• 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

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

sevenhelmet

Low calorie attack from the Heartland
pilot
Lemoore had ICLS too, along with its own “boat at the field” procedures that I’ve never heard of used. Did the ICLS get taken down or is it still there?

We supposedly still have it at KNLC, but I haven't seen it in use. Would be nice to vet our systems BEFORE we get to the ship, though.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
We supposedly still have it at KNLC, but I haven't seen it in use. Would be nice to vet our systems BEFORE we get to the ship, though.
This will go from a nice to have to a need to have as your jets get more magic boxes and your community becomes more dependent on those magic boxes. Even more so for the MQ-25. That was one of the hardest changes to get the fleet to understand with MQ-8.
 

EODDave

The pastures are greener!
pilot
Super Moderator
Gatordev,

The amount of money that I have personally seen wasted on just 1 Rhino at the depot would have paid for enough boxes for half the fleet. Between that and the spend it or we won’t get as much next quarter mentality is the bigger problem. If we fixed half of that, there would be more than enough money to fit every Rhino with a box. However, not every Rhino needs one. The buy only needs to cover squadrons not deployed and even then each squadron would only need a max of 6. Just enough to cover up jets (which isn’t a whole lot these days). It’s an asset that can be swapped out to squadrons just like any other box.
 

Python

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
Got it. ILS is a practical, cheap solution. It saves a fortune over antiquated PAR and controllers. It also gives a Cessna 152 more nav capability than a modern fighter. Glad the Navy didn’t give us this because....reasons.
 

UInavy

Registered User
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
ILS is a practical, cheap solution. It saves a fortune over antiquated PAR and controllers.

Solution to what? Using 100-.5 at civilian fields or monetary savings (vice using PARs) at USN fields? Dave just said what it'd cost to install the boxes. Nowhere do I see a comparison of the cost of maintaining ILS in both the jets and on the NAS/ MCAS versus PAR and controllers. That's where you define your 'fortune' or not. Additionally, you're going to use those same controllers at the boat- wouldn't you like them to have some training ashore? Also, without a 3710 change, you still have the same 200-.5 mins with an ILS as you do with the PAR. Those of us that flew with it ashore at Oceana, Lemoore, etc. used those same mins.
 

Pags

N/A
pilot
Solution to what? Using 100-.5 at civilian fields or monetary savings (vice using PARs) at USN fields? Dave just said what it'd cost to install the boxes. Nowhere do I see a comparison of the cost of maintaining ILS in both the jets and on the NAS/ MCAS versus PAR and controllers. That's where you define your 'fortune' or not. Additionally, you're going to use those same controllers at the boat- wouldn't you like them to have some training ashore? Also, without a 3710 change, you still have the same 200-.5 mins with an ILS as you do with the PAR. Those of us that flew with it ashore at Oceana, Lemoore, etc. used those same mins.
Would be curious as to what cost 265 sees. There are a lot more costs to a mod than just buying the box.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Gatordev,

The amount of money that I have personally seen wasted on just 1 Rhino at the depot would have paid for enough boxes for half the fleet. Between that and the spend it or we won’t get as much next quarter mentality is the bigger problem. If we fixed half of that, there would be more than enough money to fit every Rhino with a box. However, not every Rhino needs one. The buy only needs to cover squadrons not deployed and even then each squadron would only need a max of 6. Just enough to cover up jets (which isn’t a whole lot these days). It’s an asset that can be swapped out to squadrons just like any other box.

I'm not here to defend misappropriations on the jet side. I think we're arguing for the same thing from different angles. Whatever the reason, right or wrong, there is only so much money. The other major ILS customer would be Romeo. Overall, the platform has been decently managed monetarily to date, but it doesn't have ILS either (yet).

Again, I totally agree being able to put the boxes in is a win for everyone (one caveat, the Romeo also has to have antennas installed externally, which is slightly more cost and logistically harder). But that doesn't change the fact that there's only so much money.

Also, without a 3710 change, you still have the same 200-.5 mins with an ILS as you do with the PAR.

No, it's much more than that, specifically because of 3710.

1) I would love to have that 200 1/2 that the PAR has, but since the PAR is down, I have 500/1 (or worse) from the TACAN. Does the ILS require maintenance? Sure, but the parts are easier to get and ILS availability at civilian fields is much more consistent.

