LSO DeckLand AUTO SuperHornet F-35C & X47B Pp274 01jun2015

Excerpts from 4.4GB PDF (about the A4G Skyhawk and 'how to deck land 01 Jun 2015') here & here: -

https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6340707e6&sa=822839791 & https:// drive.google.com/?authuser=0#folders/0BwBlvCQ7o4F_aDhIQ0szeVJFY0U) -

Emphasis is on AUTO Carrier Landings, which will be the future for the USN, with Super Hornet 'Magic Carpet' and F-35C 'IDLC' 'delta flight path' & UCLASS, as demonstrated by the X-47B with JPALS

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

In 2006, Erik was fortunate to represent the US Navy on the requirements staff. While there, he provided a fleet perspective on pilot vehicle interface designs, particularly the unique dual touchscreen cockpit displays which replace the traditional gauges and multifunction displays on older aircraft. He successfully operated in the ITAR-sensitive international acquisition environment, and rewrote the Joint F-35 International Training Center flight syllabus to more accurately reflect the requirements of future carrier and land-based tactical aviators in the US and abroad.

Erik ‘Burns’ Hess

founded Carrier Landing Consultants after leaving active duty as the Commander Naval Air Forces Atlantic Force Landing Signal Officer - the senior Atlantic Fleet LSO in August 2010. During his ten years on the LSO platform, he waved over 20,000 mishap-free arrested landings, and has coached hundreds of pilots through their first night traps aboard ship. He has held nearly every LSO position in the US Navy & in early 2010 literally wrote the book on waving, as editor of the first revision to the

LSO Reference Manual in over a decade.”

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

Understanding the carrier-landing task requires some discussion of terminology. Angle of attack (AOA) is the angle between where the airplane is pointed and where it is going. This

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 aircraft’s 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

b. Field of view (over the nose visibility) c. Flight qualities (defined in MIL-STD-8785/1797)

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 airplane’s 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

d. Compatibility with Wind Over the Deck (WOD)

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

f. Pop-up, 50 ft. glide slope transfer with stick only in 5 seconds

is labeled. The ultimate objective of every carrier approach is a safe arrested landing, or trap. There

g. Minimum single engine rate of climb: 500 ft/min (tropical day) The goal of landing speed criteria is to facilitate the design of aircraft that can consistently make safe carrier landings. These historic requirements were recently reviewed for manned

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

2

Rudowski et al, Review of Carrier Approach Criteria for Carrier-based Aircraft p.22

4

Heffley, Outer-Loop Control Factors For Carrier Aircraft. Waters, “Ship Landing Issues” PowerPoint.

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 one’s vision on

maximum allowable performance are given.

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 airplane’s 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.

Figure 1 : Carrier Landing Environment6 Table 1: Touchdown Dispersion Parameters7

Target Performance (ft Maximum Allowable (ft) Lateral Mean 2 4 Lateral Std Deviation 3 5 Longitudinal Mean 16 24 Longitudinal Std Deviation 40 60 5

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

ROLE OF LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER “The landing signal officer’s primary responsibility is the safe and expeditious recovery of non-V/STOL fixed-wing aircraft aboard ship. The employment of high-performance aircraft and the necessity for all weather operations have placed ever increasing demands on the LSO’s skill and judgment. Through training and experience, he is capable of correlating factors of wind, weather, aircraft capabilities, ship configuration, pilot experience, etc., in order to provide optimum control and assistance in aircraft landings. The LSO is also directly responsible for training pilots in carrier landing techniques. In this regard, he must constantly monitor pilot performance, schedule and conduct necessary ground training, counsel and debrief individual pilots, and certify their carrier readiness and qualification. The pilot and LSO form a professional and disciplined team, both ashore and afloat. The LSO strives to develop the pilot’s confidence, judgment, maximum effort, technical proficiency, and personal interest. The pilot must rely on the LSO’s experience and ability

to prepare him for optimum effectiveness as a carrier pilot.” -

NATOPS LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER MANUAL 15 Dec 2001 http://www.navyair.com/LSO_NATOPS_Manual.pdf

THOUGHTS FROM THE [LSO] DEAN... Aloha everyone out there in Naval Aviationland. I am CDR Matt “Potzo” Pothier; Hornet baby, former Japan, VMFAT 101, CAG 8, and LSO School Paddles. As I step into position leading the Landing Signal Officer business, I am pleased to find that Weeds left the platform fully manned, professionally trained and motivated to ensure carrier aviation continues to thrive. As OIC my intent is to continue our focus on supporting the fleet by providing the best training and standards to all those who attend our school or receive our instruction. As a schoolhouse we will continue to maintain a connection to carrier operations so that we can provide the latest and greatest techniques, procedures, and standardization to ensure we are prepared to respond in critical situations. http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlySeptember2012.pdf It has been a few years since I manned the platform. Since then we have seen some changes and have had the chance to celebrate some major milestones in our profession. Although I was overseas during the 100th anniversary celebration of Naval Aviation, I observed the festivities from afar with great pride. If you had a chance to read our August Paddles Monthly, you saw an article written in 1980 by a former CAG Paddles. It was interesting to see that no matter how many things change, much remains the same. The pride and professionalism that exists within our small community of Naval Aviation, and especially as LSOs, persists. Let’s face it, without paddles manning the platform to recover aircraft on those dark and scary nights we wouldn’t be real Naval Aviators. In fact, if we weren’t motivated to do one of the most difficult things in aviation, landing aircraft on pitching decks in ugly weather, we might as well have joined the Air Force. This is no knock on the Air Force; heck I dig my Starbucks, 5 star hotels, per diem, and nice long easy going stationary runways as much as anyone. Take it from the famous musical Viper guys Dos Gringos, this carrier business is hard work. We celebrate our profession because it is hard work, because we defend those in need, and because we can make a difference. Trapping on a carrier is extremely difficult. The conditions are always changing and what worked well during the day could set someone up for failure the next night. Technological improvements in the carrier aviation business have helped, but they are not foolproof. Constant monitoring of those systems is required to ensure they are in the best possible working condition on our aircraft and on our ship. As paddles, we have to be aware of these continuously changing conditions as well as how these conditions are going to affect our airwing pilots. We need to understand how these changing conditions will affect every individual in conjunction with the tendencies that they have developed. As CAG Paddles, one has to be pilot, paddles and a psychologist all at once. The ability to read pilots within the current operating conditions, to know what they are going to do before they do it, will

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 aren’t going the way we want, and we just can’t 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 world’s 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 we’ve seen we haven’t 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 can’t land on a carrier, put on an ascot. Go catch’em Paddles… http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlySeptember2012.pdf

‘Paddles Monthly’ June 2012 “TYCOM Corner” http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyJune2012.pdf Flying the pass: As we’ve always been told, and what I’ve just reinforced, is that the pass starts long before the air-plane is in the break. That said, when in the pattern, your utmost concentration is required to constantly correct for any deviation before it puts you out of parameters. My personal advice on correcting deviations is to put LINEUP first in your scan…. This is the hardest to correct…. Secondly, make sure your AOA is squared away. If your lineup & AOA aren’t on, then the information from the BALL will be inaccurate. A two unit fast or slow aircraft can change the hook position by several feet and often accounts for either bolters or 1 wires though there was a “centered ball”. Once you are receiving the good info by being on centerline and on-speed, you will be able to fly the ball corrections that you’ve been doing since the TRACOM. For high deviations, I submit that correcting for half the deviation works the best….Then, once the correction is complete and under your pro-active ball-flying control, start the process over again. Never correct a high ball to put it in the center. The lowest you should see it is cresting. If you continually work the half deviation corrections, you should never see it back to center. When on the low side, correct for half that deviation to the high side.... Remember, never lead a low! If you don’t lead a low, you will wind up high after correcting from the low. Once there, correct back by half. This is a gameplan that will get you aboard every time if it is played the whole pass & nothing less than whole pass (translation: FLY the BALL ALL the WAY to TOUCHDOWN). CDR George “Chum” Walborn, Former CVW-14 Paddles-

The Navy & Marine Corps Aviation Safety Magazine

LEVEL OF TRUST

By Lt. Matt Antel

APPROACH March/April 2010

was embarked with Carrier Air Wing 1 on USS Enterprise (CVN-65). We just had departed from Norfolk for a six-month deployment. While flying a routine, afternoon FA-18 training mission, the summer weather deteriorated to the point that all aircraft were recalled to the ship. I was part of a group that just had launched. Another wave from the previous event were airborne and in line to recover before me. As the air wing converged on the ship, every aircraft was shuffled into the marshal stack. While waiting overhead, large thunderclouds continued to develop, and I found it more and more difficult to keep from flying into zero-zero conditions. With the radios tuned to the approach frequencies, I heard the play-by-play as the first few aircraft approached the ship. The first call that was broadcast by paddles was “99, taxi lights on” for recovery. Normally, carrier-based aircraft recover with only their exterior and approach lights on at night, and with lights completely out during the day. A request for taxi-landing lights to be switched on for any recovery meant that visibility was low, and paddles couldn’t see an approaching aircraft until it was well inside three quarters of a mile from the ship. At times like this, pilots must rely on the skills they have built since day one of their carrier-aviation training, while also placing an enormous level of trust in the LSO cadre. Landing a jet on an aircraft carrier is never a routine event, but it becomes all the more harrowing with challenging environmental conditions. As more and more pilots struggled to get aboard because of high seas and reduced visibility, the approach controller would push further back everyone’s approach time. I faced the added challenge of closely

managing my fuel while waiting for what assuredly would prove to be a difficult approach. As my fuel slowly burned away, I knew if I did not get aboard on my first pass I would face a trip to the tanker, or an emergency divert to an unknown airfield in a foreign country. Finally, my turn to commence the approach arrived. Reaching my approach fix, I accelerated to 250 knots, extended my speed brakes, and began my descent on a standard Case III recovery profile. The whole time, I could hear paddles talking other pilots aboard as the deck pitched and rolled in the high seas. At the three-quarter-mile ball call, pilot after pilot reported “clara ship,” signifying their inability to see any part of the carrier. Once paddles could break out the bright approach light, they would call “paddles contact” to the pilot, and deliver power and line-up calls to get the aircraft in sync with the flight deck. Anytime paddles did not think the approach should continue, he would signal wave off. In conditions like these, an overall recovery rate of 50 percent is considered a success. I leveled off at 1,200 feet and turned to intercept the specific course to drive me toward the ship. Just inside 10 miles, I extended my landing gear, dropped the arresting hook, decelerated to approach speed, and completed my landing checklist. As I looked through the windscreen, the conditions were truly zero-zero. The conditions were so thick that my taxi light reflected off the clouds, making the possibility of breaking out even more remote.

About five seconds before touchdown, my jet descended out of the fog and the ship appeared in front of me.

ous three aircraft had recovered, mostly thanks to the skill of my colleagues on the LSO platform. At one mile, I glanced at the water, and barely made out the whitecaps. That’s usually a good sign that you’re about to break out, but my forward visibility still was zero. Three quarters of a mile from the ship, the approach controller directed me to “Call the ball,” implying that I should be able to see the landing area AT THREE MILES, I followed my instruments and tipped and the visual glide slope. I saw nothing, and replied over to intercept the 3.5-degree glide slope that would with, “Clara ship,” just like all the aircraft that came eventually lead me to the ship’s landing area. Visibility down before. Soon, the LSO responded, “Paddles conwas not improving, but I was encouraged that the previ- tact, you’re on glide slope.”

Paddles talked me down to a landing. At this point, my job consisted of listening to paddles and responding to his voice calls. Unlike a normal approach, I only was aware the ship was getting closer and closer. Failure to properly respond to LSO calls could have led to disaster. About five seconds before touchdown, my jet descended out of the fog and the ship appeared in front of me. Touchdown occurred so quickly I had no opportunity to do anything more than make a last-second check of lineup and advance my throttle to full power. I then felt my jet abruptly decelerate after catching a wire. Lt. Antel is with the LSO school, NAS Oceana, Va., and flew with VFA-211.

http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/Documents/media/approach/Mar-Apr10-Approach.pdf Approach 6

Autothrottles

By lex, on January 2nd, 2012 F18 Hornet Timelapse & Super SloMo http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MFMLAqDHsU

“A Youtube Video that almost – almost – makes the drudgery involved in preparing for sea during field carrier landing practice look interesting. It’s the music, mainly. Can’t think of anything else to explain it. LSOs these days, with actual shacks to sit in. Away from the bugs and the heat. Makes them soft, I should think. –------------------------------------There are three crucial factors the pilot must control in a carrier landing approach: glideslope, lineup and angle-of-attack. The ship may heave, pitch and roll, but that is only of incidental value. Entertainment by terror if you will, especially at night. “Quote Thoreau and simplify”, said Michael Stipe, and fortunately for your host – a simple man if

ever there was one – McDonnell Douglas engineers had the wisdom and foresight to emplace the Approach Power Compensation system aboard his steed. The APC (or autothrottles) essentially tied the aircraft power setting and angle of attack to the stick pitch position. In a manual approach, the proper response to being a little high, for example, would be to ease off a percent or two of thrust using your left hand on the throttles, and then carefully bunt the nose over to capture and maintain the correct angle-ofattack. If you didn’t bunt the nose, the aircraft would eventually seek the trimmed AOA, but not before flashing a slow, going further high, and causing paddles heartburn and distress. Which in turn might cause you to get waived off, adversely affecting your landing grade performance, self-esteem and special snowflake status. Coming back down on glideslope, the whole thing

had to be repeated again: Correction, counter-correction, re-counter-correction. But the APC allowed you to press a button on the throttle and, hey presto: All of that angle-ofattack stuff went away (assuming you were properly trimmed at APC engagement). Rather than manually move the throttles, you merely made the nose up or nose down correction required by your glideslope deviation and the throttles would creep up or back to maintain the proper speed. It basically reduced your workload from meatball, lineup, AoA to “meatball, lineup”. An efficiency of 33%! When you came aboard during CQ operations or at night (socalled “zip-lip” operations were standard during daylight, non-CQ operations), the auto flyer was required to report the fact that he was in fact flying, well: Auto. Due to some residual fear, uncertainty and doubt in the LSO community, which was ever a superstitious

lot what with their pickles, worry beads and chicken’s feet necklaces. I say that having been a member of the fraternity. They gave me a hat. I have the hat to this day. I have the hat. So on your ball call it’d be, “404, Hornet ball, 4.2, auto” and the reply would very often be, “Roger ball, auto.” I was very fond of autothrottles, they’d been very, very good to me over the years. Treated it as summat of an emergency when they weren’t operative. If only for the lack of familiarity that was in it, killing snakes in the cockpit with both stick and throttles. So it came to pass one day during fleet CQ that the ship had contrived to find herself in gusty conditions, with winds over the deck in excess of 35 knots. The senior LSO on station called on the Tower frequency, “99 Slapshot, winds are 35 knots, four-degree glideslope, all Hornets go manual.” Which it was good to know that

the winds were 35+ knots, for that would affect where you chose to turn from downwind to final – delay too long and you’d be deep in the groove and sent around to try it again – but the four-degree glideslope was one of those, “eh” statements. It was supposed to mean something to pilots, but I was a pilot for many years and I never quite figured out what. You fly the ball to touchdown, and glideslope be damned. As for that last bit about “going manual”, that must have gone into my bad ear, for I entirely missed it. My turn to come around and have a look at the deck eventually arrived, and I broke to downwind, configured the jet for landing and selected APC. Rolling out on final, I reported, “401, Hornet ball, 5.6″, primly omitting the fact that the APC was in fact engaged. For the LSO, she seemed busy. And I didn’t want to overload her. With too much data. She had her reasons, not to

mention her fears and superstitions, for asking the pilots to go manual. It was a little higher than normal workload in gusty conditions, and the APC could struggle to keep up with the larger stick deflections. I just felt like I knew my own capabilities and limitations better than that LSO, who was in any case rather bossy and not someone I would ordinarily invite into my cockpit, especially when it was getting cramped and crowded. So when the debrief time came along, she looked at me with a suspicious glare, and asked whether I was in fact flying auto, at all? “Who would fly auto in these conditions?” I replied sadly. Thus mollified, she read me my grades (quite good), theorizing that I had so long flown auto that even my manual corrections had the appearance of being made in autothrottles. And who was I to argue with the LSO?” http://www.neptunuslex. com/2012/01/02/autothrottles/

The Unbearable Lightness of Paddles by NeptunusLex

on the ship) from the longitudinal night (darker than a hat full of LSO’s in various stages of qualia@@holes), he hasn’t 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 he’ll 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 you’re 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, here’s 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 deck’s down, you’re happier with the idea of of course, but the real purpose jet decides to “land early.” You being on deck wishing you were you’re a little overpowered… of grading landings is to make don’t want to be in the net, it in the air, than in the air, wishing decks up, you’re slow, power… the pilots focus on doing it well means you haven’t done your you were on deck: decks down, don’t chase it! when it’s easy, so that they can job very well and someone has The night starts out with your Power… POWER!!!… Don’t climb!… do it all when it’s 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. LSO’s 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 He’s 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

aboard, and the deck is really moving. I’m flattered really, garsh. I get up on the roof, grab my “pickle” (a corded handle that controls the wave-off lights, among other things) and radio handset and set to work. Now then, what’ll it be? First down the pike is a roommate of mine, flying an FA-18 Hornet. Great jet, but it settles down off glideslope like an attorney in court when underpowered. Goes from looking great to OH MY GOD in just about no time. He lands early, a “taxi 1-wire” that no kidding uses up all the available runway and a little more besides. The hook point (although we do not recognize it at the time) has struck the round down aft of the landing area, with the main mounts just clearing the ramp. That’ll focus you pretty quickly, and we powered the next two guys over the wires to compensate. The third guy, in an S-3, makes a huge correction to go from “no-chance high” to right there on the three wire with a landing so hard he hurt his back and had to be helped out of the aircraft. Roomie comes around again, and we’d like to see him a little higher too – a few power calls does the trick, but he adds a little more for mom and the kids and has a long bolter. Really long.

The main mounts touch the deck, but the nosewheel goes over the side. The nose falls through, he goes over the end on a downward vector and we lose sight of him as the bow rises again. Sixty feet before he’s wet, we’re all looking for the tell-tale splash. Someone keys the radio mike, but no one can think of just the right thing to say… what seems like an eternity later, he pops up in front of the bow, climbing at a 20 degree flight path angle with the afterburners lit. Keeps climbing that way for a bit, too. Everyone gets one more gray hair. Next up is the second staff LSO, the one that’s already had a hard time getting aboard. He’s been to the tanker to get some gas, and is willing to give it another shot. He really wants to get aboard, it’s considered bad form for an LSO to struggle in the landing pattern. He’s looking pretty good up until just inside a quarter of mile, when I see a green flash on his AOA indexers that tells me he’s a little slow, a little underpowered. I lean over to tell the other LSO that he might need a power call, when the deck drops out from underneath us. When it moves that rapidly, the gyros in the glideslope indicator on the ship can’t keep up – the pilot will think

that he low with the deck up and that the words that drip from vice-versa when it goes down. my lips to God’s ears are not of Our guy sees the meatball rise the quality likely to recommend and goes to idle power, dropping my soul to the good place. At the nose. that particular moment, my life Looked like a turd dropped didn’t flash before my eyes and I from a tall moose. My “little didn’t whisper “momma.” My only underpowered” comment dies thoughts were, “I’m farked,” or on my lips, transforming to a words to that effect. screaming “WAVEOFF, WAVEOFF” Somehow, miraculously, the call. The pilot cobs the throtdeck, which had been rising, tles, but jet engines take a fell away tentatively. As though while to spool up from flight unsure that this was the right thing to do. The Prowler’s engines idle. Unsatisfied with his engine response, he pulls the nose up to caught up, and he danced by us in wing-rock, almost fully stalled. stall, which doesn’t help matters When I regained my personal all that much. To make things motor control, I looked over to worse, the deck starts to rise “the net,” where by rights I ought again, and I’m treated to the to have cast myself. Two or three sight of a Prowler (EA-6B, four of my teammates stood there souls aboard) in full stall, a hundred feet away, partially obscured transfixed, holding on to each other at the very deck edge, by the deck – I can only see the unable to make the leap. Of the top half of his jet, mid fuselage two enlisted phone talkers, who on the belly up to the cocked didn’t get paid for that kind of up nose. The rest is below flight sh!t, there was no sign, except deck level. that of their sound-powered Ever wonder what thoughts phone cords dangling over the go through your mind in that last side, swinging slowly from left to instant when you know you’re right. They’d seen enough. They going to die? What words will be bailed. on your lips when you meet your Much smarter than their officmaker? Hope it will maybe be a brief prayer, squaring away all the ers, those fellas. black deeds that color your soul? http://www.neptunuslex.com I’ve had a couple of opportuni/2003/11/26/ ties to get as close as I ever want the-unbearableto get to that point, and found lightness-of-paddles/

VX-23 Strike Test News 02 Sep 2014

)ROORZLQJ 65& UHPRYDO WKH DLUFUDIW KDV HQWHUHGWKH'HSDUWXUH5HVLVWDQFH'5 SKDVH RIWHVWLQJZKLFKHQFRPSDVVHVPRUHWKDQSHUFHQW RI WKH +LJK $2$ WHVW SURJUDP 7KH XOWLPDWH GHVLJQ JRDO LV QRW WR PDNH D µFDUHIUHH¶ SODWIRUP EXW VLPSO\ RQH WKDW LV VDIH WR RSHUDWH ZLWKRXW FRPSURPLVLQJ FDSDELOLW\²WKHSXUVXLWWRGHYHORSDQGGHPRQVWUDWH WKLVFRQWLQXHV

0DM0LFKDHO³0LNH\´.LQJHQ

/,*+71,1*)/,*+77(67 &'5&KULVWLDQ³:LOVRQ´ 6HZHOO

6+2577$.(2))$1'9(57,&$/ /$1',1*6729/  0DM0DUN³7DF´7DFTXDUG 0 /7&KULV³7-´.DUDSRVWHOHV

+,*+$1*/(2)$77$&.$2$ + /&'57KHRGRUH³'XWFK´ '\FNPDQ

/&'50LFKDHO³%ULFN´ :LOVRQ

0DM-XVWLQ³*HLFR´&DUOVRQ

3 3ULRU WR VXPPHU RI  DOO )%& ÀLJKW WHVW ZDV F FRQGXFWHGZLWKLQWKHERXQGVRIWKHORZ$2$&RQWURO / /DZ &/$:  OLPLWV  WR  GHJUHHV $2$  2Q  $XJXVW0U'DQ³'RJ´&DQLQDQG0U3HWHU ³³.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 ÀLJKW WHVW PRGL¿FDWLRQV QHHGHG WR EH SXW LQ LQ SODFH SULRU WR ÀLJKW 0RVW LPSRUWDQW ZDV WKH 6SLQ 5 5HFRYHU\&KXWH65& ZKLFKRIIHUHGVLJQL¿FDQWULVN 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&RO3DWULFN³2[\´0RUDQ )*RYHUQPHQW )OLJKW7HVW'LUHFWRU

2&)6SLQ&KXWH0RXQWHGIRU+L$2$7HVWLQJ

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

7R DFKLHYH UHPRYDO RI WKH 65& WKH WHVW WHDP ¿UVW LQFUHPHQWDOO\ H[SDQGHG WKH $2$ HQYHORSH WR  GHJUHHV $2$ IRU YHUL¿FDWLRQ RI WKH DLUFUDIW¶V DHURG\QDPLF PRGHO WR DFFXUDWHO\ SUHGLFW SHUIRUPDQFH2QFHVDWLV¿HGWKHWHDPWKHQVXEMHFWHG WKH DLUFUDIWWR LQWHQWLRQDO GHSDUWXUHV DQG WDLOVOLGHV LQ RUGHU WR REVHUYH RXW RI FRQWURO ÀLJKW DQG UHFRYHU\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV7KUHHUHFRYHU\SUR¿OHVZHUHYDOLGDWHG ² 0DQXDO 3LWFK 5RFNLQJ$XWRPDWLF 3LWFK 5HFRYHU\ DQG +LJK
7HVWLQJ'HSDUWXUH5HVLVWDQFHDW+LJK$2$

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index. cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=820

F-35C VX-23 NIMITZ

DT-I Trial Arrests https://www.youtube.com/

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 DVVRFLDWHGZLWKVKLSERDUGÀLJKWRSHUDWLRQV7KH7& FDWDSXOWDQG0NDUUHVWLQJJHDUVLWHVDW1$63DWX[HQW 5LYHU0DU\ODQGDQG1DYDO$LU:DUIDUH&HQWHU$LUFUDIW 'LYLVLRQ1$:&$' /DNHKXUVWORFDWHGDERDUG-RLQW %DVH 0FJXLUH'L[/DNHKXUVW 1HZ -HUVH\ DUH ÀHHW 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 ÀHHW 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\¿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

7KH URDG WR LQLWLDO VHD WULDOV EHJDQ LQ 'HFHPEHU  ZLWK WKH UHWXUQ WR ÀLJKW RI &) ² WKH WKLUG )& DLUFUDIW WR UROO RII RI WKH SURGXFWLRQ ÀRRU ² DIWHU UHFHLYLQJ D UHGHVLJQHG KRRN GXULQJ D PDMRU PRGL¿FDWLRQ SHULRG 7KH ¿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¿GHQFHLQWKHQHZ KRRNV\VWHPWKHWHDPUHWXUQHGWR3DWX[HQW5LYHUWR FRQGXFWWKHQH[WSKDVHRIWHVWLQJ²VWUXFWXUDOVXUYH\ ²LQZKLFKZHHYDOXDWHWKHDLUFUDIWVWUXFWXUDOVWUHQJWK WRHQVXUHWKDWLWLVVXI¿FLHQWIRUVKLSERDUGRSHUDWLRQV 7KLV LV DFFRPSOLVKHG E\ FRQGXFWLQJ VHYHUDO VHULHV RI DUUHVWHG ODQGLQJV RXWVLGH RI D QRUPDO WRXFKGRZQ HQYHORSH 7KH ODQGLQJ VHULHV FRQVLVW RI KLJK VLQN ODQGLQJVUROOHG\DZHGODQGLQJVPD[LPXPHQJDJLQJ VSHHGODQGLQJVDQGIUHHÀLJKWODQGLQJV7KHIUHHÀLJKW ODQGLQJLVVLPLODUWRDQLQÀLJKWHQJDJHPHQWVLQFHWKH KRRNHQJDJHVWKHFURVVGHFNSHQGDQWSULRUWRWKHPDLQ ZKHHOVWRXFKLQJGRZQKRZHYHUWKHDLUFUDIWVWLOOKDV D GRZQZDUG YHFWRU7KH XOWLPDWH JRDO RI WKLV WHVWLQJ LVWRHQVXUHWKHDLUFUDIWFDQKDQGOHWKHKDUVKIRUFHV LWZLOOH[SHULHQFHZKLOHDQXJJHWLVVDIHO\H[HFXWLQJ QLJKW&4

7KH )& WHDP DV D ZKROH LV EXV\ GHYHORSLQJ WKH QH[W JHQHUDWLRQ RI FRQWURO ODZV WKDW DLP WR LQFUHDVH ERDUGLQJ UDWHV DQG VDIHW\ PDUJLQV ZKLOH RSHUDWLQJ DURXQG WKH DLUFUDIW FDUULHU $ QHZ FRQWURO VFKHPH FDOOHG 'HOWD )OLJKW 3DWK ')3  LV IHDWXUHG RQ WKH )& ')3 LV D IRUP RI DXWRSLORW LQ ZKLFK D ÀLJKW SDWK LV FRPPDQGHG QRPLQDOO\  GHJUHHV 7KH SLORW LV WKHQ IUHH WR PDNH OLQHXS FRUUHFWLRQV ZLWK ODWHUDO VWLFNZLWKRXWWKHQHHGWRFRPSHQVDWHIRUORVWOLIWZLWK SRZHURUORQJLWXGLQDOVWLFNLQSXWV,IWKHSLORWUHTXLUHV DJOLGHVORSHFRUUHFWLRQWKHVLQNUDWHFDQEHLQFUHDVHG RUGHFUHDVHGXVLQJIRUZDUGRUDIWVWLFNXQWLODFHQWHU EDOO LV DFKLHYHG DQG WKHQ UHOHDVH WKH VWLFN LQSXW 7KH FRQWURO ODZV ZLOO WKHQ UHWXUQ WKH DLUFUDIW WR WKH FRPPDQGHGÀLJKWSDWK7KHSLORWZLOOKDYHWKHDELOLW\ WR FKDQJH WKH GHVLUHG JOLGHVORSH DV UHTXLUHG E\ WKH HQYLURQPHQWDO FRQGLWLRQV IRU DQ\ JLYHQ GD\ ')3¶V JRDORILQFUHDVLQJERDUGLQJUDWHDQGVDIHW\PDUJLQKDV VKRZQ SURPLVH GXULQJ ¿HOG WHVWLQJ %XW DV DOO JRRG QDYDO DYLDWRUV NQRZ WKH ERDW LV WKH JUHDW HTXDOL]HU DQG ZH DUH HDJHUO\ DZDLWLQJ WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR WHVW ')3GXULQJLQLWLDOVHDWULDOV $OORIXVDW)&&DUULHU6XLWDELOLW\DUHH[FLWHGWREH DSDUWRIWKLVSURJUDPGXULQJWKLVSKDVH2XUXOWLPDWH PLVVLRQLVWRHQVXUHWKH)&VHDPOHVVO\LQWHJUDWHV ZLWK WKH DLUZLQJ DQG DLUFUDIW FDUULHU ZLWK WKH DELOLW\ WR FRQGXFW VDIH HIIHFWLYH DQG HI¿FLHQW VKLSERDUG RSHUDWLRQV ,I \RX KDYH DQ\ TXHVWLRQV RU FRQFHUQV SOHDVHIHHOIUHHWRFRQWDFWWKHWHDP)O\VDIHDQGEH WKHEDOO

