Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
http://carrierlandingconsultants.com/about.php
http://carrierlandingconsultants.com/contact.php
When I asked
paddles how to
improve my grades:
LSO Answer: Just
fly a centred ball
all the way to
touchdown.
...while moving to the US Navy's Landing Signal Officer School as an instructor. He taught glideslope
geometry, Aircraft Recovery Bulletins, carrier landing safety and emergency and foul weather waving. While
on staff there, Erik digitized the LSO School's extensive mishap recording library, and helped design and
implement a $2 million instructor console and graphics upgrade to the world's only LSO Trainer. His roles
included designing the custom touch-screen user interface and displays for the instructor/operator station,
setting program requirements, software engineering, and troubleshooting.
F-35C Lightning II
http://carrierlandingconsultants.com/
BACKGROUND http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA419423
the range of aircraft attributes necessary for an unmanned aircraft to land safely. The referenced
Heffley report attempted to perform this evaluation for the case of manned aircraft3.
Carrier landings define naval aviation. These landing requirements drive the design of both the
aircraft and the ship, with the landing airspeed constituting one of the most significant attributes
of the problem. The correct determination of the approach speed is vital. It is the balance of
value along with the velocity determines the amount of lift generated. An aircrafts pitch angle
landing safely and causing unnecessary wear, which results in higher maintenance requirements
is where the nose is pointed relative to the horizon and for manned aircraft strongly influences
and shorter service life. Higher landing speeds decrease the maximum landing weight. This
the over the nose visibility from the cockpit. Sink rate is the vertical component of the velocity.
means an aircraft must land with less ordnance and fuel. The determination of the approach
speed for manned aircraft is the minimum speed that simultaneously satisfies several criteria.
These criteria can be found in diverse military specifications and include the following2:
a. Aerodynamic stall margin of 10%
Wires / CDPs
replaced cycle
The glide slope is the desired airplane trajectory, terminating at the desired touch-down point,
nominally a straight line extending 3.5 degrees above the horizon as shown in Figure 1 below.4
Flight-path angle is the angle between the airplanes velocity vector and the horizon. Because
the ship (and touchdown point) is typically moving through the water at 10 to 20 knots,
maintaining a 3.5 degree glide slope relative to the ship results in a flight-path angle of 3.0
degrees relative to the inertial frame. The four wires highlighted in Figure 1 are called cross-deck
pendants. The cross-deck pendants are disposable and are replaced after 100 hits or sooner if
damaged. They are attached to the purchase cable, which goes into the arresting engine under the
deck. The maximum energy absorption capability of this system constitutes one of the most
2
e. Longitudinal Acceleration in level flight of 5 ft/sec within 2.5 seconds in full power
significant constraints to the landing problem. Additionally, the targeted hook touch down point
is labeled.
The ultimate objective of every carrier approach is a safe arrested landing, or trap. There
are many constraints to the landing task. Structures and safety physically constrain carrier
landings, while operational requirements demand a high boarding rate (the percentage of
approaches that result in a trap). Off-centerline landings are dangerous due to the proximity of
aircraft. While Navy contractors have performed simulation trials of aircraft under design, no
personnel and equipment; short (low) approaches hazard striking the aft end of the ship. High
criteria exist for unmanned aircraft distinct from manned. No study has been done to determine
approaches will fail to catch a wire. The structural limits of the hook and cross-deck pendant
3
Rudowski et al, Review of Carrier Approach Criteria for Carrier-based Aircraft p.22
determine the maximum landing velocity. Sink rate is limited by the landing gear structure.
Additionally, hook geometry requires the aircraft to land with a positive pitch angle, optimally
five degrees, because the main gear must touchdown first. The positive pitch angle is also
MANNED VS UNMANNED
Historically, designing an airplane for the carrier-landing task has been constrained by the
limitations of the pilot as an integral part of the control system. The full capabilities of
necessary for the hook to engage the wire. The target touchdown dispersions, developed from the automated control systems have never previously been explored. The human operator has
desired boarding rates, are tabulated in feet in Table 1.5 Both desired performance and the
difficulty tracking multiple parameters at once. Part of the difficulty is focusing ones vision on
the ship for line-up and glide slope then back to instruments in the cockpit to read airspeed and
angle of attack. People also lack the precision and reaction time of computers. Consequently, if
an airplanes handling qualities satisfied a human pilot, the legacy automated systems (e.g. SPN42 Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS)) could easily handle the airplane. Moreover,
ACLS was neither flight critical nor attempted at severe sea-states. The move to unmanned
systems permits design liberties fully capitalizing on the capabilities of an automated system, yet
raises the automated system to the status of flight critical. If the control system cannot
successfully get the vehicle aboard, it is lost at sea.
Waters, Test Results of an F/A-18 Automatic Carrier Landing Using Shipboard Relative GPS. p10.
Waters, Ship Landing Issues PowerPoint.
7
Waters, Test Results of an F/A-18 Automatic Carrier Landing Using Shipboard Relative GPS. p10.
6
HMAS Melbourne
lead to continued uneventful recoveries. Failure to do so could lead to yet another mishap. We all realize that each and every one
of us will have that night in the barrel, when things arent going the way we want, and we just cant seem to get aboard. The professional programs, the extended apprenticeship on the edge of the landing area, and the graduate level training and education that
LSOs progress through are paramount to ensure the fleet is always ready to answer the nations call. Entrusted with a Staff Qual,
CAG Paddles are the experts who will calmly recover the airwing during blue water operations regardless of the environmental or
material conditions. Paddles must step up and coax pilots into the wires, because after all is said and done the boat is where the
food is.
Operating a Carrier Strike Group alone and unafraid on the high seas, without the need of permission from foreign nations, is the
hallmark of power projection. Carrier operations ensure the freedom of navigation on 80% of the worlds surface. National interests are backed by our presence. The airwing provides combat proven and ready aircrews. As paddles, we get these crews back
aboard to rearm, reload and launch back into the fray. We maintain a unique skill set that ensures this Big Stick is operationally
viable. We take responsibility for the lives of our friends as we place our lives in the hands of our fellow paddles when we launch
and recover. We owe it to each other to maintain the highest level of professional standards. We must strive for perfection. We
will make mistakes. When we do, we owe it to each other to fess up so that the entire community can learn. We use our collective
experience, the good and the bad, to facilitate safe and expeditious recoveries. It is through this experience that we learn that no
matter how much weve seen we havent seen it all.
As Dean of the LSO School, I will attempt to continue to carry the torch that Weeds lit. We will focus on supporting the fleet by
providing the best possible advanced education and standardization for the paddles community. We will instill upon the community the highest level of respect for our coveted job. We will uphold our standards and ensure that only proven individuals who
demonstrate the ability to wave in challenging conditions advance along through the LSO pipeline. We expect and value free
flowing communication and will maintain an open door policy. We welcome all visitors, all those paddles that wish to continue
their education utilizing our facilities, and we are always available to swap a few sea stories over a beverage around the platform.
The LSO was born out of necessity; technology does not negate this need. Naval Aviation is dangerous and unforgiving. Top Gun
is irrelevant without Top Hook. If you cant land on a carrier, put on an ascot.
Go catchem Paddles http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlySeptember2012.pdf
LEVEL OF TRUST
http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/Documents/media/approach/Mar-Apr10-Approach.pdf
Approach
6
Autothrottles
The Unbearable
Lightness of
Paddles by NeptunusLex
on the ship) from the longitudinal night (darker than a hat full of
LSOs in various stages of qualia@@holes), he hasnt got much
axis, the runway has the appearfication, and two enlisted phone
to work with. With no visible horiance of side-stepping continually
talkers, wearing sound-powered
to the right as you approach. The zon hell ask for a destroyer to
phones about their necks, the
take plane guard station, but that
ship is in her element, which
headsets draped over their ears.
can
be disorienting as well, as the
means
that
it
is
moving
as
well,
They
spend
every
day
and
night
On being a landing signal
plane guard is moving herself. An
rolling, pitching and heaving.
on the LSO platform, and are as
officer in rough weather
optimal approach will have the
Deck movement is somewhat
familiar with aircraft landing as
November 26th, 2003
tailhook point clearing the round
correlated to sea states obviany paid-for-it junior officer LSO.
down by 14 feet. The deck can
ously, but less obviously it also
They ensure that the arresting
I was a Landing Signal Officer
move plus or minus 15 feet on a
corresponds to swell periodicity:
gear and optical landing system
as a lieutenant. A good job for a
bad night, and if youre out divert
a rough cross sea may actually
are set appropriately to the type
junior officer: you got to meet
range, the pilots are committed
cause less movement than a
of jet on final.
and know all the other pilots
to either landing aboard ship
gentle sea at just the right
As an LSO, the job is to help
in the air wing (not just in your
or going for a swim. Recovery
intervals.
the pilots get aboard by hawksquadron), you learned a lot
rates drop from ~90 per cent to
When the deck is moving,
ing their line-up, glideslope and
about landing well by watching
less than 50 per cent on a bad
others land poorly, and it got you angle of attack (AOA), the combi- especially at night, it gets
night every other pass will be
interesting pretty quickly. Night
nation of which has a direct corout of duty on fly days.
either a waveoff (no chance, out
landings will make you old in and
relation to aircraft performance.
The LSO stands with his
of themselves, but throw in ramp of parameters) or a bolter. On the
You also grade each landing, or
teammates on the port side, aft,
bolter, your hook misses all the
movement and you can start
pass,
and
every
grade
goes
up
usually about 30 feet or so aft
wires, off you go for another try.
on a board in the ready rooms for feeling rather old-fashioned right
of the 1-wire. To his right (as
Anyway, after that absurdly
on check-in with approach. You
all the other guys to see, point
he faces aft) is the net. The
long
intro, heres the tale of the
might
still
be
20
miles
away,
but
out
and
make
antic
gestures
over.
net is essentially a large basket
worst night I ever saw as an LSO
the guy four or five jets ahead of
Being a naturally competitive
hanging over the side to hurl
one of those few occasions when
you in the landing queue is getgroup, everyone wants to do well
yourself into if the guy flying the
ting advice like, the decks down, youre happier with the idea of
of course, but the real purpose
jet decides to land early. You
being on deck wishing you were
youre a little overpowered
of grading landings is to make
dont want to be in the net, it
in the air, than in the air, wishing
decks up, youre slow, power
the pilots focus on doing it well
means you havent done your
you were on deck:
decks down, dont chase it!
when its easy, so that they can
job very well and someone has
The night starts out with your
Power POWER!!! Dont climb!
do it all when its hard. And it
probably died (maybe several
bolter, bolter, bolter. And back at humble scribe in his rack not
someones) but it also gives you does get hard. LSOs all have the
my duty day to wave the paddles.
20 miles, your stomach starts to
nickname of paddles, since in
a fighting chance of escaping the
The
phone rings, and the senior
turn
over.
the
old
days
they
used
actual
cartwheeling wreckage and fuel
LSO on the air wing staff asks
The guy generating those
ping-pong paddles to help control
fed conflagration which follows
me to come up on the flight deck
soothing utterances is the LSO.
such a spectacularly poor landing the pilots on landing.
to back him up. The other staff
Hes doing the best he can, but
Since the landing area is
as a ramp strike. On the LSO
LSO is having a hard time getting
on a dark, moonless, no-horizon
platform with you are four or five angled 11-13 degrees (depending
0DM0LFKDHO0LNH\.LQJHQ
/,*+71,1*)/,*+77(67
&'5&KULVWLDQ:LOVRQ
6HZHOO
6+2577$.(2))$1'9(57,&$/
/$1',1*6729/
0DM0DUN7DF7DFTXDUG
0
/7&KULV7-.DUDSRVWHOHV
+,*+$1*/(2)$77$&.$2$
+
/&'57KHRGRUH'XWFK
'\FNPDQ
/&'50LFKDHO%ULFN
:LOVRQ
0DM-XVWLQ*HLFR&DUOVRQ
3
3ULRU
WR VXPPHU RI DOO )%& LJKW WHVW ZDV
F
FRQGXFWHGZLWKLQWKHERXQGVRIWKHORZ$2$&RQWURO
/
/DZ &/$: OLPLWV WR GHJUHHV $2$ 2Q
$XJXVW0U'DQ'RJ&DQLQDQG0U3HWHU
.RV .RVRJRULQ NLFNHG RII WKH +LJK $2$ SKDVH RI
)
)%& WHVWLQJ ZLWK WKH XOWLPDWH DLP RI H[SDQGLQJ
WWKHVH OLPLWV DQG YHULI\LQJ WKH VXFFHVVIXO GHVLJQ RI D
VDIHGHSDUWXUHUHVLVWDQWDQGSUHGLFWDEO\UHFRYHUDEOH
DLUYHKLFOH
$
$V ZLWK DOO KLJK $2$ GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDPV
Q
QXPHURXV LJKW WHVW PRGLFDWLRQV QHHGHG WR EH SXW
LQ
LQ SODFH SULRU WR LJKW 0RVW LPSRUWDQW ZDV WKH 6SLQ
5
5HFRYHU\&KXWH65&ZKLFKRIIHUHGVLJQLFDQWULVN
P
PLWLJDWLRQ WR WKH SURJUDP EXW QRW ZLWKRXW LWV RZQ
D
DHURG\QDPLF SHQDOWLHV 7KH LQLWLDO SKDVH RI WHVWLQJ
G
GHPRQVWUDWHGDFRQVLVWHQWDQGSUHGLFWDEOHGHSDUWXUH
UUHFRYHU\ GHULVNLQJ WKH IROORZRQ SKDVHV HQRXJK WR
DOORZWKH65&WREHUHPRYHG
)352-(&77($0
/W&RO3DWULFN2[\0RUDQ
)*RYHUQPHQW
)OLJKW7HVW'LUHFWRU
2&)6SLQ&KXWH0RXQWHGIRU+L$2$7HVWLQJ
7HVWLQJ'HSDUWXUH5HVLVWDQFHDW+LJK$2$
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.
cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=820
watch?v=-xmHOM-iutc
)&&$55,(568,7$%,/,7<
7KLVLVDYHU\H[FLWLQJWLPHIRU)&&DUULHU6XLWDELOLW\
WHDP :H KDYH EHHQ EXV\ WHVWLQJ WKH )& DW RXU
XQLTXH VKRUHEDVHG FDWDSXOW DQG DUUHVWLQJ JHDU WHVW
IDFLOLW\WRHQVXUHLWFDQZLWKVWDQGWKHSXQLVKLQJIRUFHV
DVVRFLDWHGZLWKVKLSERDUGLJKWRSHUDWLRQV7KH7&
FDWDSXOWDQG0NDUUHVWLQJJHDUVLWHVDW1$63DWX[HQW
5LYHU0DU\ODQGDQG1DYDO$LU:DUIDUH&HQWHU$LUFUDIW
'LYLVLRQ1$:&$'/DNHKXUVWORFDWHGDERDUG-RLQW
%DVH 0FJXLUH'L[/DNHKXUVW 1HZ -HUVH\ DUH HHW
UHSUHVHQWDWLYHDQGDOPRVWLGHQWLFDOWRWKHHTXLSPHQW
DERDUGWRGD\
V&91V,QDGGLWLRQWRDUUHVWHGODQGLQJV
WKHWHDPKDVEHHQKDUGDWZRUNYDOLGDWLQJWKHFXUUHQW
FRQWUROODZVLQSUHSDUDWLRQIRULQLWLDOVHDWULDOVDVZHOO
DV GHYHORSLQJ D QHZ VHW RI FRQWURO ODZV WR LQFUHDVH
VDIHW\PDUJLQVDQGERDUGLQJUDWHV
0,66,216<67(06
7KH),QWHJUDWHG7HVW)RUFH,7)ZLWKLQ9;WHVWV
IRXU6\VWHP'HYHORSPHQWDQG'HPRQVWUDWLRQ6''
PLVVLRQV\VWHPVDLUFUDIWIRUWKHGHYHORSPHQWRI%ORFN
DQG%ORFNFDSDELOLW\7KHPLVVLRQV\VWHPVWHDPDW
WKH,7)FXUUHQWO\VXSSRUWVWKHUDGDUVLJQDWXUHWHVWLQJ
RI HHW DLUFUDIW FRXQWHUPHDVXUHV FDSDELOLW\ DQG WKH
PLVVLRQ SODQQLQJ VRIWZDUH 5DGDU VLJQDWXUH WHVWLQJ
SURYLGHVWKH)SURJUDPZLWKWKHGDWDUHTXLUHGWR
YHULI\ DQG PRQLWRU WKH XQLTXH VLJQDWXUH RI WKH )
IURP LQFHSWLRQ WKURXJK LWV VHUYLFH OLIH 9)$ KDV
VR IDU SURYLGHG WZR MHWV IRU WKH HIIRUW DQG PRUH MHWV
ZLOO FRPH WKURXJK 3DWX[HQW 5LYHU IURP 90)$
DQG VXEVHTXHQW VTXDGURQV LQ WKH FRPLQJ \HDUV
&RXQWHUPHDVXUHV WHVWLQJ KDV DOVR EHHQ RQJRLQJ
RYHUWKHSDVW\HDU$ORQJZLWKWKH)VXQLTXHUDGDU
VLJQDWXUH WKH FRXQWHUPHDVXUHV V\VWHPV ZLOO DGG WR
WKHVXUYLYDELOLW\RIWKHSODWIRUP)LQDOO\IWKJHQHUDWLRQ
WDFWLFDODYLDWLRQZLOOOHYHUDJHDSUHPLVVLRQSODQQLQJ
V\VWHPWRLQGLYLGXDOO\WDLORUVRUWLHVWRGHVLUHGWUDLQLQJ
REMHFWLYHV RU RSHUDWLRQDO HQYLURQPHQW7KH 2IIERDUG
0LVVLRQ 6XSSRUW 206 V\VWHP LV WKH VRIWZDUH WRRO
VLPLODU WR -036 IURP OHJDF\ SODWIRUPV7KH ,7) KDV
EHHQ KHDYLO\ LQYROYHG LQ HQVXULQJ WKH 206 V\VWHP
VXSSRUWV WKH XQLTXH RSHUDWLRQV FDUULHG RXW IURP WKH
VHD E\ 1DY\ DQG 0DULQH &RUSV SLORWV $V WKH )
UHSODFHVOHJDF\SODWIRUPVPLVVLRQV\VWHPVWHVWLQJLQ
XQLTXHQDYDOHQYLURQPHQWVZLOOEHFRPHPRUHFUXFLDO
WR WKH FRQWLQXHG GHYHORSPHQW DQG FDSDELOLW\ RI WKH
DLUFUDIW
:($32166<67(06
,17(*5$7,21
7KH :HDSRQ 6\VWHPV ,QWHJUDWLRQ WHDP
FRQWLQXHVWRIRFXVRQFRPSOHWLQJWKHVWRUHVHSDUDWLRQV
DQGFDSWLYHFDUULDJHWHVWVUHTXLUHGIRU%ORFN%HHW
UHOHDVHDQG0DULQH&RUSV,QLWLDO2SHUDWLQJ&DSDELOLW\
,2& 7KH SDVW WZHOYH PRQWKV KDYH VHHQ WKH
FRPSOHWLRQ RI *%8 DQG *%8 VHSDUDWLRQV RQ
)%WKHUVWZHDSRQVUHOHDVHIURPDQ)&DQG
WKHVXFFHVVIXOHPSOR\PHQWRIERWK*%8DQG*%8
IURP DQ )% DJDLQVW D VWDWLRQDU\ WDUJHW 7KH
)%KDVDOVRVXFFHVVIXOO\HPSOR\HGPXOWLSOH$,0
V DJDLQVW PDQHXYHULQJ WDUJHWV 7HVWV WKXV IDU
KDYHEHHQYHU\VXFFHVVIXO:HDSRQVKDYHUHOHDVHG
UHOLDEO\DQGWKHLUWUDMHFWRULHVKDYHPDWFKHGPRGHOHG
SUHGLFWLRQVDZLQIRUWKHHQJLQHHUV7KH%58VKDYH
DOVR UHWDLQHG DQG UHOHDVHG ODQ\DUGV UHOLDEO\ JLYLQJ
FRQGHQFHWKDWWKHZHDSRQZLOOIXQFWLRQSURSHUO\ZKHQ
HPSOR\HG:LWK%ORFN%WKHHHWZLOOEHFOHDUHGIRU
WKHHPSOR\PHQWRI*%8V*%8V)&RQO\
*%8VDQG$,0VDOOIURPWKHLQWHUQDOZHDSRQ
ED\V
*RLQJIRUZDUGWKURXJKWKHWHDPZLOOEHIRFXVHG
RQ H[SDQGLQJ WKH HPSOR\PHQW HQYHORSH IRU WKH
%ORFN % ZHDSRQV DV ZHOO DV EHJLQQLQJ %ORFN )
UHOHDVHV ZKLFK ZLOO DGG $,0; $,0' -62:
)& RQO\ WKH JXQ SRG DQG H[WHUQDO *%8V WR
WKH)ZHDSRQVLQYHQWRU\7HVWLQJZLOODOVRLQFOXGH
SRXQGFODVV3DYHZD\,9ZHDSRQVDQGWKH$,0
$65$$0IRUWKH8QLWHG.LQJGRP
to ensure it was also suitable for carrier trials. No issues were found.
One other pre-deployment test
evolution was electromagnetic environmental effects (E3). This required
CF-03 to spend two weeks in the
shielded hangar at Pax River, to ensure that electromagnetic interference
from the ships emitters did not affect
any of the aircrafts vital systems and
cause them to shut down. The official
E3 test report was completed on October 16 which cleared the aircraft to
embark onboard the carrier.
All requisite carrier suitability testing was concluded on October 17 and
the final FCLPs were completed at Pax
River four days later.
One interruption to the test programme over the summer was caused
by the temporary grounding order resulting from an engine fire on F-35A
AF-27, serial number 10-5015, at
Eglin Air Force Base, Florida on June
23. Each engine underwent a rigorous inspection process and because
of the priority given to DT I, CF-03
was the first to be inspected, analysed and cleared back to flight: CF-05
followed.
No modifications were required to
2
the flight deck, not even the Jet Blast for F-35B STOVL deployments to the
Deflectors (JBDs): hydraulic-controlled USS Wasp (LHD 1).
panels designed to divert hot aircraft
Increased robustness in the
exhaust during launches. The panaircrafts control laws refers to:
els are raised in preparation for take Pro-rotation during a catapult and
off, protecting the flight deck and airbolter.
craft behind from the hot aircraft
Integrated Direct Lift Control which
exhaust. Modification of the JBDs will
integrates the control surfaces
be required for subsequent DT evosuch that wing camber is altered
lutions, when afterburner will be reto increase or decrease lift, thus
quired to launch aircraft with heavier
allowing glide slope changes to be
all-up weights than those used during
made without a large change in
DT I. Any changes implemented will
engine thrust.
alter the cooling path of the F-35s ex Delta Flight Path, which is an
haust plume, which interacts with the
innovative leap in aircraft flight
carriers decking differently from that
controls, that commands the
of the twin-engined members of the
aircraft to capture and maintain
Hornet family.
a glide slope. The system greatly
Support Onboard and from Ashore
reduces the pilots workload,
DT I was supported by a pre-producincreases the safety margins
tion, nonfleet representative version
during carrier approaches and
of the Autonomic Logistics Information
reduces touchdown dispersion.
System known as ALIS 1.03. According to the F-35 Joint Program Office:
Wind Effects
Standard ALIS functions were in place Aircraft carriers are unique in that
and used to support F-35C operations they have different wind effects that
and maintenance onboard USS Nimithe pilot and the aircrafts flight contz. The functions were accessible via
trol laws must take into account.
approved Department of Defense net- The overall wind effect is called the
work and cyber security policies and
burble,
authorisations similar to ALIS support
We are evaluating how the
control law handles through the burble. Data collected during DT I will
now be used by the control law engineers for analysis and to improve our
simulator modelling. Because the burble is such a dynamic and integrated wind system there are challenges
to modelling it accurately. Future F-35
pilot training will benefit from this
work, said Cdr Wilson.
We started making intentional errors in our approaches [off-nominal].
This allowed us to see how the aircrafts flight control laws react to corrections input by the pilot and the effect of the burble while trying to make
the corrections. The pilot intentionally lines up [on approach] on either
side of the landing areastarting either high or low, or flying fast or slow
to see if there is enough time to input
the correction and get back on centreline, on glide slope and on speed
[flying a proper approach speed] prior
to touch down. As we fly off nominal
approaches, if the LSO [landing signals officer] doesnt see a timely correction or doesnt feel that the pilot
is going to land safely, he or she will
wave them off.
The LSO [who is located on a
3
3DGGOHVPRQWKO\2FW
KWWSZZZKUDQDRUJGRFXPHQWV3DGGOHV0RQWKO\2FWREHUSGI
5KLQR)O\LQJ
7KLVPRQWK,WKRXJKW,ZRXOGWU\WRDQVZHUVRPHTXHVWLRQVWKDWSHRSOHPD\KDYHDVNHG
WKHPVHOYHVRURWKHUVEXWKDYHQHYHUIRXQGWKHDQVZHUV2QHTXHVWLRQPD\EH:K\LVWKH
DSSURDFKVSHHGRIWKH6XSHU+RUQHWVORZHUWKDQWKH+RUQHW"7KLQNDERXWWKDWRQH+RZ
FDQDQDLUSODQHWKDWKDVURXJKO\WKHVDPHSODQIRUPOD\RXW\HWLVODUJHUDQGFORVHWR
KHDYLHUDWFDUULHUODQGLQJZHLJKWIO\VORZHU"$QRWKHUTXHVWLRQWKDWFRPHVWRPLQGLV:K\GR
WKHVWDELODWRUVRIWKH6XSHU+RUQHWVHHPWRIODSDQGPRYHVRPXFKPRUHWKDQWKH+RUQHWRQ
DSSURDFK"HVSHFLDOO\FRQVLGHULQJWKHIDFWWKDWWKH\KDYHVLPLODUIOLJKWFRQWUROV\VWHPVDQG
IO\LQJTXDOLWLHV
7KHDQVZHUIRUWKHVHTXHVWLRQVLVDFWXDOO\FRQWDLQHGVLPSO\LQRQHVHQWHQFHLQWKH6XSHU
+RUQHWV1$7236PDQXDOWKDWVWDWHVWKHEDVLFDLUIUDPHLVVWDWLFDOO\QHXWUDOWRVOLJKWO\
XQVWDEOH,EHW\RXUHWKLQNLQJ,IO\WKH6XSHU+RUQHWDQG,NQRZLWVQRWXQVWDEOH)URPWKH
SLORWVSHUVSHFWLYHWKDWVWUXH,WLVYHU\VWDEOHDQGHYHQGHSDUWXUHUHVLVWDQWEXWWKDWLV
FRPSOHWHO\WKHUHVXOWRIWKH)&6ZKLFKPDLQWDLQVDLUFUDIWVWDELOLW\DWDOOIOLJKWFRQGLWLRQV
$HURG\QDPLFDOO\VSHDNLQJWKHDLUFUDIWLVVWDWLFDOO\XQVWDEOHSDUWLFXODUO\LQWKHODQGLQJ
FRQILJXUDWLRQ:HOOZKDWGRHVWKDWPHDQ":KDWIROORZVLVDTXLFNEURDGRYHUYLHZLQWHQGHGWR
JLYH\RXDJHQHUDOXQGHUVWDQGLQJEXWQRWWRGHOYHWRRGHHSO\LQWRWKHWHFKQLFDODVSHFWV
7KHDUURZVURXJKO\UHSUHVHQWWKHOLIWJHQHUDWHGE\WKHZLQJVDQGERG\FRPELQDWLRQDQGWKH
VWDELODWRUV$V\RXFDQVHHWKHOLIWJHQHUDWHGIURPWKHVWDEVLQWKH7(8FRQILJXUDWLRQRIWKH
)$&GRHVQRWFRQWULEXWHWROLIWLQJWKHDLUFUDIW+RZHYHULQWKH()WKHVWDELODWRUVDFWXDOO\
FRQWULEXWHWRWKHWRWDOOLIWRIWKHDLUFUDIW7KHUHIRUHVLQFHWKH6XSHU+RUQHWVFRQILJXUDWLRQLV
JHQHUDWLQJPRUHOLIWLWFDQIO\NQRWVVORZHU
6R:K\GRWKHWDLOVRQWKH()PRYHVRPXFKPRUH",WVEHFDXVHWKH)&6KDVWRZRUNVR
PXFKKDUGHUWRNHHSWKHDLUFUDIWEDODQFHGDQGVWDEOHMXVWOLNHKRZPXFKKDQGPRWLRQ\RX
KDYHWRXVHWRNHHSDVWLFNYHUWLFDOO\EDODQFHGRQWKHWLSRI\RXUILQJHU
$Q\RWKHUTXHVWLRQVSOHDVHVHQGLWRXUZD\)O\6DIH
/&'57HG6KHH]D'\FNPDQ
9;6KLS6XLWDELOLW\
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
3DGGOHVPRQWKO\1RY
)URPIOLJKWVFKRROZHDOOOHDUQHGWKDWOLIWLVGLUHFWO\UHODWHGWRYHORFLW\DQGZHLJKW7KHKHDYLHU
DQDLUFUDIWZHLJKVWKHIDVWHULWPXVWIO\WRJHQHUDWHWKHQHFHVVDU\OLIWWRNHHSLWDLUERUQH
&RQYHUVHO\WKHPRUHOLIWDQDLUFUDIWFDQJHQHUDWHWKHVORZHULWFDQIO\)ODSVJHQHUDWHWKDWOLIW
KWWSZZZKUDQDRUJGRFXPHQWV1HZVOHWWHU1RYHPEHUSGI
EXWOHWVMXVWFRQVLGHUERWKWKH+RUQHWDQG6XSHU+RUQHWLQWKHODQGLQJFRQILJXUDWLRQ%RWK
KDYHWKHVDPH/()VDQG7()VVRURXJKO\WKHRQO\GLIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQWKHPLVVL]HDQG
ZHLJKW6LQFHWKH)$()LVODUJHUVRDUHLWVIODSVDQGZLQJVLQUHODWLRQ7KHEHVWZHFRXOG
KRSHIRULVLQVFDOLQJXSWKH6XSHU+RUQHWWKHUHVXOWLQJZLQJDUHDZRXOGEDODQFHLWVLQFUHDVHLQ
ZHLJKWDQGLWZRXOGIO\WKHH[DFWVDPHVSHHGDVWKH)$&:HOOZK\GRHVLWIO\VORZHU",W
IOLHVVORZHUEHFDXVHRIWKHXQLTXHWULPSRVLWLRQRIWKHWDLO6LQFHWKH()LVVWDWLFDOO\XQVWDEOH
LWVWDLOSRVLWLRQLVVHWDWDGLIIHUHQWDQJOHWKDQWKH+RUQHWZKLFKLVDVWDWLFDOO\VWDEOH
$7&DQG0H
7KLVPRQWK,ZDQWHGWRWDONDERXWVRPHIO\LQJTXDOLWLHVRIWKH6XSHU+RUQHWEHKLQGWKHERDW
1RWFRQVLGHULQJWKHUROHVRUIXQFWLRQRIDQ)&6DVWDWLFDOO\VWDEOHDLUFUDIWZLOOUHVSRQGWRD
3OHDVHWKLQNRIWKLVDUWLFOHDVDQHGLWRULDODQGP\RSLQLRQDQGWHFKQLTXHVRQO\3HRSOH,KDYH
GLVWXUEDQFHE\WHQGLQJWRUHWXUQWRLWVWULPPHGFRQGLWLRQ)RULQVWDQFHLIDZLQGJXVW
WDONHGWRJHQHUDOO\FRPPHQWWKDWWKH\OLNHWKH/HJDF\$7&EHWWHUWKDQWKH5KLQR$7&,
LQFUHDVHVWKH$2$RIDQDLUFUDIWDVWDEOHDLUFUDIWWKURXJKSLWFKLQJPRPHQWVHWFZLOO
QDWXUDOO\GHFUHDVHWKH$2$EDFNWRZDUGVWKHLQLWLDOFRQGLWLRQ$QXQVWDEOHDLUFUDIWZLOOUHVSRQG GLVDJUHH:KHQ,ZDVD6TXDGURQ3DGGOHV,ZDVDELJIDQRIDXWRIO\LQJDQGSUHDFKHGDVPDOO
E\LQFUHDVLQJWKH$2$+RZGRHVWKDWDIIHFWWKHWDLO"$IWHUWUXGJLQJWKURXJKWKHDHURG\QDPLF UDSLGVWLFNVKDNHWHFKQLTXHWRNHHSWKHHQJLQHVVSRROHGXSZLWKHQHUJ\RQWKH5KLQR
HTXDWLRQVWKHRYHUDOOUHVXOWLVWKDWWKHWDLOWULPSRVLWLRQIRUDQXQVWDEOHDLUFUDIWDWKLJKHUDQJOHV %DFNWKHQ,GLGQWNQRZZK\WKLVWHFKQLTXHZRUNHGRQO\WKDWLWGLG+RSHIXOO\ZLWKWKLVDUWLFOH,
RIDWWDFNLVLQFUHDVLQJO\WUDLOLQJHGJHGRZQ7(')RUDVWDEOHDLUFUDIWZHWULPWKHVWLFNDIWWR FDQVKLQHVRPHOLJKWRQWKHZK\WKLVWHFKQLTXHLVVRHIIHFWLYH
IO\DWDKLJKHU$2$ZKLFKLVPRUHWUDLOLQJHGJHXS7(87KHIROORZLQJWZRSLFWXUHVVKRZWKH
,QWKH/HJDF\$7&WKH)&&VVHQGFRPPDQGVWRDGULYHXQLWRQWKHWKURWWOHFRQWURODWWDFKHGWR
UHVXOW
WKHHQJLQHWKDWHYHQWXDOO\PRYHVWKHDFWXDOIXHOFRQWUROYDOYH7KHWKURWWOHVPRYHEHFDXVH
WKH\DUHGLUHFWO\FRQQHFWHGWRWKHVHOLQNDJHV7KH5KLQRWKURWWOHVDUHIO\E\ZLUH:KHQ\RX
PRYHWKHWKURWWOHVDWKURWWOHDQJOHVHQVRUPHDVXUHVWKHSRVLWLRQRIWKHKDQGOHDQGVHQGVD
VLJQDOWRWKH)$'(&VZKLFKFRQWUROVHQJLQHUHVSRQVH$EDFNGULYHPRWRUPRYHVWKHWKURWWOHV
VLPSO\WROHWWKHSLORWNQRZZKDWWKHHQJLQHVDUHGRLQJ,WKLQNWKLVLVZK\DOO5KLQRWKURWWOHV
IHHODQGUHVSRQGYHU\VLPLODUO\+RZHYHULQHYHU\/HJDF\,IO\WKHWKURWWOHVIHHODOLWWOH
GLIIHUHQW7KHGLUHFWOLQNWRWKH)$'(&VPDNHWKHWKURWWOHVDQG$7&PXFKPRUHUHVSRQVLYHLQ
WKH5KLQR
,IRXQGIO\LQJD/HJDF\SDVVLQ$7&LVYHU\QLFH,FDQVHHZK\SHRSOHVD\WKH\OLNHLWEHWWHU
WKDQWKH5KLQR<RXVPRRWKO\PRYHWKHVWLFNIRUZDUGDQGEDFNDQGWKHYHORFLW\YHFWRUUDSLGO\
IROORZVDOORZLQJWKHSLORWWRSURDFWLYHO\IO\WKHEDOO/DUJHJOLGHVORSHFRUUHFWLRQVUHTXLUH\RXWR
VPRRWKO\PRYHWKHVWLFN+RZHYHUZKHQIO\LQJWKH5KLQR,PFRQVWDQWO\VKDNLQJWKHVWLFN
WKHULGHLVEXPS\EHFDXVHWKHKXJHVWDEVDUHDJJUHVVLYHO\IODSSLQJWKURXJKRXWWKHHQWLUHSDVV
VHHODVWPRQWKVDUWLFOH,JRWRPDNHDODUJHJOLGHVORSHFRUUHFWLRQE\VPRRWKO\SXOOLQJEDFN
RQWKHVWLFNWKHQRVHFRPHVXSDQG\RXIODVKDKXJHJUHHQFKHYURQ,QWKHPHDQWLPHWKH
WKURWWOHVVORZO\FUHHSIRUZDUGFDWFKWKHVORZ\RXUHOHDVHVRPHEDFNVWLFNDQG\RXDUHEDFN
LQEXVLQHVV,WVHHPVWRPHWKDWWKH5KLQRWKURWWOHVDUHVORZHUWRUHVSRQG:K\HOVHZRXOG,
KDYHJRQHVORZ"7KHVDPHFRUUHFWLRQLQWKH/HJDF\NHHSVPHRQVSHHG
7KHNH\WRWKLVFRQXQGUXPLVKRZWKHWZRDLUSODQHV$7&VDUHPHFKDQL]HG:KHQ\RXPRYH
WKHVWLFNLQ$7&\RXDUHFKDQJLQJWZRYDULDEOHVSLWFKDWWLWXGHDQGSRZHU)RUWKHIROORZLQJ
GLVFXVVLRQ,ZLOORYHUVLPSOLI\DQGORRNRQO\DWWKHSRZHUUHVSRQVHSDUWRIPRYLQJWKHVWLFN,Q
D/HJDF\WKHPDJQLWXGHRIWKHWKURWWOHUHVSRQVHLVWLHGWRWKHKRZIDVWWKHVWDEVDUHPRYLQJ
ZKLFKLVEDVHGRQZKDWWKH)&&VDUHWHOOLQJWKHPWRGR%DVLFDOO\LI\RXPRYHWKHVWLFNEDFN
LQFKDQGLWWRRN\RXRUVHFRQGVWRGRLWWKHSRZHUDGGLWLRQLVWKHVDPH,QD5KLQRLWLVQRW
VRVLPSOH5KLQR$7&UHVSRQVHLVEDVHGGLUHFWO\RQWKHUDWHLQZKLFK\RXPRYHWKHVWLFN,I,
ZHUHWRPRYHWKHVWLFNEDFNLQFKLQPLOOLVHFRQGWKHSRZHUDGGLWLRQZRXOGEHPXFKJUHDWHU
WKDQDLQFKPRYHPHQWLQVHFRQG6RWKHNH\WRWKH5KLQR$7&LVKRZUDSLGO\\RXPRYH
WKHWKURWWOHVQRWKRZIDU\RXPRYHWKHP,QWKH5KLQRLI\RXZDQWDELJJOLGHVORSHFRUUHFWLRQ
PDNHDUDSLGVWLFNPRYHPHQWQRWDODUJHRQH:LWKUDSLGLQSXWVWKHWKURWWOHVZLOOEHDPXFK
PRUHUHVSRQVLYH
,QRXUSUHYLRXVO\H[DPSOHLI\RXZHUHORZDQGPDGHDYHU\UDSLGEDFNVWLFNLQSXW\RXZRXOG
YHU\TXLFNO\JHWDODUJHUSRZHUDGGLWLRQDQGZRXOGQRWJRVORZ7KHVDPHLVWUXHIRUKLJK
FRUUHFWLRQVDVZHOO6RWKH$7&VLQWKH5KLQR$5(PXFKPRUHUHVSRQVLYHWKHQWKH/HJDF\
\RXVLPSO\QHHGWRPDNHUDSLGLQSXWV
$VSLORWVZHDUHJUHDWFRPSHQVDWRUV,I\RXJLYHXVDWDVNWRGRZHZLOOUDSLGO\ILJXUHRXWKRZ
WRGRLW<HDUVDJR,GLGQRWNQRZKRZWKH$7&ZRUNHG,MXVWNQHZWKDWLI,PRYHGWKHVWLFN
UDSLGO\,NHSWHQHUJ\RQWKHMHW,QUHDOLW\WKRVHVPDOOUDSLGPRYHPHQWVZHUHPDNLQJELJJHU
WKURWWOHFRUUHFWLRQVWKDQLI,KDGPDGHVPDOOVPRRWKPRYHPHQWV.HHSWKLVNQRZOHGJHLQ\RXU
EDJRIWULFNV1H[WWLPHGXULQJ)&/3VH[SHULPHQWZLWKWKHUDWHRI\RXUVWLFNLQSXWVDQGILJXUH
RXWZKDWZRUNVEHVWIRU\RX$VDOZD\VLI\RXQHHGWRPDNHPRUHWKDQDEDOOFRUUHFWLRQ
FOLFNRXWDQGGRLWWKHROGIDVKLRQZD\
.HHSHPVDIHSDGGOHV
/7'DQ%XWWHUV5DGRFDM9;6KLS6XLWDELOLW\
http://hrana.org/wp-content/uploads/2
013/03/PaddlesMonthlyOctober2013.pdf
WRONG SETTING
These are the words that every CAG LSO hopes to never write in an email to Force Paddles. How did this
happen? That question is easy to answer. How to eliminate it from ever happening again is a more difficult
question to answer.
LT YOKEL OKELLY
Bottom line, we landed a Super on a Hornet weight setting
behind, everyone else is way behind. Every CAG paddles has battled the feeling of should I wave this aircraft off, or should I try to catch it. Resist the temptation of thinking you are invincible. I promise we are all
fallible and it can be a painful lesson to learn.
When the sun angle creates challenging conditions, we think about clara line-up and clara ship calls. We get
ourselves mentally prepared for this every time we have a late afternoon recovery. What about the day ID
The incident happened on the last day recovery of the airplan, making the sun angle a challenge. I got up to light? With the sun on the horizon and positioned right at the 180, no one on the platform or in the tower
the flight deck just as the first aircraft was being launched. As I approached the platform, one of my paddles saw the day ID light. Was it on? I am not sure. Does it matter though? Train your back-ups to visually
identify Supers Hornets and legacy Hornets as they come around the approach turn. Discuss the intakes and
informed me that the IFLOLS was going to be down due to an issue with the stabilization gyros. This is
LEX which are easy to ID once the aircraft is in the groove. Do not rely on what the hook spotter is saying.
something that has occured multiple times during our deployment. While we do a lot of training on
MOVLAS, I usually have my team leads and assistant team leads on the stick, so I hadnt personally waved As the back-up, you need to visually confirm what the hook spotter is calling. They are looking for one
MOVLAS in awhile. I didnt know how long the lens would be down so I decided to take the stick in order thing, and that is the day ID light. If they dont see a day ID light, they will call all down Hornet. Speaking of hook spotters, as paddles, we own their training. We must ensure that they are not just going through
to warm up for the night recoveries.
the motions. They must be incorporated as integral members of the team. Teach them about the different
As the last aircraft was launched off the waist, the first section was already in the break. The Air Boss called aircraft and what to look for. One key feature about the Super Hornet that landed on the wrong gear setting
over the 5MC to rig MOVLAS as dash one arrived at the 180. With the sun on the horizon, the hook spotter was that it was a two seat cockpit; an easily identifiable feature with a pair of binoculars.
did not see the Super Hornet Day ID light and called all down hornet, gear lens set 360 Hornet, foul deck.
