 9603, a sensor monitoring system can send data over the Iridium satellite network with no reliance on local infrastructure. That creates a direct path from your sensor to you, without relying on local coverage.

In practice, the workflow is simple:

  • Sensors monitor defined environmental thresholds
  • Local logic determines when conditions require attention
  • A short alert message is generated
  • That message is transmitted via satellite to your team.

Messages remain small, and transmission can be event driven, supporting low power operation and long deployment lifetimes. For conservation teams, this enables a focused deployment model: a limited number of sensors placed in high risk areas, with a communication path that remains consistently available.

When a fire is detected, the system alert is delivered, reliably, and in time to act.

RockBLOCK-9603-annotated-for-wildfire-blog-post

When you need more field capability

For some deployments, a compact satellite modem may be enough to connect an existing sensor system. For others, the monitoring setup needs to handle multiple sensor inputs, apply logic locally, and decide when an alert should be sent.

That’s where a device such as RockBLOCK RTU can be useful. It aggregates sensor inputs from a range of sources and applies threshold logic in the field. When defined conditions are met, it generates alerts and transmits telemetry via its satellite connection.

This approach reduces dependency on continuous connectivity and avoids the need to send raw data elsewhere for processing. Decisions are made where the data is generated, according to the conditions being monitored. Reducing unnecessary data transmission also helps keep satellite costs to a minimum.

In practice, that gives you:

  • One unit integrating multiple sensors
  • Configurable thresholds based on your environment
  • Event-based alerting instead of continuous transmission
  • Context included with each alert.

The right approach depends on the scale of the site, the number of sensors required, and how much processing needs to happen in the field.

RockBLOCK-RTU-used-for-wildfire-sensor-data-transmission

Designing for increased wildfire risk

Effective wildfire monitoring systems prioritize early detection and dependable alert delivery. They need to operate with limited power, minimal infrastructure, and changing environmental conditions, while remaining simple enough to deploy and maintain and reliable enough to trust when something happens.

Recent events reinforce the need for this approach. Reliability, simplicity, and clear information delivered to the right people at the right time can protect lives and support more effective response.

Facing a remote monitoring or alerting challenge?

If your team needs to detect environmental risk, transmit alerts from areas without reliable cellular coverage, or keep remote systems connected, we can help you explore the right satellite IoT approach.

Complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com to discuss your use case with our team – we’ll reply within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

In high risk military environments, reliable communication is critical, but it can also create risk. Every transmission from a radio, satellite phone, or mobile device generates a signal. In stable environments, those signals enable coordination and operational effectiveness. In contested or electronically monitored settings, they can become liabilities, exposing teams to detection, interception, or exploitation.

For military communications teams, special operations planners, and defense capability leads, this creates a difficult operational challenge: how to deliver critical information to personnel in the field without increasing their electronic signature.

Zero-transmit devices offer a different approach. By allowing personnel to receive messages without sending anything back, they provide a discreet communication channel for scenarios where transmitting from the field may compromise operational security.

 

The Hidden Risk in Traditional Communications

Most conventional communication systems are built around two way exchange. Radios, cellular devices, and satellite communications all rely on outbound signals to send information, establish connectivity, or acknowledge receipt.

For decades, this has been the foundation of operational coordination. But the same characteristics that make these systems useful can also create vulnerabilities. Whether it’s a handheld radio checking into a network, a satellite phone establishing a connection, or a mobile device searching for coverage, each transmission emits radio frequency energy that may be detected and analyzed.

For covert military units and special operations teams, this can compromise mission integrity and personnel safety. A single transmission may be enough to indicate that a unit is present in a contested area. Even encrypted communications, while protecting message content, can still expose metadata such as signal origin, timing, frequency, and transmission behavior, all of which may provide useful intelligence to an adversary.

 

Operating Where Transmissions Create Tactical Risk

Military and defense organizations increasingly plan for operations in denied, degraded, and disrupted environments. In these settings, the issue isn’t just whether a message can get through, but whether sending or acknowledging a message creates additional risk.

