MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Why don't helos get a COTS Garmin like they put in the E-2? (which was TACAN Only)
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
For my rotor bretheren
- Thread starter statesman
- Start date
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
GNS-530 is the bomb. Civilian Nav GPS with approaches, VOR and ILS AND a backup VHF Radio, all in one box.
Oh, and I used it to get my ass to Kandahar when all other systems in the plane failed.
Oh, and I used it to get my ass to Kandahar when all other systems in the plane failed.
Checked into my first HS squadron in late '99. In 12 years, know how many new weapons systems, nav systems, any kind of systems i've seen? Zero. Same guns, same ASE gear (with some modified programs at least), same computers (some updated software at least, but don't get me started on software for the "S"), same FCF gear. In that time, how many new weapons systems, etc for TACAIR? Not hard to figure out what is priority.
Whoa whoa whoa... Does Lockheed/L3/BAE/etc. own the contract for that off-the-shelf product? Then sorry, funding isn't available.
I second (third, and fourth) the GPS issue. It's damn near criminal that we don't have the same cheap, readily-available, proven navigation systems that every C152 driver in the world has. Every major, minor, and podunk airport has some kind of GPS approach - the approaches are easy to set up, cost next to nothing to "maintain," and add a huge margin of safety to flying. The ability to shoot GPS approaches would certainly aid in smarter, safer decision making. How many mishaps, or near mishaps, have occurred because capable Aviators have bypassed perfectly good airfields in favor of NAS Outoftheway simply because the NAS was the only place the aircraft equipped to get into in the goo?
Doh! It reminded me of someone I used to work for a long time ago... who talked big talk but didn't always have his facts straight... as for me-
-smack self on head
-reset sarcasm meter
Snopes, wiki, and google are great sources for authoritative legal advice ... lol (that means laughing out loud).
Next time, I'll use the colorful smileyinstead of a text based smiley ;-P so the older folks can more easily detect my sarcasm ...
Me... facepalm... I could have used a better opener than "I really hope ___ " FWIW I did see the winking sticking out tongue smiley.
Cite that Naval Warfare Pub and put them on the spot next time! (Tactfully of course.) There'll be a free beer in it for you
^^^ Edit:
I realized I'm being vague. Sorry about that. The NWP 1-14 specifically discusses .50 cal vs personnel and the legal concept of "unnecessary suffering." Basically one has nothing to do with the other.
Granted, local commander's guidance and standing orders, etc. may address specific situations but that's the general idea.
I realized I'm being vague. Sorry about that. The NWP 1-14 specifically discusses .50 cal vs personnel and the legal concept of "unnecessary suffering." Basically one has nothing to do with the other.
Granted, local commander's guidance and standing orders, etc. may address specific situations but that's the general idea.
I cant imagine that .50 MBG would cause much suffering... Based on the ballistic gels I've seen from 5.56 I would tend to believe that the smaller ammunition has the potential to leave someone bleeding out for hours, as opposed to a 600 grain grain bullet moving 3500 fps which is near instant death.
So what you guys are saying is that little old TH-57 has more navigation capability than fleet a/c...
For civilian flying, yes. I always thought it was funny that Ihad to learn how to fly GPS approaches in HT's knowing there was no fleet helo in which i could legally fly one.
That said, the only downside to COTS GPS is that there is no way (that I'm aware of) to set up Command GS, refueling tracks, etc. Again, we should be training to not needing that stuff but it's wrong to pretend it doesn't help... I only through that out there as one, integrated 'box/ is way mo betta than two separate boxes that don't talk to each other.
I'd like to think that newer a/c with Mission Computers will see this issue (boxes not talking) resolved but it involves a level of comunication and spacedocking among various programs that I doubt NAVAIR's ability to do it.
But dont we do enough flying in the CONUS civilian controlled environment to warrant installing COTS GPS and learning the system while also learning the Military GPS?
I have to agree with MBs previous post about having a Garmin that has integrated VOR, ILS, GPS, and extra VHF radio being a worthwhile investment.
I have to agree with MBs previous post about having a Garmin that has integrated VOR, ILS, GPS, and extra VHF radio being a worthwhile investment.
For 53's I'd say no just because you can shoot an ILS and rely on pilot-shit you learned in flight school for navigation. Tactically, you can still use the archaic GPS to a great degree of success. I don't think cluttering the cockpit with another box and display is the right answer for simply getting around CONUS if you alreay have that capability (however painful it is).
However, an integrated 'box' that meets IFR nav requirements AND has the ability for military-specific functions would be good across platforms and not clutter the cockpit. The whole idea of mission computers is to integrate functions and displays IOT bolster SA...more boxes/displays just detract from it. The way ahead is Mission Computers but I remain skeptical as to whether or not NAVAIR's 'process' can make it work despite my hopes.
Basically, I'm saying we need to stop putting bandaids on the proverbial sucking chest wound and start fielding well-thought out requirements. I think the biggest problem with rotary wing is that we have established a track record of settling on ghetto fixes out of fear of not getting anything if we ask for what we really want/need.
I think a large part of that problem is a lack of collusion across platforms asking for some of the same generic capabilities. For instance, do you think H-1's top ten priorities are the same as H-53's or H-60's? Absolutely not because they may want it but not at the expense of something else. This is where communication comes into play and cost/platform comes way down after all of the platforms have asked for the same generic capability (and no, I'm not delusional enough to think this will ever happen, at least anytime soon).
I'm new to this, so I don't know what the definitive answer is, but my guess is, in extremis, find the runway with the ground mapping radar, designate the end, run a courseline through it, and fly a self-contained 3 degree glideslope.
MH-53E is able to fly GPS airways and shoot GPS approaches
Close in an apples and oranges sense... almost none of the helicopters have a radar that can find a runway (well, the 60B radar maybe on a good day, and the 60R radar OK, decent odds)... but along that same line of thinking, a coupled approach to a hover beats running out of gas- as long as your helo has a doppler radar nav and your autopilot has coupler function(s) generally required to fly a coupled approach. Standard overwater SAR gear but not necessarily standard on all helos. Exactly where you break out might be a fun surprise!
But this kind of resourceful thinking is getting into epic ridiculous HAC board scenario territory.