Highlights include ... and GLONASS (in parallel to GPS) support
Kenyeshna Tovaritcsh.
But do the GLONASS satellites talk to the NASA-GPS satellites? If not, there could be all sorts of parallax errors (viz: that Bond fillum with Jonathan Price as the media tycoon baddie).
They don't need to talk to each other, the GPS receiver just needs to be able to receive both signals and handle them, but that's still not going to help that much.
<simplification begins>
GPS accuracy isn't all down to the number of satellites you can get a signal from (once you're past the requisitite minimum, although more satellites is always a better thing), it's to do with having access to the really accurate timing info (since it's the timing info that determines your distance from the satellite).
The main difference between military and civilian GPS systems is that the military systems have the encryption keys to decode the least significant bits (in a numerican sense) of the timing data that are encrypted by the satellites. That gets them the most accurate timing info and therefore the most accurate data for the location calculation. The most significant bits of timing data are not encrypted, and so civilian GPS systems can use that to get a reasonable fix for their location (in practice, down to ~3m accuracy). The encrypted bits on the end are ignored, or used in the calculation anyway (since the 'random' encrypted least significant bits will hardly affect the calculation).
Having another 5 sets of timing data and corresponding satellite data (from GLONASS) that's only accurate to a certain level only helps the fudged location calculation in the same way being able to see another 5 normal (Western) GPS satellites would. (My best is, I think, 12 visible satellites up at ~2000m in Southern Chile).