With our Hornet squadrons assigned 2K in the stack, there is a subconscious expectation that they will be the The peanut gallery can be a huge asset. Most of the peanut gallery noticed that Super Hornets were the first
first in the overhead. Since the first section did a nice job breaking the deck, time compression began to take aircraft in the break but failed to comprehend the fact the hook spotter called all down Hornet. We must
train and force the peanut gallery to stay engaged. They often have the greatest perspective with what is goeffect. MOVLAS was rigged and the datums came on as dash one was between the 90 and 45. I looked
ing on. They have the opportunity to scan the entire platform, pattern, and landing area at their own pace,
over my shoulder to check the cut and waveoff lights, but neither worked. The MOVLAS lights did not
potentially picking up on things no one else notices. (LSO School: The hook spotters call and the backpower up until the aircraft was inside the 45. My back-ups pickle worked, so I yelled for him to give the
aircraft cut lights. 17 seconds later, after an uneventful pass, the aircraft trapped. I was unaware we landed ups reply must be loud enough for the entire platform, including the peanut gallery, to hear.)
the Super Hornet on the wrong weight setting until the Air Boss called down.
The tower did not see the day ID light. I am not going to speak on the Air Bosss behalf, but he still quesLike I said earlier, how this happened is an easy question to answer. How do we eliminate this from happen- tions if the light was even on. Like I said before, the ID light is only one layer. Another layer was a wing
ing again, is a more difficult question to answer. You would think with the multiple safety layers in place, qualified LSO in the tower who came to me afterward claiming he saw that it was a Rhino in the groove with
landing an aircraft on the wrong weight setting would be nearly impossible. As with any mishap, the cause the wrong weight setting set. As you can imagine I was a little baffled as to why he did not say anything to
the Air Boss. Should I even expect a tower representative to be a safety layer? I will let you come to your
isnt a single mistake but a multitude of failures that align in time and space. In the 45 seconds it took for
own conclusion regarding that.
the first aircraft to get from the 180 to the start, every possible safety layer failed to operate effectively. The
following is my thoughts on the different layers that failed.
As LSOs, we are vulnerable to a disruption in habit patterns when waving MOVLAS. Make sure when you
brief MOVLAS, you brief the risk associated with the change in habit pattern on the platform. The controlThe first and most important layer that failed was me. As CAG paddles, we are the first and last line of de- ling LSO does not have his hand above his head when the deck is foul. This is when the LSO team needs to
fense in preventing dangerous situations from developing in the carrier landing environment. I do not agree be at the top of their game. (LSO School Note: If using MOVLAS station 2 or 3, the only pickle that works
is the controlling LSO.) Talking to multiple CAG paddles after this event, they mentioned the dangers of
with those who say the only person you can trust is yourself. If we dont have trust in the LSOs we train,
then we as CAG Paddles have failed. With that said, we must realize that everyone is human and susceptible landing planes on a foul deck and the pressure to press the wave-off window. Dont fall victim to pressure,
either real or perceived.
to mistakes. I had two senior LSOs backing me up and neither recognized the impending situation, likely
due to a combination of expectations, environmental conditions, and time compression. But how did I put
them in this situation? Once I felt behind, I should have assumed that the less experienced paddles waving
with me also felt behind. This is the moment when I should have waved the aircraft off. It may sound clich, but WAVEOFFS ARE FREE!! We must have the awareness to realize that if CAG paddles is
It would have taken only one person to stop this serious event from occurring. At the end of the day, it lies
on us, as LSOs, to recover aircraft safely. After the recovery the only thing I wanted to do was sit down,
drink a beer, and put a dip in. But the airplan must be executed and there is still waving to be done. We
have to live by the mantra, SAFE RECOVERY OF AIRCRAFT!! Nothing else matters.
g
n
i
h
c
t
Pi
Deck
The 2005 PBS Special documenting the Nimitz and Carrier Air Wings 11 s
combat deployment provided an interesting
portrayal of life on board a carrier. For LSOs,
however, episode seven stands out above the
rest. With deck swings in excess of 30 feet, a
recovery got very interesting for the paddles
and pilots involved. Below is one CAG paddles thoughts on the days events.
The 2005 PBS Special documenting the Nimitz and Carrier Air Wings 11 s combat deployment provided an interesting portrayal of life on board a carrier. For LSOs, however, episode
seven stands out above the rest. With deck swings in excess of 30 feet, a recovery got very interesting for the paddles and pilots involved. Below is one CAG paddles thoughts on the
days events.
Naval Air Traffic Management Systems Program Office (PMA213) is the Navy's Executive Agent that provides program management and life cycle support for all naval Air Traffic management Systems. PMA213
is directly responsible and accountable to Program Executive Officer, Tactical Aircraft Programs (PEO(T)).
PMA213's mission is to: -maintain our fielded ATC and CID systems for our Warfighters today, - deliver
advanced Air Traffic Control and Landing capability both at sea and ashore, and - deliver improved IFF
security via Mark XIIA, Mode 5 upgrade. http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.PhotoGalleryDetail&key=8E68C563-917F-4F68-9200-05AF2EA29C72
AUTOMATIC CARRIER LANDING SYSTEM TESTS 1963
After a regular overhaul extending until April 1963 Midway
continued its role as a research and development
platform. In June 1963 an F-4A Phantom II and an F-8D
Crusader made the first fully automatic carrier landings
with production equipment on board Midway off the West
Coast. The landings, made "hands off"
with both flight controls and throttles operated
automatically by signals from the ship, were the
culmination of almost 16 years of research and
development....
http://www.volunteers-midway.org/assets/files/15557.pdf
http://
www.navair.navy.
mil/img/uploads/
PMA213_2.jpg
/RRN1R+DQGV
%\7RPP\+7KRPDVRQ
:KDWZDVDFWXDOO\RQO\WKHODWHVWLQKDQGVIUHHFDUULHUODQGLQJVZDVDFFRPSOLVKHGRQ
-XO\DERDUG(LVHQKRZHUE\DQ)$'+RUQHWPRGLILHGWRHPXODWHDQXQPDQQHG
DLUFUDIW
http://thanlont.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/
look-no-hands.html
As it happens, the hands-off carrier landing capability has been around for a long time, with the first aboard a
carrier being accomplished more than 50 years ago and used operationally since 1965. However, the X-47B system
has to provide greater functionalityfor example a hands-off bolter (a touch down with no arrestment)and much
greater reliability. since there is no pilot to take over when the electrons and ones/zeros begin to lose their way.
The impetus for a hands-off system in 1950 was the desire to minimize the shortcomings of jets with respect to
all-weather operations and the amount of time that a carrier was unable to operate aircraft due to ship motion or
ceiling/visibility. In those days, before inflight refueling, jets were unable to wait out poor weather due to their
limited endurance.
Bell Aerospace won a competition with Honeywell and began developing the system in the early 1950s. It was
ship-based, with a computer using radar data to determine the airplane's location relative to the glide slope and
then sending corrections to the airplane's autopilot to alter its flight path to fly to and on the glide slope at the
proper approach speed. All the pilot had to do was fly the airplane through an imaginary gate four miles aft of the
ship on final approach and verify that the airplane was being guided by the ALCS, All-weather ( or Automatic)
Carrier Landing System.
The first automatic landing of the Navy test airplane, a Douglas F3D Skyknight, took place in May 1954 at the
Niagara Falls Airport, New York.
7KHXQPDQQHGDLUFUDIWEHLQJHPXODWHGLVWKH1RUWKURS*UXPPDQ;%ZKLFK
LVFXUUHQWO\LQIOLJKWWHVWDQGVFKHGXOHGIRUDWVHDFDUULHUVXLWDELOLW\WHVWLQJLQ
One addition required to the airplane in addition to an auto throttle was a corner reflector, seen above just in
front of the nose landing gear doors, to insure the best possible radar data for the ship-based system.
A production contract was finally awarded to Bell in March 1960 for the SPN-10 ALCS. NATC accomplished the first
fully automated landings with the production system in June 1963 on Midway with an F-4 Phantom and an F-8
Crusader, modified for the capability. However, another round of development and improvements were required
so the first operational use was delayed to late 1965, when operational evaluations were accomplished with F4Gs, ALCS-modified F-4Bs, aboard Kitty Hawk. The capability was subsequently retrofitted to F-4Bs and
incorporated in new production F-4Js. After a Vietnam deployment aboard Kitty Hawk with VF-213, the 11
surviving F-4Gs (one was shot down) became F-4Bs again. (Either the Navy's F-4G's existence was
forgotten/considered irrelevant or used to disguise the purpose of yet another F-4 variant, the Air Force F-4G
Wild Weasel.)
The radar reflector on the aircraft was substantially reduced in size and made retractable. On the F-4, it was
attached to a door that opened just forward of the nose gear.
Part of the interval between the successful demonstration at Bell and the first landing aboard a carrier was
dedicated to developing a ship-motion compensation capability. During the last 12 seconds before the touchdown,
ship motion was included in the computations; a second or two from touchdown, the corrections to the autopilot
ceased and it simply maintained pitch and bank.
The first at-sea demonstration was on Antietam in 1957. At the time, the system was housed in large vans and not
ready for deployment in the operating environment aboard an aircraft carrier. Redesign and environmental
(shake, vibration, EMI, etc.) qualification testing was required now that proof of the concept had been
demonstrated.
On the F-111B, it was mounted on the upper link of the nose gear torque scissors so it deployed into position
when the gear was down in flight.
When the system was working, the performance was brilliant, the airplane coming down the glide slope toward a
three-wire arrestment like it was on rails. As might be expected from the vacuum-tube-based technology of the
time, however, reliability proved to be a problem. A field change was made to improve SPN-10 reliability but at
the expense of its automatic touchdown capability: the pilot had to take over at weather minimums and make the
final corrections before touchdown.
In 1966, Bell received a contract to "digitize" the system with solid state electronics and computers and restore
full functionality. The redesigned system was designated the SPN-42. A subsequent improvement, the SPN-42A,
incorporated an X-Band radar for better system performance in heavy precipitation. It was operationally approved
in 1968.
Development of the next ALCS generation, the SPN-46, was begun in 1980 to take advantage of advancements in
gyro, computer, and radar technology. It was declared operational in 1987 after an operational evaluation
involving Kennedy and F-14s. It is being continually improved but will eventually be replaced by a GPS-based
system being developed as a joint service program, JPALS (Joint Precision Approach and Landing System).
http://thanlont.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/look-no-hands.html
System
Ship
AN/SPN-46 ACLS
CV/CVN
Ship
Suitability
Testing
Preparing
for the
Future
CV/CVN
AN/SPN-41 ICLS
c.2005
-
LHA, LHD
AN/SPN-35 PAR
LHA, LHD
Capability Description
ATC&LS testing is currently focused on certification of the PALS onboard LHD, LHA, and CV/CVN class
ships. PALS capabilities are further described in Table 1. The ATC&LS Branch also certifies shore-based
installations of the ACLS and ICLS and tests Instrument Landing Systems on all Navy/Marine Corps aircraft.
Upcoming work is focusing on service life improvements of the current systems and development of the Joint
Precision Approach Landing System (JPALS). JPALS will be used by all U.S. Services to provide shorebased and shipboard precision approach capability using relative GPS technology. The JPALS T&E program
will be a large challenging program that will, in the end, enable a change to the concept of operation for the
carrier air traffic control system and be the major enabling technology for UCAS shipboard launch and
recovery operations. This branch is also heavily involved in new aircraft development programs such as the
F-35B/C JSF airplanes and in the development of modifications to current airplanes such as the new Digital
Flight Control System (DFCS) for the EA-6B. http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-SCI-162///MP-SCI-162-07.pdf
Table 1:
PALS
Capabilities
Description
http://
www.
neptun
uslex.
com/20
11/03/0
6/
whisper
-stilllife/
Day
Case III
Recovery
W
H
I
S
P
E
R
S
T
I
L
L
L
I
F
E http://www.neptunuslex.com/wp-con
tent/uploads/2011/03/IMG_0117-1.jpg
Case III explanation (Whisper). During instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), (and always at night) we
execute a Case III recovery, more specifically the CV-1 approach. It is basically an all inclusive holding,
penetration, and instrument approach procedure that drops you off on a 3.5 degree glideslope behind the ship.
TYPE APPROACH
JET NONPRECISION
https://
www.
cnatra.
navy.
mil/
ebrief/
docum
ents/
TW1/
referen
ces/
COLUM
N%202/
T-45C%
20NAT
OPS/
CV%
20NAT
OPS.
pdf
What?
Me
Worry?
MINIMUMS
6001-1/4
ICLS
3003/4
ICLS/ILM
W/SPN-42/46
MONITOR
2001/2
MODE I
AS CERTIFIED
2001/2
CCA
http:
//
info.
publi
cinte
llige
nce.
net/
F18ABC
D-00
0.pdf
Carrier Controlled
Approach (CCA)
A1-F18AC-NFM-000
NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL
NAVY MODEL F/A-18A/B/C/D
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2011/03/06/whisper-still-life/#comments
number of electronic units to less than half of the units used in AN/SPN-10 and,
w the
subsequently, improved the reliability.
LOOK MA NO HANDS. This was the slogan on a jacket patch created by Bell w During the AN/SPN-42 development, the Navy directed Bell to incorporate an X-Band (9.3
Aerosystems on the occasion of the US Navys Operational Certification of Bells Automatic
GHz) receiver modification into the radar subsystem to improve radar performance in heavy
Aircraft Landing System (ACLS). It contains the caricature of a pilot flying a plane with his
precipitation, and the system was then designated AN/SPN-42A. In 1968, OPEVAL
arms folded as he approached an aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, the patches are not around w. (operational evaluation) tests with several aircraft were successfully performed on the
any more, but the Bell ACLS is in operational use on all Navy aircraft carriers to this day.
AN/SPN-42A aboard USS Saratoga (CV-60), and the system was awarded Operational
tsr
Approval.
This success didnt happen over night. It was the result of several years of effort by many at
Bell starting in 1953 when Bell, using a feasibility model landing system, won a fly off
For the next ten years, Bell built AN/SPN-42A systems for the new carriers as they were
competition with Minneapolis Honeywell. Following this win, Bell won a contract to build a eti commissioned, and converted AN/SPN-10 systems to AN/SPN-42A system for reinstallation
shipboard feasibility model system, designated AN/SPN-10 (XN-3), for testing aboard Navy
on the existing carriers. From the mid sixties to the end of the Vietnam War, AN/SPN-10 and
aircraft carriers. Using the (XN-3) system, the first automatic landing with a Navy aircraft re AN/SPN-42A played a major roll in all carrier operations in Southeast Asia.
took place in 1954, at the Niagara Falls Airport, adjacent to the Bell facility in Wheatfield
New York. In 1957, the first automatic-landing-to-touchdown, on a carrier, was accomplished
once again technology obsolescence raised its ugly head and the AN/SPN-42A
es. However,
with the (XN-3), by a Navy pilot in an F-3D aircraft on USS Antietam (CV-36).
became difficult to maintain because of the unavailability of replacement parts. So in 1980,
the Navy contracted with Bell to design and develop a new automatic carrier landing system,
After the USS Antietam sea trials, Bell worked on designing the system to conform to the or designated AN/SPN-46(V)1.
stringent requirements for shipboard operation (shock, vibration, EMI, etc), and in 1960 Bell
was awarded a production contract for the AN/SPN-10 All Weather Carrier Landing System
AN/SPN-46(V)1 uses six AN/AYK-14 Navy standard airborne computers for the radar
g/ The
(AWCLS). This is when Bell Aerosystems became a division of Textron and was renamed
and aircraft control processing, and Navy Standard Electronic Modules (SEM) for the
Bell Aerospace Textron; it is also when I began my career on landing system programs that
electronic equipment, thus resulting in fewer units and better reliability than
me supporting
spanned 35 years.
AN/SPN-42A. The Navy MK-16 MOD 12 Ring Laser Gyro replaced the gyro controlled ship
motion stabilization unit, used in both AN/SPN-10 and AN/SPN-42A.
In 1962, the first production systems were installed on USS Midway (CV-41) and USS m
Independence (CV-62) and, in 1963, after certification testing at sea on USS Midway,
In 1984, extensive testing of the AN/SPN-46(V)1 was conducted at the Naval Air Warfare
AN/SPN-10 was certified for operational use. Over the next several years, production systems
or Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD), Patuxent River, MD, with several Navy aircraft.
were installed on the Navys aircraft carriers operating at that time.
In 1985, the first system was installed on USS John F Kennedy (CV-67) and OPEVAL sea
Unfortunately, the reliability of the system was low because it consisted of more than thirty y/ trials were conducted in 1986 and 1987 with F-14 Tomcats. In 1987 The Navy awarded the
units of electronic equipment, containing hundreds of vacuum tube operational amplifiers, to
AN/SPN-46(V)1 Operational Approval for full automatic control from aircraft acquisition at
perform ship motion stabilization and the aircraft control computations. As Bell and the Navy
ten nautical miles to touchdown on the deck and production of the system was started.
sought ways to improve the system, it was obvious that digital computers and solid-state Fe
electronic technology were the only solutions to the reliability problems. In 1966 Bell
From 1987 to 1991, Bell delivered five systems to the Navy and was working on the sixth
received a contract to digitize the AN/SPN-10. The new system was subsequently mi system when Textron Corporate decided to combine Bell Aerospace Textron with Textron
designated AN/SPN-42.
Defense Systems (TDS) and move the Bell operations to Wilmington MA. This appeared to
the Navy to be an impossible task considering the work in progress at Bell, and the fact that
While the AN/SPN-42 was in development, an AN/SPN-10 field change that reduced an the engineering, manufacturing and quality people at TDS had never worked on an AN/SPNelectronic equipment to improve reliability was installed in the system. Unfortunately, this
46(V)1 system.
change eliminated the automatic touchdown capability, but the system would still control o.
aircraft to carrier approach minimums, and the pilots would land the aircraft manually.
The most critical work in progress was a system for USS Constellation (CV-64) that had to be
delivered by the end of the year to meet the ships departure date from the shipyard. The
do
In the AN/SPN-42, UNIVAC 1219 digital computers replaced the vacuum tube analog
people at Bell delivered a monumental effort to the task, getting the vast amount of equipment
computers that performed the flight control computations, and the Ka-Band (33.2 GHz) radar
c and material associated with the program shipped, and assisting TDS in establishing
tracking subsystem was converted to an all solid-state electronic design. This design reduced
AUTOMATIC CARRIER LANDING SYSTEM (ACLS)
by Don Femiano
In 1998, TDS phased out the AN/SPN-46(V)1 program and delivered the engineering data
base NAWCAD at Patuxent River, MD and a new era of Navy Automatic Carrier Landing
began.
With hard work and determination to succeed, the Bell/TDS team came through with flying
colors, and the system was delivered on time. Production was up and running, at Wilmington,
by the end of 1991. During the next several years, seven more systems were built at TDS and
delivered to the Navy for replacement of the AN/SPN-42A, and for two new carriers
commissioned in the late nineties.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?
Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.
pdf&AD=ADA469901
manufacturing and testing facilities. They did this even though many knew that their jobs
were gone when the move was completed.
Since taking over the program, NAWCAD has been developing new configurations of the
system with support of subcontractors. They are developing a land based trainer system,
designated AN/SPN-46(V)2, for use at Naval Air Stations. The (V)2 functions the same as the
(V)1 but the MK 16 Mod 12 shipboard stabilization units are removed and a 7-foot diameter
antenna replaces the 4-foot antenna used on the (V)1 for better low angle radar tracking on
long Naval Air Station runways. NAWCAD is also upgrading the installed shipboard systems
to improve system operability and reliability by installing modifications kits, some of which
were developed at TDS under the Product Improvement Program. This new shipboard system
configuration is designated AN/SPN-46(V)3, and has been successfully tested on several
carriers to date.
The LOOK MA NO HANDS patches, and many of the Bell people who worked so hard to
make Navy automatic carrier landing a reality, are gone now, but the system survives and will
provide Navy pilots with a safe all weather automatic landing capability for decades to come.
The LCE program plan is to keep AN/SPN46(V) operating on the carriers until 2025 when the
Navys GPS based carrier landing system (JPALS) is scheduled to be operational.
NAWCAD is also working on a Life Cycle Extension (LCE) Program for the system. A new
radar subsystem unit was designed during the first phase of the LCE program. The new
subsystem unit uses specially designed circuit cards in place of the Navy Standard Electronic
Modules and microprocessors to provide an enhanced radar tracking capability. The new
radar subsystem unit is presently undergoing system testing at NAWCAD and at Sea. LCE
program work in progress includes replacing the AN/AYK-14 computers with power PCs
using C computer program language, upgrading the operator control console and ancillary
display units and redesigning the radar receiver to replace obsolete and unprocurable
components.
http://www.users.on.net/~jase_ash/styled-9/styled-12/
index.html
E\&GU%LOO6L]HPRUH
DSSURDFK1RYHPEHU
DSSURDFK1RYHPEHU
7HG&DUOVRQ
APPROACH
Nov 1999
1RYHPEHU DSSURDFK
1RYHPEHU DSSURDFK
September 2012
http://www.hrana.org/documents/
PaddlesMonthlySeptember2012.pdf
Paddles
monthly
As many of you have probably seen, one of our jobs in the glamorous world of carrier suitability flight test is conducting Precision
Approach and Landing Systems (PALS) certifications for the carriers any time they come out of the yard or have an issue with PALS.
We're basically the FAA certifiers for ACLS and ICLS; we make sure you can safely shoot an approach to the appropriate mins for
each system (look 'em up if you're not positive) as well as take MODE I's to the deck. PALS cert is often conducted in conjunction
with deck cert, so we try to make certain that all are happy (or at least satisfied) with the performance of needles and bullseye. What
we often find is airwings complain that an "on and on" ACLS approach will drop you off at the start with a slightly sagging ball when
the system was certified that very day. Hopefully we can shed some light on why this is sometimes the case.
Every landing system on the boat must fall within certain tolerances to be certified for arrested landings; the IFLOLS is no exception.
We at carrier suitability cannot adjust the basic angle of the IFLOLS, but we do measure it precisely and we can easily contact the
people who can adjust it. Prepare yourself for the beeps and squeaks. When the IFLOLS is measured for certification, it must fall
within +/- 0.05 deg of exactly 3.50 deg. More often than not, the IFLOLS falls within tolerance but it's normally on the high end (3.55
deg basic angle vice 3.50). ACLS cannot be adjusted to a 3.55 deg basic angle but it can be measured very precisely (accuracy less
than 1 ft at the start). The ACLS glideslope can only be adjusted by engineers at the beginning of each certification to provide a precise 3.50 deg glideslope; otherwise, the glideslope on all PALS (IFLOLS, ACLS, ICLS) can only be set in 0.25 deg increments (3.5
and 4.0 in the case of ACLS).
No approach is perfect, whether it be MODE II, IA or I; however, a coupled approach should provide a glideslope extremely close to
3.50 deg (particularly prior to interaction with the burble). If you fly ACLS coupled and/or on and on, and the actual basic angle of
IFLOLS is 3.55 deg, then you should be flying just below the centerline of the datums. Figure 1 shows a rudimentary pictorial representation of this concept.
At the risk of geeking out too hard on Precision Approach and Landing Systems (PALS) after last
month's article, "ACLS is Dropping Me Off Low!!", this month I'd like to throw out a few nuggets of information with
respect to ICLS. During our last PALS cert on the Truman, several pilots remarked that flying bullseye on a Case 3 approach seemed to get them to that (HX) for which we all strive, while the needles got that little sagger (refer to last
month's article) for which hopefully none strive. Chances are you all learned the reasons for the comfy ICLS start (is it
ever at night?) at LSO school, but if you're at all like me, you may have crammed that knowledge in a hard to reach spot
to make room for something else like directions to work, your wife's phone number (even though it's stored in your
phone) or in exceptional cases the latest Top Gun standard timeline.
We'll start with the ICLS antennas; the azimuth antenna is located along the drop lights, but we're not terribly concerned
with that right now. The elevation antenna, however, is located on a stand that is about even with the 3-wire, aft of the
island on the starboard side of the boat and a little more than 18 ft high. I'm going to try for the short version of this story 18 ft is higher than the average hook to eye value, plus the antenna is forward of the normal HTDP. Also, the ICLS
antenna is about 4 ft below our eyes in the cockpit (assuming a Hornet or Rhino).
What do all of these numbers mean? For all intents and purposes it means the center of bullseye is about 7 ft above the
beam of light in the center cell of IFLOLS (see Figure 1, which I know is not to scale - thank you, former test guys).
Obviously, 7 ft of difference at the ramp is a lot; so that's why you wouldn't want to fly the ICLS to the deck, because if
my arithmetic is correct that would be about 21 ft of hook to ramp (I went to TPS, no big deal). This is also why the
ICLS is NOT a 200 1/2 system; it's a 300 3/4 system if that was a surprise, grab your CV NATOPS and look those
weather mins up. Finally, the ICLS coverage volume is obviously finite and doesn't lie on top of the IFLOLS center cell,
so as you approach the in close position, you should see bullseye race up and off of the display (if they race down, you're
really high). I'm guessing you all knew this, but hopefully this was a good refresher as to the why. Continued
http://www.hrana.org/documents/
PaddlesMonthlyOctober2012.pdf
So the bottom line is that if you fly a center (or even cresting) ball pass, then bullseye elevation should start to creep upwards around 1 mile from touchdown and will really take off IC. And for one last parting shot, does it work as gouge for
a decent start during CASE 1? It can, but depending largely on groove length and whether or not CATCC switched the
ICLS to the correct glideslope after the IFLOLS got set to 4.0 deg for high winds, you could be in for a surprise. So use
with caution. Thanks to anyone who cared enough to read and keep 'em safe, paddles. Also, I promise this will be my
-LT Luke Smuggla Johnson is a
last PALS article at least for a bit.
test pilot with VX-23. He can be
reached at luke.r.johnson@navy.mil
Sierra Nevada to
provide upgrade
kits for carrier
precision-approach
landing systems
BY John Keller MILITARY &
AEROSPACE ELECTRONICS
JANUARY 2015
JOINT BASE MCGUIRE-DIXLAKEHURST, N.J.U.S. Navy
carrier aviation experts needed
upgrade kits to improve the
AN/SPN-46 automatic carrier
landing system. They found
their solution from Sierra
Nevada Corp. in Sparks, Nev.
Officials of the Naval
Air Warfare Center Aircraft
Division, Lakehurst, at Joint
Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst,
N.J., announced an $8.2 million
contract to Sierra Nevada to
provide as many as 16 Block III
receiver upgrade kits for the
AN/SPN-46.
Paddles
monthly
http://www.hrana.org/documents/
PaddlesMonthlyMarch2013.pdf
February 2013
I heard a story a few days ago that reminded me of that simple phrase Couple-up for Safety! A Hornet was returning to the ship for a standard night Case III recovery. Having been flying at high altitude for an extended period
of time, the aircraft rapidly descended to the ship into the hot, humid air that is the Gulf of Oman. Not surprisingly,
the pilot ended up IFR in the cockpit with little relief from defogging attempts. The first attempt at recovery was
terminated early when the pilot relayed that he could not see the ship at the ball call. So heres where our simple
phrase came into play. With recommendation from Paddles, the pilot coupled up for an ACLS Mode 1. The coupled approach, closely monitored by Paddles, resulted in an uneventful arrestment, demonstrating one of the exact
situations for which the system was designed. We are taught early by our senior Paddles and the schoolhouse that
the Mode 1 is to be used when the pilots ability to land the aircraft safely is degraded; be it IFR in the cockpit, injury, 0-0 conditions, old guys & Marines (editors addition), or maybe even just returning to the ship after an 8 hour
mission over Afghanistan. Depending on your airwing, you may not see many mode 1s at the ship. So how do you
really know that its going to be working correctly for these situations? ...continued in: http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyMarch2013.pdf
Recovery
operations
Case I
Aircraft awaiting recovery hold in
the port holding pattern, a lefthand circle tangent to the ships
course with the ship in the 3-oclock
position, and a maximum diameter
of 5 nmi. Aircraft typically hold in
close formations of two or more
and are stacked at various altitudes
based on their type/squadron.
Minimum holding altitude is 2,000
feet, with a minimum of 1,000 feet
vertical separation between holding
altitudes. Flights arrange themselves to establish proper separation for landing. As the launching
aircraft (from the subsequent event)
clear the flight deck and landing
Case II
This approach is utilized when
weather conditions are such that
the flight may encounter instrument
conditions during the descent, but
visual conditions of at least 1,000
feet ceiling and 5 miles visibility
exist at the ship. Positive radar control is utilized until the pilot is inside
10 nmi and reports the ship in sight.
Flight leaders follow Case III
approach procedures outside of
10nmi. When within 10 nmi with
the ship in sight, flights are shifted
to tower control and proceed as in
Case I.
Case III
This approach is utilized whenever
existing weather at the ship is below
Case II minimums and during all
night flight operations. Case III
recoveries are made with single
aircraft, with no formations except
in an emergency situation).
All aircraft are assigned holding
at a marshal fix, typically about
180 from the ships Base Recovery
Course (BRC), at a unique distance
and altitude. The holding pattern
is a left-hand, 6-minute racetrack
pattern. Each pilot adjusts his holding pattern to depart marshal precisely at the assigned time. Aircraft
departing marshal will normally be
separated by 1 minute. Adjustments
may be directed by the ships
Carrier Air Traffic Control Center
(CATCC), if required, to ensure
proper separation. In order to maintain proper separation of aircraft,
parameters must be precisely flown.
Aircraft descend at 250 knots and
4,000 feet per minute until 5,000 is
reached, at which point the descent
is lessened to 2,000 feet per minute.
Aircraft transition to a landing
configuration (wheels/flaps down) at
10-nmi from the ship.
Since the landing area is angled
approximately 10 from the axis
of the ship, aircraft final approach
heading (Final Bearing) is approximately 10 less than the ships
approaches. A bullseye is
displayed for the pilot, indicating aircraft position in relation to
glideslope and final bearing. The
Automatic Carrier Landing
System (ACLS) is similar to the
ICLS, in that it displays needles
that indicate aircraft position in
relation to glideslope and final
bearing. An approach utilizing this
system is said to be a Mode II
approach. Additionally, some aircraft
are capable of coupling their
autopilots to the glideslope/azimuth
signals received via data link from
Approach
the ship, allowing for a hands-off
approach. If the pilot keeps the
The Carrier Controlled Approach
autopilot coupled until touchdown,
is analogous to ground-controlled
approach using the ships precision this is referred to as a Mode I
approach. If the pilot maintains a
approach radar. Pilots are told (via
voice radio) where they are in rela- couple until the visual approach
point (at 3/4 mile) this is referred to
tion to glideslope and final bearing
as a Mode IIA approach.
(e.g., above glideslope, right of
The Long Range Laser Lineup
centerline). The pilot then makes a
correction and awaits further infor- System (LLS) uses eye-safe lasers,
projected aft of the ship, to give
mation from the controller.
pilots a visual indication of their
The Instrument Carrier
lineup with relation to centerline.
Landing System (ICLS) is very
The LLS is typically used from as
similar to civilian ILS systems and
much as 10 nmi until the landing
is used on virtually all CaseIII
CATCC
Navy carriers prepare for X-47B unmanned aircraft arrival next year
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5068
http://www.hrana.org/documents/
PaddlesMonthlyFebruary2012.pdf
Bad-weather CV
approachesORM
corneroperational risk
a paddles contact?
Paddles contact refers to a
call the LSOs can make to grab
an aircraft from CATCC and talk
him down to the landing area. To
help answer this question, here
are some ORM controls for the
bad-weather hazard:
1. Weather minimums for our
approach.
a. For an ACLS approach and
ILS with PAR monitor, the
minimums are 260 feet, onehalf-mile visibility.
b. If ACLS and ILS are not
working, minimums are 660
feet, one and one-quarter
miles for jets and 460 feet,
one mile for props.
2. CAG and squadron paddles
experience levels.
3. Individual pilot training and
experience levels.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_
m0FKE/is_7_48/ai_109130560/
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) air traffic controllers conduct tests at Navy Unmanned Combat Air System Aviation/Ship Integration Facility (NASIF) in October at
Patuxent River, Md. Using the program's Carrier Air Traffic Control Center (CATCC)
simulator, controllers demonstrated the ability to operate manned and unmanned
aircraft in a carrier environment using new digital message technology. (U.S.N. photo)
http
://
ww
w.n
avai
r.na
vy.
mil/
img
/
upl
oad
s/
DS
CN0
036
_1.J
PG
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_includes/articlePrint.jsp?storyID=news/aw060407p1.xml&headLine=Super%
20Hornet%20Demonstrates%20Unpiloted%20Approaches There were no changes to the flight control laws of the F/A-18F for this phase of the program.
"This was mostly about autonomous command and control with an existing, carrier-qualified platform and demonstrating
we could control it from the ship," Davis says. "For future activities, we may incorporate modifications to make the Super
Hornet more representative of a tailless flying wing."
By David A. Fulghum
That may differ very little from a manned aircraft's approach, except that an unmanned aircraft can operate at a higher
angle of attack because there's no need for a pilot to have forward vision.
"This design would actually approach the ship slower [less than 140 kt.] than the Super Hornet does today," says George
Muellner, president of Advanced Systems within Boeing Integrated Defense Systems. "If you look at the Super Hornet and
the [F-35 Joint Strike Fighter], the actual come-across-the-end-of-the-deck characteristics are different from the
standpoint of what factors on the aircraft produce them. But the end results are very similar."
Researchers are analyzing data from the first "hands-off" live-fly operations around an aircraft carrier--information that
could lead to a specially modified F/A-18F Super Hornet landing on a ship without a pilot touching the controls in as little
as two years.
May's demonstration on the Truman was dictated by the flight characteristics of the Super Hornet.
A pair of Boeing test pilots just completed a series of unannounced landing approaches and waveoffs with the USS Harry
S. Truman operating near Norfolk, Va., on May 17-18. They closed to within 420 ft. of the carrier before conducting a
ship-controlled waveoff. The test aircraft--the first two-seat F/A-18F built--has been reconfigured as a surrogate
unmanned combat air system (UCAS). The project parallels the company's effort to design a demonstrator for the Navy's
UCAS-D competition. However, company officials contend the demonstration wasn't designed specifically for the
competition or for Boeing's new X-45N design.
"We were flying about an 8-deg. angle of attack, 3.5-4-deg. glideslope and an approach speed of about 135-142 kt.,"
Davis says. "We weren't pushing the boundaries with this first set of demonstrations."
One of the most crucial areas for a tailless airplane as it approaches the back of the carrier is flying through the burble.
(The burble is a region of turbulence created by the carrier.)
"In this set of demonstrations, we really didn't get to where that effect is encountered," Davis says. However, "the back of
The test was aimed at validating three crucial areas: networking of advanced radios between the aircraft carrier and
the carrier is one of those challenges we face in a tailless airplane." Nonetheless, researchers think they have sufficient
aircraft, autonomous flight of dark and bad-weather carrier traffic patterns, and integration of aircraft position data into the wind tunnel data to suggest their tailless flying wing will have "plenty of roll power and longitudinal control."
shipboard air traffic controller's console.
"The difference in the F/A-18 and UCAS is not how much control power they need, but what effectors give it to you,"
After government officials canceled the Air Force's UCAS program in favor of a new manned bomber, they directed
Muellner says. "Directional control power in an F/A-18 comes from a vertical tail. In a tailless airplane you get it from
Boeing to work on a Navy-only effort.
other sources distributed across the airframe. The amount you need is driven by the aerodynamic and inertia characteristics.
In reality, the farther out [on the wing] a differential control effector is [as with the UCAS design], the more control power
"We made a company decision to leverage everything we'd learned [into] a surrogate UCAS-D demonstration using the
it has compared to something on the centerline."
F/A-18F-1 to prove our software for autonomous command and control [C2]," says Darryl Davis, vice president and
general manager of Boeing Advanced Precision Engagement & Mobility Systems (see p. 47). "We wanted to show that the "The burble isn't everything," Davis notes. "You can also add gusts and other turbulence. The carrier typically operates at
technology is easily transferable from the X-45A [fighter size UCAS] and X-45C [bomber size] programs to [unmanned or 10-15 kt. of wind over the deck, but you need to design your system so that it can handle up to 30 kt. In a low-speed
manned aircraft and] put ourselves in a credible position for the Navy's UCAS competition." However, company emphasis approach to a moving landing strip, you've got to show adequate control power all the way to arrestment. But all the
has shifted to make the autonomous landing capability a separate program and thereby applicable to any manned aircraft as analyses show that we're in the high 90% compliance with the Navy's 'okay 3-wire' criteria--about 15-17 ft. of dispersion
well.
for UCAS-D performance." During the demonstration, the aircraft actually encountered wind over the deck of "well over
30 kt.," says Samuel Platt, project manager for the surrogate demonstration.
Company specialists also built on 2006 demonstrations of an advanced radio--the Tactical Targeting Network Technology
(TTNT)--as the primary command and control communications link. Coupled with the X-45 work, they had the
For the Truman demonstrations, Mike Wallace was the pilot in command. Platt flew as the weapons systems officer, on
underpinnings for a surrogate UCAS that could be landed on an aircraft carrier.
board to monitor system health, signal strength and data link connectivity.
Land-based demonstrations began at NAS Patuxent River, Md., in November. The modified aircraft flew approaches to a "If any contingencies had come up, they were there to uncouple the system and take over in a fully manned mode," Davis
virtual carrier positioned in Chesapeake Bay. Boeing researchers ensured that their mission control element could interface says. "So far, the pilots never had to take over control for any reason."
with the Navy's shipboard air traffic control system (land-based at Patuxent River) and that the ship's system could
command the aircraft, in the pattern, in both visual and instrument weather approaches.
That record of no disengagements continued through the demonstration with no intervention from the aircrew during 14
approaches over two days, which also included marshaling over the ship during visual operations (Case I) and to a remote
Last month, the demonstrations shifted to the Truman, which was integrated into the system with TTNT radios and the
orbit during simulated dark and bad-weather approaches (Case III) before being vectored into a new approach. In fact,
mission control element. The Super Hornet flew to the ship as a piloted aircraft, but then it was coupled to the autonomous Platt says, the focus of the demonstration was primarily to exercise the entire set of procedures for both Case I and III
C2 system and the aircraft answered to commands issued by the shipboard operator through the ship's ATC system.
operations.
For the Truman test, there was a requirement to stay 660 ft. away from the emitters on the island as the aircraft went by the
ship, Davis says. Shortly before final approach, either the ship's ATC or the Navy UCAS control operator on the ship could
issue a waveoff command. The low approach to the ship demonstrated the ability of a tactically sized aircraft to operate in
a carrier-relevant situation and "the ability of our C2 software to command the aircraft in a completely hands-off mode,"
he says.
The system received praise from the ship's air traffic controllers and the aircrew. The data stream from the aircraft
provided much better situational awareness to ATC because it updates the aircraft's position continuously instead of once
every 3.5 sec. as provided by the ship's radar. It also functions in the radar's 20-deg. blind spot that extends several miles in
front of the ship. The aircrews liked the system because it monitors the ship's position and movement 20 times a second.
As a result, ATC voice chatter is reduced substantially.
"You take most of the unknowns away," Platt says. "You have complete situational awareness, and you don't have to talk
to find any of this out."
While tests could have continued for three days--about 1.5 hr. at the carrier per day--the data points were all collected by
early in the second day. Expected approach times were falling within 1 sec. of those assigned. The test aircraft operated
with manned aircraft in the pattern above them and on the flight deck. The demonstration also provided two areas of data
that could not be simulated adequately--the actual ship's motion and operation of the advanced radios once they were on a
ship, Platt says.
When X-45A operation started at Edwards AFB, Calif., controllers demanded a sterile air and ground operations. But as
they gained confidence, the aircraft was integrated into normal operations.
"This demonstration takes that confidence a step further by showing they can influence the vehicle in real time," Muellner
says. "Either of the two controllers can tell it to waveoff, and it's gone. This shows the repeatability that UAVs can give
you" with autonomous response to contingencies the aircraft may encounter that are embedded in the mission management
system.
Flying to an arrestment on the deck will have to wait until a precision, Differential GPS system is installed on the aircraft
and the ship. However, the follow-on phases are planned. The technology is expected to benefit not just the UCAS
program but virtually any aircraft that lands on an aircraft carrier. As a result, Boeing will help with risk reduction on the
Navy's Precision Approach and Landing Systems (JPALS) development, as it would work with the Super Hornet and F-35
Joint Strike Fighter. It then could be further modified to work with whatever design is selected for the advanced unmanned
strike program.
Boeing also has plans to integrate the aircraft with a new deck control device so that handlers can move aircraft around the
ship in an unmanned configuration.
"That would take some time and additional investment, but what we're doing has great applicability to Super Hornets and
other naval aviation platforms," Davis says. "It's also applicable to the land-based Broad Area Maritime Surveillance
[BAMS] unmanned reconnaissance aircraft."
As for follow-on phases, if Boeing's design is selected, Davis says that in an aggressive program the team could proceed to
arrested landings and maneuvering around the deck in two more iterations at sea. "In the first, you will check everything
out, do a lot of low approaches, then go to touchdown and bolters. In the second, you fly to an arrestment. We could be at
the carrier arrestment in about two years."
There may be a place for the UAV management system in the U.S. Air Force as well.
"This system has great applicability to precision-navigation, autonomous aerial refueling in both the Air Force and Navy,"
Davis says. "The Air Force Research Laboratory demonstrated it last summer using a tanker and a C-21 as a surrogate
UCAS. The technology included TTNT, Differential GPS on the C-21 and KC-135 tanker. We flew it into the pre-contact
position in the refueling box. There's also the potential for unmanned-to-unmanned aircraft refueling.
"You could use this system for collaborative manned-unmanned operations, be it strike, electronic attack or
reconnaissance," Davis says. "You could have two UCASs and a couple of Super Hornets much like we've shown you can
do with the two X-45As. There are lots of extrapolations you could make. You could do ops with two Predators, BAMS or
whatever. That's why in the X-45A program we demonstrated multiple unmanned aircraft operating collaboratively to
prosecute a target set in a preemptive, destructive and reactive suppression of enemy air defenses."
http://www.vfa-41.
net/media/FA-18EF
%20NATOPS.pdf
NATOPS
F/A-18E/F
All sea based naval aircraft, manned and unmanned, fixed wing and
rotary wing, will utilize optimally automated ship launch and
recovery to the operating limits of the ship / aircraft system
Flight operations Warfighter Payoff
- Increased safety, reduction in mishaps
- More operational flexibility through expanded shipboard operating
envelopes and flexible flight deck usage
- Reduced landing intervals, bolter and waveoff rate (shorter
Technologies
recovery periods, reduced fuel consumption)
- Flight Control
- Increased shipboard sortie rates, reduced ship and aircraft fuel
* Modified control laws for precision control
consumption, recovery tanker give requirements, ship and
* Gust sensing and alleviation
squadron personnel fatigue, etc.
