Space Force may be done with R-GPS, but Congress isn’t

Few modern systems are as consequential — or as exposed — as the Global Positioning System. A temporary loss of access to its positioning, navigation and timing signals would ripple through the global economy and severely impair military operations.

Yet despite repeated warnings that GPS signals can be jammed, spoofed or denied — often using relatively low-cost electronic warfare systems — and frequent reports of real-world interference, the U.S. military still lacks a viable backup. 

The Space Force’s recent decision to end funding for Resilient GPS — an effort to examine whether commercial, lower-cost navigation satellites could supplement the existing GPS constellation — highlights the Pentagon’s long-standing difficulty embracing alternatives in a force built around GPS.

Although Air Force leaders initially described R-GPS as an urgent priority, the program did not begin with strong backing from Congress.

In April 2024, the Secretary of the Air Force received approval from the Pentagon to repurpose $40 million to launch the effort, then known as GPS-Lite. Using so-called “quick start” authority provided under the National Defense Authorization Act, the program moved at a fast pace. In September 2024, the Space Force selected three companies for “Phase 0” of the program, renamed Resilient GPS, to conduct initial design work and early prototyping. Astranis, L3Harris and Sierra Space were tapped to develop concepts for smaller, lower-cost navigation satellites using commercial spacecraft platforms. At the same time, the service sought additional funding, requesting congressional approval to realign $77 million in the 2025 budget request to continue the program.

That request ran into resistance on Capitol Hill. Appropriators rejected the proposed reprogramming, arguing it was not clear how adding these satellites would materially improve resilience compared with other alternative PNT technologies. The committee also objected that the proposed satellites would not carry M-Code, a more secure military GPS signal. 

The Space Force pressed ahead with R-GPS using the funding it had, even after Congress declined to approve the additional $77 million.

A year later, the dynamic has reversed: the Space Force says it does not plan to continue the R-GPS program, while lawmakers are now pressing to keep funding alive.

Erin Carper, program executive officer for military satcom and PNT at the Space Systems Command, said the program was not funded in fiscal year 2026, though the technical work would inform future planning.

“In Phase 0 this past year we learned a lot out of R-GPS, and there are some lessons there that we will be using as we think about what comes next,” Carper said Jan. 23 at the AFCEA Space Industry Days conference.

The Space Force plans to continue launching the next generation of GPS satellites, known as GPS IIIF, through the 2030s. Carper said the service is already looking beyond that horizon. “What we need to be thinking about now is not that far in the future. We need to be planning now for what comes after GPS IIIF and so the lessons of our GPS Phase 0 are going to be part of the thinking into how we would architect a future space and ground PNT enterprise.”

Carper said there remains “a requirement for resilient and proliferated architectures,” but added that “the timing for R-GPS was not right for 2026” and the service opted not to put in a budget request for it.

As initially conceived, R-GPS satellites were projected to cost between $50 million and $80 million each, compared with roughly $250 million for a traditional GPS satellite. Space Force officials floated estimates of procuring more than 20 spacecraft over several years. These would broadcast the same civilian PNT signals as GPS so they would work with existing receivers.

Congress steps in

In the 2026 spending bill passed by the House Jan. 22, appropriators inserted $15 million for Resilient GPS. The bill says lawmakers recognize the “vital importance of enhancing the resilience of position, navigation, and timing services provided by the Global Positioning System to ensure its availability for military operations, particularly in highly contested environments against sophisticated adversaries.”

The funding is earmarked to “continue the development of resilient GPS space systems.” The bill also adds $30 million to develop an integrated PNT architecture using open systems to facilitate integration of military and civilian users, directing the Pentagon to submit a “plan of action and milestones for investments in more resilient capabilities across space, ground and user equipment segments.”

Carper said the Space Force is developing a plan on “how we move forward to start sort of laying out that architecture for what the future is for PNT.”

Col. Neil Barnas, commander of Space Systems Command’s System Delta 831, which oversees PNT systems, said the three companies that worked in Phase 0 of R-GPS delivered strong technical results.

