ILS

TACAN (or VOR/DME for the civvies; functionally they're the same thing although they operate at different frequencies) is an enroute navigation aid that provides bearing and distance to the beacon, not a precision landing system. A TACAN approach can guide you down to visual minima, but for CAT I minima or below you need either ILS, MLS, SCAT1/GBAS, TLS or one of the different types of proprietary military laning systems (TILS, ICLS etc).

TACAN (or VOR/DME for the civvies; functionally they're the same thing although they operate at different frequencies) is an enroute navigation aid that provides bearing and distance to the beacon, not a precision landing system. A TACAN approach can guide you down to visual minima, but for CAT I minima or below you need either ILS, MLS, SCAT1/GBAS, TLS or one of the different types of proprietary military laning systems (TILS, ICLS etc).

TACAN approach is a non-precision instrument approach exactly like the VOR/DME for instance is, it specifically allows you to land in conditions not allowing for "VFR" approach. Obviously, minima are higher than in ILS approach, but it still is an instrument approach.

Lack of precision approach capability does not mean VFR only.

Does the lack of ILS in the F/A-18C mean that it will be restricted to VFR landings at airports in NTTR and other maps?

Whiz-bang zero-zero systems aside all airplane landings are VFR. It is the approach which may be IFR. The approach terminates at some minima prior to landing which must be conducted visually. There are means available to an F-18 to conduct an IFR approach other than ILS.

Whiz-bang zero-zero systems aside all airplane landings are VFR. It is the approach which may be IFR. The approach terminates at some minima prior to landing which must be conducted visually. There are means available to an F-18 to conduct an IFR approach other than ILS.

Well, I suppose in CAT III approaches with zero DH and minimum RVR, you can maybe see the approach and runway lights at some point.

What does the Hornet have that can be used in DCS for IFR approaches at land based airfields?

From my minimal understanding of carrier operations at this time, it doesn't look like this will be an issue when landing at sea as long as all capabilities are modeled.

On a Cat 3B with zero dh you dont need to see a thing often the problem is the subsequent taxy. US military will so PAR's down to 100ft but not really applicable to DCS but then again I have yet to be on a multiplayer server that required an IFR approach. probably for good reason VFR is a lot more fun .

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Well, I suppose in CAT III approaches with zero DH and minimum RVR, you can maybe see the approach and runway lights at some point.

 

What does the Hornet have that can be used in DCS for IFR approaches at land based airfields?

 

From my minimal understanding of carrier operations at this time, it doesn't look like this will be an issue when landing at sea as long as all capabilities are modeled.

TACAN, NDB?, and if the facility is added PAR.

Whiz-bang zero-zero systems aside all airplane landings are VFR. It is the approach which may be IFR. The approach terminates at some minima prior to landing which must be conducted visually. There are means available to an F-18 to conduct an IFR approach other than ILS.

Ah, now I see where the confusion is. :) We are mixing some terms here.

If the landing and the final part of the approach is flown visually doesn't make it VFR - in fact, huge majority of ILS approaches are finished visually (they have to be, from the approach minima) but that doesn't make it VFR; often one doesn't meet VMC criteria to allow any VFR flight.

One can actually fly a visual approach while under IFR.

But back to the topic: Re. ILS, I think remembering the ILS in Hornets was not certified to any 'Category approaches', or in other words, that it was CAT I certified only, I believe. So not quite "Whiz-bang zero-zero system" either where equipped.

Re. NDB: I'm not sure if Hornet was certified for that either. The ones I recall did not have NDB receivers specifically, but were equipped with radio direction finders. It essentially does the same thing, and its frequency range overlapped at least some of the NDB range I think, but don't remember for sure.

ILS provides Pricision Approach (PA) procedures.

There are different types of ILS: Cat I, II, IIIa, IIIb and IIIc.

In IIIc procedure the auto pilot land the aircraft (down to touchdown), so it's "hands free" landing.

But you also have Non Precision Approach (NPA) which can rely on various ways such as VOR, NDB, RNAV...

The height and visual range minimum values are higher than for PA procedures, but these are IFR procedures non the less.

So planes like Mirage 2000C and F-15C in DCS have ILS Cat I capacity.

Hornet landing on aircraft carrier have Cat IIIc equivalent with auto land system.

But this carrier auto-land is incompatible with ILS. So you would have to use NPA procedures for land airfields.