For covert teams, forward-deployed personnel, special operations units, and others working in surveillance heavy environments, this creates a difficult trade-off. Teams need to receive updates, alerts, or instructions, but transmitting from the field may expose their position, pattern of movement, or operational presence.

Zero-transmit communication changes that model. By removing the need for the endpoint device to transmit, acknowledge, or handshake with a network, critical information can be delivered without creating an RF footprint from the user’s location.

This doesn’t replace two way communications in every scenario; rather, it provides an additional channel for situations where receiving information safely is more important than maintaining a continuous two way link.

Receive-Only Satellite Messaging with No Endpoint RF Footprint

RockSTAR Burst is a receive-only satellite messaging device designed for military and defense teams that need to receive critical information without transmitting from the field.

Messages are sent via the Iridium Burst® service and delivered directly to authorized devices, where they can be received and decrypted without any outbound communication from the device itself. There’s no handshake, no acknowledgement, and no return signal from the endpoint.

This creates a secure one way channel for delivering mission updates, alerts, or instructions to personnel operating in covert, contested, or surveillance-heavy environments.

RockSTAR-Burst-Pager
Rockstarburst-Diagram

Because RockSTAR Burst doesn’t transmit, it creates no RF footprint at the user’s location. This significantly reduces the risk of detection, geolocation, or targeting based on endpoint transmissions, while still allowing command teams to reach personnel in the field.

Messages can be sent to individual users, designated operational groups, or entire fleets and convoys, enabling rapid dissemination of time sensitive information across dispersed teams.

Leveraging Iridium’s Low Earth Orbit satellite network, RockSTAR Burst provides global reach and near-real time message delivery, typically in fewer than 20 seconds.

Although designed primarily for outdoor use, Iridium Burst® transmissions can penetrate some buildings, partial obstructions, and adverse weather conditions, helping maintain message delivery in challenging field environments.

From Technology to Tactical Advantage

The value of RockSTAR Burst becomes clearest when mapped to military operational needs. Command teams can push intelligence, alerts, or mission updates to personnel in the field without requiring those personnel to check in, acknowledge receipt, or expose their position through outbound RF activity.

This is particularly valuable when teams need to maintain a low electronic signature but still remain informed. A change in tasking, threat warning, movement instruction, extraction update, or short mission critical alert can be delivered without asking the endpoint device to transmit.

RockSTAR Burst isn’t intended to replace two way tactical communications. Voice, data, and command and control systems remain essential in many operational scenarios. Instead, it adds a discreet one way channel that can sit alongside existing communications, giving commanders another option when transmitting from the field is undesirable or unsafe.

Used in this way, RockSTAR Burst supports a layered communications strategy: two way systems where interaction is necessary, and receive-only satellite messaging where the priority is to deliver information without increasing the user’s RF signature.

 

The Case for Zero-Transmit Devices in Modern Military Operations

As military operating environments become more complex, contested, and electronically monitored, the assumptions behind traditional field communications are being challenged.

More connectivity is not always better. In some scenarios, transmitting from the field can increase risk by creating an RF signature that may reveal a team’s presence, activity, or location.

RockSTAR Burst reflects a different approach. By combining global satellite reach, encrypted message delivery, targeted broadcast capability, and zero-transmit operation at the endpoint, it gives military and defense organizations a discreet way to keep personnel informed without increasing their RF footprint.

It doesn’t replace two way tactical communications, but it does add an important option for situations where the safest communication is one that does not require the field user to respond.

Achieve Zero RF Footprint for Operational Advantage

Our satellite-enabled RockSTAR Burst solution offers robust communication and connectivity for defense applications and more. If you need a zero-transmission, secure and controlled communication solution in hostile or degraded environments, we can help.

Partner with us to explore all our satellite solutions that safeguard your military operations anywhere in the world. Just complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll reply within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

April 2026’s reports of seismic activity and tsunami warnings in Japan have again highlighted how critical early warning systems are. Events like these reinforce a consistent reality: detection is only part of the system. The ability to communicate alerts quickly and reliably remains central to reducing impact.