:($32166<67(06 ,17(*5$7,21 7KH :HDSRQ 6\VWHPV ,QWHJUDWLRQ WHDP FRQWLQXHVWRIRFXVRQFRPSOHWLQJWKHVWRUHVHSDUDWLRQV DQGFDSWLYHFDUULDJHWHVWVUHTXLUHGIRU%ORFN%ÀHHW UHOHDVHDQG0DULQH&RUSV,QLWLDO2SHUDWLQJ&DSDELOLW\ ,2&  7KH SDVW WZHOYH PRQWKV KDYH VHHQ WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI *%8 DQG *%8 VHSDUDWLRQV RQ )%WKH¿UVWZHDSRQVUHOHDVHIURPDQ)&DQG WKHVXFFHVVIXOHPSOR\PHQWRIERWK*%8DQG*%8  IURP DQ )% DJDLQVW D VWDWLRQDU\ WDUJHW 7KH )%KDVDOVRVXFFHVVIXOO\HPSOR\HGPXOWLSOH$,0 V DJDLQVW PDQHXYHULQJ WDUJHWV 7HVWV WKXV IDU KDYHEHHQYHU\VXFFHVVIXO:HDSRQVKDYHUHOHDVHG UHOLDEO\DQGWKHLUWUDMHFWRULHVKDYHPDWFKHGPRGHOHG SUHGLFWLRQVDZLQIRUWKHHQJLQHHUV 7KH%58VKDYH DOVR UHWDLQHG DQG UHOHDVHG ODQ\DUGV UHOLDEO\ JLYLQJ FRQ¿GHQFHWKDWWKHZHDSRQZLOOIXQFWLRQSURSHUO\ZKHQ HPSOR\HG:LWK%ORFN%WKHÀHHWZLOOEHFOHDUHGIRU 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

Cats, Traps & a Rooster Tail Dec 2014 Mark Ayton, Air International

[F-35C Aircraft] “…CF-03/‘SD73’ and CF-05/‘SD75’… …DEVELOPMENTAL TESTER TEST DIRECTOR

Cdr Shawn Kern is the Director of Test and Evaluation for F-35 Naval Variants and the senior military member within the F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF) based at Patuxent River. He leads a diverse team comprising 920 members from the US Government, the military and contractors responsible for developmental test of the F-35B and F-35C aircraft during the System Development and Demonstration phase. During DT I, Cdr Kern led the F-35 ITF, provided government oversight of carrier suitability testing and co-ordinated with the USS Nimitz’s captain, executive officers and other F-35 stakeholders. He told AIR International: “Launch testing included minimum catapult end speed determination as well as performance and handling during high and low energy catapult launches and crosswind conditions at representative

aircraft gross weights. Approach and recovery testing focused on aircraft performance and handling qualities during off-nominal recoveries in low, medium, high and crosswind wind conditions. Data and analysis from DT I will support the development of initial aircraft launch and recovery bulletins for F-35C carrier operations and Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardisation (NATOPS) flight manual procedures. Test results from DT I will also influence follow-on developmental and operational testing required to achieve F-35C initial operational capability.” Lt Cdr Ted Dyckman is a US Navy F-35 test pilot assigned to VX-23 based at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland: he made the secondever arrested landing on a super carrier in aircraft CF-05 on November 3 and the first night-time landing on November 13 in CF-03. Speaking about the F-35C’s performance around the carrier, Lt Cdr Dyckman told AIR International: “Everything met expectations and there were no surprises. Going through the burble was a big unknown, but the airplane responded better than we thought it would.

“We saw that the aircraft could trap: the only true bolter was a power call by the Landing Signals Officer when the aircraft touched down long with the hook down but came around and made an arrested landing. “When the weather started to deteriorate we had such confidence in how the aircraft was flying that we lowered the weather minimums to those used by the fleet. I knew that when I lowered the hook I was going to trap. That says a lot for the airplane. “Because the autopilots and flying qualities are so good, the workload to fly the jet is reduced and we were confident enough to declare it ready for night-time traps. It flew very well behind the ship and I made two hook-down passes and two traps. It’s unheard of to conduct night ops on a type’s first period at sea. “We accomplished everything we set out to do, which allows us to go to DT II and conduct maximum speed catapult shots and carry internal and external stores and asymmetric payloads.”… …Flight testing was split into three phases: day carrier qualification (CQ) and flight deck crew familiarisation; 1

the development of aircraft launch bulletins (ALB) and aircraft recovery bulletins (ARB). In addition DT I also included Logistical Test and Evaluation (LT&E). Subsets of each phase comprised: Aircraft Launch Bulletins

• Military rated thrust catapult launches

towing and tie-down • Weapons loading • Basic maintenance, including aircraft jacking and landing gear servicing • Maintenance support Preparations

Since the author’s previous visit to the F-35 ITF at Pax River in April • Minimum catapult launch end the main test objectives completed speeds over the summer were arrested land• Low, medium and high excess wind ings, touch and goes (a training evoover deck (WOD) catapult launches lution also known as field carrier land• Crosswind catapult launches ing practice or FCLP) and a structural survey of CF-03. The latter was a me• Bow and waist catapult launches thodical check of the aircraft to ensure it was structurally suitable to Aircraft Recovery Bulletins be flown aboard an aircraft carri• Approach handling qualities er. The survey included testing engi(AHQ) of F-35C approach modes: neering fixes made to the aircraft’s delta flight path, approach power pitch pivot pin and nose wheel steercompensator (APC), and manual ing motor. Although precautionary, the • Low, medium and high excess WOD survey was required because funcrecoveries tionality problems had been discovered with each component during the • Crosswind recoveries F-35C’s developmental flight test pro• Bolter performance Logistical Test gramme. A subset of the structural and Evaluation testing performed on CF-03, known as • Deck handling including taxiing, a shake, was also completed on CF-05

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 ship’s emitters did not affect any of the aircraft’s 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 panaircraft’s 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-35’s ex• Delta Flight Path, which is an haust plume, which interacts with the innovative leap in aircraft flight carrier’s 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 pilot’s 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 aircraft’s 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 aircraft’s 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 area…starting 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] doesn’t see a timely correction or doesn’t feel that the pilot is going to land safely, he or she will wave them off. “The LSO [who is located on a 3

platform positioned 120ft (36.6m) from the end of the ship and 40ft (12.2m) from the centreline on the port side] is a pilot trained to observe the aircraft as it flies down the approach watching for deviation in pitch attitude using a camera that shows whether the aircraft is on or off centreline. Listening to the aircraft, the LSO is trained to recognise changes in rates of vertical and horizontal movement to ensure the aircraft is going to clear the ramp at the aft of the ship and recover safely aboard. The LSO plays a vital role in the safe recovery of aircraft aboard the ship. “Getting aircraft back to the boat is our first concern: our second is [preventing] what we call a long bolter. This occurs if the pilot fails to correct a big deviation and lands well beyond the four-wire [the last arrestment cable along the deck]. For safety purposes any time an aircraft touches down on the deck, the pilot needs sufficient deck to derotate, and get the throttle back to mil[itary] power to fly away. There’s not enough time for the plane to de-rotate with a long bolter, which means it could still have downward direction so when [the aircraft]

rolls off the front end of the boat it’s going to sink…. …evaluated approaches with crosswinds behind the ship out to 7kts…. …“We also evaluated approach handling qualities in low and high wind conditions: low is 10 to 20kt, nominal is 20 to 30kt and high is in excess of 30kt. The team’s goal for DT I was to gain as much data with cross winds and various head winds to allow us to start writing our aircraft launch and recovery bulletins.” What Next?

Testing around the carrier gets more complicated with aircraft weight and asymmetry. On subsequent DT events the F-35 ITF will increase aircraft weight and asymmetry by loading stores on one side to create as much asymmetry as possible, which is the complicating factor. Cdr Wilson told AIR International that testing on subsequent DT events is going to look very similar but will evaluate heavier weights and asymmetric lateral weight differences. OUTCOMES FROM DT I

• Flight test conducted in the operational environment.

• The F-35C demonstrated exceptional handling qualities throughout all launch and recovery conditions tested. • All four test pilots rated the F-35C to be very easy to operate from the carrier. Arrested landings were consistent: the aircraft caught the optimal three-wire in the majority of the 102 traps. Pilot comments included: “I noticed the burble, but the aircraft just takes care of it”, “It makes flying the ball comfortable” and “This thing is a three-wire machine”…. …STATISTICS FROM DT I

Start date: November 3 [2014] Completion date: November 14 Flights: 33 Flight hours: 39.2 Catapult launches: 124 Touch-and-goes: 222 Arrested landings: 124 Bolters: 2 intentional with hook down Threshold test points completed: 100% pp 42-47 Air International Dec 2014 4

µ3DGGOHVPRQWKO\¶2FW KWWSZZZKUDQDRUJGRFXPHQWV3DGGOHV0RQWKO\2FWREHUSGI

5KLQR)O\LQJ

7KLVPRQWK,WKRXJKW,ZRXOGWU\WRDQVZHUVRPHTXHVWLRQVWKDWSHRSOHPD\KDYHDVNHG WKHPVHOYHVRURWKHUVEXWKDYHQHYHUIRXQGWKHDQVZHUV2QHTXHVWLRQPD\EH³:K\LVWKH DSSURDFKVSHHGRIWKH6XSHU+RUQHWVORZHUWKDQWKH+RUQHW"´7KLQNDERXWWKDWRQH«³+RZ FDQDQDLUSODQHWKDWKDVURXJKO\WKHVDPHSODQIRUPOD\RXW\HWLVODUJHUDQGFORVHWR KHDYLHUDWFDUULHUODQGLQJZHLJKWIO\VORZHU"´$QRWKHUTXHVWLRQWKDWFRPHVWRPLQGLV³:K\GR WKHVWDELODWRUVRIWKH6XSHU+RUQHWVHHPWRIODSDQGPRYHVRPXFKPRUHWKDQWKH+RUQHWRQ DSSURDFK"´HVSHFLDOO\FRQVLGHULQJWKHIDFWWKDWWKH\KDYHVLPLODUIOLJKWFRQWUROV\VWHPVDQG IO\LQJTXDOLWLHV 7KHDQVZHUIRUWKHVHTXHVWLRQVLVDFWXDOO\FRQWDLQHGVLPSO\LQRQHVHQWHQFHLQWKH6XSHU +RUQHW¶V1$7236PDQXDOWKDWVWDWHV³«WKHEDVLFDLUIUDPHLVVWDWLFDOO\QHXWUDOWRVOLJKWO\ XQVWDEOH«´,EHW\RX¶UHWKLQNLQJ³,IO\WKH6XSHU+RUQHWDQG,NQRZLW¶VQRWXQVWDEOH´)URPWKH SLORW¶VSHUVSHFWLYHWKDW¶VWUXH,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+RUQHW¶VFRQILJXUDWLRQLV JHQHUDWLQJPRUHOLIWLWFDQIO\NQRWVVORZHU 6R«³:K\GRWKHWDLOVRQWKH()PRYHVRPXFKPRUH"´,W¶VEHFDXVHWKH)&6KDVWRZRUNVR PXFKKDUGHUWRNHHSWKHDLUFUDIWEDODQFHGDQGVWDEOHMXVWOLNHKRZPXFKKDQGPRWLRQ\RX KDYHWRXVHWRNHHSDVWLFNYHUWLFDOO\EDODQFHGRQWKHWLSRI\RXUILQJHU $Q\RWKHUTXHVWLRQVSOHDVHVHQGLWRXUZD\)O\6DIH /&'57HG³6KHH]D´'\FNPDQ 9;6KLS6XLWDELOLW\ BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

µ3DGGOHVPRQWKO\¶1RY

)URPIOLJKWVFKRROZHDOOOHDUQHGWKDWOLIWLVGLUHFWO\UHODWHGWRYHORFLW\DQGZHLJKW7KHKHDYLHU DQDLUFUDIWZHLJKVWKHIDVWHULWPXVWIO\WRJHQHUDWHWKHQHFHVVDU\OLIWWRNHHSLWDLUERUQH &RQYHUVHO\WKHPRUHOLIWDQDLUFUDIWFDQJHQHUDWHWKHVORZHULWFDQIO\)ODSVJHQHUDWHWKDWOLIW KWWSZZZKUDQDRUJGRFXPHQWV1HZVOHWWHU1RYHPEHUSGI EXWOHW¶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

$7&DQG0H

7KLVPRQWK,ZDQWHGWRWDONDERXWVRPHIO\LQJTXDOLWLHVRIWKH6XSHU+RUQHWEHKLQGWKHERDW 1RWFRQVLGHULQJWKHUROHVRUIXQFWLRQRIDQ)&6DVWDWLFDOO\VWDEOHDLUFUDIWZLOOUHVSRQGWRD 3OHDVHWKLQNRIWKLVDUWLFOHDVDQHGLWRULDODQGP\RSLQLRQDQGWHFKQLTXHVRQO\3HRSOH,KDYH GLVWXUEDQFHE\WHQGLQJWRUHWXUQWRLWV³WULPPHG´FRQGLWLRQ)RULQVWDQFHLIDZLQGJXVW WDONHGWRJHQHUDOO\FRPPHQWWKDWWKH\OLNHWKH/HJDF\$7&EHWWHUWKDQWKH5KLQR$7&, LQFUHDVHVWKH$2$RIDQDLUFUDIWDVWDEOHDLUFUDIWWKURXJKSLWFKLQJPRPHQWVHWF ZLOO QDWXUDOO\GHFUHDVHWKH$2$EDFNWRZDUGVWKHLQLWLDOFRQGLWLRQ$QXQVWDEOHDLUFUDIWZLOOUHVSRQG GLVDJUHH:KHQ,ZDVD6TXDGURQ3DGGOHV,ZDVDELJIDQRIDXWRIO\LQJDQGSUHDFKHGDVPDOO E\LQFUHDVLQJWKH$2$+RZGRHVWKDWDIIHFWWKHWDLO"$IWHUWUXGJLQJWKURXJKWKHDHURG\QDPLF UDSLG³VWLFNVKDNH´WHFKQLTXHWRNHHSWKHHQJLQHV³VSRROHGXS´ZLWK³HQHUJ\´RQWKH5KLQR HTXDWLRQVWKHRYHUDOOUHVXOWLVWKDWWKHWDLOWULPSRVLWLRQIRUDQXQVWDEOHDLUFUDIWDWKLJKHUDQJOHV %DFNWKHQ,GLGQ¶WNQRZZK\WKLVWHFKQLTXHZRUNHGRQO\WKDWLWGLG+RSHIXOO\ZLWKWKLVDUWLFOH, RIDWWDFNLVLQFUHDVLQJO\WUDLOLQJHGJHGRZQ7(' )RUDVWDEOHDLUFUDIWZHWULPWKHVWLFNDIWWR FDQVKLQHVRPHOLJKWRQWKHZK\WKLVWHFKQLTXHLVVRHIIHFWLYH IO\DWDKLJKHU$2$ZKLFKLVPRUHWUDLOLQJHGJHXS7(8 7KHIROORZLQJWZRSLFWXUHVVKRZWKH ,QWKH/HJDF\$7&WKH)&&¶VVHQGFRPPDQGVWRDGULYHXQLWRQWKHWKURWWOHFRQWURODWWDFKHGWR UHVXOW

WKHHQJLQHWKDWHYHQWXDOO\PRYHVWKHDFWXDOIXHOFRQWUROYDOYH7KHWKURWWOHVPRYHEHFDXVH WKH\DUHGLUHFWO\FRQQHFWHGWRWKHVHOLQNDJHV7KH5KLQRWKURWWOHVDUH³IO\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
.HHS¶HPVDIHSDGGOHV

/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” O’KELLY “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 hadn’t 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 didn’t 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 don’t 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 spotter’s call and the backpower up until the aircraft was inside the 45. My back-up’s 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 up’s 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 Boss’s 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 isn’t 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 don’t 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. Don’t 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 cliché, 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.

2

g n i h c t Pi Deck The 2005 PBS Special documenting the Nimitz and Carrier Air Wing’s 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 day’s events.

The 2005 PBS Special documenting the Nimitz and Carrier Air Wing’s 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 day’s events.

on glide slope will require you to exaggerate the ball displacement. As LSOs, we can manipulate the approaching aircraft to He must be able to see it. You should plan on making radio calls if fly in a window that we can most easily manage. By this I mean we you aren‟t immediately getting what you want from the pilot. The should use both voice and ball presentation to put a jet in a position harder you are working to get a pilot in the ballpark the farther out where the pilot will have to make minimal power-off corrections. you should be moving the wave-off window regardless of where he Pick the glide slope (3.5-4.0 degrees) for the deck conditions and is on the glide slope. work hard to not let him get too high. I‟m not suggesting that we Voice calls are important and if you watch the should wave aircraft low. But consider this: the “Each pilot PLAT tape of the 4 OCT recovery you will hear a lot of highest you can show a pilot on the MOVLAS is about half way up the lens. Once a pilot‟s energy should know talking. Bug Roach wrote about how sometimes simply state exceeds that presentation you now have a lot of your voice inflec- using “standard LSO comm” won‟t cut it. On the tape you will hear several screaming “Easy with it!” calls. work to do. Here is where you need to be able to pat tion...” Those were the equivalent to Bug Roach‟s “take some your head and rub your belly. You must be able to power off and land it” call. In the case of 4 OCT, with 700 miles to talk and present the ball to the pilot in such a way that he knows the nearest land, multiple low state aircraft and the weather getting exactly where he is on the glide slope so that he can judge the magworse, hard landings were a far better option than fuel starvation. nitude of his corrections. You need to be able to make him predictOnce you get the plane to a position where it has a reasonable able. This is what scares me about a pilot who is high with no refchance to land you need to do what it takes to get it over the ramp erence other than Paddles‟ voice: he isn‟t very predictable up there. and into the wires. One thing we learned from this recovery was Each pilot should be familiar with your voice inflection. Each pilot that I probably should have been wearing the CAG LSO headset should know what to do with the power based on your inflection. while working the MOVLAS. I was stepped on several times by And, as for the MOVLAS presentation, a pilot will know how to the other CAG Paddles who was wearing it at the third position. react to a red ball regardless of how far it is from what appears to be All his calls were good but it was distracting for me as the controlthe middle. I would rather bolter a guy who is staying low with ling LSO. power calls and a red ball on MOVLAS than to use the power calls http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesNewsletterFebruary2010.pdf and a red ball to try to catch him coming off a high, flying through That‟s about all I have. I wouldn‟t assume that the techdown. Ramp strikes occur (most of the time) when an aircraft goes niques I have discussed are the only and best way, but they are food from high to low. I believe this high and over–powered regime is for thought. Keep‟m off the ramp. more dangerous, with the current MOVLAS setup, than if the airing h c craft were a little low at the start to in the middle. The reason is t Pi Deck C.G. Paquin simple: we are not capable of providing as useful information to the pilot once he is above the limits of the MOVLAS. Keeping a pilot CVW-11 LSO This concludes the three part series.

“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....”

USS Midway Museum Docent Reference Manual 2013 Edition

http://www.volunteers-midway.org/assets/files/15557.pdf

Naval Air Traffic Management Systems http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home. PhotoGalleryDetail&key=8E68C563-917F-4F68-9200-05AF2EA29C72

http:// www.navair.navy. mil/img/uploads/ PMA213_2.jpg

U.S. NAVY AIRCRAFT+,6725< -XO\

/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 functionality—for 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

F/A-18 Carrier Landing System

A fuzzy logic based aircraft carrier landing system Marc Steinberg; Lehigh University 1991 http://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=etd

Side View Carrier Landing

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

Mode I: Hands-off approach to touchdown. Mode IA: Hands-off approach to ¾ NMI, pilot takeover. Mode II: SPN-46 radar provides azimuth and elevation guidance Mode III: Ground-controlled approach utilizing the SPN-46 radar for skin track. Mode I, IA, and II capabilities require aircraft to have a radar beacon and an on-aircraft data link. SPN-41 radar provides azimuth and elevation guidance Stand-alone instrument landing system or independent monitor for ACLS approaches. Requires receiver in aircraft Ground-controlled approach using radar skin track No on-aircraft systems required.

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 600–1-1/4

ICLS

300–3/4

ICLS/ILM W/SPN-42/46 MONITOR

200–1/2

MODE I

AS CERTIFIED

MODE IA, II, IIT, III

200–1/2

“CASE III: This approach shall be utilized whenever existing weather at the ship is below Case II minimums and during all flight operations conducted between one-half hour after sunset and one-half hour before sunrise except as modified by the OTC or carrier commanding officer. Night/IMC Case III recoveries shall be made with single aircraft. Section approaches will be approved only when an emergency situation exists. Formation penetrations/ approaches by dissimilar aircraft shall not be attempted except in extreme circumstances where no safer options are available to effect a recovery.”

CV NATOPS 2009 NAVAIR 00-80T-106

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

Whisper, March 6, 2011 at 4:32 pm: Reply: http://www.neptunuslex.com/2011/03/06/whisper-still-life/comment-page-1/#comment-696277 “On a four wire boat, the ace is almost always a no grade. Not so on the three wire boats. When you’re targeting in front of the two, it’s possible to get a fair or even OK one wire. But yeah, both of those guys pulled-out an ace. For me, there’s really only two grades on a day like that: Stopped and Didn’t Stop. Come across the ramp safe and predictable and paddles will get you in the wires every time.”

‘Whisper: Still Life’ By Whisper, on March 6th, 2011 http://www.neptunuslex.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/IMG_0087-1.jpg

http://www.neptunuslex.com/2011/03/06/whisper-still-life/#comments

A1-F18AC-NFM-000 NATOPS FLIGHT MANUAL NAVY MODEL F/A-18A/B/C/D http://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-ABCD-000.pdf

ACL Mode 1 & 1A Approaches A1-F18AC-NFM-000

ACL Mode 2 Approach A1-F18AC-NFM-000

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 Navy’s Operational Certification of Bell’s 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 didn’t 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 Navy’s 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 ship’s 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.

‘Automated Carrier Landing of an Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle Using Dynamic Inversion’

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.

Ship Degrees of Freedom:

The LCE program plan is to keep AN/SPN46(V) operating on the carriers until 2025 when the Navy’s GPS based carrier landing system (JPALS) is scheduled to be operational.

The ship rotational degrees of freedom are termed roll, pitch, & yaw. In the translational degrees of freedom, up and down motion is called heave, forward to aft motion is called surge, & port to stbd motion is called sway.”

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.

F/A-18C HUD CARRIER APPROACH STEERING INDICATIONS

http://www.users.on.net/~jase_ash/styled-9/styled-12/ index.html

E\&GU%LOO6L]HPRUH

T

he approach started off like most night carrier approaches I had experienced. Tonight, it was dark, late and my second flight of the day. We were in the middle of a major multinational exercise. I had been flying a lot and felt very comfortable in the aircraft. I was night current and qualified to make a Mode I ACLS, hands-off landing. I had made one ACLS two nights earlier and had a lot of confidence in the system. Marshal and dirty-up at 10 miles were uneventful. I completed the landing checklist and got the Hornet trimmed and lined up as quickly as possible. ACLS lock-on came just inside of six miles, and the jet coupled up for the approach and automatic landing on the first attempt just outside of five miles. The ride was smooth, and the Hornet responded crisply and accurately to ACLS commands.

 DSSURDFK1RYHPEHU  DSSURDFK1RYHPEHU

The tipover at three miles was right on the money. The ACLS “tadpole” was in the middle of the velocity vector, and I thought I had it made. All I had to do was sit back, monitor things and enjoy the ride. At the start of cruise, I had planned to make every other night landing a Mode I ACLS approach and “hand fly” the other night landings for currency requirements and proficiency. I was on track through the first four weeks of cruise and my plan was working just as I had envisioned it. This particular ACLS approach was rock-solid until I reached the in-close position. I detected a slight hesitation by the jet. The nose seemed to stop moving and responding to commands for just an instant. As I closed my hand around the paddle switch to take over manually, the aircraft’s nose pitched down violently. I instinctively pulled the stick all the way back and selected full afterburner, just as the LSO screamed, “Power!” then, “Waveoff!” Time seemed to slow down, but the aircraft responded, and as soon as I realized the aircraft was climbing (in a very nosehigh attitude), I aggressively reset the proper landing attitude with forward stick. My adrenaline was really pumping by this time, and I’m not sure when I deselected afterburner, but I blew through 1,200 feet, the normal night Case III pattern altitude, and managed to somehow get the Hornet level at 3,000 feet. Fortunately, it was extremely dark, and I didn’t see how close I had come to flying into the back of the ship and hitting the ramp on the waveoff. My basic survival instincts stopped the first possibility from happening, and aggressively resetting the proper landing attitude prevented the second. Despite my actions, however, parts of the aircraft still managed to get below flight-deck level following the pitchover, and the hook missed the ramp by what the LSOs estimated as two feet on the waveoff. I managed to compartmentalize and got aboard without more problems a few

7HG&DUOVRQ

APPROACH

Nov 1999

minutes later. I knew I had a close one but didn’t realize how close until I saw all the people waiting for me in the ready room to watch the PLAT replay. The sequence will always be burned into my memory. To summarize the rest of the story, all equipment involved in the Mode I ACLS on that aircraft and the ship was checked, and no discrepancies were found. Two months later, the carrier-suitability section of the Patuxent River Test Center duplicated the sequence of events at a safe altitude several miles behind the ship. They discovered the problem was caused by a malfunction in the data link’s receive-decode-transmit equipment and an inadequacy in the flight-control computer’s software pitch-rate and pitchmagnitude limiting. As a result, a fleet-wide maintenance bulletin was issued and a NATOPS change submitted. Since this incident, I have flown several Mode I approaches to the ship at night and numerous Mode I’s before. I no longer take the system or the Mode I sequence of events

lightly. What I relearned from a pilot and LSO perspective is that you can never become too comfortable in the carrier environment no matter how routine a particular activity becomes. Although I reacted by instinct, the LSOs were on top of the situation and provided accurate and timely power and waveoff calls. If your squadron does Mode I ACLS approaches, set up a formal academic and simulator training syllabus to not only understand, practice, and simulate the correct procedures for a successful Mode I ACLS approach, but to also practice, experience and handle the things that can go wrong. While a good Mode I ACLS approach may appear to be the ultimate E-ticket ride, you don’t have the luxury or option to take a passive role. A pilot must stay ahead of the aircraft, closely monitor every aspect of the approach, and anticipate and be prepared for the unexpected. Cdr. Sizemore is the CO of VFA-86.

1RYHPEHU DSSURDFK  1RYHPEHU DSSURDFK 

X “ACLS I S DROPPING M E OFF LOW !!!” LT L UKE “S MUGGLA” J OHNSON DISCUSSES THE FINER POINTS OF AN ACLS CERTIFICATION.

September 2012

http://www.hrana.org/documents/ PaddlesMonthlySeptember2012.pdf

Paddles

ACLS Is Dropping Me Off Low! (cont.) What will this look like on the IFLOLS itself? Each source cell on the IFLOLS is 0.13 deg, which would put the ball about halfway down the "bottom center" cell (Fig. 2). Is this perceivable to the average pilot? I think so. Remember to scan across the top of the datums and don't just stare at the picture below.