Hornet landing on aircraft carrier have Cat IIIc equivalent with auto land system.

If this really is the case, it will be a lot of fun to try it out.

Must be really scary in a bad weather/night scenario in real life

Very interesting thread. However after reading all the posts I am confused. I understood that the legacy hornet of the navy (which we get in DCS) doesn't have a ILS for civilian airports. However how do I land my hornet in case of very bad weather on a military airfield when PA is requiered? Is there an ILS just for military airports?

Very interesting thread. However after reading all the posts I am confused. I understood that the legacy hornet of the navy (which we get in DCS) doesn't have a ILS for civilian airports. However how do I land my hornet in case of very bad weather on a military airfield when PA is requiered? Is there an ILS just for military airports?

If they don't include an ILS option, or PAR simulation, you'd pretty much be on clever thinking and illegal actions. :D

They normally use a PAR ( Precision Approach Radar) Hence my earlier comment as while the RAF and most use 200ft DH the USAF actually have 100ft DH PAR available if you are suitably qualified. The RN carriers used to have PAR on them when they had them.

CAT 3 B approaches require an Autoland as many are no DH as do 3A approaches in the company I fly for, you only need to see a light to continue to land, in the case of a go around the aircraft will probably touchdown, it certainly will in a B777. I have never heard of a 3C but B777 is getting a little old now.

I am flying with a retired F18 pilot next week so I will ask him as long as our rosters dont change.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

They normally use a PAR ( Precision Approach Radar) Hence my earlier comment as while the RAF and most use 200ft DH the USAF actually have 100ft DH PAR available if you are suitably qualified. The RN carriers used to have PAR on them when they had them.

CAT 3 B approaches require an Autoland as many are no DH as do 3A approaches in the company I fly for, you only need to see a light to continue to land, in the case of a go around the aircraft will probably touchdown, it certainly will in a B777. I have never heard of a 3C but B777 is getting a little old now.

 

I am flying with a retired F18 pilot next week so I will ask him as long as our rosters dont change.

 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Actually I think the CAT IIIC is not in common operational use, as you say, as it implies zero visibility, for which the surface ops are not equipped as of today, in what comes to taxiing and so on.

Autoland, or a certified HUD (there can be some other substitutes to the autoland I forget!) is required for all CAT III approaches I understand. Comparing to civilian requirements, the HUD in F-18C is a primary flight display, but seems to lack much of the stuff that CAT III certified HUDs show. Certainly it isn't CAT certified as an autoland substitute in an airplane which even lacks the ILS unless a custom option.

PAR used to be an excellent tool around here when it was commonly used, easily on par ;) with ILS. But they say it really meant you had to be on your needles, and steady while at it. The good thing was that it wasn't much airplane-dependent.

One suggested technique indeed is marking up the end(s) of the runway as one can show them up on the HUD - hardly an official technique, but some say it works.

The automatic carrier landing system is an interesting one. It is a kind of semi-active remote control in function. :)

Sorry slightly offf topic now but in answer to the last.

PAR with a HUD is actually pretty easy we used to get asked to do them on the head down instruments for controller training because most of their calls were on the glidepath on the centerline when we used the HUD.

German Tornado didnt have an ILS the main problem IRL is it limits your diversion options.

Back in my day all military fields had PAR probably something to do with all NAV aids being off in wartime kinda funny that they are on in DCS it feels like cheating when I dial up an enemy airfield tacan to go attack it

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I believe only the F/A-18E squadrons (maybe the 18C's too) attached to the USS Bush currently have the autoland system. Plans are to upgrade fleet-wide.

What about ILS for approach to carrier?

I don't see it and no possibility to put ILS on carrier.

sD_mUwzpUs4

ALsXGIqAB40

Civilian ILS: not possible. Even the smallest 6-element localizer arrays are too large to fit on a carrier, and even an M-array glide path is way too sensitive regarding the reflection plane to fit it in such a confined area.

ICLS, which is basically comparable to MLS (which was a huge flop in the civilian aviation market), is used on carriers. Both of your videos show the ICLS flight director bars.

I believe only the F/A-18E squadrons (maybe the 18C's too) attached to the USS Bush currently have the autoland system. Plans are to upgrade fleet-wide.

There were various generation of aircraft carrier auto land system. A-6 and F-14 already had it back in the days...

The problem is the reliability and the effectiveness (or lack of...) of the system.

In flight simulators it tends to be perfect, IRL not so much...