As landslide, earthquake and tsunami monitoring systems evolve, this communications challenge is becoming more complex. Monitoring is moving beyond single parameter approaches toward multi-sensor systems that integrate different data types to improve situational awareness and reduce false positives. At the same time, research institutions are applying machine learning and deep learning techniques to identify patterns that may be difficult to detect through rule-based models alone.

These developments increase system capability, but they also change system requirements. More sensors generate more data. AI-driven approaches require datasets that are larger, more continuous and better contextualized. As a result, monitoring system design now has to account not only for detection, but also for power, data volume, transmission frequency, and the role of processing at the edge.

Detection is only useful if the alert gets through

Earthquake Alert lost versus alert delivered image

Detection capability has improved significantly, and monitoring systems can often identify early signs of instability. But detection only matters if alerts reach the right people in time. That remains difficult in remote terrain. Monitoring sites are often located where infrastructure is limited, ground conditions are unstable, and access is restricted. Power depends on what the natural landscape allows, while cellular networks may be unavailable, unreliable, or vulnerable during an event.

As a result, a system can continue collecting data even when its communications path fails. This creates a gap between detection and action, reducing the value of the system no matter how capable the sensing layer is. International frameworks on early warning systems highlight that coverage is improving globally, but reliability and last-mile delivery remain key challenges.

Satellite connectivity can help close that gap. Because it does not rely on local infrastructure, it provides an independent communications path for remote or vulnerable locations. Ground Control’s earlier work in tsunami early warning systems in Thailand demonstrates how satellite connectivity can support resilience and last-mile data delivery, helping ensure that critical alerts can reach emergency response systems when local infrastructure is limited or unavailable.

Natural hazard monitoring is becoming more data intensive

As scientific research continues to evolve, natural hazard monitoring systems can generate a broad range of data. Traditional threshold-based systems typically produce discrete, event driven messages. Multi sensor deployments and research programs, by contrast, may generate continuous and contextual datasets that support analysis, model development, and validation. Within a single monitoring system, data may include:

  • Time critical alerts
  • Ongoing telemetry
  • Device and system health data
  • Larger datasets used for analysis and research
  • Photographic, mapping, audio, or video data.

Modern systems may combine LoRaWAN sensor networks, remote sensing methods such as radar, terrestrial and non-terrestrial communications, and both edge and cloud processing. Satellite devices are introduced into these systems to address coverage gaps, provide an independent communication path, or support resilience where terrestrial networks are limited.

Data scale growth graph image

The key point is that not all data behaves in the same way. A short emergency alert has very different requirements from periodic telemetry or a large dataset used for research. In practice, satellite IoT devices can support different roles depending on the size, urgency and value of the data being transmitted.

Three types of data, three connectivity roles

In earthquake, landslide and tsunami monitoring, the connectivity question encompasses what kind of data needs to move, how urgently it needs to move, and how much processing should happen before it leaves the site. Broadly, data requirements fall into three categories:

Data type
Typical behavior
Main requirement
Satellite IoT role
Alerts
Small, urgent, event driven
Must get through
Resilient short message transmission
Telemetry
Regular, structured, operational
Efficient visibility over time
Periodic monitoring and backhaul
Research and AI data
Larger, richer, less time critical
Filtering, storage and selective
Edge processing and higher capacity

1. Time critical alerts: small messages, high consequence

For alert generation, the desired output may be a critical message triggered by defined thresholds or rules. When conditions are met, an alert can be generated at the device level and transmitted as a short message. This reporting by exception approach reduces dependence on continuous connectivity and helps keep satellite airtime costs to a minimum. Alerts are triggered by local conditions and transmitted when a predefined perimeter is breached.

This isn’t to suggest that hazard monitoring is simple. Rather, some parts of the system still depend on very small, high priority messages: a threshold has been crossed, a device has changed state, or an alarm needs to be raised.

Devices such as RockBLOCK RTU are designed for this type of integration and event driven monitoring. Supporting multiple sensor inputs and enabling local data batching at the edge, the RTU allows data output to remain minimal in size but critical in importance.

This reflects the same principle seen in the tsunami early warning system mentioned earlier, where the priority is ensuring that critical signals can be generated and transmitted under constrained conditions. The RTU also offers sensing, data logging and action on basic threshold triggers. It’s not designed for high level data processing, but it can play an important role in raising an alarm, warning a community, and ensuring that the message gets through.