X “A Q UICK ARB REFRESHER” ARB DRILL FOR A BARRICADE RECOVERY... WILL YOU BE READY?

ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF THE LSO COMMUNIT Y

THROUGH SAFETY DISCUSSIONS, OPERATIONAL UPDATES, AND HISTORICAL READINGS.

monthly

ACLS Is Dropping Me Off Low!!! (by LT “Smuggla” Johnson)

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.

Figure 2: IFLOLS Sagger with 3.55 deg What's the big deal? A 0.05 deg difference translates to about 7" of hook to ramp and about 4 feet at the start. Are those differences in the noise? One could certainly argue that they are, particularly because a single cell is over 10 ft at the start and ACLS is measured to less than a foot. The bottom line is with respect to an on and on ACLS pass, the differences translate to a slightly sagging ball, and there's no life below the datums, right? As pilots, our truth source is the ball (excepting pitching deck or another extenuating circumstance where paddles becomes the truth source). We teach pilots to fly the ACLS at the bottom of the Velocity Vector anyway, so when the ball and needles don't match up perfectly, why does it even matter? I don't know if it does. But I know some people like to put the thing on the thing, and centered needles should mean center ball; others like to ride the MODE I all the way to touchdown, and even a sagger is uncomfortable. What if the new guy breaks out at mins with centered needles and sees a sagging ball? Is he/she going to overcorrect? I did when I was a nugget, though I can't guarantee needles were perfect; they probably were. So is it a big deal? Do we change the tolerances? The tolerances used to be bigger when we had FLOLS. Regardless, I hope you gained a little knowledge of why things sometimes are the way they are. That being said, if any PALS system is doing something that you don't like, ask us about it. We have loads of data on every boat out there and engineers to look through all of it. Please feel free to email/call with any questions. Keep 'em off the ramp. -LT Luke “Smuggla” Johnson is a test pilot with VX-23. He can be reached at [email protected]

‘Paddles Monthly’ October 2012

VX-23 PALS Discussion

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

Figure 1: ICLS/IFLOLS Differences

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 [email protected]

VX-23 PALS Discussion

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.

automatic landing systems for The Block III receivers are critical components on aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. The system the AN/SPN-46 shipboardprovides final approach and based precision approach and landing guidance for aircraft landing system. The AN/SPN46 precision approach landing during day/night operations and adverse weather conditions. systems from Textron Inc. in The precision approach Providence, R.I., are installed landing system can control on all U.S. Navy aircraft as many as two aircraft carriers. The AN/SPN-46 employs simultaneously in a leapfrog low-probability-of-intercept pattern; as each approaching aircraft, being assisted by the technology to decrease system lands, another can be the probability of passive detection by hostile forces. acquired. The AN/SPN- 46 employs The AN/SPN-46 radar provides a Mode 1 approach. an X-band coherent When engaged a PALS transmitter and receiver approach provides a handsusing monopulse tracking and Doppler processing off landing for the pilot. Pilots reportedly do not use on received signals for it often, preferring not clutter rejection and rain attenuation at an operating to hand off much of the range of eight nautical miles. aircraft’s controls to a computer but it is important The AN/SPN-46 precision for controller to be able to take approach landing system control when all other systems (PALS) includes the Textron fail.... SPN 46 (V)1 and (V)2

Paddles monthly

http://www.hrana.org/documents/ PaddlesMonthlyMarch2013.pdf

February 2013

ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF THE LSO COMMUNIT Y

THROUGH SAFETY DISCUSSIONS, OPERATIONAL UPDATES, AND HISTORICAL READINGS.

Couple-Up for Safety!!

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 here’s 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 pilot’s ability to land the aircraft safely is degraded; be it IFR in the cockpit, injury, 0-0 conditions, old guys & Marines (editor’s 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 it’s going to be working correctly for these situations? ...continued in: http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyMarch2013.pdf

Recovery operations

As with departures, the type of recovery is based on the meteorological conditions and are referred to as Case I, Case II, or Case III.

Case I Aircraft awaiting recovery hold in the “port holding pattern”, a lefthand circle tangent to the ship’s course with the ship in the 3-o’clock 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

area becomes clear, the lowest aircraft in holding descend and depart the stack in final preparation for landing. Higher aircraft descend in the stack to altitudes vacated by lower holding aircraft. The final descent from the bottom of the stack is planned so as to arrive at the “Initial” which is 3 miles astern the ship at 800 feet, paralleling the ship’s course. The aircraft are then flown over the ship and “break” into the landing pattern, ideally establishing at 50-60 second interval on the aircraft in front of them. If there are too many (more than 6) aircraft in the landing pattern when a flight arrives at the ship, the flight leader initiates a “spin”, climbing up slightly and executing a tight 360° turn within 3 nmi of the ship. The break is a level 180° turn made at 800 feet, descending to 600 feet when established downwind. Landing gear/flaps are lowered, and landing checks are completed. When abeam (directly aligned with) the landing area on downwind, the aircraft is 180° from

the ship’s course and approximately 1.5 miles from the ship, a position known as “the 180” (because of the angled flight deck, there is actually closer to 190° of turn required at this point). The pilot begins his turn to final while simultaneously beginning a gentle descent. At “the 90” the aircraft is at 450 feet, about 1.2 nmi from the ship, with 90° of turn to go. The final checkpoint for the pilot is crossing the ship’s wake, at which time the aircraft should be approaching final landing heading and at ~350 feet. At this point, the pilot acquires the Optical Landing System (OLS), which is used for the terminal portion of the landing. During this time, the pilot’s full attention is devoted to maintaining proper glideslope, lineup, and “angle of attack” until touchdown. Line up on landing area centerline is critical because it is only 120 feet wide, and aircraft are often parked within a few feet either side. This is accomplished visually during Case I using the painted “ladder lines” on the sides of the landing area and the centerline/drop line.

Maintaining radio silence, or “zip lip”, during Case I launches and recoveries is the norm, breaking radio silence only for safety-of-flight issues.

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 10 nmi. 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 ship’s 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 ship’s 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 ship’s

heading (Base Recovery Course). Aircraft on the standard approach (called the CV-1) correct from the marshal radial to the final bearing at 20 miles. As the ship moves through the water, the aircraft must make continual, minor corrections to the right to stay on the final bearing. If the ship makes course correction (which is often done in order to make the relative wind (natural wind plus ship’s movement generated wind) go directly down the angle deck, or to avoid obstacles), lineup to center line must be corrected. The further the aircraft is from the ship, the larger the correction required. Aircraft pass through the 6-mile fix at 1,200 feet altitude, 150 knots, in the landing configuration and commence slowing to final approach speed. At 3 nmi, aircraft begin a gradual (700 foot per minute or 3-4°) descent until touchdown. In order to arrive precisely in position to complete the landing visually (at 3/4 nmi behind the ship at 400 ft), a number of instrument systems/ procedures are used. Once the pilot

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 ship’s 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 Case III

acquires visual contact with the optical landing aids, the pilot will “call the ball”. Control will then be assumed by the LSO, who issues final landing clearance with a “roger ball” call. When other systems are not available, aircraft on final approach will continue their descent using distance/altitude checkpoints (e.g, 1200 ft at 3 nmi, 860 ft at 2 nmi, 460 ft at 1 nmi, 360 ft at the “ball” call). Pilots are taught to always back up their other approach systems with this basic procedure.

area can be seen at around 1 nmi. Regardless of the case recovery or approach type, the final portion of the landing (3/4 mile to touchdown) is flown visually. Line up with the landing area is achieved by lining up painted lines on the landing area centerline with a set of lights that drops from the back of the flight deck. Proper glideslope is maintained using the Fresnel lens Optical Landing System (FLOLS), Improved Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (IFLOLS), or Manually Operated Visual Landing Aid System (MOVLAS). If an aircraft is pulled off the approach (if the landing area is not clear, for example) or is waved off by the LSO (for poor parameters or a fouled deck), or misses all the arresting wires (“bolters”), the pilot climbs straight ahead to 1,200 feet to the “bolter/wave-off pattern” and waits for instructions from approach control....” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_United_States_Navy_carrier_ air_operations#Recovery_operations

carrier air traffic control center

CATCC

Navy carriers prepare for X-47B unmanned aircraft arrival next year http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5068

Air traffic controllers aboard USS Harry S. Truman receive training and provide fleet feedback on Navy Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstration software during recent carrier sea trials. (U.S. Navy photo) Jul 19, 2012 http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/Truman1_1.JPG

L-CLASS PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEM (PALS) CERTIFICATION "Carrier suitability testing frequently involves “unconventional” flying, which is certainly the case for certifying amphibious assault ships (LHA and LHD classes). These ships have a Precision Approach and Landing System (PALS) similar to those currently found on any aircraft carrier (CVN), and require similar certification every two years. As VX-23 does not fly the Harrier, we perform these certifications using the F/A-18. L-Class ships have a TACAN and SPN-41 Instrument Carrier Landing System (ICLS), similar to the systems found on a CVN. Instead of a SPN-46 Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS) however, they have a SPN-35 which provides a precision approach capability. They also have an optical lens which appears similar to the lens found on a CVN, but it’s located on the starboard side of the ship and on the back side of the island. Instead of a marked centerline in the landing area, they have a “tramline” which pilots use to

reference their lateral position. The goal of an L-Class PALS certification is to verify that the SPN-35, SPN-41 and lens agree, and that they get the pilot safely to the point where he can take over and land visually. In this respect it’s similar to a Mode II certification of an aircraft carrier. Obviously the F/A-18 isn’t designed to touch down on an L-Class, so all of the approaches are terminated no later than 200 feet. The pattern is similar to that used for CVN certification , essentialy the Case III pattern with a higher airspeed on downwind. The pilot flies the ICLS needles while cross-checking and reporting TACAN range and radar altitude on the radio. Simultaneously test engineers onboard the ship monitor the SPN35 to ensure that it matches what the pilot is reporting. Technicians are capable of making near realtime adjustments if errors in the system are detected. Flying a low approach to a straight-deck boat is an interesting experience. Since there is no possibility of touch-down, approaches are

generally flown with the landing gear up to conserve fuel. The urge to fly to the right of the wake and make the sight picture look like a CVN is almost irresistible. The location of the lens on the starboard side of the ship also contributes to the tendency to drift right. Combine all these factors and add in the requirement to fly an on-and-on approach while simultaneously reporting range and altitude data on the radio, and this quickly becomes a challenging task. To all those who get to enjoy their ’rats on an L-Class, while we don’t get to interact with you as much as with CVN pilots, we at VX-23 are dedicated to ensuring that you have the most accurate and reliable landing aids pos-sible. Please let us know if you have any concerns with your ship’s systems. While the L-Class PALS certification may not help us increase our trap count, it is challenging and rewarding flying, and an important part of VX-23’s service to the fleet. LT Matt “Brasso” Davin VX-23 Ship Suitability"

http://www.hrana.org/documents/ PaddlesMonthlyFebruary2012.pdf

Chief Air Traffic Controller Ronesha Q. Nation, right, assigned to the future amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6), supervises Air-Traffic Controller 1st Class Fernando Montes while he stands approach controller watch from the ship’s amphibious air traffic control center. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Huey D. Younger Jr./ Released) http:// www.navy.mil/ ah_online/america/ index.html# [6/10]

Bad-weather CV approaches – ORM corner – operational risk

management and constant velocity by Brian Schrum Trapping aboard the carrier has to be the most thrilling challenge experienced by carrier-based naval aviators. The last 15 to 18 seconds of a flight are intense. However, the Case I, II, or III approach leading up to the ball call, at three-quarters of a mile, requires as much concentration and discipline as the trap. Perfecting the skills to operate in this environment puts aviators to the test each day and night, in all weather conditions. During our squadron ORM sessions, we learn how to identify hazards and risks, make risk decisions, implement controls, evaluate our changes, and offer recommendations to avert

disaster and foster a safer evolution. I hope this article spurs ready-room conversations on a topic not often discussed during preflight briefs or squadron LSO lectures: Low-ceiling and low-visibility approach hazards. A recent air-wing recovery showed how inclement weather caused havoc to an unprepared naval aviator and LSO. I had not given much thought to approach minimums during a Case III arrival to the boat until, as an LSO, I experienced the mass confusion that can occur during bad weather. We often work in a benign weather environment, but we always should be prepared to handle weather contingencies. We were deployed on board USS George Washington (CVN 73) in the Northern Arabian Sea, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. It was the end of July, and C-17 had finished our first week of ops. ‘Throughout the

week, a low-pressure system dominated the area with ceilings at 1,000 feet or less, and visibility at two to five miles with mist and haze. Because of the poor weather, we conducted Case III approaches every recovery. A Case III approach is flown when the weather is less than 1,000-foor ceiling or five-mile visibility, or during night CV operations. The approach typically consists of marshalling aircraft behind the ship at various altitudes and distances. Each aircraft is given an approach time to sequence to the deck in a safe and expeditious manner. Pilots fly a standard-descent profile, dirty-up, and intercept a 3.5-degree glide slope at three miles--that should lead to an on-and-on start. Once inside seven miles, pilots can reference ILS (bull’s-eye) and/or ACLS (automatic-carrier-landing system or “needles”) to guide them. If the pilot does not have either

ILS or ACLS, he then relies upon CATCC (carrier-air-traffic control) azimuth and glideslope calls, plus his self-contained approach numbers, to get him to an onand-on start. On a standard flight, pilots will use all of these aids to get aboard. If one aid is malfunctioning, the approach may be off parameters. If we factor bad weather into the mix, a pilot could have their hands full, as they did on our LSO team’s particular wave day. During these poor conditions, the CAG and squadron paddles step up and keep their fellow aviators off the ramp. Normally, paddles only passes “roger ball” and the occasional “power” calls to approaching aircraft. But, under degraded conditions, a paddles talk-down can be a rewarding experience. Such was the case that July afternoon when weather conditions suddenly deteriorated to one onequarter-time visibility and ceilings

at 350 feet or lower. Our team was scheduled to wave a midday recovery and found the weather to be a safety factor. Paddles made the call for all aircraft to have their taxi light on, so the aircraft would be visible earlier. Before the first plane arrived at the ball call--at one and a half miles--we would break out and make an arrestment. CATCC called the first jet on and on at three-quarters of a mile, and told the pilot to call the ball. “Clara” was all we heard. Cricket…. Cricket…. The hairs on the back of our collective necks stood straight up. We heard nothing for two or three seconds until, suddenly, a jet appeared out of the haze, only moments away from taking a trap. CAG paddles gave appropriate calls to the pilot and received good responses; he safely trapped. Great, we have one aboard and seven more to go. We brought three more aircraft

down before the weather closed in on the ship, and we went below minimums. With more aircraft left to land, we thought about our options. The ship was working blue-water operations, and our nearest suitable divert airfield was 200 miles away. Aircraft were returning from long missions, some with ordnance aboard, which presented us with low-fuel states and maximum-trap weights. Fuel was airborne but in short supply. The next event’s launch was on hold while the ship and air-wing leadership decided what to do. Vulture’s row saw more action as people wanted to watch the excitement and experience the deteriorating weather. Meanwhile, four aircraft tried to break out and finish the recovery. Let’s stop right here and ask the question, “With the weather minimums continuing to drop, just how far along an approach can we wave an aircraft without

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.

4. CATCC equipment and crew experience. 5. LSO platform equipment. 6. Ship’s instrument-approach equipment. What was the status of these controls during our recovery? Approach minimums, like those we fly with at our destination airfields back home, are hard and fast. Just like at the field, if we don’t see our landing area and cannot complete a safe landing, we wave off--as mandated in OPNAV 3710. Both CAG paddles were on the platform, providing experienced inputs throughout the event. The pilots were mostly cruise-experienced and made informed, judicious decisions as the pilots-in-command. CATCC was doing its best to provide glide slope and azimuth calls and had been working Case III control for two months of our cruise. The LSO-platform equipment

operated properly, with the exception of the LSO HUD used for platform correlation of the ACLS. With this subsystem inoperative, it took away one item the LSOs could have used to help wave the aircraft. Finally, bull’seye was down as the ship was awaiting a part to fix it. Four aircraft remained airborne, and we contunued to push our approach minimums. A COD diverted before getting the opportunity to fly the approach. A Hawkeye was given a talkdown approach by CATCC that had him flying to the starboard side of the ship, despite being called on-and-on. A judicious waveoff call from CAG paddles kept him from getting too close for comfort. Our last Hornet made his way to the ball call. After four agonizing seconds went by, with no sight of him, we waved him off. We never saw him break out of the haze but heard him climb off the port

a Mode 1 approach (basically an side. Fortunately, everyone had autopilot approach to the carenough fuel to make it to our nearest divert field. The weather rier deck)? The letter of the law eventually cleared later in the day, states that even Mode 1s can and it was ops normal once again. only be flown to ACLS approach minimums. A deviation would How far can we wave an aircraft in deteriorating weather require a waiver from higher conditions? The textbook answer authority. After evaluating the day’s is as far as the approach minievents, I believe we had, and mums allow. If CATCC does not hear “paddles contact” or “roger continue to have, controls in place that are more than ball” from the LSOs. CATCC is adequate to respond to adverseinstructed to keep glide slope weather conditions. However, and azimuth calls coming until we do have to make sure the the aircraft reaches weather controls are operating correctly. minimums. The responsibility relies on great What if no divert was available? Our plan was to tank every communication between the pilots, LSOs and the ship. As available aircraft in extremis, LSOs, we have to train the even calling in big-wing tanking to help until the ship found clear air wing and keep them up to sea space. If a clear area was not speed on CV specifics, including found, and no tanking was avail- approach minimums. Pilots must be familiar with able, then we were to bring the aircraft lower than the minimums how far to take an approach allowed, or to have the pilot eject before waving off and must have the confidence in paddles to near the ship. How about Hornet pilots flying bring them aboard when they

hear “paddles contact.” Through good ORM, this knowledge may save your life one day. Fly a good, solid instrument approach in bad weather; this can mean the difference between getting aboard or spending the night at your divert. CATCC tends to take the heat for many issues regarding the Case III approach. The key to addressing any issues with CATCC is to stop by and fill out a pilot-debrief form. That stop in CATCC will get the techs on the case and repairs in the works. Timely feedback will assist the ship in making changes just like a well-written aircraft gripe. As a paddles, I gained valuable experience on the platform, waving in adverse weather conditions. I also gained an even bigger appreciation for our jobs as naval aviators.

Lt. Schrum flies with VFA-83.

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

Super Hornet Demonstrates 03 June 2007 Unpiloted Approaches

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

Shipboard Automated Landing Technology Innovation Program, John Kinzer Aircraft Technology Program Officer ONR 351, 2 November 2011 http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/USN%202011 %2011%202%20Shipboard%20Automated%20Landing%20Tech.pdf

“Shipboard Automated Landing Technology Innovation (SALTI) — VISION

SALTI Technical Objectives • Precise automated approach and glideslope control - Reduced susceptibility to wind gusts and turbulence - Accommodation of high sea states, higher winds from all directions, degraded visual environment - Precise, predictable touchdown: reduced scatter in sink rate, sideloads, touchdown spot, hook-to-ramp distance, centerline deviations • HCI for manned aircraft for optimal situational awareness, control, and decision making • Ability to operate under night, degraded visual environment, and emissions control (EMCON) conditions • High integrity systems for naval seabased operations - Excursion: ability to conduct VTOL ops onto ships without specialized modifications • Optimum commonality among aircraft and ship types, and ship / shore applications &

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. &

efficiency, safety, envelope expansion, reduced maintenance”

X “KEEP ’ EM S AFE P ADDLES ” ...PARTING SHOTS FROM THE DEAN. “WEEDS” SIGNS OFF AS LSO S CHOOL OIC.

X “The New Dean Checks In” ...CDR MATT “POTZO” POTHIER TAKES THE REINS OF THE US NAVY LSO SCHOOL.

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyJuly2012.pdf

Paddles

ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF THE LSO COMMUNIT Y

THROUGH SAFETY DISCUSSIONS, OPERATIONAL UPDATES, AND HISTORICAL READINGS.

Keep’em Safe Paddles (cont.)

July 2012

monthly

Keep’em Safe Paddles

iMOVLAS – After nearly a decade of fighting for it, we finally got iMOVLAS fully funded. It will hit the fleet after I’m gone, but the dollars are there and it’s 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 we’re 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 can’t 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 BPF’s, Air Bosses, Mini’s, 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 Navy’s finest institution of higher learning. As most of you know I’ve 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 didn’t 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, we’ve 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 wouldn’t 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-35’s 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; I’d 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 don’t 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 don’t 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

Northrop Grumman joins Honeywell in project to upgrade Navy shipboard aircraft landing systems – 10 Oct 2013 – John Keller http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2013/10/northrop-jpals-upgrade.html -

“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.

JPALS is an all-weather landing system based on real-time differential correction of the GPS signal, augmented with a local area correction message, and transmitted to the user via secure data links. The onboard receiver compares the current GPS-derived position with the local correction signal to deliver a three-dimensional position that is accurate enough for all-weather approaches via an instrument landing system (ILS)-style display....”

Who’s on the Ball

- communication breakdown while landing on carrier by Jeff Blake

…from high above the glideslope to well below, all to the tune of blood-curdling power calls, and then finally the waveoff. In the cockpit, I heard none of it… We’ve reached the midpoint of our deployment to the Mediterranean and the Arabian Gulf. After an uneventful night OPFOR hop, I’m spending my time in marshal with the typical excitement and apprehension of the upcoming night trap. I’m flying aircraft 206, a Hornet with a full-up system and no problems of note (later analysis will reveal an intermittent IFF). Also airborne and playing a vital role is aircraft 105, an F-14B. I’ve commenced a normal

Case III approach and, reaching platform at 5,000 feet, switch to assigned button 17 (channel B). Down in CATCC, an intermittent Mode II from my aircraft is about to produce mass confusion. With no Mode II hit from my Hornet, the “Mr. Hand” operator neglects to add 206 to the list of aircraft on the approach. I proceed on the approach. At three miles, I commence tipover on the ILS bullseye, disappointed that CATCC is unable to lock my aircraft for the ACLS approach. Meanwhile, 105 is vectored from the bolter pattern two miles in trail. Due to the lack of IFF from my aircraft, only one other person now knows that I’m first in line, and that’s my final controller. The Tomcat’s final controller locks the next hit on his screen, which of course is

not 105 but me in 206. At about the same time, my final controller locks the next hit on the scope, mistakenly locking the Tomcat at its tipover. Everything appears normal in my dark cockpit, when, at just outside a mile, I get indications of ACLS lock on. I report the needles slightly up and on, and CATCC concurs. Each aircraft is now flying needles intended for the other aircraft. You can imagine the confusion on the platform when the Boss calls over the 5MC, “Tomcat, 105, one mile, Alpha.” Paddles is looking at a Hornet bearing down with about 15 seconds of flying time until the trap. The arresting gear, fresnel lens, and paddles radios have all been set tier a Tomcat on channel A. Paddles desperately scrambles to reset the gear and lens for a Hornet and, in lieu

of the incorrect lens setting, starts talking down the Hornet. Unfortunately, the LSO radios are never switched to channel B, so I hear nothing but silence. Here’s the call to the Tomcat (on channel A): “105, threequarters of a mile, call the ball.” The Tomcat RIO replies, “I don’t think so,” and deselects the ACLS. Paddles hears 105’s comment (on channel A) and interprets it as a ball call. Meanwhile, in 206, I’ve deselected the ILS and am flying the needles instead. Engrossed in flying an on-and-on pass, I’m focused on the needles. At half a mile, I realize nobody has told me to call the ball. As I transition my scan to the ball, I’m surprised to see the lens showing what appears to be a nearly clara high pass, with the ball barely visible on the top of the lens. I make my ball

call (on channel B) as I start to correct the high but receive no response. Again I call the ball-now it’s coming down toward the center. Still no response from paddles. I make one last ball call, then push the throttles to mil for an in-close waveoff just as the happy lights signal me that paddles agrees with that decision. As I clear the ship and climb away, I’m struck by the eerie symbology of needles remaining on my HUD, remarkably still showing me “on and on.” Strange! Confusion sets in; I deselect the needles and continue with NORDO procedures, convinced that I must have lost my radios. In the boiler pattern abeam the ship, my radios finally crackle “206, paddles, sorry about that… we had a little problem with the lens, we’ll get you next time!”

The phones are now ringing off the hook in CATCC with everyone, including the boss and the captain of the ship, wanting to know what the heck just happened. Back in the ready room after the flight, the story slowly unfolds, and it becomes very apparent how close tonight was to a mishap. The PLAT camera replay tells a chilling tale: I watch my Hornet settle from high above the glideslope to well below, all to the tune of blood-curdling power calls, and then finally the waveoff. In the cockpit, I heard none of it, saw a stable centered-needles approach, and took my own waveoff only because I hadn’t heard a “roger ball.” I remember the ball coming down but did not recognize how rapidly it was falling. What finally broke this evil

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 wasn’t 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 I’m 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 you’re also decided that the Air Ops aware that something’s 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.

Finally, cross check, cross check, cross check! I didn’t do it, and the ultimate responsibility for this near-miss rests with my breakdown. Behind the ship on a dark night, you owe it to yourself to use everything at your disposal: ILS and ACLS correlation, self-contained approach numbers, VSI, DME, and, ultimately, the world’s greatest glideslope indicator, the fresnel lens. As a nugget halfway through my first cruise, my scan was unfortunately still developing. On this approach, I’d put all my marbles into one bag, the ACLS; after all, needles don’t lie, right? Well, that night they weren’t lying, but the story they were telling was not intended for me.

Lt. Blake flies with VFA-34 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/ mi_m0FKE/is_7_46/ai_78333957/

“‘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

ship’s goal on Day One is to get at least SHIP SUITABILITY PRECISION is usually labeled Day Zero on the AirAPPROACH & LANDING SYSTEM plan. No aircraft are allowed to touch the 50 traps and complete all the drills. Our goal on Day One is to certify the ship to deck on this day, so we use this day to (PALS)

[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 AT’s. The majority of ing the aircraft’s 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 AT’s 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

Mode II capability. This is essential so that on Day Two the air wing can do simulated CASE III ops during the day to certify CATCC for night ops. On Day Two the ship has to get 70 day traps and 40 night traps. It also has to complete 2 daytime simulated case III recoveries with ten aircraft. Day Two is easily the most important and busy day during FDC. Our focus is on Mode I hook touchdown position. We have cameras mounted on the bridge that record and calculate touchdown position. Every ship is a little different but we want the average Mode I touch down to be within a certain standard deviation of the 3 wire. When the statistics workout the ship gets its Mode I certification. The PALS certification lasts for two years and should get the ship through workups and at least one deployment. A Mode III, Mode II, or Mode IA approach is to get you to a good start. The goal of a Mode I is not to fly a perfect cresting ball all the way to touchdown, but it should be a consistent and safe pass. If at any time these are not the case please contact myself or anyone at VX-23. It is not uncommon for problems to develop over those two years and we can come out and correct.

