Got TACAN?

[Shmegegge 1-1 Aero]

Quote

Awesome thanks! What is the ICLS channel for the ILS? I'm flying the Hornet...

@davidzillThe hornet can not use runway ILS, the ICLS is for carriers only.

Edited May 5, 2021 by [TF-108] Aero
attaching the quote.

[Sn8ke]

8 hours ago, [TF-108] Aero said:

@davidzillThe hornet can not use runway ILS, the ICLS is for carriers only.

 

I just wrote it in the lua. Channel 2, works like a charm.

[Shmegegge 1-1 Aero]

12 hours ago, davidzill said:

I just wrote it in the lua. Channel 2, works like a charm.

OH, I didn't know you could edit those LUA's.  Can you give me the file location?  That's really cool.

[Raisuli]

On 4/30/2021 at 11:48 AM, davidzill said:

Awesome thanks! What is the ICLS channel for the ILS? I'm flying the Hornet...

Navy pilots don't need ILS; ICLS is something completely different.

 

At least that's the thinking in NAVAIR, which has steadfastly refused to put civilian precision landing equipment in Navy fighters forever.  Nobody knows why, but apparently it's cheaper to train a new pilot than add $150 worth of electronics to the jet. 

 

That there have been so few deaths from Naval aviators trying to land in bad weather is a testament to the skill of the operators.

[IvanK]

All RAAF,RCAF,Spanish Hornets have VOR/ILS and associated DME capability

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think the same applies for Finnish,Swiss and Kuwaiti Hornets as well.

Edited June 19, 2021 by IvanK

[Rongor]

On 8/20/2020 at 1:15 PM, ViFF said:

I suggest using the following to extrapolate the TACAN channel from the VHF frequency:

 

https://509tigers.org/confidential/docs/global/01_TACAN_EN.pdf

 

Using this guide the TACAN channel for Ramat David should be 084X

 

 

 

VHF to TACAN conversion.pdf 185.84 kB · 252 downloads

 

The way you depict it here is totally misleading and is not suited for people actually intending to understand how TACAN works.

TACAN doesn't operate on VHF. You can't receive a TACAN by converting its channel to a VHF frequency. This is a common misconception from this misinterpreted table.

 

TACAN, DMS and transponders share standardized 2x126 channels in the frequency band of 960 - 1215 MHz. All these are basically some sort of secondary radar. It is a system of clients polling a serving station.

The civilian DME is compatible to the ranging segment of the military TACAN and therefore uses the same freq range, stepping and (internally) channel numbering.

To not have the civilian operator needing to enter DME channels, DME is usually incorporated into the VOR receivers, which work in the range of 108-118 MHz. When a civilian DME is constructed, often co-located to a VOR, the list you posted is the VOR frequency of a VOR which operates a DME on that respective TACAN-compatible channel. You are basically tuning your civilian DME receiver by tuning your VOR receiver to a VOR, which under the hood always looks for a DME in the list of DME channels corresponding to each VOR frequency.

You can use that table, convert the TACAN channel to a VOR frequency which you can enter in your VOR receiver to then recveive the TACAN's DME segment. That is all.

You can't do it backwards. A VOR frequency or even the presence of DME has no say if there is a TACAN.

The fact that you have a DME channel on a map doesn't tell you if there is a TACAN present. Also a VOR frequency doesn't tell us, if there is a TACAN.

In some cases TACANs are co-located to VORs. This would be visbile on a map by a special symbol, called a VORTAC. VORTACs enable civilian aviation to make use of the co-located TACAN's DME, so the operator of the VOR ground station at the same location doesn't have to errect a DME there.

If the Israelis don't want the TACAN to be published (be it as DME or as a VORTAC), the map symbol probably wouldn't give this away and therefore the published VOR frequency gives us no idea if there is a TACAN at all.

So why would the Israelis or anybody want to "hide" that TACAN?  It's most likely not for security reasons but to keep the system running. TACAN, just like the civilian DME can only serve a maximum number of clients. If the station is saturated by polling clients, it can't handle additional queries. So the idea in a regularly busy airspace would be to keep the TACAN's serving capacity as high as possible instead of risking military flights not being able to use it because there are already 120 civilian flights using the DME.

Edited December 28, 2021 by Rongor

[ViFF]

On 12/28/2021 at 5:28 PM, Rongor said:

The way you depict it here is totally misleading and is not suited for people actually intending to understand how TACAN works.

TACAN doesn't operate on VHF. You can't receive a TACAN by converting its channel to a VHF frequency. This is a common misconception from this misinterpreted table.

 

TACAN, DMS and transponders share standardized 2x126 channels in the frequency band of 960 - 1215 MHz. All these are basically some sort of secondary radar. It is a system of clients polling a serving station.

