Talk:Tactical air navigation system

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Military history: Aviation / Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

TACAN Background

08 October 2005

TACANs are accurate and TACANs are better than VHF Omni-range navigation systems in distance, precision, and reliability. One limiting factor to TACAN accuracy are the reflections of the surrounding area, such as mountains, terrain, or buildings. Each TACAN is certified for a specific capability and range and is expected to stay within these parameters for the life of the machine. The purpose of the TACAN is specific, point to point navigation, verifying the calibration of aircraft navigation systems at a mark on the airfield, and finding an airfield despite any inclement weather. In the early days of air navigation pilots might follow roads, road maps, and well known landmarks that do look different from the air. During the 1930s when the Army Air Corps lost about thirty percent of its aircraft due to navigation problems of bad weather in a single year while under supervision of the United States Army Air Corps Pilot Benjamin D. Foulis (who was a pilot and captain for the first United States air war for the invasion of Mexico during the Mexican Revolution); the United States proceeded to introduce better navigation, and the TACAN system was one result for better navigation. TACANs were created for pilot safety, so the air fields can be found despite any weather condition, and then other navigation systems at the radio located air fields can be used such as ILS ( Instrument Landing System).

Russian / Non-NATO TACAN systems

I'm certain TACAN is used by most NATO countries, but I'm not sure about other countries. From a quick google search I've found some pages that indicate some former Soviet Union ships had systems either identical or similar to TACAN. These systems were code named 'Cake Stand' and 'Round House' by NATO. Nothing really suitable for a reference though. Anyone out there have a link to something comparing TACAN with Round House and Cake Stand? --Dual Freq 00:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on google searches, RSBN appears to be a system that is similar to TACAN as well. --Dual Freq 15:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From RANTEC sales page, "Antennas built by Rantec are currently in use by the U.S. military, by most free-world military forces, by the FAA and by many other civilian aviation authorities worldwide." [1] That seems to indicate more than US usage. I added NATO to try to indicate this was not a US only system, maybe the intro para should say something like most military and worldwide civil aviation. I think these were in former Soviet states as well as East Germany, so this doesn't seem like a US only system. Any opinions? --Dual Freq 12:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TACAN was developed by the US (Rome Labs) during the early cold war period (USAF approval Feb-Mar 1956) as a more precise navigation system than the earlier VOR (VHF Omni-Range). Like all technology, it was eventually "adopted" by many nations with a need for accurate navigational aids. The code names referred to above sound much like VOR facility (a round facility resembling a cake stand)131.15.48.59 21:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have elaborated, the Round House and Cake Stand are shipboard systems normally found in pairs on Soviet / Russian ships. This link has pictures and describes Round House as TACAN, but I was looking for more info than where the antennas are located. I was wondering if they are the same as TACAN or if they simply do the same thing, provide range bearing, but are incompatible with TACAN. This 4 MB image is a US DOD image of an Udaloy cruiser, the "Round House" antennas are the white antennas in the top-middle of the image. I guess it's a mute point as the article now says used by military aircraft. Maybe the next question should be can you buy a civil tacan receiver that displays range and bearing? If so maybe the military part can be removed. --Dual Freq 00:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I'm converting the current references to the new format. The current references both have the name to relate to the second reference (systems pdf), so I'm linking both of them to that and leaving the other reference with no links to it. If this is wrong please fix it or let me know.--Small black sun 21:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will happen on the 30th of February.

> Like all other forms of ground-based aircraft radio navigation currently used, it is likely that TACAN will be replaced by some form of space based navigational system such as GPS.

This is one very unlikely auguration in the article, because ground-based GPS jammer emitters, space warfare anti-satellite missiles or cyber-hacking attacks against GPS satellite control centers could create a single point of failure. (Not to mention the possibility of the Sun suddenly ejecting a few tens of billion metric tons of corona some day, complete with an EMP that fries sats faster than KFC fries chickens.)

As long as every major airport has its own radio-based landing aid system on its own soil, it is much more difficult for the chinese/russians/iranians/sun-worshippers to achieve an "all imperialist airplanes fall out of the sky" day.

Major airport operators of all countries would have to be exceptionally stupid or dazzled by cost-saving / profit-maximizing promises to make radio landing aids located on their own grass redundant. 91.82.38.209 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tactical air navigation system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Future section

I removed this section completely because it was based on a 2001 reference that no longer conveyed any useful information about the future. I would welcome a new Future section from a subject-matter expert. 67.188.1.213 (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]