-
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
Navigation Today
- Thread starter dilbert123
- Start date
I meant if a system-wide failure/attack was conducted. Certainly not tomorrow or even next year, but if China or Russia ever decided it was go time (in a conventional event), I wouldn't be surprised if we lost GPS for a while. The whole jamming thing continues to be an interesting bit of internet noise. Interesting to me, at least. My dad sent me a link of a China product you can buy that will jam GPS "500-1000 miles." I don't believe it, but it's interesting how the subject keeps coming up.
One thing I was never clear on was exactly "how much" the crypto in our GPS systems improves reliability over a civilian system (assuming WAAS is working). We might not be able to discuss the answer here (I don't know), but it's never really delved into in the pubs I've read...not that it needs to be.
Absolutely, but if the video tactical display doesn't work, you can't do ASW. If GPS doesn't work, you can still be in the game. But I've run into more than one pilot who thought once GPS goes down, it's not really worth the effort.
I do get your point, though.
My HAC check was prosecuting a sub and launching a weapon without using the TACNAV (the Skipper turned the thing off as soon as the sonar when into the water). I had to use my kneeboard to determine course and speed and then get a (simulated) weapon off within parameters.
When I was a DH, my CO and XO looked at me like I had three heads when I proposed that idea to them for HAC checks...
I guess some times it's just not your day. Mind you, I'm not advocating turning off the GPS...
Maybe not quite related, but... You can't dip in the Romeo without GPS. While you can technically still do it, the pilot would have to be managing the cable angle by hand (with $1 million bucks hanging from the helo) and you sure as hell wouldn't want to do it at night. An interesting design choice, I thought. Is the Fox like that?
I don't believe I've ever tried to dip in INS only, but I don't see why it wouldn't work.
Not a whole lot more detail possible in an UNCLAS forum, but I've got some experience with real world adversaries employing GPS jamming and those stats on the Chinese product aren't even remotely in the ball park. If you know anything about how signals at that L1/L2 frequency propagate, you can do some math and know that claim is laughable.
Brett
I thought that was the whole point of needing HNAV/HNAV. My understanding (perhaps incorrect) was that you couldn't switch to Cable Angle due to the degraded state of the computer. That never really made sense to me, since the system (I would think) should theoretically work the same in INS, just with slightly less accuracy.
But I certainly defer to your knowledge. I need to see if there's a Natops in my office here and reread it to see what it claims.
Okay, learning has occcured. Just found a Natops and I think at some point when someone was instructing me, the "failed EGI" may have turned into "if you aren't HNAV/HNAV" you can't couple and I never went back to check.
It's been a while since I've been in Chapter 2, so mea culpa.
It's been a while since I've been in Chapter 2, so mea culpa.
Non-sonar hover uses the Doppler to keep the aircraft in the same (at least what the Doppler thinks is the same) location. Same as the Bravo.
When in Cable Angle mode (with sonar in the water and Cable Angle function engaged) the AFCS recieves inputs from two sensors on the reeling machine (lat & long drift) that detect any displacement of the cable from directly beneath the aircraft. The Cable Angle then provides an input into the AFCS to move the aircraft to a postion back on top of the sonar again.
If you are in a current, the sonar will drift. The Cable Angle will then repostion the aircraft to stay on top of the sonar, therefore the aircraft drifts with the sonar.
This does result in some errors in your search since the aircraft is not truly static during a dip, but may have a couple of knots of drift. Those knots can add up to some error over time.
In the Foxtrot you can elect to not engage Cable Angle at which point the pilot has to manually reposition the aircraft to remain on top of the dome. That was one of the things we would practice with a more senior crew so the first time you had to manually control cable angle wasn't during a ASW prosecution.
I hadn't heard that the Romeo has to have GPS to dip. While GPS is pretty reliable, there are always times that it just wouldn't work... I'd like to think that there are back-ups (even manual mode) in the event GPS is not working (for whatever reason).
Yeah, you may have been writing when I posted. I'm just plain wrong on the GPS, however, the coupler and by extension, the cable angle, requires both INS systems to be up. Otherwise you'd be hand flying it in the hover.
Sorry for the confusion.
Speaking of GPS going away... nobody on this thread has yet mentioned GPS interference from the "LightSquared" network. (And that issue is one giant mess.) Depending on who you ask, either there is no interference at all, there is some but not if you put a filter on your GPS antenna, or there is so much interference that GPS instrument approaches won't be safe anymore.
What are we supposed to say; the commander of AF Space Command says it interferes with our systems. I have no idea about frequency spectrum management, so I'll just try the 4 star who's in charge of the program. If he says it interferes, then it must. Anything else is just political rhetoric.
Sorry. I shouldn't have thrown that topic out there without offering my opinion:
It's not that FCC dropped the ball on this one; they never picked it up on the first place. How the situation got to where it is right now is way past ridiculous.
From what I've read, the FCC gave conditional approval to the development without delving too deeply into the possible (probable) interoperability issues with the GPS signal. Don't know the specifics of what was offered by the company developing this, but it would seem like an easier proposition to work out the kinks before amassing millions in sunk costs. Now the FCC and the AF look like assholes.
Brett
Brett
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
I guess you haven't spent much time around the big deck amphibs... I can't count the number of times Father went down, and I ALWAYS made it back for MIDRATS... As for not talking on the radio - yeah, we still had to do that.