Earthquake RockBLOCK RTU decision at the edge

2. Telemetry: maintaining visibility between events

Diagram RockBLOCK Pro and sensor data Earthquake warning

Alerting is only one layer of a monitoring system. Beyond emergency messages, earthquake and landslide monitoring systems also require ongoing visibility into environmental conditions and system status. Telemetry requirements may include periodic sensor readings, device diagnostics, system health information, and environmental trends over time. This data supports the interpretation of conditions leading up to and following an event. It can also be used to validate system performance and support operational decision making.

Here, architectural decisions often depend on project cost, power budget and the frequency of transmission. Compared with short alert messages, telemetry may require greater data capacity and more regular communication. It remains structured and predictable, but introduces additional considerations around bandwidth and power usage.

For these purposes, devices operating over services such as Iridium Messaging Transport (IMT) may support this type of data flow. RockBLOCK Pro delivers faster throughput and enables larger payloads than SBD, supporting aggregated sensor data, images and audio clips up to 100kB. This provides more flexible data transmission patterns compared to low bandwidth messaging.

RockBLOCK-Pro-Web-Angled

As an IP66 rated terminal, RockBLOCK Pro has a rugged design with a built in Iridium Certus antenna. Its combination of GNSS and serial interfaces (such as RS232/RS485) allows it to integrate with external systems or data sources, acting as a communications layer for structured telemetry and providing a means to transmit aggregated or processed seismology and landslide data. This may include:

  • Ground movement sensors such as geophones and accelerometers
  • Tilt and deformation sensors for slope and structural monitoring
  • Pressure and moisture sensors for groundwater and subsurface conditions
  • Threshold-based triggers such as seismic switches for alert activation
  • Environmental sensors including rainfall and wind
  • Serial connected instruments using RS485 or RS232
  • USB field access for configuration, data retrieval and maintenance.

The introduction of RockBLOCK Pro for backhaul or resilience provides additional monitoring capability and a significant increase in capacity to support a wider remote natural hazard monitoring system.

3. Research and AI workloads: when raw data is too large to send continuously

As monitoring systems expand to support research and model development, data requirements extend beyond alerts and telemetry. These datasets may include high resolution sensor data over extended periods, multi sensor correlations across locations, and inputs used for training and validating analytical models. This type of data is higher in volume and less time sensitive, but still requires a reliable path from remote environments.

Systems often store or buffer data locally and transmit it based on available bandwidth, power and connectivity. This may involve scheduled transfers, event-based uploads, or selective transmission of processed data. Devices such as RockREMOTE Rugged support this role by combining higher throughput connectivity with embedded compute capability. They act as an interface between field deployments and cloud-based systems, enabling data handling, filtering and integration with external platforms.

At this point, the device’s role isn’t limited to communication; it becomes part of the data management architecture. High frequency sensing, particularly in seismic monitoring, can generate more data than can be transmitted continuously over constrained links. Local processing allows this data to be reduced before transmission. Tasks such as filtering, segmentation and feature extraction can be applied at the point of collection, allowing derived parameters to be transmitted in place of raw data.

This preserves the characteristics needed for analysis while maintaining manageable data volumes. Edge computing can also support lightweight analytical models at the edge, depending on the application deployed.

These models, typically trained on historical datasets, can be applied to live data streams to identify signals of interest. This may include distinguishing between background activity and patterns associated with instability or early seismic events. In these scenarios, transmission is based on relevance rather than volume. Data is prioritized according to its analytical value, rather than transmitted continuously.

RockREMOTE Rugged and Earthquake data

RockREMOTE Rugged’s Linux-based environment supports custom applications, enabling user-defined data processing and integration and allowing custom processing pipelines or models to be deployed at the edge. Local storage enables data retention where continuous transmission is not practical, while connectivity over Iridium Certus 100 and cellular networks provides a path for data to move to cloud environments when required.

