Vehicular Land Navigation System C1

[David Dunlop]

Grant, it is interesting your manuals for the M38 take this system back to it's possible roots in WW2 with the MB/GPW system.

A couple of years ago, while looking for C42 Set information on line, I stumbled into the National Archives site in London, England. They had two sequentially listed documents in their files for a "Vehicle Land Navigation System XC1". One was an initial report, the other the final report, both dated simply 1961, with a very cryptic Canadian reference. These were not online documents but had to be viewed in person or ordered blind. Struck my curiosity but not enough to follow up on, and with the "X" prefix for 'Experimental', my other thought at the time was it probably never saw the light of day.

Now it appears the system did indeed see some level of production volume, with intent for installation in a variety of vehicles. Very intriguing and whets the appetite for more information about it.

David

[Ed Storey]

There are NAVAID Installation Instructions for both the M38A1CDN and M37CDN as well as the M38CDN mentioned earlier.

[James P]

NavAid was talked about during my training to drive Lynx C&R, even had the power sockets and some fitting inside the vehicle but outside of it being mentioned I never saw one (NavAid) in either Pet or later Germany.

[Lang]

It appears that the system was not widely used as it was very inaccurate in use and required a high level of skill and practice to use well.

Three things killed further development:

OMEGA the VLF signals developed for underwater use by submarines and subsequently available for aircraft and vehicles, both military and civil (70's and 80's). This required a start from a known point and used crossing radio waves from about 4 stations around the world (like ripples in a pond from 3 different stones thrown in a distance apart).

This of course was subject to electronic warfare interference.

Inertial Navigation was sort of a development of the NAVAID system but here it used very sophisticated gyros which measured movement also from a known point. Very accurate - down to a couple of metres. It was fully self contained in the vehicle or aircraft and not subject to outside interference. Used by all airliners and military aircraft and vehicles for 30 years. Aircraft have now gone to GPS but the military have retained inertial capability because GPS is subject to electronic interference.

GPS needs no introduction. It is so universal that attacking GPS satellites or creating spurious signals other than in a small local area is as counterproductive to the attacker as the defender. Everything uses it. It would appear that GPS will be treated like gas warfare - everybody has the capability to do bad things with it but by mutual agreement it is off-limits.

Although they have their own system, turning off US satellites over Russia in a conflict, or programming them not to talk to certain receivers, so the Russians can not use them will not happen because the Russians have the capability to knock down the satellites. Everybody loses. GPS has just become a modern version of the earth's magnetic field available to everyone.

[Ed Storey]

Lang:

"It appears that the system was not widely used as it was very inaccurate in use and required a high level of skill and practice to use well."

Interesting comment, do you have a document to support this or is it just conjecture on your part?

ED

[Lang]

Ed

I found mention of it on a navigation tech site. No practical facts to ad to the great detail you blokes have already other than that comment in an historical overview of various early systems before it launched into the subsequent progress of the art to the present time.

There appear to be many systems tried and actually produced by various countries but, as far as we know, nothing seems to have reached universal daily operation until the inertial systems and subsequently GPS.

I did not bookmark it (and I clear my history daily) but will have a look to see if I can get it up again.

Lang

[David Dunlop]

Assuming the photo Ed posted of the 7 main components of this system, was in fact the standard basic system for all installations, we might have a rough basis available to us for establishing a size for the production run of this system.

The tricky bit will be in how many of these individual components bear their own data plates with serial numbers. For this, we would assume an order for 1,000 systems (not withstanding spares) would mean 1,000 of each item would be produced.

Brian: You mentioned you might have most of the components making up a system. If any of them have data plates, can you post the relevant serial numbers from them? The highest available number on any of them should tell us how far all the other bits should have gone as well.

David

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by Lang

...


GPS needs no introduction. It is so universal that attacking GPS satellites or creating spurious signals other than in a small local area is as counterproductive to the attacker as the defender. Everything uses it. It would appear that GPS will be treated like gas warfare - everybody has the capability to do bad things with it but by mutual agreement it is off-limits.

Although they have their own system, turning off US satellites over Russia in a conflict, or programming them not to talk to certain receivers, so the Russians can not use them will not happen because the Russians have the capability to knock down the satellites. Everybody loses. GPS has just become a modern version of the earth's magnetic field available to everyone.

The conventional GPS constellation is a USAF controlled asset used by everyone. The signal is unencrypted now, but it can be switched on selectively for military purposes. There was a story a week or two ago about Uber cabs and personal navigators going wonky in Russia for a period. No one wanted to say it out loud, but my suspicion is the US was retaliating to Russia for some of the latest Luke Warm War conflicts over cyber attacks.

[Lang]

Terry

I don't know if you remember but when GPS first came in (with lots of empty spots) the US only allowed high definition to the military and civilian (or foreign military) received a reduced accuracy. Still enough for general navigation but insufficient for such things as close instrument approaches by aircraft or survey calculations.

This of course has now all changed and the day of the surveyor's chainman have gone and you see them wandering around by themselves with a stick holding a GPS receiver for accuracy within inches.

As I said, in the event of a conflict, USA would have to have a serious think about messing with the satellite signals or they stand the risk of losing the lot - permanently

You may be right about the recent Russian problems but I have my doubts USA would risk such an asset in so petty a matter. A bit like killing the roses of the next door neighbour anonymously because their dog barks.

If they messed with the signals they would have to remember that at any time there are dozens of international airliners tracking over Russia using GPS and, although they have back-up systems they certainly would have reported it en mass.

Just my take on the matter.

Lang

[Mike Cecil]

The CDN Navaid C1 was trialed in Australia for installation in AFVs, specifically Centurion.

The Gyro unit was placed behind the driver's position, replacing an internal stowage bin. The crew commander had the main read-out and adjusting component installed into the underside of the turret roof, asjacent to his cupolam and the driver had a simple bearing indicator in his compartment. The 'map plotter' was not installed for the Australian trials.

It was not accepted for service.

Mike

[David Dunlop]

Roughly when was the trial done, Mike? The British evaluation took place in 1961 when the system was apparently 'Experimental'. I'm not certain if that designation applied to a product still under development in Canada, or a product that was new and in production in Canada at that time and the British were simply 'experimenting with it'.

I am curious if the system had enough merit to attract foreign buyers or was just another Canadian development that never got beyond limited Canadian production/use.


David