Boeing or Lockheed?

[travislikes]

Navs...who need's 'em. With GPS, triple INS, TACAN, VOR, and ADF, if a pilot gets lost, even over water, he or she deserves to go try navigation at 10 knots for a change. The only thing that we really use them for right now in the E-6 is to do the light work that the pilots are too lazy to do during air refueling. Other than that, they are rarely on the flight deck. With the MDS mod in the E-6, they are supposed to go away anyways. Hey, if the VP bubbas need someone to teach them how to sling the pig around and hang on to the boom, I might just be available around then!

 

[zab1001]

if I'm reading this right....these 737s have triple INS, GPS, TACAN, VOR, and ADF.

Unfortunately, P-3s are going into areas where NAVAIDs don't exist, GPS sh*ts itself on a regular basis, and INS's dump (INSes? INIi? what is the plural...). Yes, I'm sure the INS on a 737 makes a P-3's look like one of those old Texas Instruments Desktops on a good day, but the point is, its going to take a loooooong time for Maritime to get the "off-line" mentality to go away. What I mean by this is the ability to do everything without computers. This is a favorite wrench evaluators throw into tactical scenarios on checkrides. Everything is running perfectly and....the scope dies, or the computer crashes, the DF buoy needles crap out...then you're using Nav paperwork and tuning UHF freqs by hand. Hooray for the 21st century and I hope the guys who fly this thing never ever even have to consider that, but like I said, it is ingrained in the VP mentality: "Stuff Breaks- Now what do you do".

DR still happens, and you know what, if an up-and coming TACCO has nothing tactical to do on a repo, then I have no problem with him being tasked to do things the old fashioned way, pencil and paper in hand. It reinforces situational awareness, sets a tempo for operational requirements both tactical and logistical, and provides a sanity check for the computers.

 

[zab1001]

The FMS in the 737's, especially the new ones don't (at least ours) didn't use INS, they were IRS, laser ring gyro's. And they were never used as a sole means of navigation.. the computer threw the info, along with everything from the other systems (GPS, VORs, TACANs, etc) that were in the database, and used everything to get a position. If I remember right, GPS was like #5 on it's priority list when it came to gathering data. It's a very reliable system, and it's how G-V's, BBJ's, and the others are circumnavigating the globe... if you're doing DR, it's because you're really bored, or someone in the plane is pissed you...

Which is all good at FL Whatever, over Nebraska.

Someone onboard a large tactical aircraft will have to be carrying/updating charts rated for overwater navigation in areas with unreliable foreign NAVAIDs, or none at all, and know how to use the charts in a snap the day a SAM or some AAA takes out whatever rack those computers are bolted to. Even if it means a pencil point on a chart every 30 min from the GPS, some back-up has to exist to fall back on. Maritime missions are often conducted in areas in the middle of nowhere, alone, without the benefit of Hawkeye/Battlegroup/radar coverage to guide a stricken aircraft home.

 

[vegita1220]

Btw, what's gonna be the deal with EP-3s? Are the 737s gonna be replacing those as well?

And i wonder how the 737 build would've done against a kamikaze Chinese fighter.

 

[ordinary_guy]

Aren't there only 24 satellites in the GPS constellation, and don't you need 3 of them for a definite position fix? Are there times when GPS won't give you a precise fix b/c you're only visible to two or one satellites?

 

[VetteMuscle427]

I believe they have finished the constellation and you are able to get a relative fix anywhere on the globe. You need 3 sats for a relative fix, but the more sats you have the better your fix will be.

The last I heard about blackouts with sats was from back in desert storm.

 

[zab1001]

GPS still dumps...I assure you.

 

[ordinary_guy]

Is the GPS dumping a result of the onboard system failing, the satellites misbehaving, or the lack of sufficient satellites for a definite fix?

Also, is there more to navigating than just knowing where you are? For example, is plotting where you'll be and the patterns that you might fly a particularly involved thing?

 

[Flash]

Btw, what's gonna be the deal with EP-3s? Are the 737s gonna be replacing those as well?

And i wonder how the 737 build would've done against a kamikaze Chinese fighter.

The Navy took the EP-3 mission out of the MMA competition last summer and joined up with the Army and their Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) copetition. It is suppose to replace their RC-12's and RC-7's with either a Gulfstream or Embraer executive jet. Now that the Navy has chosen the 737 for the MMA, they might revisit that decision. The 737 is a much better platform for the EP-3 mission than the P-3 and would do the job very well. The Nazvy could add on a few extra planes at the beginning or the end of the order to replace the EP-3. The big problem though is that the EP-3 fleet is older and has a lot more hours than the regular P-3 fleet (they are all old P-3C's that were in the boneyard and were converted to EP-3's). They need to be replaced, and soon.