This supports a range of system behaviors, including:

  • High frequency data capture with selective transmission
  • Local feature extraction to reduce bandwidth requirements
  • Model inference at the edge to support early interpretation
  • Buffered storage for later retrieval or batch upload
  • Video compression before transmission
  • Running real time tasks such as filtering, segmentation, or frequency-domain analysis
  • Saving high resolution data locally
  • Transmitting exception summaries via satellite.
RockREMOTE Rugged Feature callout for Earthquake monitoring

 

In earthquake and landslide monitoring, the value of this compute power is in its ability to manage complex data flows locally, reduce unnecessary transmission, and support more autonomous system behaviour through locally defined logic or processing in remote environments.

Satellite IoT as part of the monitoring infrastructure

Satellite IoT as Monitoring Infrastructure diagram

The evolution of landslide and earthquake monitoring systems is shaped by two parallel developments. The range of observable data is increasing through multi-sensor integration, remote sensing and advanced analysis. At the same time, environmental and operational constraints remain consistent. Monitoring sites are often remote, power limited and difficult to access. Communications infrastructure may be unavailable, unreliable or exposed to the same hazards the system is designed to monitor.

Within this context, connectivity supports the movement of different types of data, from time critical alerts to larger datasets used for analysis. Satellite enabled devices extend coverage and enable communication where other infrastructure is limited. Different device types support different roles within the system. Some are suited to edge-based alert generation. Others support structured telemetry and system visibility. Higher capacity devices with embedded compute power can help process, prioritize and transmit larger datasets for research and AI-assisted monitoring.

The most effective system design starts with the data: its urgency, size, frequency and operational value. From there, satellite IoT can be used as a resilient layer within a wider monitoring architecture.

Building the connectivity layer for modern monitoring systems

Whether you’re building threshold based alerts, expanding telemetry, or exploring edge processing for AI driven monitoring, the challenge is the same: getting the right data through, at the right time, under real world constraints.

We work with system integrators, scientists, and engineers, to design connectivity architectures that balance power, cost, data volume, and resilience across satellite and hybrid networks.

Complete the form or email hello@groundcontrol.com, and we’ll be in touch within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

From commercial shipping lanes and port approaches to offshore energy platforms and autonomous vessel trials, trusted Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) underpins safety, efficiency, and regulatory compliance. Every decision from route optimization to collision avoidance relies on accurate and continuous positioning data, and for decades, Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), including GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and BeiDou, have served as the backbone of maritime PNT.

These systems provide global coverage, high accuracy under ideal conditions, and enable reliable tracking of maritime operations at scale. However, there is a well documented rise in maritime GNSS/GPS disruption, including deliberate jamming and increasingly sophisticated spoofing attacks. The reality is, conventional GPS-based solutions were never designed for today’s contested, congested, and adversarial signal environment, with traditional GNSS/GPS signals increasingly exposed in ways that were not anticipated when they were first deployed.

Traditional mitigation and defence strategies attempt to address these risks but often fall short; as a result, existing GPS-based solutions are reactive rather than resilient. For instance, they can identify when something is wrong, but are not inherently designed to guarantee reliable, trusted positioning when GNSS is compromised. The result is operational risk that extends beyond safety and security, and to efficiency, insurance exposure, regulatory compliance, and ultimately, trust in maritime systems. This is where Assured PNT enters the conversation and where Iridium PNT positions itself as a fundamentally different approach.

This blog explores how existing maritime GPS solutions are no longer equipped for today’s evolving threat landscape, and how Iridium PNT enables reliable, trusted, and continuous maritime operations in compromised GNSS/GPS environments.

The Cracks in Conventional Maritime GPS

1. Anti-Jamming GNSS Systems

Anti-jamming GNSS systems were developed to suppress interference using directional antennas and filtering techniques. These methods work by attempting to block out noise and prioritise signals that appear clean. However, the threat landscape has evolved beyond simple interference. Modern threats don’t just jam, they deceive. Combined jamming and spoofing attacks create ambiguous signal environments where systems must decide which signals are real and which should be ignored. The result is confusion, with decision making becoming uncertain precisely when certainty is required.