- HCI and ship integration
- Potential for common capability with DVE and obstructed LZ ops
* Ship based pilot displays
ashore
* Cockpit displays
Aircraft / ship design and maintenance
* GCS and ship systems interface
- Reduced landing gear and related structure
* LSE interface
- Reduced number of wires / arresting gear engines
- Navigation systems
- Reduction in ship support systems (landing aids, displays, etc)
* GPS based precision landing algorithms being worked by JPALS,
- Reduction in inspection and repair for hard landings
UCAS-D programs
- Increased fatigue life
* Supporting / alternate systems (ship and/or aircraft mounted)
CVN: adapt existing systems/sensors, propose new sensors
Flight training
VTOL: EO/IR, radar, LADAR
- reduction in training time / cost (decrease in ship landing initial
- Deck motion prediction and compensation
training, qualification, and currency requirements)
* CVN, L-class, and small decks existing algorithms adequate?
- indirect benefits may include reduced environmental impact and
* Prediction and integration with aircraft control
public complaints due to FCLPs (noise), cost of equipping,
CONOPS: adjustments to take advantage of enhanced precision,
maintaining, and manning outlaying landing fields, etc.
&
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyJuly2012.pdf
Paddles
July 2012
monthly
iMOVLAS After nearly a decade of fighting for it, we finally got iMOVLAS fully funded. It will hit the fleet after Im
gone, but the dollars are there and its coming to a CVN near you.
iPARTS You asked for a replacement to APARTS and the new system is going through DT and OT right now. We still
have an uphill battle to get it fully funded and made a program of record but were fighting the fight.
LSOT Upgrade We asked for better fidelity in the trainer and a 21st century solution to our synthetic training environment
and we finally got the folks with the money to say yes. The upgrade to the trainer will begin later this year and will be fully
functional sometime in 2013.
6.
7.
8.
These priorities were published on July 1st, 2009 (on our newly minted website), and I am extremely proud of the staff
for getting this done. In the end, a rallying cry from you (the fleet) helped us achieve these goals. And for that I thank
you.
Like any reputable organization, we are focused on continuous improvement. And yes, I still have some itches that have
yet to be scratched. In no particular order:
Shore-based IFLOLS. Despite our constant whining and nagging we cant seem to convince the folks with the
purse to get us more units. Please continue to fight this fight. To give up now would spell disaster as these
things continue to age and become more and more prone to failure.
Fellow BPFs, Air Bosses, Minis, and supporters of the greatest vocation on the planet,
The manager has asked for the ball, and has signaled for the lefty, CDR Potzo Pothier. Yours truly is moving on and
hanging up the paddles, so I wanted to take one last opportunity to wax poetic from my seat as the Dean of the Navys
finest institution of higher learning. As most of you know Ive never been at a loss for words and this will NOT be the
exception.
It has been an interesting ride here at the school house and I would be remiss if I didnt publically thank our very small
staff for their dedication to providing the best training possible afforded by our shoe-string budget and limited manpower.
During my tenure here, weve completely re-written the syllabus, superbly polished the MILCON where we reside, and
grown as a staff by 100%. There have been hook slaps, landing mishaps, fouled deck landings, and most interestingly, a
crusade aimed at yours truly for a change to NATOPS that ended up being rescinded. Despite the ebb and flow of the
good and bad, I wouldnt change a thing. Because in the end, the Paddles community has become more tightly connected
than it has for many moons, and that had nothing to do with us. We simply created an environment in which YOU had a
forum to fine tune our business and communicate freely with no fear of recourse or derision.
And exciting times are on the horizon. During the course of the next few years, F-35s will land on the boat, an unmanned vehicle will conduct a cat and trap, and at least 3 nations will join the ranks of tailhook aviation. Make no mistake about it; Id stick around if I could. With that being said, the community is in extremely good hands with the arrival
of the new Dean.
In order to feel good about myself and feel validated about having come full circle. Let me share with you a few of the
priorities I outlined within the first few weeks of my arrival:
1. Curriculum Overhaul the entire syllabus (soup to nuts) has been updated, changed, and improved in order to offer
students the training that they need.
2. LSO & CV NATOPS rewrite The 2011 release of both of these pubs were the largest single rewrite in the last 10
years.
3. LSO PCL publication The beta version hit the fleet last year and we are working on version 2 currently.
4. LSO Standard Briefs Available for download from the website, these briefs ensure that there is commonality of purpose irrespective of air wing or coast.
5. LSO Reference Manual The new manual was released in 2010 after more than a decade hiatus. It is our Top Gun
Manual and has all of the information an LSO needs in a searchable format (PDF).
(continued on page 2)
Mea Culpa. In the very recent past there has been a growing reluctance to share shortcomings or deficiencies with
our friends around the fleet and, quite frankly, it scares the hell out of me. The hallmark of our profession is
that we only tell lies during the debrief. You have to reverse this trend and open up the kimono when required so that others dont have to learn the same lesson themselves.
Fiscal austerity. Unsure of what the near future holds, but make no mistake about it. There are many folks out there
that view prep for ops as low-hanging fruit and you will have to continue to fight for time in the pattern.
Flight hours are not on the rise and many of you will have to be creative to get the folks that need it time in the
pattern, in the simulator, and in the debrief so that we can continue to operate safely behind the boat.
Finally, your collective professionalism and talent has allowed us (the naval aviation enterprise) to enjoy one of the
longest periods of mishap-free flying, behind the boat, in history. (I hope all of you are rapping your knuckles on wood
right now). Now dont f@#$ it up. In addition, the paddles community is one of the last bastions of fraternity-like
communities left in the Navy.
Please continue to cling to that
tradition and wear the float coats
proudly.
I look forward to buying each of
you a cold beverage should our
paths cross with my retiree money
and as usual
Keep em off the ramp and in the
spaghetti.
V/R
Weeds
http://www.sludgehornet.com/downloads/NavalAviation_Pubs/LSO.pdf
PATUXENT RIVER NAS, Md., 10 Oct. 2013. Air traffic control experts at the Northrop Grumman Corp. Electronic Systems segment in Woodland Hills, Calif., is joining the Honeywell Inc. Aerospace sector in Clearwater, Fla., on a project to upgrade precision landing systems aboard U.S. Navy aircraft carriers & amphibious assault ships. Officials of the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Md., have announced their intention to award five-year contracts to Northrop Grumman and Honeywell
to upgrade & improve Navy Precision Approach Landing Systems (PALS) on carriers & big-deck amphibs.
The contracts to Northrop Grumman and Honeywell have yet to be negotiated, and should be awarded in
February, Navy officials say. The contracts, which will be basic ordering agreement (BOA), will be for services and materials to fabricate, modify, repair, replace, upgrade, and improve PALS components, assemblies, and associated hardware. PALS provides precision landing information to air traffic controllers and
pilots during final approach while landing aircraft aboard aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships.
Northrop Grumman and Honeywell are to return the [PALS] system to a level of serviceability comparable to a new system, and will include previously produced and delivered navigation and communication
systems and equipment, to include fault isolation, assembly, disassembly, and refurbishment of parts, components, assemblies, and material for the PALS navigation and communication systems. Northrop Grumman and Honeywell are the original manufacturers of the navigation, communication, and guidance equipment, and the companies are the only qualified providers of the necessary work, Navy officials say.
- communication breakdown
while landing on carrier
by Jeff Blake
chain of events was the waveoff will now assist in correlation and
lights from paddles and a sense proper order of Mr. Hand.
What could I have done?
in the cockpit that something
First, I could have listened to
just wasnt right.
What links in the chain could what was said, not just what
have been severed earlier? First, I expected to hear. The ACLS
an intermittent transponder was lock-on of my Hornet was
the catalyst to this entire melee. clearly predicated by a call from
I now make it a habit in marshal the controller that the lock-on
to check and double-check that was at three miles, not one. I
heard the call and reported
Im squawking all modes and
codes. Be acutely aware that if the needles, but never made
your IFF is being called intermit- the correlation between the
two-mile split that CATCC had
tent or inoperative, you may
called. I heard what I wanted
be susceptible to a sequencing
to hear, not what was actually
problem on the approach. One
communicated. The Tomcat did
solution is additional CATCC
hear the discrepancy on their
training and oversight, to
final lock-on call but merely
prevent the inadvertent ACLS
made a sarcastic comment and
lock of the wrong aircraft. We
deselected the ACLS. If youre
also decided that the Air Ops
aware that somethings wrong,
status board should list recovthen speak up definitively. You
ering aircraft in order, rather
might end up saving your own
than by aircraft type. Also, the
departure controller, previously life, or the life of one of your
undertasked during the recovery, air-wing buds.
Salty Dog 110 from Naval Strike Aircraft Test Squadron 23 (VX-23) prepares to land on USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71).
This picture was possibly taken in April 2001, when the Joint Precision Approach Landing System (JPALS) test
team successfully performed the first global positioning system (GPS)-based automatic landing to an aircraft carrier.
Based on GPS, JPALS is intended for military aircraft including manned and unmanned fixed-wing, vertical takeoff
and landing (VTOL), and rotary-wing aircraft, and is designed to replace tactical air navigation (TACAN) systems and
augment the current automatic carrier landing system (ACLS) and instrument carrier landing system (ICLS).
http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/71.htm
http://www.afceaboston.com/documents/events/cnsatm2011/Briefs/03-Wednesday/Wednesday-PM%20Track-1/01-Faubion-JPALS%20Prog%20Overview-Wednesday%20Track1.pdf
[VX-23 Strike Test News 2010] fly level legs and low approaches. BaLt Daniel Butters Radocaj sically we fly a CASE III bolter wave off
pattern over and over to a low approach.
CVN PALS CERTIFICATION & ME
This lets us align the SPN-46 Radar
Most of us have seen or will see a VX-23 (ACLS) and the SPN-41 (ICLS).
PALS certification during Flight Deck CerOn Day One we are typically the first
tification at some point. How does this
aircraft to trap. The instruction allows
affect me you ask and why do I care?
VX-23 aircraft to operate before the reThe biggest reason for the PALS certiquired taxi fams and drills. After our pification is to ensure on those dark and
lots CQ we fly the PALS pattern. After
stormy nights behind the boat that the
launch or a touch and go we make a MIL
ACLS, ICLS, and IFLOS all line up and
powered turn to downwind at or below
work together to get you safely aboard.
400 ft. This keeps us under the CASE I
If you are a CAG Paddles you may be
pattern. We proceed downwind and once
tasked with running the FDC and making clear of the CASE I pattern, then elevate
the airplans for it. The biggest guide for
to 1200 ft. We hook between 4 and 10
this process is the 3500.71B instruction
NM, decelerate, and intercept a normal
which outlines step by step each day of
CASE III final approach. We fly a coua FDC. I will attempt to give you a broad pled approach checking both Channel A
overview and highlight the major points. and Channel B of the ACLS. For the comA week prior to FDC, VX-23 technimunication plan, button 1 is in the front
cians come out to your squadron and
radio and button 15 is in the back. If you
groom one to two jets that VX-23 will
were to listen to button 15 you would
use. This is a great learning experience
hear us making continuous calls describfor your squadron ATs. The majority of
ing the aircrafts distance from the ship,
ACLS drop locks or no lock-ons are acaltitude, the position of the bullseye and
tually caused by a weak beacon on the
needles, and the position of the ball. We
airplane and not the ship. The grooming
also use a pilot quality rating to describe
process can find and fix beacon problems on a scale of 1 to 5 how the airplane is
and train your ATs to do the same.
responding to the things like tip-over at
The first day the ship pulls out of port 3 miles, the burble, and touchdown. The
PALS Certification
SPN-46 Automatic Carrier Landing
System (ACLS)
Includes hands-off automatic landing
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007
test/Fischer_SessionH4.pdf
STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test years, early in the workup cycle as
and Evaluation Squadron 23 part of the Flight Deck CertificaNewsletter 2012 Issue
tion. Our goal is to verify that the
JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND
LANDING SYSTEM (JPALS) LT Luke
Smuggla Johnson [page 19]
http://www.navair.navy.mil/
nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction
=home.download&id=670
STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and we only come out every two years for
Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter verifications and there is no clear re2013 Issue [produced 11 Oct 2013] placement for ACLS in the near future, it falls on the ship and Airwing to
Precisions Approach & Landing System
(PALS) Mode I Performance & Winds recognize when the system is misbehaving and report it to us so we can
LCDR Pat WHO? Bookey
evaluate and fix it. Sometimes there
Youve probably seen us borrowing
are hardware-related problems which
your jets during CVN flight deck certi- need to be corrected, but sometimes
fications and watched us zorch around we field concerns from the Airwing relow and fast conducting endless Mode sulting from misconceptions regardI approaches. Our goal is to verify
ing how the system is intended to
that the Improved Fresnel Lens Opfunction. This year, in an effort to edtical Landing System (IFLOLS), SPNucate the fleet on the Mode I, were
41 Instrument Carrier Landing System going to focus on wind conditions, dis(ICLS) and SPN-46 Automatic Carriplayed wind sources and their effect
er Landing System (ACLS) function
on ModeI performance.
properly, are aligned with each other
The wind over the deck (WOD) is
and lead the pilot to a good start. We measured from three anemometers
leave your ship after having ensured
on the ship (FWD, STBD, and PORT).
that the systems, specifically Mode I, These three anemometers feed the
are operating correctly within certiMoriah System, which is the wind disfication limits and available for those
play in PriFly and the bridge that is
rare but much needed times when the used to drive the ship to get recovery
pilot is otherwise incapable of getting WOD. The Moriah display from the Mini
aboard on his/her own (low visibility,
Boss station allows the different anIFR in the cockpit, injury, etc.) These
emometers to be selected individualsystems, specifically the ACLS, are
ly. The FWD anemometer is at the top
aging, and although we at VX-23 do
of the navigation pole to the right of
our best to ensure proper functionalcatapult #1. The PORT and STBD anity, degradations to their performance emometers are at the top of the mast
can be expected over time. Because
on the island on outriggers on the
JP
AL
S
https
://
www
.sae.
org/
aero
mag/
techf
ocus
/06-2
004/
2-245-25.
pdf
Using the new LDGPS under jamming conditions, the C12J readies to touch down at
Holloman AFB, NM, on April 5. The systems nominal accuracy is about 2 m.
Pallet of
ARINCs
LDGPS is
prepared for
a ground test.
After ground
testing was
completed in
March, the
pallet shown
was placed on
board a USAF
C12J for the
flight tests.
"The seagoing Joint Precision Approach and Landing System for the U.S. Navy provides much more than
GPS differential accuracy corrections. It uses data link to give pilots a plethora of data from a host of
sources. When the U.S. Department of Defense opted for the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System
(JPALS) in the mid-90s, most observers understood that this would be the militarys version of the GPSbased Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS), which is being developed for the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA). And to a certain extent, it will be. When deliveries commence around 2010 to the Army,
Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, land-based JPALS installations will closely resemble the FAA system.
Satellite Based
Augmentation System
(SBAS)
GPS Satellites
CCA Coverage
60 NM
2
Approach
Coverage
Ship
Location
Coverage
10 NM
B
Supports At Least
50 Aircraft
Wave off
Marshal
Collocated
Nets
2
http://www.afceaboston.com/documents/events/cnsatm2011/Briefs/03A
ATC* and GPS Augmentation,
Navigation Data
Wednesday/Wednesday-PM%20Track-1/01-Faubion-JPALS%20Prog%
Distribution
A. SPR 11-875B ATC* and Surveillance Data
20Overview-Wednesday%20Track1.pdf
* CATCC/AATCC is capable
C
UNCLASSIFIED / 7
SBAS
Signals
200 NM
Ground-Based
Augmentation
System (GBAS)
PALS is considered
the most critical part of
flight, we are responsible
for a safe approach during a terminal phase of
flight," said Air Traffic
Controller 3rd Class Kyle
Eberhart. "PALS works
by locking onto the
aircraft & verifying the
needles, & it sends
commands to land the
aircraft safely."
Air traffic controllers
operated two types of
radar, the "Easy Rider"
AN-SPN 46 & the "Bulls
eye" AN-SPN 41, for the
certification.
The AN-SPN 46 radar
locks onto the aircraft &
uses 3 different modes to
safely guide the pilot
back to the ship.
Mode 1 takes complete
control of the aircraft &
its landing.
Mode 1A takes control
of the aircraft & transfers
control back to the pilot
30 seconds prior to the
landing.
Mode 2 allows for
complete pilot control."
-
https://shopping.advcs.com/art
icles/Bullhorns/Bullhorn42.htm
7$&$1/LNH
7XHVGD\2FWREHU
-3$/61RW-XVW/$$6LQ1DY\8QLIRUP
7KHVHDJRLQJ-RLQW3UHFLVLRQ$SSURDFKDQG/DQGLQJ6\VWHPIRUWKH86
1DY\SURYLGHVPXFKPRUHWKDQ*36GLIIHUHQWLDODFFXUDF\FRUUHFWLRQV,W
XVHVGDWDOLQNWRJLYHSLORWVDSOHWKRUDRIGDWDIURPDKRVWRIVRXUFHV
William Reynish
:KHQWKH86'HSDUWPHQWRI'HIHQVHRSWHGIRUWKH-RLQW3UHFLVLRQ$SSURDFKDQG
/DQGLQJ6\VWHP-3$/6LQWKHPLGVPRVWREVHUYHUVXQGHUVWRRGWKDWWKLV
ZRXOGEHWKHPLOLWDU\VYHUVLRQRIWKH*36EDVHG/RFDO$UHD$XJPHQWDWLRQ
6\VWHP/$$6ZKLFKLVEHLQJGHYHORSHGIRUWKH)HGHUDO$YLDWLRQ$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ
)$$ $QGWRDFHUWDLQH[WHQWLWZLOOEH:KHQGHOLYHULHVFRPPHQFHDURXQG
WRWKH$UP\$LU)RUFH0DULQH&RUSVDQG1DY\ODQGEDVHG-3$/6
LQVWDOODWLRQVZLOOFORVHO\UHVHPEOHWKH )$$ V\VWHP http://www.aviationtoday.com/print/av
([WUDRUGLQDU\(QYLURQPHQW /issue/feature/JPALS-Not-Just-LAAS-in-Navy-Uniform_12893.html
%XWWKHVHDJRLQJ-3$/6ZLOOEHDKRUVHRUD/$$6RIDGLIIHUHQWFRORU2QHRIWKHELJJHVWGLIIHUHQFHVZLOOEH
LWVGDWDOLQNV)RUDVGHYHORSPHQWKDVHYROYHGFDUULHUEDVHG-3$/6KDVEHFRPHDJHQHULFWHUPDSSOLHGWRD
ZLGHUGDWDOLQNHQYLURQPHQWWKDQMXVWWKHDXWRPDWLFODQGLQJSRUWLRQ
/DQGEDVHGXQLWVZLOOXVHWKHFRQYHQWLRQDOVLQJOH9+)GDWDOLQNWRWUDQVPLWORFDOGLIIHUHQWLDO*36DFFXUDF\
FRUUHFWLRQVWRODQGLQJDLUFUDIW%XWDERDUGDQDLUFUDIWFDUULHUDFFXUDF\FRUUHFWLRQVZLOOEHMXVWRQHRIPDQ\
HOHPHQWVLQDFRPSOH[GDWDOLQNHQYLURQPHQW7KH1DY\LVH[SDQGLQJWKHHQYLURQPHQWDURXQGWKHEDVLF-3$/6
WRPRQLWRUDQGFRQWUROWKHHQWLUHRSHUDWLQJHQYHORSHRIHDFKRILWVDLUFUDIWIURPEHIRUHWDNHRIIWRDIWHU
ODQGLQJ
,QIDFWWKH1DY\VVHDJRLQJ-3$/6ZLOOEHWKHFHQWHUSLHFHRIDGHGLFDWHGGDWDOLQNEDVHGFRPPXQLFDWLRQV
QDYLJDWLRQDQGVXUYHLOODQFHDLUWUDIILFPDQDJHPHQW&16$70V\VWHPZKLFKZLOOEHDERDUGHDFKRILWV
FDUULHUV7KH1DY\QHHGVVXFKDFDSDELOLW\WRSURYLGHVDIHW\DLUVSDFHPDQDJHPHQWDQGRIFRXUVH
VXUYHLOODQFHSURWHFWLRQDJDLQVWDGYHUVDULHVDVWKHYHVVHOPRYHVDZD\IURPWKHPDLQODQGDQGDFURVVRFHDQV
RIWHQWRZDUGVXQIULHQGO\WHUULWRU\
,QDZD\LWZLOOEHOLNHSLFNLQJXSDFRPSOHWH)$$DLUURXWHWUDIILFFRQWUROFHQWHU$57&&IURPWKHPDLQODQG
DORQJZLWKDOOLWVUDGDUVDQGLQIUDVWUXFWXUHDQGVKRHKRUQLQJLWLQWRDQDLUFUDIWFDUULHU$QGVLQFHWKHFDUULHUV
UDLVRQGHWUHLVWRH[WHQGPLOLWDU\DLUSRZHULQDOOZHDWKHU\RXFRXOGHYHQVD\WKDWWKHVHDJRLQJ-3$/6
XOWLPDWHSXUSRVHLVWRWKUHDGWKHWLSRIDQDXWRODQGLQJDLUFUDIWVDUUHVWHUKRRNWKURXJKDQLPDJLQDU\VTXDUH
IRRWVTXDUHPHWHUER[FHQWHUHGSUHFLVHO\IHHWPHWHUVDERYHWKHSLWFKLQJDQGUROOLQJVWHUQRI
DFDUULHULQYHU\ORZYLVLELOLW\E\GD\RUQLJKW
:KDWVPRUHWKHDLUFUDIWDUHPRVWO\)7RPFDWVDQG)$+RUQHWVWREHMRLQHGLQWKHIXWXUHE\
XQPDQQHGFRPEDWDLUYHKLFOHV8&$9VDQG-RLQW6WULNH)LJKWHUV-6)V7KH1DY\V-3$/6ZLOOEHDIDUFU\
IURPLWVVKRUHEDVHGVLEOLQJV
(DVLHU6DLG7KDQ'RQH
http://www.aviationtoday.com/print/av
/issue/feature/JPALS-Not-Just-LAAS-in-Navy-Uniform_12893.html
-3$/6JRWLWVPDUFKLQJRUGHUVLQ$XJXVWZKHQWKH3HQWDJRQV-RLQW5HTXLUHPHQWV2YHUVLJKW&RXQFLO
-52&LVVXHGLWVPLVVLRQQHHGVWDWHPHQW7KLVGRFXPHQWFDOOHGIRUDUDSLGO\GHSOR\DEOHDGYHUVHZHDWKHU
DGYHUVHWHUUDLQVXUYLYDEOHPDLQWDLQDEOHDQGLQWHURSHUDEOHSUHFLVLRQDSSURDFKDQGODQGLQJV\VWHPRQODQG
DQGDWVHDWKDWVXSSRUWVWKHZDUILJKWHUZKHQFHLOLQJDQGYLVLELOLW\DUHOLPLWLQJIDFWRUV
:KLOHWKDWVRXQGVHDVLHUVDLGWKDQGRQHLWSUHFLVHO\GRYHWDLOHGZLWK1DY\ZDUILJKWLQJGRFWULQHZKLFK
GLFWDWHGWKDWIXWXUHDLUFUDIWFDUULHURSHUDWLRQVZRXOGEHKLJKO\DXWRPDWHGDQGKLJKO\VHFXUHEXWDVDFFLGHQW
IUHHDVSRVVLEOH&DWDSXOWODXQFKHVDQGGHFNODQGLQJVZRXOGEHIXOO\DXWRPDWLF&RPPXQLFDWLRQVQDYLJDWLRQ
DQGVXUYHLOODQFHZRXOGHPSOR\VHFXUHGDWDOLQNWUDQVPLVVLRQV$QGFRQWLQXRXVGDWDOLQNPRQLWRULQJRIHDFK
DLUFUDIWIURPEHIRUHODXQFKWRDIWHUODQGLQJZRXOGJUHDWO\HQKDQFHRYHUDOOIOLJKWVDIHW\
)RUVXFKWRWDOO\LQWHJUDWHGDFWLYLW\LWZDVQRWVXIILFLHQWWRVLPSO\EROWWKHQHZHVWODQGLQJJXLGDQFHV\VWHPWR
WKHFDUULHUGHFNZKLFKHVVHQWLDOO\KDVEHHQWKHSUDFWLFHWRGDWH:KLOHHIIHFWLYHWKH1DY\VFXUUHQW$1631
DQGLQVWUXPHQWDQGDXWRPDWLFFDUULHUODQGLQJV\VWHPV,&/6DQG$&/6DUHYLUWXDOO\VWDQGDORQHDLGV
7KH\DUHQRWWLJKWO\LQWHJUDWHGLQWRWKHRYHUDOOFDUULHUWDVNIRUFHFRPPDQGDQGFRQWUROVWUXFWXUH$QGQHLWKHU
WKHPLFURZDYHVFDQQLQJEHDP631QRUWKHUDGDUEDVHG631LVDFFXUDWHHQRXJKWRPHHWDXWRODQG
UHTXLUHPHQWV
1DY\SODQQHUVKRZHYHUVDZWKDWWKHPLOLWDU\-3$/6GHYHORSHGE\ 5D\WKHRQ FRXOGEHFRPHWKHFRUH
HOHPHQWRIWKHFRPPDQGDQGFRQWUROQHWZRUNVRILWVIXWXUHFDUULHUWDVNIRUFHVDOWKRXJKDVXEVWDQWLDODPRXQW
RIGHYHORSPHQWZRXOGEHUHTXLUHG7KHSURMHFWLVQRZLQWKHFRPSRQHQWDGYDQFHGGHYHORSPHQWSKDVH:KHQ
WKHWRWDOV\VWHPUHDFKHVRSHUDWLRQDOVWDWXVDWWKHHQGRIWKHGHFDGHLWVUHVHDUFKDQGGHYHORSPHQWFRVWVDUH
H[SHFWHGWRKDYHWRSSHGPLOOLRQDQGSURGXFWLRQDQGPDLQWHQDQFHFRVWVWKURXJKDUHIRUHFDVWWR
UHDFKDURXQGPLOOLRQ
http://www.aviationtoday.com/print/av/issue/feature/JPALS-Not-Just-LAAS-in-Navy-Uniform_12893.html
:KDWZLOOWKH1DY\JHWIRULWVPRQH\"(VVHQWLDOO\WKHVHUYLFHZLOOUHFHLYHDVHFXUHORZSUREDELOLW\RI
LQWHUFHSW/3,ZLGHEDQG8+)GDWDOLQNQHWZRUNRQHDFKRILWVDLUFUDIWFDUULHUV(DFKFDUULHUEDVHGQHWZRUN
ZLOOLQWHJUDWHDOODVSHFWVRIFRPPXQLFDWLRQVQDYLJDWLRQDQGVXUYHLOODQFHSOXVDLUWUDIILFPDQDJHPHQWRXWWR
DUDGLXVRIQDXWLFDOPLOHVQP$OOVLJQDOVZLOOKDYHKLJKXSGDWHUDWHVZLWKKLJKLQWHJULW\DQGIDXOW
WROHUDQFH7KHQHWZRUNZLOOXVHFRYHUWDQWLMDPWHFKQRORJLHVDQGIHDWXUHOHVVVSUHDGVSHFWUXPWUDQVPLVVLRQV
WRWU\WRSUHYHQWDGYHUVDULHVIURPGHWHUPLQLQJWKHVHQGHUVORFDWLRQ,WZLOOVXSSRUWFRPSOHPHQWDU\OHYHOVRI
GDWDOLQNVRYHUWKUHHFRQFHQWULFUDGLLRIDQGQPDURXQGWKHFDUULHU
7KURXJKRXWWKHQPUDGLXVHDFKDLUFUDIWVLQHUWLDOQDYLJDWLRQ*36V\VWHPZLOOEHDXJPHQWHGE\VKLSWR
DLUGDWDOLQNFRYHUDJHWRSURYLGHKLJKDFFXUDF\SRVLWLRQLQJERWKUHODWLYHWRWKHFDUULHUDQGWRRWKHUDLUFUDIW
LQWKHDUHDVXFKDVWDQNHUV3URMHFWRIILFLDOVVRPHWLPHVGHVFULEHWKLVSRVLWLRQLQJV\VWHPDV7$&$1OLNH
UHIHUULQJWRWKHFXUUHQWXVHRIWKH8+)WDFWLFDODLUQDYLJDWLRQ7$&$1V\VWHPZKLFKSURYLGHVSLORWVZLWK
GLVWDQFHDQGEHDULQJLQIRUPDWLRQIURPWKHFDUULHU+RZHYHUWKHLQHUWLDO*36GDWDOLQNFRPELQDWLRQZLOOSURYLGH
PXFKPRUHLQIRUPDWLRQDQGZLOOUHSODFH7$&$1ZKLFKKDVGDWDOLPLWDWLRQVDORQJZLWKLQKHUHQWVHFXULW\
YXOQHUDELOLWLHV
)URPWKHLQIRUPDWLRQGDWDOLQNHGXSIURPWKHFDUULHUSLORWVZLOOEHDEOHWRPRQLWRUWKHZKROHDLUDQGVXUIDFH
VFHQHRQWKHLUPXOWLIXQFWLRQFRFNSLWGLVSOD\VRIWUDIILFLQIRUPDWLRQ&'7,7KHLQIRUPDWLRQDOVRZLOOLQFOXGH
WKHORFDWLRQRIRWKHUDLUFUDIWZKLFKKDYHEHHQGHWHFWHGE\WKHVXUYHLOODQFHUDGDUVRIRXWO\LQJFDUULHUWDVN
IRUFHYHVVHOVDQGGDWDOLQNHGXS7KHXVHRIRWKHUYHVVHOVUDGDUVLVSDUWLFXODUO\YDOXDEOHZKHQWKHFDUULHUV
UDGDUVDUHVKXWGRZQLQDKLJKWKUHDWHQYLURQPHQW7DUJHWVGHWHFWHGE\SDWUROOLQJDLUERUQHZDUQLQJDQG
FRQWUROV\VWHP$:$&6DLUFUDIWZLOOEHGDWDOLQNHGDFURVVDVZHOO$OOIULHQGO\&'7,WDUJHWVZLOORIFRXUVH
FDUU\SRVLWLYHLGHQWLILFDWLRQIULHQGRUIRH,))WDJV(DFKDLUFUDIWDOVRZLOOFDUU\FROOLVLRQDYRLGDQFHDYLRQLFV
ZKLFKZLOOPRQLWRUWKHVXUURXQGLQJDLUVSDFHRXWWRQPDQGDJDLQSUHVHQWWKHLUDOHUWVRQWKH&'7,
:LWKLQDERXWQPRIWKHFDUULHUPDQQHGDQGXQPDQQHGDLUFUDIWZLOOFRPHXQGHUWZRZD\FRQWUROOHUSLORW
GDWDOLQNFRPPXQLFDWLRQV&3'/&FRYHUDJHRIWKHYHVVHOVDLUWUDIILFFRQWURO$7&V\VWHP)RUVHFXULW\
SXUSRVHVYRLFHFRPPXQLFDWLRQVZLOOEHHLWKHUSDVVHGWKURXJKYRLFHUHFRJQLWLRQILUHZDOOVRUEHGLJLWDOO\
V\QWKHVL]HG7KHFDUULHUV$7&IDFLOLW\DOVRZLOODFFXUDWHO\WUDFNHDFKDLUFUDIWYLDDXWRPDWLFGHSHQGHQW
VXUYHLOODQFH$'6,QVLGHWKHQP]RQHDQHQGXUDQFHPDQDJHPHQWDLUWUDIILFV\VWHP(0$76GDWDOLQN
ZLOOREWDLQHDFKUHWXUQLQJDLUFUDIWVSRVLWLRQIXHOVWDWHZHDSRQVVWDWXVDQGRWKHUIDFWRUV7KH(0$76OLQNZLOO
GHWHUPLQHWKHDLUFUDIWVRSWLPXPWLPHRIDUULYDOODQGLQJSULRULW\DQGSURMHFWHGODQGLQJZHLJKWDQGVHTXHQFH
LWLQWRDIRXUGLPHQVLRQDOODWLWXGHORQJLWXGHDOWLWXGHDQGWLPHDUULYDOWUDIILFVWUHDPRIPDQQHGDQG
XQPDQQHGDLUFUDIW(0$76DOVRZLOOLQWHJUDWHWKHDUULYDODQGGHSDUWXUHIORZVDOWKRXJKWKHODWWHUZLOOEHOHVV
GHPDQGLQJ
$WDQPUDQJHIURPWKHFDUULHUWKHDXWRODQGOHYHORIGDWDOLQNRSHUDWLRQVNLFNVLQ8SOLQNHGGDWDZLOO
LQFOXGHODQGLQJZHDWKHUFRQGLWLRQVVXFKDVWKHDOOLPSRUWDQWZLQGVSHHGDQGGLUHFWLRQRYHUWKHFDUULHUGHFN
SOXVWKHFRQWLQXRXVO\XSGDWHG*36GLIIHUHQWLDODFFXUDF\FRUUHFWLRQVVLPLODUWRWKRVHUHTXLUHGIRUD/$$6OLNH
SUHFLVLRQDSSURDFK7KHFRUUHFWLRQVZLOOEHVLPLODUEXWZLWKPXFKKLJKHUDFFXUDF\WKDQWKRVHXVHGLQ/$$6RU
WKHVKRUHEDVHG-3$/6XQLWV
([WUHPH$FFXUDF\
http://www.aviationtoday.com/print/av
/issue/feature/JPALS-Not-Just-LAAS-in-Navy-Uniform_12893.html
7RDVVXUHWKHH[DFWSRVLWLRQLQJRIWKHDLUFUDIWVDUUHVWHUKRRNZLWKLQWKHYHU\VPDOODUHDRQWKHFDUULHUGHFN
WKH1DY\WXUQHGWRWKHFRPPHUFLDOVXUYH\LQGXVWU\VUHDOWLPHNLQHPDWLF57.*36WHFKQLTXHZKLFKXVHV
WKHFDUULHUSKDVHRIWKH*36VLJQDOVWRDFKLHYHDFFXUDFLHVZLWKLQFHQWLPHWHUV7KH1DY\UHTXLUHVKRUL]RQWDO
DQGYHUWLFDODFFXUDFLHVRIOHVVWKDQFPLQFKHVZLWKLQWHJULW\DVVXUDQFHRIQRPRUHWKDQPHWHU
IRRWHUURULQPLOOLRQODQGLQJV
5HPHPEHUWKDWLPDJLQDU\VTXDUHIRRWER["7KH1DY\KDVSURYHGWKDWDFFXUDFLHVRIWKLVW\SHDUHSRVVLEOH
LQDXWRODQGLQJH[HUFLVHVZLWK)$VDQGRWKHUDLUFUDIWRQFDUULHUVDQGODQGIDFLOLWLHVXVLQJDPRGLILHG
SURWRW\SH-3$/6V\VWHPLQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWK57.7KHVHUYLFHDOVRKDVGHPRQVWUDWHGWKHV\VWHPVLPPXQLW\
WR*36MDPPLQJ
&DUULHUSLORWVKRZHYHUDOVRPXVWFRQWHQGZLWKWKHFKDOOHQJHRIODQGLQJRQDYHU\VKRUWDQGYHU\QDUURZ
UXQZD\WKDWDOVRKDSSHQVWREHULVLQJIDOOLQJUROOLQJDQG\DZLQJEHQHDWKWKHPDVWKH\DUHDERXWWRWRXFK
GRZQ$QGZKLOHGRLQJWKLVWKH\PXVWDOVRVWD\H[DFWO\RQWKHFHQWHUOLQHVLQFHRWKHUDLUFUDIWDUHSDUNHG
MXVWIHHWPHWHUVRIIHLWKHUZLQJWLS
%XW-3$/6KDVWKHDQVZHUKHUHWRR5HDOWLPHFRUUHFWLRQVIRUGHFNPRYHPHQWGHULYHGIURPWKHFDUULHUV
LQHUWLDOQDYLJDWLRQV\VWHPDUHFRQWLQXDOO\XSOLQNHGWRDQDLUFUDIWDVLWPDNHVLWVILQDODSSURDFK7KH
FRUUHFWLRQVDUHIHGWRWKHDXWRODQGV\VWHPZKLFKPDNHVDWWLWXGHDGMXVWPHQWVDOOWKHZD\WRWRXFKGRZQRU
PRUHSUHFLVHO\WRWKHSRLQWRISODFLQJWKHDUUHVWHUKRRNH[DFWO\EHWZHHQWKHVHFRQGDQGWKLUGDUUHVWHU
FDEOHVIRXURIZKLFKDUHVWUHWFKHGDFURVVWKHGHFNIHHWPHWHUVDSDUW-3$/6ZLOOELGIDUHZHOOWRWKH
EROWHUWKDWFRORUIXOH[SUHVVLRQXVHGE\QDYDODYLDWRUVIRUDQDLUFUDIWZKRVHDUUHVWHUKRRNPLVVHVWKHFDEOHV
DQGLVIRUFHGWRPDNHDPLVVHGDSSURDFK%XWLQWRPRUURZV1DY\EROWHUVPD\VLPSO\EHDQXQGHVLUDEOH
LPSHGLPHQWWR'KLJKVSHHGWUDIILFIORZV
7KHUHDUHPDQ\LQGXVWU\FRQWULEXWRUVWRWKH-3$/6SURJUDPWRRPDQ\WRPHQWLRQLQGLYLGXDOO\%XWSHUKDSV
VXUSULVLQJO\RQHRUJDQL]DWLRQWKDWKDVSOD\HGDOHDGLQJUROHLQWKHGHYHORSPHQWDQGHQJLQHHULQJRI-3$/6
FRPSOH[VRIWZDUHLV$5,1&,QF$QQDSROLV0GZZZDULQFFRP$PDMRUSOD\HULQWKHVHGDWHZRUOGRI
DLUOLQHDYLRQLFV$5,1&DOVRKDVYDVWH[SHULHQFHLQDYLDWLRQGDWDOLQNVIURPWKHHDUOLHVWGD\VRIWKHDLUERUQH
FRPPXQLFDWLRQVDGGUHVVLQJDQGUHSRUWLQJV\VWHP$&$56WRIXWXUHFLYLODYLDWLRQGLJLWDOGDWDOLQNV%XWLWZDV
WKHFRPELQHGH[FHOOHQFHRIDOOPHPEHUVRIWKHSURJUDPWHDPWKDWFDXVHGWKH3HQWDJRQV'HIHQVH
6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ3URJUDP2IILFH'632WRSUHVHQWLWV'632$FKLHYHPHQW$ZDUGWRWKH-3$/6SURJUDP
Requirements
Service Interoperable
Multiple Runway Configuration
Mobile; Supports all Landing Ops
Replaces Legacy Systems (ACLS, PAR, ILS)
100 FT DH
CAT II
DH = Decision
Height (Land
or NOT)
0 FT DH
CAT III
150 ft
954 ft
200 FT DH
CAT I
2,862 ft
http://www.afcea
boston.com/
documents/events/
nh09/653%20ELSW.pdf
http://www.hanscom
Land-based precision approach
10
system program resumes
March 2011
by Patty Welsh
66th Air Base Group Public Affairs
With this smaller footprint, LB JPALS would require less manpower to set up or maintain than current systems.
Other services also currently use precision approach radar, but these systems are not compatible with civil
aircraft and are planned to be among the first systems that will be phased out and replaced by JPALS.
Some remotely piloted vehicles also use the same GPS-based technology, and fielding JPALS would provide
them the ability to land at any DoD airfield.
"We want to try to collaborate to get to as common a solution as possible across all services, and across all
aircraft within the Air Force, as well," said Mr. Pierce. "We want to meet everybody's needs."
.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123246189
LB JPALS capability would be installed in existing navigation system avionics. Avionics risk reduction efforts
are ongoing across all the services, and there is an Aircraft Integration Working Group that meets quarterly to
coordinate these efforts.
"We are looking forward to be able to do flight demonstrations with our prototype data link and civil capability
military avionics toward the end of the calendar year," said Mr. Pierce. "The goal is to drive down integration
costs by sharing the same basic technology across the services."
This graphic depicts the concept of operations for the Joint
Collaboration with the FAA has also been in the works, leading to a possible interagency procurement of the
Precision Approach and Landing System, or JPALS. The
land-based JPALS program recently had its funding restored FAA civil technology to provide the civil interoperable portion of the LB JPALS.
and a request for information was sent out March 2, 2011.
An Industry Day will be held April 5, 2011. (Courtesy
graphic)
"Since the technology is so mature, our primary focus is managing our way through the various acquisition and
While the Navy is the lead executive service for the JPALS family of systems and working on the sea-based
version, the Air Force is responsible for the LB JPALS that will provide this GPS-based approach and landing
capabilities.
milestone processes, and collaborating with the FAA," said Sandy Frey, deputy program manager.
Some recent successes the program has seen were technology readiness affirmation from the Director of
Defense Research & Engineering and selection of a data link standard that will be the key to JPALS
"Today, each service - the Army, the Navy, the Air Force - has one or more unique solutions," said Col. Jimmie interoperability between all the services.
Schuman, Aerospace Management Division senior materiel leader. "JPALS is an interoperable system that will
be used by all the services and civil aircraft."
In the future, plans are for the LB JPALS to support not only straight-in approaches to the runway, but curved,
The underlying technology is a differential global positioning system, the same technology Honeywell used for
their civil product that was certified for use in September 2009 by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
The program office is working toward procuring a military version of this technology, which will include
employing an encrypted data link and GPS P(Y) code, or secure military code, with anti-jam capability. Work is The program office is currently working on a draft acquisition strategy. A request for information was sent out
also being done to ensure interoperability with the civil community.
on March 2 and an Industry Day is being planned for April 5.
"Currently you have to install an ILS [instrument landing system] for every runway end," said Brian Pierce,
aircraft integration lead, Jacobs Technology. "With JPALS, you would only need one system to support the
entire airfield."
"We have been waiting a long time to get to this point and we're ready to move along to the next steps," said
Ms. Frey. "We want to ensure the goal of common solutions becomes a reality."
...In the future, plans are for the LB JPALS to support not only straight-in approaches
http://www.navsource.
org/archives/02/027135.jpg
ABSTRACT
Next generation GPS receivers will take advantage of Spatial processing from a Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna
(CRPA) and Ultra-Tightly-Coupled (UTC) and TightlyCoupled GPS/inertial signal processing to improve their robustness to interference and their performance in a multipath environment. This introduces the potential for failure modes
to be introduced into the GPS solution from the Spatial processor, GPS signals or Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs).
For high integrity applications such as nonprecision approach or precision approach, the integrated GPS/Inertial receiver must be designed to perform fault detection and exclusion of any hazardously misleading information....