The civilian DME is compatible to the ranging segment of the military TACAN and therefore uses the same freq range, stepping and (internally) channel numbering.

To not have the civilian operator needing to enter DME channels, DME is usually incorporated into the VOR receivers, which work in the range of 108-118 MHz. When a civilian DME is constructed, often co-located to a VOR, the list you posted is the VOR frequency of a VOR which operates a DME on that respective TACAN-compatible channel. You are basically tuning your civilian DME receiver by tuning your VOR receiver to a VOR, which under the hood always looks for a DME in the list of DME channels corresponding to each VOR frequency.

You can use that table, convert the TACAN channel to a VOR frequency which you can enter in your VOR receiver to then recveive the TACAN's DME segment. That is all.

You can't do it backwards. A VOR frequency or even the presence of DME has no say if there is a TACAN.

The fact that you have a DME channel on a map doesn't tell you if there is a TACAN present. Also a VOR frequency doesn't tell us, if there is a TACAN.

In some cases TACANs are co-located to VORs. This would be visbile on a map by a special symbol, called a VORTAC. VORTACs enable civilian aviation to make use of the co-located TACAN's DME, so the operator of the VOR ground station at the same location doesn't have to errect a DME there.

If the Israelis don't want the TACAN to be published (be it as DME or as a VORTAC), the map symbol probably wouldn't give this away and therefore the published VOR frequency gives us no idea if there is a TACAN at all.

So why would the Israelis or anybody want to "hide" that TACAN?  It's most likely not for security reasons but to keep the system running. TACAN, just like the civilian DME can only serve a maximum number of clients. If the station is saturated by polling clients, it can't handle additional queries. So the idea in a regularly busy airspace would be to keep the TACAN's serving capacity as high as possible instead of risking military flights not being able to use it because there are already 120 civilian flights using the DME.

 

 

The Israeli community was recently cleared by the IAF to publish a redacted unclassified version of the LLRD approach plates.

You can download and see for yourself if there is a TACAN at Ramat David and what is its channel.

 

PDF format:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ffa7krjztlybqx5/LLRD Approach and Departure Notes Volume 1.pdf?dl=0

PNG format:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/yz2qzbuu4z50a8w/LLRD Approach and Departure Notes Volume 1.zip?dl=0

 

Cheers 

ViFF

Edited March 25, 2022 by ViFF

[Recoil16]

11 hours ago, ViFF said:

The Israeli community was recently cleared by the IAF to publish a redacted unclassified version of the LLRD approach plates.

That's awesome!

[celestHawk]

On 5/20/2021 at 9:47 PM, Raisuli said:

Navy pilots don't need ILS; ICLS is something completely different.

 

At least that's the thinking in NAVAIR, which has steadfastly refused to put civilian precision landing equipment in Navy fighters forever.  Nobody knows why, but apparently it's cheaper to train a new pilot than add $150 worth of electronics to the jet. 

 

That there have been so few deaths from Naval aviators trying to land in bad weather is a testament to the skill of the operators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_air_navigation_system

 

Quote

 

Drawbacks

For military usage a primary drawback is lack of the ability to control emissions (EMCON) and stealth. Naval TACAN operations are designed so an aircraft can find the ship and land. Since there is no encryption, an enemy can use the range and bearing provided to attack a ship equipped with a TACAN. Some TACANs have the ability to employ a "Demand Only" mode: only transmitting when interrogated by an aircraft on-channel. It is likely that TACAN will be replaced with a differential GPS system similar to the Local Area Augmentation System called JPALS. The Joint Precision Approach and Landing System has a low probability of intercept to prevent enemy detection and an aircraft carrier version can be used for autoland operations.

Some systems used in the United States modulate the transmitted signal by using a 900 RPM rotating antenna. This antenna is fairly large and must rotate 24 hours a day, possibly causing reliability issues. Modern systems have antennas that use electronic rotation (instead of mechanical rotation), hence no moving parts.

 

Now you know why a $150 solution isn't viable for a military purposes. In same time F-16C implement ILS quite well and is only bc it lands exclusivly on land airfields and just uses what is already available.

[Raisuli]

4 hours ago, celestHawk said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_air_navigation_system

 

Now you know why a $150 solution isn't viable for a military purposes. In same time F-16C implement ILS quite well and is only bc it lands exclusivly on land airfields and just uses what is already available.

Wait...a $150 (sorry, this is the military, $150,000) solutions aren't viable for military purposes, but anything the air force flies uses this non-viable technology?  You did that in sequential sentences?  Now I'm really cornfused.

TACAN, incidentally, is being phased out.  At the rate the US Military moves I expect the last TACAN station to be shut down shortly after the sun enters its red giant phase.