The applications of BPS are entirely different.

BPS depends on terrestrial stations instead of satellites, like Loran, which was used in the past.

BPS is at least as easily jammed or disabled as GPS.

With the gravimeter discussed in the article, and with adequate maps, one can navigate autonomously, without depending on any external help.

Moreover, BPS appears to be intended to cover only continental USA. There are no plans to use radio frequencies that would allow global coverage, like Loran had in the past.

> BPS depends on terrestrial stations instead of satellites, like Loran, which was used in the past.

> BPS is at least as easily jammed or disabled as GPS.

So which is it? Because LORAN was much harder to jam than GPS. The jamming resistance of any positioning system is mostly based on the ability to overpower the legitimate signals arriving at the receiving antenna. The problem with satellite based positioning systems is:

1. Satellites have relatively little power available to them, which makes their broadcasts rather weak. Terrestial transmitters can be much more powerful.

2. Satellites are very far away, which causes the received power to be very attenuated. Terrestial transmitters can be much closer.

There are many valid reasons to choose GNSS over terrestial approaches, but jamming resistance is not one of them.

Source: I was a weapons engineering officer for the Dutch Navy for many years and jammability of our positioning systems was a constant concern, to the point of ships being equipped with LORAN-C receivers well into the 2000s as a backup for GPS.