F-35B/C Lightning II (Joint Strike Fighter)

[whitesoxnation]

I fly out of Whidbey which, by my estimation, has an above average amount of instrument meteorlogical conditions. I fly an aircraft that is equipped with a civilian ILS and RNAV capability. I can count on one had the amount of times I've had to use it in Whidbey. I have lost training due to terminal weather exactly zero times. I have not launched to terminal weather exactly zero times. I'd prefer NAVAIR takes the money available for precision approaches and fixes OBOGS, gets NGJ sooner, or improves my warfighting ability in any metric. Just my personal opinion formed by my personal experiences.

Counterpoint - I can't even begin to count the amount of times I've lost training due to not being equipped with precision approach capability and sat on the bench while the USAF F-15s and F-16s launch. That, AND when the weather has been poor but flyable having to use a more conservative joker/bingo due to 3710 requirements and losing more opportunities to train AND for some time not being IMC TR players leading to lost training opportunities.

That breeds a lack of experience and confidence in fighting in IMC, and if you don't practice it then it may be a challenge to MAXIMIZE your capabilities while executing SAFELY.

Downside of flying from land a jet that was designed for the boat.

 

[Swanee]

Counterpoint - I can't even begin to count the amount of times I've lost training due to not being equipped with precision approach capability and sat on the bench while the USAF F-15s and F-16s launch. That, AND when the weather has been poor but flyable having to use a more conservative joker/bingo due to 3710 requirements and losing more opportunities to train AND for some time not being IMC TR players leading to lost training opportunities.

That breeds a lack of experience and confidence in fighting in IMC, and if you don't practice it then it may be a challenge to MAXIMIZE your capabilities while executing SAFELY.

Downside of flying from land a jet that was designed for the boat.

I agree with you.
Cherry Point shuts down, yet the F-15E dudes from SJ are still getting to do their stuff out in the whiskey areas, as well as have no problems getting into the -5306 ranges (as well as the Dare ranges). On those days they'll do a PAR for fun into Cherry Point on their way home, because why not.

They're training in weather conditions that ground our Harriers and Hornets, yet we're supposed to be the any clime, any place service...

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I agree with you.
Cherry Point shuts down, yet the F-15E dudes from SJ are still getting to do their stuff out in the whiskey areas, as well as have no problems getting into the -5306 ranges (as well as the Dare ranges). On those days they'll do a PAR for fun into Cherry Point on their way home, because why not.

They're training in weather conditions that ground our Harriers and Hornets, yet we're supposed to be the any clime, any place service...

Flying around with something like 30,000lbs of fuel doesn’t hurt

 

[Gatordev]

Ou


Our BK-117 B2 and BO-105 were both IFR equipped in 1998 and we had one of the first IFR gps for enroute nav. Our day VFR mins were 700/2 which in an urban environment with terrain of hills and valleys was not great. No NVD either. Airline pilot uniforms and headsets, no nomex or helmets.

So were you IFR certified or just equipped? That's what I was getting at. As I recall, you were with PHI then, which nowadays is one of the big four. Fleet-wide, for at least several of the sub-companies, IFR-equipped VFR aircraft is relatively new for fleet-wide. That's not to say they didn't exist beforehand (which it sounds like yours was).

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how VFR mins can be below the definition of VFR. Yeah, yeah, I get it, day cloud clearances. I know the FAA has some confusing VFR minimum chart now, which thankfully I don't have to memorize as ours is more restrictive (and much simpler).

 

[Swanee]

Flying around with something like 30,000lbs of fuel doesn’t hurt

Touche salesman. But it helps that they can plan to precision mins every day of the week and twice on Sunday, too.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Touche salesman. But it helps that they can plan to precision mins every day of the week and twice on Sunday, too.

Agreed. And for those saying money is better spent elsewhere, I bet it’s cheaper to buy ILS than keep training PAR controllers and trying (often unsuccessfully) to upkeep PAR’s.

 

[Hotdogs]

Agreed. And for those saying money is better spent elsewhere, I bet it’s cheaper to buy ILS than keep training PAR controllers and trying (often unsuccessfully) to upkeep PAR’s.

