Interesting Article on Low-Cost Fighters

MikeD said:
Most military INS in fighter jets, aren't approved for primary navigation in the NAS, hence the F-4 pilots comments to a degree. And most of these same jets can't file /G or /R. Many are still a /P due to their primary navigation means.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I don't know that INS is used as primary navigation ever at least in present time, in aircraft I am surrounded by (corporate). Quite possibly in more remote areas where GPS cannot received; I don't know. I recall in a Gulfstream I used to work with I would bring them up for fun, but I believe they might actually be IRU's for artificial horizons and maybe auto pilot modes.

Which begs the question: is INS in military platforms used as IRU's (to be used as a euphemism)?

(apologies for amateur hour)
 
no idea what you are getting at. I almost never reference any kind of navaid, unless it is the carrier, and that is just to hold prior to coming aboard. We basically never shoot any kind of approach (as we are essentially incapable of doing so), nor do we execute any sort of semblance of airways flying, whether that be in international airspace or at home. I honestly have no idea if the rest of the world has class A airspace, or what the requirements might be for whatever they call it, and I tell ATC what I am doing rather than ask when I am abroad. So i could be 10000 miles off and still fly like I am VFR as far as i am concerned.
 
Last edited:
I am just babbling about INS technology, the days interest.

IRU's I speak of are internal reference units that use INS technology (I beleive) for artificial horizon data and auto pilot on EFIS systems. Thats why I was curious if it means one of the same to give you data to screens, then again I am not sure if your screens provide an artificial horizon.
 
n57flyguy said:
Thanks Ryan and @PilotFighter, so the basic understanding I am gaining is that INS is used as a redundancy for aircraft navigation.

I got curious and asked a former F4 driver aswell:
Click to expand...
Here's the problem with our conversation about INS, it has covered about 50 years of implementation and included comments from those in three different services (Navy, AF, Marines), mulitple aircraft (S-3, A-10, F-117, F-15, etc), and multiple missions (AW, Patrol, attack, fighter).

INS is alive and well and new INS systems are still on the horizon. INS continues to evolve. It's not really a matter of redundancy, its a matter of what tool fits the job. INS continues to have a place in tactical aviation because it works without radar (rf emissions) and GPS (vulnerable to jamming). It's also about priorities, navigating in civilian airspace is secondary to the combat mission.

Also, definitions change. Now, when we are talking about INS, we are talking about sophisticated laser ring or fiber optic devices with radar and GPS inputs, hardly your grandfather's INS.
 
n57flyguy said:
Interesting, I don't know that INS is used as primary navigation ever at least in present time, in aircraft I am surrounded by (corporate). Quite possibly in more remote areas where GPS cannot received; I don't know. I recall in a Gulfstream I used to work with I would bring them up for fun, but I believe they might actually be IRU's for artificial horizons and maybe auto pilot modes.

Which begs the question: is INS in military platforms used as IRU's (to be used as a euphemism)?

(apologies for amateur hour)
Click to expand...

Some are standalone INS navigation units, nowdays with GPS integration as previously mentioned. Others also act as an IRU (sometimes called INU) that facilitates other instrumentation to operate in the aircraft. For example, the INU in the USAF HH-60 operates in this way, with nearly everything other than external navaid receivers operating through it in some way. Problem is, the INU is so old and so slow, that even with new techology such as smart-color heads down displays and the like, they can't always operate to their full potential due to the technological limits and processing power/speed of the old INU it goes through.

And even with the GPS, that same INS is still not to be used for any kind of enroute navigation as a primary means, only as a backup. The GPS portion of it is non-WAAS, etc, just a basic GPS function. It's primary use is for combat applications and navigation in a non-structured geographic area anyway.
 
Thanks, I was not fairly comparing scopes of the missions you guys have/had and even my parallel and exposure is a very different use of the technology. I just dont think I understood its main use in tactical navigation in non radar environments or where GPS is subject to jamming. Obviously difficult to transpose from my perceptions and exposure to a mission I just honestly do not know anything about. I am not even sure if newer corporate jets utilize IRU's/INS; the definition and technology may very well have changed or currently is.

Thanks again, very interesting.
 
Last edited:
killbilly said:
But it was news to me and I thought it might be interesting to others. :)
Click to expand...

Oh, I didn't mean to be rude. I keep seeing stories on this splashed all over the place, as though this is some incredible, revolutionary idea. But I'll be damned if I can figure out what makes it so. I was hoping someone with more knowledge on the subject would explain. Like, what makes it a better solution than, say, the T-45s (aka Bae Hawk) we're already buying and thus already have knowledge of/spares etc etc etc.
 
n57flyguy said:
Thanks Ryan and @PilotFighter, so the basic understanding I am gaining is that INS is used as a redundancy for aircraft navigation.
Click to expand...