1

more reliable. This link will be estabJOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND LANDING SYSTEM (JPALS) lished when the aircraft gets withJoint Precision Approach and Land-

ing System (JPALS) is a GPS based system that will be the replacement for the current ACLS/SPN-46 system. Unlike the SPN-46 that uses radar on the boat to track an aircraft, JPALS works by comparing the GPS position of the carrier and the GPS position of the aircraft. A relative navigation (Rel Nav) solution is calculated and displayed as guidance in the cockpit. Initial tests were conducted in 2000 with an F-18 to prove that the concept worked. JPALS should IOC in 2014 and will start to be retrofitted on Hornets. H-60’s and E-2D’s should start to see it in 2017. It will be the only approach guidance on NUCAS (Navy Unmanned Combat Air System) and the F-35. Every carrier will be equipped by 2024. How is it better? It will be GPS based and is jam resistant. Instead of an operator in CATCC having to lock up an aircraft with the SPN-46 radar, only a data link between the ship and aircraft needs to be established making the system

better gouge through the approach turn than the ICLS. Drop locks at 3 miles should not be a problem anyin 200 miles of the carrier, not at 5 miles behind the ship prior to tip over. more; if you have JPALS in Marshall you’ll have it on final. The pickle The linked Rel Nav solution will also act like a TACAN and give ships posi- switch on the platform will be contion out to 200 miles. The link trans- nected to the data link and transmitmission, like MIDS, uses spread spec- ted to the aircraft providing a true “W/O” discrete in the HUD and the trum transmissions so it does not ability to wave off a UAV. The ships give away position and can be used during EMCON conditions. Mode I ap- final bearing will also be automatproaches will also be more accurate. ically linked to the aircraft and instantaneously updated in the cockpit, The SPN-46 radar loses the aircraft greatly enhancing SA to which direcat the round down. Past the round down glide slope guidance is basical- tion the ship is turning while we are ly an average of the last few seconds trying to land. The mechanization and cockpit of the flight path. That is why during displays are still in the design phase. a Mode I the hornet freezes control Do we want it to look just like ACLS input commands in the last 2 secor ICLS? Is it going to be called neeonds before touchdown. The JPALS GPS guidance will be accurate all the dles, bullseye, or _______? Should way to touchdown. The Air Force and final bearing automatically be set as a course line? Is there a better way Army are funding a ground based than the old way to do business? As JPALS system that can be easily fleet operators and LSO’s if you have setup at any airfield giving the Hornet an actual precision approach be- any suggestions or ideas please let us know. In a few years JPALS will sides a PAR. be a great tool to help us get the Air How will it affect me? With no Wing aboard safely. need for interaction with an operator in CATCC, JPALS may be available http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index. cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=824 during Case I approaches providing 2

PALS Certification • SPN-46 Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS) • Includes “hands-off” automatic landing

• SPN-41 Instrument Control Landing System (ICLS) – CV/CVN and LHA/LHD ships • Provides “needles” indication

• AN/SPN-35 Precision Approach Radar – LHA/LHD ships • Provides ship-based controller “talk down” approach capability to all aircraft

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007 test/Fischer_SessionH4.pdf

– All CV/CVN ships

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]

”...Shore-based testing began in early July 2012 with a Beechcraft King Air 100 series aircraft providing a low cost airborne testing laboratory for JPALS. Further shorebased testing with legacy F/A-18’s is expected to begin later this fiscal year with at-sea tests beginning in spring of 2013 onboard CVN-77. Though a fully integrated JPALS air wing is not expected for sometime, both contractor and VX-23 personnel are already working closely with the LSO School and other fleet assets to ensure delivery of a quality system that will provide enhanced capability to fleet users.” SHIP SUITABILITY PROJECT TEAM LCDR Robert “Timmay!” Bibeau, Ship Suitability Department Head ”...MANAGING MODE I EXPECTATIONS [page 17-18]

VX-23 certifies PALS for all CVNs. We usually do this about every two

IFLOLS, SPN-41 (Instrument Carrier Landing System, or ICLS) and SPN-46 (Automatic Carrier Landing System, or ACLS) function properly, are aligned with each other, and lead the pilot to a good start. We check the average ACLS Mode I hook touchdown point and tweak it if necessary. As part of this process we fly dozens of Mode I approaches over a three day period. Additionally, VX-23 troubleshoots PALS anomalies when they occur. Sometimes there is a hardware-related root cause which needs to be corrected, but sometimes concerns result from pilot misconceptions or unrealistic expectations. Whether or not you’re a frequent Mode I user, it is a valuable “tool” with the capability to recover aircraft down to zero-zero conditions. Understanding a few basic concepts about how the system operates is crucial. The “99 taxi lights on” call is too late to consider how to fly the Mode I.

The ACLS can be set to either 3.5 or 4° glideslope, and it is normally very good at flying that commanded glideslope. Typical vertical error at ¾ nm is less than a foot. In fact, the ACLS is usually more accurate and precise than the IFLOLS. The IFLOLS is aligned to a tolerance of +/-0.05°, which equates to almost 4 feet at ¾ nm, and a single IFLOLS cell at the same distance covers about 10 feet of elevation. Remember that there is no center cell on the IFLOLS: you are either looking at the highcenter/”cresting” cell or the lowcenter/”sagging” cell. Most IFLOLS are aligned just a little on the high side, which means that more often than not during the Mode I you are on glideslope but looking at the low-center IFLOLS cell. Most proficient pilots will not accept being low, and are more likely to fly the high-center cell during uncoupled passes. Additionally, experienced pilots often try to “crest” the ball, or fly along the boundary between two adjacent cells in order to see ball movement and more

precisely determine glideslope. To a pilot or LSO used to flying or waving uncoupled passes, a Mode I often looks a little low all the way, when the reality is that normal uncoupled passes tend to average a little higher than the nominal glideslope. Much like your FNG, the Mode I does not anticipate the burble. The system attempts to fly commanded glideslope and reacts to any deviations as they occur. The system reacts very quickly to very small deviations, but there is still some lag due to the laws of physics and flight control/engine response time. Often this will result in a little settle as the aircraft passes through the burble. The magnitude of this settle tends to increase with the strength of the burble, and is more noticeable with axial or starboard winds. Shortly before touchdown the SPN-46 antennas lose the ability to track the aircraft due to the rapidly changing line of sight. 1.5 seconds prior to touchdown the system enters “command freeze” and will attempt to hold the last commanded rate of descent. The flight controls

and throttles will still move as the jet works to maintain this descent rate, but the system is no longer actively updating the descent rate to target the desired hook touchdown point. Any unpredicted disturbances in the flight path in the last 1.5 seconds of flight (for example due to shifting winds or airflow around the ship) are not corrected for. The system is often still reacting to the burble when it enters command freeze. If the aircraft has settled in the burble, the commanded descent rate is shallowed to fix the low and then frozen, resulting in a flat flight path across the ramp. Put all of these effects together, and a “typical” Mode I pass on most ships looks a little low all the way, with a little settle in close and a little low flat at the ramp. During a PALS certification we attempt to tune the Mode I touchdown point for ideal winds. When winds are less than perfect Mode I performance tends to degrade. As winds become more starboard the strength and position of the burble change, and the magnitude of

the trends noted above increases. Settles tend to increase in magnitude. Rhinos tend to get a little flatter at the ramp, overcorrecting for the settle in the burble and often landing long and right with the occasional bolter. Hornets try to do the same, but often don’t have the power to recover from the settle and tend to land a little short. These behaviors are general trends. Ultimately it’s up to the pilot and LSO to decide the acceptable magnitude of deviation during a Mode I, and the pilot must always be ready to take over manually when required. Understanding the normal behavior of the ACLS Mode I can help manage expectations and better prepare the pilot and LSO for deviations when they occur. VX-23 is always available to discuss PALS performance. If you notice a trend of questionable Mode I performance, or experience even a single unsafe Mode I, please don’t hesitate to contact us....”

http://www.navair.navy.mil/ nawcad/index.cfm?fuseaction =home.download&id=670

How to get an Ideal No.3 CDP Arrest EA-18G VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ6ECPe7VRI

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 You’ve 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, we’re 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 Mode I 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

port and starboard sides. Some ships still have the traditional “whirlybird” on the navigation pole, but it doesn’t feed Moriah. An actual anemometer looks like a three pronged fork with no moving parts that measures the wind magnitude and direction via sonic waves. I won’t get into the details on how that works, but it’s pretty accurate. In general, for all ships we have seen that the FWD anemometer provides the most accurate measurement of the WOD in the landing area (LA). The PORT and STBD winds do not display the most accurate winds because of the numerous obstructions to “clean” air flow that exist on the mast. We have seen these sensors differ from the FWD by as much as ten degrees in direction and six knots in magnitude. Each ship is different and the errors of the mast-mounted anemometers differ. Due to these observations, we recommend that the FWD anemometer be selected from the Mini Boss Moriah display for all fixed wing recoveries to ensure the most accurate display of winds to the bridge, PriFly and the LSO platform. The FWD can be manually selected or the AUTO function chosen, which will automatically choose the FWD anemometer 1

while the ship is turned into the wind. How does wind factor into Mode I performance? The first important concept to understand is that the ACLS does not use wind inputs from any anemometer in its computations of aircraft guidance through the datalink. The ACLS system merely commands corrections to deviations from commanded course (final bearing) via bank angle commands and glideslope via pitch attitude commands coupled with on-speed control through the autothrottles (ATC) in the aircraft. The second concept to understand is the expected performance of Mode I in high and/or starboard winds. As wind conditions increase in magnitude beyond ~35 kts or shift to more starboard component (> 4 kts STBD), Mode I performance will degrade as the burble gets stronger. Increasing burble strength translates to larger deviations from commanded course/glideslope and therefore larger corrections from the aircraft. In the Rhino, these large deviations and corrections tend to make the jet float and bolter, while the Hornet tends to settle into early wires during Mode Is in these adverse wind conditions. These are normal Mode I reactions to these conditions, so your

best bet for successful Mode I is to ensure you know the actual WOD conditions in the LA. VX-23 Carrier Suitability has seen several cases in the past few years in which ships were using the STBD anemometer as their standard wind source during fixed wing recoveries for various reasons. On one ship, the difference in wind direction/magnitude measured from the STBD anemometer to the actual WOD in the LA was large enough to create an adverse starboard wind condition strong enough to degrade Mode I performance to the point where the ship stopped flying them because they thought something was wrong. The

winds displayed on Moriah measured from the STBD anemometer showed winds right down the angle, well within normal recovery winds. This particular instance resulted in rescue detachment from VX-23 meeting the ship on deployment. After extensive testing, we could not find anything wrong with the ACLS, switched the ship back to the FWD and Mode I performance improved back to our certification standards. We are currently evaluating the system on another ship that is using the STBD due to problems with their

FWD anemometer. That ship is also reporting Mode I performance degradation. While the results from the evaluation are not yet complete, we are investigating the wind issue as a possible cause for degraded Mode I performance. We field inquiries from ships and Airwings routinely with questions regarding possible degradations in Mode I performance. One of our first troubleshooting questions will be to identify which anemometer is being used. This is just one piece of the puzzle when troubleshooting the ACLS (aircraft ATC, beacons, SPN-46 radar dishes, computers, etc) and may not be the “smoking gun” causing problems. Hopefully a little better understanding of Mode I and the effect the WOD has on its performance will help manage expectations and better prepare the pilot and LSO for the anticipated deviations in adverse wind conditions. VX-23 is always available to discuss PALS performance. If you notice a trend of questionable Mode I performance, or experience even a single unsafe Mode I, please don’t hesitate to contact us. http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index. cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=767

2

Ideal No.3 CDP Arrest EA-18G VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqZWXuRFX6Y

JP AL S

https :// www .sae. org/ aero mag/ techf ocus /06-2 004/ 2-245-25. pdf

In early April, ARINC Engineering Services successfully flight tested a new precision approach and landing system designed to withstand electronic jamming that military aircraft may encounter in combat situations. The flight tests were conducted at Holloman Air Force Base, NM. A U.S. Air Force (USAF) C12J aircraft equipped with ARINC’s new Local Area Differential Global Positioning System (LDGPS) made multiple precision approaches while electronic jamming was activated. The LDGPS used for the flights is a technology demonstration testbed designed to provide a vertical accuracy for Category II approaches of 5.3 m, even when subjected to GPS jamming. Ground tests of the system were completed at Holloman AFB in March. “Many weapons systems today rely heavily on GPS positioning, and that makes the threat of GPS jamming a key risk area,” said Tom Sanders,

Using the new LDGPS under jamming conditions, the C12J readies to touch down at
Holloman AFB, NM, on April 5. The system’s nominal accuracy is about 2 m.

ARINC’s jam-resistant JPALS demo takes flight These two trailers contained the
electronics testbed and ground
station used for the LDGPS test
flights. Two
external
differentialGPS receivers are
located in the field about 150 ft
away. Electronics in the trailers
picked up the local jamming
signals, mitigated them, and
generated clean differentialGPS data that was sent to the
aircraft by data link. The NAV

Pallet of ARINC’s 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.

Aerospace Engineering






June 2004

ARINC’s Director of Satellite Navigation and Air Traffic Control & Landing Systems. The technology uses multiple jamresistant GPS receivers on the ground and a single anti-jam GPS receiver in the air to provide an accurate “differential GPS” position. The aircraft receives needed GPS corrections from the ground over a VHF data link system. The USAF LDGPS project is part of the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) program that

is a joint effort to develop a nextgeneration precision approach and landing system for the Department of Defense. LDGPS is focused on enhancing flight operations on land. In a parallel effort, ARINC is developing a Shipboard Relative GPS (SRGPS) demonstration system aimed at enhancing naval shipboard flight operations. According to the company, JPALS is currently in a technology maturation and risk-reduction phase, with system development planned for fiscal year 2006.

JPALS: Not Just LAAS in Navy Uniform by William Reynish | Oct 1, 2002 | http://www.aviationtoday.com/print/ av/issue/feature/JPALS-Not-Just-LAAS-in-Navy-Uniform_12893.html --

"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 military’s 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.

Extraordinary Environment [Full article on next page +1] But the seagoing JPALS will be a horse (or a LAAS) of a different color. One of the biggest differences will be its data links. For, as development has evolved, carrier-based JPALS has become a generic term applied to a wider data link environment than just the automatic landing portion.... In fact, the Navy’s seagoing JPALS will be the centerpiece of a dedicated, data link-based, communications, navigation and surveillance/air traffic management (CNS/ATM) system, which will be aboard each of its 12 carriers. The Navy needs such a capability to provide safety, airspace management and, of course, surveillance protection against adversaries, as the vessel moves away from the mainland and across oceans, often towards unfriendly territory. In a way, it will be like picking up a complete FAA air route traffic control center (ARTCC) from the mainland, along with all its radars and infrastructure, and shoehorning it into an aircraft carrier. And since the carrier’s raison d’etre is to extend military air power in all weather, you could even say that the seagoing JPALS’ ultimate purpose is to thread the tip of an autolanding aircraft’s arrester hook through an imaginary 9-square foot (0.83-square meter) box centered precisely 14 feet (4.3 meters) above the pitching and rolling stern of a carrier in very low visibility, by day or night....

Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS)

GPS Satellites

CCA Coverage

60 NM

2 Approach Coverage

Ship Location Coverage

10 NM

1

A

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

©

C

3

Joint Precision Approach andLanding System (JPALS) Program Update 15 June 2011 1

UNCLASSIFIED / 7

SBAS Signals

200 NM

3

Supports precision approach within 10 NM, 360 deg around the ship, Downlink to ship provides for CATCC/AATCC, LSO and Primary Flight Control to monitor approach. Supports autoland (ACLS replacement) Two-way datalink with ship when within 60 NM supports NATOPS requirements under all conditions. Position reports supplement radar and IFF data in Carrier Control Area (CCA) displays Ship to Air broadcast allows aircraft to find ship under conditions out to 200 nm

GBAS VHF Data Broadcast (VDB)

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$SSURDFKDQG /DQGLQJ6\VWHP-3$/6 LQWKHPLGVPRVWREVHUYHUVXQGHUVWRRGWKDWWKLV ZRXOGEHWKHPLOLWDU\¶VYHUVLRQRIWKH*36EDVHG/RFDO$UHD$XJPHQWDWLRQ 6\VWHP/$$6 ZKLFKLVEHLQJGHYHORSHGIRUWKH)HGHUDO$YLDWLRQ$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ  )$$ $QGWRDFHUWDLQH[WHQWLWZLOOEH:KHQGHOLYHULHVFRPPHQFHDURXQG WRWKH$UP\$LU)RUFH0DULQH&RUSVDQG1DY\ODQGEDVHG-3$/6 LQVWDOODWLRQVZLOOFORVHO\UHVHPEOHWKH )$$ V\VWHP http://www.aviationtoday.com/print/av ([WUDRUGLQDU\(QYLURQPHQW /issue/feature/JPALS-Not-Just-LAAS-in-Navy-Uniform_12893.html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¶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¶V UDLVRQG¶HWUHLVWRH[WHQGPLOLWDU\DLUSRZHULQDOOZHDWKHU\RXFRXOGHYHQVD\WKDWWKHVHDJRLQJ-3$/6¶ XOWLPDWHSXUSRVHLVWRWKUHDGWKHWLSRIDQDXWRODQGLQJDLUFUDIW¶VDUUHVWHUKRRNWKURXJKDQLPDJLQDU\VTXDUH IRRWVTXDUHPHWHU ER[FHQWHUHGSUHFLVHO\IHHWPHWHUV DERYHWKHSLWFKLQJDQGUROOLQJVWHUQRI DFDUULHULQYHU\ORZYLVLELOLW\E\GD\RUQLJKW :KDW¶VPRUHWKHDLUFUDIWDUHPRVWO\)7RPFDWVDQG)$+RUQHWVWREHMRLQHGLQWKHIXWXUHE\ XQPDQQHGFRPEDWDLUYHKLFOHV8&$9V DQG-RLQW6WULNH)LJKWHUV-6)V 7KH1DY\¶V-3$/6ZLOOEHDIDUFU\ IURPLWVVKRUHEDVHGVLEOLQJV

(DVLHU6DLG7KDQ'RQH

http://www.aviationtoday.com/print/av /issue/feature/JPALS-Not-Just-LAAS-in-Navy-Uniform_12893.html

-3$/6JRWLWVPDUFKLQJRUGHUVLQ$XJXVWZKHQWKH3HQWDJRQ¶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¶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

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 $OOVLJQDOVZLOOKDYHKLJKXSGDWHUDWHVZLWKKLJKLQWHJULW\DQGIDXOW WROHUDQFH7KHQHWZRUNZLOOXVHFRYHUWDQWLMDPWHFKQRORJLHVDQGIHDWXUHOHVVVSUHDGVSHFWUXPWUDQVPLVVLRQV WRWU\WRSUHYHQWDGYHUVDULHVIURPGHWHUPLQLQJWKHVHQGHU¶VORFDWLRQ,WZLOOVXSSRUWFRPSOHPHQWDU\OHYHOVRI GDWDOLQNVRYHUWKUHHFRQFHQWULFUDGLLRIDQGQPDURXQGWKHFDUULHU 7KURXJKRXWWKHQPUDGLXVHDFKDLUFUDIW¶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¶UDGDUVLVSDUWLFXODUO\YDOXDEOHZKHQWKHFDUULHU¶V UDGDUVDUHVKXWGRZQLQDKLJKWKUHDWHQYLURQPHQW 7DUJHWVGHWHFWHGE\SDWUROOLQJDLUERUQHZDUQLQJDQG FRQWUROV\VWHP$:$&6 DLUFUDIWZLOOEHGDWDOLQNHGDFURVVDVZHOO$OOIULHQGO\&'7,WDUJHWVZLOORIFRXUVH FDUU\SRVLWLYHLGHQWLILFDWLRQIULHQGRUIRH,)) WDJV(DFKDLUFUDIWDOVRZLOOFDUU\FROOLVLRQDYRLGDQFHDYLRQLFV ZKLFKZLOOPRQLWRUWKHVXUURXQGLQJDLUVSDFHRXWWRQPDQGDJDLQSUHVHQWWKHLUDOHUWVRQWKH&'7, :LWKLQDERXWQPRIWKHFDUULHUPDQQHGDQGXQPDQQHGDLUFUDIWZLOOFRPHXQGHUWZRZD\FRQWUROOHUSLORW GDWDOLQNFRPPXQLFDWLRQV&3'/& FRYHUDJHRIWKHYHVVHO¶VDLUWUDIILFFRQWURO$7& V\VWHP)RUVHFXULW\ SXUSRVHVYRLFHFRPPXQLFDWLRQVZLOOEHHLWKHUSDVVHGWKURXJKYRLFHUHFRJQLWLRQILUHZDOOVRUEHGLJLWDOO\ V\QWKHVL]HG7KHFDUULHU¶V$7&IDFLOLW\DOVRZLOODFFXUDWHO\WUDFNHDFKDLUFUDIWYLDDXWRPDWLFGHSHQGHQW VXUYHLOODQFH$'6 ,QVLGHWKHQP]RQHDQHQGXUDQFHPDQDJHPHQWDLUWUDIILFV\VWHP(0$76 GDWDOLQN ZLOOREWDLQHDFKUHWXUQLQJDLUFUDIW¶VSRVLWLRQIXHOVWDWHZHDSRQVVWDWXVDQGRWKHUIDFWRUV7KH(0$76OLQNZLOO GHWHUPLQHWKHDLUFUDIW¶VRSWLPXPWLPHRIDUULYDOODQGLQJSULRULW\DQGSURMHFWHGODQGLQJZHLJKWDQGVHTXHQFH LWLQWRDIRXUGLPHQVLRQDO±ODWLWXGHORQJLWXGHDOWLWXGHDQGWLPH±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

([WUHPH$FFXUDF\

http://www.aviationtoday.com/print/av /issue/feature/JPALS-Not-Just-LAAS-in-Navy-Uniform_12893.html

7RDVVXUHWKHH[DFWSRVLWLRQLQJRIWKHDLUFUDIW¶VDUUHVWHUKRRNZLWKLQWKHYHU\VPDOODUHDRQWKHFDUULHUGHFN WKH1DY\WXUQHGWRWKHFRPPHUFLDOVXUYH\LQGXVWU\¶VUHDOWLPHNLQHPDWLF57. *36WHFKQLTXHZKLFKXVHV WKHFDUULHUSKDVHRIWKH*36VLJQDOVWRDFKLHYHDFFXUDFLHVZLWKLQFHQWLPHWHUV7KH1DY\UHTXLUHVKRUL]RQWDO DQGYHUWLFDODFFXUDFLHVRIOHVVWKDQFPLQFKHV ZLWKLQWHJULW\DVVXUDQFHRIQRPRUHWKDQPHWHU IRRW HUURULQPLOOLRQODQGLQJV 5HPHPEHUWKDWLPDJLQDU\VTXDUHIRRWER["7KH1DY\KDVSURYHGWKDWDFFXUDFLHVRIWKLVW\SHDUHSRVVLEOH LQDXWRODQGLQJH[HUFLVHVZLWK)$VDQGRWKHUDLUFUDIWRQFDUULHUVDQGODQGIDFLOLWLHVXVLQJDPRGLILHG SURWRW\SH-3$/6V\VWHPLQFRQMXQFWLRQZLWK57.7KHVHUYLFHDOVRKDVGHPRQVWUDWHGWKHV\VWHP¶VLPPXQLW\ WR*36MDPPLQJ &DUULHUSLORWVKRZHYHUDOVRPXVWFRQWHQGZLWKWKHFKDOOHQJHRIODQGLQJRQDYHU\VKRUWDQGYHU\QDUURZ UXQZD\WKDWDOVRKDSSHQVWREHULVLQJIDOOLQJUROOLQJDQG\DZLQJEHQHDWKWKHPDVWKH\DUHDERXWWRWRXFK GRZQ$QGZKLOHGRLQJWKLVWKH\PXVWDOVRVWD\H[DFWO\RQWKHFHQWHUOLQHVLQFHRWKHUDLUFUDIWDUHSDUNHG MXVWIHHWPHWHUV RIIHLWKHUZLQJWLS %XW-3$/6KDVWKHDQVZHUKHUHWRR5HDOWLPHFRUUHFWLRQVIRUGHFNPRYHPHQWGHULYHGIURPWKHFDUULHU¶V LQHUWLDOQDYLJDWLRQV\VWHPDUHFRQWLQXDOO\XSOLQNHGWRDQDLUFUDIWDVLWPDNHVLWVILQDODSSURDFK7KH FRUUHFWLRQVDUHIHGWRWKHDXWRODQGV\VWHPZKLFKPDNHVDWWLWXGHDGMXVWPHQWVDOOWKHZD\WRWRXFKGRZQ±RU PRUHSUHFLVHO\WRWKHSRLQWRISODFLQJWKHDUUHVWHUKRRNH[DFWO\EHWZHHQWKHVHFRQGDQGWKLUGDUUHVWHU FDEOHVIRXURIZKLFKDUHVWUHWFKHGDFURVVWKHGHFNIHHWPHWHUV DSDUW-3$/6ZLOOELGIDUHZHOOWRWKH EROWHUWKDWFRORUIXOH[SUHVVLRQXVHGE\QDYDODYLDWRUVIRUDQDLUFUDIWZKRVHDUUHVWHUKRRNPLVVHVWKHFDEOHV DQGLVIRUFHGWRPDNHDPLVVHGDSSURDFK%XWLQWRPRUURZ¶V1DY\EROWHUVPD\VLPSO\EHDQXQGHVLUDEOH LPSHGLPHQWWR'KLJKVSHHGWUDIILFIORZV 7KHUHDUHPDQ\LQGXVWU\FRQWULEXWRUVWRWKH-3$/6SURJUDP±WRRPDQ\WRPHQWLRQLQGLYLGXDOO\%XWSHUKDSV VXUSULVLQJO\RQHRUJDQL]DWLRQWKDWKDVSOD\HGDOHDGLQJUROHLQWKHGHYHORSPHQWDQGHQJLQHHULQJRI-3$/6¶ FRPSOH[VRIWZDUHLV$5,1&,QF$QQDSROLV0GZZZDULQFFRP $PDMRUSOD\HULQWKHVHGDWHZRUOGRI DLUOLQHDYLRQLFV$5,1&DOVRKDVYDVWH[SHULHQFHLQDYLDWLRQGDWDOLQNVIURPWKHHDUOLHVWGD\VRIWKHDLUERUQH FRPPXQLFDWLRQVDGGUHVVLQJDQGUHSRUWLQJV\VWHP$&$56 WRIXWXUHFLYLODYLDWLRQGLJLWDOGDWDOLQNV%XWLWZDV WKHFRPELQHGH[FHOOHQFHRIDOOPHPEHUVRIWKHSURJUDPWHDPWKDWFDXVHGWKH3HQWDJRQ¶V'HIHQVH 6WDQGDUGL]DWLRQ3URJUDP2IILFH'632 WRSUHVHQWLWV'632$FKLHYHPHQW$ZDUGWRWKH-3$/6SURJUDP

New Project: Land-Based

Joint Precision Approach & Landing System

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."

3/10/2011 - HANSCOM AIR FORCE BASE, Mass. -- The land-based Joint Precision Approach and Landing System, or LB JPALS, is getting back on track after budget cuts. In January 2011, the deputy secretary of Defense issued the Resource Management Directive700 which restored full funding to the program. JPALS is a family of systems that will provide precision approach and landing capability for all of the Department of Defense. It will operate in land-based fixed and tactical environments, sea-based environments and, eventually, a back-packable system will support special operation environments.

.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).

segmented approaches or specialized approaches. "This will provide much more flexibility for the warfighter to react to their current situation," said Ben Brandt, JPALS lead engineer, MITRE.

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

to the runway, but curved, segmented approaches or specialized approaches....”

http://www.navsource. org/archives/02/027135.jpg

“‘Salty Dog 110’ from Naval Strike Aircraft Test Squadron 23 (VX-23) prepares to land on USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71). Official US Navy photo. 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 rotarywing 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

M. B. Suhrahmanyam, Finite Horizon H ∞ and Related Control Problems: “Design of the F/A-18A Automatic Carrier Landing System: Ch.6: The aircraft needs to arrive at the touchdown point with proper sink speed and position in space to closely match the position and vertical motion of the carrier deck touchdown zone. Aircraft hook should impact the deck between No. 2 and No. 3 arresting cables. The sink speed must be 10-14 ft /sec....”

A Robust GPS/INS Kinematic Integrity Algorithm for Aircraft Landing Alison Brown and Ben Mathews, NAVSYS Corporation: http://www.navsys.com/Papers/06-09-002.pdf -

“ABSTRACT Next generation GPS receivers will take advantage of Spatial processing from a Controlled Reception Pattern Antenna (CRPA) and Ultra-Tightly-Coupled (UTC) and Tightly–Coupled 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 ship’s 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

Northrop Grumman's inertial measurement unit selected for Joint Precision Approach and Landing Systems program – 22 May 2010 John McHale http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2010/05/northrop-grumman-s.html --

“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.”

‘Automated Carrier Landing of an Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle Using Dynamic Inversion’

Ship Degrees of Freedom: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc? Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc. pdf&AD=ADA469901

The ship rotational degrees of freedom are termed roll, pitch, & yaw. In the translational degrees of freedom, up and down motion is called heave, forward to aft motion is called surge, & port to stbd motion is called sway.”