I’ll do you one better... How about we just certify organic GPS onboard all DoN aircraft for an RNAV capability. Good bye ILS, GCAs, ATNAVICS...etc The whole fucking thing.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

I’ll do you one better... How about we just certify organic GPS onboard all DoN aircraft for an RNAV capability. Good bye ILS, GCAs, ATNAVICS...etc The whole fucking thing.

Yes, but that doesn’t really solve the precision approach problem if we’re at war with a competent enemy.

 

[UInavy]

Yes, but that doesn’t really solve the precision approach problem if we’re at war with a competent enemy.

That's why we land on boats for war-y stuff.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

That's why we land on boats for war-y stuff.

And GPS based approaches don’t help with that, at least not yet, much.

And you might want to define “we”

 

[UInavy]

And GPS based approaches don’t help with that, at least not yet, much.

And you might want to define “we”

Not advocating for GPS approaches or ILS, just competent controllers and good Mx of the systems we already have installed.

By "we", I mean those of us in Naval Aviation that fly on and off of boats. I realize that's not everyone. I didn't mean to appropriate Naval Aviation to only those in ship-based vocations.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Not advocating for GPS approaches or ILS, just competent controllers and good Mx of the systems we already have installed.

By "we", I mean those of us in Naval Aviation that fly on and off of boats. I realize that's not everyone. I didn't mean to appropriate Naval Aviation to only those in ship-based vocations.

The PAR is an antiquated system. Some would argue the ILS is too, but not nearly so much as the PAR. I’m not an engineer/expert, but as a MCAS ASO, I got got be a part of a lot of fun involving the ancient machine not working and the repercussions for squadrons already in a readiness hole.

If we removed all PAR’s and added ILS I bet we would both save money and add capability.

 

[UInavy]

The PAR is an antiquated system. Some would argue the ILS is too, but not nearly so much as the PAR. I’m not an engineer/expert, but as a MCAS ASO, I got got be a part of a lot of fun involving the ancient machine not working and the repercussions for squadrons already in a readiness hole.

If we removed all PAR’s and added ILS I bet we would both save money and add capability.

Agreed that it's not new. However, are you arguing for a capability 'versus a competent enemy' as above or to get squadrons out of a 'readiness hole' while in work-ups or training? Two different beasts.

It wouldn't take that much research to figure out if PARs+competent controllers was > or < ILS for both combat and training for capability and dollars. All the info is there (even for metro). If it hasn't been done (or you have no desire to take it to that conclusion as I wouldn't), you could reach out to NPS to have someone do it for their MS thesis. I know the USMC puts a ton of great dudes through the OR curriculum and this would be right in that wheel house.

As for repercussions of PAR not working- I've done plenty of approaches to at or near mins at multiple locations under PAR control(lers) without faulty equipment or controllers. Maybe I've just been lucky for awhile. Without a 3710 change, all ILS would add is a backup to that capability that (in my anecdotal experience) has worked fairly well.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Agreed that it's not new. However, are you arguing for a capability 'versus a competent enemy' as above or to get squadrons out of a 'readiness hole' while in work-ups or training? Two different beasts.

It wouldn't take that much research to figure out if PARs+competent controllers was > or < ILS for both combat and training for capability and dollars. All the info is there (even for metro). If it hasn't been done (or you have no desire to take it to that conclusion as I wouldn't), you could reach out to NPS to have someone do it for their MS thesis. I know the USMC puts a ton of great dudes through the OR curriculum and this would be right in that wheel house.

As for repercussions of PAR not working- I've done plenty of approaches to at or near mins at multiple locations under PAR control(lers) without faulty equipment or controllers. Maybe I've just been lucky for awhile. Without a 3710 change, all ILS would add is a backup to that capability that (in my anecdotal experience) has worked fairly well.

MCAS Beaufort went through months of no precision approach capability, repeatedly. It gets cloudy there, and the hornet squadrons there could barely meet minimum hours even with nice weather. The PAR is a POS. Period.

I wasn’t talking about a PAR “malfunctioning”, although I have first hand stories of fully operable PAR’s and their controllers almost killing me and friends.

I’m talking about a system so antiquated it’s difficult to fix. It’s like a priceless grandfather clock except you can only have it worked on by 18 year olds.

It’s well past time to move on.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Did somebody say PAR approach? From the 1970 movie Airport.