Posted: 8/4/2016 8:23:31 AM EDT
I notice from COMs that many military aircraft do not appear equipped with GPS, or at least, aren't flying GPS approaches. I've heard that NDB approaches are common for those guys, especially in Alaska. My assumption is that GPS approaches are unbelievably simple -- if you can fly a radio approach, you can follow a magenta line  . My assumption is that this is driven by pilot proficiency and as useful as GPS is, that it should not be a crutch for our military guys in that in the event of a major conflict, I could see those satellites going offline, either by force of an enemy or to prevent operation of GPS-guided weaponry.
I would guess the higher end aircraft have inertial systems that have near the accuracy of GPS. |
|
Quoted:
I don't know of an .mil aircraft without GPS capability. Army has many old copters with no GPS. Navy has gliders with only a battery powered radio. GPS is easily jammed by anybody. It can be spoofed as well to make a receiver think it is in a different location. Russia and China can shoot down satellites. All make for GPS not being the best option For war. The military(especially army) likes ndb because you can carry a ndb transmitter in a backpack and put it wherever you want, no surveying necessary, no magnetic errors since you don't have to align it to north. All army tactical aircraft have a ndb receiver. Many older army aircraft are ifr certified and have only a single ndb receiver. No pure ins system will ever be used for ifr because you have no way to know if it's accurate. All such systems have other navigation data so they can cross check to ensure everything is still accurate. |
|
The only time I remember doing an NDB in the Navy, was in the training command as a student. Don't think we even taught them when I was an instructor. When a student asked if we ever did a NDB approach, the standard answer was: "Only if the ejection seat doesn't work".
I suppose it's possible I flew an NDB for real at some point, but I don't remember it (like they say....the memory is the second thing to go). We always flew PARs and tacan approaches. We did have a "coffee grinder" ADF in the T-28. 
|
|
The T6B can shoot GPS approaches. I don't know of any other naval aircraft that can, to include the 35s. The ins/GPS on .mil aircraft are generally very capable, but almost always the money spent on them is dedicated towards targeting systems. The primary purpose is bombs on target, all else is secondary. I realize you have to takeoff and land, but most of the time it is VMC. The Navy still uses radar approaches, which are still my favorite (as long as the controller is good). Even without a HUD I could stay heads out for the entire approach with a no gyro. I don't have to use any skills other than stick and rudder. Also, the Navy still uses tacans on boats and expeditionary airfields. They are working on JPALS now, I had good experiences with it.
jpals There was a push in the av8 community to get GPS approach capability a few years ago, as tacans are going away. They are tacans only (just like hornets). So without tacans they'd have no approach capability. It was on the top ten, not sure if it still is. The issue is it would require a significant redesign of architecture. The up front control does not have alpha character input capability, only numbers and N S E W. They could do something with input on the mpcd buttons maybe, but that would be ackward as well. You could put approaches in and have a list go select from, but adding waypoints would be a pain unless something changed, which is money. |
|
Quoted:
I've heard the helicopters reporting it around Jacksonville when they're given GPS waypoints. Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know of an .mil aircraft without GPS capability. GPS certified for approaches is another story. I've heard the helicopters reporting it around Jacksonville when they're given GPS waypoints. Army helicopters have GPS, very capable GPS/FMS systems in the newer models, but they are not certified for IFR use. Don't ask my why they are not certified, because I couldn't tell you. |
|
Quoted:
Don't ask my why they are not certified, because I couldn't tell you. As Andrew stated above, rnav capability is not required for tactical aircraft so the money is rarely spent to certify them. You have to see the target to ID and lase it. You have to see the building to hover over it and fast rope dudes on the roof to kill somebody. These things are changing and some exceptions exist now, but it will be a long time before killing the enemy without seeing him is the norm. |
|
Quoted:
As Andrew stated above, rnav capability is not required for tactical aircraft so the money is rarely spent to certify them. You have to see the target to ID and lase it. You have to see the building to hover over it and fast rope dudes on the roof to kill somebody. These things are changing and some exceptions exist now, but it will be a long time before killing the enemy without seeing him is the norm. Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't ask my why they are not certified, because I couldn't tell you. As Andrew stated above, rnav capability is not required for tactical aircraft so the money is rarely spent to certify them. You have to see the target to ID and lase it. You have to see the building to hover over it and fast rope dudes on the roof to kill somebody. These things are changing and some exceptions exist now, but it will be a long time before killing the enemy without seeing him is the norm. Well I didn't say we can't kill the bad guy without seeing them with our eyeballs.... |
|
Quoted:
A large amount of Army aircraft are not IFR certified GPS equipped. M model UH60s F Model Chinooks (except 9.2.2 birds like we have). Our fleet at Bragg just got IFR certified GPS systems, and now we RNAV. Yeah. Filing /A makes me unhappy. I'm sure it's just a line of code Sikorsky is waiting to charge the Army for to make our GPS non corruptible. |