EMALS TESTING Carrier Launch System Passes Initial Tests

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 USA’s 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

to additional engineering effort for algorithm refinement and development of an alternate configuration for the JPALS Inc 1A ship system variant, resulting in a smaller footprint for air capable ships (small combatants) (+$84.5 million). Additional increases were attributable to an extension of the procurement and installation profile from FY 2018 to FY 2020 (+$15.3 million) and a related increase in support costs (+$2.3 million), and a quantity increase of 1 system from 26 to 27 systems (+$7.5 million) and associated estimating allocation (-$1.4 million). These increases were offset by a decrease in initial spares requirements (-$1.5 million).” The GPS-centric JPALS will be installed well beyond the Ford Class external link – indeed, beyond the US Navy. This technology may become a separate article, but for now we’re adding it here as a key CVN-21 technology, which will play a critical role in handling F-35 fighters and UAVs. A JPALS 1A Milestone C production decision is expected in Fall 2013”

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.

The U.S. Navy recently completed engineering and manufacturing (EMD) development of the ship-based component of the Joint Precision In July 2008 Navair awarded Raytheon a $232 million contract for Jpals system Approach and Landing System (Jpals). The EMD development and demonstration, to include the delivery of eight ship system phase of Jpals Increment 1A for ship systems engineering development models and four aircraft system test avionics sets. Rockwell included auto landings by F/A-18C Hornets to Collins, a major subcontractor, provides its digital integrated GPS anti-jam receiver. the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore The Navy’s VX-23 air test and evaluation Defense budget uncertainty has delayed a Milestone C decision that would begin lowRoosevelt. The Increment 1B phase calls for squadron flew 60 autolands to the deck of the USS rate production of the system, according to Navair. Congress authorized $194.7 million Theodore Roosevelt using the Joint Precision integrating the system on aircraft. Approach and Landing System. (Photo: Navair) for the program in the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act passed in Jpals is a GPS-based precision approach and landing system that will help ship- and December, some $10 million less than the President’s request. The DoD has land-based aircraft land in all weather conditions, providing guidance to 200 feet programmed funding for Jpals over the entirety of its five-year future-years decision height and half-nautical-mile visibility. It is a tri-service program with defense program. multiple increments to include Air Force and Army requirements, eventually replacing Future development efforts are focused on supporting integration of Jpals with the F-35 “several aging and obsolete aircraft landing systems with a family of systems that is more affordable and will function in more operational environments,” according to the Joint Strike Fighter and on improving support for unmanned aircraft systems, Navair said. Department of Defense (DoD).

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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

DASD(SE) Assessments±'$6'6( VXSSRUWHGD105HYLHZWRDVVHVVWKH-3$/6WHFKQLFDO PDWXULW\DQGV\VWHPVHQJLQHHULQJSURFHVVHV7KH'$6'6( 10DVVHVVPHQWFRQILUPHGWKH10 ZDVQRWWKHUHVXOWRIGHILFLHQFLHVLQHQJLQHHULQJSODQVRUH[HFXWLRQ'$6'6( FRQFOXGHGWKDW WKHSURJUDPV\VWHPVHQJLQHHULQJSURFHVVHVIRUULVNPDQDJHPHQWFRQILJXUDWLRQPDQDJHPHQW UHTXLUHPHQWVDQGYHULILFDWLRQDUHDGHTXDWHWRVXSSRUWWKHFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHUHVWUXFWXUHG SURJUDP o '$6'6( DVVHVVHGULVNH[HFXWLRQDVH[FHOOHQWLQILYHDUHDVRILPSOHPHQWDWLRQ o 7KHSURJUDPVXFFHVVIXOO\OHYHUDJHVWKH7HFKQLFDO3HUIRUPDQFH0HDVXUHV730 LQWKH 6(3WRFRQWLQXDOO\DVVHVVWHFKQLFDOSURJUHVVWRSODQ o )<'$6'6( HQJDJHPHQWVDUHFRQWLQJHQWRQWKHUHSODQRIWKHSURJUDPVFKHGXOH

x

x

Risk Assessment±7KHSURJUDPLVH[HFXWLQJLWVULVNPDQDJHPHQWSURJUDPGRFXPHQWHGLQWKH 6(37KHSURJUDPLVZRUNLQJWRPLWLJDWHULVNVLQWKH)FHUWLILFDWLRQ)8&/$66VFKHGXOH DQGHQGWRHQGYHULILFDWLRQDUHDV Performance ±%DVHGRQD)HEUXDU\,QF$6\VWHP9HULILFDWLRQ5HYLHZ695 OLNHHYHQW DOOIRXU,QF$.33VDQGILYH.6$VUHPDLQRQWUDFNWRFRPSOHWH1DY\&RPPDQGHU2SHUDWLRQDO 7HVWDQG(YDOXDWLRQ)RUFH/HWWHURI2EVHUYDWLRQ/22 7KH,QF$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&/$66 Integration±7KH,QF$SURJUDPFRPSOHWHGVKLSERDUGLQWHJUDWLRQRQ&917KHSURJUDP UHGXFHGLQWHJUDWLRQULVNZLWKWKHXVHRIWKHGXSOLFDWHVWULQJRIVKLSERDUGLQIUDVWUXFWXUH HTXLSPHQWDQGQHWZRUN LQWKHODQGLQJV\VWHPWHVWIDFLOLW\DQG3DWX[HQW5LYHU1DYDO$LU6WDWLRQ 'HULYHGUHTXLUHPHQWVIRU)DQG8&/$66LQWHJUDWLRQDUHSHQGLQJFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHWUDGH VWXGLHV

Mission and System Description: 7KH-3$/6ZLOOVDIHJXDUGWKHIXWXUHSUHFLVLRQDSSURDFKDQG ODQGLQJFDSDELOLW\IRUDQ\-3$/6HTXLSSHGDLUFUDIWHJ)-RLQW6WULNH)LJKWHUDQG8QPDQQHG &DUULHU/DXQFKHG$LUERUQH6XUYHLOODQFHDQG6WULNH8&/$66 GXULQJRSHUDWLRQVDWVHDLQYLUWXDOO\ x DQ\ZHDWKHUFRQGLWLRQ7KHUHVWUXFWXUHGSURJUDPZLOOSURYLGHWKHFRQWLQXHGGHYHORSPHQW LQWHJUDWLRQLQVWDOODWLRQDQGWHVWRIVHDEDVHG-3$/6RQDOOODUJHGHFNVKLSV x Systems Engineering Activities x Systems Engineering Plan(SEP) ±'$6'6( DSSURYHGWKH,QF$6(3LQ'HFHPEHUWR VXSSRUWWKH,QF$06%LQ-XO\7KHSURJUDPUHYLHZHGXSGDWHGDQGUHYDOLGDWHGWKH6(3 DVSDUWRIWKHSUHSDUDWLRQIRUSURJUDP6\VWHPV(QJLQHHULQJ7HFKQLFDO5HYLHZV'$6'6( x SURYLGHGFRPPHQWVWRVXSSRUWDSODQQHG6(3UHYLVLRQ7KHSURJUDPLVIXOILOOLQJWKH REMHFWLYHVRIWKHUHYLVHG6(3ZLWKRXWZDLYHUVRUGHYLDWLRQV7KHQH[W6(3XSGDWHZLOOVXSSRUW WKH)<06%IRUWKHUHVWUXFWXUHG-3$/6SURJUDP x x Requirements±7KH-52&DSSURYHGWKH,QF$&''LQ0DUFKZLWKIRXU.33V7KH SURJUDPUHTXLUHPHQWVDUHUHDVRQDEOHDQGVWDEOH7KH,QF$7HVW5HDGLQHVV5HYLHZLQ)< HVWDEOLVKHGWKHWUDFHDELOLW\RIUHTXLUHPHQWVWRV\VWHPSHUIRUPDQFH x Life Cycle Management± 7KH,QF$&ULWLFDO'HVLJQ5HYLHZ&'5 LQFOXGHGWKHOLIHF\FOH x VXSSRUWDQDO\VLVDVDGHVLJQFRQVLGHUDWLRQDQGHQDEOHGGHVLJQWUDGHRIIV7KHLQLWLDOSURGXFW EDVHOLQHLVSHUFHQWFRPPHUFLDORIIWKHVKHOIZLWKUHGXFHGPDQXIDFWXULQJULVN7KHUHPDLQLQJ SHUFHQWRIWKHFRPSRQHQWVDQGDVVHPEOLHVLQFOXGLQJQHZDQGPRGLILHGLWHPVKDYHFRPSOHWHG GHVLJQVDQGSUHOLPLQDU\0DQXIDFWXULQJ5HDGLQHVV$VVHVVPHQWV7KHPDLQWDLQDELOLW\.6$ GHILQHGDVPHDQFRUUHFWLYHPDLQWHQDQFHWLPHLVRQWUDFNWRPHHWUHTXLUHPHQWV Conclusion:7KH-3$/6ULVNUHGXFWLRQHIIRUWVWRVXSSRUWWKH)DQG8&/$66DUHRQWUDFNWR x Program Protection Plan (PPP) ±7KH-3$/6SURJUDPPDQDJHUDSSURYHGWKH,QF$333LQ EHJLQLQ)<'$6'6( DVVHVVHVWKHSURJUDPSODQVDQGSURFHVVHVDVDGHTXDWHWRVXSSRUWWKH 2FWREHU7KHQH[W333XSGDWHZLOOVXSSRUWWKH)<06%IRUWKHUHVWUXFWXUHG-3$/6 -3$/6SURJUDP Data as of 4th quarter FY 2014 - DoD Systems Engineering FY 2014 Annual Report SURJUDP

Four Luneberg Lens (RCS Enhancers) Radar Reflectors – two topside & two under with only one under for F-35B sometimes only one under for others

http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/Untitled_zps43f217ed.jpg

On Your Radar 18 Dec 2013 John A. Tirpak http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2013/December%202013/December%2018%202013/On-Your-Radar.aspx -

“New fairings have shown up on F-35 fighters; two ogival bumps on the top rear, forward of each vertical fin, and two on the bottom, one either side, just forward of the tailhook housing. Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti told the Daily Report the fairings are radar cross section enhancers, put there so air traffic controllers can see the stealthy F-35s when they fly through civil airspace. The F-22 has a similar device, and the Lockheed F-117 also sported a faceted version on each side of the fuselage. The radar reflectors — sometimes called Luneburg lenses — are removed when the aircraft is employed in stealth mode.” &

Staff photo by John A. Tirpak

“New fairings have shown up on F-35 fighters; two ogival bumps on the top rear, forward of each vertical fin, and two on the bottom, one either side, just forward of the tailhook housing. The photo here was taken at Lockheed’s Ft. http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/PublishingImag Worth, Tex., facility on Dec. 13, 2013.” http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pages/2013/December%202013/December%2018%202013/pix121813radar.aspx

es/2013/December%202013/Day18/pix121813radars.jpg

‘Under’ Luneberg Lens (RCS Enhancers) Radar Reflectors – two topside & two under for the F-35A/Cs mostly

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

“...an USAF Airman crouches under the exhaust of an F-35A Lightning II as the aircraft is prepped for a training mission at Nellis Air Force Base, in April 2013. This photograph illustrates the jet blast dangers that some former military aircraft can pose to untrained or unaware personnel. The blast from some of these military jet engines dwarf the jet blast from many civilian corporate jets typically found at a GA airport.”

Luneberg Lens & Ovoid IPP Exhaust

First Flight of the First U.K. F-35 VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNYD-F8SXfc “Published on Apr 18, 2012 by LockheedMartinVideos The first flight of the first F-35 for the United Kingdom on April 13, 2012. Lockheed Martin test pilot Bill Gigliotti flew the F-35B aircraft, known as BK-1, which is also the first international F-35 to fly....” http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=15852&mode=view

UK F-35B

JPALS Overarching Joint Program Strategy 200 ft/ ½ NM Inc-1A (SRGPS) Shipboard Relative GPS

CVN LH-CLASS DDG-1000

Joint A/C Integration Guide Inc-1B

Sea-Based Lead Platforms Operational A/C Integration

Inc-2 (LDGPS)

200 ft/ ½ SM – Land-Based Fixed and Tactical/Mobile Local Differential GPS (FAA certifiable, Auto-Land)

Overarching Joint Program Strategy

Future Landing System Incremental Precision/Capability

JPALS End State 1

Medium Earth Orbit Inc-3

100 ft/ ¼ SM – Auto-Land Mobile/Fixed –LDGPS 200 ft/ ½ NM – Auto-Land Sea-Based –SRGPS

3

2 3 2 (DoD and Civil Interoperability)

1

GPS

3

2

Three System Components: 2 Ground Station 3 A/C Integration

JPALS at Sea CON OPS Overview

Inc-4

100 ft/ ¼ NM – Auto-Land Sea-Based –SRGPS (UAV Support)

Inc-5

Man-Pack –LDGPS (Marine Corps/Army)

Inc-6

Autonomous Enhanced Vision System (EVS)

Inc-7

Upgrade to Sea-Based back-up system

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)

Shipboard ATC Systems AN/SPN-46 ACLS (Automatic Carrier Landing System)

TACAN

AN/SPN-35B/C PAR (Precision Approach Radar for LHA/LHD class ships)

JPALS will replace legacy radar-based PAL systems

SPN-46 SPN-35

TACAN

JPALS Compared to GPS Guided Munitions 15

JPALS Accuracy Requirements

meters

Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)

JPALS Requires Augmented GPS Better Guidance Quality (GQ) required as the aircraft gets lower and closer

12

Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM)

9 6

-15

-12

-9

-6

Sea-Based JPALS

3

-3

-3

Land-Based JPALS 3

6

9

12

15

meters 18

21

24

27

30

-6

33

36

39

Even better GQ required when the runway is small and/or moving (e.g., an aircraft carrier)

SRD Threshold: 200 ft/ ½ mi SOO Objective: AutoLand Demo

-9 -12 -15

Sea-Based JPALS requires 22x and 94x greater accuracy than JSOW and JDAM, respectively

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

4

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

• • • •

Very high safety and reliability Fully automatic flight in CCA ATC control via digital data See and avoid manned aircraft

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

• Land to any spot (LH) • Primary mode: automatic takeoff and landing • 360 deg coverage Future Carriers (CVNX)

• • • •

No rotators; lower RCS Eliminate unique signals Increase growth margin Reduce workload 5

Concept of Operations for the Carrier at Sea ATC coverage

‘TACAN’ coverage 50 nm

Two-way data comm to ship within 50 nm; nm ADS position reports relative accuracy 1-2 m meters relative accuracy

Approach coverage

Ship to Air data link provides relative nav (TACAN) to 200 nm 5 m relative accuracy 20 nm

Collision Avoidance

20 nm

Landing System Accuracy (0.3m 95%) in 360 deg, 20 nm

Marshal

State reports provide Collision Avoidance and Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI) at 20 nm

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

ICAO/ NATO compatible approach capability within 30 nm of airfield 6

How JPALS Works Differential GPS gives relative position with high accuracy and integrity

Inertial Navigation System data used to compensate for ship’s motion

Translation Roll Pitch Heave

Surge

COMSEC and “Featureless” Spread Spectrum protect the signals ?

Sway Yaw 7

JPALS Architecture Ground Equipment

Airborne Equipment

Fixed/Civil/ International

Y/M Code, Beamforming Anti-Jam

Antenna Electronics

F

Tactical/ Special Mission

VH

C/A-Code WAAS & LAAS

GPS/ INS

VHF

VHF Data Broadcast

Shipboard

Y/M Code, Beamforming Anti-Jam Two-Way UHF LPI data link ATC & Landing

UH

F

Data Link Mission Computer

Display

8

JPALS CNS/ATM Functions • JPALS Performs Four Primary Functions: • Communications • Navigation • Surveillance • Air Traffic Management • JPALS Replaces or Enhances Today’s Systems: • Provides LPI Communications • Replaces Navigation: TACAN, ACLS, ICLS • Enhances Surveillance: AN/SPN-43, AN/UPX-29 • Provides ATM: Assists ATC Controller Tasks • JPALS Employs/Integrates Technologies: • GPS/INS • Digital Data Link • Voice Synthesis/Voice Recognition • Fault-Tolerant Processors • ATC Application-specific Algorithms

Test results of F/A-18 autoland trials for aircraft carrier operations - Abstract: Raytheon and the US Navy conducted aircraft carrier precision approach trials using the F/A-18 as the test platform. These trials are part of the Navy Joint Precision and Landing System (JPALS) effort to demonstrate Global Positioning System (GPS) technology for aircraft carrier precision approach. The team achieved the historic milestone of the first fully coupled approach and landing to the ground in an F/A-18 using a GPS-based navigation solution…. The test and analysis results show that GPS technology provides the quality needed to perform relative precision approaches in an aircraft carrier environment.” http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/ freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=931358 9

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

If the pilot keeps the autopilot coupled until touchdown, this is referred to as a “Mode I” approach. If the pilot maintains a couple until the visual approach point (at ¾ miles) this is referred to as a “Mode IIA” approach.”

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

Functions have derived GPS Nav requirements

Approach Monitor Ramp Strike Prevention Sys

Airspace Management

10

JPALS ATM Services • Flight Information Service (FIS): Automated meteorological data, including wind speed and direction over deck, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure.

• 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.

• Endurance Management Air Traffic System (EMATS): Given a flight plan,

algorithms compute optimum time of arrival, schedule unmanned platforms with other manned aircraft. A display tool provides time of arrival status information to the controller or Mission Control System (MCS) operator with 4-D routing.

• Airspace Management: Automated system assigns airspace regions to aircraft. System monitors the aircraft, projects aircraft state appropriately. Upon detection of impending spill-out, the system generates alarm to CPDLC, MCS operator, or to the unmanned platform itself.

11

JPALS Surveillance Services • Shipboard Tracking: Within 50 nm, JPALS displays manned and unmanned platforms on controller consoles from integrated dependent surveillance SRGPS track information with primary radar and IFF.

• Cockpit Display of Traffic Information (CDTI): Includes embedded collision avoidance function for manned and unmanned platforms. Operators have information on all local traffic, including 3-D relative range, bearing, and acceleration.

• Shipboard Approach Monitor: Airborne platforms are accurately monitored with automated CAS functions, MCS display, and/or final approach display.

• Ramp Strike Prevention System: An approach monitor function which includes projection of aircraft state and variable alarm limits for LSO monitoring and/or as a part of vehicle flight control system integration. 12

Link System Design and Navigation Service

NAV COMM SURV VOICE

ATM

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Low-Rate LPI Uplink Data to 200 nm Low-Rate Uplink/Downlink data to 50 nm

Ship State 200 Ship State 50 Ship State 20 GPS Block ID GPS Pseudorange GPS Carrier Phase Ship Motion 20 Hz Ship Motion 1 Hz Ship Motion 0.2 Hz Air State Report Air Monitor Report ATM Uplink 50 ATM Uplink 20 ATM Uplink 10 Request/Reply

Transmit Range (nm)

Medium-Rate Air-Air Data

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

4D guide & CPDLC arrival reports

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

more stringent levels of accuracy and integrity than ashore. • Accuracies of less than 15 cm with integrity assurance of no more than 1.1 meter error in 10 million landings. • Also require high levels of availability in the presence of hostile or own interference. • Current anti-jam techniques sacrifice accuracy and are not compatible with high integrity or carrier phase systems.

Performance Simulations

Flight Test Results

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 lev”erage 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

• The shipboard component of JPALS combines state of the art navigation technologies • GPS surveying technology • Aviation integrity concepts from civil aviation • Advanced military beam-forming anti-jam systems • Integration of kinematic GPS with inertial systems • Increases safety, efficiency and reduces vulnerability with CNS technologies provided with a LPI link • Meets critical mission need for future aircraft and ships (JSF, UCAV, CVNX...)

16

Carrier Deck Landing Area Touchdown Points - Coupled to the Deck April 23-24, 2001 - USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-40

-30

3.5° Glide Slope

Target Touchdown Point

-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

JPALS Testing Success • Conducted shipboard test of SRGPS aboard the USS Roosevelt (CVN-71) accomplishing 10 fully auto-coupled landings in Apr ‘01.

• Flew LAAS avionics (FedEx 727) using the JPALS Ground Station to perform 10 auto-coupled landings Aug ‘01.

• Completed 276 approaches at Holloman AFB in clear air and jamming conditions Jul-Aug’01. Civil Interoperability

Automatic Shipboard Landing

Precision Approach in Jamming

18

International Cooperation • UK has companion program (UK-JPALS) • MOU in work with United States • UK testing STOVL implementation to support JSF

• Data Exchange agreement with

Flight Testing of JPALS Autolands Germany in UK VAAC Harrier • Interest within Spain, Italy, and France JUMP to VAAC • NATO HARRIER INFO • Precision Approach and Landing System decision

planned for Oct 2002 • New group established to work ship standards 19

The Landing Area (CVN-68 Class) 80’

Fresnel Lens Position

ACLS Desired Hook TDP (1 ) 230 ft ±24’ Longitudinal ±5’ Lateral

86’

486’ X 786’

A diagram illustrating the "Long-Range Lineup System (LRLS)."

Not to scale

291’ 250’ 210’ 170’

Effect on Hook Touch Down Point (HTDP) Design Eye Point

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 (doesn’t change with IFLOLS)

Hook Touch Down Point • IFLOLS – 212’ Nominal • ACLS – 212’ Nominal (doesn’t change with IFLOLS) 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’

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

X

268’ – 10” 261’-10” 220’ 180’

CVN 76 3-Wire Configuration

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&³LV

http:// www.ain online.com/ news/singlenews-page/ article/ paris-2011rockwellcollinsdelivers-firstsoftwaredefinedarc-210radio-30178/

WKHILUVWDLUERUQHVRIWZDUHGHILQHGUDGLRWRKLWWKHPDUNHW´VDLG7UR\%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 ³7KH$5&*HQUDGLRLVWKHILUVWWRPDUNHWVROXWLRQFDSDEOHRISURYLGLQJ QHWZRUNLQJDQGPRGHUQFU\SWRJUDSKLFIXQFWLRQDOLW\WKDWWKH86PLOLWDU\QHHGVIRU LWVDLUERUQHSODWIRUPV´VDLG%UXFH.LQJ5RFNZHOO&ROOLQVJHQHUDOPDQDJHURI &RPPXQLFDWLRQV3URGXFWV³,WSURYLGHVDFOHDUSDWKZD\IRUWKH'HSDUWPHQWRI 'HIHQVHWRDFTXLUHDQDIIRUGDEOHUHOLDEOHDQGVHFXUHQHWZRUNLQJVROXWLRQIRUDQ\ JPALS next page W\SHRIDLUFUDIW´

J P A L S

%UXQFNVDLG5RFNZHOO&ROOLQVDOUHDG\GRPLQDWHVWKH8+)DLUERUQHPDUNHWVSDFH ZLWKWKH$5&UHSUHVHQWLQJ³WKHGHIDFWRVWDQGDUGUDGLR´RIWKH861DY\DQG 86$LU)RUFH7KHFRPSDQ\DOVRVXSSOLHVVRPHUDGLRVWRWKH86$UP\DQG86 &RDVW*XDUG ,WFXUUHQWO\LVVXSSO\LQJPDLQO\WKHIRXUWKJHQHUDWLRQ$5&57& UDGLR NQRZQDV³7KH:DUULRU´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

PMA-213 Celebrates New GPS-Based Landing System Progress http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/25955 | Patuxent River, MD - Jan/24/2012 “The latest in a series of Engineering Development Models (EDM) of a technology that promises to revolutionize how the DoD safely lands its aircraft was unveiled by the Naval Air Traffic Management Systems Program Office (PMA-213) during a dedication ceremony here Jan. 11. “We now have real, testable hardware after several years of conceptual modeling and design,” Capt. Darrell Lack, PMA-213 program manager, told the group gathered to celebrate the latest advancement of the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS). -

“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.”

NavAirSysCom Core Avionics Master Plan 2011 3. Funded Enhancements and Potential Pursuits. Digitally Augmented GPS-based Shipboard Recovery (JPALS). (2015) JPALS is a joint effort with the Air Force and Army. The Navy is designated as the Lead Service and is responsible for implementation of shipboard recovery solutions (Increment 1). JPALS will be installed on the newest carrier and its air-wing aircraft (F/A-18E/F, EA18G, E-2C/D, and MH-60 R/S). F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Block 5 will be equipped with a temporary solution that will provide needles to the operator to enable a “JPALS assisted” approach. However, the interim solution will not equip the aircraft to broadcast its position in a manner that can be monitored by JPALS equipment on the ship. Legacy radar will have to be used for the shipboard monitoring of the approach. JPALS will eventually replace the ACLS on carriers, SPN-35 radars on LH Class Amphibious ships, and ILS, TACAN, and Precision Approach Radar (PAR) systems at shore stations. JPALS will be interoperable with civil augmentation and FAA certifiable. Shipboard JPALS will use Differential GPS (D-GPS) to provide centimeter-level accuracy for all-weather, automated landings. D-GPS provides a SRGPS reference solution for the moving landing zone. A JPALS technology equipped F/A-18 has demonstrated fully automated recoveries to the carrier. JPALS will also enable silent operations in Emission Control (EMCON) environments.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/pma209/_Documents/Camp_2011.pdf

JPALS team wins DoD award Nov 13, 2012

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5175

-

“NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. — NAVAIR’s Joint Precision Approach & Landing Systems (JPALS) team was recognized Oct. 25 as one of the Defense Department’s 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-213’s 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.”

Navy Completes Initial Development of New Carrier Landing System 22 Nov 2013 Dave Majumdar The U.S. Navy has completed the initial development of the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS), Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) officials told USNI News.

The system is designed to aid pilots landing in inclement weather conditions and will eventually replace the current Instrument Carrier Landing System (ICLS) and the Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS) onboard the service’s aircraft carrier fleet. “The current Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) effort was completed this month with the highly successful shipboard autoland testing on USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71),” NAVAIR spokeswoman Marcia Hart said in a statement provided to USNI News. The core of the JPALS technology is an extremely precise ship-relative GPS-based system which is much

more accurate than the existing pilot aids onboard the carrier. The Navy had tested the JPALS onboard the USS George Bush (CVN-77) earlier in July to verify the system’s capability to support manual landings. The latest testing onboard the Roosevelt was to demonstrate the system’s ability to support automatic “hands-off” landings on board a carrier. For the Navy, the development of the JPALS is the huge step forward for integrating new aircraft into the carrier air wing. “Legacy systems cannot support UAS [Unmanned Air Systems], and [the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter] F-35 was designed with JPALS capabilities. JPALS Increment 1 is based on ship relative GPS technology,” Hart said. While the initial development is now complete, the Navy still has work to do to finish all seven increments of the JPALS capability. The system will also eventually support flight operations onboard amphibious assault ships and U.S. Air Force airfields. NAVAIR’s immediate focus

however will be to continue developmental work for supporting the F-35C and unmanned aircraft onboard a carrier. JPALS is particularly important for the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program. While the Northrop Grumman X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System Demonstrator (UCAS-D) uses a similar prototype ship-relative GPSbased landing system technology, it is not the same system as an operationally deployable JPALS. “The program office continues development in support of the UCLASS and F-35 programs as well as multi-platform avionics integration,” Hart wrote. The Navy will be the first service to field the new landing system on the F-35C. “Initial JPALS fielding is scheduled in support of F-35C first deployment,” Hart wrote. “However, sequestration and continuing resolution associated budget uncertainty will likely impact projected plans.” Eventually, the USAF and the USMC will also use the JPALS for their operations. http://news.usni.org/2013/11/22/navy-completesinitial-development-new-carrier-landing-system

Collaborative efforts yield essential data, reduce risk during early CATBird JPALS testing

Lightning II and a Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) test facility at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland in 2014. Over the past three months, the Landing Systems Test Facility also hosted CATBird to prepare for the second developmental test (DT-II) ship trials of the F-35C Lightning II scheduled for later this year. “Initial testing with the JPALS ship system was very successful and met F-35 Lightning II primary test objectives,” said Lt. Cmdr. Chris Taylor, colead for the JPALS Integrated Product Team at the Naval Air Traffic Management Systems (PMA-213) program office. “Follow-on testing in April and May was also successful in capturing essential data that will deliver F-35 UDB risk reduction to developmental testing with the JPALS ship 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)

May 28, 2015 PEO(T) Public Affairs

Team members of the F-35 Lightning II Cooperative Avionics Test Bed (CATBird), a modified Boeing 737-330...

