Low Frequency LORAN Guided Bombs

Was browsing Wikipedia's history of LORAN when I came across this tidbit:

These concepts led to experiments with Low Frequency LORAN in 1945, using a much lower frequency, 180 kHz. A system with three transmitters was set up on the US east coast using long antennas supported by balloons. The experiments demonstrated that the accuracy inherent to the design while working at such low frequencies was simply too great to be useful; operational factors introduced errors that overwhelmed the inherent capabilities. Nevertheless, the three transmitters were re-installed in northern Canada and Alaska for experiments in polar navigation, and ran for three years until shutting down again in March 1950.[18] These experiments demonstrated accuracy on the order of 0.15 microseconds, or about 50 metres (0.031 mi), a great advance over LORAN. Maximum usable range was 1,000 miles (1,600 km) over land and 1,500 miles (2,400 km) on the sea. Using cycle matching, the system demonstrated an accuracy of 160 feet (49 m) at 750 miles (1,210 km).[18] But it was also discovered that the system was very difficult to use and the measurements remained subject to confusion over which cycles to match.

Given that accuracy, would it have been possible to equip bombs with LORAN guidance packages, similar to modern JDAM packages? Given the electronics of the time, I rather doubt it would have been down into the 500 pound bomb range, but perhaps as a "We need an all weather precision delivery capability in the event of a conventional conflict," such as large anti-submarine pen bunker busters (one of the initial design reasons for the CVA-58 class)? Also potentially useful as a guidance system for the US Navy's cruise missile projects (Regulus I, II, and Triton). I don't know the engineering and automation work that would be necessary for that however, hence the question.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Bombing computers could do a better job. The Thunderstick II system on the F-105 could achieve a CEP of 15 meters:

Experience in Vietnam demonstrated the need for a better visual and blind bombing capability. In March 1968, the Air Force ordered development of an upgraded bombing/navigation system, incorporating a Singer-General Precision inertial navigation system, improvements to the AN/APN-131 navigation radar, and solid-state circuitry for the R-14A radar, which was redesignated R-14K. Furthermore, the digital AN/ARN-92 long-range navigation receiver replaced the problematic AN/ARN-85 receiver. The additional avionics were housed in a long, raised dorsal spine. The modified bombing/navigation system was known as Thunderstick II. F-105s with this system could achieve a bombing circular error of probability (CEP) of 50 feet (15 m) from an altitude of 15,000 ft (4,600 m). Although the first Thunderstick II aircraft flew in 1969, they were not used in Vietnam. A total of 30 F-105Ds received this modification.
 
Was browsing Wikipedia's history of LORAN when I came across this tidbit:



Given that accuracy, would it have been possible to equip bombs with LORAN guidance packages, similar to modern JDAM packages? Given the electronics of the time, I rather doubt it would have been down into the 500 pound bomb range, but perhaps as a "We need an all weather precision delivery capability in the event of a conventional conflict," such as large anti-submarine pen bunker busters (one of the initial design reasons for the CVA-58 class)? Also potentially useful as a guidance system for the US Navy's cruise missile projects (Regulus I, II, and Triton). I don't know the engineering and automation work that would be necessary for that however, hence the question.

50m? Not very useful for anything short of a nuke, is it?

Also:
Using cycle matching, the system demonstrated an accuracy of 160 feet (49 m) at 750 miles (1,210 km).[18] But it was also discovered that the system was very difficult to use and the measurements remained subject to confusion over which cycles to match.

Can you use that automatically? How much computation would it require? How much of the payload of the bomb/missile would it take up>
 
Can you use that automatically? How much computation would it require? How much of the payload of the bomb/missile would it take up>
You probably could, to be honest, but with technology at the time you'd almost have to hardwire the target into the bomb at the time of final assembly. The size of the analogue/mechanical computer to do it would mean it was only viable for large bombs against high value targets, though.
 

Delta Force

Banned
LORAN could improve accuracy prior to the use of bombing computers or inertial guidance- and allow for standoff strikes (Or the use of drones, like Operation Aphrodite-only more accurate). Of course, as R. V. Jones showed, guidance beams could be jammed.

A guided munition is only useful if you know where the target is. I've heard that it took an extended period of time to program GPS guided bombs during Desert Storm[/url]. With pre-GPS electronics it would be even slower. A bombing computer allows the crew to hit targets with high precision without the need for them to have been identified prior to the mission.
 
Top