2) That ILS allows me to use a field as an alternate. If all the alternate has is a PAR, and I'm planning on using the PAR at the primary, then now I need weather that can be significantly more than the actual conditions. "But how likely is that?" you ask? Routine when heading up to Norfolk from FL when the weather isn't great and the ship is getting underway.

With the airwing assets spread out, aircraft have to commute. Can we do it without ILS? Of course, we do it now. But what if we could be more efficient about it and potentially (or anecdotally according to you) be safer?
 

MIDNJAC

is clara ship
pilot
I'm not on the civilian ILS bandwagon.......we need those ICLS boxes in the fleet, and lord knows, I'm an ICLS cripple from 3 NM to the ball call at night. But it is disappointing to me that we have retired the precision capes that we recently had at our master jet bases. If I had a dollar for every time an NTU PAR controller had azimuth dyslexia and nearly forced a missed approach I'd have at least a free tank of gas in my gas guzzler German coupe.
 

UInavy

Registered User
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
1) I would love to have that 200 1/2 that the PAR has, but since the PAR is down, I have 500/1 (or worse) from the TACAN. Does the ILS require maintenance? Sure, but the parts are easier to get and ILS availability at civilian fields is much more consistent.

2) That ILS allows me to use a field as an alternate. If all the alternate has is a PAR, and I'm planning on using the PAR at the primary, then now I need weather that can be significantly more than the actual conditions. "But how likely is that?" you ask? Routine when heading up to Norfolk from FL when the weather isn't great and the ship is getting underway.

With the airwing assets spread out, aircraft have to commute. Can we do it without ILS? Of course, we do it now. But what if we could be more efficient about it and potentially (or anecdotally according to you) be safer?

Great points. On 1), I guess we just don't see the PAR down for Mx as much as you do (knock on wood). I'd be interested to see if there's some sort of prioritization on who and where gets the attention for Mx support for the system.

On 2), I think we just have different platform-specific experiences here. The geographic umbrella for finding an applicable divert for us spreads pretty far and therefore it's usually pretty easy to find the Wx needed. I can think of two times I've ever had to head to the divert for Wx at the destination going under mins. Neither was too big a deal.

I'd say you all have a better case to make for getting ILS for your platform-particularly with the commuting aspect.

I'm with MIDNJAC. I want the ICLS to work- that means having the system in and groomed before going to the ship. That used to mean testing it at the field before heading to the ship, but we've taken that capability away from our CVW fixed wing major bases for some reason.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
I'd be interested to see if there's some sort of prioritization on who and where gets the attention for Mx support for the system.

I believe they do. This is an educated supposition, based on what I would hear at base leadership meetings, but I believe they'll move parts around, if necessary, depending on Readiness needs. PAR is up at NPA but a CVW is coming down to FL for workups and Mayport is down? Move the NPA PAR part to Mayport so they can stand the divert.

Or something like that. I got the impression that the squeaky wheel that complained with a valid issue to CNIC would get priority.

The geographic umbrella for finding an applicable divert for us spreads pretty far and therefore it's usually pretty easy to find the Wx needed.

I think that's a big part of the debate. We just can't go very far in a small amount of time (ie w/ enough gas), so typically the divert is in the same weather pattern as the primary.
 

wlawr005

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
All this talk about ILS at NTU....I just want turnstiles that function so I don't have to walk a mile around a fence to get to my hangar. Also, it'd be nice if they fixed the potholes in the taxiways...but they been there so long we've "normalized" their existence into not being a big deal.
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
All this talk about ILS at NTU....I just want turnstiles that function so I don't have to walk a mile around a fence to get to my hangar. Also, it'd be nice if they fixed the potholes in the taxiways...but they been there so long we've "normalized" their existence into not being a big deal.
Try not to think about that when the safety people pontificate about "safety culture" and "normalization of deviance" as if those are concepts that only apply to bad boy pilots or individual squadrons that don't drink every drop of the safety kool aide.
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
"On glide path, on course" for a precision approach landing system... on a 100 mile final. At this pace, by the time it's finally done it will have taken us less time to win both world wars.
 
Top