INTRODUCTION
The Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) Shipboard Relative GPS concept (SRGPS) is illustrated
in Figure 1. The goal of the SRGPS program is to provide a GPS-based system capable of automatically landing an
aircraft on a moving carrier under all sea and weather conditions considered feasible for shipboard landings. The
presently utilized Aircraft Carrier Landing System (ACLS) is a radar-based system which was developed more than
30 years ago and has a number of limitations that make the system inadequate to meet present and future shipbased automatic landing system requirements. The goal of SRGPS is to monitor and control up to 100 aircraft simultaneously throughout a range of 200 nautical miles from the landing site. Integrity monitoring is especially important for the last 20 nm of an approach and accuracy requirements are 30 cm 3-D 95% of the time.
The SRGPS architecture provides a precision approach and landing system capability for shipboard operations
equivalent to local differential GPS systems used ashore, such as the FAA's Local Area Augmentation System
(LAAS). A relative navigation approach is used for SRGPS with the "reference station" installed on a ship moving
through the water and pitching, rolling, and yawing around its center of motion. In addition, the ship's touchdown
point may translate up/down (heave), side-to-side (sway), and fore and aft (surge). Since the shipboard landing environment is much more challenging than ashore, the SRGPS approach must use kinematic carrier phase tracking
(KCPT) to achieve centimeter level positioning relative to the ships touchdown point.
Next generation GPS systems designed for JPALS and SRGPS operations are expected to have performance
advantages over previous generation user equipment (UE). While these designs will meet the objective of high antijam (A/J) and high accuracy performance, they must also implement integrity monitoring to be able to use the
KCPT solution to support precision approach and landing....
http://www.navsys.com/
Papers/06-09-002.pdf
WOODLAND HILLS, Calif., 22 May 2010. Raytheon selected Northrop Grumman Corp. to
supply the inertial measurement solution for the Joint Precision Approach & Landing Systems (JPALS) Shipboard Reference program. Under this contract, Northrop Grumman's
Navigation Systems Division will deliver 18 LN-270 inertial navigation systems (INS) for the
engineering and manufacturing development phase of the JPALS Increment 1A Shipboard
Reference System (SRS). Future production orders are anticipated to be considerable,
Northrop Grumman officials say. The first LN-270 unit will be delivered in early 2011.
JPALS, designed and developed by Raytheon under a U.S. Navy contract, is an allweather, all-mission, all-user landing system based on local area differential Global Positioning System (GPS). JPALS works with GPS to provide accurate, reliable, landing guidance for fixed and rotary wing aircraft and supports fixed-base, tactical, and shipboard applications. For the SRS, each JPALS-equipped ship will employ three Northrop Grumman
fiber optic gyro-based LN-270 INS units to measure the ship's motion.
"Northrop Grumman's LN-270 is a versatile solution for any application that requires
highly accurate navigation, pointing or dependable stabilization -- whether it be on land or
sea," says Gorik Hossepian, vice president of navigation and positioning systems for
Northrop Grumman's Navigation Systems Division. The in-production LN-270 INS is a navigation system with low lifecycle costs because it requires no scheduled maintenance during its rated lifetime, company officials say.
Jun 7, 2010
By Bill Sweetman http://www.anahq.org/articles/Bullhorns/Bullhorn76July152010.htm#F35
...The carrier will be part of the process of introducing a landing guidance system to the
Navy: the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (Jpals). It will be one of the first
ships with Jpals, which is slated to be on all carriers and large amphibious transports by
2018. The second Ford-class ship, CVN-79, is due to be the first carrier without SPN-41
and SPN-46 radars, which provide carriers with an automatic landing capability.
-
Adoption of Jpals is urgent for the Navy because current radars will not be
supportable after the early 2020s. Jpals is also associated with the F-35C, because
the fighter's reduced radar cross-section means that current radar-based autolanding systems cannot acquire it. The installation of Jpals on carriers will match service entry of the F-35C. The first increment of Jpals will be qualified for flight guidance down to 200 ft. and 0.5-mi. visibility. Accuracy is intended to be sufficient for
an automatic landing, and that capability is being demonstrated as part of the
Northrop Grumman X-47B Navy Unmanned Combat Air System program.
The key to its accuracy is shipboard-relative GPS, which uses two GPS receivers
one forward of the island on the starboard side and the other on the portside stern.
The space between the sensors and their relative location allows the system to
measure the position of the ship accurately and track its movement-speed, pitch, roll
and heave with the aid of three Northrop Grumman LN-270 inertial reference units.
Using the same differential GPS technique, Jpals also provides an accurate aircraft
position. A data link allows the system to transmit automatic landing guidance.
[JPALS] Airfields Afloat: The USAs New Gerald Ford Class Super-Carriers
Jun 05, 2013 Defense Industry Daily staff https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/design-preparations-continue-for-the-usas-new-cvn21-supercarrier-01494/
-
May 29/13: JPALS. Raytheon in Fullerton, CA receives a $14.6 million cost-plus-incentivefee contract modification for the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS),
maintenance Design Phase II. They want to change the design to allow for increased organ-
izational level maintenance (i.e. on board ship) of JPALS Increment 1A ship systems....
...May 24/13: JPALS. The Pentagon finally releases its Dec 31/12 Selected Acquisitions
Report external link [PDF]. For JPALS, which began development in 2008:
Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) Increment 1A Program costs
increased $106.8 million (+10.7%) from $996.0 million to $1,102.8 million, due primarily
861DY\&RPSOHWHV-3$/6
6KLS%DVHG(0'3KDVH
The Navy conducted EMD demonstrations aboard the Roosevelt from November 9 to 19,
logging approximately 30 flight test hours and 60 completed autolands to the deck
using two F/A-18Cs operated by its VX-23 air test and evaluation squadron. The jets
were equipped with Jpals functionally representative test kits.
The Jpals ship system includes multiple racks of equipment inside the ship and
multiple GPS and UHF antennas on the mast, according to the Naval Air Systems
Command (Navair), the contracting authority for sea-based Jpals. The system includes
integrated processing, maintenance and monitoring systems and redundant UHF
datalinks, inertial sensors and GPS sensors to achieve high reliability and availability.
Jpals is networked with legacy shipboard landing systems, but is capable of operating
independently of those systems, Navair said.
BILL CAREY-DQ
$,1'()(16(3(563(&7,9(
Arinc, which served as lead technical contractor to the Navy during technology
development of the system, said Jpals will integrate with the AN/TPX-42 air traffic
control console, the AN/SPN-46 automatic carrier landing system, the AN/SPN-41
instrument landing system, the landing signal officer display system, the improved
Fresnel lens optical landing system, the aviation data management and control system,
and the Moriah Wind System. Last year, Rockwell Collins acquired Arinc.
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain-defense-perspective/2014-01-03/us-navy-completes-jpals-ship-based-emd-phase
Joint Precision Approach and Landing System, Increment 1A (JPALS Inc 1A) Assessments
x
https://www.scribd.com/doc/261315401/SE-FY14-Report
Prime Contractor:5D\WKHRQ1HWZRUN&HQWULF
6\VWHPV'LYLVLRQ
Executive Summary: -3$/6,QF$LVDQ$&$7
,'SURJUDPLQWKH7HFKQRORJ\0DWXUDWLRQDQG5LVN
5HGXFWLRQSKDVHWKDWZLOOSURYLGHD*OREDO
3RVLWLRQLQJ6\VWHP*36EDVHGSUHFLVLRQ
DSSURDFKDQGODQGLQJFDSDELOLW\IRU-3$/6
HTXLSSHGPDQQHGDLUFUDIWDWVHD7KHSURJUDP
H[SHULHQFHGDFULWLFDO1XQQ0F&XUG\10EUHDFK
DQGZDVUHFHUWLILHGLQ-XQH'$6'6(
FRQILUPHGWKH10URRWFDXVHZDVQRWWHFKQLFDODQG
DVVHVVHGWKDWWKHWHFKQLFDOSODQVDQGPDQDJHPHQW
SURFHVVHVDUHDGHTXDWHWRVXSSRUWWKHUHVWUXFWXUHGSURJUDP(IIRUWVWRFRPSOHWHWKHGHYHORSPHQW
WUDGHVWXGLHVDQGULVNUHGXFWLRQHIIRUWVDUHRQWUDFNWREHJLQLQ)<
Risk Assessment7KHSURJUDPLVH[HFXWLQJLWVULVNPDQDJHPHQWSURJUDPGRFXPHQWHGLQWKH
6(37KHSURJUDPLVZRUNLQJWRPLWLJDWHULVNVLQWKH)FHUWLILFDWLRQ)8&/$66VFKHGXOH
DQGHQGWRHQGYHULILFDWLRQDUHDV
Performance %DVHGRQD)HEUXDU\,QF$6\VWHP9HULILFDWLRQ5HYLHZ695OLNHHYHQW
DOOIRXU,QF$.33VDQGILYH.6$VUHPDLQRQWUDFNWRFRPSOHWH1DY\&RPPDQGHU2SHUDWLRQDO
7HVWDQG(YDOXDWLRQ)RUFH/HWWHURI2EVHUYDWLRQ/227KH,QF$FRPSOHWHGWKHVKLSERDUG
SRUWLRQRIWKH2SHUDWLRQDO$VVHVVPHQWLQ'HFHPEHU7KHFRQWUDFWRUVXFFHVVIXOO\
FRPSOHWHGDSURRIRIFRQFHSWGHPRQVWUDWLRQRIWKHDXWRODQGFDSDELOLW\ZLWKKDQGVIUHH
SUHFLVLRQDSSURDFKHVRQERDUG&917KLVGHPRQVWUDWLRQJUHDWO\UHGXFHGWKHULVNIRUWKHDXWR
ODQGFDSDELOLW\IRUWKHUHVWUXFWXUHG-3$/6SURJUDP
Schedule 3URJUDPH[HFXWLRQLVRQWUDFNWREHJLQLQ)<7HFKQLFDOSODQQLQJIRUWKH
-3$/6SURJUDPZLOOLQFOXGHTXDUWHUO\VFKHGXOHULVNDVVHVVPHQWVWRLGHQWLI\KLJKULVNDUHDV
LPSDFWVDQGRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUPLWLJDWLRQ7KH,QWHJUDWHG0DVWHU6FKHGXOHLVSUHGHFLVLRQDO
Reliability 7KHV\VWHPUHOLDELOLW\DQGPDLQWDLQDELOLW\FULWHULDSDUDPHWHUVDUHRQWUDFNZLWK
FRUUHVSRQGLQJ730VWRH[FHHGWKHSHUIRUPDQFHUHTXLUHPHQW7KH-3$/6RSHUDWLRQDOUHOLDELOLW\
UHTXLUHPHQWGHILQHGDVPHDQWLPHEHWZHHQRSHUDWLRQDOPLVVLRQIDLOXUHLVSURMHFWHGWRPHHWWKH
WKUHVKROGUHTXLUHPHQW
Software 7KH-3$/6,QF$VRIWZDUHLVFRPSOHWHDQGLPSOHPHQWHGWRVXSSRUWWKH/22
)XWXUHVRIWZDUHGHYHORSPHQWIRUDIROORZRQSURJUDPLVSHQGLQJWKHRXWFRPHRI-3$/6DXWR
ODQGULVNUHGXFWLRQDQGXSGDWHWRWKH&''WRVXSSRUWD)<06%
Manufacturing 7KH,QF$SURJUDPGHOLYHUHGDOOHLJKW(QJLQHHULQJ'HYHORSPHQW0RGXOH
XQLWVDQGWKHIRXU$LU9HKLFOH7HVW.LWXQLWVRQVFKHGXOH7KH10$FTXLVLWLRQ'HFLVLRQ
0HPRUDQGXPGHIHUUHGWKHSURGXFWLRQSKDVHRQ,QF$WRDOLJQZLWKWKHIXWXUHDFTXLVLWLRQRIWKH
DXWRODQGFDSDELOLW\IRUWKH)DQG8&/$66
Integration7KH,QF$SURJUDPFRPSOHWHGVKLSERDUGLQWHJUDWLRQRQ&917KHSURJUDP
UHGXFHGLQWHJUDWLRQULVNZLWKWKHXVHRIWKHGXSOLFDWHVWULQJRIVKLSERDUGLQIUDVWUXFWXUH
HTXLSPHQWDQGQHWZRUNLQWKHODQGLQJV\VWHPWHVWIDFLOLW\DQG3DWX[HQW5LYHU1DYDO$LU6WDWLRQ
'HULYHGUHTXLUHPHQWVIRU)DQG8&/$66LQWHJUDWLRQDUHSHQGLQJFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHWUDGH
VWXGLHV
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/Untitled_zps43f217ed.jpg
es/2013/December%202013/Day18/pix121813radars.jpg
Civil Airworthiness
Certification Former Military
High Performance Aircraft
AIR-230 Airworthiness
Certification Branch
Federal Aviation
Administration Washington,
D.C. September 19, 2013
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_
cert/airworthiness_certification
/former_military/media/Former
MilitaryJetsResearchReport.pdf
Luneberg Lens
& Ovoid IPP
Exhaust
UK F-35B
CVN
LH-CLASS
DDG-1000
Joint A/C
Integration Guide
Inc-1B
Inc-2
(LDGPS)
2
3
2
(DoD and Civil
Interoperability)
GPS
JPALS
at Sea
CON
OPS
Overview
Inc-4
Inc-5
Man-Pack LDGPS
(Marine Corps/Army)
Inc-6
Autonomous
Enhanced Vision System (EVS)
Inc-7
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17065.html
ALSO
Current CDD includes Increments 1 and 2
Only Increment 1 validated by JROC http://www.afceaboston.com/documents/
events/cnsatm2008/Briefings/Thurs/Track%203-PM/1%20JPALS%20CNS%20ATM%206.23-26.08.pdf
AN/TPX-42A(V)14 DAIR
(Direct Altitude and Identity Readout)
AN/SPN-41/41A ICLS
(Instrument Carrier Landing System)
AN/SPN-43C ASR
(Air Surveillance Radar)
TACAN
AN/SPN-35B/C PAR
(Precision Approach Radar
for LHA/LHD class ships)
SPN-46
SPN-35
TACAN
JPALS Compared
to GPS Guided Munitions
15
meters
Joint Standoff
Weapon (JSOW)
12
9
6
-15
-12
-9
-6
Sea-Based JPALS
-3
-3
Land-Based JPALS
3
12
15
meters
18
21
24
27
30
-6
33
36
39
-9
-12
-15
Protection
Levels
Alert Limits
GQ
Cat I
DH
Accuracy
Integrity
Ao/Continuity
Cat II
DH
http:
//
acas
t.grc
A network-centric
.nas
a.go concept to support
landing ashore and all
v/
wp- phases of flight in the
cont shipboard environment
ent/
Covert, secure, anti-jam
uplo
Low latency, high
ads/
integrity, fault-tolerant
icns/
2002 Responsibility for all
/09/ approach modes with
Sess vertical navigation
ion_
Interoperable
D2-4
_Wal Services
lace. Allies
Technologies Conference Briefing 1 May 2002
pdf
Civil airspace
JPALS Overview
I-CNS
JPALS
(Navy Applications)
General: Recoveries with no
limitations due to sea state
or weather
Automatic Landing
Position/trend to CATCC, LSO
Approaches for all aviation ships
Shore DoD/ Civil interoperability
Naval UCAV
Concept of Operations
for the Carrier at Sea
ATC coverage
TACAN coverage
50 nm
Approach
coverage
Collision Avoidance
20 nm
Landing System
Accuracy (0.3m 95%)
in 360 deg, 20 nm
Marshal
Standard NATOPS
arrivals or direct
4-D routing (best
time/ fuel mgmt)
Guidance
off the cat
& departure
Ashore
CASE II/III, CASE I,
bolter and waveoff
patterns supported
200 nm
30 nm
Translation
Roll
Pitch
Heave
Surge
Sway
Yaw
7
JPALS Architecture
Ground Equipment
Airborne Equipment
Fixed/Civil/
International
Antenna
Electronics
Tactical/
Special Mission
VH
C/A-Code
WAAS & LAAS
GPS/
INS
VHF
VHF Data
Broadcast
Shipboard
UH
Data
Link
Mission
Computer
Display
Shipboard Relative
GPS Functions
Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS) The ACLS is
similar to the ICLS, in that it displays needles that
indicate aircraft position in relation to glideslope and
final bearing. An approach utilizing this system is said to
be a Mode II approach. Additionally, some aircraft are
capable of coupling their autopilots to the glideslope/
azimuth signals received via data link from the ship,
allowing for a hands-off approach.
Navigation,
Navigation
G&C
G&C: Guidance
and Control
CCA: Carrier
Control Area
CDTI: Cockpit
Display of Traffic
Information
SRGPS
Communication
Services
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Modern_United_States_Navy_carrier_air_operations
Surveillance
Air Traffic
Management
Ship Relative
Navigation
CCA
Surveillance
Flight
Information
Precision
Approach
CDTI
Controller-Pilot
Data Link
Deck
Precision
Operations
Approach
Traffic Inform.
Service
Endurance
Management
Approach
Monitor
Ramp Strike
Prevention Sys
Airspace
Management
10
Traffic Information Service (TIS): Primary and secondary radar tracks from offboard sensors providing CDTI and collision avoidance.
Controller Pilot Data Link Control (CPDLC): A set of commands to the airborne
platform which can be initiated either via manual operation, by voice command,
or automatic via Auto ATM. Proper handling of transfer of cont
for unmanned operations.
11
NAV
COMM
SURV
VOICE
ATM
10 20 50
100
Medium-Rate
Uplink/Downlink Data
within 10 nm
LOS range approx 30-40
200
nm
Navigation Service:
En route (GPS stand alone) guidance to 10m lateral, 20 m vertical
Relative Shipboard Approach Guidance
<5m lateral guidance out to 200 nm
< 15 cm 3-D guidance within 10 nm
<2 m lateral guidance within 50 nm
< 10 cm deck handling navigation
13
Examples of
Data Link messages
Start /
Alert
Taxi /
Departure
Msn
TAC
- AN
Launch
Log-on
Weight
4D guide, CPDLC
departure reports
Ships
Information
(D-ATIS
equivalent)
Status
(BIT) Built
In Test
Situational
Awareness
(SA)
Checkin
Approach
Trap /
Maint
D-ATIS /
PIM
Weight On
Wheels
Updated CLNC/
WX/Position of
Intended
Movement (PIM)
CPDLC
Marshal
Weight / approach
data
BIT
Weight Off
Wheels
Maintenance data
Weapons /
systems /
fuel status
Maintenance / WX
data
Maintenance
data & deck
troubleshoot
Collision
Avoidance
Function
(CAF)
CAF/ SA / tanker
position
Hot/drop
areas
CAF/SA
Tanker hawk /
position &
guidance / CAF /
SA
Log-off
14
Navigation System
Performance
Shipboard landings require
Lab Tests
Threat Scenarios
Performance Simulations
15
One of two F/A-18C Hornets from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 lands aboard USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) during the recently completed round of Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) testing this spring. JPALS is an all-weather landing system based on differential GPS information for land- and sea-based aircraft. (U.S. Navy photo) Jun 27, 2013 http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/JPALS_landing_1.PNG
MARINE AIR COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEM (MACCS) PLAN | MARINE AVIATION PLAN 2015 | Precision Approach
Landing Capability Roadmap This effort has been established as a transition from precision approach radar (PAR) systems to
emerging Global Positioning System (GPS) technology in order to provide Marine Corps Aviators a self-contained cockpit needles
precision approach in all operational environments (expeditionary, ship, and shore). Joint Precision Approach Landing System
(JPALS), due to the current fiscal environment, was dramatically scaled back to fund ship systems only. For the Marine Corps, this
will provide a precision capability on all LHA and LHD amphibious carriers to support the F-35B, and on all CVNs to support the
F-35C. Marine aviation will leverage maturing GPS technology to bring a self-contained precision approach landing capability (PALC)
that is world-wide deployable. https://marinecorpsconceptsandprograms.com/sites/default/files/files/2015%20Marine%20Aviation%20Plan.pdf
Why Accuracy
is so important!
Summary
Tip of hook through this box
(3 ft x 3 ft)
14 ft
8 ft
16
-30
-20
-10
Runway YCoordinate 0
(Feet)
10
20
30
Wire 1
Wire 2
Wire 3
Wire 4
40
60
1 Wire
40
20
0
Runway X-Coordinate
(feet)
-20
-40
-60
Targeted Hook
Touch Down Point
Between 2 & 3 Wires
2 Wire
3 Wire
4 Wire
40 ft Between Wires
17
18
International Cooperation
UK has companion program
(UK-JPALS)
MOU in work with United States
UK testing STOVL implementation
to support JSF
Fresnel Lens
Position
86
486
X
786
Not to scale
291
250
210
170
OLS
Horizon
H/E
a /c
H/E
FRL
LH/E
HTDP
2W
Level Deck
II to FRL
1W
OLS
2 effects were additive - IFLOLS Tolerances & FA-18C Hook to Eye value
Target 212 ft (Nominal)
6 inches up on IFLOLS = approx 8 ft of hook touch down point (HTDP) travel forward
Not a big deal for individual passes, but will see more dispersion towards later wires
over time **.
Lakehurst has reduced install tolerances from +/- 6 inches to +/- 3 inches (CVN 76 is
know within 1.0 inch for all aircraft.
FA-18C H/E value will be amended in an upcoming ARB change
Effect of AG
Configuration
Hook Touch Down Point
IFLOLS 230 Nominal
ACLS 230 Nominal
(doesnt change with
IFLOLS)
Trappable Length
HTDP to 4-Wire
Nominal HTDP (230)
291 230 = 61
3A Wire
X
291
250
210
170
4-Wire Configuration
Not to scale
268 10
261-10
220
180
DULV5RFNZHOO&ROOLQVGHOLYHUVILUVWVRIWZDUHGHILQHG$5&UDGLR
June 21, 3:KHQ5RFNZHOO&ROOLQVRIILFLDOO\FHOHEUDWHGWKHILUVWIXOOUDWHSURGXFWLRQGHOLYHU\RI
2011 By: LWV$5&57&*HQHUDWLRQUDGLRWR30$WKHDLUFRPEDWHOHFWURQLFV
SURJUDPRIILFHRIWKH861DYDO$LU6\VWHPV&RPPDQGLQODWH$SULOLWPDUNHGD
Bill Carey PLOHVWRQH7KHKDQGRYHUZDVVLJQLILFDQWLQWKDWWKHILIWKJHQHUDWLRQ$5&LV
http://
www.ain
online.com/
news/singlenews-page/
article/
paris-2011rockwellcollinsdelivers-firstsoftwaredefinedarc-210radio-30178/
WKHILUVWDLUERUQHVRIWZDUHGHILQHGUDGLRWRKLWWKHPDUNHWVDLG7UR\%UXQN
5RFNZHOO&ROOLQVVHQLRUGLUHFWRU$LUERUQH&RPPXQLFDWLRQV3URGXFWV-XVWDZHHN
HDUOLHU30$FRPSOHWHGDUHYLHZWKDWIRXQGWKH*HQUDGLRPHHWV
UHTXLUHPHQWVPDNLQJLWDYDLODEOHIRUSURFXUHPHQWE\IOHHWXVHUVXQGHUWKH1DYDLU
SURGXFWLRQFRQWUDFW
7KH$5&*HQUDGLRLVDPXOWLEDQGPXOWLPRGHUHFHLYHUWUDQVPLWWHURSHUDWLQJ
LQWKH98+)IUHTXHQF\UDQJHSURYLGLQJH[WHQGHGFRYHUDJHIURPWR0+]
IRUPLOLWDU\DQGSXEOLFVHUYLFHUDGLREDQGV5RFNZHOO&ROOLQVKDVGHOLYHUHGPRUH
WKDQ$5&UDGLRVXVHGRQSODWIRUPVVLQFHWKHVWDUWRIWKHSURGXFW
OLQHLQ7KHUDGLRKDVHYROYHGRYHUVXFFHVVLYHJHQHUDWLRQVZLWKQHZ
FDSDELOLWLHVDGGHGWKURXJKVRIWZDUHXSGDWHV
7KH*HQUDGLRIHDWXUHVDVRIWZDUHGHILQHGFRPPXQLFDWLRQVDUFKLWHFWXUH
VXSSRUWLQJPXOWLSOHZDYHIRUPVDQGHPEHGGHGSURJUDPPDEOHFU\SWRJUDSK\WKH
ILUVWPLOLWDU\DLUERUQHWUDQVFHLYHUWRGRVRDFFRUGLQJWR5RFNZHOO&ROOLQV,WZLOO
VXSSRUWLQVHUWLRQRIWDFWLFDOVHFXUHYRLFHLQWHJUDWHGZDYHIRUPFRPEDWQHWUDGLR
DQGVROGLHUUDGLRZDYHIRUPFDSDELOLWLHV
7KH$5&*HQUDGLRLVWKHILUVWWRPDUNHWVROXWLRQFDSDEOHRISURYLGLQJ
QHWZRUNLQJDQGPRGHUQFU\SWRJUDSKLFIXQFWLRQDOLW\WKDWWKH86PLOLWDU\QHHGVIRU
LWVDLUERUQHSODWIRUPVVDLG%UXFH.LQJ5RFNZHOO&ROOLQVJHQHUDOPDQDJHURI
&RPPXQLFDWLRQV3URGXFWV,WSURYLGHVDFOHDUSDWKZD\IRUWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI
'HIHQVHWRDFTXLUHDQDIIRUGDEOHUHOLDEOHDQGVHFXUHQHWZRUNLQJVROXWLRQIRUDQ\
JPALS next page
W\SHRIDLUFUDIW
J
P
A
L
S
%UXQFNVDLG5RFNZHOO&ROOLQVDOUHDG\GRPLQDWHVWKH8+)DLUERUQHPDUNHWVSDFH
ZLWKWKH$5&UHSUHVHQWLQJWKHGHIDFWRVWDQGDUGUDGLRRIWKH861DY\DQG
86$LU)RUFH7KHFRPSDQ\DOVRVXSSOLHVVRPHUDGLRVWRWKH86$UP\DQG86
&RDVW*XDUG
,WFXUUHQWO\LVVXSSO\LQJPDLQO\WKHIRXUWKJHQHUDWLRQ$5&57&UDGLR
NQRZQDV7KH:DUULRUWRWKH861DY\DQG86$LU)RUFHDVZHOODVVRPH
WKLUGJHQHUDWLRQUDGLRV(YHQWXDOO\SURGXFWLRQRIWKHIRXUWKJHQHUDWLRQUDGLRZLOO
EHJLQWRUDPSGRZQ%UXQFNVDLG,QLWLDOSODWIRUPVH[SHFWHGWRLPSOHPHQWWKH
*HQUDGLRDIRUPDQGILWUHSODFHPHQWIRUH[LVWLQJUDGLRVDUHWKH0+
KHOLFRSWHU9WLOWURWRUDQG)$)DQG)ILJKWHUV
7KHFRPSDQ\H[SHFWVWRGHOLYHUDERXW*HQUDGLRVWKLV\HDULQFOXGLQJ
ORZUDWHLQLWLDOSURGXFWLRQ/5,3PRGHOV2IWKRVHZHUHGHOLYHUHGWR30$
DQGWR30$WKHQDYDODLUWUDIILFPDQDJHPHQWV\VWHPVSURJUDPRIILFH
30$LVUXQQLQJWKHMRLQWSUHFLVLRQDSSURDFKDQGODQGLQJV\VWHP-3$/6
SURJUDP7KURXJK-3$/6ZKLFKLVFRPSDUDEOHWRWKHFLYLOLDQ*36ORFDODUHD
DXJPHQWDWLRQV\VWHPDLUFUDIWZLOOUHFHLYHGLIIHUHQWLDO*36FRUUHFWLRQVIURPD
VKLSERDUGVWDWLRQYLDGDWDOLQNSURYLGLQJ861DY\DLUFUDIWFDUULHUVZLWKDOO
ZHDWKHUODQGLQJFDSDELOLW\5RFNZHOO&ROOLQVLVLPSOHPHQWLQJWKHDLUERUQH8+)
GDWDOLQNIRU-3$/6LQWKH$5&*HQUDGLR
,Q6HSWHPEHU5D\WKHRQZDVDZDUGHGDPLOOLRQFRQWUDFWIRUWKH-3$/6
V\VWHPGHYHORSPHQWDQGGHPRQVWUDWLRQSKDVHKHDGLQJDWHDPLQFOXGLQJ5RFNZHOO
&ROOLQV1RUWKURS*UXPPDQDQG6$,&5D\WKHRQLVSHUIRUPLQJWKHVKLSERDUG
LQWHJUDWLRQSLHFHRI-3$/6
%UXQFNVDLG5RFNZHOO&ROOLQVDQWLFLSDWHVDFRQWUDFWIURP1DYDLUIRUWKHDLUERUQH
SLHFHRI-3$/6)LUVWVRIWZDUHGHOLYHU\ZRXOGEHLQ-XO\DOORZLQJIXUWKHU
GHYHORSPHQWDQGWHVWLQJRIDLUERUQHDQGVKLSERUQHOLQNV7KHV\VWHPWHQWDWLYHO\
ZRXOGEHLQWHJUDWHGLQWRWKHIOHHWLQILVFDO
We will retire aging, radar-based, precision-approach and landing systems that are experiencing increasing obsolescence issues and evolve into a GPS-based precision-approach and
landing system, Lack said. This system will provide secure performance at sea, on land and
in expeditionary environments with increased operational availability and interoperability.
PMA-213 received the second JPALS EDM in October and plans to install it on all CVN, LHD
and LHA class ships as part of Increment 1A. The system offers critical enabling technology
for the CVN-78 ship class, F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter & Navy unmanned air systems,
while allowing retirement of costly, radar-based systems, Lack said. JPALS-compliant aircraft
will be compatible with the civil aviation, GPS-based infrastructure when fielded.
EDM-2 is the initial production representative unit of the AN/USN-3(V)1 JPALS, consisting of four
shipboard-suitable equipment racks and multiple GPS and UHF data-link antennas. A team, including
the JPALS prime contractor Raytheon Network Centric Systems and NAWCAD Research & Engineering personnel will integrate the unit into the System Integration Lab at the Landing Systems Test
Facility for further development.
With Navy, Air Force and Army participation, JPALS will provide a family of interoperable systems
for civil and multinational, manned and unmanned aircraft. A JPALS increment 1A Test Readiness
Review is scheduled for April and a Milestone C review to enter production is planned in fiscal 2013.
http://www.navair.navy.mil/pma209/_Documents/Camp_2011.pdf
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5175
NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. NAVAIRs Joint Precision Approach & Landing
Systems (JPALS) team was recognized Oct. 25 as one of the Defense Departments top five systems engineering teams during a ceremony in San Diego. The team, part of Naval Air Traffic Management Systems Program
Office (PMA-213), was presented the award by the National Defense Industrial Association. The award represents the recognition of significant achievement in Systems Engineering by teams of industry and government
personnel. Each year, we recognize excellence in the application of systems engineering discipline and
implementation of systems engineering best practice that result in highly successful Department of Defense
programs, said Steve Henry, National Defense Industrial Association Systems Engineering Division chairman. The selection of the Joint Precision Approach & Landing System (JPALS) Increment 1A Ship System
program reflects highly on the collaboration & engineering efforts of the JPALS government & contractor team.
JPALS uses GPS and two-way data links for navigation and landing approaches for
carrier-based aircraft and helicopters landing in harsh weather. One of the best practices that
won the team this award is that the JPALS program required the use of Modeling and Simulation where
requirements validation via test and demonstration was impossible, said Michael Primm, JPALS guidance
quality lead, PMA-213. Given the importance of the M&S program to JPALS, extensive verification, validation
and accreditation was completed upfront and early to ensure a robust and accurate M&S environment was
available. I could not be prouder of our JPALS team, said Capt. Darrell Lack, PMA-213s program manager.
This first time award validates the dedicated work of PMA-213 and our industry partners.
JPALS is a critical technology for the Navy that will allow ship and land based aircraft to safely land
in all weather conditions and in conditions where enemy forces may try to jam GPS signals, added Lack.
This award represents the outstanding teaming relationship that has existed since the JPALS 1A contract was
awarded in 2008, said Lee Wellons, JPALS government chief engineer. The government JPALS 1A team with
our industry partners Raytheon and Rockwell Collins not only utilized the solid systems engineering practices
but also demonstrated exceptional organizational alignment and communication processes, Wellons said.
The next significant milestone for the JPALS team is reaching Milestone C in the fall of
2013. Milestone C is the decision to authorize full production & fielding of the JPALS system.
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?
fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5937
The F-35 Cooperative Avionics Test Bed (CATBird) supports software development for upcoming F-35B/C developmental
and operational tests, including the elements of the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS). When fully
implemented, JPALS will benefit carrier-based air traffic control by enabling automatic carrier landings (auto-land),
enhancing aircraft position reporting, and increasing Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) functionality. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin)
http://t.co/bk
KAfGGsLA
UNCLASSIFIED
Navwar
Environment
Spectrum
Interference
Weather
EMI
Doppler
Tercom
EGNOS
GDGPS
NigComsat -1
SBAS
MTSAT
ILS, NDB
GLONASS
Time
Transfer
Time
Transfer
VOR/DME,
TACAN
GBAS Cat-I
Commercial
Augmentations
Compass
N
E
W
S
Clocks
User Interface Orgs
eLORAN
NOCC
GPSOC
NAVCEN
Beacons
EMI
Cell Phone
Networks
Time
Transfer
CORS
JPALS
PNT = Positioning
Navigation & Timing
GAGAN
QZSS
ASI
NDGPS
MDGPS
IRNSS
GALILEO
http://
www.navcen.uscg.gov/
pdf/cgsicMeetings/47/%
5B06%5D%20PNT_Arch
Star
_brief_for_CGSIC_Confer Trackers
ence_24Sep2007_for_pub
lic_release%5B1%5D.pdf
IGS
Tracking
Compass
Celestial
WAAS
TASS
WAGE
ZMDS
Fiscal
Technological
Commercial
Augmentations
Geo-political
Demographics
Pedometers
Inertial
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&key=0BF0F3FD-D94F-4266-A0F8-2886C2A166AD
USS Theodore Roosevelt Sailors get a first-hand look at the carrier deck of the future as both X-47 unmanned
aircraft get underway with the ship.... ...The future landing system for the Navy and Marine Corps exceeded expectations during its latest test period at sea.
Video: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.VideoPlay&key=AE13198E-CAFF-473F-9B29-77E6FE1F02E4
JPALS is a precision based landing system based on GPS technology. Two surrogate F/A-18 aircraft were
outfitted with the system and successfully performed multiple landings onto the deck of USS Theodore Roosevelt. The tests demonstrated JPALS ability to support hands-free auto land onto a moving carrier, which is important for the systems future installation on the F-35 and unmanned aircraft.
Capt. Darrell Lack/program manager PMA-213, Naval Air Traffic Management Systems
We had over 50 precision approaches and landings, primarily to a touch-and-gos just for speed of data. We also
had some traps, some arrested landings, but the system on the performance that we saw it was landing precisely where we were asking it to land, where it had been programmed to land and the pilot reports that came back
from the most recent test phase, it was very gentle, it was a gentle landing. It acted just like the legacy systems
only a little bit better; right so, over all it was a very big success.
Paul Sousa/assistant manager for T&E JPALS
We are out there testing for a reason. We gathered all this data, which is going to be key to the future development of JPALS to support the future platforms like F-35 and UCLAS. So the data we did during this at-sea demonstration is key for future development of JPALS. JPALS is designed to be interoperable across aircraft platforms. It is an upgrade to the current landing system which relies on radar to calculate a touchdown point onto
the deck of a ship.
+ Video: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.VideoPlay&key=54782BD3-210A-44F3-9D83-0705593983D5
GPS is a wonderful technology, but how do you navigate if you lose your satellite signal?
Scientists at the atomic magneto-optical trapping lab are trying to develop an ultra-precise technology
that will enable pilots to navigate in the absence of GPS. Lasers are used to cool atoms to within a few millionths of a degree above absolute zero, which slows them down and makes them much easier to manipulate. When rotated or accelerated, the highly sensitive atom wave provides information about its surrounding
environment. This same basic science can be used to detect magnetic fields. Once the basic science is developed, it will need to be engineered down to a portable size that can be used by the warfighter...
Navy Ford (CVN-78) Class Aircraft Carrier Program: Background and Issues for Congress
Ronald O'Rourke, Specialist in Naval Affairs 09 Apr 2014 http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/218874026?extension=pdf
-
JSF
The arresting hook system remains an integration risk as the JSF development schedule leaves no time for discovering new problems. The redesigned tail hook has an increased downward force as well as sharper design that may
induce greater than anticipated wear on the flight deck.
JSF noise levels remain moderate to high risk in JSF integration and will require modified carrier flight deck procedures.
- Flight operations normally locate some flight deck personnel in areas where double hearing protection would be
insufficient during F-35 operations. To partially mitigate noise concerns, the Navy will procure new hearing protection
with active noise reduction for flight deck personnel.
- Projected noise levels one level below the flight deck (03 level), which includes mission planning spaces, will
require at least single hearing protection that will make mission planning difficult. The Navy is working to mitigate the
effects of the increased noise levels adjacent to the flight deck.
Storage of the JSF engine is limited to the hangar bay, which will affect hangar bay operations. The impact on the
JSF logistics footprint is not yet known.
Lightning protection of JSF aircraft while on the flight deck will require the Navy to modify nitrogen carts to increase their capacity. Nitrogen is used to fill fuel tank cavities while aircraft are on the flight deck.
JSF remains unable to share battle damage assessment and non-traditional Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance information captured on the aircraft portable memory device or cockpit voice recorder in real-time. In addition, the CVN-78 remains unable to receive and display imagery transmitted through Link 16 because of bandwidth
limitations. These capability gaps were identified in DOT&Es FY12 Annual Report. The Combatant Commanders have
requested these capabilities to enhance decision-making....
The U.S. Military relies on the space-based Global Positioning System (GPS) to aid air, land and sea navigation.
Like the GPS units in many automobiles today, a simple receiver and some processing power is all that is needed for accurate navigation. But, what if the GPS satellites suddenly became unavailable due to malfunction, enemy action or simple interference, such as driving into a tunnel? Unavailability of GPS would be inconvenient
for drivers on the road, but could be disastrous for military missions. DARPA is working to protect against such
a scenario, & an emerging solution is much smaller than the navigation instruments in todays defense systems.
DARPA researchers at the University of Michigan have made significant progress with a timing & inertial
measurement unit (TIMU) that contains everything needed to aid navigation when GPS is temporarily unavailable. The single chip TIMU prototype contains a six axis IMU (three gyroscopes and three accelerometers) and
integrates a highly-accurate master clock into a single miniature system, smaller than the size of a penny. This
chip integrates breakthrough devices (clocks, gyroscopes and accelerometers), materials and designs from
DARPAs Micro-Tech-nology for Positioning, Navigation and Timing (Micro-PNT) program.
Three pieces of information are needed to navigate between known points A and B with precision:
orientation, acceleration and time. This new chip integrates state-of-the-art devices that can measure all three
simultaneously. This elegant design is accomplished through new fabrication processes in high-quality
materials for multi-layered, packaged inertial sensors and a timing unit, all in a tiny 10 cubic millimeter package.
Each of the six microfabricated layers of the TIMU is only 50 microns thick, approximately the thickness of a
human hair. Each layer has a different function, akin to floors in a building.
Both the structural layer of the sensors and the integrated package are made of silica, said Andrei Shkel,
DARPA program manager. The hardness and the high-performance material properties of silica make it the
material of choice for integrating all of these devices into a miniature package. The resulting TIMU is small
enough and should be robust enough for applications (when GPS is unavailable or limited for a short period of
time) such as personnel tracking, handheld navigation, small diameter munitions and small airborne platforms.
The goal of the Micro-Technology for Positioning, Navigation and Timing (Micro-PNT) program is to develop
technology for self-contained, chip-scale inertial navigation and precision guidance. Other recent breakthroughs
from Micro-PNT include new microfabrication methods and materials for inertial sensors.
1RUWKURS*UXPPDQ'HPRQVWUDWHV0LFUR*\UR3URWRW\SH IRU'$53$3URJUDP
-
%\*36:RUOGVWDII2FW
http://gpsworld.com/northrop-grummandemonstrates-micro-gyro-prototype
-for-darpa-program/
1RUWKURS*UXPPDQ&RUSRUDWLRQKDVGHY
eloped and demonstrated a new microNuclear Magnetic Resonance Gyro (micro105*SURWRW\SHIRUWKH'HIHQVH$GYDQF
HG5HVHDUFK3URMHFWV$JHQF\'$53$
SURYLGLQJSUHFLVLRQQDYLJDWLRQIRUVL]HDQG
SRZHUFRQVWUDLQHGDSSOLFDWLRQV
7KHGHYHORSPHQWRIDKHUPHWLFDOO\VHDOHGPLFUR105*WKDWPHHWVSUHFLVLRQ navig
ation requirements along with a successful prototype demonstration marksthe
fourth and final phase of DARPAs Navigation-Grade Integrated MicroGyroscopes
(NGIMG) program. The culmination of the eight-year program is a micro-NMRG
that offers near navigation-grade performance for the next generation of highprecision inertial sensors.
Northrop Grummans micro-NMRG technology uses the spin of atomic nuclei to detect
and measure rotation, providing comparable performance to a navigation-grade fiber-optic
gyro in a small, lightweight, low-power package. Additionally, the gyro has no moving
parts and is not inherently sensitive to vibration and acceleration. The technology can be
used in any application requiring small size and low power precision navigation, including
personal and unmanned vehicle navigation in GPS-denied or GPS-challenged locations.
Our miniature gyro technology offers unprecedented size, weight and power savings in a
compact package, exceeding program requirements, said Charles Volk, vice president of
Northrop Grummans Advanced Navigation Systems business unit. This important technology can help protect our warfighters by offering highly accurate positioning information,
regardless of GPS availability.
The NGIMG effort is part of DARPAs Micro-Technology for Positioning, Navigation and
Timing program that aims to develop technology for self-contained, chip-scale inertial navigation and precision guidance. Northrop*UXPPDQEHJDQWKHILUVWSKDVHRIWKH1*,0*
HIIRUWLQ2FWREHUDQGKDVFRQVLVWHQWO\PHWRUH[FHHGHGWKHSHUIRUPDQFHJRDOVRI
HDFKSURJUDPSKDVH
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/33820/desider_44_Jan2012.pdf
T h e f l i g h t d e c k h a s a b o u t 2 5 0 m e t r e s
o f r u n w a y d i s t a n ce f o r l a n d i n g
aircraft. A runway on land would be
a r o u n d 12 t i m e s l o n g e r. A n d d o e s nt
move.