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – Teamwork between government and industry teams advanced the Navy’s capability to recover aircraft in all weather conditions — a vital solution aimed at protecting people and equipment while enhancing the flexibility, power projection, and strike capabilities of carrier air wings. The F-35 Cooperative Avionics Test Bed (CATBird), a modified Boeing 737-330, accomplished initial connectivity and datalink testing between the F-35

A key feature of the former commercial airliner is its ability to transport a team of test engineers in its flying laboratory specially equipped to integrate, test, and validate mission systems avionics for the F-35 Lightning II. The use of CATBird enables the team to test mission systems in a dynamic environment and apply real-time modifications the same day or even hours after a test flight. At present, CATBird is supporting the development of software scheduled for release this year. The software is part of the Block 3F software build for upcoming F-35B/C developmental and operational tests. The F-35 is currently integrating the UHF Data Broadcast (UDB) radio with

the JPALS ship system as an interim solution during development of an auto-land capability into the JPALS ship system. This capability will allow the Navy to recover aircraft in all-weather conditions by removing human error from the carrier landing process. To date, UDB tests have been a success due to the collaboration between PMA-213 and industry partners, Taylor noted.

http://t.co/bk KAfGGsLA

USN IOC 2018 with 3F + JPALS Manual Landing

Capability Delivery Plan April 2013

UNCLASSIFIED

Navwar

Yellow font = New compared to “As Is” 2007 Architecture

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

PNT Evolved Baseline (2025)

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

Space Comm & Nav Arch GPS

Geo-political

Demographics

Pedometers

Inertial

JPALS & GPS | Video Transcript: NAVAIR Airwaves – 11 Dec 2013

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 -

“...JPALS [Joint Precision Approach and Landing System] • The Navy has proposed to the USD(AT&L) Milestone Decision Authority that the program be restructured from its current, land- and sea-based, multiple-increment structure to a single increment focusing on sea-based requirements primarily supporting JSF [Joint Strike Fighter; aka F-35] and future Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike aircraft. Under this proposed restructuring scheme, there will be no retrofitting of JPALS on legacy aircraft and the Navy will need to maintain both the legacy approach and landing system and JPALS onboard each aircraftcapable ship.

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&E’s FY12 Annual Report. The Combatant Commanders have requested these capabilities to enhance decision-making....”

Extreme Miniaturization: Seven Devices, One Chip to Navigate without GPS 10 Apr 2013 http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/04/10.aspx -

“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 today’s 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 DARPA’s 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 DARPA’s 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 Grumman’s 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 Grumman’s 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 DARPA’s 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

‘A win/win for the carrier and aircraft teams’ https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/33820/desider_44_Jan2012.pdf continued from page 17 “Basically we are dealing with a completely different method of landing," said Pete Symonds of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance. “With STOVL landing you stop and land; CV landing is land and stop. So it’s a completely different set of lights in completely different positions. Then the aircraft is different. We’ve built a new model into the system as clearly the control laws are different with many different characteristics including an arrester hook.” The team has adapted well to the changes though. “From the ship point of view it has been an easier task to organise the lighting system as we are now following how the Americans do it. The American layouts have been our starting point and we’re trying to improve on them,” said Mr Symonds. “And we’re helped by the fact that the actual size of the carrier flight deck was driven by the requirement to be adaptable. The STOVL ship could have been smaller but the adaptable design was driven by the size of the runway, which was needed to recover the aircraft.

We’ve taken the flight deck, and started again. After the decision was made to move to the Carrier Variant we had a period of looking at variable equipment selection before we started the work. We now have the flight deck at what we call level two maturity, so effectively the big bits are already fixed. The design of the flight deck is pretty well sorted.” Testing will soon move to other simulators to test recovery of helicopters to the carriers. From DE&S’ Joint Combat Aircraft point of view the F-35C will be equally capable from sea or land. “The current focus for the JCA team is ensuring the aircraft is integrated onto the carrier in the most optimal way,” said Wg Cdr Willy Hackett, the team’s UK Requirements Manager. “This aircraft will be the first stealth platform to operate from an aircraft carrier which will bring new challenges. Recovering an aircraft to a small moving airfield, especially at night or in poor weather, has always focused the mind of any pilot who has flown at sea. “The F-35 will bring new technology which in time will make landing on an aircraft carrier just another routine part of the mission. On entry into service

Landing on the QEC carrier – what the pilot sees AIRCRAFT APPROACH the stern as the carrier steams into the wind. Pilots aim for the second or third of the arrester wires, the safest, most effective target, writes Steve Moore. Aircraft are guided by deck personnel – the Landing Signal Officers – via radio and the collection of lights on deck. When the aircraft has landed the pilot powers up the engines to make sure that, if the tailhook doesn’t catch a wire, the plane is moving fast enough to take off again. Pilots will look at the Improved Fresnel Lens Optical Landing system – the lens – for guidance, a series of lights and lenses on a gyroscopically stabilised platform. Lenses focus light into narrow beams directed into the sky at various angles. Pilots will see different lights, depending on the plane’s angle of approach. On target, the pilot will see an amber light in line with a row of green lights. If the amber light is above the green, the plane is too high; below green it is too low. Much too low and the pilot will see red lights. So how did I do? My first attempt saw my F-35 scream way past the carrier, too fast, too high, and with no hope of landing. A second was just as wayward, overshooting by a distance and just missing the island superstructures necessitating a stomach-churning go-around. A third and final approach needed a last-second drop in height, allowing me to find the last of the arrester wires, ending in a landing more akin to Fosbury than any of the elite pilots who have been using the simulator for their landings. What was that about four football pitches?

the aircraft will be equipped with Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) which will guide the aircraft down to a point where the pilot can take over and land the aircraft manually. Future upgrades intend to allow JPALS to actually land the aircraft without pilot input in very poor weather.” He added: “A new flight control system, combined with new symbology in the helmet mounted display, looks to drastically reduce pilot workload on a manually flown approach. This technology is being investigated by the US and UK, and if successful will see a major reduction in the training required to keep pilots competent at landing on aircraft carriers from the middle of the next decade. “Once this new technology is invested in the F-35C the pilot will be able to focus on the mission to an even greater extent than is possible now in the current generation of carrier variant aircraft. UK JCA squadrons will therefore be more operationally focussed than current generation sea-based aircraft and will keep UK airpower at the front rank of military powers.” So who wins from the current carrier

Pictures: Andrew Linnett

testing? Back to Mr Symonds – “Well actually it’s both the Aircraft Carrier Alliance and the Joint Combat Aircraft teams,” he said. “From the aircraft side the team has to be satisfied it is safe to operate the aircraft at sea efficiently. So in terms of the JCA safety case, it is critical that we are able to demonstrate safe F-35C recovery operations. “From the ACA perspective, we have to prove that the ship is safe to operate the aeroplane so we have to provide sufficient visual landing aids to demonstrate to our safety case that it works. Both teams must be confident that what we will be putting on the deck works. We will be making sure it is a win/ win for both teams.”

ä 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 n’t move. ä 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 . ä 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.

“...the aircraft will be equipped with Joint Precision Approach & Landing System (JPALS) which will guide the aircraft down to a point where the pilot can take over and land the aircraft manually. Future upgrades intend to allow JPALS to actually land the aircraft without pilot input in very poor weather.”...”

December 2012

Paddles monthly

http://www.hrana.org/documents/ PaddlesMonthlyDecember2012.pdf

Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) As of this writing, a JPALS engineering unit is being installed onboard the USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77) for at-sea test and evaluation with an F/A-18, MH-60, and King Air test aircraft in early 2013. This takes the next step beyond the LSO OAG presentations, Fleet Project Team forums, and technology demonstrations, and gives Paddles the opportunity to view the next generation precision approach and landing system at work in the operational environment.

Figure 1: JPALS Increment 1 Operational Concept Graphic

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 ½ 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 ¾ NM, achieving only 200 ft. and ½ 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,

but even target a specific wire.”

Core Avionics Master Plan 2012 Appendix A-3 - Navigation 3 ”...Baseline to Objective Transition Strategy (continued). Radars are currently the primary enabler for precision approach and recovery in low ceiling, low visibility conditions. Automated hands-off fixed wing approach to the carrier deck using differential GPS has already been demonstrated using relative GPS. Insertion of this capability requires significant platform modifications. The Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) Program is developing these technologies to replace the antiquated radar Automated Carrier Landing System (ACLS) equipment that is facing obsolescence and driving high sustainment costs. This capability is being developed for rotary wing platform recovery to single spot ships, and is considered a key element of unmanned air vehicle operations at sea. JPALS is planned to replace precision approach systems at military installations and to provide a capability for all-weather recover to temporary expeditionary airfields and landing zones. The strategy is to evolve

platform cockpits to provide a Digital Flight Environment (DFE) with the level of integrity to support precision navigation in all phases of flight and weather conditions. GPS User Equipment (UE) has evolved significantly over the last decade. The latest all-in-view receiver modules incorporate Selective Availability Anti-Spoofing Module (SAASM) GPS receiver cards to prevent spoofing and enhance security of crypto keys. Additional robustness and enhancements are being achieved through the Navigation Warfare (NAVWAR) program with the integration of Controlled Reception Pattern Antennas (CRPAs) that possess significantly improved anti-jam characteristics, such as the GAS-1 and Advanced Digital Antenna Production (ADAP). The next generation of GPS UE, known as Military GPS User Equipment (MGUE), will replace legacy components and be capable of processing both the new M-Code signal and legacy GPS. The M-Code signal possesses even further improved anti-jam characteristics and will be available exclusively for military use. Additionally, MGUE integration will incorporate an enhanced security architecture which provides for layered information assurance

and anti-spoofing capability. MGUE and NAVWAR development are managed by the U.S. Air Force led GPS Directorate and PMW/A-170 respectively.

Mandates and Milestones: JPALS Ship-based Initial Operational Capability (IOC). (2017) The US Navy is the lead for the Joint Service JPALS program, and is responsible for the development of the shipboard solution. JPALS will deployed on the newest aircraft carrier and its assigned carrier aircraft, including C-2A, E-2D, EA-18G, F/A-18E/F, F-35 and MH-60R/S. Required Navigational Performance (RNP)–2 above FL290 in National Airspace System (NAS). (2018) RNP is a form of performancebased navigation that calls for accuracy of position location on a GPS route to be within a specified number of nautical miles (nm) of intended position. RNP compliance requires 95% fidelity of position accuracy to ensure proper containment for all modes of flight. The GPS receiver must provide Integrity using Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM), which ensures that all of the satellites being utilized to determine position are providing useful

aircraft will utilize data-linked ship position and altitude information to establish more efficient aircraft marshalling procedures and approaches to the ship’s 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.

planned to implement supplemental ground-based signals (Local Area Augmentation Signal – LAAS) that would utilize one-way unique military datalink information for GPS augmentation to enable precision approach capabilities, but that initiative and solution strategy has been deferred. Instead, JPALS equipped naval aircraft will perform GPS augmented precision approach procedures at civilian airfields by leveraging Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) signals, which will not require a datalink to receive the correction signal. Air Force is the lead for this program. USAF Mobility and Combat Commands are negotiating the necessity and prioritization of resources to enable MGUE to support this functionality, but it is still currently tracking as a part of the program of record for availability to configured users in 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

recoveries. The most advanced tactical jets have hands off recovery capability. Helicopters do not have automated recovery. Only the largest surface vessels offer precision approach. Some aircraft employ Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) transceivers for precision approaches to equipped airfields. Most civil airfields are equipped with ILS approaches, but most Navy and Marine Corps airfields typically are not. Aircraft not equipped with ILS are limited to locations with precision radar for alternative low weather ceiling emergency divert recoveries. Receivers that work ILS frequencies must be equipped with filters to prevent FM station interference. The P-3C is the first Navy aircraft certified to fly GPS-based SIDS, STARS and RNP-0.3 approaches.

2. Advanced Research and Technology Development. Degraded Visual Environment (DVE) Recovery. (2010-2012) The Naval Aviation Center for Rotorcraft Advancement (NACRA) office and PMA261 (H-53 variants) are analyzing technologies and system options that can present an affordable near term solution for this capability gap. Technologies being tested in multiple Small Business

Innovative Research (SBIR) efforts include Laser Radar (LADAR), Millimeter Wavelength (MMW) and Passive MMW (PMMW) or other fused spectrum sensors that can “see through” airborne particles to increase SA. The challenge will be to affordably leverage limited existing on-board sensors or to design something that is small and light enough to practically integrate which does not affect flight performance margins.

3. Funded Enhancements and Potential Pursuits. Digitally Augmented GPS-based Shipboard Recovery (JPALS). (2017) JPALS is a joint effort with the Air Force and Army. The Navy is designated as the Lead Service and is responsible for implementation of shipboard recovery solutions (Increment 1). The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Block 5 will be the first JPALS configured platform. It will start with a temporary solution that will provide needles to the operator to enable a “JPALS assisted” approach. The interim solution will not equip the aircraft to broadcast its position in a manner that can be monitored by JPALS equipment on the ship. Legacy radar will have to be

used for the shipboard monitoring of the approach. The Unmanned Carrier-Launched Aircraft Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) will be the second platform. It will be forward fit with full functionality. JPALS will also be installed on air-wing aircraft (C-2A, E2C/D, EA18G, F/A-18E/F and MH-60 R/S) to support CVN-79 around 20212022. JPALS will eventually replace the ACLS on carriers, SPN-35 radars on LH Class Amphibious ships, and may replace ILS, TACAN, and Precision Approach Radar (PAR) systems at shore stations. JPALS will be interoperable with civil augmentation and FAA certifiable. Shipboard JPALS will use Differential GPS (D-GPS) to provide centimeter-level accuracy for all-weather, automated landings. D-GPS provides a SRGPS reference solution for the moving landing zone. A JPALS technology equipped F/A-18 has demonstrated fully automated recoveries to the carrier. JPALS will also enable silent operations in Emission Control (EMCON) environments. Digitally Augmented Civil Airfield Recovery (JPALS). (2018) Every aircraft that is equipped with JPALS capability for ship operations will automatically be able to conduct civil airfield

GPS precision approaches. UCLASS will be the first equipped aircraft. They will be able to use Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS) such as the FAA’s WAAS, the Indian GPS and GEO Augmented Navigation (GAGAN), the Japanese Multifunctional Satellite Based Augmentation System, or the European Geostationary Navigation Overlay Service (EGNOS) which was recently activated. JPALS will also be interoperable with FAA civil Ground Based Augmentation Systems (GBAS), which also uses differential GPS to enhance GPS signal correlation for improved position accuracy. JPALS adds the protected military PPS GPS signal, anti-jam and UHF datalink to military approaches but the Civil approaches will utilize the unprotected SPS signal. Civil system interoperability will enable aviators to use hundreds of additional divert airfield options. The Air Force is designated to develop and implement shore station JPALS capability. One JPALS land-based unit (Increment 2) can replace all the existing non-precision approach beacons and precision radars required for each major runway, providing increased capability for less capital investment and sustainment costs. The Army is developing portable tactical JPALS systems

that will enable precision recovery in remote expeditionary locations....

...2. Advanced Research and Technology Development. Military Space Signal and User Equipment Enhancements. (20102013) Smaller GPS antennas and AE are being developed for space-constrained aircraft and small Unmanned Aerial Systems. JPALS compatible beam-steering AE is also being developed for JPALS platforms....

Appendix A-4 Cooperative Surveillance ...Mandates and Milestones: Joint Mode 5 Initial Operational Capability (IOC). (2015) The March 2007 Joint Requirements Oversight Council Memorandum (JROCM) 04707 calls for Mode 5 Joint IOC in 2015 and Full Operational Capability (FOC) in 2020. JPALS Ship-based Initial Operational Capability (IOC). (2017) The US Navy is the lead for the JPALS program, and is responsible for the development of the shipboard solution

(Increment IA). JPALS will initially be deployed on the newest aircraft carrier and its assigned aircraft, including C-2, EA-18G, E-2D, F/A-18E/F, F-35 and MH-60R/S. JPALS Land-Based IOC. (2018) The Air Force is charged with development of land-based JPALS ground stations (Increment II). Differential GPS will be used to provide an additional military PPS datum reference signal via Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS) Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) signals. A fixed station will be installed at every DoD airfield that currently has precision approach capability. A man-pack variant may be developed for remote locations....

...2. Advanced Research and Technology Development. Military Collision Avoidance (Mode 5). (2011-2012) A Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) projects is exploring utilization of TACAN Air-toAir mode to perform aircraft collision avoidance functions within the battlespace. This utility was reportedly demonstrated by Spanish F-18 aircraft. Algorithms were developed to place a ‘range bubble’ around aircraft

based upon proximity to another cooperating aircraft who was also operating on TACAN using a specific channel separation.

from all on-board sensors, as well as from tactical information data-linked from outside sources. If multiple sensor track parameters are similar, a contact attribute can be considered more reli3. Funded Enhancements and able than if it were derived from a sinPotential Pursuits. gle source data point. Similarly, intelligence and sensor data combinations Improved Ship and Shore Approach can be used to discount parameters Sequencing (JPALS). (2018) F-35B that may not be as reliable from a sinand C early block deliveries will emgle range or condition limited sensor, or ploy a one-way JPALS data-link integraone that may be getting spoofed. Autotion to facilitate Shipboard Relative GPS mated fusion will produce a higher con(SRGPS) aided recoveries. Block four fidence factor CID solution.... or five will incorporate the full two-way datalink, which will enable ship controlAppendix A-5 Flight lers to manage improved marshalling for more efficient recoveries. Utilization Safety of tighter patterns has already demon...Shipboard Recovery Animation. strated time and fuel savings in com(2020) The current MFOQA [Military mercial airport operations, and should Flight Operations Quality Assurance] provide similar benefits in carrier and program of record does not include multi-spot amphibious ship operations. complex analysis and software develFor more JPALS details, see the Naviopment required to enable the abiligation appendix..... [excerpts relevant ty to visualize takeoffs or landings in to JPALS above already] the highly dynamic shipboard environment. MFOQA Increment 3 is planned Fused Sensor and Tactical Data to include enhancements that would inCollaborative Combat ID (CID). corporate ship position and motion into (2015) The fusion server integratthe visualization module to enable aced into the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) hosts software that combines and com- curate portrayal of a flight during empares target track information obtained barked operations....

...Structural Prognostics and Health Management. (2015) Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will field Structural Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) capability in support of mission sortie generation/readiness objectives. Wirelessly downloaded parameters will include fuel state, ammunition state, expendables state, and component health conditions requiring maintenance in order to minimize turnaround time. Real time, accurate down-link of specific component conditions supports CBM [Condition Based Maintenance], which will significantly enhance readiness by enabling maintainers to move from time-scheduled removals and inspections to removing items only when required. Removing components only when they have achieved their tolerance limit of safe operations can also return significant cost avoidances by extending the lives of the parts beyond their engineering estimates, thereby reducing the costs of repairs or replacements. CBM may also result in reduced requirements for spares inventories or deployed spare support footprints....” http://www.navair.navy.mil/pma209 /_Documents/CAMP_2012_Final.pdf

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

“...a precision ship-landing system built by Raytheon Co face mandatory reviews that could lead to their cancellation after quantity reductions drove unit costs sharply higher in 2013, the Pentagon announced on Thursday....

...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....”

Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) DASD(DT&E) FY 2013 Annual Report

March 2014

Navy – JPALS

Executive Summary: The JPALS is being developed to meet the requirement for a next-generation GPS-based precision approach and landing system. It is intended to function in environments ranging from clear skies (no jamming or precipitation) and unlimited visibility to obscured skies with GPS jamming, heavy precipitation, and low visibility.

x

x x

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) decision to postpone retiring the civilian instrumented landing system led to the Air Force decision to withdraw from this joint program. The Navy continues to pursue this capability for incorporation in the F-35B/C and the UCLASS system onboard Navy ships. The Navy proposes to re-scope the structure of JPALS to reflect the focus on F-35 and UCLASS as forward-fit platforms, combining the previous planned multiple increments of development into a single increment. Lead DT&E Organization: NAWCAD AIR 5.1.1

Summary of FY 2013 DT&E Engagement and Assessments x DASD(DT&E) oversees the integrated test program phase and assesses system capability and performance as satisfactory based on shore- and ship-based performance. JPALS has demonstrated the capability to guide Navy aircraft to touchdown within precision standards.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dtetrmc/_Docs/DTE/DTE-FY2013AnnualReport-March2014.pdf

Summary of FY 2013 DT&E Activities x Two Navy F/A-18C aircraft and an MH-60S helicopter underwent test-specific modifications to support the 2013 and beyond integrated test periods. x May–July 2013, PMA-213 with HX-21 and VX-23 completed initial sea-based testing, comprising more than 120 approaches with JPALS-equipped surrogate test bed, MH-60S and F/A-18C aircraft, on USS GEORGE H.W. BUSH (CVN 77). x October 2013, VX-23 successfully completed an initial demonstration of the auto-land mode in the F/A-18C with 77 approaches to touchdown at the landing systems test facility at Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland. x November 2013, VX-23 conducted additional risk reduction flights utilizing the JPALS-equipped F/A-18C onboard USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN 71) to demonstrate the auto-land capability of the EDM. x JPALS demonstrated the ability to support fully automatic approaches and landings to an aircraft carrier in an operational environment, and under a variety of weather conditions and sea states, conducting more than 100 manual and 70 fully automatic landings aboard CVN 71.

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.

“...The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) decision to postpone retiring the civilian instrumented landing system led to the Air Force decision to withdraw from this joint program. The Navy continues to pursue this capability for incorporation in the F-35B/C and the UCLASS system onboard Navy ships. The Navy proposes to re-scope the structure of JPALS to reflect the focus on F-35 and UCLASS as forward-fit platforms, combining the previous planned multiple increments of development into a single increment....”

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)

Program Performance (fiscal year 2015 dollars in millions) Research and development cost Procurement cost Total program cost Program unit cost Total quantities Acquisition cycle time (months)

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.

JPALS Increment 1A began development in July 2008, and both of the program's currently identified critical technologies were demonstrated in a realistic environment during flight testing in 2013. Program officials reported completing baseline software development as of April 2012. The program began system-level development testing in July 2012 and sea-based testing in December 2012, completing 108 approaches as of July 2013 with no major anomalies reported. According to program officials, no critical manufacturing processes have been identified as JPALS relies primarily on off-the-shelf components. In March 2014, the JPALS program reported a critical Nunn-McCurdy unit cost breach and a new cost and schedule baseline is currently being developed. Page 99 GAO-15-342SP Assessments of Major Weapon Programs

Mar 2015

Technology, Design, and Production Maturity In June 2014, the JPALS program was restructured to accelerate the development of aircraft auto-land capabilities. The program's technology and design maturity will need to be reassessed to account for this alteration of capabilities, and the program has not yet determined what changes are required.

System development Development start (7/08)

JPALS Inc1A Program

Attainment of Product Knowledge As of January 2015 Resources and requirements match ● Demonstrate all critical technologies in a relevant

environment ● Demonstrate all critical technologies in a realistic

environment ● Complete preliminary design review

Product design is stable ● Release at least 90 percent of design drawings ● Test a system-level integrated prototype

Manufacturing processes are mature ● Demonstrate critical processes are in control ● Demonstrate critical processes on a pilot production line ● Test a production-representative prototype Knowledge attained

Information not available

Knowledge not attained

Not applicable

Prior to this restructuring, the program had completed a number of activities to mature its technology and design. JPALS Increment 1A began development in July 2008, and, according to program officials, the two currently identified critical technologies were demonstrated in a realistic environment during sea-based flight testing in 2013. JPALS functionality is primarily software-based, and the program's baseline software development and integration efforts were complete as of April 2012. JPALS Increment 1A held a critical design review in December 2010 and released its all of its expected design drawings at that time. The program began testing a system-level prototype in July 2012, 19 months after its critical design review. Sea-based testing of the system in its current configuration began in December 2012, and program officials reported completing 108 approaches as of July 2013, with no major anomalies identified. The program also completed 70 ship-based auto-landing demonstrations using legacy aircraft as of November 2013. According to JPALS officials, the Increment 1A program has not identified any critical manufacturing processes, as the system's hardware is comprised primarily of off-the-shelf components. The program has accepted delivery of eight engineering development models, seven of which were considered production-representative. Other Program Issues In 2013, the Navy conducted a review of its precision approach and landing capabilities to address budget constraints and affordability concerns. In light of these concerns, as well as other military service and civilian plans to continue use of current landing systems, the Navy restructured the JPALS program. The program was reduced from seven increments to one intended to support the Joint Strike Fighter and Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System. The Navy also accelerated the integration of auto-land capabilities originally intended for the

future increments, and eliminated both the integration of JPALS with other sea-based legacy aircraft and the land-based version of the system. These changes increased the development funding required for auto-land capabilities and reduced system quantities, resulting in unit cost growth and a critical Nunn-McCurdy unit cost breach reported in March 2014. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics certified the restructured program and directed the Navy to continue risk reduction efforts to incorporate the auto-land capabilities and return for a new development start decision no later than June 2016. The Navy plans to conduct a preliminary design review for the new system in fiscal year 2016 and a critical design review in fiscal year 2017. Program Office Comments In commenting on a draft of this assessment, the program noted that it concurred with our review. The Nunn-McCurdy unit cost breach was a direct result of a reduction in quantities and an acceleration of auto-land capability into the JPALS baseline. The quantity reduction was due to changes in the planned transition to GPS-based landing systems. The Navy decided to terminate both JPALS legacy aircraft integration efforts and ground based systems, and accelerate auto-land capabilities to meet Joint Strike Fighter and Unmanned CarrierLaunched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System requirements. The Joint Strike Fighter will utilize JPALS interim capability as part of its Block 3F software, and the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System will utilize JPALS as a baseline capability for its precision approach landing requirement. The restructured JPALS eliminates future incremental development.

Page 100GAO-15-342SP Assessments of Major Weapon Programs

How Day/Night Vision of HMDS III will see the sea...

f-35 lightning II DAS system http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiNMio9zN2Q

Future Carrier Recovery Methods

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.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Carrier Integration

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-23’s F-35 Carrier Integration team gave an excellent update on the status of the F-35C (The Navy’s 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 -

See Next Page for full page view of this graphic on right These lights would be approximately twelve feet apart and would shift in order to display not only glide slope information but also glide slope trends during the pass, similar to a PAPI or VASI but F/A-18C stabilized with regards to deck motion. For more detailed information, please see the complete Length 56 ft brief on the LSO School’s Website: https://www.portal.navy.mil/comnavairfor/LSO Span 37.4 ft Or, contact Buddy Denham directly at: [email protected]. Wing Area 400 ft2 Internal Fuel 10,800 lb Spot Factor 1.0

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 Force’s 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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
BEDFORD

6WRU\1XPEHU116

-

ARRAY

X FOREIGN NAVY VISITS ONCE AGAIN, THE LSO S CHOOL RECENTLY HOSTED ANOTHER FOEIGN NAVY FLAG OFFICER.

X

WORDS FROM THE OIC….

TIPS ON GETTING ONE OF THOSE COVETED CAG P ADDLES J OBS

X THIS MONTH FROM THE

SALTY DOGS…..

FUTURE CARRIER RECOVERY METHODS, STRAIGHT FROM THE GUYS WHO ARE DOING THE TESTING...

http://www.hrana.org/documents/ PaddlesMonthlyAugust2011.pdf

August 2011

Paddles

ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF THE LSO COMMUNIT Y

THROUGH SAFETY DISCUSSIONS, OPERATIONAL UPDATES, AND HISTORICAL READINGS.

monthly

LSO School Welcomes Royal Navy Chief For the third time in as many months, the U.S. Navy Landing Signal Officer School played host to yet another flag officer from a foreign navy. On this particular occasion we had the pleasure to welcome Admiral Sir Trevor Soar, RN. Admiral Soar commands all deployable fleet Royal Navy units, including the Royal Marines. A career submariner, Admiral Soar’s visit to the LSO School was part of a comprehensive tour of NAS Oceana as the Royal Navy continues to broaden its exposure to American carrier aviation methods. As many are already aware, the United Kingdom is returning to the fixed-wing carrier aviation business after several decades of operating only Harriers from its current fleet of flat deck ships.