2. Anti-Spoofing Technologies

Anti-spoofing solutions attempt to validate whether a signal is genuine or manipulated, and often rely on similar logic and assumptions as anti-jamming technologies of rules-based detection and signal validation. But the logic and assumptions are increasingly outdated. As spoofing techniques have become more advanced with greater precision and adaptability, these systems have struggled to keep pace. Signal mimicry is more precise, timing offsets are subtler, and attack patterns are adaptive – more closely resembling legitimate behaviour. This leaves anti-spoofing approaches in a reactive rather than predictive position, constantly trying to respond to threats that are evolving faster than the defences designed to stop them.

3. Multi-GNSS Receivers

Using multiple constellations (GPS, Galileo, GLONASS, BeiDou) is often framed as a way to improve resilience, but in practice, it introduces more inputs without addressing the core weakness. GPS, Galileo, and other systems share similar signal structures and operate in comparable frequency ranges, which makes them vulnerable to the same types of interference and spoofing. When disruption occurs, it tends to affect all constellations in similar ways, meaning having more signals does not equate to having more trustworthy information. If one is compromised, the likelihood is high that others are affected as well. This creates a false sense of redundancy, i.e., more inputs, but not more independence.

4. Differential GPS (DGPS)

DGPS enhances positional accuracy using ground-based correction signals, and in stable environments, it performs well. But accuracy is not the same as trust. DGPS still depends on the integrity of the underlying GNSS signal, and in a jamming or spoofing scenario, it remains vulnerable in contested environments. In fact, it can amplify risk by making incorrect positioning appear more precise, giving maritime operators a false sense of confidence in data that may already be compromised.

5. Terrestrial Backup System

Terrestrial backup systems (e.g., eLoran, radio navigation systems) provide an alternative to satellite-based positioning by using shore-based infrastructure. While effective in coastal areas, their usefulness diminishes rapidly beyond those boundaries. Coverage is inherently limited, and the cost and complexity of deploying such systems at scale make them impractical for global maritime operations. For vessels operating in the open ocean, these solutions cannot provide the continuity required for safe and efficient navigation.

 

The Core Issue is Dependency on a Single Domain

Taken together, these approaches reveal a shared limitation: they attempt to improve or protect GNSS/GPS, but they don’t remove dependence on it. Whether through signal reinforcement, interference detection, or redundancy within the same domain, the underlying dependency remains intact.

It’s worth noting that modern bridge systems can present a layered navigational picture by combining GNSS with radar, AIS, INS, and ECDIS. That improves redundancy, but in most merchant vessels GNSS still provides the primary position input, so interference or false data can still degrade overall situational awareness unless it is independently cross-checked.

Ultimately, there are a limited number of truly independent alternatives to fall back on, as most existing mitigations operate as layers within the same ecosystem rather than as genuinely distinct sources of truth. As a result, what appears to be redundancy is, in many cases, simply duplication within a shared vulnerability.

This is the critical gap that Iridium PNT and RockFLEET Assured are designed to address. Rather than attempting to further fortify GNSS-dependent systems, Iridium PNT reduces reliance on any single domain altogether, enabling a more secure, resilient, and multi-domain approach to assured navigation.

 

Solving GNSS Dependency with A-PNT and Iridium PNT

Assured Positioning, Navigation and Timing (A-PNT) is the idea of maintaining trusted position, navigation, and timing when GNSS is degraded, denied, or untrusted. It goes beyond basic capability to include resilience, integrity, and trust, helping vessels maintain safe navigation, operational continuity, and compliance despite interference.

Iridium PNT is one way of delivering that resilience. It’s the only commercially available satellite-based PNT service that operates independently of GNSS, meaning it doesn’t rely on GPS, Galileo, GLONASS, or BeiDou. In a landscape where most backup solutions still depend on the same GNSS/GPS signals, that independence is critical.

Unlike conventional GNSS, which relies on Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) satellites transmitting very weak signals over vast distances, Iridium PNT operates from a Low Earth Orbit, or LEO, constellation, bringing satellites much closer to Earth. This results in stronger signals and contributes to greater resistance to jamming and spoofing in real world maritime environments.