L a n d i n g o n a c a r r i e r d e c k p i tc h i n g u p
a n d d o w n b y u p to 3 0 f e e t i n a r o u g h
sea can be daunting enough. A pilot
h a s to p l a c e t h e a i r c r a f t s t a i l h o o k i n a
p r e c i s e p a r t o f t h e d e c k 15 0 f e e t l o n g
b y 3 0 f e e t w i d e to c a tc h t h e a r r e s te r
w i r e s , a n d d o i t a t n i g h t to o .
T h e a r r e s t i n g w i r e s y s te m c a n s to p
a 2 5 - to n n e a i r c r a f t t r a v e l l i n g a t 15 0
miles per hour in just t wo seconds in a
3 0 0 - f e e t l a n d i n g a r e a . D e ce l e r a t i o n i s
up to 4Gs.
December 2012
Paddles
monthly
http://www.hrana.org/documents/
PaddlesMonthlyDecember2012.pdf
JPALS brings a number of benefits to the fleet, some of which are presented below for the fixed wing pilot/LSO perspective:
x Once the pilot tunes in and the aircraft is processing the data link, he gets instant feedback that JPALS is up and runDesigned to replace aging sea-based and land-based aircraft landing systems, JPALS is a GPS-based system to provide
ning versus having to wait until flying into the ICLS/ACLS region behind the ship.
enhanced joint operational capability in a full spectrum of environments ranging from CAVU to Sea State 5 in all weathers in a hostile environment. By complying with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for Ground Based x JPALS slaves to the IFLOLS setting for nominal hook touchdown points for each cross deck pendant allowing the
Augmentation System (GBAS) and Space Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS), JPALS provides an interoperable civil
pilot to not only change glide slope, but even target a specific wire. For MOVLAS, JPALS uses the last commanddivert capability. JPALS incorporates both encrypted data link and GPS anti-jam technology with high levels of accuraed IFLOLS HTDP setting prior to switching to MOVLAS.
cy, reliability and capabilities beyond what we have today.
x The legacy System Waveoff has been eliminated, so the pilot can degrade (and uncouple as applicable) to another
approach means and not view a flashing W/O with a JPALS malfunction. Protection levels are established, but the
NAVAIR is developing JPALS with an incremental strategy to meet all requirements from replacing the SPN-46, SPNplatforms and aviation community are still developing specific degrades and alert indications.
35, and PAR for manned aircraft to landing unmanned aircraft both ashore and at sea. The first step of which is to
x Air Boss/LSO initiated waveoff will continue to be displayed as a waveoff to the pilot within 1 NM and on final
achieve 200 ft. decision height with NM visibility at CVN and L-Class ships.
approach (except for F-35 with UDB).
System Overview
x Although the system retains the legacy requirements of Closed Deck and CATCC waveoff, with the exception of the
UDB system they are now displayed as a Discontinue Approach. The JPALS Incremental acquisition approach
Figure 1 (on page 2) depicts the Operational Concept of the nodes and information exchange for JPALS Increment 1. The
includes a non-GPS based back-up system.
JPALS data link provides shipboard information for the aircraft to determine a Relative Navigation (RelNav) location to
the ship.
Landing Signal Officer Display System (LSODS) Integration
The development schedule calls for two separate data links for JPALS. For Increment 1, the JPALS UHF data link is for
the air wing aircraft (F/A-18 E/F, EA-18G, E-2D, C-2A, MH-60R/S and other future platforms) with a line of sight limit
of 200 NM (for RelNav). Within 60 NM, the aircraft logs into the network and initiates two-way data link for aircraft
parameters to be sent to the ship for surveillance and air traffic control. Within 10 NM, the high rate data link provides
the required precision navigation (20 cm vertical accuracy). The F-35B/C requires an interim capability, a separate oneway data link, called the UHF Data Broadcast (UDB), which provides RelNav for the pilot out to 30 NM and supports
precision approach out to 10 NM, as well as on-deck RF alignment.
JPALS interfaces with a number of legacy systems on the ship to provide operators the required information to conduct
launch and recovery operations with JPALS equipped aircraft. The F-35 UDB does not have a surveillance downlink,
so it depends on other systems to provide controller and LSO display information. As briefed at the LSO OAG this
year, the F-35 UDB approach to the CVN will be limited to 300 ft. and NM, achieving only 200 ft. and NM with an
ACLS Mode III lock-on to display ACLS final approach data to the operators. The F-35 is implementing a flight director with UDB, but does not plan to couple the flight control system on UDB approaches.
JPALS data populates the LSODS to display an approaching aircraft very similar to the way SPN-46 depicts
it today. The LSO School, NAWC Lakehurst, and Naval Air Traffic Management Systems (PMA213) coordinated to integrate a small change depicting JPALS equipped aircraft on approach and whether or not the
aircraft is coupled. This is displayed in the line-up section of the LSODS screen, as shown in Figure 2:
http://www.hrana.org/
documents/Paddles
MonthlyDecember2012.pdf
The conventional display is portrayed on the right, showing tail number and button. With JPALS incorporated, additional lettering to the right of the button shows: JC if JPALS Coupled (AFCS engaged), a J
if JPALS aircraft not coupled, and the lower is SPN-46 Mode I, II, or III (III depicted). The lower panel of
the LSO Workstation Control Panel continues to carry only a SPN-46 function, as there is no Lock-on or
System Waveoff with JPALS.
Program Coordination
In addition to the at-sea testing onboard CVN-77, JPALS testing continues ashore at the Landing Systems
Test Facility in Patuxent River, MD. Although production JPALS will begin with CVN installs in 2015, it
will take time for the C-2A, E-2D, F/A-18 E/F, EA-18G, and MH-60R/S platforms to integrate JPALS.
CVN-79 is expected to deploy without SPN-46, so until that time, both JPALS and SPN-46 will co-exist
during the transition.
PMA213 looks forward to continue coordination with OPNAV, platform OEMs, the air traffic controller and
the LSO community to field a system that meets the operator needs as the next generation precision landing
system. LSO involvement is critical to success, and details of aircraft integration procedures will continue to
- Ken Waldo Wallace is a former Tomcat pilot
be briefed to the fleet for feedback.
and currently the JSF and JPALS liaison for Navy
PMA-213 at Coherent Technical Services
JPALS slaves to
the IFLOLS setting
for nominal hook
touchdown points
for each cross deck
pendant allowing
the pilot to not only
change glide slope,
aircraft will utilize data-linked ship position and altitude information to establish more efficient aircraft marshalling procedures and approaches
to the ships Expected Final Bearing
(EFB). The SRGPS link between the
ship and the aircraft on the EFB will enable the aircraft to perform very laterJPALS Land-Based IOC. (2018) The
ally and vertically precise approaches
Air Force is charged with development
to the ship in all weather and all tactiof land-based JPALS ground stations.
cal conditions to minimize aircraft reDifferential GPS will be used to provide
covery time. Utilization of tighter patan additional military PPS datum referterns has already demonstrated time
ence signal via an encrypted UHF daand fuel savings in commercial airport
talink, and an additional civil interopoperations, and should provide simierable SPS datum reference signal via
lar benefits in CVN and multi-spot ama VHF datalink or SATCOM signal. A
phibious ship operations. JPALS precifixed station will be installed at every
sion navigation will require 24 channel
DoD airfield that currently has preciGPS receiver upgrades and processing
sion approach capability. A deployable
upgrades that enable procesing both
variant will be developed for remote
L1/L2 PPS GPS signals. The first platlocations....
form planned to utilize JPALS for marshalling will be the Unmanned Carri...3. Funded Enhancements and
er-Launched Airborne Surveillance and
Potential Pursuits.
Strike (UCLASS).
Digitally Augmented Ship Approach
Digital Airfield Sequencing (JPALS).
Sequencing (JPALS). (2018) JPALS
(2018) Aircraft that are configured
will provide for increased ship-to-airwith JPALS will be able to immediatecraft relative position accuracy to suply take advantage of improved apport ship recovery operations using
proach sequencing when JPALS units
Shipboard Relative GPS (SRGPS). After
are established at shore bases. Shore
launch and during recovery operations,
based JPALS at military air stations had
data. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will require RNP-2 (accurate
within a circle with a radius of two nm)
for all operations at or above FL 290 in
the NAS (similar to Continental United States CONUS, but also includes
Alaska and Hawaii) by 2018.
...D. Recovery.
1. Current Capabilities.
Current shipboard ACLS radars have
critical reliability and obsolescence issues. Naval aircraft use Link 4A to
conduct assisted approaches and
based upon proximity to another cooperating aircraft who was also operating on TACAN using a specific channel
separation.
Two U.S. arms programs face live-or-die reviews after costs jump
18 Apr 2014 Andrea Shalal http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/04/17/us-usa-military-arms-idUKBREA3G2II20140417
...The cut in quantities of Raytheon's Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) came
after the Army and Air Force decided to pull out of
the joint program, which resulted in the need for 10
fewer shore-based training systems, the report said.
The cost increase in the JPALS program also was
partly due to an extension in the development program
aimed at increasing the capability of the system, and
higher material costs....
March 2014
Navy JPALS
x
x
http://www.acq.osd.mil/dtetrmc/_Docs/DTE/DTE-FY2013AnnualReport-March2014.pdf
The Navy and DASD(DT&E) are assessing T&E strategies if the decision is made to combine
the JPALS program Increment 1 (ship system), Increment 3 (auto-land), and Increment 4
(unmanned aircraft) into a single increment to accelerate system IOC in support of F-35
deployment and full auto-land capability for the UCLASS platform. DASD(DT&E) assess the
JPALS Increment 1A development and test to be on track. If the program restructures to
combine multiple increments, the initial fielding date of the ship-based system will be extended
to 2019.
Key development risk areas include integration on the F-35 and UCLASS aircraft. Because of
the aircraft development cycle, integration on these platforms will follow IOC of the ship-based
JPALS.
The JPALS program did not request a waiver or deviation from requirements in the TEMP.
Joint Precision Approach and Landing System Increment 1A (JPALS Inc 1A)
GAO DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS Assessments
of Selected Weapon Programs
JPALS Increment 1A is a Navy-led program to
develop a GPS-based landing system for aircraft
carriers and amphibious assault ships to support
operations with Joint Strike Fighter and Unmanned
Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike
System. The program intends to provide reliable
precision approach and landing capability in
adverse environmental conditions. We assessed
increment 1A, and as a result of restructuring,
previously planned additional increments are no
longer part of the program.
Concept
Program Essentials
Prime contractor: Raytheon
Program office: Lexington Park, MD
Funding needed to complete:
R&D: $641.5 million
Procurement: $525.8 million
Total funding: $1,167.3 million
Procurement quantity: 17
GAO
review
(1/15)
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668986.pdf
Production
Restructured
development start
(6/16)
Restructured
design review
(3/17)
Initial
capability
(TBD)
Restructured
low-rate decision
(3/19)
As of
07/2008
$838.9
$225.8
$1,072.1
$28.976
37
75
Latest
08/2014
$1,563.6
$504.2
$2,075.1
$76.857
27
TBD
Percent
change
86.4
123.2
93.6
165.2
-27.0
TBD
The latest cost data do not reflect the June 2014 restructuring of the program as a new acquisition
program baseline has not been approved.
Mar 2015
System development
Development
start
(7/08)
environment
Demonstrate all critical technologies in a realistic
environment
Complete preliminary design review
Not applicable
How will the carrier-based systems work? Basically, the ship provides precise GPS/INS
measurements and other data such as hook touchdown points and glide slope information via the
encrypted data link to the aircraft. This data is combined with data from the aircraft itself to determine its exact relative position. The relative positions of the aircraft and ship will then be used to
display relative position in relation to glide slope and centerline to the pilot via standard cockpit instrumentation.
NAVAIR engineer Buddy Denham presented some interesting developments on how methods of carrier recovery may progress in the future, especially regarding the introduction of the next
generation of carrier-based aircraft. What will the composition of a carrier air wing look like in
2020? How will these aircraft make their approach and landing on the CV? As F/A-18s begin to
be replaced with F-35 and UCAS (and already-existing aircraft are equipped with JPALS), will NaThe JPALS hook touchdown points (HTDPs) will be fully selectable and slaved to the
val Aviation shift toward using auto land systems as the primary method of aircraft recovery or still IFLOLS. As of now, the system is being developed to allow for four possible commanded HTDPs
rely on the traditional technique of Meatball, Line-up, Angle-of-Attack and pilot skill?
for 4-wire ships and three for 3-wire ships. Each of these selectable HTDPs will be 20.4 feet prior
to the target CDP on the 4-wire ships and 15.4 feet prior to the CDP on the three wire ships. UnInitially, it was thought that the advanced navigation and guidance capabilities of UCAS and fortunately, selectable HTDPs will not be available for field-based JPALS approaches. While this
F-35 would allow for greater reliance (maybe even total reliance) on purely auto land systems
would be an excellent capability for fly-in arrestments at the field, FAA regulations would require
with the hope that this would eliminate pilot error as a causal factor in landing mishaps as well as
a NOTAM be issued anytime the parameters of a precision approach changes.
significantly reduce pre-deployment FCLP requirements. However, a total reliance on automated
methods of carrier landing would leave Naval Aviation vulnerable to signal jamming as well as
GPS-denied environments.
Could their possibly be a third way that would be so simple for the pilot to fly, yet not susceptible to jamming or electronic failure? What was proposed by Buddy Denham is the integration
of a system called the Bedford Array Landing Reference System that would augment our current
IFLOLS system. The system would consist of a series of high intensity centerline lights as depicted below:
LCDR Eric Magic Buus from VX-23s F-35 Carrier Integration team gave an excellent update on the status of the F-35C (The Navys CV version). As would be expected from any carrier
based aircraft, the F-35C will feature more structural integrity than the F-35A in addition to slightly
larger control surfaces. Reference the specs below to see how the F-35C will compare to the F/A18C and F/A-18E:
http://www.hrana.org/
documents/Paddles
MonthlyJuly2011.pdf
-
JPALS Update
The Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) is a GPS-based system that
will eventually replace the current radar-based methods of carrier approach and landing. It will be
comprised of both ship and aircraft based systems and supported by a JPALS-specific data link.
This system will become the Joint Service standard, completely interoperable across each military
branch, and 100 percent compatible with the civilian GPS-based systems scheduled to replace
ILS, NDB, and VORTAC navigational aids.
F-18E
F-35C
Length
Span
Wing Area
Internal Fuel
Spot Factor
50.8 ft
43.0 ft
620 ft2
19,145 lb
1.11
Length
Span
Wing Area
Internal Fuel
Spot Factor
60.38 ft
42.0 ft
500 ft2
14,708 lb
1.24s
As you can see, the F-35 will have wingspan similar to the Rhino but with a smaller flight
deck footprint and a very impressive internal fuel capacity of more than 19,000 pounds. Currently
two airframes have been delivered for testing and the third is expected to arrive soon. Some
things that will take some getting used to will be the lack of a FLAPS switch and coming into the
break with the hook up (Due to hook airspeed limitations). Also worth mentioning is the fact that
as of now only the Air Forces F-35A will feature and internal gun.
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyJuly2011.pdf
The F-35C will also not include a HUD and, like the F-16, will feature a sidemounted control stick. Most notably is the fully-customizable 8 by 20 touch
screen that will replace the separate displays that Hornet and Rhino pilots
have become accustomed. Test pilots indicate that the F-35 is a very stable
platform and overall flies slightly better than a Hornet, and initial Sea Trials
are scheduled for the First Quarter of 2013.
IFLOLS
Bedford
5HOHDVH'DWH
)OLJKW&RQWURO6RIWZDUHWR+HOS3LORWV
6WLFN/DQGLQJV$ERDUG&DUULHU'HFNV
%\*UDFH-HDQ2IILFHRI1DYDO5HVHDUFK http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=63365
$5/,1*7219D1166HOHFWSLORWVLQHDUO\ZLOOFRPPHQFHWHVWLQJQHZIOLJKWFRQWUROVRIWZDUH
IXQGHGLQSDUWE\WKH2IILFHRI1DYDO5HVHDUFK215LQWHQGHGWRIDFLOLWDWHDLUFUDIWODQGLQJVRQ1DY\
FDUULHUGHFNVZLWKXQSUHFHGHQWHGDFFXUDF\
7KHSUHFLVLRQWKDWZHFDQEULQJWRFDUULHUODQGLQJVLQWKHIXWXUHZLOOEHVXEVWDQWLDOVDLG0LFKDHO
'HLWFKPDQGHSXW\FKLHIRIQDYDOUHVHDUFKIRUQDYDODLUZDUIDUHDQGZHDSRQV7KHIOLJKWFRQWURODOJRULWKP
KDVWKHSRWHQWLDOWRDOWHUWKHQH[W\HDUVRIKRZSLORWVODQGRQFDUULHUGHFNV
1DY\DQG0DULQH&RUSVDYLDWRUVFRQGXFWLQJFDUULHUODQGLQJVWRGD\OLQHXSZLWKDPRYLQJIOLJKWGHFNLQD
FRPSOLFDWHGSURFHVV7KH\PXVWFRQVWDQWO\DGMXVWWKHLUVSHHGDQGPDQLSXODWHWKHDLUFUDIW
VIOLJKWFRQWURO
VXUIDFHVDLOHURQVUXGGHUVDQGHOHYDWRUVWRPDLQWDLQWKHSURSHUJOLGHSDWKDQGDOLJQPHQWWRWKHIOLJKW
GHFNIRUDQDUUHVWHGODQGLQJ7KURXJKRXWWKHLUDSSURDFKSLORWVH\HDVHWRIOLJKWVNQRZQDVWKH)UHVQHO
OHQVORFDWHGRQWKHOHIWVLGHRIWKHVKLS,WVLJQDOVZKHWKHUWKH\DUHFRPLQJLQWRRKLJKRUWRRORZ
7KHQHZDOJRULWKPHPEHGGHGLQWKHIOLJKWFRQWUROVRIWZDUHDXJPHQWVWKHODQGLQJDSSURDFK&RXSOHGZLWK
DQH[SHULPHQWDOVKLSERDUGOLJKWV\VWHPFDOOHGD%HGIRUG$UUD\DQGDFFRPSDQ\LQJFRFNSLWKHDGVXS
GLVSOD\V\PEROVWKHVRIWZDUHWLHVWKHPRYHPHQWRIWKHSLORW
VFRQWUROVWLFNGLUHFWO\WRWKHDLUFUDIW
VIOLJKW
SDWK,QVWHDGRIFRQVWDQWO\DGMXVWLQJWKHSODQH
VWUDMHFWRU\LQGLUHFWO\WKURXJKDWWLWXGHFKDQJHVWKHSLORW
PDQHXYHUVWKHDLUFUDIWWRSURMHFWDGRWWHGJUHHQOLQHLQWKHKHDGVXSGLVSOD\RYHUDWDUJHWOLJKWVKLQLQJLQ
WKHODQGLQJDUHD
,WLVDOPRVWOLNHDYLGHRJDPHVDLG-DPHV%XGG\'HQKDPWKHVHQLRUHQJLQHHUZKRKDVEHHQOHDGLQJ
WKHUHVHDUFKDQGGHYHORSPHQWHIIRUWVDW1DYDO$LU6\VWHPV&RPPDQG<RX
UHWUDFNLQJDVKLSERDUG
VWDELOL]HGYLVXDOWDUJHWZLWKDIOLJKWSDWKUHIHUHQFHDQGWKHDLUSODQHNQRZVZKDWLWQHHGVWRGRWRVWD\
WKHUH
215IXQGHGWKHSURMHFWDVSDUWRILWVIRFXVRQVHDEDVHGDYLDWLRQRQHRIILYH1DY\DQG0DULQH&RUSV
UHVHDUFKDUHDVGHVLJQDWHGDVDQDWLRQDOQDYDOUHVSRQVLELOLW\
7KHVRIWZDUHKDVEHHQLQFRUSRUDWHGLQWRDQ)$()6XSHU+RUQHWIOLJKWVLPXODWRU5HVHDUFKHUVSODQ
WRFRQGXFWDVWXG\ZLWK861DY\SLORWVDQG%ULWLVK5R\DO1DY\SLORWVZKRZLOOIO\WKHVLPXODWRUWRREWDLQ
GDWDRQZRUNORDGUHGXFWLRQDQGWRXFKGRZQSHUIRUPDQFH2QFHWKHUHVXOWVDUHWDEXODWHGWKHHQJLQHHUV
SODQWRLQWHJUDWHWKHUHILQHGDOJRULWKPRQWRDQDFWXDODLUFUDIWIRUIOLJKWWHVWVDQGGHPRQVWUDWLRQV
,IWKHWHVWVDUHVXFFHVVIXOWKHVRIWZDUHFRXOGEHLQWHJUDWHGDERDUGFXUUHQWDQGIXWXUHDLUFUDIWWRFKDQJH
WKHZD\FDUULHUEDVHGDYLDWRUVKDYHODQGHGDERDUGVKLSVIRUPRUHWKDQKDOIDFHQWXU\FRQWUROOHGFUDVK
ODQGLQJV,QFUHDVLQJWKHSUHFLVLRQRIODQGLQJVZLOOERRVWSLORWVDIHW\DQGUHGXFHWUDLQLQJUHTXLUHPHQWV
QHFHVVDU\WRSHUIHFWFDUULHUODQGLQJVNLOOV,WFRXOGORZHUDLUFUDIWOLIHF\FOHFRVWVE\UHGXFLQJPDLQWHQDQFH
DQGDYRLGLQJUHSDLUVFDXVHGE\KDUGODQGLQJV http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=63365
BEDFORD
6WRU\1XPEHU116
ARRAY
SALTY DOGS..
http://www.hrana.org/documents/
PaddlesMonthlyAugust2011.pdf
August 2011
Paddles
monthly
Currently, the British are deep in the development and construction of the HMS Queen Elizabeth and
then subsequently the HMS Prince of Wales. By the end of the decade, the Royal Navy plans to be
conducting fixed-wing carrier launch and recovery operations from these two ships using the F-35C
version of the Joint Strike Fighter. Understandably, the Landing Signal Officer is a key piece of the
puzzle that they must develop in order to stand up an effective carrier aviation program.
Over the course of the past few months, the LSO School has been actively assisting the RN with
everything from the proper development of an LSO program to effective flight deck layout. This visit
follows other official visits from both the Brazilian CNO as well as the Commandant of the French
Naval Aviation Command. Over the course of the next few years, Landing Signal Officers across the
fleet should not be surprised to be involved in assisting various foreign militaries as they look to develop carrier aviation programs.
VX-23
Salty Dogs
5
4
The last improvement for flying glideslope is Direct Lift Control (DLC). Increasing the throttle spools up
the engines, this increases the airspeed, more lift is generated and the aircraft climbs. Pulling back on the stick
produces down force on the tail, this increases the AOA which produces more lift and the aircraft climbs. These
processes that change glideslope all take time. This is why as pilots you learn to anticipate or lead everything.
DLC like the name implies is DIRECT lift control. When you actuate it you get a very quick increase or decrease
in lift. The F-14 and S-3 both had spoiler-activated DLC. In those two aircraft, the spoilers would be deployed a
little bit for the entire approach. When you wanted to go down the spoilers would move up spoiling lift. To go up
you retract the spoiler and you get more lift back (the S-3 only had down control). The response is not instantaneous but it is pretty close. The JSF is going to have DLC. Its DLC is incorporated into the flaps and ailerons.
When you want more or less lift both ailerons extend or retract very quickly. DLC will be incorporated into the
flight control computers so there is no need for a DLC switch on the stick like the Tomcat. The FCCs will decide
if you need to move the tail, the ailerons, or both. A similar system could be developed for the Super Hornet as
well. I flew a model of the Super Hornet in the simulator with DLC and in an autopilot mode similar to FPAH
called Glide Path Hold. The simulated ship also had a Bedford Array model. It took me about two seconds to figure out how to fly a rails pass almost hands off.
The first question most people ask is: Why work on the Hornet? Its already a good ball flyer!! While this
is true, their are still plenty of ramp strikes and hook slaps that show room for improvement still exists, and the
goal is to make it so easy the E*TRADE baby can do it. Some of these systems will be operational in a few years,
some may be developed in the future, and some may only be ideas on paper and in the simulator forever. In any
case, things will be changing in the future. Even the movie Top Gun 2 is going to be about UAVs. As always any
questions or feedback is greatly appreciated.
Figure 1 Bedford array concept on CVN.
Dan "Butters" Radocaj
Test Pilot/LSO
A Bedford Array and a ship stabilized velocity are indicators of glideslope that will show you if you are off
VX-23 Ship Suitability
glideslope more precisely but they still dont make the airplane respond differently. Stick and throttle corrections
301-342-4647
in any airplane are not instantaneous. You put in an input and some finite time later a response happens. That is
daniel.radocaj@navy.mil
why we have rules like never lead a low, always lead a high and never re-center a high ball in close. When you
daniel.radocaj@navy.smil.mil
make a power correction in the T-45 it takes several seconds to take effect, a hornet is much faster and the E-2 is
even better, but it is still not instantaneous. The F-4 Phantom was supposedly one of the best ball flyers ever.
They called the throttle the ball controller. Those huge J79 turbojets had a fast response rate and when on-speed, a
lot of the thrust component was in the vertical direction. There are engines being developed with nozzles that can
pucker very quickly. By puckering the nozzles, very fast increases in thrust are possible. This can improve the
rate of glideslope corrections.
...The JSF is going to have DLC. Its DLC is incorporated into the flaps and ailerons.
When you want more or less lift both ailerons extend or retract very quickly. DLC will
be incorporated into the flight control computers so there is no need for a DLC switch
on the stick like the Tomcat. The FCCs will decide if you need to move the tail, the
ailerons, or both. A similar system could be developed for the Super Hornet as well. I
flew a model of the Super Hornet in the simulator with DLC and in an autopilot mode
similar to FPAH called Glide Path Hold. The simulated ship also had a Bedford Array
model. It took me about two seconds to figure out how to fly a rails pass almost
hands off....
5
4
21/10/2011
http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/trials-ahead-for-navy-carrier-landing-software.html
-by Armed Forces International's Defence Correspondent
New software designed to assist US Navy pilots landing combat jets on aircraft carriers will be tested in 2012, the Office
of Naval Research said in a 20 October press release. The flying skills demonstrated by naval aviators are often applauded - given that theirs is a role that demands extreme accuracy and concentration. Bringing high performance combat aircraft like the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet into a comparatively small space, on a moving platform, is a tricky business. It requires constant speed and flight control surface adjustments to ensure the correct trajectory's being followed.
flight control algorithm has the potential to alter the next 50 years of how pilots land on carrier decks."
The algorithm is designed to work in tandem with a so-called Bedford Array lighting system
positioned on the aircraft carrier and a series of symbols presented in the pilot's HUD (Heads-Up
Display). It connects the control stick straight to the aircraft's trajectory with the result that, rather than
have to make minute shifts, the pilot directs the aircraft so it beams a fragmented green line in the HUD.
"You're tracking a shipboard stabilized visual target with a flight path reference, and the airplane knows what
it needs to do to stay there", Naval Air Systems Command representative James Denham stated, in explanation.
The advent of the new carrier landing software will present several advantages. Pilot workloads will be reduced but, alongside this, carrier landing training programmes won't need to be as rigorous as they are now.
Additionally, while naval aircraft like the Super Hornet typically have strengthened undercarriages, to withstand the impact of heavy deck landings, they're not necessarily indestructible. Consequently, the potential's
there for related repair and maintenance costs to reduce, too."
http://www.apogeeconsulting.biz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=
447:update-the-ups-and-downs-of-the-f-35-program&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=55
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyAugust2011.pdf
Claims
1. A visual aid for the pilot of an aircraft
approaching to land on a moving platform
whereby in use a visual aim point is defined on
the platform and the apparent position of such
visual aim point along the platform is adjusted
in response to excursions of the platform in
the vertical sense so that registry of the visual
aim point with an associated visual marker on
or in the aircraft at any time indicates that the
aircraft is on substantially the same specified
glideslope fixed in space relative to the overall
platform irrespective of such excursions thereof
ADVANCED FLIGHT
using the throttle, while influencing angle of attack with the stick.
Furthermore, this method allows
the pilot to correct significant
glideslope deviations precisely and instantaneously, without
waiting for the engines to spoolProject Magic Carpet includes a
up or spool-down. It also reduces
new set of Powered Approach
the potential of the aircraft be(PA) flight control laws for the
coming dangerously thrust defiF/A-18E/F Super Hornet, combined with innovative new Head- cient when correcting from a high
position during the final phase of
Up Display (HUD) symbology
the approach.
designed to significantly simpliCombined with the new flight
fy the carrier landing task. The
flight control laws take advantage control laws are several new additions to the Head-Up Display, to
of advances in the flight control
computers and increased hydrau- include a Ship Relative Velocity
Vector (SRVV) and a Glideslope
lic actuator bandwidth to allow
the aircraft to correct glideslope Reference line. Together, these
two tools allow the pilot to preposition errors using Integrated
Direct Lift Control (IDLC), as op- cisely measure not only the magnitude of present errors, but also
posed to the current method of
modulating thrust. This provides the magnitude of commanded
the pilot with direct control over corrections, completely removing
the guesswork currently involved
glidepath using a single controller (the stick) instead of requiring in flying the ball.
CONTROLS AND
DISPLAYS
(MAGIC CARPET)
https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=bc0mDcWEpKQ
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.
cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=820
http://www.scribd.com/doc/218758281/Naval-Aviation-Vision#download
352-(&7
0$*,&&$53(7
$%5($.7+528*+,1
&$55,(5$,5&5$)7
/$1',1*
Mr. John Kinzer, Program Officer, Air
Vehicle Technology, Office of Naval Research
http://www.
onr.navy.mil/
ScienceTechnology/Directorates/
office-innovation/~/media/Files/
03I/News-Sept13-Vol10.ashx
&,h
W&>
h^EWK<
>
E
E
/
/
&
^h^^&
^
d
/
d
D
K
d
d
d
&&^
h^^
/
d
d
&
Et
WZ
:
KEZKEZ
D'/ZWd&
^
d
,h
,h
d
^
&&&
d
/:
^&t
,YZ,YZ
d
&&WZ
&
D'/ZWd
&
,h
W
&&
&
^
KEZ
tt
W
d
/D'/
ZWd&&
K
E
http://www.onr.navy.mil/Science-Technology/Directorates/
office-innovation/~/media/Files/03I/News-Sept13-Vol10.ashx
SAME
story
over
page
Flight-Control Advances
Promise Big Savings
http://aviationweek.com/defense/flight-control-advances-promise-big-savings
the fleet.
The ability of the team at Manned Flight Simulator (MFS) to pull this together on short notice was incredible, Bookey
said. It was an extremely effective tool to get the feedback we were looking for and demonstrate NAVAIR capabilities to
the fleet.
According to the MFS team, creating the simulator was a group effort.
The demonstrator is indicative of the we can do that mentality of the simulator engineers and flight control software
developers in the MFS facility, said Christian Riddle, a lab architect at MFS. With a very short deadline, we created an
http://www.dcmilitary.com/
article/20141030/NEWS14/141039966/
magic-carpet-meets-the-fleet
amazing demonstrator. It not only looked impressive but, more importantly, it conveyed the true power of Magic Carpet
Even with only a few weeks with which to work, the MFS team had to scale back their ideas for the simulator.
Given the time compression we were working with, we had to focus on the art of the possible. Our pilots from VX-23 were
instrumental in helping us focus on what was important to get the message across to the fleet, Riddle said. We used
near off-the-shelf solutions when more elegant answers were calling to us. Engineers always strive for perfection and, at
some point, you have to bound your design and produce something on time, within budget.
Magic Carpet will make its first test in a live, at-sea environment on the F/A-18 platform early next year.
Semi-autonomous aviation
controls coming to the fleet
05 Feb 2015 Meghann Myers
First airborne
flights completed
for MAGIC CARPET
16 Mar 2015 Naval Air Warfare
Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD)
...the flaps are raised a few degrees from their nominal half
or fully deployed position. This gives the control system a
few degrees of flap movement to use for direct lift control...
Salty Dog 100, an F/A-18F Super Hornet assigned to Air Test & Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 at
Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., lands on USS George H. W. Bush (CVN 77) 20 Apr 2015. The
landing was part of the first sea trials for MAGIC CARPET, new flight control software & display
symbology for F/A-18 aircraft designed to make carrier landings less demanding for Navy pilots.
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/150420-N-YL257-047-crop.jpg
11 Feb 2015
Software is vying with hardware for upgrade priorities. Information technology systems, elements
& methodologies are becoming more of a factor in U.S. naval aviation. Virtual capabilities are supplanting physical training, & new architectures may allow faster incorporation of new technologies.
Some of these approaches were outlined in a panel discussion at West 2015, being held in San
Diego, February 10-12. Vice Adm. David A. Dunaway, USN, commander, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), was blunt in his assessment of the current NAVAIR budget environment. The
current cost profile is prohibitive, he declared. Its a going-out-of-business profile. He called for
an open architecture, which he described as the key to NAVAIR modernization. When it is achievedin both a hardware and software perspectiveNAVAIR will be able to modernize more quickly. Having an open architecture processor will allow information technology companies to plug
into it and demonstrate their products.
Tabert, a test pilot, is one of the Navys most experienced pilots in the JSF, with more than
130 hours of stick time to date. He was the first military pilot to fly all three F-35 variants
Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy and was involved in the initial tests of the Navy and
Marine versions at Patuxent River, Md., before reporting to VFA-101 in February. As the
Navys most experienced F-35 pilot, its his job to get the squadrons other pilots nearly
all with 3,000-plus hours flying F/A-18s off carrier decks up to speed as instructor pilots.
Its not a difficult airplane to fly, Tabert said. The systems and the sensors are very
new and state of the art. One main difference between the Lightning II & pre-
vious Navy fighters is the placement of the control stick, used to steer the
aircraft. This is the first side stick control [carrier-based] aircraft the Navy
has, he said. Thats a little bit different than the center-stick Hornet we
came from. They did a great job aligning it & the aircraft flies beautifully.
Another improvement, he said, is the helmet-integrated head-up display, or HUD, which
gives pilots their most critical information such as speed and altitude without requiring them
to look down. The F/A-18 Hornets HUD rests on top of the cockpits front panel. Though
Tabert said it took a little getting used to, having the display in the helmet saves you time in
making important decisions that in legacy airplanes you may have to take a second to look
down, he said. It makes flying better and makes you a more lethal war fighter....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8Bn2GZuQCc
An F/A-18E Super Hornet is on a night field carrier landing practice (FLCP) at Iwo To, Japan. Magic Carpet could sharply reduce the number of FLCPs needed to keep pilots qualified
for carrier ops. Credit: U.S. Navy Mass Communication Specialist Trevor Walsh http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2014/06/AW_06_30_2014_2210L.jpg
Pilot Comments
IDLC Performance was
Excellent.(Throttle Modes)
Crosswind Landing was
Easily Controlled.
Approach
Offset Correction
Flare/Landing
FCLP (VMC, Case 1) - Nominal
AOA
Meatball
Lineup
http://sstc-online.org/proceedings/2002/SpkrPDFS/ThrTracs/p1417.pdf
Better
Naval joint strike fighter: A glimpse into the future of naval aviation
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3834/is_200207/ai_n9086493/ by Weatherspoon, Steve | Mid 2002
-
...The fuselage and weapon system of the carrier version are nearly identical with the other two versions. The major difference is
the larger wing area and larger control surfaces for low carrier approach speed and outstanding low speed flying qualities. The
wingspan of 42 feet is reduced to 31 feet using a wingfold for compact spotting and handling aboard ship.
The carrier variant of JSF is 5 feet shorter in overall length than the F/A-18 CID and 9 feet shorter than the F/A- 18E/F. Its maximum density spot factor, a measure of the relative space it takes up aboard ship, is 1.11 (relative to an F/A-18C at 1.0 & an F/A-18E
at 1.24). Overall height, deck clearance, elevator compatibility, and servicing spotted tail-over-water are easily accommodated in
the relatively compact design.
One Key Performance Parameter (KPP) for the program is for the Navy JSF to achieve a minimum combat radius of 600 NM on
a representative combat profile. With the larger wing and an internal fuel capacity of over 19,000 lbs, the Navy JSF achieves
well over 700 NM radius on that profile. That extra internal fuel not only means more radius, it means not having to
take up weapon stations with external fuel tanks, it means less reliance on mission tanking, and it means having a decent fuel
package above the fuel ladder to do realistic training at sea.
Up and away combat maneuverability and speed are in the F/A-18 and F-16 class. The Navy JSF corner speed is near
300 kts and top end speed is over 1.6 M at altitude. As noted earlier, the major deviation from commonality in the whole
JSF family are design features for carrier suitability. The larger wing enables an approach speed of less than 140 knots
with nearly 9,000 lbs of bringback. Just as importantly, the addition of ailerons, larger horizontal tails and rudders, and
an innovative integrated direct lift control (IDLC) assure precise ball flying. The designers recognized early on
that a relatively slick (due to stealth) configuration combined with a powerful, high rotational mass engine, could
cause glide slope control problems. By integrating direct lift control (using drooped ailerons) with the throttle, the
pilot is able to make near instantaneous glide slope corrections, using throttle only to precisely fly the ball. Full
autothrottle & Mode I capabilities are also available. Outstanding results were demonstrated in 250 field carrier landing
practice (FCLP) landings with contractor and Navy pilots in the X-35C Navy JSF test aircraft in the winter of 2001....
________________________________
Steve Weatherspoon, Manager of Navy Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Business Development for the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company JSF Team, is a 1972 graduate of
the Naval Academy. He received his MS in Engineering from Princeton in 1973, graduated from the USAF Test Pilot School in 1979, and completed the senior course of
study at the Naval War College in 1990. In a 20 year Navy career he logged more than 3,500 F-14 hours and over 900 carrier landings. He completed three operational
tours with F14 squadrons, culminating with command of VF-143 aboard USS Eisenhower. As a test pilot, Mr. Weatherspoon performed Navy RDT&E flight testing at the
Pacific MissileTest Center This included F-14 software development testing as well as development testing of AIM-9M, AIM- 7M, AMRAAM and AIM-54C missile programs.
Joining Lockheed Martin in 1992, he was responsible for a carrier suitable design for the Navy's AFX Program. He has been associated with the JAST/JSF Program since
its inception in 1994, leading Innovative Strike Concepts studies, proposals, technology assessments, testing programs, and assuring JSF design carrier suitability.
Despite Setbacks, JSF Achieves Milestones by Chuck Oldham (Editor) Nov 22, 2010
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/despite-setbacks-jsf-achieves-milestones/
...While the F-35A and F-35B can be mistaken for each other in some flight modes
due to their identical wingspan and flight surfaces, the F-35C shows some clear differences. The wing area is 35 percent larger, at 668 square feet, against 460 square feet
for the F-35A and B. Likewise wingspan is 43 feet for the F-35C, in comparison with 35
feet for the other two variants. The bigger wing of the F-35C employs inboard flaps
[flaperons] and outboard ailerons, beginning at the wing fold, for better control and
slower approach speeds in the carrier landing environment, the other two variants
using full span flaperons. Likewise, the horizontal and vertical tail surfaces are noticeably larger. One result of the increased wing area is an overlap (when seen from
above) between the mainplane and the horizontal tail not seen in the other variants, to
the extent that the inboard flaps on the F-35C have a cutout near the fuselage at the
same angle as the trailing edge of the tail surfaces, presumably to preserve edge
alignment.
Beefier landing gear to stand the shock of carrier landings, including a twin-wheel
nose gear with catapult bar, and a more robust tailhook assembly are also noticeable,
although a heavier internal structure is largely hidden by the skin.
The larger wing area carries a bonus of increased fuel tankage (around 19,750
pounds [total]) & therefore longer range than the other two variants. How much the
increased wing area will affect transonic performance remains to be seen, but it has to
be said that the F-35C looks right....
-
...From October 2000 through August 2001, the JSF X-35 demonstrator aircraft established a number of flight-test standards. X-35C CV- demonstrated a
high level of carrier suitability with 252 field carrier landing practice (FCLP) tests, extremely precise handling qualities, and prodigious power availability;
first X-plane in history to complete a coast-to-coast flight (Edwards Air Force Base, California, to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland).
This variant of the Lockheed Martin JSF family first flew on 16 December 2000. Afterwards, the F-35C began a series of envelope-expansion flights & on
25 January 2001, the F-35C completed tanker qualification trials with a series of air-to-air refuelings behind an U.S. Air Force KC-10. The F-35C then
completed its first supersonic flight on 31 January 2001 before being ferried from Edwards AFB, California to Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Maryland.
The X-35C touched down at Patuxent River NAS on 10 February 2001, completing the first-ever transcontinental flight of a JSF demonstrator aircraft and
initiating a series of flight tests that demonstrated carrier suitability in sea-level conditions. The F-35C's flight-test program included a series of Field
Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) tests to evaluate the aircraft's handling qualities and performance during carrier approaches and landings at an airfield, &
also included up-and-away handling-quality tests and engine transients at varying speeds and altitudes.... http://sites.google.com/site/leesaircraft/f-35c-cv
http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/cdp/lockheed/x35c/cdp_loc_cv_006.jpg
Genesis of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; Paul M. Bevilaqua JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT 2009; WRIGHT BROTHERS LECTURE
Vol. 46, No. 6, NovemberDecember 2009 http://pdf.aiaa.org/getfile.cfm?urlX=-%3CWI'7D%2FQKS%2B%2FRP%23IW%40%20%20%0A&urlb=!*0%20%20%0A&urlc=!*0%20%20%0A&urld=!*0%20%20%0A
-
...The primary requirement for the Naval variant was the ability to take off and land on a carrier in
300 ft or less with a 20 kt wind over the deck. Lockheed Martin considered three alternative approaches. The
first alternative was for the Navy to operate the same STOVL aircraft being developed for the Marines; this was certainly
the easiest solution, but this aircraft would have less range/payload performance than a conventional Naval aircraft.
The second alternative was to remove the lift fan and adapt the roll control jets to blow the wing flaps. This would
increase the wing lift, reducing the aircraft takeoff and landing speeds and enabling it to use the carrier catapult and
arresting gear. However, the blown flaps on the F-4 Phantom had proved difficult to maintain and Lockheed Martin did
not feel the Navy would favor this approach. Instead, it was decided to increase the wing area by enlarging the flaps and
slats and adding a wingtip extension. The increased lift of the larger wing also reduced the takeoff and landing speeds
and enabled use of the catapult and arresting gear. An additional benefit of the larger wing is that it gives the Naval variant greater range than either the Marine or Air Force variants, both by reducing the induced drag and by providing additional volume for fuel.
[Faster Download Site: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.174.1142&rep=rep1&type=pdf ]
Because the carrier arresting system imposes greater loads on the landing gear and airframe than a conventional
landing, the landing gear of the Naval variant was redesigned for a 25 fps vertical velocity,
rather than 10 fps used for the conventional and STOVL variants. Similarly, the nose gear was
redesigned for catapult launches. The additional airframe loads were handled through the use of cousin parts, which are
stronger parts that replace conventional parts without changing the basic structural arrangement. For example, on the
Air Force and Marine variants, the bulkhead that takes the main landing gear load is made of aluminum and is approximately 1/2 in: thick. The same bulkhead on the Naval variant is made of titanium and is about 3/4 in: thick. This technique was adapted from the F-16 production line, in which cousin parts were used to create variants of the same basic
airframe for different customers who preferred different subsystems....