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

LCDR Robert “Timmay!!” Bibeau Acting VX-23 Ship Suitability Department Head 301/DSN.342.4609 [email protected]

WHAT THE FUTURE BEHOLDS... C-2, E-2, and Prowler pilots, have you ever made fun of a Hornet guy for declaring an emergency at the boat for a HUD failure? Doesn’t everyone realize that the HUD is our primary attitude reference? Have you ever thought less of someone for doing a Mode I? Well things are about to get better or worse, depending on how you look at it. This month’s article is about the Tomorrowland projects coming down the pipe. One of the Navy’s UAV programs had its first flight last month at Edwards Air Force Base. Future Navy UAVs will be able to seamlessly integrate themselves into the Case I, II and III patterns with manned aircraft. The Air Boss will have a control screen in Pri-Fly where he can click on “Charlie” and the UAV will sequence itself into the break, come around and land itself on an ‘OK’ 3-Wire. If the pattern is full, he can click on “Spin It” and around she goes. Aside from giving me job security worries, it sounds really cool. In the next few years UAV’s will be landing autonomous at the boat using GPS technology. Completely autonomous landings at the field and the following first landings at the boat will mark a turning point in Naval Aviation. We have fought for years to keep real FCLPs and not do all our CQ prep in the simulator. If a plane can land itself with the click of a button in any Case and weather you wouldn’t have to FCLP, CQ, and maintain day or night currency anymore. The cost savings would be HUGE. With today’s tight budgets, auto landings could save tens of millions of dollars. That makes them seem very attractive. In the future the pilot may fly the tactical portion of the flight but the admin portion of the flight will be automated. The Super Hornet and JSF can very easily become auto-landers. Auto landings will one day become the standard way to recover on the CVN. A pass flown manually will be an emergency! In the future, it is possible that it may be the first time the pilot has ever done one outside of the simulator. Luckily there are a few technical hurdles to overcome, so don’t expect it during our careers. The first and most important technology required is JPALS (Joint Precision Approach and Landing System). This is the replacement for the ACLS and the TACAN. It’s a differential GPS system similar to civilian WAAS approaches. It will be capable of coupled Mode I approaches at the boat and precision approaches at the field. The data link portion will generate TACAN symbology and provide the same information to the airplane that a TACAN receiver supplies. JPALS is a Triplex system with 3 independent paths of communication with the airplane so roughly 1 in 10 million passes would be unreliable. A version of JPALS technology is what will guide UAVs. It is scheduled to IOC in FY 2016. JPALS will also allow auto landings. But before we can get rid of FCLP and CQ requirements we have to make the Super Hornet and JSF really, really easy to land at the boat. To do this we need things like the ship stabilized velocity vector I mentioned a few months ago. We may also need to add another lens-type glideslope indicator. One idea is called a Bedford Array. You can see in Figure 1 that a Bedford Array is like a lens spread of over the length of the LA. Unlike an IFLOS which has 12 cells that are always on to create a glideslope reference, the Bedford Array is a set of Christmas lights and only the light corresponding to current position of the touchdown point is illuminated. Just as the dynamic touchdown point moves across the deck on the LSODS screen, the Bedford Array lights would “move” forward and back across the deck corresponding to the dynamic touchdown point. Figure 2 shows what your HUD may look like. You keep the ship stabilized velocity vector on top of the Bedford light that is illuminated. The datum is a reference line in your HUD. As long as the 3 all line up you are on glide path.

Artist’s Concept of Completed QEC

First Section of Completed Hull of QEC

(Continued on the next page….)

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? It’s 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 don’t 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 [email protected] why we have rules like never lead a low, always lead a high and never re-center a high ball in close. When you [email protected] 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

Trials Ahead for Navy Carrier Landing Software

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.

Navy Carrier Landing Software The new naval carrier landing software aims to simplify this process, bringing an unprecedented degree of precision to the maritime arena. "The precision that we can bring to carrier landings in the future will be substantial", the deputy chief of naval research for naval air warfare and weapons, Michael Deitchman, explained in the release, adding: "The

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.

Naval Landing Software Trials Live tests involving the navy carrier landing software haven't yet been performed, but the algorithm's been trialled in a Super Hornet simulator. Next year, though, the naval landing software trials will get underway and both US Navy and Royal Navy pilots will be involved. The Royal Navy no longer has a fixed-wing naval strike capability but will receive F-35C Joint Strike Fighters in around 2018. [Since then changed back to F-35Bs again for RN/RAF on CVFs.]

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."

“On October 8, 2010, Flight Global reported that Lockheed Martin had received $13 million to incorporate a “shipboard rolling vertical landing” (SRVL) capability into the STOVL F-35B. The funding came from the U.S. Navy, but the work will be performed on behalf of the United Kingdom.”

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

UPDATE: The Ups and Downs of the F-35 Program

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyAugust2011.pdf

An aid according to claim 1 comprising an Visual Landing Aids 2.array of lights distributed along the platform

which are arranged to be lit selectively to indi[Bedford Array/SRVL] cate the position of such aim point at any time. Justin David Billot Paines 3. An aid according to claim 2 wherein said A visual aid for the pilot of an aircraft approaching to land on an aircraft carrier comprises a series of lights (9) embedded along the landing deck and controlled in response to pitch and heave of the vessel so that the light(s) illuminated at any time indicate a visual aim point which is stabilised with respect to a specified glideslope (5) onto the vessel irrespective of such vertical excursions of the vessel. It is used in conjunction with a marker on a head up display or helmet mounted display for example so that registry of the marker with the illuminated light at any time indicates that the aircraft is on the correct glideslope. Inventor: Justin David Billot Paines Current U.S. Classification: 340/945 Application number: 13/054,934 Publication number: US 2011/0121997 A1 Filing date: Aug 7, 2009

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

lights are arranged in a row or parallel rows along the platform and controlled such that the light in the or each row which is nearest to the intended aim point at any time is lit.

4. An aid according to claim 2 wherein said lights are arranged in a row or parallel rows along the platform and controlled such that a single light is lit in the or each row when the intended aim point is within a specified distance of that light and two successive lights are lit in the or each row when the intended aim point is within a specified distance of the mid point between those two lights.

aircraft carrier or the like vessel whereby in use a further visual indication is defined on the deck and the apparent position of such further visual indication is adjusted along the deck in response to excursions of the vessel in pitch so that when viewed along a specified sightline from the aircraft said further indication corresponds to the aftmost limit at which the aircraft will safely clear the stern of the vessel when following a specified glideslope parallel to said sightline irrespective of such excursions of the vessel.

9. A visual aid for the pilot of an aircraft approaching to land on the deck of an aircraft carrier or the like vessel whereby in use a visual indication is defined on the deck and apparent position of such visual indication is adjusted along the deck in response to excursions of the vessel in pitch so that when viewed along a specified sightline from the aircraft said indication corresponds to the aftmost limit at 5. An aid according to claim 2 wherein lights which the aircraft will safely clear the stern of are also lit to indicate the effective limits of said the vessel when following a specified glideslope array at any time. parallel to said sightline irrespective of such excursions of the vessel. 6. An aid according to claim 2 wherein said array extends along a length of the platform 10. A method of approaching to land an aircraft such that different longitudinal sections on a moving platform by use of a visual aid thereof are capable of functioning to provide an according to claim 1. adjustable aim point for a plurality of specified glideslopes fixed in space in different positions 11. A method according to claim 10 wherein the along the platform. aircraft is a V/STOL or STOVL aircraft executing a rolling vertical landing. 7. An aid according to claim 1 wherein said visual marker on or in the aircraft is presented 12. A method of approaching to land an aircraft in a head up display, helmet mounted display, or on the deck of an aircraft carrier by use of a forward-looking camera display, or comprises a visual aid according to claim 9. physical marker on the aircraft structure, and represents a depression angle from the horizon 13. A method according to claim 12 wherein the equal to the specified glideslope angle. aircraft is a V/STOL or STOVL aircraft executing a rolling vertical landing. 8. An aid according to claim 1 for the pilot of an http://www.google.com/patents/US20110121997?dq=S aircraft approaching to land on the deck of an +2011/+0121997+A1&ei=q2LQT4_JB4nmmAWa6IiuDw

THE PERFECT PARTNERSHIP

various flying techniques, such as shipborne rolling vertical landing. MAI Magazine Issue 14 BAE Systems “We’ve brought together a cross section of individuals to do that, from very experiMAI is playing an important role in the deenced Harrier pilots with legacy experience velopment of the Royal Navy’s new Queen to US Navy conventional F18 pilots, and also Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier. We caught Royal Navy and other Airforce pilots who up with test pilot Pete Kosogorin ahead have no shipborne or STOVL experience. of the official naming ceremony for HMS “That has been done to ensure the design is Queen Elizabeth to get the inside track on optimised for all levels of ability, and all levthe work that is taking place to integrate els of scale.”… F-35 with the new carrier…. …“Obviously I work for BAE Systems, but ….“The beauty of this is the carrier has I think the fact that we’ve got a team of 30 been designed with the aircraft in mind,” or so engineers out here who are intimately explains Pete. involved in this, not just on the STOVL side “It’s not an anti-submarine carrier and the B model but we also have one of the that has been modified for F-35 – the QE lead engineers on the C model which is the carrier has been designed for F-35 right US Navy variant, is a great success story. from the outset, so I think the two will “Some of these guys have been working integrate very well. on the design and development side for 10 “That work began many years ago and years plus, and now we are into the flight the stuff we’ve done in the simulator at test stage, they are either working on the Warton has been incredibly important beflight tests directly or they are engineers cause many of the results of those trials fed into the design of the deck – the mark- who are looking at and analysing the data we produce from those flight tests. ings on the deck, the lighting on the deck, “It may be weeks later before we find out the systems. “There are various shipborne that the point we flew was good, or there systems that will help the pilot when landwas a problem in the point that we need to ing, particularly in high sea states when the conditions are challenging and the deck look at again, or we might need to change the software. is moving around quite a bit, or at a night “So it’s not just about expanding the enwhen there is limited visibility. velope of the aeroplane, it’s also about de“But the sim work hasn’t just been veloping the software to make the airabout developing the flight controls software in the aircraft, it’s also about craft better, and each member of the BAE Systems team is vitally important to that finding out how to fly and carry out process…. certain manoeuvres, and working out

…But what can those test pilots lucky enough to be chosen for those trials expect? And how will the F-35B compare to its predecessor, the Harrier, which was the aircraft of choice for the old Invincible class carriers? “By the time the F-35 comes into service and has been fully tested, there won’t be many Harrier pilots flying it – it will be a much younger generation,” says Pete. “The aircraft itself, and the control and handling it has in slow speeds in STOVL mode 4, is exceptional. “I’ve landed at night on a ship in the Harrier and that’s a really exciting – but also scary – event. “You are probably the most aroused you will ever be as a pilot in terms of focused concentration, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make a mistake. “When a pilot is working really hard, he’s using up a high proportion of his capacity and his ability to spot things, to see things, and to cope with things is affected. “In the Harrier, you could easily miss one aspect of your technique, miss a problem with the aircraft, or not hear a radio call, so it was easy to lose track of what was going on. “But this aircraft works so well for you, the extra capacity that allows you is a big bonus. It means a pilot can deal with an emergency better, or follow a particular technique better, so the execution of your approach and landing on a ship is going to be way more efficient.” http://www.baesystems.com/download/BAES_168168/the-perfect-partnership

U.S. Navy LSOs Pay a Visit to the UK http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyDecember2011.pdf “In previous editions of Paddles Monthly you have probably read about the growing involvement of U.S. Navy LSOs in the United Kingdom. The LSO School Staff continues to remain highly active in the development of the United Kingdom’s fixed wing carrier aviation program. This past month, former CAG Paddles LCDR ‘HUDA’ Stickney & LCDR ‘Trigger’ Condon both traveled to the UK’s F-35C facility, to include the simulator facility in Warton, England. During the evolution, LSOs from the United States used the simulator to fly Case I & Case III approaches around a simulated HMS Queen Elizabeth (QEC). During this process, they were able to offer advice during the final evaluation of the QEC’s visual landing aids & flight deck layout. The QEC will be equipped with IFLOLS, MOVLAS, & landing area lights very similar to U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. Some differences include a “solid white line” drop light system, six unique lights to highlight the LA at range, & additional wave-off lights on the round-down & the tower. Another portion of the project involved testing the Bedford Array (highlighted in a previous month’s Paddles Monthly) & Ship Referenced Velocity Vector (SRVV) landing aids. These systems, currently being developed at NAS Patuxent River, are able to operate in all wind conditions & sea states. At the end of the trip, just before Trigger and HUDA’s last golf tee time, [tea time in UK has a completely different meaning] the Paddles evaluated BAE’s LSO simulator linked with the F-35C simulator. With Paddles help, two Royal Navy Harrier pilots successfully trapped on multiple approaches, proving again that paddles are invaluable."

VX-23 Strike Test News 2014 a multi-part power correction

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)

These advanced control laws and displays are currently under development and test at the Manned Flight Simulator (MFS) at Patuxent River, Maryland. They are slated to undergo initial flight testing in the Super Hornet later this year, with the goal of testing them at the ship in 2015. If these modes prove as compelling in the aircraft as they do in the simulator, they have the potential to revolutionize the manner in which the U.S. Navy lands aircraft aboard aircraft carriers. Delta Flight Path F-35C JSF Roundtable West Feb 2014

https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=bc0mDcWEpKQ

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index. cfm?fuseaction=home.download&id=820

QUEEN ELIZABETH CLASS (CVF) & NIMTIZ CLASS (CVN) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/uk/11/aircraft_carrier _pig_pic/img/aircraft_carrier_design_976.jpg

Flight Deck Comparison

Naval Aviation Vision 2014-2025 “...Magic Carpet: Magic Carpet is an acronym for Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies. It is a cockpit system that makes carrier approaches and landings easier and safer for Navy and Marine Corps pilots by reducing the vulnerabilities associated with fully-automated systems that are susceptible to jamming, poor reliability, and electronic failure. Magic Carpet’s integrated direct lift improves short-term flightpath response, which is critical to final glide slope corrections prior to landing. This system is currently flown in the F-35C and being retrofitted for testing in the F/A-18E/F. The potential cost-saving impacts of Magic Carpet are significant. Millions of dollars are spent yearly on landing practices ashore and actual carrier qualifications while underway. The money saved could be repurposed to train pilots to employ the weapon systems of their aircraft, dramatically changing their priorities from landing proficiency to warfighting proficiency. Conservative estimates indicate that Magic Carpet could save tens of millions of dollars per year, which include reducing the maintenance and repairs after hard landings aboard ship....”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/218758281/Naval-Aviation-Vision#download

352-(&7

0$*,&&$53(7

www.onr.navy.mil/innovate Vol. 10 | Spring 2013

$%5($.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

&ŝŐƵƌĞϭ͘ĂƌƌŝĞƌůĂŶĚŝŶŐĂƌĞĂĂƐƐĞĞŶƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞ,h͘ WŝůŽƚƐŶĞĞĚƚŽŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŐůŝĚĞƐůŽƉĞƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞ&ƌĞƐŶĞů>ĞŶƐ͕ ĂŶŐůĞŽĨĂƚƚĂĐŬ;ƐƉĞĞĚͿ͕ĂŶĚůŝŶĞƵƉƐŝŵƵůƚĂŶĞŽƵƐůLJ͘ ;ďĂĐŬŐƌŽƵŶĚƉŚŽƚŽ͗h͘^͘EĂǀLJƉŚŽƚŽďLJWĞƚƚLJKĨĨŝĐĞƌϯƌĚůĂƐƐ<ĞŶŶĞƚŚďďĂƚĞͿ

>ĂŶĚŝŶŐĂũĞƚĂŝƌĐƌĂŌŽŶĂŶĂŝƌĐƌĂŌĐĂƌƌŝĞƌŝƐ ǀĞƌLJĚŝĸĐƵůƚŽŶĂŐŽŽĚĚĂLJ͕ĂŶĚǁŚĞŶLJŽƵĂĚĚ ŝŶĚĂƌŬŶĞƐƐ͕ďĂĚǁĞĂƚŚĞƌ͕ĂŚĞĂǀŝŶŐ͕ƉŝƚĐŚŝŶŐ ĚĞĐŬ͕ĂŶĚƉŝůŽƚĨĂƟŐƵĞĨƌŽŵĂŶĞdžƚĞŶĚĞĚ ĐŽŵďĂƚŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ͕ŝƚŝƐŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĚĞŵĂŶĚŝŶŐ ĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐĨĂĐĞĚďLJEĂǀĂůǀŝĂƚŽƌƐ͘ŶĚƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞƐŽĨĨĂŝůƵƌĞĂƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĞ͘ĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨ ƚŚŝƐĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞ͕ƚŚĞĐŽƐƚƐŽĨƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐEĂǀĂůǀŝĂƚŽƌƐ ĂƌĞǀĞƌLJŚŝŐŚ͘ŝƌĐƌĂŌĐĂƌƌŝĞƌƋƵĂůŝĮĐĂƟŽŶƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ ŝƐĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĞĚĚƵƌŝŶŐŝŶƚĞŶƐĞƉŝůŽƚƵŶĚĞƌŐƌĂĚƵĂƚĞ ƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ͕ŇĞĞƚƌĞƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚƐƋƵĂĚƌŽŶƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚ ƌĞĨƌĞƐŚĞƌƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐƉƌŝŽƌƚŽĚĞƉůŽLJŵĞŶƚ͘ /ƚ͛ƐŶŽƐƵƌƉƌŝƐĞ͕ƚŚĞŶ͕ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝĚĞĂŽĨĂƵƚŽŵĂƟŶŐ ĐĂƌƌŝĞƌůĂŶĚŝŶŐƐŚĂƐďĞĞŶĂƌŽƵŶĚĨŽƌƐŽŵĞƟŵĞ͘ /ŶĨĂĐƚ͕ƚŚĞĮƌƐƚĂƵƚŽŵĂƚĞĚĂŝƌĐƌĂŌůĂŶĚŝŶŐŽŶ ĂŶĂŝƌĐƌĂŌĐĂƌƌŝĞƌǁĂƐƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĞĚďLJĂŶ&Ͳϯ ^ŬLJŬŶŝŐŚƚŝŶϭϵϱϳŽŶƚŚĞh^^ŶƟĞƚĂŵ;&ŝŐƵƌĞϮͿ͘ ^ŽǁŚLJĂƌĞŶ͛ƚǁĞƌŽƵƟŶĞůLJƌĞůLJŝŶŐŽŶƚŚŝƐ ĐĂƉĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŽĚĂLJ͍dŚĞĂŶƐǁĞƌŝƐƚŚĂƚďĞĐĂƵƐĞ ƉŝůŽƚĞĚůĂŶĚŝŶŐƐŬŝůůŝƐƐŽĚŝĸĐƵůƚƚŽĚĞǀĞůŽƉĂŶĚ ŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶĂůŵŽƐƚĂůůƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝŶŐƐĂƉŝůŽƚƉĞƌĨŽƌŵƐ ĂƌĞŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽŵĂŬĞƐƵƌĞŚĞŽƌƐŚĞŝƐƌĞĂĚLJǁŚĞŶ ĐŚĂůůĞŶŐŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƟŽŶƐŽĐĐƵƌ͘/ĨĂŶĂƵƚŽŵĂƚĞĚ ůĂŶĚŝŶŐƐLJƐƚĞŵĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞϵϵ͘ϵϵϵϵйƌĞůŝĂďůĞ ƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞǁŽƌƐƚĐĂƐĞƐĐĞŶĂƌŝŽ͕ƚŚĞŶƚŚĞƉŝůŽƚ ĂůǁĂLJƐŚĂƐƚŽďĞƌĞĂĚLJ͘dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞĂŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ ƌĞĂƐŽŶƐǁŚLJĂƵƚŽŵĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚŝŶŐƐLJƐƚĞŵƐŚĂǀĞ ŝŶƐƵĸĐŝĞŶƚƌĞůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJĞǀĞŶƚŽĚĂLJ͘DĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŵ ŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĂĚĚƌĞƐƐĞĚďLJƐƚĞĂĚŝůLJĂĚǀĂŶĐŝŶŐ ƌĞůŝĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞĂŝƌĐƌĂŌƚŚĞŵƐĞůǀĞƐ͘KŶĞŝƐƚŚĞ ŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĂƉƌĞĐŝƐŝŽŶŶĂǀŝŐĂƟŽŶƐLJƐƚĞŵƚŚĂƚĐĂŶ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŚŝŐŚƋƵĂůŝƚLJŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂŝƌĐƌĂŌĂƐ ƚŽĞdžĂĐƚůLJǁŚĞƌĞŝƚŝƐƌĞůĂƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝŶŐƉŽŝŶƚ͕ ĂůůƚŚĞǁĂLJƚŽƚŽƵĐŚĚŽǁŶ͘dŚŝƐƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJŝƐƐƟůů ŝŶĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ dŚĞƌĞĂůďƌĞĂŬƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƚŚĞŶŝƐƚŽĐŚĂŶŐĞƚŚĞǁĂLJ ƉŝůŽƚƐŇLJĂŝƌĐƌĂŌƚŽůĂŶĚŝŶŐ͘dƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂůůLJ͕ƉŝůŽƚƐ

&ŝŐƵƌĞϮ͘Ŷ&Ͳϯ^ĞĂŬŶŝŐŚƚĐŽŶĚƵĐƚƐƚŚĞĮƌƐƚ ĂƵƚŽŵĂƚĞĚůĂŶĚŝŶŐ͕ĂďŽĂƌĚh^^ŶƟĞƚĂŵ͕ƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞ ƌĂĚĂƌĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚŝŶƚŚĞĨŽƌĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘

ĐŽŶƚƌŽůƌĂƚĞŽĨĚĞƐĐĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƉŽǁĞƌ;ůĞŌŚĂŶĚ ŽŶƚŚĞƚŚƌŽƩůĞƐͿ͕ĂŝƌƐƉĞĞĚǁŝƚŚƉŝƚĐŚĂƫƚƵĚĞ ;ĨŽƌǁĂƌĚͬĂŌƐƟĐŬͿ͕ĂŶĚŚĞĂĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƌŽůů;ůĞŌͬ ƌŝŐŚƚƐƟĐŬͿ͘/ƚ͛ƐŚĂƌĚĞŶŽƵŐŚƚŽĚŽƚŚĞƐĞƚŚƌĞĞ ƚŚŝŶŐƐĂƚŽŶĐĞ͕ďƵƚĐŽŵƉůŝĐĂƟŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŽďůĞŵŝƐ ƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂdžĞƐĂƌĞĐƌŽƐƐͲĐŽƵƉůĞĚĂŶĚ ŽŶůLJŝŶĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJŝŶŇƵĞŶĐĞǁŚĂƚŝƐƌĞĂůůLJŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ͗ ŐůŝĚĞƐůŽƉĞĂŶĚůŝŶĞƵƉ͘dŚĞƉŝůŽƚŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽ ŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƚĞƚŚĞĚŝƐƉĂƌĂƚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůƉƌŽďůĞŵƐĂŶĚ ĂŶƟĐŝƉĂƚĞƚŚĞŶĞĞĚĨŽƌĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐ͘dŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ ƚŚĂƚŝƐďĞŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŝƐƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌ ŽĨĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐ͕ĞůŝŵŝŶĂƚĞĐŽŶƚƌŽůĐƌŽƐƐͲĐŽƵƉůŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝƌĞĐƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůŽĨŐůŝĚĞƐůŽƉĞĂŶĚůŝŶĞƵƉ ;&ŝŐƵƌĞϭͿ͘ ƚƚŚĞEĂǀĂůŝƌtĂƌĨĂƌĞĞŶƚĞƌ͕ŝƌĐƌĂŌŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ͕ WĂƚƵdžĞŶƚZŝǀĞƌ͕ĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌƐƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞůĞĂĚĞƌƐŚŝƉ ŽĨ:ĂŵĞƐ͞ƵĚĚLJ͟ĞŶŚĂŵ͕ĂŶĚǁŝƚŚƉĂƌƟĂů KĸĐĞŽĨEĂǀĂůZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ;KEZͿƐƉŽŶƐŽƌƐŚŝƉ͕ ƚŚŝƐďƌĞĂŬƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĐŚĂŶŐĞŝƐďĞĐŽŵŝŶŐƌĞĂůŝƚLJ ŝŶĂƉƌŽŐƌĂŵĐĂůůĞĚD'/ZWd͘&ŝƌƐƚ͕ƚŚĞLJ ŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƚŚĞƵƐĞŽĨƌĞůŝĂďůĞĂƵƚŽŵĂƚĞĚ ĂƉƉƌŽĂĐŚƉŽǁĞƌĐŽŶƚƌŽůƚŽĂůůŽǁƚŚĞƉŝůŽƚƚŽ ĐŽŶƚƌŽůƚŚĞĞŶƟƌĞůĂŶĚŝŶŐǁŝƚŚũƵƐƚƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚ ŚĂŶĚŽŶƚŚĞƐƟĐŬ͘^ĞĐŽŶĚ͕ƚŚĞLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚŇŝŐŚƚ ĐŽŶƚƌŽůůĂǁƐǁŚŝĐŚĚŝĚƚǁŽƚŚŝŶŐƐ͗;ϭͿƵƟůŝnjĞĚ ǁŝŶŐŇĂƉƐĂŶĚĂŝůĞƌŽŶƐƚŽŝŶƐƚĂŶƚůLJĂĚũƵƐƚůŝŌŽŶ ƚŚĞǁŝŶŐ͕ĂŶĚ;ϮͿĂƵŐŵĞŶƚĞĚĂŝƌĐƌĂŌƐƚĂďŝůŝƚLJ ƚŽĂůůŽǁƚŚĞƉŝůŽƚĨŽƌǁĂƌĚĂŶĚĂŌƐƟĐŬŝŶƉƵƚƐ ƚŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĐŽŶƚƌŽůŐůŝĚĞƐůŽƉĞĂŶŐůĞ͘dŚŝƌĚ͕ƚŚĞLJ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĚŝƐƉůĂLJƐƚŽƚŚĞƉŝůŽƚŽŶƚŚĞ,ĞĂĚhƉ ŝƐƉůĂLJ;,hͿǁŝƚŚĚĞƐŝƌĞĚŐůŝĚĞƐůŽƉĞƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ ĂŶĚĂĐƚƵĂůŐůŝĚĞƐůŽƉĞŇŝŐŚƚƉĂƚŚǀĞĐƚŽƌ͘dŚĞ ƚĂƐŬĨŽƌŵĂŝŶƚĂŝŶŝŶŐŐůŝĚĞƐůŽƉĞƚŚĞŶďĞĐŽŵĞƐ ŐƌĞĂƚůLJƐŝŵƉůŝĮĞĚ͗ŇLJůĞǀĞůƵŶƟůƚŚĞƐŚŝƉĐŽŵĞƐ ƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞĚĞƐŝƌĞĚŐůŝĚĞƐůŽƉĞƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĂŶĚƉƵƐŚ ƚŚĞƐƟĐŬĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƵŶƟůƚŚĞĂĐƚƵĂůŐůŝĚĞƐůŽƉĞ ǀĞĐƚŽƌŵĂƚĐŚĞƐƚŚĞŐůŝĚĞƐůŽƉĞ͕ĂŶĚƌĞůĞĂƐĞƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƚƌŽů͘^ůŝŐŚƚĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚƐŚŝŐŚŽƌůŽǁĐĂŶďĞ ĂĐĐŽŵƉůŝƐŚĞĚŝŶĂƐŝŵŝůĂƌŵĂŶŶĞƌ͘