Going back to the Nav thing, I imagine that Nav's will actually disappear sooner or later. Not because the job can be done largely with computers (and it can to a large degree) but because it will save money. That is a big reason they are getting rid of them in a lot of USAF platforms. For those who argue that the job can be easily taken over with technology, take a step back and look at who is arguing that a Nav would still be a good thing, a fleet experienced P-3 pilot. It is easy for all this stuff to do wonders in a airliner, all the thing has to do is go from point A to B. It is a little more complicated when you are flying a mission in a military plane. Anyone who has flown a military plane can tell you that systems fail and stuff goes wrong. Not a big deal when you are under ATC 100% over Ohio but a really big deal when you are flying over a country that does not have Navaids or ATC and filled wth people trying to shoot you down. I know of several instances of aircraft without Navs getting lost and flying the wrong way towards a bad country (KC-135) flying 50 miles into the wrong country (F-16's) and they had all the gizmos that are suppose to tell you where you are. That is not a good thing. At the same time, there were several times that a Nav in my squadron saved a crews bacon because the Pilots were off in la la land and not paying attention (sorry Zab, nothing personal). Technology is only as good as the people using it, it is cliche but true.

 

[webmaster]

Flash, completely agree with you on the Nav thing.... how many messages have you read where the whole crew screwed the pooch and ended up where they shouldn't be, even WITH GPS, navaids, and a falcon view plot up on a computer? I think it gets hairier when you are down low, under MOSA, at night, and just outside of someone else's airspace. Everyone else can get focused on the tactical mission, and I don't know how many times a Nav has saved the day by bringing us all back to reality. My two cents on that at least. It is a crew wide effort, I would hate to see the Nav go away....

AND.... so now it starts, EP3s jumped off the bandwagon, and now they want to come back.... lol....

 

[Flash]

For those who are following this bit about NAV's but are wondering why the fleet guys want them to stay, I will give you a hypothetical scenario.

Seven hours into an 11 hour mission a P-8 (what the hell else are they going to call it?) crew is flying their plane at 300 feet at the edge of their operating area, only 30 miles from bad guy coast, prosecuting a submarine. The mission computer has been acting up the whole mission and now the TACCO's monitor just went blank because it overheated. While the PPC up front is trying to help run the mission with his own little display, he also has to help out the 2P who has his hands full flying the plane under a 1000ft overcast sky and winds across the water at 15-20kts. All the sudden *****ing Betty tells them that the oil pressure is low in the starboard engine. They elect to do the smart thing and make a climbing right turn away from the bad coast and above the weather. The PPC breaks out the checklist as they pass 1500ft and starts going through the procedures, the 3P makes his way to the cockpit with the Natops to help out. Only one of the 2 screens in the back that work is being manned, and that by the trainee AW. As the plane breaks out of the clouds at 4000ft they level off at 5000ft to work through the problem. As they sort through the possibilities of what is causing the oil pressure to drop they ask the IFT, who is still trying to get the TACCO's screen to work, to check out the Circuit Breakers and see if any are popped in secondary bus. He finds 2 popped, resets them, and the oil pressure caution goes away. As the crew breathes a sigh of relief the PPC looks to his left and through a break in the clouds sees a port city and realizes to his horror that they are now flying over the bad guy coast.

What went wrong? No one was paying attention to where they were going except the junior AW who did not want to say anything because the crew was dealing with an emergency. The AW does not know the big deal anyways, he can't even remember the name of the bad country. Think this is beyond the realm of possibilty? Almost all of the problems that occured have happened to me at some time in my career, often several times and in conjunction with other problems. To have an extra set of eyes to keep an eye on the Nav is invaluable and might save your a#* one day. And even then there has been the occasional crew that has done a little more sightseeing than they should have.

As for the EP-3's jumping back on the bandwagon, there was a JO in my old squadron that went down to Boeng in '96 and '97 and talked to them about converting a 737 to recce platform (with the blessing of the VQ community) and I think that is what originally got Boeing interested in the MMA. Then VP jumped on and ruined it.....I guess we will have our revenge now!!!

 

[zab1001]

At the same time, there were several times that a Nav in my squadron saved a crews bacon because the Pilots were off in la la land and not paying attention (sorry Zab, nothing personal). Technology is only as good as the people using it, it is cliche but true.

Who me? Not like I've ever missed an important call because I had my Motley Crue's greatest hits cd turned up too loud on an usused ICS channel, only to have Nav pull me back into the airplane...nah that would NEVER happen. Thank God for multi-crew aircraft....

Excellent post describing the tactical picture. Did you bug my aircraft or something? "Flash has secretly replaced Combat Aircrew XXX's coffee with Folger's crystals....and there's a prop leak on number 2..."

 

[Flash]

Who me? Not like I've ever missed an important call because I had my Motley Crue's greatest hits cd turned up too loud on an usused ICS channel, only to have Nav pull me back into the airplane...nah that would NEVER happen. Thank God for multi-crew aircraft....

Excellent post describing the tactical picture. Did you bug my aircraft or something? "Flash has secretly replaced Combat Aircrew XXX's coffee with Folger's crystals....and there's a prop leak on number 2..."

I don't think you really want to know what I spiked the pilots coffee with....

 

[webmaster]

So true, so true....

 

[Flash]

I don't argue that... but there are complete standalone IRS systems out there now that are a lot more reliable than anything any P-3 has. It's how guys navigate the big money corporate iron all over the pacific.

That corporate jet is still just going from Point A to B, and it was not made by the lowest bidder, tied to the mission systems and is being used for who knows what else. That is a military system. Some Navy planes do have the ring laser gyros now too (some EA-6B's), we still call them INS's though.