...The Skunk Works proposal was to build two aircraft. One would be devoted to STOVL testing, because this had
always been perceived as the greatest challenge. The other would be first flown as the Air Force variant and then be
modified by replacing the wing flaps and slats to become the Naval variant. Both aircraft would be built with the Naval
structure. To reduce the cost of the demonstration, available components were used for subsystems that were not
critical to the test objectives. For example, these aircraft used the nose gear from the F-15 and modified main landing
gear from the A-6. The increased weight of these off-the-shelf components was offset by not including mission avionics
and weapons bays on the demonstrator aircraft....
[This did not happen because the X-35A was converted to X-35B]
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/
stories/f-35c-integrated-direct-lift-controlhow-it-works/
glide path control. I felt that was a little vague, so I called NAVAIR and chatted with F-35C test
pilot Cmdr. Eric Magic Buus to break down what IDLC does in more concrete terms.
IDLCs job is to quickly help the pilot make glide slope adjustments during the carrier approach,
Buus explains. It is resident within all three F-35 variants, not just the C model.
Two Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II carrier variant test aircraft launch together & conduct
formation flying at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., April 18, 2012. The F-35's IDLC will
make carrier landing approaches much easier for future Navy pilots. Lockheed Martin photo
The pilot is indirectly flying the flaps with the stick, Buus says. From the cockpit, IDLC gives the
F-35C exaggerated throttle/pitch response, the test pilot affirms. Its almost immediate. It takes
longer to make the correction in legacy airplanes.
NAVAIR contends that IDLC can potentially shorten the carrier qualification learning curve for
new pilots by offering more control during the approach, and Buus agrees.
The flight control engineers have really done an amazing job. IDLC is just one part of it. Its an
easier airplane to fly behind the ship. The easier the airplane is to fly, the safer it is and the
easier to train pilots to fly it well. Over time, I think it will reduce some of the training costs and
burden to the Fleet.
In a few years the F-35Cs flight control system will pair with the
Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) to enable data-linked approaches controlled from the carrier. IDLC
will take relevant incoming data from the flight control computer and aid in making the process that much more precise.
With its larger wing and flaps and control harmony, the F-35C benefits more from IDLC than its
sister variants. But they too enjoy more precise approach control with the system, Buus
maintains. And he adds that it could be integrated into legacy aircraft such as the F/A-18E/F
Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler.
'quicksilver' 14 Jun 2014: To add to what JW said, from a pilot perspective the IDLC allows the pilot to affect
'glide slope transfer' with the application of one inceptor (control) input. Glide slope transfer is also referred
to in some places as the pop-up maneuver. A pilot flying on-speed, but a ball or more low has to move the jet
from the low ball to a centered ball while staying on-speed, and needs to do so with minimal down-range
travel and without changing aircraft attitude (which would alter the hook geometry relative to the wire) or
speed. The control inputs and pilot skills necessary to successfully do so in the past were very complex and
varied greatly from aircraft to aircraft.
Not so in more recent times. Hornet very good. SH better. F-35C HQs looking like the best ever but yet to prove same
at the ship.
Click Screen to view an F-35C Test Pilot Talk about New Flight
...The F-35 uses a BAE Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) instead of a conventional Head-Up Display (HUD).
Like a classic HUD, the HMD shows the pilot a flight path marker (or velocity vector), with a bracket to indicate if the aircraft is on speed or flying fast or slow. Meanwhile, a caret moves up or down in reference to
the flight path marker to give an acceleration-deceleration cue.
Ashore, when the aircraft is on glideslope, the pilot simply puts the flight path marker by the meatball
and the aircraft stays on that glideslope. At the ship, since the landing area is moving through the water,
the pilot needs to put the flight path marker out in front of it. He needs to put it where the landing area will
be when he gets there, which again requires judgment. A better system would be put the velocity vector
into the moving reference frame of the boat, Canin said.
Though not currently part of the F-35 plan, implementing a ship-referenced velocity vector (SRVV)
would allow the pilot to put the SRVV on the intended touchdown point to hold glideslope. All we would
need to know from the ship is its current velocity, so we can put the airplane symbology in that reference
frame, Canin said. [SRVV will be available for the UK F-35Bs for SRVLs etc.]
Readily rewritten control laws have other possibilities. With the current flight control law, the pilot commands pitch rate with the stick, and uses that pitch rate to establish a glideslope, noted Canin. Theres no
reason, though, why the flight control system couldnt establish a baseline glideslope, and allow the pilot to
apply control stick pressure to command tweaks around that glideslope in response to ball deviations. A
glideslope command mechanization of this sort is not in the baseline airplane now, but is an example of
the type of changes that could relatively easily be incorporated in the F-35 control system.
For recoveries in the worst weather, the A-7 and other carrier aircraft flew coupled automatic landings
based on radar tracking and datalinked commands from the ship. Canin confided, Id break out of it inclose the few times I did one. The pilot doesnt get a [landing] grade if he lets George [autopilot] fly it to
touchdown.
The JSF test program currently has no autolanding requirement, [????????] but plans call for an F-35C
autolanding capability based on the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System. The F-35 will take
more of a self-contained approach an internally generated glideslope from GPS....
1RERG\$VNHG0H
/DQGLQJ6\VWHPKHLJKWLQFUHDVHGIURPIHHWWRIHHW
IRU'DWXPOLJKWVEHWWHUNQRZQDVWKH%DOODQGDQ/62
SODWIRUP
7KHJUHHQOLQHLVWKHFHQWHUOLQHRIWKH)&/3FDUULHU
GHFN$V\RXFDQVHH
PRVW
RIWKHODQGLQJVRFFXULQWKH
VDPHSODFHDQGWKHUXQRXWLVUDWKHUVKRUW7KLVLV
EHFDXVHWKH\ODQGDQGLPPHGLDWHO\JRWRPD[SRZHUDQG
\DQNWKHELUGEDFNLQWKHDLUDVVXPLQJQRWKLQJIHOO
http://oldnfo. RII
Landing
blogspot.com/2011/
Direction
03/crash-and-dash.html
&UDVKDQG'DVK
,JRWDFKDQFHWRZDWFKWKH1DY\WHVWSLORWVIO\LQJWKH
QHZ)-6)WKLVZHHNDQGWKH\ZHUHGRLQJFUDVKHV
DQGGDVKHV
7KDW
VZKDWWKH1DY\FDOOVWRXFKDQGJRODQGLQJVZKHQ
WKH\DUHSUDFWLFLQJ)LHOG&DUULHU/DQGLQJ3UDFWLFHEHWWHU
NQRZQDV)&/3V
%DVLFDOO\ZKDW\RXGRLVVLPXODWHODQGLQJRQDFDUULHU
GHFNSDLQWHGRQDUXQZD\
%HORZLVRQHRIWKRVHSDLQWHG
GHFNV
WKHREMHFWVLQWKH
JUHHQFLUFOHDUHWKH,PSURYHG)UHVQHO/HQV2SWLFDO
7KLVLVZKDWWKH%DOOORRNVOLNH
7KHFXWOLJKWVDUHXVHGIRUQRFRPPVFOHDUDQFHIRU
EHKLQGWKHFDUULHUDVWKHVWDELOLW\SRLQW
ODQGLQJDQGWKH/62XVHVWKHPIRUSRZHUDSSOLFDWLRQVLI
WKH\DUHQRWWDONLQJWRWKHSLORWWKHORQJHUWKHJUHHQWKH
PRUHSRZHUWKH\ZDQWWRVHH
7KHOLQHRIJUHHQOLJKWVLQWKHPLGGOHDUHWKHGDWXP
OLJKWVZKLFKLVZKDWWKHSLORWLVVHHLQJDQG
KRSHIXOO\
WKHRUDQJH
EDOO
LQWKHFHQWHUVWD\VULJKWDWWKHGDWXP
OHYHO7KHUHGOLJKWVDUHZDYHRIIPDQGDWRU\OLJKWVDOVR
FRQWUROOHGE\WKH/62LIWKH\WKLQNWKHSLORWLVDERXWWR
PDNHDVHULRXVHUURULQMXGJHPHQW
6RDQ\KRR,ZDVVWDQGLQJZLWKD%ULWSLORWZKRLVRYHU
IRUWKHHYDOXDWLRQDQGKHZDVWHOOLQJPHWKH$LU)RUFH
SLORWKDGMXVWOHIWEHFDXVHKHFRXOGQ
WVWDQGWRZDWFK
7KLVLVDQDFWXDOV\VWHPLQVWDOOHGRQDFDUULHULWLVIXOO\
VWDELOL]HGDQGDOORZVDVWDEOHSRLQWRIUHIHUHQFH
UHJDUGOHVVRIVKLSPRYHPHQW,WLV
IRFXVHG
IHHW
1RZ\RX
YHJRWWRUHPHPEHUWKH$LU)RUFHSHQDOL]HV
SLORWVLIWKH\EUXLVHWKHWLUHVRQODQGLQJ7KH1DY\ZHOO
LIWKHWLUHVDQGZKHHOV/$67ODQGLQJVWKH\
UHKDSS\
,WZDVDQLFHEUHDNDQG,
OOKDYHWRVD\WKH-6),6WKH
VRXQGDQGDORXGRQHRI)5(('20
the VMCs invert the OBM in realtime to determine what control surface deflections will provide the desired response. Canin, a Former
Navy A-7 pilot, has flown all the JSF
versions and now tests the F-35B
and C models at Pax River. Across
all three variants, theres almost
no difference in the response to
pilot inputs, only in the aerodynamic models used to achieve the response, he said. We define the response we want, and the software
figures out what to do with the control surfaces.
Canin added, Thats the beauty
of using this approach when youre
developing three airplanes concurrently. By restricting the differences
to the onboard models, the aircraft
response developed for one variant
transfers naturally to the others.
Common control law development
affords cost savings across the JSF
variants.
Safe carrier approaches require
the airplane be stabilized in the correct glideslope and attitude to touch
down with the proper geometry and
rate of descent. Carrier pilots maintain that glideslope with visual reference to an optical landing aid on
the ship, or meatball. They make
continuous power changes while
holding the aircraft at a near-constant angle of attack (alpha). According to Canin, If were going to
hold alpha constant, then the only
way to change lift is by accelerating
or decelerating the airplane. We do
this with power, but because of engine lag and aircraft inertia, theres
a lot of anticipation required, and a
lot of corrections and counter-corrections. Doing that well requires
skill, seat-of-the-pants [flying], and
a lot of practice.
He offered, A much better approach would be to control the coefficient of lift itself, by changing
the camber of the wing.
All three F-35 versions have
trailing edge flaps to change camber. In addition, the longer-wing F
35C has ailerons. The flaps normally droop 15 degrees in the landing
configuration. However, active IDLC
moves the flaps up and down from
Implementing IDLC
controls, the F-35C, from the pilots perspective, is relatively conventional coming aboard the carrier. Determining where you are with
respect to lineup and glideslope
is all visual, acknowledged Canin.
For lineup, you look at the ship and
line up on centerline easy enough
if the ships heading is steady, but
tricky if the ship is wallowing,
noted Canin. As for glideslope, you
have to watch the meatball and see
small deviations. Then you have to
put the ball back in the middle, with
the right rate of descent so it stays
there. None of thats changed with
this airplane, but what were giving the pilot is more responsiveness
and bandwidth to do that.
The F-35 uses a BAE Helmet
Mounted Display (HMD) instead of a
conventional Head-Up Display (HUD).
Like a classic HUD, the HMD shows
the pilot a flight path marker (or velocity vector), with a bracket to indicate if the aircraft is on speed
or flying fast or slow. Meanwhile, a
caret moves up or down in reference
to the flight path marker to give an
acceleration-deceleration cue.
Ashore, when the aircraft is
on glideslope, the pilot simply puts
the flight path marker by the meatball and the aircraft stays on that
glideslope. At the ship, since the
landing area is moving through the
water, the pilot needs to put the
flight path marker out in front of it.
He needs to put it where the landing area will be when he gets there,
which again requires judgment. A
better system would be put the velocity vector into the moving reference frame of the boat, Canin said.
Though not currently part of the
F-35 plan, implementing a shipreferenced velocity vector (SRVV)
would allow the pilot to put the
SRVV on the intended touchdown
point to hold glideslope. All we
would need to know from the ship
is its current velocity, so we can put
the airplane symbology in that reference frame, Canin said.
Readily rewritten control laws
have other possibilities. With the
current flight control law, the pilot
commands pitch rate with the stick,
CVF
Explanation next page...
...The F-35C is unusual among modern carrier aircraft in having a simple highlift system, comprising part-span flaps and drooped ailerons. The
Super Hornet, about equal in weight, has a
smaller wing fitted with massive
trailing-edge flaps that extend
across the entire
span. The inner
sections actually extend
rearwards as well as downwards,
to increase the wing area.
Why doesn't the F-35C have a similar
system? Part of the answer is geometry - the
close-coupled tail may not have the leverage to
overcome the trim change of bigger flaps. A more
complex system would also reduce commonality
with the other variants.
July/5/2007
Cross-Country First
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/
The X-35C arrived in Maryland on 10
after a precedent-setting cross2001/articles/arp_01/x35c/index.html February
country trip from Edwards AFB in
California. The 2,500-mile journey,
completed in two legs in two days, was
the first transcontinental flight for any Xplane.
Print friendly version of this article (text only)
We brought the X-35C to Pax River because it is the Navys premier test facility, explains Joe
Sweeney, Lockheed Martin test pilot for the first leg of the trip, from Edwards to Fort Worth, and
the first pilot to fly the X-35C. At Pax, Navy
personnel can see their airplane up close in the their own environment. Besides, NAVAIR
headquarters is here, the JSF program office is here, and political decision makers are nearby.
We can give more people a first-hand look at the airplane.
Flying any new single-seat, single-engine airplane across the United States is an
accomplishment. Making that journey in an X airplane that has been flying for less than three
months is a tremendous accomplishment, says US Marine Corps Maj. Art Tomassetti, pilot for
the second and final leg from Fort Worth to Patuxent River. Pilots dream of becoming test pilots.
Test pilots dream of flying X airplanes. So I guess X airplane pilots dream of doing something
spectacular in an X airplane. Bringing the X-35 to my home base at Pax River after flying it cross
country qualifies as something pretty spectacular in my book.
Moving the X-35C from the high desert of California to the sea level environment at Pax has a
technical rationale as well. Edwards sits at 2,200 feet above sea level, continues Sweeney, who
is also lead Lockheed Martin test pilot for the X-35C. Aircraft carriers sit at sea level. For a true
one-to-one comparison and evaluation of the fidelity of our airplane and its capabilities in a
carrier environment, Pax is the place to be.
Pax also has the tools and the flight test engineers who specialize in carrier suitability, adds Lt.
Cdr. Greg Fenton, the Navys newest test pilot for the X-35. For the X-35C, carrier suitability
involves testing how well we can fly the airplane on a landing path, how precisely we can fly it to
a touchdown point, how quickly we can get it back in the air, and several other performance and
handling characteristics.
FCLPs, Bolters, and Waveoffs
Carrier suitability testing for the X-35C
encompasses three essential categories
FCLPs, bolters, and waveoffs. FCLP testing
covers the flying qualities necessary to get
the aircraft in a position to land on an
aircraft carrier. In these tests, pilots
progress from a nominal or ideal approach
Waveoff testing determines how much altitude the aircraft loses and how much time it requires
to go from a stabilized rate of decent to a positive rate of climb, explains Briggs. In other words,
we want to determine how far down the glideslope the pilot can initiate a waveoff and not touch
down or catch a wire when the hook is extended. The LSOs will use this information in
X-35A/X-35C Differences
As for performing the mission, the
distinction between what makes a good
Navy fighter and what makes a good Air
Force fighter is fairly insignificant, notes
Fenton, who comes to the X-35 program
from a recent fleet tour in F-18s on the USS
Enterprise. In both services, the airplane
must have a decent amount of time on
station and provide an advantage against
any current or projected foes. The big
difference between the two services
involves carrier suitability. A Navy fighter has to take off and land from an aircraft carrier, which
requires some structural considerations and flying qualities.
Those structural considerations and flying qualities explain most of the differences between the X35A and the X-35C. Internally, the X-35C is a little beefier to handle the harder landings.
Externally, the wing area and control surfaces are larger to improve low-speed handling
characteristics essential for carrier landings. The X-35C also has two extra control surfaces in the
form of two ailerons outboard of the flaperons.
The difference in performance between the X-35C and X-35A at landing speeds is very
noticeable, explains Sweeney, who flew the X-35C on its first flight and has flown the X-35A as
well. The X-35C can fly about 130 to 135 knots on the landing approach, about twenty-five knots
slower than the X-35A.
When I raise the landing gear, the airplane flies
The landing approach control laws and
flying qualities for the X-35 were designed very smoothly. The landing gear is sequenced,
which is unique for a fighter. The nose gear
primarily for the Navy environment,
Sweeney continues. Most of those control comes up first, then the main gear follows. The
laws were used in the X-35A to keep the gears drop down in reverse order. http://www.
codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=33
variants flying qualities common.
the guys in Fort Worth did a great job. The developmental work in the simulator has led to a final
configuration that has worked nicely. The capability is useful for conventional landings as well. Air
Force test pilot T.P. Smith noted that the APC is a must for the Air Force variant.
In the X-35C, the APC is a mode in the flight controls, explains Briggs. In other aircraft, the
APC is often a separate component, like a radio. Regardless of its system location, the APC
works like the cruise control of a car. The pilot can
deselect it or move the throttle to override it.
The Bottom Line
While carrier suitability is a critical factor in
evaluating the Joint Strike Fighter for the
Navy, it isnt the only one. Test pilots at Pax
will be expanding the flight envelope of the
X-35C and evaluating the up-and-away
performance of the aircraft as well. Like
any other fighter pilot, a Navy fighter pilot
will probably go straight for the max
performance numbersMach, g, range,
Briggs says. But the Navy guys are also
going to ask, How does it fly on the ball?
That question gets away from raw
performance figures and into handling
qualities, which we are evaluating closely
here at Pax.
Autothrottles
If landing a 30,000-pound aircraft on a fortyfive-foot postage stamp in a rolling sea
sounds simple, youve been playing too
many video games. But technology has
made the job easier with an autothrottle
system called an approach power
compensator, or APC. Almost every Navy
airplane since the F-8 has had one. The
autothrottle takes the pilots left hand
(throttle) out of glideslope control, explains
Harbison, leaving him only the control stick
to maintain glideslopeand lineup.
And thats the primary reason we are hereto prove that the Lockheed Martin JSF design
meets the Navys carrier suitability requirements, says Sweeney. Being at Patuxent this early
should instill confidence in our program and in our approach. In the next phase of the program,
we get into the detailed evaluations necessary to make this a fleet-capable airplane. Since the
design were proposing for the next phase is so similar to the X-35C, everything we are doing
here will support the transition to an operational aircraft.
The APC mode can greatly reduce the pilots workload during a carrier approach. The APC on
the X-35C has been very smooth and although we have yet to finish all the testing, it looks like
magazine.com/article.html?item_id=33
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2001/articles/
Eric Hehs is the editor of Code One.
arp_01/x35c/index.html
Scorecard - A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program April 2008
Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN: http://2011.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2011/05/18/36290792.pdf
...The capability to operate from a carrier is not as easy as it sounds. Additional weight
comes in the form of stronger landing gear, fuselage center barrel strength, arresting
hook structure, and additional electrical power requirements. The Navy has added approach speed as a service specific key performance parameter. The threshold for approach speed is 145 knots with 15 knots of wind over the deck. This must be possible at
Required Carrier Landing Weight (RCLW). The RCLW is the sum of the aircraft operating weight, the minimum required bringback, and enough fuel for two instrument approaches & a 100nm BINGO profile to arrive at a divert airfield with 1,000 pounds of fuel.
The minimum required bringback is two 2,000 pound air-to-ground weapons and two
AIM-120s. The Navy further requires that the CV JSF be capable of carrier recovery with
internal and external stores; the external stations must have 1,000 pound capability on
the outboard stations and maximum station carriage weight on the inboard....
-
_______________
-
F-35C Opt AoA: VX-23 'Salty Dogs' F-35C Update - LCDR Ken Stubby Sterbenz
VX-23 Ship Suitability Department Head - Paddles Monthly - Sept 2010
...The max trap weight will be around 46k lbs, with an empty weight of about 35k lbs [10-11K
Load]. It will fly an on-speed AOA of 12.3 at 135-140 KCAS [Optimum AofA or Donut]....
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlySeptember2010.pdf
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14367.html
Selective Acquisition Report
SAR
31 Dec
2010
Current Est.
F-35C:
Maximum
approach
speed (Vpa)
at RCLW of
less than
approx.
144.6 kts
with 15 kts
WOD at
RCLW (of
approx.
46,000 lbs
Max Landing
Weight)
RCLW
explanation
JUMP!
RCLW
=
Requir
ed
Carrier
Landing
Weight
WOD =
Wind
Over
Deck
https://www.flickr.com/photos/compacflt/15521756107/
"I could tell from the first flight that the X-35C was going to be representative of a very good
carrier plane. When we began aggressive FCLPs (field carrier landing practices) the aircraft
really showed off its superb responsiveness and controllability," said test pilot Joe Sweeney,a
former U.S. Navy carrier pilot. "We deliberately forced errors in the
glide slope, speed and line-up, challenging the plane's ability
to respond, and it performed exceedingly well. I can't say
enough about this engineering and flight test team."
During an FCLP (FCLP = Field Carrier Landing Practice)
the pilot shoots an approach exactly as he would on an aircraft
carrier. The X-35C, which features a larger wing and control
surfaces than the other JSF variants, completed 250 FCLPs during testing.
"We put the airplane through a battery of practice carrier approaches in a very short
time. The airplane's performance was outstanding," said Lt. Cmdr. Greg Fenton, a U.S.
Navy test pilot assigned to the X-35. "Several of Strike's Landing Signal Officers (LSOs) got an
opportunity to observe the airplane 'on the ball', and were quite impressed with its ability to
handle intentional deviations during the practice carrier landings."
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Lockheed+Martin's+Navy+JSF+Completes+Historic+Flight-Test+Program-a071562471
JSF Carrier Variant Meets First Flight Goals By Graham Warwick 7 June 2010
http://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2010/06/07/awx_06_07_2010_p0-232376.xml&headline=JSF%20Carrier%20Variant%20Meets%20First%20Flight%20Goals
Knowles says the aircraft approached at 135 kt., compared with 155 kt.
for the smaller-winged F-35A and B variants at the same 40,000-lb. gross
weight. Takeoff rotation speed was 15-20 kt. slower, he says.
The first F-35C, aircraft CF-1, was formally rolled out in late July 2009
and was expected to fly before the end of the year, but was held in the
factory to incorporate late parts and design changes, says Tom Burbage,
executive vice president and general manager, F-35 program integration.
The 57-min. first flight focused on gear-down handling & formation flying
with the F/A-18 chase aircraft in an early look at handling around the carrier,
says Knowles, adding The approach was very stable, with good roll response.
The landing gear and arrestor hook were cycled and throttle slams conducted to check engine operation. This was the first flight of a production-configuration Pratt & Whitney F135 engine, says Burbage....
F-35C CF-01
F-35C Opt AoA: VX-23 'Salty Dogs' F-35C Update - LCDR Ken Stubby Sterbenz
VX-23 Ship Suitability Department Head - Paddles Monthly - Sept 2010 (1.3Mb PDF)
http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlySeptember2010.pdf
"The F-35C is 51.5 ft long and has a wingspan of 43 ft and 668 ft2 of wing area (7 ft longer
wingspan and 208ft2 more wing area than the Air force or Marine versions.) It also carries
19,800 lbs of internal fuel - 1,000 pounds more gas then the Air Force version. It is powered
by a Pratt and Whitney F135 engine that produces 28k lbs and 43k lb of thrust in MIL and AB
respectively.
The max trap weight will be around 46k lbs, with an empty weight of about 35k lbs.
It will fly an on-speed AOA of 12.3 at 135-140 KCAS [Optimum AofA or Donut].
Due to the fact that flap scheduling is completely automatic, the cockpit
was designed without a flaps switch. Additionally, the tail hook retracts into the fuselage and is covered by hook doors that
have an as-yet-to-be-determined airspeed limitation..."
LT. Dan "Butters" Radocaj VX-23 Ship Suitability
HOOK
DOOR/
Stealth
COVER
http://www.calf.cn/attachments/day_100701/1007010605af624d3f9c593fce.jpg
on-speed
AOA of 12.3
at 135-140
KCAS
Planned Not to
Exceed Weight
Empty=34,868 lbs
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0y7sASYtn94/T2-JtqERKbI/AAAAAAAAB6w/fg1ODo3zZWs/s1600/weight.png
F-35C
F-35C CF-03 showing Optimum Angle of Attack Light USS Nimitz Nov 2014
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/15595446100/sizes/o/
"The capability to operate from a carrier is not as easy as it sounds. Additional weight comes in
the form of stronger landing gear, fuselage center barrel strength, arresting hook structure, and
additional electrical power requirements. The Navy has added approach speed as a service specific key performance parameter. The threshold for approach speed is 145 knots with 15 knots of
wind over the deck. This must be possible at Required Carrier Landing Weight (RCLW).
The RCLW is the sum of the aircraft operating weight, the minimum required
bringback, and enough fuel for two instrument approaches & a 100nm BINGO
profile to arrive at a divert airfield with 1000 pounds of fuel. The minimum required
bringback is two 2000 pound air-to-ground weapons and two AIM-120s.
The Navy further requires that the CV JSF be capable of carrier recovery with internal and
external stores; the external stations must have 1000 pound capability on the outboard stations &
maximum station carriage weight on the inboard."
&
"The USMC has added STOVL performance as a service specific key performance parameter. The
requirement is listed as follows: With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 550 [now 600] foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers
(sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) & with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile).
Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full
expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile.
JUMP BACK TO KPPs!
The Marine Corps has used the more limiting deck launch, rather than a simple expeditionary
airfield, to frame its requirement." USN & USMC F-35C & F-35B Landing KPPs + Bringback
The Pentagon last month relaxed the performance requirements for the Joint Strike Fighter, allowing the Air Force
F-35A variant to exceed its previous combat radius -- a benchmark it previously missed -- and granting the Marine
Corps F-35B nearly 10 percent additional runway length for short take-offs, according to Defense Department
sources. On Feb. 14, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council -- in a previously unreported development -- agreed
to loosen select key performance parameters (KPPs) for the JSF during a review of the program convened in
advance of a high-level Feb. 21 Defense Acquisition Board meeting last month, at which the Pentagon aimed to reset
many dimensions of the program, including cost and schedule. Pentagon sources said a memorandum codifying the
JROC decisions has not yet been signed by Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and the JROC chair. Sources familiar with the changes, however, said the JROC -- which also includes the service
vice chiefs of staff -- agreed to adjust the "ground rules and assumptions" underlying the F-35A's 590-nautical-mile,
combat-radius KPP. Last April, the Pentagon reported to Congress in a selected acquisition report that "based on
updated estimate of engine bleed," the F-35A would have a combat radius of 584 nautical miles, below its threshold
-- set in 2002 -- of 590 nautical miles.
To extend the F-35A's combat radius, the JROC agreed to a less-demanding flight profile that assumes near-ideal
cruise altitude and airspeed, factors that permit more efficient fuel consumption. This would allow the estimate to be
extended to 613 nautical miles, according to sources familiar with the revised requirement.
The estimated combat radius of the short-take-off variant, which is being developed for the Marine Corps, is 15%
lower than the original JSF program goal even though the aircraft is slated to carry fewer weapons than originally
intended, according to the April report.
The short-take-off-and-landing KPP before the JROC review last month was 550 feet. In April 2011, the Pentagon
estimated that the STOVL variant could execute a short take-off in 544 feet while carrying two Joint Direct Attack
Munitions and two AIM-120 missiles internally, as well as enough fuel to fly 450 nautical miles. By last month, that
take-off distance estimate grew to 568 feet, according to DOD sources. The JROC, accordingly, agreed to extend the
required take-off distance to 600 feet, according to DOD officials.
The JROC review of the F-35 program last month was held in accordance with a policy adopted by the council in
June 2010, which requires a reassessment of requirements for all programs with cost growth exceeding 25 percent
of the original program baseline. One goal of the policy is to determine whether a decision to relax requirements
should be made to improve acquisition cost and schedule estimates.
Performance
F-35 Aircraft
Performance Characteristics
Current APB
Development
Objective/Threshold
SAR Baseline
Development
Estimate
Demonstrated
Performance
Current
Estimate
TBD
Execute 569
ft. STO with 2
JDAM
(internal), 2
AIM-120
(internal), fuel
to fly 456nm
(Ch-1)
SAR Ex Summary
December 2014
(for 2015) DOT&E
Report ...In summary, the F-35
program is showing steady progress in all areas including development,
flight test, production, maintenance, and
stand-up of the global sustainment enterprise. The program is currently on the right
track and will continue to deliver on the
commitments that have been made to the
F-35 Enterprise. As with any big, complex
development program, there will be challenges and obstacles. However, we have the
ability to overcome any current and future
issues, and the superb capabilities of the
F-35 are well within reach for all of us.
690
550
590
TBD
614
450
TBD
456
600
TBD
610
93%
TBD
97%
95%
TBD
98%
95%
TBD
98%
730
Less than or
equal to
29,410 cu ft.,
243 ST
Less than or equal to 4 C- Less than or equal to 4 C Less than or equal to 8 C TBD
17 equivalents
-17 equivalents
-17 equivalent loads
Less than or
equal to 5 C17
equivalents
TBD
Less than or
equal to
17,500 cu ft,
102 ST
TBD
4.0/3.0/2.0
2.5 ASD
TBD
4.0/3.0/1.0
1.8 ASD
TBD
6.0/4.0/2.0
1.1 ASD
TBD
Vpa.
Maximum
approach
speed (Vpa)
at required
carrier
landing
weight
(RCLW) of
less than 144
knots.
(Ch-1)
TBD
98%
98%
F-35
UNCLASSIFIED
98%
Less than or
equal to 6 C17
equivalents
Change Explanations
(Ch-1) The biggest factor causing the change was data maturation from recent flight test data which resulted in a lowering
of the fuel flow factor margin from a ~5% to a 4% margin. Lower fuel burn means greater range. STO distance is tied to a
takeoff weight for a fixed mission radius. Less fuel was needed so less weight and lower STO distance.
Notes
1/ The F-35 Program is currently in developmental testing, and will provide demonstrated performance with the Block 3F
full capability aircraft.
Requirements Reference
Operational Requirements Document (ORD) Change 3 dated August 19, 2008 as modified by Joint
Requirements Oversight Council Memorandum 040-12 dated March 16, 2012
http://
www.f-16.
net/forum/
download/
file.php?
id=20510
Jum
p
to
291
MO
mark
250
210
sRE
the
170
spot
info
HTDP
4-Wire Configuration
AAG
THREE
Wire
Con
fig
Trappable Length
HTDP to 3-Wire
Nominal HTDP (212)
Nominal 3-Wire
261-10 212 = 49-10
11 feet less trappable length than
4-wire configuration
Target 205 results in a trappable
length of approx 57
3A Wire
268 10
261-10
220
180
support the development of ini- 20 to 30kt and high is in extial aircraft launch and recovery cess of 30kt. The teams goal
bulletins for F-35C carrier opera- for DT I was to gain as much
tions and Naval Air Training and data with cross winds and varDec 2014 Mark Ayton Air International
Operating Procedures Standardi- ious head winds to allow us to
start writing our aircraft launch
sation (NATOPS) flight manu[Cdr Shawn Kern is the Direcal procedures. Test results from and recovery bulletins.
tor of Test and Evaluation for
F-35 Naval Variants and the se- DT I will also influence follow-on OPERATIONAL TESTER
Cdr Christian Sewell is a test
nior military member within the developmental and operational
F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF) testing required to achieve F-35C pilot assigned to a detachment of Air Test and Evaluation
initial operational capability.
based at Patuxent River] He
Squadron 9 (VX-9) Vampires
[Lt Cdr Ted Dyckman said:]
told AIR International: Launch
When the weather started to de- from Naval Air Weapons Station
testing included minimum
teriorate we had such confidence China Lake in California based at
catapult end speed deterNaval Air Station Patuxent River
in how the aircraft was flymination as well as perforing that we lowered the weather in Maryland. The unit is the US
mance and handling during
minimums to those used by the Navys [b]fast jet operational test
high and low energy catapult launches and crosswind fleet. I knew that when I lowered squadron. Cdr Sewell works as
a liaison officer between the opconditions at representative the hook I was going to trap.
That says a lot for the airplane. erational test (OT) and developaircraft gross weights. Apmental test (DT) teams. He told
evaluated approaches
proach and recovery testing
AIR International: I update the
with crosswinds behind the
focused on aircraft perforOT community (including the
mance and handling qualities ship out to 7kts.
Joint Operational Test Team at
We also evaluated apduring off-nominal recoverEdwards Air Force Base, Califories in low, medium, high and proach handling qualities in
low and high wind conditions: nia) on the status of DT testing,
crosswind wind conditions.
Data and analysis from DT I will low is 10 to 20kt, nominal is current air system performance,
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/SLD3-DWarrior.pdf
SLD: How does the new helmet for the F-35 interact with the DAS? Rossi: The
DAS provides 360-degree NAFLIR (Navigation Forward Looking Infrared) capability. So if you think about it were out there staring at the world. We have all
this information. We can then take and post-process where the pilot is looking
on his helmet. We also have an auxiliary channel where he can dial in any particular sector that he wants to keep track of and we can give him near 20/20 IR
imagery of the world about him. So now night landings on carriers are fully
enabled. We show this stuff to Navy pilots and theyre just awestruck that
they can even see the horizon, let alone the boat out there and the wake....
Image from: F-35 Tail Hook.ppt (4.6Mb) http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-12218.html
October 2011
Paddles
monthly
http://www.hrana.org/
documents/Paddles
MonthlyOctober2011.pdf
Many issues had to be addressed concerning how British LSOs and Air Bosses will safely launch,
recover, taxi, and park F-35s and how the design of the carrier should be adapted in order to accomplish the mission. One of the primary concerns was the precise location of the LSO platform.
Because the Queen Elizabeth was initially designed for vertical launches and recoveries, an American-style LSO platform was not initially thought to be a requirement. Several proposals were initially
put forward. One thought was to place the LSO in the tower (similar to AV-8 VSTOL LSOs) with a
custom-designed digital display system that the LSO would use to monitor an approaching aircraft.
Also under careful consideration; locate the platform on the port side of the ship just outside the foul
line, a location familiar to U.S. Navy LSOs.
As many Paddles Monthly readers are already well aware of, the Royal Navy is well on its way to
joining the United States in the fixed-wing carrier aviation business. As mentioned in a previous
month, the Queen Elizabeth is already under construction and a second ship of the same class - the
Prince of Wales - is planned. If the program stays on timeline, the Queen Elizabeth and her air wing
of F-35s are scheduled to become operational near the end of the decade.
Over the course of two weeks in September, officers from the Royal Navy and engineers from Aircraft Carrier Alliance (the company spearheading the design and development process) conducted a
development seminar at the Landing Signal Officer School. In addition to the LSO School Staff,
Captain Stoops (Former CVN-73 Air Boss) and CDR Bulis (Current CVN-75 Air Boss) were also in
attendance to lend their expertise.
http://www.hrana
.org/documents/
PaddlesMonthly
October2011.pdf
Initially, the Queen Elizabeth was intended to operate as a VSTOL carrier with the F-35B, similar to After much debate and discussion, to include extensive LSO-related presentations by the LSO
how the Royal Navys Invincible-class ships operate with AV-8s Harriers. However, following the de- School Staff, the decision was made for the LSO Platform to be located at the exact same position
cision to procure the F-35C carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter in place of the F-35B, the Queen in relation to the intended hook touchdown point as it is on our Nimitz class ships. While this will reElizabeth has had to undergo a mid-construction redesign in order to accommodate catapults, arrest- quire some additional design changes to be made to the QECs flight deck, as well as the need for a
ing gear, and Landing Signal Officers.
custom-designed LSO Display System, all U.S. Navy LSOs will recognize the advantages of choosing this option over the others. Not only will American LSOs be able to furnish the maximum
amount of long-accumulated corporate knowledge to their colleagues from the United Kingdom, similarities of operations will also allow significant cross training opportunities for prospective Royal
Navy LSOs.
NO LONGER
APPLICABLE
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/
first half of 2011 by becoming the first pilot to debut the F-35C at an air show.
Three months previously, Buus had become the first U.S. Navy pilot to fly the F-35C after the
stories/%E2%80%9Cc%E2%80%9D-legs-2/
&/HJV
3UHSDULQJWKH)&IRUWKHFDUULHU
first C model prototype CF-1 was delivered to Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Md.,
in late 2010 to begin flight testing. CF-1 has since been joined by the second and third F-35C
Eric Tegler
03 Oct 2011
$QDLUWRDLUSKRWRRI)&DLUFUDIW&)
UHYHDOVWKHODUJHUZLQJDQGWDLOVXUIDFHVRI
WKHFDUULHUYDULDQW&)LVRQHRIWKUHH)
&VFXUUHQWO\XQGHUJRLQJIOLJKWWHVWLQJDW
1DYDO$LU6WDWLRQ3DWX[HQW5LYHU0G
/RFNKHHG0DUWLQSKRWRE\'DYLG'UDLV
'XDOZKHHOQRVHJHDUDQGIROGLQJZLQJVFKDUDFWHUL]HWKH)
VFDUULHUDYLDWLRQUROH/RFNKHHG
0DUWLQ)RUW:RUWK7H[DVSKRWRE\$QJHO'HO&XHWR
As thousands on the flight line at Joint Base Andrews outside of Washington, D.C., craned their
necks skyward during the Memorial Day weekend open house, Lt. Cmdr. Eric Magic Buus
made a low pass in an F-35C prototype, adding to the career distinctions hed racked up in the
From there, Buus said, Were going to return in mid- to late July to do the initial catapult
launches and the initial arresting gear roll-in arrestments.
The launches began on July 27, 2011, and are taking place during the Navys yearlong
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/%E2%80%9Cc%E2%80%9D-legs-2/
Centennial of Naval Aviation celebrations. Despite the concurrent development of EMALS (the
new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) at Lakehurst, the bulk of F-35C carrier-suitability
testing will be done with the current steam catapults owing to their ubiquity in the fleet.
)&DLUFUDIW&)LVEURXJKWWRODXQFK
SRVLWLRQRQDWHVWFDWDSXOWE\1DY\WHVWSLORW
&PGU(ULF0DJLF%XXV7KHWHVW
GHPRQVWUDWHGSURSHUFDWDSXOWKRRNXSLQ
SUHSDUDWLRQIRUWKHILUVWODXQFKHVDW
/DNHKXUVW1-WKHILUVWRIZKLFKWRRNSODFH
-XO\&)LVWKHGHVLJQDWHGFDUULHU
VXLWDELOLW\WHVWDLUFUDIW7KH)&FDUULHU
YDULDQWRIWKH-RLQW6WULNH)LJKWHULVGLVWLQFW
IURPWKH)$DQG)%YDULDQWVZLWKLWV
ODUJHUZLQJVXUIDFHVDQGUHLQIRUFHGODQGLQJ
JHDUIRUJUHDWHUFRQWUROLQWKHGHPDQGLQJ
FDUULHUWDNHRIIDQGODQGLQJHQYLURQPHQW
/RFNKHHG0DUWLQSKRWRE\0LFKDHO'-DFNVRQ
The various software blocks are essentially the same across all variants, with little tailoring to
each specific model. However, the F-35Cs different aerodynamics and structure do require
different flight control laws and other variations within each software block. Buus added that
modifications within each block are possible and each of the software packages is configurable
to meet future requirements. Nevertheless, he stressed that the differences across type models
are minimal at this point.
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/
stories/%E2%80%9Cc%E2%80%9D-legs-2/
The same can be said for the F-35s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine. Save for some attached
accessories for the B model, there are no significant changes to the 43,000-pound thrust engine
whether situated in an A, B, or C model. Buus added that the engine has the same thrust rating
across all three variants and that no special anti-corrosion or FOD (foreign object damage)
tolerance modifications have been made for the F-35C.
Id go so far as to say nothing at all. Its the same engine.
The F-35C test team stresses that they are
very early in the aircrafts development
phase, a view echoed by a May report from
the Government Accountability Office that
stated just 4 percent of the F-35s overall
capabilities had been proven in lab or flight
tests. The Pax River-based team has used
some of the development done for the A and
B models to expand the F-35C flight
envelope a bit faster, but Buus acknowledged
that not all the development work transfers.
:KLOHWKH)&PXVWFDUU\WKHDGGHGZHLJKW
RIODUJHUIOLJKWVXUIDFHVDVZHOODV
VWUHQJWKHQHGIXVHODJHWDLOKRRNDQGODQGLQJ
JHDULWDOVRFDUULHVWKHPRVWIXHOPDNLQJLW
WKHORQJHVWUDQJHG)YDULDQW/RFNKHHG
0DUWLQSKRWR
The first Navy F-35 Fleet Replacement Squadron, VFA-101, is slated to stand up at Eglin in
March 2012 and is scheduled to receive its first aircraft in September 2012.
When asked if the C prototypes were similarly limited, Buus replied, All
I can tell you is that our test aircraft here are flying a faster and higher g envelope than that
currently.
/RFNKHHG0DUWLQGHOLYHUHGLWVWKLUG)
/LJKWQLQJ,,FDUULHUYDULDQWDLUFUDIWNQRZQDV
&)WRLWVSULPDU\WHVWVLWHDW1$63DWX[HQW
5LYHU0G-XQH/RFNKHHG0DUWLQWHVW
SLORW'DQ'RJ&DQLQSLORWHGWKHDLUFUDIW
GXULQJLWVKRXUIOLJKWIURP1$6)RUW:RUWK
-RLQW5HVHUYH%DVH&)WKHWKDLUFUDIW
GHOLYHUHGLQMRLQVWKHFXUUHQWIOHHWRI)
WHVWDLUFUDIWIRFXVLQJRQPLVVLRQV\VWHPV
ZHDSRQVLQWHJUDWLRQVXUYLYDELOLW\DQGFDUULHU
VXLWDELOLW\WHVWLQJ/RFNKHHG0DUWLQSKRWRE\
'DYLG'UDLV
35Cs launch and recovery equipment and techniques, its around-the-boat flying qualities will be
further fleshed out.
