Gary,
Sorry, I don't understand the meaning of your "No" :-)
Inertial system was also developed for submarine.
But what I was discussing was the MISSLE GUIDANCE SYSTEM.
Which according to Wikipedia was inertial.
The submarine could use any navigation system, and I suppose
inertial one was less accurate than Cel Nav.
And that
Transit was developed with the explicit purpose
(or one of the purposes) to improve the missle submarine navigation.
Again, I learn this from the Wikipedia article).
So apparently inertial nav for a submarine, was not sufficient.
Alex.
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012, Gary LaPook wrote:
>
> No, the INS was for the submarine and came in, I believe, in the late '50s, for some reason 1957 sticks in my head.
>
> Also there were other electronic systems that provided accurate navigation. LORAN-A, since WW2, LORAN-C in the '70s, and OMEGA.
>
> gl
>
> --- On Tue, 4/10/12, Alexandre E Eremenko <eremenko---purdue.edu> wrote:
>
> From: Alexandre E Eremenko <eremenko---purdue.edu>
> Subject: [NavList] Re: Dip-meter again
> To:
NavList@fer3.com> Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2012, 11:52
AM
>
>
> Fred,
>
> I suppose that when speaking of "inertial nav" as a guidance system,
> they mean the nav of the missile itself, not of the submarine.
>
> To use an inertiale nav in the missle one needs the position
> of the starting point. This is what Sat nav was for.
>
> Now we see Shufeldt's report in new light:-)
> The reaseach was made in 1957-1961 :-)
> And then classified.
> Exactly at the time when they developed the Polaris A-1 missile...
>
> When Transit became available, they declassified the Shufeldt report.
>
> So now we know what "Precision Cel nav" was really for:-)
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> :
http://fer3.com/arc/m2.aspx?i=118913>
>
>