GNSS RFA-Diagram-2026CLS

RockFLEET Assured for Resilient Maritime Navigation

 

RockFLEET Assured represents a necessary shift away from single GNSS/GPS signal dependency. By leveraging the independent and highly secure Iridium PNT signal, vessels aren’t left without a trusted source of navigation data in the event of GPS jamming, spoofing and denial. This enables uninterrupted operations across open ocean, congested shipping lanes, and high risk regions where jamming and spoofing activity is increasingly prevalent.

For optimum navigational assurance, RockFLEET Assured continuously compares the trusted Assured PNT position with GNSS and raises alerts when position integrity is at risk. Rather than relying on GNSS alone, it uses an authenticated Iridium PNT position source to help identify anomalies and highlight when GNSS may be jammed, spoofed, or otherwise unreliable.

By cross-checking GNSS against trusted A-PNT data, RockFLEET Assured helps reduce the risk of false positioning and supports safer navigation and better operational awareness. Beyond resilience, it’s also engineered for practical deployment supporting cable runs of up to 100 m for flexible installation, and an optional backup battery that can continue tracking and reporting if vessel power is interrupted.

Annotated-Graphic-of-RockFLEET-Assured

From Accuracy to Assurance

In today’s maritime and security operations, the core challenge extends beyond positioning accuracy, but trust in the data itself. Existing GNSS/GPS-based solutions, even when layered with mitigation technologies, remain dependent on a single domain that is increasingly exposed to disruption, deception, and interference. This creates a critical gap in trusted, continuous navigation at sea, particularly in contested or high risk environments where GNSS/GPS reliability cannot be assumed.

Iridium PNT and RockFLEET Assured directly address this gap by introducing a truly independent and resilient source of positioning data that operates outside the limitations of traditional GNSS. By combining multi-domain inputs with real time integrity assessment and prioritizing assured, trustworthy signals, they move maritime navigation from reactive detection to proactive resilience. The future of navigation at sea will be defined by this ability to operate with confidence in uncertain and contested GNSS/GPS environments. A-PNT is central to that future, and RockFLEET Assured is built to deliver it.

Trusted A-PNT For Navigational Certainty at Sea

For over 20 years, we’ve delivered resilient satellite solutions for remote connectivity and secure communications. We’re proud to support commercial shipping, offshore operators, and maritime security providers with dependable satellite connectivity and assured positioning capabilities designed for the realities of the modern maritime domain.

If you want to offer A-PNT solutions as part of the security strategy for your maritime clients, complete the form, or email hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll reply within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy

In 2024, a nationwide AT&T outage disrupted emergency communications, and affected access to 911 services in the US. More than 25,000 attempts to reach 911 were blocked, and service was disrupted for more than 125 million devices. At the same time, multi-state 911 outages continue to occur. Increasingly, for emergency response, the issue is not just whether networks are available, but how they perform when conditions change.

For the teams responding to calls or disaster events, working with real time video, data, and mobile command environments as part of day to day operations brings a different kind of pressure. Coverage alone is no longer enough; what matters is whether the connectivity remains usable under pressure, across networks, locations, and conditions.

Operating across multiple networks such as FirstNet or commercial LTE, traditional satellite, and increasingly LEO services such as Starlink introduces new complexity and inefficiency. Those issues now need to be addressed if emergency teams are to stay reliably connected.

 

Why Performance Matters as Much as Coverage

You can have a strong signal and still struggle to get the performance you need. During major incidents, networks rarely fail completely; congestion builds, latency increases, packets drop, and throughput becomes inconsistent. Even with signal present, performance becomes unpredictable. The FCC has highlighted how disasters expose these types of resilience gaps.

At the same time, operational demands are increasing. With the transition to Next Generation 911 (NG911), video, images, and real time data are becoming part of standard workflows. If communication links drop, the result is video feeds that struggle to stay stable; slower or unreliable access to CAD and GIS systems; and inconsistent performance between vehicles, command posts, and field teams.

Multiple networks: LTE, 5G, LEO satellite, and legacy GEO systems, are often all in play, whether by design or through gradual adoption. And this reflects a broader shift. Managing multiple technologies and networks is now part of the operational reality. So the challenge isn’t whether there is enough connectivity. It’s how well those networks work together when it matters.