Were working on the development to do that, Buus explained. I dont know how soon well
actually start those handling evaluations, but I will tell you that right out of the chocks the
strike load. Internally, it will be able to carry 4,000 pounds of air-to-ground ordnance plus two
AMRAAMs [advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles], which is certainly an effective loadout.
Theoretically, such a loadout would enable the airplane to fly the kind of loiter missions Hornets
have been flying in Iraq and more recently, Afghanistan without external stores. And with a
maximum trap weight of 46,000 pounds, the F-35C will have slightly better bring-back than a
Super Hornet, Buus added.
The fact that the C will not have the tanker capability that the Super Hornet and Growler do is
not seen as a negative by Buus.
For many years to come the air wing is going to be a mix of F-35s, F/A-18Es, Fs, and Gs, so
airplane flies really nice on approach. There are certain things well need to tweak a bit but its
currently comparable to a Hornet in how it flies on approach.
there will be tankers available. There will always be recovery tankers flying around the aircraft
While the pace of C-model testing has thus far been light compared to the F-35A/B, the flights
the aircraft have made since March 2011 have turned up little in the way of surprises, Buus said.
USN F-35Cs will have company aboard ship, with the Marine Corps planning to buy 80 copies of
There are certainly things here and there in flight test that we discover that dont quite react the
way the engineers were expecting, but no major issues have been discovered.
Among the carrier-centric qualities yet to be fully test/operationally verified is the F-35Cs range.
Lockheed Martin nominally lists the Cs max range at 1,200 nautical miles and its combat radius
at 640 nautical miles. Boeings Super Hornet has a combat radius of 390 nautical miles. Working
in the F-35Cs favor is a considerably larger internal fuel capacity, at 19,750 pounds versus the
single-seat F/A-18Es 14,400-pound capacity. Likewise, the aircraft will have internal weapons
carriage, aiding its aerodynamic drag profile in addition to its stealth.
carrier.
the C to fill out five squadrons. The carrier variant of the JSF is now the type model of choice for
the United Kingdom as well, and at last report, the British expect to receive their first F-35C in
the 2014-2015 time frame. The U.K. test contingent remains at NAS Patuxent River and Buus
confirmed that their focus has certainly shifted.
Along with remaining an integral part of the F-35 test program, the U.K. has decided to place a
number of its pilots in exchange positions with the USN flying F/A-18s and eventually F-35Cs to
maintain aircraft carrier operational acumen while it awaits construction of its own new
conventional deck carriers.
Predictably, the JSF program still faces headwinds as the test program goes forward. In late
June, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain,
specifically said the pending defense authorization bill did not go far enough to stop cost
overruns on the F-35 and indicated he may vote against the bill when it goes before the full
Senate.
In amusing contrast, Lockheed launched a new website (www.f35.com) complete with a Fort
Worth, Texas, rock band playing the company-commissioned song Ill go anywhere/Ill do
anything to shots of the F-35C and other variants in a club setting.
Though the C will have seven external weapons stations in addition to its four internal stations, it
will likely be flown in clean configuration more often than the Hornet, Buus said.
Back in the hangar at Pax, Buus and the test team just get on with test sorties, refining the F35s C legs.
It will be able to carry off the ship what a Super Hornet will and it will have a meaningful internal
We feel very good about the work with respect to the C model, Buus said. In fact, since weve
gotten test airplanes here at Pax, I believe weve been beating our flight test expectations for
this year. Im feeling very positive about the airplane so far.
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/%E2%80%9Cc%E2%80%9D-legs-2/
http://news.usni.org/2014/09/25/f-35c-carrier-tests-slated-november-uss-nimitz
The Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is on track for sea trials
onboard the carrier USS Nimitz (CVN-65) in November off the West Coast. That is
despite flight envelope restrictions imposed after an engine fire destroyed a landbased F-35A aircraft on take-off in July.
The event we have planned in November to bring to two C-model F-35s to an
aircraft carrier on the U.S. West Coast is still on track, JSF program manager Lt.
Gen. Chris Bogdan told reporters at an F-35 Joint Executive Steering Board (JESB)
meet in Oslo, Norway, on Thursday.
We have some work to do as we lead up to that point in November.
The outcome of those efforts will determine if both F-35Cs will be qualified to
conduct catapult launches and arrested recoveries onboard Nimitz. If everything
goes well, both jets will be fully qualified to fly from the 100,000-ton warship,
Bogdan said.
If the work is not completed in time for Novembers sea trials, one jet will fly
while the other aircraft will be used onboard the carrier to conduct logistical tests,
Bogdan said.
The November deployment will happen, Bogdan said. It will most likely
happen with two airplanes. Whether both airplanes are fully capable of doing all the
work remains to be seen....
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Grim-Reapers.jpg
...Chairman [LM] Marillyn A. Hewson ... She said the F-35C carrier variant being built for the Navy
successfully completed shore-based testing for arrested landings and catapult launches and will
be tested on a carrier in October.... & ...The 2B software program that is the minimum needed
for the Marines to declare initial operational capability (IOC) of the short-takeoff, vertical-landing
F-35B version in 2015 is tracking to be complete by year end, she said. The 3i software that the
Air Force needs for IOC of its F-35A model started flight test two weeks ago, Hewson said....
10 Jun 2014 OTTO KREISHER: http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories/20140610-LM.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/files/2013/10/f-35c-eglin.jpg
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/
images/media/20100621_CF1_Harvey
_F10_42752_1267828237_5626.jpg
F-35C CF-01
SCHEDULE FRICTION 22 Sep 2014 Amy Butler Aviation Weak & Spec Technology 22 Sep 2014
....He [LtGen. Bogdan] was referring to events such as the first arrested landing & catapult trials on the USS
Nimitz planned for November,... He affirms that Nimitz tests are still on the table, and a program source notes
that of the two aircraft slated for those tests, CF-3 is cleared to get to the deck. CF-5 is still undergoing validation flights for deck work, but these are not impeded by the flight-envelope restrictions, the source adds....
edge flaps on
the Navy version of
the F-35 eliminated
un-commanded
lateral activity or
delayed
the activity to a
higher angle-ofattack.
http://www.ntrs.nasa.
gov/archive/nasa/casi
.ntrs.nasa.gov/200401
10952_2004115779.pdf
Its an integral part of the flight control system and responds to the pilots nor01 Dec 2012 Frank Colucci mal stick and throttle movements, without requiring a separate control. The flight
F-35C control laws give Navy pilots
Integrated Direct Lift Control for easi- control system also compensates for the
er carrier landings, and they open the pitching moments induced by the lifting
surface deflections F-35C ailerons pitch
door for future landing aids.
the airplane on approach almost as much
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) test pilots in
as
the big horizontal stabilizers to mainJuly [2012] began using an Integrated Ditain the proper angle of attack.
rect Lift Control (IDLC) scheme meant to
IDLC is commanded by an Approach
improve approach performance and reduce
Mode Control button on the F-35 active inpilot workload in carrier landings. Tailored
ceptor
stick. You really could have done
control responses in part differentiate the
this with any other airplane, acknowlcarrier-based F-35C from its runway and
edged
Canin, but the implementation
small-deck siblings. Lockheed Martin test
pilot Dan Canin at Patuxent River Naval Air would have been more complicated. He
added, Its easier and cleaner to do this
Test Center, Maryland, explained, What
with a flight control system thats naturally
IDLC does is improve the flight path rea
pitch-rate-command system.
sponse of the airplane, allowing the pilot
to make almost instantaneous corrections
Flying With Feeling
to glideslope while maintaining a constant
The triplex-redundant flight control sysangle of attack.
tem of the F-35 has flight control laws emThe landing approach in the F-35C
bedded in three identical, independent Veis flown with the stick only, noted
hicle Management Computers (VMC) made
Canin. The throttle is automatic.
by BAE Systems in Endicott, N.Y. Corin
IDLC may someday facilitate hands-off
Beck,
BAE product director for fixed-wing
landings and other possible F-35 shipboard
control systems, said typical quad-redunenhancements.
dant legacy flight control systems route all
With IDLC, we change the symmetric
interfaces back to a central Flight Control
deflection of the flaps and the ailerons in
Computer. The F-35 VMCs are separated
response to pitch and throttle commands
by the pilot. The glideslope response is im- for survivability and work as network controllers. They interface with aircraft senmediate, and doesnt require a speed or
alpha change. This is a tremendous advan- sors, active inceptor controls, actuators,
and utilities and subsystems, and they
tage over a stiff-wing airplane..
http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/
military/Tailored-to-Trap_77964.html
Block by Block
Throughout this publication there is reference to the different Blocks of software
some are already in service, others are
yet to be released. The following overview
FARNBOROUGH:
Pentagon Develops F-35s 4th Generation Software 16 Apr 2014 Kris Osborn
http://defensetech.org/2014/04/16/pentagon-develops-f-35s-4th-generation-software/
...Block 4 will be broken down into two separate increments, Block 4A is slated to be
ready by 2021 and Block 4B is planned for 2023. The first portion of Block 4 software
funding, roughly $12 million, arrived in the 2014 budget, Air Force officials said. Block
4 will include some unique partner weapons including British weapons, Turkish
weapons and some of the other European country weapons that they want to get on
their own plane, said Thomas Lawhead, operations lead for JSF integration office.
Lawhead added that Block IV will also increase the weapons envelope for the U.S.
variant of the fighter jet. A big part of the developmental calculus for Block 4 is to work
on the kinds of enemy air defense systems and weaponry the aircraft may face from the
2020s through the 2040s and beyond.
Coming up with requirements always starts with the threat. How are we going to
meet national security objectives in the future? Based on those objectives we look at
the threat and then we decide how we are going to counter the threat, Schaefer said.
The rationale for the Block 4 software increment is to keep pace with technological
change and prepare technology for threats likely to emerge 20 years into the future,
Schaefer and Lawhead explained.
If you look back to 2001 when the JSF threat started, the threats were mostly European centric Russian made SA-10s or SA-20s. Now the future threats are looking at
more Chinese-made and Asian made threats. Those threats that are further out are the
ones that are being focused on for Block 4, Lawhead said.
-
Objective
http://i619.photobucket.com/
albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/
f-35_VRC-droptest.jpg OR
FLY NAVY: Carrier operations account for most of the differences between
the Navy and other JSF variants. Carrier landings, for example, are so
severe, they're often referred to as "controlled crashes." The JSF, in a low
speed approach to a carrier landing, will descend at about 11 fps, and will
withstand sink rates up to almost 18 fps. By comparison, the typical sink
rate for an Air Force JSF will be about two ft/sec.
To help handle better at low speeds, the aircraft will have larger wing
and tail-control surfaces. The increased wingspan also boosts the strikefighter's range and weapon or fuel load. Even without external fuel tanks,
the JSF has almost twice the range of the F/A-18C. Larger leading-edge
flaps and wingtips provide the extra wing area, while the wingtips fold so
the aircraft takes up less space on the carrier's crowded flight and hangar
decks. The Navy's JSF will also have two extra control surfaces ailerons
outboard of the flaperons on the wings for additional lowspeed control
and flying precise glide slopes. The Navy JSF currently flies landing
approaches at about 130 to 135 knots, about 25 knots slower than the Air
Force version. http://machinedesign.com/article/the-joint-strike-fighter-aplane-for-all-reasons-0307
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/
data/assets/aeronautics/press
_photos/2010/f-35_VRCdroptest.jpg
http://www.key.aero/view_feature
.asp?ID=71&thisSection=military
!
"
speak.
There are 512 data channels
! #
hundred data samples are gathered per
second per channel during each drop
test for this aircraft. Per Eric Moore,
Test Control and Data Acquisition
group lead, high speed video of each
landing gear is simultaneously recorded
at two thousand frames per second and
synchronized with the aircraft test data
for post-test, image-to-data correlation.
In other words, each high speed video
picture can be directly compared to the
"
recorded on each landing gear. This was
VOUGHT
Three F-35
Lightning IIs
F-35 Drop
p Test
http://www.asdnews
News
$ %
&
and Department of Defense
security clearances, Voughts
test labs are the only testing
facilities not operated by prime
aerospace original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) with full
life-cycle testing capabilities
including full-scale structures.
ADVANCING FLIGHT
2
.com/news/27850/Vought_Test_Lab_Performs_Series_of_Drop_Tests_on_F-35C_for_LM.htm
http://s3.amazonaws.com/pptdownload/vn0430101-100503
124626-phpapp01.pdf?
Signature=iwPXsTLFlWxM2ck
PVBycDzbbraA%3D&Expires
=1282296302&AWSAccessKey
Id=AKIAJLJT267DEGKZDHEQ
The Joint Strike Fighter: A plane for all reasons 07 Mar 2002
Stephen Mraz | Machine Design http://machinedesign.com/article/the-joint-strike-fighter-a-plane-for-all-reasons-0307
...FLY NAVY:
Carrier operations account for most of the differences between the Navy and other JSF
variants. Carrier landings, for example, are so severe, they're often referred to as "controlled crashes." The JSF, in a low speed approach to a carrier landing, will descend at
the
typical sink rate for an Air Force JSF will be about two ft/sec.
about 11 fps, and will withstand sink rates up to almost 18 fps. By comparison,
To help handle better at low speeds, the aircraft will have larger wing and tail-control
surfaces. The increased wingspan also boosts the strike-fighter's range and weapon or
fuel load. Even without external fuel tanks, the JSF has almost twice the range of the
F/A-18C. Larger leading-edge flaps and wingtips provide the extra wing area, while the
wingtips fold so the aircraft takes up less space on the carrier's crowded flight and hangar decks. The Navy's JSF will also have two extra control surfaces ailerons outboard
of the flaperons on the wings for additional lowspeed control and flying precise glide
slopes. The Navy JSF currently flies landing approaches at about 130
to 135 knots, about 25 knots slower than the Air Force version....
http://www.key.aero/view_feature.asp?ID=71&thisSection=military
-
The tests were successfully carried out between March and April [2010], & included
dropping CG-01 95 inches at 20 feet per second, with an 8.8 deg pitch [near Optimum AoA
12.3], two degree roll, and 133 knot wheel speed, simulating a carrier-deck landing.
2010, June 23 -- A Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II carrier variant success-fully completed testing in which it
was dropped from heights of more than 11 feet during a series of simulated aircraft-carrier landings. The tests
validated predictions and will help confirm the F-35C's structural integrity for carrier operations.
The jet, a ground-test article known as CG-1, underwent drop testing at Vought Aircraft Industries in Grand
Prairie, Texas. No load exceedances or structural issues were found at any of the drop conditions, and all drops
were conducted at the maximum carrier landing weight. The drop conditions included sink rates, or rates of descent, up to the maximum design value of 26.4 feet per second, as well as various angles and weight distributions. The tests were used to mimic the wide range of landing conditions expected in the fleet. "The completion of
the drop tests is an important step in clearing the way for field carrier landing testing and shipboard testing at
high sink rates a necessary feature for a carrier-suitable strike fighter," said Larry Lawson, Lockheed Martin
executive vice president and F-35 program general manager. "This testing also validates the design tools &
analysis used in building a structurally sound, carrier-suitable fighter."...
_______________________________
-
'johnwill' 14 June 2014: This statement from prnewswire 23 June, 2010 The
Complex
& Robust
http://www.scribd.com/doc/174844675/
F-35LightningII#download
core system integrators on the basis of capability, competency, resources and cost.
Goodrich is the F-35 landing gear integrator across all three platforms for the same
reasons today.
Design Specific
Systems include specially-designed and developed non-metallic strut bearings
to be used with titanium cylinders on the F-35B STOVL variant, a novel lightweight
mechanism to shrink the F-35C CV variant main landing gears for stowage, and an
internal uid-level sensing capability.
When Goodrich started designing the F-35B STOVL landing gear, a standard cantilevered
strut capable of being used with titanium cylinders did not exist. A typical cantilever strut
has an upper bearing that slides under high pressure and at high velocity on the internal
oodrich Corporations landing gear business has introduced many
diameter of the cylinder. Titanium, the material selected for the F-35B strut cylinders, has
technological breakthroughs in the aerospace industry making it one of
a propensity to wear and transfer debris to another material, a condition known as galling,
the worlds premier suppliers of landing gear. Goodrich pioneered the use resulting in a degradation in service life.
of a gas-oil strut, introduced high-strength steel and advanced titanium alloys,
The challenge Goodrich faced was to identify a strut-bearing material that was
unique fracture-resilient material for carrier operations and smart health
compatible with the titanium in a high load, high-speed sliding contact environment.
management systems.
Goodrich funded the development and testing of a specially-designed non-metallic bearing
Many of these technologies and others were adopted to meet the performance
compatible with the titanium cylinders.
requirements of the F-35 Lightning II programme. The company received multiple design
According to Bill Luce, F-35 Landing Gear Program Manager and Chief Engineer with
specications to meet the aircrafts requirements for applied loads, stroke, landing gear
Goodrich, the design team identied a non-metallic material that would withstand sliding
length and operating environment.
contact with titanium permitting the cylinders to be made from that metal and reducing the
From the inception of the design requirements through the design and testing
overall weight of the landing gear.
phases, Goodrich integrated the design and performance requirements for the
Another main design consideration was the restricted space into which the main gear
landing gear strut, sub-systems design, and test requirements, including rolling
is retracted, which meant the Goodrich designers had to nd a way of shortening the gear
stock (wheels, tyres, and brakes), nose wheel steering, and electrical/hydraulic
when it was being stowed. They therefore introduced an additional piston inside the shock
systems from the prime contractor Lockheed Martin. At the beginning of the F-35
strut positioned immediately below the upper bearing on the main piston. A small hydraulic
programme, Lockheed Martin subcontracted various sub-systems to companies as system injects hydraulic uid in between the extra piston and the lower bearing to stroke
the main piston. Stroke refers to moving the piston up and down in the cylinder.
We have a specic volume that we stroke in. Rather than directly connecting the
chamber up to the aircrafts hydraulic system, we attach a transfer cylinder to the aircrafts
high-pressure hydraulic system which is a relatively low ow rate system, said Bill Luce.
We use the high pressure to stroke a piston with a mechanical disadvantage, to stroke
a larger volume of uid, at a lower pressure, into the shock strut chamber using the higher
pressure uid from the aircraft with a smaller volume. A series of locks and safety systems
ensure that the gear remains shrunk during retraction.
All the landing gears used by the three F-35 variants are tted with a system to detect
levels of uid inside each strut.
The original design concept for the F-35 landing gear system was to utilize a common
structural geometry for both the F-35A CTOL and F-35B STOVL systems with a completely
unique system for the F-35C CV. Different materials were to be used in the CTOL and STOVL
systems in identically gauged structural components. The CTOL version was to be primarily
made of 300M grade steel (a commonly used material in commercial landing gear) and
the STOVL variant was to be made primarily of Aermet 100 (a grade for ship-based aircraft)
and is the US Navys choice for high strength steel.
Patented by Carpenter Steel, Aermet 100 has very high strength and slow crack
propagation properties, so if a crack develops in the material, the crack will spread slowly
with further load applications. By contrast 300M or 4340M grade steel has the same
strength quality, but poor crack propagation. This gives more opportunities to discover
cracks in the structure before a catastrophic failure occurs.
ABOVE: The CV nose gear staged shock strut carries a very complex mechanism to position the
launch bar on to the catapult. KEY MARK AYTON
Each type of F-35 landing gear has a Goodrich-proprietary system integrated within the
OPPOSITE: Landing gears for the F-35C CV variant are unique and differ to the F-35A and F-35B
systems to withstand the extreme high energy landings typical of naval aircraft operating from an aircrafts maintenance system to help the maintainer assess the level of the gas and oil in
each shock strut during servicing.
aircraft carrier. LOCKHEED MARTIN
tting, allowing the aircraft to be catapulted to ight. In comparison to the F-35A CTOL
and the F-35B STOVL, the nose gear of the F-35C CV has a dual wheel/tyre arrangement to
straddle the catapult equipment and to adequately react to the loads. Nose wheels are
the same as those used on the other variants but the tyre was developed specically for
the F-35C.
Like the CTOL and STOVL variants, the CV main gear is a dual stage gas over oil cantilever
strut with staged air curves that provide a stable platform for loading and unloading
weapons and hold stored energy to assist in getting airborne in the case of a bolter during
carrier operations.
The main gears have a retract actuator between the strut and the airframe, providing
the force to retract the gear into the wheel well. Each also has a drag brace with locking
linkage and locking actuator with backup springs to react fore and aft ground loads. The
F-35Cs drag braces attach to a collar on the strut and a pivot pin in the aircraft that roll
around the strut centreline during retraction to minimize the amount of space in the bay
when retracted.
Featuring a long main strut the F-35Cs main gear has a shrink mechanism to shorten
the strut prior to retraction so it will t within the available space. The Goodrich-proprietary
shrink mechanism utilizes a novel transfer cylinder to convert high pressure and low ow
aircraft hydraulics into a low pressure and high ow shock shrink hydraulics.
Unlike the nose gear, the CV main gear system utilizes the same main wheel and
brake as the F-35A CTOL. All tyres used on the F-35C CV variant are signicantly more
robust than the CTOL and STOVL variants, because of the high energy landings on
top of arrestor cables.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/06/13/
navy-prepares-f-35c-for-carrier-landing/
Navy test pilots are conducting numerous shore-based test landings of the F-35C of the next-generation Joint
Strike Fighter in anticipation of its first at-sea landing on an aircraft carrier later this year, service officials said.
The shore landings, taking place at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., are designed to replicate the range of
conditions which the F-35C is likely to encounter at sea to the extent that is possible.
The cable is four to six inches above the deck of the carrier and hydraulic fluid controls the pace of deceleration for
the aircraft, Burks said. A hook lowers from the back end of the F-35C aircraft, designed to catch the cable and slow
down the plane.
In order to maintain our stealth configuration, we had to put the hook internal to the airframe. On all the legacy
systems, the tail hook sits up underneath the engine externally. We have three doors that open up to allow the tail
hook to fall down, Burks said.
INFLIGHT ENGAGEMENT
The aircraft also needs to be able to withstand whats called a free flight, a situation where the pilot receives a late
wave off to keep flying after the hook on the airplane has already connected with the wire, he explained.
We need to be sure that the engine and the aircraft itself can handle the stress of essentially being ripped out of the
air by the interaction between the cable and the hook, Burks added.
Test pilots are working on what they call a structural survey, an effort to assess the F-35Cs ability to land in a wide
range of scenarios such as nose down, tail down or max engaging speed, said Lt. Cmdr. Michael Burks, or Sniff, a
Describing landing as a controlled crash into the aircraft carrier, Wilson explained that pilots look at a light on the ship
Navy test pilot.
called the Fresnel Lens in order to orient their approach.
Max engaging speed involves landing the aircraft heavy and fast to determine if it is the aircraft or the arresting
The whole purpose of the lighting system is to show us where we are in reference to a specific glide slope. What this
gear that gets damaged, Burks explained.
lens does is it tells us where we are, Wilson said.
The whole purpose is to make sure the landing gear and the aircraft structure are all suitable to take the stresses
In total, the Navy plans to acquire 340 F-35C aircraft. So far, five F-35Cs have been delivered for pilot training at
that the pilot could see while trying to land aboard the deck of an aircraft carrier, Burks explained.
Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.
While recognizing that the mix of conditions at sea on board a carrier cannot be replicated on land, Burks said the
test landings seek to simulate what he called unusual attitudes such as instances where the aircraft is rolling with
one side up or descending faster than normal with whats called a high sink rate.
Both Burks and Wilson, former F-18 hornet and super hornet pilots, said flying the F-35C represents a large step
forward in fighter jet technology.
Weve done about 90 carrier-style landings, said F-35 Test Pilot Lt. Cmdr. Tony Wilson, or Brick.
Wilson referred to the JSFs touchscreen cockpit display which combines information from a range of sensors,
cameras, radars.ect.
High sink rate is reached when an aircraft is descending 21-feet per second, much faster than the typical 10-feet per
Unlike our legacy aircraft where I might have to look at several different displays the F-35Cs integrated core
second descend rate, Burks explained. The shore landings also seek to replicate an airplane condition known as
processor integrates all the information for the pilot. It very neatly and concisely displays all that information in one
yawing when the body of the aircraft is moving from side to side.
location, making tactical decisions much easier, Wilson said.
The F-35C is engineered to be larger than the Air Forces F-35 A or Marine Corps short-take-off-and-landing F-35B
because the structure of the aircraft needs to be able to withstand the impact of landing on a carrier. Also, the F-35C
has larger, foldable wings to facilitate slower approach speeds compatible with moving ships, Navy officials said.
In order to withstand the forces experienced during an arrested landing, the keel of an F-35C is strengthened and
the landing gear is of a heavier-duty build than the A and B models, an official with the F-35 Integrated Test Force
said.
The wings of the F-35 C are also built with whats called aileron control surfaces designed to prevent the aircraft
from rolling. ailerons help the F-35C roll (for lineup) at low speed Optimum Angle of Attack IAS
At sea, pilots must account for their speed as well as the speed of the wind, the weather or visibility conditions as
well as the speed of the boat, Burks explained.
The landing area is constantly changing. This is a challenge to structure of the aircraft because there is no way of
knowing for certain how hard we are going to hit the deck or at what angle they are going to be at, he added.
On an aircraft carrier, the ship has arresting wires or metal cables attached to hydraulic engines used to slow the
aircraft down to a complete stop within the landing area.
On an aircraft carrier, the landing area is off about 10-degrees. The boats motion itself is moving away from you
so you cant just aim at the boat, Burks said.
Navy test pilot says JSF is easy to fly By Joshua Stewart Staff writer - Feb 20, 2011
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/02/navy-joint-strike-fighter-test-pilot-praises-jet-022011w/
The plane frees aviators to focus on mission, Cmdr. Eric Magic Buus says.
Cmdr. Eric Magic Buus was the first Navy test pilot to fly the F-35B and C. But hearing his take on
it, you have to wonder how much the Lightning II variants really need a warm body in the cockpit.
Compared with other fighters, Lockheed Martins F-35C the carrier version of the joint strike
fighter doesnt require pilots to think as much while in the air, letting them dedicate brain cells to
handling complex weapons and the details of the mission, Buus said.
The point of the multirole fighter is to make it easy to fly. We dont have to put much thought into
flying, he said.
Buss, who has spent nearly his entire career on F/A-18 Hornets, was the first Navy test pilot to fly
both the F-35B the Marine Corps short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing JSF variant and the F-35C. He
flew the Marine version Feb. 3 and the Navys on Feb. 11. Both flights were from Naval Air Station
Patuxent River, Md. On the F-35C flight, he flew for a little over two hours and tested the planes flutter
execution system to measure loads on the airframe.
One of the biggest things that jumps out to me is that its very easy to fly, he said.
The thrust is good, and theres no indication that the F-35 has only one engine, instead of two like
on the Super Hornet, he said.
Compared to the Hornet, it seems a bit more solid, Buus said.
Other test pilots say the F-35 feels stiff, but no matter the adjective, Buus said its fly-by-wire
controls and flight computers make it very responsive. The cockpit, which has its stick on the side
instead of the center, is comfortable and has a large touch-screen display.
I really like a lot of things they have done with this airplane, he said.
Unlike with other aircrafts, F-35 pilots will fly their first training plane solo; pilots training for
other aircraft are accompanied by a flight instructor. Buus said spending the last year in a simulator and doing engine runs left him prepared for his first flight, even though he would fly alone.
Ease of operation and new technologies outweigh the problems that remain to be solved for the expensive
Lightning II. Military and civilian pilots who have flown the F-35 Lightning II praise its performance and are optimistic
about its superiority in the future battlespace. However, even with fixes that have been made, some issues need to
be addressed and support crew will need to adopt new ways of maintaining the flight line, these pilots say.
Four pilots sitting on a Tuesday panel at West 2014, co-sponsored by AFCEA International and the U.S. Naval
Institute and being held February 11-13 in San Diego, discussed the state of the F-35 program as well as the jets
prognosis. Lt. Cmdr. Michael Burks, USN, senior Navy test pilot for the F-35 and integrated test force operations
officer, described the aircraft as having unbelievable flying qualities and being easy to fly. Cmdr. Luke Barradell,
USN, operations officer, Carrier Air Wing 11, said that the aircraft is very docile in the administrative phase of
flight, and it is going to be a delight to fly off carriers.
The lone civilian on the panel, William C. Gigliotti, F-35 FW site/production lead test pilot, Lockheed Martin, noted
that his 14-year-old son has his heart set on being a naval aviator. I want my son to fly one of these going into
combat, Gigliotti said, adding, not that I want him to go into combat, but I want him to have an unfair advantage.
We dont want parity.
Cmdr. Burks offered that the aircrafts technologies will change the way air missions are carried out. Equipped
with a plethora of sensors and datalinks, the vehicle offers a range of potential alternatives with the synergy it
brings to the battlespace. In the future, it may not matter where the weapon comes from, the commander said of a
bombing run. I may pass the data along, or I may fire a weapon and it may come from somewhere else. That is
where we are heading.
Still, the F-35s advanced technologies are offering some unforeseen challenges. Its low-observable
stealth material will require different handling than traditional carrier aircraft. Cdr. Burks said here will
have to be a paradigm shift out in the fleet to maintain its low observability. No longer can we allow
these aircraft to get grimy at sea as was the practice with conventional jet aircraft, he observed. Gigliotti
said that sailors and Marines have been developing new practices for that purpose. The incredibly noisy
engine also will change life for deck crews during takeoff, Cmdr. Burks added, saying they probably will
need noise cancellation earphones.
Grim Reapers
also attain pilot-friendly landing pattern handling characteristics that resemble those of an F-18C thats good for a
single-engine aeroplane.
In the fleet I have always flown
twin-engine aeroplanes, so jumping into
a single-engine type opens your eyes to
different considerations when compared
to flying an F/A-18. When flying Tomcats
and Hornets I was always very aware of
where my diversion fields were. In the
F-35, that sense of awareness is heightened just because Ive got one motor. If
you have a problem you dont have anything to fall back on. So its a subtle, but
very distinct, change in mentality, especially flying over open water, and you
pay very close attention to where you
are going to go if you have an issue.
The saving grace is that Pratt &
Going to the Boat
Whitney has a fantastic track record
with the Raptors F119 engine, so the
Lockheed Martin is currently finalis...Flying
the
F-35C...
expectations are very high for the reing the configuration of two System
liability of this engine, too, concludes
Development and Demonstration air...Based on the way it handles in the
CDR Crecelius. We also have to train
craft (CF-03 and CF-05) that will delanding pattern I would say it certainly
ploy aboard the USS Nimitz (CVN 68)
wouldnt be any more difficult to land on differently and do precautionary flame
out approaches in the simulator, which
for Development Test Phase One, or DT the ship than a Super Hornet. The F/AI. This is the first period at sea for the
18C Hornet is one of the most enjoyable we dont do in F/A-18s. Its a new animal,
F-35C, currently scheduled for October. aeroplanes to land on the boat, because something that we have to train to. The
mentality of flying a flame-out approach
There is a vested interest in DT I at VFA- you can put it exactly where you want
is new stuff for us Navy cats.
101, and to the maximum extent possiit to be. Based on what the engineers
ble it intends to send its LSOs to each
and test pilots say about the F-35C, with
AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014
F-35C carrier evolution. They may not
flight control law upgrades, it should
...On March 23, Lt. Christopher Tabert completed the government acceptance
flight for AF-14, a production-level F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for
the U.S. Air Force.
In doing so, he became the only military test pilot to fly the A, B and C versions
of the F-35, said Marine Corps Col. Art Tomassetti, vice commander of the 33rd
Fighter Wing, Air Education and Training Command at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla....
...The ability for a pilot to move seamlessly across the F-35 variants really puts
the Joint in JSF, Tomassetti said. Well be able to leverage the capability in
training and in future joint operations.
For Tabert, the differences between the models are slight.
The flying qualities of the A felt a lot like the B and C, Tabert said. You really
cant tell much of a difference between the three from the cockpit.
Even though Tabert started testing the F-35 only nine months ago, he already
has a number of milestones on the aircraft under his belt: the first steam catapult
launch; the first weapons pit drop for an inert 1,000 pound GBU-32 GPS-guided
bomb; a supersonic flight; and the first launch from the Electromagnetic Aircraft
Launching System....
-
OR http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ake76DI5iNw
Navys F-35C Takes Historic Step Navys commitment to the Joint Strike
Forward Following Budgetary Turmoil Fighter program.
The ongoing maneuvers on the
14 Nov 2014 Kris Osborn
Nimitz are part of a 14-day developABOARD THE USS NIMITZ IN THE mental test period designed to gather data and assess the F-35Cs abiliPACIFIC OCEAN With smoke risty to achieve the proper glide slope,
ing from the deck of the carrier and
moderate winds churning up the seas, handle catapult takeoffs, and land on
the flight deck under a variety of wind
the Navys F-35C took off from the
aircraft carrier Nimitz as part of a his- conditions.
If you look across the inventory at
toric series of test flights marking a
where we have stealth technology, it
major milestone in the services first
is all ground based. Now we have seacarrier-launched stealth fighter.
based stealth technology. That proFollowing the first landing of the
F-35C on Nov. 3, test pilots have con- vides us capabilities that we currently do not have, said Rear Adm. Dee
ducted more than 100 approaches,
landings and takeoffs on the Nimitzs Mewbourne, commander of Carrier
Strike Group 11.
flight deck. Last weeks successful
Navy leaders, pilots and engineers
landing offered both history and relief for a Joint Strike Fighter program said the initial testing has gone well.
Ultimately, the Navy and Marine Corps
that Pentagon leaders say will revoplan to acquire 680 F-35Cs and Flutionize airpower, but has also been
plagued by countless delays and bud- 35Bs the Marine Corps short-takeoff-and-landing variant of the aircraft.
get overruns.
Our job is to identify the issues
The Navys variant of the fifthand report on them. All the issues
generation fighter is arguably the
that we have been finding are very
most complex because it must execute catapult shots and landings from minor, said Navy Cmdr. Tony Wilson,
an F-35C test pilot. The main focus
the flight deck. And its also the one
of the test has been catapult shots
facing the most questions as many
defense analysts have questioned the and landings. We did do shore-based
he US Navy is currently
engaged in one of the largest
ship designs in history. The
Navys CVN 21 Program is for
the design and build of the future
aircraft carrier that will replace the
NIMITZ class in the 21st Century. The
lead ship of the new class will have hull
number CVN 78, following sequentially
from the ships of the NIMITZ class
(Figure 1). CVN 78 takes advantage of
the efficiencies of the NIMITZ class hull
form, but the similarities end there. The
ship has been completely rearranged
from the island down to the keel,
providing more warfighting capability
with 10001200 fewer sailors than
http://www.aviationweek.com/
media/pdf/JSF_Program_Update.pdf
CV Loading
March 2009
Iraq, Feb. 25, 1991 F/A-18C Hornet Lt. Col. Jay Stout, VMFA-451 ...I was an F-4S Phantom II pilot
when I converted to the F/A-18A/C Hornet. After the first flight in the Hornet, there was nothing about
the Phantom I missed. The Hornet was easier to fly, more modern, with reliable systems, & incredibly
maneuverable. It was comfortable. The ability to see almost 360 degrees contrasted tremendously
against the Phantom, where you couldnt look out the canopy and see your own wings.
The Hornet was a little slower at the top end but I never flew the Phantom that fast....
http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/marine-corps-aviation-centennial-marine-aviators-in-their-own-words/3/
32
operate from austere bases and a range of air-capable ships near front-line combat zones.
In 2012 and 2013, the U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy and Lockheed Martin teamed up to
test the F-35Bs ship suitability in ship trials known as Developmental Test 1 and 2
(DT-1 and DT-2, respectively).
With F-35B ship trials complete, the F-35C is now on deck literally. Starting this year,
Developmental Test 1 (DT-1) for the F-35C will commence aboard the USS Nimitz to test
normal carrier operations, as well as the new arresting hook package.
An Inside Look at F-35C Carrier Operations
To get a firsthand account of how daily procedures are performed on a ship, we sat down
with Lockheed Martin F-35C expert and retired U.S. Navy Captain (Ret) Tom Halley:
1. Lets start from the beginning. How do the aircraft launch from the ship?
Tom Halley: A typical day on-ship is about 15-18 hours, with approximately 13 hours of
that being launch and recovery on a one and a half hour cycle. Ships today use steampowered catapults (cats), and can typically launch 15 aircraft per cycle at a time within
Aircraft carriers provide a vital first line of defense for militaries around the world. But,
seconds of each other using both sets of two cats (two on the bow and two on the waist).
operating an aircraft from a ship hundreds (and sometimes thousands) of miles from shore
The launch and recovery of aircraft is performed as fast as possible to limit the amount of
is not for the faint of heart. In fact, it can be downright nerve-wracking for even the most
time a ship is turned into the wind. When turned into the wind, a ship is predictable and
experienced pilot.
therefore vulnerable to the enemy.
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/how-it-
works-f-35c-operations-from-a-carrier
The F-35C carrier variant combines the unique capability of operating from a carrier deck
with the unmatched 5th Generation capabilities of stealth and sensor fusion, making the
F-35C the Navys first low observable stealth fighter at sea.
2. After the pilots have completed their mission and are coming back to land on
the ship, what happens?
Tom: As pilots, we are innately aware of several things going on with our aircraft at all
times one of those is our fuel level. Luckily with the F-35, keeping track of this will be
easier on our pilots due to the advanced avionics, sensor fusion and helmet display that
The F-35C is designed and built explicitly for carrier operations. It has larger wings and
keep this information at the pilots fingertips. Plus, the F-35C carries almost 20,000 pounds
more robust landing gear than the other variants, making it suitable for catapult launches
of fuel internally, which is approximately 6,000 pounds more than our current fighter fleet.
and fly-in arrestments aboard naval aircraft carriers. The F-35Cs wingtips also fold to allow
When a pilots mission is complete, or when we are running low on fuel during a routine
for more room on the carriers deck while deployed.
carrier sortie, we head back to the ship in order to make our recovery time. Fighter aircraft
In addition to the F-35C, the F-35B variant is also built for aircraft-capable ship operations.
With its unique short takeoff and vertical landing capabilities, the F-35B is designed to
are always first to land since they have a higher burn-rate of fuel and typically have a
lower fuel capacity than other aircraft.
During daylight hours and good weather conditions, a pilot will monitor tower frequency
while overhead the carrier to keep in contact with the Airboss. The Boss as we call him,
their landing. The second challenge is that the runway is on an eight degree angle to the
left from the line the boat is traveling on. This slight angle means our pilots are constantly
is responsible for everything that goes on aboard the flight deck and the airspace inside
10nautical miles of the carrier. We will monitor his tower frequency, but the entire
recovery is done Comms Out. In other words, for the entire launch and recovery, pilots
shouldnt hear any radio transmissions if the launch and recovery is going well.
Once lined up with the landing area, pilots use the data on their cockpit displays and a tool
called the Fresnel Lens, or ball, on the deck of the ship to guide them to the wire. The
Fresnel Lens is simply an amber light centered between two horizontal rows of green lights
As pilots come back to the boat, each squadron is assigned an altitude overhead the carrier that lets each pilot know where they are on the glide slope at all times during the descent.
and is put into a stack above the boat. For instance, my squadron might be overhead at
If the ball is above the horizontal row of green lights, the pilots aircraft is high. If the
3,000 feet, our sister squadron will be at 4,000 feet and the E-2D squadron(less fuel
ball is below the green lights, they are approaching low. If the ball shows red, the pilot is
dependent) might be at 7,000 feet. Depending on the number of aircraft, a pilot could
really low and could be in danger of hitting the boat, known as a ramp-strike. This is
have another jet 1,000 feet below and above them in a holding pattern until its their turn
definitely not good.
to land. When at the bottom of the stack, one cardinal rule is that you never descend until
As a second line of defense, all landings are monitored by a team of Landing Signal
you are aft and abeam of the boat. This is a safety measure that keeps jets at 5,000 feet
Officers (LSO) that are stationed just to the left of the landing area to watch every landing
from descending through the middle of the overhead marshal stack. Trust me, it happens!
and grade that landing for safety. All LSOs are also pilots themselves. If there is trouble
3. Lets say Im now at the bottom of the stack and its my turn to come in for a with an approach, the LSO will come on the radio and tell the pilot to add power, check his
landing. As a pilot, what do I do?
line-up, or wave-off if theyre making an unsafe approach. Ideally, if a pilot has a good
Tom: When at the bottom of the stack, pilots are, what we call, hawking the deck, which
means that they are still circling, but have a keen eye on the flight deck to watch for the
last aircraft to be shot off the catapult. As soon as this last aircraft clears the catapult, our
pilots have about a minute until the deck will be ready for them to catch the wire, or trap
as we call it. A good flight lead will have his section or division of aircraft approaching the
stern of the ship for the break to land as soon as the last plane leaves the deck.
When at the stern, or back of the boat, pilots are at 800 feet in right echelon. When its
time for them to land, the lead aircraft will break and his wingmen will break about 17
seconds afterwards. This will allow for the perfect 45 second interval between all landing
aircraft. Once a pilot is downwind and heading toward the stern of the boat, they can
descend to 600 feet. At this point, the pilot is 1.2 to 1.3 miles from the back of the ship
and should have their gear down, flaps full down and arresting hook down. This is the
start to a perfect approach.
Once in position, our pilots will start their left-hand descending turn to line up with the
ODQGLQJDUHDRQWKHERDW7KLVLVQRHDV\WDVNEHFDXVHWKHERDWLVDOZD\VPRYLQJDZD\
IURPWKHPVREHJLQQLQJWKHWXUQDWWKHEDFNRIWKHVKLSVHWVWKHPXSIRUDQLFHVWDUWWR
start, flies a smooth approach, constantly corrects line-up, and keeps the ball in the middle
of the lens theyll be rewarded by catching a three- wire, which is considered excellent in
terms of landings.
There are four arresting wires stretched across the deck and the Fresnel Lens is usually
adjusted for the pilots to target the three-wire. This means that the pilot snags the third of
the four wires with their arresting hook when landing. Once a pilots wheels touch down on
the flight deck, they instantly go to full power on their throttles. That may seem counterintuitive, but if you miss the wire and you pull the throttle to idle youre going to be going
swimming because the plane will not have the power to get airborne again. If they do miss
the wires and go to full power theyll be fine. This maneuver is called a bolter.
Once a pilot has successfully caught the wire and gone to full power, theyre going from
about 145knts to 0knts in two seconds. Its pretty eye-opening. Once theyre safely in the
wire, one of the taxi directors will tell the pilot to throttle back and raise your hook. The
pilot then quickly taxis out of the landing area because the next plane is probably already
in the landing groove. Every 45 seconds this will happen until the recovery is over, then
these planes will be turned around, refueled and made ready for the next launch.
ship and both F-35Cs will stay at sea for the next two weeks, during which time the envelope for
Navy's newest aircraft lands perfectly on its oldest The
flight operations will continually be opened. Changes will be made in the attitudes of the landings as
DAN PARSONS
SAN DIEGO 03 Nov 2014 well as direction and speed, Buss said. The test pilots will next try cross-wind landings, landings with
aircraft carrier
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/navy39s-newest-aircraft-lands-perfectly-on-its-oldest-aircraft-405629/
Just after noon on 3 November, a Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II shot into view over the stern of
the USS Nimitz for a low pass, the first of three before the pilot made a picture perfect landing on the
third arresting wire of the aircraft carrier.