“All three performers did exceptionally well,” Barnas said at the AFCEA conference. “They were all able to do great demonstrations of their satellite early designs … and all three of them were able to do demonstrations of waveform generation using software defined radios.”

From a technical standpoint, he said, the work showed how quickly modern designs could be developed with limited funding.

“They made a significant amount of progress in a short amount of time with not a lot of money, and that’s one of the key lessons that we’ve learned out of R-GPS,” he said. “That’s what gives us a lot of confidence going forward as we think about future architectures.”

Barnas said R-GPS is not going to become a formal program of record, adding that “the future architecture expands beyond just R-GPS, but that’s part of the solution space.”

Regarding the new funding in the 2026 bill, he said, “we’ll work with Congress on making sure we hit the right objectives as we mature those designs, and then figure out how we leverage those lessons learned into a future architecture.”

Barnas said the Space Force’s Space Warfighting Analysis Center is studying future PNT architectures that could include next-generation GPS as well as emerging technologies such as low Earth orbit PNT services operating on different frequencies.

“We need to be thinking about multi-orbit, multi-frequency, commercial, international, very broad scope within that study,” he said.

“Certainly everyone agrees that GPS will continue to be the backbone of our global navigation service moving forward, but there is absolutely a need for diversification,” Barnas added, citing LEO-based PNT startups such as TrustPoint and Xona Space. “There’s certainly opportunities on how we take advantage of that in the military.”

Why GPS is here to stay

The challenge facing alternative PNT efforts comes as reports of GPS interference increase. European aviation authorities have warned of sustained jamming affecting flights over the Baltic region. Airlines and maritime operators have reported disruptions in the Middle East and Black Sea. 

Still, adopting alternatives remains difficult. GPS is unmatched in scale, reliability and integration. The constellation is nuclear-hardened, globally available and embedded across military platforms, weapons systems and logistics networks. Modernization efforts, including more jam-resistant military signals, are far more advanced than any substitute.

With about 31 satellites in orbit, GPS is one of the largest and most durable investments the U.S. military has made in space. The spacecraft are supported by a ground and user-equipment ecosystem that has taken decades to assemble.

GPS is also deeply international. The United States has agreements with 63 partner nations to share GPS technology and standards. GPS user equipment — the receivers embedded in aircraft, ships, vehicles and weapons — now represents the largest space tech portfolio within the Foreign Military Sales program, according to Space Force officials.

That global adoption reinforces GPS as the default military standard, but it also raises the bar for alternatives. Any new system must integrate seamlessly across hundreds of platforms operated by multiple services and allied militaries.

An unresolved trade-off

Industry officials say R-GPS likely lost momentum during the transition to a new administration. Without a senior champion or a protected budget line, experimental programs can struggle to survive competing priorities.

The companies involved remain hopeful that congressional support could keep elements of the effort alive.

“We were delighted to see the appropriations for Resilient GPS in the final bill,” said Astranis’ chief executive John Gedmark. “This funding plus what was already available in FY25 is more than enough to prove out the core technology and feasibility of the program.”

A spokesperson for L3Harris noted that the company’s work on R-GPS is based on the Navigation Technology Satellite-3, or NTS-3, an experimental spacecraft the company built for the U.S. Air Force to test next-generation navigation technologies from geosynchronous orbit.

NTS-3, which launched in August 2025, will serve as a “blueprint for how the U.S. Space Force can deploy smaller, more agile satellites and rapidly evolve PNT capabilities to meet tomorrow’s challenges,” L3Harris said.

While R-GPS may not continue in its original form, the spokesperson said, “the technologies and architecture we developed are integral to the future of resilient PNT.”

For now, the pause in R-GPS underscores the reality that while alternative navigation systems are widely seen as necessary, GPS remains the system the military continues to build around — and depend on — even as its vulnerabilities become harder to ignore.

An abridged version of this article first appeared in the February 2026 issue of SpaceNews Magazine.