Email-Multipath-5 Emergency services

Why Failover Based Connectivity Can Fall Short

Many setups still rely on failover. One network is primary, and others act as backup. It works when a network drops completely. It doesn’t work as well when performance degrades. In most incidents, what you actually see is:

  • Increasing latency
  • Packet loss
  • Reduced throughput
  • Unstable performance.

But failover only responds once a threshold is crossed, and by then, performance has already dropped below what applications need. There’s a delay between degradation and recovery, and during that time, services like video, VoIP, and real time data are disrupted.

It also means you’re not making full use of the networks available to you. Failover reacts to failure. It doesn’t actively optimize performance, which is the key.

Adding Starlink or Multiple Networks Doesn’t Solve the Problem Alone

You may already have addressed coverage gaps by adding services like Starlink. That improves reach and bandwidth, especially in remote or hard to cover areas. But adding more networks introduces its own complexity: multiple providers and contracts, different data plans and cost models, networks with very different performance characteristics.

Without coordination, those networks sit alongside each other, rather than working together. This often leads to manual switching between connections; static rules that don’t reflect real time conditions; uneven data usage across devices, and limited visibility into what’s actually happening across the whole response setup. So while you have more connectivity available, it’s not always being used in the most effective way.

What Multi-Network Connectivity Should Look Like in Practice

The shift here is not about adding more. It’s about changing how you use existing services, managing continuous, multi-network connectivity. In practice, that means multiple connections active at the same time and traffic routed dynamically based on real time conditions.

Instead of waiting for a connection to fail, the system adapts continuously, using the most appropriate network path at any given moment, based on latency, packet loss, and bandwidth. This is the principle behind Dejero Smart Blending technology, which routes traffic across multiple connections in real time rather than switching between them.

The outcome is more consistent performance, with fewer connectivity interruptions and less need for manual intervention. Making reliability less about network uptime, and more about service usability. It supports the wider move toward IP-based emergency communications, where video, data, and voice increasingly need to work across different networks and locations. And supports what matters most: not the status of one link, which is still important, but whether the overall service remains usable and effective at all times, providing true resiliency.

How Ground Control Multipath Optimizes Connectivity

Ground Control Multipath is designed to help you bring all of your networks together into something that works as a whole. It builds on what you already have: your existing LTE and 5G connectivity, your current satellite services, including LEO and GEO, and additional capacity where it makes sense.

Those connections are then managed through a routing layer that continuously selects the most appropriate path based on real time conditions. From your perspective, that means less time managing networks individually, more consistent performance across devices and locations, shared data usage instead of isolated plans, and reduced reliance on manual failover. The goal is not to replace your existing setup; it’s to make it work more effectively as a system.

The Multipath and Dejero TITAN fit

Ground Control Multipath provides the overall solution. It’s designed around your operation, and brings your available networks together so they work more effectively as one. Dejero TITAN is the device that brings your connectivity together, helping to manage multiple live connections, ensuring a seamless switch between networks, or combining them where needed, making bandwidth usage efficient and reducing your costs. In other words, Multipath is the overall service approach; TITAN is the enabling technology that can deliver it.

What This Means for Your Operations

When your networks work together properly, you see more consistent performance across video and data services, even when individual networks degrade. You make better use of the connectivity you’re already paying for, with data shared and optimized across the deployment. And you gain confidence in how your systems will behave during an incident, not because networks don’t fail, but because your setup adapts when they do.

Most agencies now operate across multiple networks, whether intentionally or not. The next step is making those networks work together. So this is not about adding more connectivity, it is about improving how it’s used. Good coverage is no longer enough. What matters is consistent, usable performance when it matters most.

Ground Control Multipath Dajero

Review Your Current Connectivity Setup

If you want to make better use of the connectivity you already have, we can help. Our team offers a no cost review of your current setup to identify where performance can be improved and costs reduced. It’s a practical conversation based on how you operate today.

Complete the form or email us at hello@groundcontrol.com and we’ll get back to you within one working day.

Name
Privacy Policy