The F-35C flight test aircraft, CF-3, hooked the third arresting wire at 12:58, about 40nm (74km)
southwest of San Diego. An hour later, CF-5 performed a fly-by, then a touch-and-go and finally an
arrested landing.
the deck at variable pitch angles. Night landings are scheduled for 13-15 November.
Developmental testing phase two is scheduled to begin in 10 months, aboard an undesignated carrier.
Final testing phase three is scheduled for 2016, when the navy will decide whether it does indeed want
to operate a stealth fighter from its 11 carriers. The F-35C has larger wings than the A and B models in
order to create the lift required to take off from a carrier.
The Marine Corps' F-35B is capable of vertical takeoff and landings on the navy's big-top amphibious
ships, but Nimitz-class carriers would be damaged by the heat of the engine downwash. Marine Corps
ship decks have been resurfaced to withstand the jet engine downdraft.
Thirteen years after signing the development contract, the two F-35Cs recorded the first landings on
board and aircraft carrier and marked a major milestone for the programme that has been beset by As the F-35C completed shipboard landings off the US west coast, Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan was in
Israel. He was finalising an order for 25 F-35As, adding to 19 acquired last year. No export customers
developmental delays and cost overruns in its 14-year history.
have emerged yet for the F-35C.
No one aboard the Nimitz was thinking of such setbacks on 3 October. The most common phrase used
by officers and enlisted sailors was making history, as the jet finally came aboard followed shortly by Mark Johnson, a Lockheed spokesman, said Mondays momentous landings might well send a
message to other nations about the worthiness of the carrier-based version of the F-35.
an F-18 Hornet, which it will eventually replace.
For them to see us land this aircraft aboard a ship at sea in a very controlled manner, this is a good
Vice Adm Dave Buss, commander of naval air forces, said it was a great and historic day that will be message for our partners, Buss says.
used as a springboard into the future of naval aviation.
Photo by US Navy
The aircraft made an hour-long flight from Yuma, Arizona, where they underwent preliminary
maintenance in preparation for their two-week deployment aboard the Nimitz. Plans were to both land
and then launch at least one jet on 3 November by way of the ships steam-powered catapult system,
but the launches were scrapped because of telemetry issues.
Its nothing that we cant recover from for tomorrow, Buss said.
The arrested landings were especially remarkable because the F-35Cs tailhook required a redesign
after the original was found to be inadequate to stop the jet in the short space given for carrier
landings. The redesigned horse-hoof shaped hook worked as planned.
The F-35C is designated to replace the F/A-18 models C-D, but not the E/A-18G Growler electronic
attack aircraft.
What most impressed Buss was the stability of the F-35 on approach. Both CF-3 and CF-5, as the test
jest are designated, made ideal arrested landings on the third deck wire.
The most remarkable thing was how steady and stable it was on approach. I didnt see a lot of control
surface movement, he says. Both aircraft landed exactly where we wanted them to.
The F-35C is augmented with a new delta control law to improve stability on a fixed glideslope to a
carrier deck, a first for a manned aircraft landing on a carrier.
21 Nov 2014 Loren Thompson fly faster than the speed of sound
pilots perspective.
This may be the first time ever
that the word carefree has been
used by a Navy tester to describe
the performance of a new carrierbased aircraft. Adjectives like arduous and challenging are far
more commonly used. So the F-35C
has set a high standard for all naval
aircraft to come in the maturity and sophistication of its design.
Perhaps there is a lesson to be
learned about our culture from the
fact that the Navys very positive
experience with its F-35 variant this
month has gone largely unnoticed
in the general media, even though
every supposed problem with the
plane up to this point has gotten
headlines. The Navy and its industry partners have just demonstrated that when it comes to aerospace
technology, America still leads the
world by a healthy margin. So lets
get that plane into the fleet, where
it can start making a difference in
maintaining global security.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2014/
11/21/clean-sweep-f-35-fighter-confounds-criticswith-perfect-performance-in-first-tests-at-sea/
2
UAVs
Target
3 Wire!
4
0
ef
e
t
A
mi
po
nti
X-47B
http://www.dtic.
mil/cgi-bin/GetTR
Doc?Location=U2&doc=
GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA469901
De
rsi
de
La
nd
ngi
Ar
ae
2
6
5
ef
e
t
Layout of the landing area of the flight deck of a Nimitz Class aircraft carrier. The aft end of
the ship is on the left side of the figure. Notice that there are 4 wires spaced 40 feet apart.
They are numbered in increasing order from the one most aft, i.e. 1 wire, 2 wire, etc. It is
desired that aircraft catch the 3 wire when landing. The width of the runway area is 65 feet.
July/26/2012 http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=68607
USS HARRY S. TRUMAN, At sea (NNS) -- The Navy's Unmanned Combat Air
System Demonstration (UCAS-D) program conducted a series of unmanned
air vehicle (UAV) surrogate recoveries and launches aboard the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), July 18-22.
Sailors assigned to the Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 recovered their first UAV-equipped F/A-18D Hornet, containing in-flight software replicating the software installed in the unmanned X-47B, July 18.
-
"The focus during this at-sea period is to test the hardware inside the Hornet to make sure our unmanned system is able to operate the same way manned aircraft operate aboard a carrier," said Lt.
James Reynolds, UCAS-D surrogate project officer from VX 23.
Since the beginning of July, a team of more than 50 Sailors and engineers
have performed tests to ensure Truman's on-board UAV software and the
UCAS-D surrogate aircraft's software were properly interfacing....
...The UCAS-D testing had many criteria to meet, including launching the
surrogate aircraft from all 4 catapults & touch-and-go tests, said Benner....
6<67(0&$55,(5'(021675$7,21
352*5$029(59,(:
,Q VXSSRUW RI WKH UVW VKRUH EDVHG FDWDSXOWV DW 1$6
3DWX[HQW 5LYHU WKH WHDP FRPSOHWHG RYHU KRXUV
RI JURXQG WD[L WHVWLQJ RQ WKH ;% XVLQJ D UHPRWH
7KH 1DY\ 8&$6 &DUULHU 'HPRQVWUDWLRQ SURJUDP LV
FRQWUROOHGKDQGKHOG&RQWURO'LVSOD\8QLW&'8
GHVLJQHG WR GHPRQVWUDWH WKH RSHUDWLRQ RI D WDLOOHVV
ORZREVHUYDEOH DXWRQRPRXV *URXS 8$6 WR DQG
IURPWKHGHFNRIDQDLUFUDIWFDUULHU&917KHSXUSRVH
RIWKHSURJUDPLVWRPDWXUHWHFKQRORJLHVIRUIROORZRQ
8$6DFTXLVLWLRQSURJUDPVWRGHYHORSWKHVKLSERDUG
FRPSRQHQWVRIWKHV\VWHPWRGHYHORS&21236IRU
VKLSERDUG 8$6 WHVW DQG RSHUDWLRQ DQG WR GHYHORS
/&'5-DPHV6SRRO
LQIUDVWUXFWXUHWRVXSSRUWIXWXUHGHYHORSPHQWDQGWHVWLQJ
5H\QROGV
RIIXWXUH&9FRPSDWLEOH8$6V&ULWLFDOWHFKQRORJLHV
/62
EHLQJPDWXUHGLQFOXGHDXWRQRPRXVRSHUDWLRQVLQWKH
&91 HQYLURQPHQW DLU YHKLFOH JXLGDQFH QDYLJDWLRQ
DQG FRQWURO XVK DLU GDWD V\VWHPV WDLOOHVV YHKLFOH
DHURG\QDPLFVFRQWURO ORZ ODWHQF\ VDIHW\ RI LJKW
FRPPDQG DQG FRQWURO & SUHFLVLRQ QDYLJDWLRQ LQ
D&DUULHU&RQWURO$SSURDFK&&$HQYLURQPHQWDQG
&RQWURO'LVSOD\8QLW&'8
GHFNKDQGOLQJGHFNRSHUDWLRQ
7KH &'8 LV GHVLJQHG WR WD[L WKH ;% DURXQG WKH
&RPSRQHQWVRIWKHV\VWHPLQFOXGHWKHDLUYHKLFOHWKH
LJKWGHFNRIDQDLUFUDIWFDUULHURXWRIWKHODQGLQJDUHD
;%WKHVXSSRUWVHJPHQWFRPSULVHGRIHTXLSPHQW
/7$OODQ.UHHS\
IROORZLQJDVXFFHVVIXODUUHVWHGODQGLQJDQGLQWRWKH
WR
PDLQWDLQ
DQG
WD[L
WKH
YHKLFOH
DVKRUH
DQG
RQ
WKH
-HVSHUVHQ
FDWDSXOWIRUODXQFKRSHUDWLRQV6XFFHVVIXOFRPSOHWLRQ
LJKW GHFN WKH FRQWURO VHJPHQW FRPSULVHG RI WKH
0LVVLRQ2SHUDWRU'HFN
RIWKH&'8WHVWLQJHQDEOHGH[HFXWLRQRIVKRUHEDVHG
PLVVLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG PLVVLRQ FRQWURO HOHPHQWV WKH
FDWDSXOWORDGWHVWLQJ7KLVWHVWLQJPDWUL[ZDVDQRWKHU
2SHUDWRU
&9 VHJPHQW LQFOXGLQJ VKLSERDUG FRPSRQHQWV DQG
UVW IRU *URXS XQPDQQHG DLUFUDIW DQG D FRPSOHWH
LQWHUIDFHV WR FRQWURO WKH DLUFUDIW RQ DQG DURXQG WKH
FKDQJHLQSDUDGLJPIRU1DYDO$YLDWLRQDQG&9LJKW
DLUFUDIW FDUULHU 7KH 1RUWKURS *UXPPDQ &RUSRUDWLRQ
GHFN RSHUDWLRQV 7KLV VLJQLHG WKH UVW VKRUHEDVHG
1*& LV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU GHYHORSLQJ WKH ;% WKH
LQWHJUDWLRQ WHVWLQJ RI WKH ;% LQ SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU
VXSSRUW VHJPHQW DQG WKH FRQWURO VHJPHQW ZKLOH
VKLSERDUGDWVHDRSHUDWLRQV
1$9$,5LVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUGHYHORSLQJWKH&9DQGWKH
6XEVHTXHQWO\WKH WHDP SODQQHG DQG H[HFXWHG WKH
$$5VHJPHQWV
UVWHYHU VKLSERDUG WD[L WHVWLQJ RI DQ XQPDQQHG
DLUFUDIW GXULQJ DWVHD RSHUDWLRQV RQERDUG
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=767
Navy: Carrier Drones Wave- combat air system demonstration, or carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower in April.
But simulation results have
UCAS-D, program, a project designed
Off Window Shorter Than
been positive, Engdahl said. Comto determine how an unmanned airContractors Claim
(NAVY TIMES 15 0CT 12) Joshua Stewart
The Navy is disputing claims the unmanned X-47B cant be waved off in
less than five seconds before a carrier landing.
Safety issues were raised at this
years Tailhook Symposium in Sparks,
Nev., after a Northrop Grumman official made the claim. A manned aircraft can be diverted as late as three
seconds before landing.
Landing signal officers, whose job
it is to ensure there are no hazards
on the deck, were worried an extra
two seconds was enough time for a
sailor to wander into the planes path.
But Capt. Jaime Engdahl, program manager for unmanned combat air system demonstration program, said he is confident the X-47B
can be diverted much closer to touchdown. He could not estimate how
much closer, however, citing the need
for additional testing.
The Northrop-built X-47B is a tailless, unmanned aircraft with a 62-foot
wingspan. Its part of the unmanned
Navy One Step Closer To UAV Carrier Ops | July 7th, 2011
http://defensetech.org/2011/07/07/navy-one-step-closer-to-uav-carrier-ops/
-
"The U.S. Navy just got a little closer to its goal of routinely flying combat drones off carriers by the close of the decade when an
F/A-18 Hornet landed itself on the deck of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) using flight control software designed for the
Northrop-Grumman-built X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator or UCAS-D. On July 2, the F/A-18 performed dozens
of arrested landings without any input from the pilot in the Atlantic Ocean off the Virginia Capes. Whats really interesting about
this is that the jet wasnt controlled by someone in the carrier the way current drones are controlled from ground stations. No, this
jet simply received a command from the carriers air traffic control to enter the landing pattern and execute the landing all on its
own; the same way a piloted jet would. Once hes on his approach, we actually take control of the aircraft via the systems we
have installed as part of the demo and actually the aircraft is controlled by flight [rules] we put in place, all the way down to trap,
said Don Blottenberger, Navy UCAS-D Dep. Principal Program Manager during a phone call with reporters this morning. There is
no remote control of the aircraft, there is no pilot control of the aircraft; weve given it instructions and it executes those instructions. Just to make it clear, Blottenberger added: There is no remote control, meaning there is no joystick, theres
no one thats flying this aircraft from the carrier, we give it commands via the network we have in place
tying in with existing carrier systems & then the aircraft executes those commands.
The system, which uses precision-GPS navigation data transmitted over Rockwell Collins Tactical Targeting Network
Technology (which I thought was defunct), allows the air traffic controllers, air boss and landing signals officer to tell the plane to
enter the approach and perform all the necessary adjustments in heading, altitude and speed necessary to perform a trap. In the
final phase of the approach, the LSO can even order the jet to wave off using his terminal that has been modified to communicate
with an unmanned jet, according to NAVAIR officials. According to the Hornets pilot, Lt. Jeremy DeBons, the landing felt no
different from when an F/A-18 lands using the Automated Carrier Landing System, although. Still, he kept his hands very close
to the controls during the hands-off landings.
The new, GPS-based system developed for the UCAS-D has 360-degree coverage around the ship; the ability to control multiple
aircraft and allows the actual airplane to determine how it will fly according to the commands from air traffic control. The older
radar-based auto-land system has limited coverage off the stern of the carrier, determines what type of stick and throttle inputs
should be performed for the plane and can only control a limited number of aircraft, according to NAVAIR officials.
Now the Navy has proven the auto-landing system works, the two X-47Bs will be flown to NAS Patuxent River in
Maryland where theyll do everything from perform cat shots and arrested landings to practice operating on a crowded
carrier deck mock up and flying in its airspace throughout next year. If all goes well, this will pave the way for an actual
carrier landing by an X-47B sometime in 2013, according to NAVAIR."
130517-N-FU443-090 ATLANTIC OCEAN (May 17, 2013) An X-47B unmanned combat air system (UCAS) demonstrator prepares to execute a
touch and go landing on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77). This is the first time any unmanned aircraft has
completed a touch and go landing at sea. George H.W. Bush is conducting training operations in the Atlantic Ocean. (U.S. Navy photo by
Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Timothy Walter/Released) May 17, 2013 http://www.navy.mil./submit/display.asp?story_id=74225
http://www.navy.mil./management/photodb/
photos/130517-N-FU443-090.jpg
x
x
October 2012
Paddles
monthly
ICLS...
There are two primary goals in developing the Navys Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS-D) when it comes to landing aboard ship. First, if an unmanned aircraft can't land safely and consistently on the boat, it's not fit for naval service
and we don't want it. This is non-negotiable. Second, the LSOs need to be able to wave unmanned vehicles, as much as
practical, the same as they do a manned aircraft. LSOs cannot be asked to have procedures different than those they use
for manned aircraft; that would be a training nightmare and a recipe for disaster. This second point is somewhat negotiable due to available technologies and budget constraints, but remains an important target for implementing LSO requirements during the UCAS demonstration.
Building on these fundamental premises, the Navy UCAS program has been very intentional in working with the Navy
LSO School to ensure we get this right, and has enjoyed a close, open working relationship throughout UCAS-D development and testing. What follows is an overview of the systems developed through this cooperative relationship, a brief
description of unique requirements, and a discussion to address a potential concern.
System Overview: The vision was not to build a new LSO system, but to incorporate UCAS-D requirements into existing systems. This resulted in minor hardware and some software modifications to the LSO Display System (LSODS) and
installing an IFLOLS interface box in the lens room. All cut and waveoff switches on the LSO pickles, the LSODS, and
in the tower activate the IFLOLS relay box, which in turn initiates electronic cut and waveoff datalink messages. Here is
how the system works with an approaching air vehicle or AV (refer to fig 1):
x
When the AV approaches mile (Case I) or 1 to mile (CATCC selectable - Case III) in the landing configuration, it will electronically call the ball via a digital message. A red Ball Call indication appears on LSODS primary
and secondary screens when this digital message is received.
When the LSO presses the cut switch, an electronic Roger Ball message is sent to the AV and will be displayed
on LSODS in red along with the cut indication. A smaller electronic UCAS cut icon will also illuminate when a
separate loopback systems receives the electronic cut signal. This loopback system will be discussed later.
Once the AV receives the Roger Ball message, it replies with a digital message stating it received the Roger Ball
and the red Roger Ball on LSODS will turn green.
(Figure 1)
http://www.hrana.org/documents/
PaddlesMonthlyOctober2012.pdf
If the Ball Call is not Rogered by 200 AGL (140 above flight deck level), the AV will wave itself off. The AV
will not continue below 200 without a Roger Ball.
The LSO can wave off the AV from the time it calls the ball until the AV touches the deck. There is a dualredundant system that activates both the primary and emergency waveoff circuits to ensure the AV will wave off.
When the waveoff button is actuated, a waveoff uplink discrete message commands the AV to waveoff. The X47B will respond immediately, within 0.2 seconds of actuating the waveoff button. Additionally, a separate AV
heartbeat message a signal always pulsing between the AV and the ship has discrete fields that also send cut
and waveoff for dual-redundancy. When waveoff is pressed, waveoff will illuminate on LSODS along with a
smaller electronic UCAS-D waveoff indication when it receives the electronic waveoff signal through the loopback system.
If there is a loss of datalink where the heartbeat signal is not being received by the AV and the AV is outside the
autonomous waveoff inhibit region, then the AV will wave itself off. If the heartbeat is lost inside the autonomous
waveoff inhibit region, then the AV will continue its approach to landing. The autonomous waveoff inhibit region
is software adjustable and will be matched as closely as possible to the 10 ft waveoff window, initially set to 3 seconds. Only the LSO and PriFly can command a waveoff inside the autonomous waveoff inhibit region. The AV
cannot get to the three second window without an accurate Precision GPS solution propagated to touchdown, or it
will waveoff well before this point.
If the AV is waved off, bolters, or does a touch and go, it will go into the bolter/waveoff pattern identical to a
manned aircraft.
LSODS
LSODS
http://www.hrana.org/documents/
Paddles Monthly October 2012 PaddlesMonthlyOctober2012.pdf
The AV will not continue below 200, let alone land, without a Roger Ball.
The AV will attempt to execute a waveoff anytime the LSO or Air Boss presses the waveoff button.
If the AV is outside its established parameters to land, which are much tighter than those for a manned aircraft, and it is outside
the autonomous waveoff inhibit region it will wave itself off.
If the AV loses its datalink outside the autonomous waveoff inhibit region (three seconds or greater from touchdown), it will
wave itself off.
If the AV loses its datalink inside the autonomous waveoff inhibit region (inside three seconds), the AV will land.
There has been much discussion concerning the autonomous waveoff inhibit region. A recent news article poorly articulated an old
and already rectified issue, one that was signed off by the LSO School OIC and briefed openly at the 2012 LSO OAG. There were
no concerns expressed by anyone in the LSO community at that time. During development of the Performance Specification documentation several years back, the autonomous waveoff inhibit region was initially set at five seconds based on a holdover from the
SPN-46 landing system. That value was instituted to prohibit a CATCC controller from waving off an aircraft inside five seconds to
touchdown on a mode I approach. However, anticipating the potential need to adjust it, a caveat was included that read, The value
of 5 seconds may be adjusted, if needed, during flight test based on feedback from the Landing Signal Officers. During the LSO
OAG in 2011, the LSOs express concern that five seconds was too long for a lost link AV to attempt to land. The Navy UCAS Program Manager agreed and directed that the autonomous waveoff inhibit region be software adjustable, and that analysis of X-47B
waveoff performance and approach simulations be conducted to determine a better value. In laboratory simulation three seconds
was determined as a more reasonable value that showed safe landing performance at up to sea state 5 and closely matched the X47B 10 ft waveoff window. At Patuxent River a high fidelity LSO in a Dome simulator has been developed using the X-47B
flight dynamics model and this month representatives of the LSO community will wave the aircraft in the simulator to practice procedures and prepare for the carrier demonstration next year.
Digitizing LSO communications and operating unmanned systems aboard carriers is a new capability that challenges our paradigms
and nobody takes this lightly. The Navy UCAS program leadership actively seeks and values the LSOs views and is responsive to
input precisely because the fundamental premise in Naval Aviation will always hold true: if any aircraft cannot land safely and consistently on the boat, then we dont want it.
Surrogate flight tests of the software and systems for the Northrop Grumman X-47B unmanned combat aircraft
system demonstrator (UCAS-D) have resulted in hands-free landings of an F/A-18 Hornet on a U.S. Navy carrier.
Controlled by the avionics and software from the X-47B, the F/A-18 conducted 58 coupled approaches to the USS
Eisenhower on July 2, including 16 intentional touch-and-gos & six arrested landings, program officials say.
The tests keep the UCAS-D program on track for carrier trials of the unmanned X-47B in 2013. The first aircraft
has flown at Edwards AFB, Calif., and both air vehicles will be delivered to the NAS Patuxent River, Md., test
center for shore-based testing in 2012. Acting as a surrogate, the F/A-18 showed the X-47B will be able to land
autonomously under command from the ship.
The tests included 28 straight-in, or Case 1, instrument approaches where the unmanned system took over
control 8 mi. behind the ship. The other 30 were visual, or Case 3, approaches where the system took over control
as the F/A-18 passed the carrier on the downwind leg & then turned the aircraft on to its final approach, says
Capt. Jaime Engdahl, Navy UCAS program manager. Flights were conducted using precision GPS & Tactical
Targeting Network Technology high-speed data links to navigate relative to the carrier and send commands to the
aircraft.
Engdahl says the tests demonstrated the Navys distributed control concept, in which a mission operator on
the carrier always has positive control of the aircraft, but the ships air traffic controller, the air boss in the tower
and landing signals officer on the flight deck can send commands to the unmanned vehicle as they would to a
manned aircraft. You send basic commands to the aircraft and the system calculates all the paths itself and puts
together a profile, says Don Blottenberger, deputy program manager. The carrier exercises oversight and override, everything else is automated.
The next steps are to complete flight-envelope expansion at Edwards and then ship the X-47Bs to Patuxent
River for shore-based catapult launches, arrested landings and carrier pattern work through 2012, Engdahl says.
Further surrogate test flights are planned next year, working with the USS Truman, and one of the X-47Bs will be
hoisted aboard the carrier to evaluate maneuvering of the unmanned aircraft on the flight deck. Carrier trials of
the X-47B in 2013 will be followed in 2014 by flight tests of autonomous aerial refueling. Flight tests for this phase
of the program will begin late this year using a Learjet as a surrogate.
X-47B Demonstrator
Moves Closer To
Carrier Demo
VIDEO
X-47B Program Update, 06 Aug 2013
The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) program
demonstrated an acute level of precision and repeatability
during at-sea trials this spring/summer. On May 21 2013, the
nose gear of the X-47B landed on the same relative spot on
the deck of the USS George H.W. Bush seven times consecutively. The success of this at-sea trial, and the proceeding
shore-based arrestments were key milestones that led to the
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0b384xslgI
http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/X-47B-arrestor-hook.jpg
Shore-based test adds momentum, confidence for upcoming carrier trials. NAVAL AIR STATION
PATUXENT RIVER, Md. May 6, 2013 Northrop Grumman Corporation and the U.S. Navy have
conducted the first fly-in arrested landing of the X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS)
demonstrator. A video accompanying this release is available on YouTube at: http://youtu.be/1Z2vpnbEbXc
Conducted May 4 [2013] at the Navy's shore-based catapult and arresting gear complex here, the
test represents the first arrested landing by a Navy unmanned aircraft. It marks the beginning of the
final phase of testing prior to carrier-based trials planned for later this month. "This precision, shorebased trap by the X-47B puts the UCAS Carrier Demonstration [UCAS-D] program on final approach
for a rendezvous with naval aviation history," said Capt. Jaime Engdahl, the Navy's UCAS program
manager. "It moves us a critical step closer to proving that unmanned systems can be integrated
seamlessly into Navy carrier operations."
During an arrested landing, the incoming aircraft extends its landing hook to catch a heavy cable
extended across the aircraft landing area. The tension in the wire brings the aircraft to a rapid & controlled stop. Carl Johnson, vice president and Navy UCAS program manager for Northrop Grumman,
said this first arrested landing reinforced what the team already knew. "The X-47B air vehicle performs
exactly as predicted by the modeling, simulation and surrogate testing we did early in the UCAS-D program," Johnson said. "It takes off, flies and lands within a few feet of its predicted path."
The arrested landing test culminates more than three months of shore-based carrier suitability testing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River. The testing included precision approaches, touch-and-go landings, and precision landings by the X-47B air
vehicle. For the arrested landing, the X-47B used a navigation approach that closely
mimics the technique it will use to land on an aircraft carrier underway at sea....
Another Big Milestone For The X-47B: Its First Touch & Go Landing
21 May 2013 Clay Dillow: http://www.popsci.com.au/technology/aviation/another-big-milestone-for-the-x-47b-its-first-touch-and-go-landing
-
...the Unmanned Combat Aerials System (UCAS) executed its first touch and go landings that's when an
air-craft touches down like it's landing but then accelerates and takes off again aboard the USS George
H.W. Bush on Friday [17 May], bringing this technology demonstrator ever closer to being fully carriercapable.... ...Critical to UCLASS are the precision GPS and relative navigation technologies aboard both
aircraft and carrier that link the two together into a seamless system, and that's what we're seeing at work in
the video... ...In the video, the X-47B makes two passes over the carrier deck before executing a couple of
touch and go maneuvers, which are essentially aborted landings wherein an aircraft touches down on the
carrier deck and takes off again. They are a typical training maneuver, used when a pilot is practicing landing
approaches. In carrier ops touch and go maneuvers are quite a bit more significant, as pilots must quickly
take off again if they miss the arresting cable on the carrier deck when landing (although technically this is
called a "bolter" rather than a "touch and go").
The two initial flyovers aren't just for show, however, and that's perhaps the most interesting part of the
this video. During the two approaches wherein the X-47B doesn't touch down it is basically practicing its
landing approach plus a "wave off" in which either the Landing Signal Officer on the flight deck or the
aircraft itself decides the landing is unsafe. This could be because something on the flight deck becomes
unsafe (a person or vehicle wanders into the landing area, for instance) or because the X-47B's flight
computers detect something amiss with the aircraft's glide path or angle of approach.
In other words, those first two flyovers are testing the ability of the carrier and aircraft to talk to each
other over the super-fast datalink that they share which is really the linchpin of this system. And the touch
and go moments show the system working spectacularly, putting the X-47B on the deck and then sending it
skyward again off the other end. The Navy is still certifying the X-47Bs tail hook and landing capability on a
terrestrial carrier simulator at nearby Naval Air Station Patuxent River on Maryland's Chesapeake Bay (the
USS George H.W. Bush is tooling around at some undisclosed set of coordinates off the Virginia/Maryland
coast so the aircraft can fly between the two), but by the looks of things it shouldn't have any problem
completing carrier landings and its mission once it is cleared to do so.
http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/norfolknavyflagship.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/e/f6/ef6adcd4-ef1b-11e2-84b5-0019bb2963f4/51e6f88be1700.hires.jpg
http://alert5.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/10777691775_7a26e1fee1_o1.jpg
09 Nov 2013
USS
Theodore
Roosevelt
http://defensetech.org/2013/11/11/navy-tests-x-47b-on-another-carrier/
The U.S. Navy is increasing the rigor of its Unmanned Combat Air System demonstrator aircraft by conducting flight exercises and take-off-and-landing drills aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier, service officials said. After successfully landing on an aircraft carrier for the first time this past
summer, the UCAS or X47-B air vehicle is now going through a series of technical risk reduction tests as
a way to refine and further develop the technology for the service and better establish the concepts of
operation, or con-ops, for sailors. Being able to house and fly an unmanned aircraft system of this kind
from an aircraft carrier at sea brings an unprecedented and historic technological accomplishment to
the Navy. We are introducing a first-ever capability to our carriers, Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Program
Executive Officer, Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons, said in an interview with Military.com.
As opposed to the initial flights this past summer which first demonstrated take-off and landing ability for
the UCAS, these technical risk tests are designed to assess the air vehicles performance & technological integration in more difficult sea conditions, Winter added. The UCAS-D is focused on demonstrating the feasibility of operating an aircraft carrier-sized unmanned system in the harsh carrier environment, he said.
The main goal of this phase of testing is to obtain navigation and air system performance data in
more stressful conditions than were experienced previously, according to Capt. Beau Duarte, who
manages the Unmanned Carrier Aviation Program Office. Were going to be looking at higher winds &
winds of varying directions that will create more dynamic conditions and tower interactions with the
carrier, he said. This will be a little more stressful on the navigation system and the air data system
in the vehicle. Duarte said the assessments are also looking at touch-down and landing points of the
air vehicle in relation to planned touch-down point in the landing area right in front of the wires.
Winter explained that the testing is focused on three elements including the air vehicle itself, the digitization of the aircraft carrier needed to operate an unmanned system of the deck and the actual control
system. The control system includes the networks, algorithms and software products along with the
hardware, transmitters and radios needed to send control signals, Winter said. The X-47B program has
to continue to mature to understand the dynamic elements of those three segments, Winter said....
Pilotless Aircraft Performs US Carrier 'Touch & Go' Landings [USS Theodore Roosevelt 09 Nov 2013]
http://maritimeglobalnews.com/news/pilotless-aircraft-performs-carrier-ar26a1
X-47B Program Update: Published on Aug 6, 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0b384xslgI
The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) program demonstrated an acute
level of precision and repeatability during at-sea trials this spring/summer. On May
21 2013, the nose
The X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator (UCAS-D) has conducted flight operations aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt
(CVN 71). The aircraft performed precise touch and go maneuvers on the ship and In addition took part in flight deck handling drills, completed arrested
landings and catapult launches. Mission operators monitored the aircraft's autonomous flight from a portable command and control unit from Theodore
Roosevelt's flight deck during each of its 45-minute flights. "It is a tremendous opportunity for the 'Big Stick' to be a part of the development and testing
of the future of Naval Aviation," said Capt. Daniel Grieco, Theodore Roosevelt's commanding officer. The UCAS is an impressive system that gives us all
a glimpse into the support and strike capabilities we can expect to join the fleet in the years to come. The tactical and support possibilities for such
platforms are endless, and I know the crew of TR are proud to be able to be a part of that development." Carrier-based tests of the X-47B began in
December 2012 with flight deck operations aboard USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75). Carrier testing resumed in May 2013 aboard USS George H.W. Bush
(CVN 77), where the X-47B completed its first carrier-based catapult launch, followed by its first carrier-based arrested landing in July 2013.
20 Nov 2013
NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. The Navy concluded another round of carrier
testing Nov. 19 to further demonstrate and evaluate the X-47B unmanned air system integration within the
aircraft carrier environment. Tests aboard USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) included deck handling, carrier
approaches and landings in off-nominal wind conditions, digitized ship systems interfaces, and concept of
operations development.
The X-47 was tested in winds of higher magnitude and differing directions than seen in previous detachments, said Program Manager for Unmanned Carrier Aviation Capt. Beau Duarte. This resulted in more stimulus provided to the aircrafts guidance and control algorithms and a more robust verification of its GPS autoland capability. This test phase, which began Nov. 9, also provided an opportunity for the second X-47B to
make an appearance, marking the first time both aircraft appeared together in a carrier environment.
Over the flight test period, the X-47Bs performed 26 total deck touchdowns: 21 precise
touch-&-goes & five arrested landings; as well as five catapults, five commanded and two
autonomous wave-offs. While one X-47B operated in the vicinity of CVN 71, the second air
vehicle conducted flight operations between ship and shore. Both X-47Bs are assigned to
Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River.
The Navy and industry team once again conducted productive flight operations in the CVN environment,
said Barbara Weathers, Unmanned Combat Air System deputy program manager. The carrier systems installation and system checkouts were performed in record time, quite an amazing feat. The Navy will operate the
X-47B throughout FY14 to conduct further land and carrier based testing to mature unmanned technologies and
refine concept of operations to further inform future unmanned carrier requirements.
The Navy is committed to developing, maturing, and fielding unmanned carrier aviation capabilities into
our carrier air wings and carrier environments. This weeks successful carrier operations demonstrated the
feasibility and realistic path to achieving the manned/unmanned air wing of the future, said Rear Adm. Mat
Winter, program executive officer for Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons (PEO(U&W)), which oversees the
UCAS program.
Aircraft 'Salty Dog 501' was launched to the ship on July 15 to collect additional shipboard landing data," the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)
says. "During the flight, the aircraft experienced a minor test instrumentation
issue & returned to NAS Patuxent River [Maryland], where it safely landed."
The unsuccessful fourth attempt means that the UCAS-D programme will
not be able to complete its stated goal of making a minimum of three successful "traps" onboard a carrier. The X-47B made two successful traps on
the Bush on 10 July, but a third attempt that day failed when aircraft "Salty
Dog 502" self-detected a navigation computer anomaly that forced it to divert
to Wallops Island Air Field, Virginia.
"There were no additional opportunities for testing aboard CVN 77, which
returned to port today," NAVAIR says. "This was the final at sea period for
UCAS-D. The objective of the demonstration was to complete a carrier landing. The programme met their objective."
NAVAIR UCAS-D programme manager Capt Jaime Engdahl says, "We accomplished the vast majority of our carrier demonstration objectives during
our 11 days at sea aboard CVN 77 in May."...
The USS Theodore Roosevelt returned to port last week after hosting
the X-47B for more at-sea trials. The goal was to test the aircraft's interaction with the ship in off-nominal wind conditions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZBn3hAxD8cQ
the X-47B, a launch was performed. Operators had not encountered this issue before.
Rear Adm. Mat Winter, program executive officer for unmanned aircraft and weapons
for the Navy, says the service is
seeking funding to conduct additional flight trials.
The UCAS project is intended
to provide sailors hands-on experience with an unmanned aircraft on carrier decks, with an
eye toward eventually fielding a
yet-to-be-designed unmanned
system in carrier air wings. A
long-awaited request for proposals for that system, the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike
(Uclass) program, is set for release this month. Designs from
General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman are expected to be pitched.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/latestx-47b-tests-conducted-nominal-winds
7DONLQJWR1R2QH
For manned aircraft, such as the Hornet, LSOs typically take sole "control" of the aircraft at approximately three quarters of
a mile from the ship, talking and guiding the pilot in on the correct guide slope. For the X-47B, Reynolds took control just a
little further out at a little over a mile. However, the aircraft was programmed to land itself and didn't take its directional
cues from the LSO like a manned plane would.
7KHVWRU\RIRQHQDYDODYLDWRUZKRKHOSHGODQGWKHUVWDXWRQRPRXV
unmanned aircraft aboard a carrier http://www.navy.mil/ah_online/ As the X-47B approached the flight deck, a couple of people still had the ability to tell the aircraft to wave off, but there
deptStory.asp?dep=3&id=75777
became a point where the LSO was in sole control of the decision to either let the aircraft land or wave off and try
$XJXVW %\&KLHI0DVV&RPPXQLFDWLRQ6SHFLDOLVW&KULVWRSKHU(7XFNHU'HIHQVH0HGLD$FWLYLW\ quickly
again.
and a half seconds. That's about the time it takes for the average person to
Three
put on their seatbelt and start their car.
"So, all the other sources that could generate a wave off, even internal to the aircraft - all those automatic wave offs are
inhibited inside of three and a half seconds, and the LSO is effectively the only one who can command a wave off at that
point," said Reynolds.
It's All In the Pickle Switch
So, how exactly does an LSO talk to an unmanned aircraft that doesn't have a pilot?
LSOs have a "pickle switch," or handheld remote, that controls what "the ball" displays. LSOs also have a handheld radio to
communicate with pilots, and when an LSO calls out "Roger, ball," it signals to everyone listening that he is in control of
the approach and the pilot is cleared to continue to land.
The pickle controls what lights are displayed on the ship's optical landing system. In a manned aircraft, the green lights
signal the "cut lights," which signals the pilot to continue the approach. They are also used to tell a pilot to add power
during the landing. Red lights signal a "wave off," which tells the pilot to abandon the landing, add throttle and go around
for another attempt.
"When you're calling 'Roger, ball' for a manned aircraft, it's about 18 seconds from that point when the airplane touches
down," said Cmdr. Matt Pothier, the officer in charge of the Navy's landing signal officer school at Naval Air Station
Oceana, Va. "So, really what's critical about that three and a half seconds is, probably about 10 to 12 seconds into your
approach, you're getting into a precarious position. You're not quite safe enough to land, but you still have some time to
FKDQJH\RXUSDUDPHWHUV
It's during this time that an LSO has the sole responsibility to decide if a pilot, or an unmanned system like the X-47B, is
It's also the window of time Lt. Cmdr. James Reynolds had sole responsibility for the safe landing of a multi-million dollar
safe enough to land or it should wave off and try again.
unmanned autonomous aircraft, the X-47B, on the deck of USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) at sea.
For the X-47B, the same trigger and switch on the pickle that controls the lights on deck also send the digital permission
Reynolds is an F/A-18 Hornet pilot and a qualified landing signal officer. LSOs are the pilots who stand on the aft port
signal to the aircraft.
quarter of an aircraft carrier and help guide pilots down during the last seconds of the approach. It's a job that dates back to
some of the earliest days of naval aviation.
"As the [X-47B] starts the approach, there's a couple of extra checks I have to do to make sure that the messaging between
the pickle switch that we use to wave the aircraft off or give it the cut lights - to make sure that when I hit those buttons the
"It's something that happens very early in your career," said Reynolds. "When you get into your first fleet tour; typically, it's
correct messages are sent to the aircraft," said Reynolds. "As it comes in, the mission operator calls the ball, just like in
a squadron need sort of thing."
other aircraft. The LSO rogers the ball up. I hit the cut lights, and that's kind of the digital consent for the aircraft to land."
Little did Reynolds know that when he qualified as an airwing LSO aboard USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) in 2007 that it
would ultimately put him in a position to play a pivotal role in naval aviation history - unmanned autonomous landings at
sea.
Reynolds said if the X-47B doesn't get any signal at all, it's programmed to wave off at 200 feet above the water and come
around to try again.
In some ways, being an LSO for the X-47 harkens back to the early days of naval aviation, when LSOs didn't have any
radio communication with pilots. LSOs started out by waiving signal flags and then large colored paddles to convey to a
pilot that his approach was too high or too low, too fast or too slow as he focused on catching the plane's tailhook on deck.
During the early years of carrier aviation in the 1920s and 30s, this was just about all the feedback pilots received when
approaching a ship for landing.
,Q)HEUXDU\RIWKDWVDPH\HDU5H\QROGVUHSRUWHGDERDUG9;D1DY\DLUWHVWDQGHYDOXDWLRQVTXDGURQDQGIRXQG
KLPVHOIZRUNLQJFORVHO\ZLWKVRIWZDUHDQGKDUGZDUHHQJLQHHUVIURP1RUWKURS*UXPPDQWRJHWWKH;%UHDG\IRUD
FDUULHUODQGLQJ
X-47B Development
It was a feat in aviation precision that is truly difficult to appreciate for those unfamiliar with all the nuances.
Fast forward to 2007. A contract was awarded to Northrop Grumman to design, produce and begin testing two X-47s for
the Navy to demonstrate the ability of an autonomous aircraft to safely launch and recover on an aircraft carrier. The X-47B "On a standard aircraft carrier, the targeted hook touch down point, meaning the place where you're supposed to land from
is shaped like a flying wing and has no tail.
the back of the ship, is only 230 feet away," said Pothier. "On the Bush ... it's 205 feet down. Then that also corresponds to
a safe height.... On the Bush, [that's] 12 and a half feet from the back of the ramp. So, if you're exactly 12 and a half feet
After five years of development and testing ashore, (the X-47B was put through more than 160 test approaches and six
and you're flying exactly three and a half degree glide slope angle, your hook will land 205 feed down from the landing
arrested landings at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.,) the X-47B began ramping up for its sea trials in late 2012,
area. So, when we teach pilots how to do this, if they have just a slight margin of error, so say they are one foot high or one
when the Navy decided to put one of the aircraft aboard USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) to test its ability to taxi around the
foot low, they're going to miss that optimum targeted hook touchdown point."
flight deck.
$Q ;% 8QPDQQHG &RPEDW $LU 6\VWHP FRPSOHWHV DQ DUUHVWHG ODQGLQJ RQ WKH IOLJKW GHFN RI WKH DLUFUDIW FDUULHU 866 To get a flying robot to accomplish the same thing is, understandably, something the Navy was very excited about.
*HRUJH +: %XVK &91 -XO\ 7KH ODQGLQJ VLJQDO RIILFHU /W &PGU -DPHV 5H\QROGV FDQ EH VHHQ ZLWK D
JURXSRIREVHUYHUVLQWKHERWWRPULJKWRIWKLVSKRWRJUDSK3KRWRE\0DVV&RPPXQLFDWLRQ6SHFLDOLVWVW&ODVV$ULI3DWDQL
"It isn't very often you get a glimpse of the future," said Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus after observing the historic
landing. "Today, those of us aboard USS George H.W. Bush got that chance as we witnessed the X-47B make its first-ever
arrested landing aboard an aircraft carrier. The operational unmanned aircraft soon to be developed have the opportunity to
radically change the way presence and combat power are delivered from our aircraft carriers."
The Navy completed all of its objectives for the X-47B's carrier demonstration phase in July. The Navy plans to use the
data collected from the aircraft's tests and evaluations to build into the next generation of autonomous aircraft. No one is
quite sure yet how LSOs will interact with future unmanned autonomous flying systems, but Reynolds makes a strong case
to keep them involved.
"As we move to automated approach systems like this one, where the aircraft is essentially being flown by computer code computer code is good at doing something very fast, but it doesn't think creatively and it doesn't adapt. The LSO is always
going to have to be there to make sure that if there is a failure, if something goes wrong, that the aircraft is handled
effectively and safely."
The following people and commands contributed to the production of this article: Mass Communication Specialist Seaman
Travis Litke and Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Chase Martin with USS George H.W. Bush media department,
and Naval Air Systems Command Public Affairs.
http://www.navy.mil/ah_online/deptStory.asp?dep=3&id=75777