Military aircraft grade INS units are also now used to align the smaller (and usually more inaccurate) INS units on weapons. It would suck to have to do a 4 min wake-up alignment before you wanted to Fox, drop a JDAM, or send a small diameter bomb on it's merry gliding way. Additionally, they're used to point sensors like radars and target pods.
 
Additionally, speaking of definitions, what I was starting to reference was an IRS (Inertial Reference System) which uses laser gyros for HUD (inertial acceleration and flight path vector), primary pitch/bank/heading information (AI/PFD), and a back up if the GPS systems fail. I am not sure if that is a Gulfstream specific definition (GD technology) or not. Even the 550 is considered "classic" now, and the G650 has a different system that corroborates AOA information along with its IRS system....I am not sure if it has changed from the 550.

So yes, the IRS system in a Gulfstream is technically an INS system, but more advanced I would venture.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Oh, I didn't mean to be rude. I keep seeing stories on this splashed all over the place, as though this is some incredible, revolutionary idea. But I'll be damned if I can figure out what makes it so. I was hoping someone with more knowledge on the subject would explain. Like, what makes it a better solution than, say, the T-45s (aka Bae Hawk) we're already buying and thus already have knowledge of/spares etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

Nah, didn't think you were being rude.

Here's a thought, though. These lower-powered, lower-tech airplanes are getting more common, right? So is the overall price in the market coming down? Is something defense-related actually getting CHEAPER?

Here's a sidebar which has some relevance:

A few months back I was talking with someone who works on the Hill who is an ex fighter pilot and in a position related to defense policy in this country. I asked this pilot about CAS aircraft like the Tucano and stuff for sale to less-affluent countries like Afghanistan. And the pilot's reply was that you have to sell into a country with a culture of maintenance. Afghans would kill themselves even with a plane like the Tucano. A much better option for them would be a an armed variant of a Beaver. How cheap would THAT be?

I just find it really interesting that more countries are going to be able to afford relatively sophisticated airpower.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
With enough U.S. FMF money, anything is possible.
Click to expand...

Your thinking of 1206 money.

Not going with FMF was the reason Im currently banging my head against a wall at night trying to fix a lot of mistakes caused by buying stuff DCS because "our dollar goes further that must be better."

And yes a lot of countries you would never expect are getting top shelf stuff for their active units.... But they are skimping on the support, logistics, actual training sorties, and more importantly trainers to actually learn. So you have situations like them flying a Cessna > A light HP Piston > A friggen Jet!

And then they wonder why there stuff cant be maintained and they keep slamming them into mountains at night.
 
MX is something people very often seem to underestimate when evaluating an aircraft purchase. Then they lose their minds when said aircraft has an issue that isn't dispatchable away from home.
 
Lawman said:
Your thinking of 1206 money.

Not going with FMF was the reason Im currently banging my head against a wall at night trying to fix a lot of mistakes caused by buying stuff DCS because "our dollar goes further that must be better."

And yes a lot of countries you would never expect are getting top shelf stuff for their active units.... But they are skimping on the support, logistics, actual training sorties, and more importantly trainers to actually learn. So you have situations like them flying a Cessna > A light HP Piston > A friggen Jet!

And then they wonder why there stuff cant be maintained and they keep slamming them into mountains at night.
Click to expand...
I wasn't being specific, just making the point that poor countries can afford expensive toys if the U.S. wants to pay for it.

I haven't kept up with military sales programs. At one time FMF was the funding source for FMS. Now, it's a bit of an alphabet soup.

I know what you're saying about DCS, I saw a Saudi program grind to a halt over logistics and maintenance....even when there was plenty of money on the table.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I wasn't being specific, just making the point that poor countries can afford expensive toys if the U.S. wants to pay for it.

I haven't kept up with military sales programs. At one time FMF was the funding source for FMS. Now, it's a bit of an alphabet soup.

I know what you're saying about DCS, I saw a Saudi program grind to a halt over logistics and maintenance....even when there was plenty of money on the table.
Click to expand...

I ran several Saudi Maintenance programs. Couldn't staff most above 76% fill rate for the crap pay and unrealistic expected qualifications.

That said, having an office across from Tinker did help, but those separating airman usually figured out their value within 2 years and left.....\

At Khamis Mushyat, the Saudi's didn't want to fly unless a western mech bought off the jet first, didn't trust their guys.

The golden years of high maintainer pay are gone there. Now its every low cost provider undercutting each other to get the program. ETTL, LMTS, BISS, etc....
 
jskibo said:
I ran several Saudi Maintenance programs. Couldn't staff most above 76% fill rate for the crap pay and unrealistic expected qualifications.

That said, having an office across from Tinker did help, but those separating airman usually figured out their value within 2 years and left.....\

At Khamis Mushyat, the Saudi's didn't want to fly unless a western mech bought off the jet first, didn't trust their guys.

The golden years of high maintainer pay are gone there. Now its every low cost provider undercutting each other to get the program. ETTL, LMTS, BISS, etc....
Click to expand...
Are you telling me that Al Salam isn't getting it done?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top