&ŝŐƵƌĞϯ͘&ͬͲϭϴ&ĞŶŐĂŐĞƐƚŚĞĂƌƌĞƐƟŶŐǁŝƌĞĚƵƌŝŶŐĂ ĐĂƌƌŝĞƌůĂŶĚŝŶŐ͘

dŚĞƐĞďƌĞĂŬƚŚƌŽƵŐŚƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƚĞƐƚĞĚĂŶĚ ĚĞŵŽŶƐƚƌĂƚĞĚŝŶƐŝŵƵůĂƚŽƌƐǁŝƚŚƚǁŽĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚ ĂŝƌĐƌĂŌ͘/ŶŇŝŐŚƚƐŝŵƵůĂƚŽƌĞǀĂůƵĂƟŽŶƐŝŶĂ:ŽŝŶƚ ^ƚƌŝŬĞ&ŝŐŚƚĞƌĐŽŶĮŐƵƌĂƟŽŶĂƚtŚĂƌƚŽŶ͕ƚŚĞ ǁŽƌŬůŽĂĚĨŽƌĐĂƌƌŝĞƌůĂŶĚŝŶŐǁĂƐƌĞĚƵĐĞĚĨƌŽŵ Ă,ĂŶĚůŝŶŐYƵĂůŝƟĞƐZĂƟŶŐ;,YZͿϲ;ĞdžƚĞŶƐŝǀĞ ƉŝůŽƚǁŽƌŬůŽĂĚͿ͕ƚŽϮ;ŵŝŶŝŵĂůƉŝůŽƚǁŽƌŬůŽĂĚͿͶĂ ĚƌĂŵĂƟĐƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶ͊dŚĞƐĞƌĞƐƵůƚƐǁĞƌĞĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚ ŝŶĂŶ&ͬͲϭϴͬ&ƐŝŵƵůĂƚŽƌĂƚWĂƚƵdžĞŶƚZŝǀĞƌŝŶůĂƚĞ ϮϬϭϮ͕ŝŶǁŚŝĐŚůĂŶĚŝŶŐƚŽƵĐŚĚŽǁŶƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ ǁĂƐŝŵƉƌŽǀĞĚďLJŽǀĞƌϱϬй;&ŝŐƵƌĞϯͿ͘ D'/ZWdƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŝƐ ĐŽŶƟŶƵŝŶŐ͘&ůŝŐŚƚĐŽŶƚƌŽůĂƵŐŵĞŶƚĂƟŽŶĨŽƌ ůŝŶĞƵƉŝƐďĞŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚĂŶĚƚĞƐƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŇŝŐŚƚ ƐŝŵƵůĂƚŽƌ͕ĂŶĚ,hĚŝƐƉůĂLJƐĂƌĞďĞŝŶŐƌĞĮŶĞĚ͘ WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŝƐƵŶĚĞƌǁĂLJƚŽĐŽŶĚƵĐƚƚĞƐƟŶŐŽĨƚŚĞ ĐŽŶƚƌŽůůĂǁƐĂŶĚĚŝƐƉůĂLJƐŝŶďŽƚŚƚŚĞ&ͬʹϭϴͬ& ĂŶĚƚŚĞ&Ͳϯϱ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĐŽƐƚƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶĂƐǁĞůůĂƐůĂŶĚŝŶŐ ƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĞŶŚĂŶĐĞŵĞŶƚŝƐŶĞĞĚĞĚ͕ĂŶKEZ ŝŶƚĞƌĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚĂůŝƌtĂƌĨĂƌĞĂŶĚtĂƌĮŐŚƚĞƌ WĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞĐŽůůĂďŽƌĂƟŽŶŚĂƐĐŽŵŵĞŶĐĞĚ͘ džƉĞƌŝŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞďĞŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚƚŽĂƐƐĞƐƐ ƚŚĞƉŝůŽƚ͛ƐůĞĂƌŶŝŶŐĐƵƌǀĞƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞƐĞĂĚǀĂŶĐĞĚ ĐŽŶƚƌŽůƐĂŶĚĚŝƐƉůĂLJƐĂƐǁĞůůĂƐƉĞƌĨŽƌŵĂŶĐĞ͘ dŚŝƐǁŝůůŚĞůƉƚŽĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĂďĂƐŝƐĨŽƌƉŽƚĞŶƟĂů ƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞĂŵŽƵŶƚŽĨĚĞĚŝĐĂƚĞĚƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐ ŶĞĞĚĞĚƚŽĞŶƐƵƌĞĐŽŶƟŶƵĞĚŽƉĞƌĂƟŽŶĂů ĞīĞĐƟǀĞŶĞƐƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐŝŶŐĞĸĐŝĞŶĐLJ ŽƌƐĂĨĞƚLJ͘/ƚŝƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞƚŚĂƚŝŶƚĞŐƌĂƟŽŶŽĨD'/ ZWdƚĞĐŚŶŽůŽŐLJŝŶ&ͬͲϭϴĂŶĚ&ͲϯϱĐŽƵůĚ ƐĂǀĞŚƵŶĚƌĞĚƐŽĨŵŝůůŝŽŶƐŝŶƚƌĂŝŶŝŶŐĐŽƐƚƐƉĞƌ LJĞĂƌͶƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚďĞƚŚĞƌĞĂůďƌĞĂŬƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ͘KĨ ĐŽƵƌƐĞ͕ǁĞŵĂLJƐŽŵĞĚĂLJƐĞĞƚŚĞĚĂLJǁŚĞŶĂůů ĂŝƌĐƌĂŌůĂŶĚŝŶŐƐĂďŽĂƌĚƐŚŝƉĂƌĞĨƵůůLJĂƵƚŽŵĂƚĞĚ ĂŶĚƉŝůŽƚƐŶŽůŽŶŐĞƌŚĂǀĞƚŽƚƌĂŝŶĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉĂƌƚ ŽĨƚŚĞŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĂƚĂůů͘EĂǀŝŐĂƟŽŶƐLJƐƚĞŵƐĂŶĚ ĂƵƚŽŵĂƚĞĚĐĂƉĂďŝůŝƚLJƚŽĞŶĂďůĞƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂůƌĞĂĚLJŝŶ ǁŽƌŬ͕ďƵƚƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐƌĞŵĂŝŶ͘ƵƚƚŚĂƚ͛Ɛ Ϯϱ ĂŶŽƚŚĞƌƐƚŽƌLJ͘„

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

Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies, or Magic Carpet—was shown in simulaNew U.S./U.K.-developed flight-control technology might make carrier landings easier tor tests to reduce pilot workload 03 Jul 2014 Bill Sweetman from borderline-acceptable levAviation Week & Space Technology els to “minimal,” and it will be installed for the fighter’s long-deNew flight-control and guidance technology developed by the U.S. layed carrier trials later this year. Magic Carpet has been installed Navy and British researchers has been shown to allow carrier fighter and tested without any hardware pilots to land more accurately and changes. In a conventional carrier landconsistently, and will be applied to both the Boeing Super Hornet/ ing, the pilot follows an optical glideslope guidance from the Growler and the Lockheed Martin ship, with flaps deflected to a preF‑35C Joint Strike Fighter. set angle. If the aircraft descends Developers of the technology predict it will reduce the num- below the glideslope, the pilot has ber of training landings needed to to pull the stick back and pitch the qualify pilots for carrier operations nose up to increase lift. This increases drag, so the pilot has to and reduce fatigue on airframes. Magic Carpet could sharply re- add power to maintain speed, then recover the original angle of attack duce the number of FLCPs needed to keep pilots qualified for car- (alpha), and throttle back to avoid over-speeding. rier ops. In a Magic Carpet approach, In the case of the F-35C, the the pilot can engage a “Delta new system—known as MariPath” law once the aircraft is on time Augmented Guidance with the glideslope. The flight-control Integrated Controls for Carrier

system commands a reference flightpath, in combination with pilot-entered ship speed, which corresponds to the optical signal from the carrier. The aircraft will follow this path automatically, with the pilot correcting for any excursions. A ship-relative velocity vector is projected on the head-up display. A major difference in the Magic Carpet approach is that the flaps are not fully deflected, and the flight control system uses them to add or reduce lift. If the aircraft falls below the glideslope, the pilot still pulls the stick back, but the control system deflects the flaps downward, reducing descent rate at a constant alpha. Once the aircraft regains the glideslope, Magic Carpet uses the flaps to readjust the vertical speed, again with no change in alpha. The auto-throttle—which on the Super Hornet is set to hold a constant alpha at an airspeed proportional to aircraft weight—will make necessary adjustments. 1

Both the basic F/A-18E/F and F-35C flight-control systems had provision for direct lift control, but the innovation in Magic Carpet is to add the Delta Path mode. In simulator tests at BAE Systems’ Warton, England, site, the workload for an F-35C carrier landing was reduced from a Cooper-Harper handling qualities rating of 6 (extensive pilot workload), to 2 (minimal pilot workload), according to a Navy document.

Nawcad, tells Aviation Week that the idea stemmed from tests of the Qinetiq-modified Vectored-

thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier aboard the U.K.’s aircraft carrier Illustrious, aimed at developing a shipboard rolling vertical landing mode for the F-35B.

Denham proposed a system that would give other aircraft the same rate-command flight-control capability demonstrated on the VAAC Harrier, and obtained A second element of Magic some “seed money” from the OfCarpet will help pilots fly through fice of Naval Research to conduct the “burble” of turbulent air be- some simulation research. The rehind a moving carrier. The inersults justified follow-on funds from tial reference system and attitude ONR to develop control laws for sensors can be used to provide the Super Hornet, leading to flight micro-corrections before the pilot tests in 2012. can react—responding to a 0.1g Simulated and flight tests have departure in as little as 0.4 sec. shown that pilots using Magic CarMagic Carpet originated at the pet land more consistently than piU.S. Naval Air Warfare Center’s lots using conventional controls, aircraft division (Nawcad) at the with less variability (in terms of Patuxent River, Maryland, flighttouchdown dispersion) between test center. Team leader James different pilots and across multiDenham, a senior engineer at ple landings. Improvements are

sustained in turbulence and high sea states. ONR predicts Magic Carpet will reduce the number of field carrier landing practice approaches that are required to requalify pilots before each cruise, reducing both direct flight hour costs and the consumption of airframe life, and estimates that Magic Carpet could save the Navy $1 billion per year. Boeing is under contract to build Magic Carpet functions into the Super Hornet/Growler operational flight program (OFP) with the goal of making it available to the fleet in 2018. The first phase is to build a fully certifiable OFP modification, which will start tests at Patuxent River in the fall of 2014 and undergo sea trials in early 2015. That is to be followed by a second phase that adds the “anti-burble” stabilization mode head-up display symbology and integrates the air data and inertial systems more fully.

*

http://aviationweek.com/defense/flight-control-advances-promise-big-savings

2

In early September, a team of NAVAIR engineers and test pilots took an example of an emerging NAVAIR innovation to

Magic Carpet Meets The Fleet

the fleet.

Victor Chen NAWCAD Public Affairs 30 Oct 2014 Publication : Tester

Courtesy photo Magic Carpet, also known as Advanced Flight Controls and Displays, was the center of attention at NAVAIR’s presence at the 2014 Tailhook Association reunion. Magic Carpet features a new set of powered approach flight control laws for the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet including new, innovative symbology for the Head-Up Display (HUD) to significantly simplify the carrier landing task. Magic Carpet will make its first test in a live, at-sea environment on the F/A-18 platform early next year.

Magic Carpet, an advanced software aid aimed at landing aircraft aboard heaving carrier decks, made its Tailhook Association reunion debut through a NAVAIR-built, highfidelity flight simulator. Heavily attended by current fleet pilots, the Tailhook reunion enabled test pilots and landing signal officers (LSOs) from the Carrier Suitability Department of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23 to collect feedback from more than 500 fellow pilots. “The overall response from the fleet was exceptionally positive,” said Lt. Cmdr. Patrick Bookey, department head for Carrier Suitability at VX-23. “I thought most fleet aviators were very receptive, even enthusiastic about [Magic Carpet]

“The ability of the team at Manned Flight Simulator (MFS) to pull this together on short notice was incredible,” Bookey

and its potential impact on the carrier landing task. Most

said. “It was an extremely effective tool to get the feedback we were looking for and demonstrate NAVAIR capabilities to

people were asking, ‘When are we getting this?’”

the fleet.”

Carrier landings are inherently dangerous because of the

According to the MFS team, creating the simulator was a group effort.

large number of inputs that pilots must simultaneously

“The demonstrator is indicative of the ‘we can do that’ mentality of the simulator engineers and flight control software

absorb, understand and react to in order to safely land on

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

a runway moving through the ocean. Magic Carpet

amazing demonstrator. It not only looked impressive but, more importantly, it conveyed the true power of Magic Carpet

alleviates pilot workload during the carrier landing process

and it how it will help naval aviation.”

by automatically flying a set rate-of-descent based on pilot input, allowing the pilot to focus more attention on maintaining line-up while the aircraft flight controls maintain the proper glideslope. At Tailhook, pilots — including air wing commanders and strike group commanders — waited in line well past official closing time to try their hand at NAVAIR’s prototype.

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

They say the most stressful job in the world is landing on an aircraft carrier at night in rough weather. On Thursday, Navy aviation officials are carrying out another round of tests on a control system that promises to take the edge off that sometimes harrowing experience. Meanwhile, showgoers at the Naval Future Force Science and Technology Expo in Washington, D.C., got a chance to sit in a faux cockpit and try out the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division’s system. Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies, or MAGIC CARPET, is already integrated into the F-35Cs that pilots from Air Test and Evaluation Squadron will take for a spin, NAWCAD aerospace engineer Steve Moss told Navy Times on Wednesday. MAGIC CARPET allows a jet to self-correct its altitude, Moss said, as opposed to the constant pushing and pulling pilots do now to stay on course while approaching a carrier.

“You’re constantly moving the throttles, because a jet’s engine is always lagging,” Moss said. “So you’re doing a three-part power correction: You add the power to go forward, pull power off because it’s always too much, then add power because you’ve overcorrected.” With the other hand, Moss added, the pilot is steering the jet left or right to line up with the carrier. But with every lateral movement, the plane tilts and loses altitude, so the pilot has to balance every movement with another shot from the throttle. “It’s very complicated and very hard to do, and hard to keep that currency up,” Moss said. “So you have to keep training for it, keep taking training life off of our jets to do that.” With MAGIC CARPET, pilots are able to steer the jet to the carrier without losing lift, because selfadjusting flaps in the jet’s wings compensate for any path changes, without having to hit the throttle. “So let’s have the flight controls do the hard part, do the integration part,” Moss said. “Instead of fixed flaps, raise the flaps up a few degrees so you have authority, so the longitudinal stick is now

commanding symmetric flaps. “You’re not fighting it, you’re just flying,” Moss said. To make things even easier, the cockpit’s heads-up display show’s the carrier’s relative velocity, taking into account its horizontal movement, to help pilots aim at the flight deck. The Navy’s F-35Cs come with MAGIC CARPET, Moss said, while the fleet’s F/A-18 Hornets will get an upgrade in the 2017-18 time frame. The integration will be purposely slow, he added. First-tour pilots won’t be flying with MAGIC CARPET, he said, but second-tour pilots who’ve mastered the old system will upgrade. But the question is, will they want to? Navy fighter pilots have a notoriously difficult job, and are well known for the pride they take in mastering it. “Every single pilot that’s flown in this has come in with the hairy eyeball like,’ Are you kidding me? You can’t change this. You can’t change the way we fly the aircraft — it’s supposed to be hard,’ ” Moss said. Their attitudes quickly changed to, “Why don’t we have this already?” he added. http://hrana.org/news/2015/02/semi-autonomous-aviation-controls-coming-to-the-fleet/

First airborne flights completed for MAGIC CARPET 16 Mar 2015 Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD)

NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – Recently, engineers and test pilots at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division successfully transitioned the newly-developed F/A-18 flight control software called MAGIC CARPET from the virtual world of the simulator to the blue skies above the Chesapeake Bay. MAGIC CARPET is an acronym for Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies. The software is designed to make landing on an aircraft carrier easier by maintaining a commanded glideslope and angle of attack, giving the pilot the opportunity to focus more attention on maintaining a proper line-up. On Feb. 6, Navy test pilot

Lt. Cmdr. Tyler Hurst flew the first flight in “Salty Dog 222,” an F/A-18F Super Hornet assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23. On Feb. 11, Navy test pilot Lt. Brent Robinson flew a follow-on test flight to expand the MAGIC CARPET’s flight envelope. “With the initial set of flights, we were able to confirm that these new flight control laws performed very much in line with our predictions from the simulators,” said Robinson, MAGIC CARPET project officer. “The initial airborne response characteristics observed in both Path and Rate modes with both Full and Half flaps are very encouraging.” Test pilots from VX-23, working closely with engineers manning the control rooms of the Atlantic Test Ranges, will put the flight control system “through its paces over the next few weeks with myriad of approaches and touchand-go landings in preparation for the initial shipboard testing,” Robinson said. The engineering group responsible for developing the

flight control software, new heads-up displays, and simulators was encouraged by the first initial flights, which included practice field carrier landings. “After the first test flights, we needed only minor tweaking of a few feedback gains which showed good correlations with our aerodynamic models and flight response predictions,” said James “Buddy” Denham, a senior engineer in the aeromechanics division at NAVAIR. “We also received very positive feedback on the enhanced heads-up displays, we are now completing much of the off-nominal work, and the initial results and pilot feedback are favorable.” Test pilots, engineers, and landing signal officers (LSO) from VX-23 will continue to test MAGIC CARPET on F/A-18E/F aircraft through nominal and off-nominal approaches in the coming weeks, leading up to an at-sea testing period scheduled for later this year. http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuse action=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5864

Safer Approach MAGIC CARPET Delta Flight N Path Easier, more accurate  repeatable carrier landings promise improvements Graham Warwick Washington

ew flight-control and guidance software for carrier landings will require a culture change within the naval aviation community if it is to deliver on its promise of easier, safer and more repeatable recoveries that reduce pilot workload and wear and tear on the aircraft. U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (Navair) has completed land-based testing of the Magic Carpet software in the Boeing F/A-18E/F at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, and shortly will begin at-sea evaluations on an aircraft carrier off the U.S. East Coast. Tests show the new flight-control laws and head-up display (HUD) symbology provide the reductions in pilot workload that were predicted in simulations. The Magic Carpet software upgrades are slated to be fielded on the F/A-18E/F in 2018. In a carrier approach, the pilot must maintain a glideslope angle to clear the stern of the ship and stay aligned with the centerline of the flight deck to keep the wings clear of the superstructure, but also control the angle of attack to within 1 deg. to ensure the lowered arrestor hook catches the wire. The pilot manually follows optical glideslope guidance from the ship, controlling descent rate with power, airspeed with pitch attitude and heading with roll. But these control axes are cross-coupled, and maintaining glideslope, lineup and angle of attack requires constant throttle and stick inputs.

AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY/APRIL 13-26, 2015

“If I make a small power correction, I change angle of attack, which affects glideslope, and at the same time I can drift off lineup. There are a lot of things going on,” says Lt. Brent Robinson, test pilot with U.S. Navy evaluation squadron VX-23 at Patuxent River. The F/A-18E/F also has an autothrottle approach mode, which attempts to maintain angle of attack. “When you make an aft-stick corretion, the throttle will see the aircraft’s nose come up and add power to maintain angle of attack, but fairly loosely,” he explains. The workload is a “little less,” allowing the pilot to focus on lateral stick control to maintain lineup, but Robinson says only senior naval pilots are allowed to use the autothrottle mode. More-junior pilots are required to fly approaches manually to hone their baseline skills. “I am primarily trying to hold glideslope, but to have the glideslope accurate I have to be on speed [angle of attack]. I focus so much on glideslope and angle of attack that my lineup ends up drifting. It takes a lot of practice to build up the muscle memory to do the corrections,” Robinson notes. In Magic Carpet, gains and settings in the digital flight-control computer are fine-tuned to hold angle of attack tightly while longitudinal and lateral stick inputs are decoupled. “The primary factor in glideslope is longitudinal stick and in lineup it is lateral stick,” he says.

The control system melds aileron, stabilator and rudder control to maintain attitude. Then 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. “With aft stick, the flaps lower slightly to increase lift, the stabilator balances pitch, and I get almost pure vertical movement because angle of attack is being held for me. Near-pure lift increase or decrease gives me very high-fidelity control over glideslope,” Robinson says. The flight-control computer also calculates and maintains the ideal glideslope—3.5 deg.—using sensed windspeed and ship speed, either estimated by the pilot from the carrier’s wake or called out by the landing signal officer on deck. If high or low, the pilot can make a longitudinal stick input, hold it until centered on the optical guidance “meatball,” then release the stick, and the aircraft will return to the ideal glideslope. “Now I have fine control available. I need to make much less input,” he says. The new glideslope-holding flightcontrol law is called Delta Path. Magic Carpet also includes a “Rate” mode, which holds flightpath command and not glideslope. This is for use in the pattern and holds bank angle and pitch attitude in the turn to intercept the glideslope. The other part of Magic Carpet is new HUD symbology that ties the flight control changes together. This in-

cludes a horizontal line drawn 3.5 deg. down from the horizon. If this is close to the optical guidance cue from the ship, Robinson explains, the aircraft will be near the required glideslope. The bigger piece of the new symbology is the ship-referenced velocity vector. “This is referenced to the ship by basic geometry from the ship speed, and if I put it on the centerline and hold 3.5-deg. glideslope, I will land on the centerline,” Robinson says. Simulator and flight tests indicate that, of the decrease in pilot workload and increase in the accuracy and repeatability of landings from using

Magic Carpet, three-quarters come from the flight-control changes and a quarter from the HUD symbology, he continues. Navair has completed land-based testing of Magic Carpet, flying carrier approaches from nominal to extreme off-nominal to a shore-based field with the aid of an optical guidance system and landing signal officer. “We have tested and refined the gains and feel they are as good as we can get them,” says Robinson. Six pilots were involved, only two of whom had experience with Magic Carpet. “The real-life performance is very

F/A-18E/F pilots must maintain an 8.1-deg. angle of attack to ensure that a tailhook catches deck wires.

close to the simulator, which shows our models are correct and the design is holding up.” Land-based testing involved some “pretty extreme cases we will not perform at the ship, where we will run a bunch of nominal approaches to build up a touchdown dispersion database” as well as some less-extreme off-nominal approaches, Robinson notes. “When Magic Carpet comes to the fleet in the next few years, there has to be a large cultural change for pilots,” says Robinson. “We are attempting to make this the primary mode of landing and to make manual and autothrottle approaches obsolete.” Presently, competition between pilots is a major factor in improving their manual-approach flying skills. “We make it competitive. It’s part of the learning curve, of staying sharp. Everyone wants a better score,” he adds. “With Magic Carpet we will lose that competitive edge, but it will be far more safe and repeatable and will make it easier on maintaining the jets and the aircraft carriers,” Robinson concludes. “But it will be hard to change the mindset. I expect it will start out slow and be phased into the fleet.” c

“...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...”

Navy Starts Sea Testing New Carrier Landing Software for Fighter Jets

24 Apr 2015 Kris Osborn The Navy is preparing for its first atsea test of a new software program for F-18s designed to make it easier for the multi-role fighters to land on carriers. “We’re going to take it to the ship this month,” Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, Director of Air Warfare, told Military​.com in an interview. The Navy will test the automated landing software system at sea following a string of recent successful land-based tests at Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md. The software is called Magic Carpet, an acronym for Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies. The technology is slated to deploy by 2019 on F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and E/A-18G Growler electronic jamming aircraft. It is designed to make landing on an aircraft carrier easier by maintaining a commanded glideslope and angle of attack, giving the pilot the opportunity to focus more attention on maintaining a proper line-up, a Navy statement said.

“A pilot can take symbology on the HUD (heads up display) and he can move it to a symbol or a place on the flight deck and let go of the controls. The airplane knows with that symbol that is where I want to land. It will continually land on that spot,” Manazir explained. The software helps the approaching aircraft lock in on the correct landing approach, removing the need for the pilot to continuously adjust the aircraft. Landing on a carrier requires the pilot to account for the aircraft’s speed, the speed of the ship along with wind and weather considerations. Pilots seek to maintain the proper glide slope as they approach the carrier deck. “When we land an aircraft on an aircraft carrier, it is kind of a three connection thing. You see the deviation, you correct, you re-correct and then you correct one more time as you go so there you are kind of chasing the parameters,” Manazir said. “With magic carpet, the pilot can move the stick and move reference point and the stick does not have to re-correct. That is where the airplane is going to go. It is control law software – and it actually moves the flight control

surfaces to make that work — to where the aircraft is going to go. It is not just symbology,” Manazir said. Navy test pilot Lt. Brent Robinson said the recent land-based flight and landing of Magic Carpet showed the technology could perform as was demonstrated in simulations. “With the initial set of flights, we were able to confirm that these new flight control laws performed very much in line with our predictions from the simulators,” said Robinson, a Magic Carpet project officer. “The initial airborne response characteristics observed in both Path and Rate modes with both Full and Half flaps are very encouraging.” The flight control algorithms for Magic Carpet were developed by Naval Air Systems Command and the Office of Naval Research. If Magic Carpet becomes widely used throughout the Navy and emerges as a new standard for landing aircraft on carriers, pilots could then use more of their valuable training time working on weapons systems and other key avionics issues instead of practicing as much on how to land the plane on a carrier, Navy officials said. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/04/24/ navy-starts-sea-testing-new-carrierlanding-software-for-fighter-jets/

“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

First sea trials completed for MAGIC CARPET

the data, but from the [landing signal officer’s] position, the landings looked very good.” NAWCAD engineers and VX-23 07 May 2015 NAWCAD Public Affairs test pilots specifically used the two NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, wire for testing because unlike most PATUXENT RIVER, Md. – Naval Air Nimitz-class carriers, CVN 77 has Warfare Center Aircraft Division 3 arresting gear wires and aiming engineers and test pilots successfully for the number 2 wire is standard completed the first at-sea testing of the operating procedure. newly-developed F/A-18 flight control The flight test team, which included software on USS George H. W. Bush engineers from NAWCAD, the Atlantic (CVN 77) April 20. Test Ranges, and industry partner The Maritime Augmented Guidance Boeing, executed more than 180 touchwith Integrated Controls for Carrier and-go landings with 16 arrested Approach and Recovery Precision landings in the advanced control modes Enabling Technologies, or MAGIC during three days of testing. The two CARPET, is designed to make landing F/A-18F test aircraft were flown in both on an aircraft carrier easier by nominal and off-nominal approaches and incorporating direct lift control, an in varying wind conditions. augmented pilot control mode that The engineering group responsible maintains a commanded glideslope, for developing the flight control software, and improvements to heads-up display new heads-up displays, and simulators symbology tailored for the shipboard was encouraged by the sea trials. landing task. “This initial sea trial confirmed that Navy test pilot Lt. Brent Robinson carrier landings can be achieved at hit the two wire as planned when he lower pilot workload while maintaining or landed “Salty Dog 100,” an F/A-18F reducing current touchdown dispersions Super Hornet assigned to Air Test and performance,” said James “Buddy” Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23. Denham, a senior engineer in the “This was a huge technology aeromechanics division at NAVAIR. ”The milestone in the history of carrier results from this test clearly show the landings,” said Robinson, MAGIC CARPET benefits we expected to achieve with project officer. “What we saw at sea was this level of flight control augmentation. essentially the same as the land-based The data we have now collected in both testing we did at [Naval Air Station the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the Patuxent River]. We are still analyzing F-35C Lightning II in the Delta Flight

Path mode show that the Navy’s fleet of tactical aircraft, to include the EA18G Growler, is well on its way with a safer, more predictable method of accomplishing the unique naval aviation task of shipboard landings.” According to Lt. Cmdr. Daniel Radocaj, carrier suitability testing department head at VX-23, MAGIC CARPET reduces touchdown dispersion, which refers to the repeatability of aircrafts’ tailhooks to land in approximately the same spot on the carrier deck, and improves the overall success rate for carrier landings. As an added benefit, MAGIC CARPET can help to minimize hard landings, reduce the number of required post-hard landing aircraft inspections, and improve overall aircraft availability. The results from this initial round of testing give good confidence that MAGIC CARPET can provide substantial benefits to reduce initial and currency training for pilots and lower the costs of Naval Aviation, said Radocaj. Test pilots, engineers, and landing signal officers (LSO) from VX-23 will continue to test MAGIC CARPET demonstration software on F/A-18E/F aircraft for the remainder of 2015 and early 2016. Production-level software for the Fleet is scheduled to start flight testing in 2017, with general fleet introduction to follow via the F/A-18 and EA-18G program office. http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuse action=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=5904

Blog: Naval Aviation Focuses on Information Technology

11 Feb 2015

Robert K. Ackerman http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=naval-aviation-focuses-information-technology -

“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. “It’s a going-out-of-business profile.” He called for an open architecture, which he described as the key to NAVAIR modernization. When it is achieved—in both a hardware and software perspective—NAVAIR 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.

NAVAIR already has incorporated an automated carrier landing system that simplifies the process for pilots. As a result, they do not need to practice carrier landings ashore as much as they used to. And, NAVAIR is working to introduce simulated enemy aircraft into a cockpit situational awareness system, so pilots could train for air combat without having to face actual aggressor aircraft. Above all, NAVAIR must not develop its systems using a stovepipe mentality. The admiral noted that it builds platforms along the lines of program silos. But the Navy does not fight like an F-18, he said, offering instead that it fights like a carrier strike force. It needs to proceed along those lines, and he said his office is hard at work writing technical standards for warfighting capabilities.”

Delivery of first fleet F-35C starts countdown to debut (NAVY TIMES 08 JUL 13) Mark D. Faram http://hrana.org/news/2013/07/navy-jsf-arriving/ ...‘Flies Beautifully’

-

Tabert, a test pilot, is one of the Navy’s 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 Navy’s most experienced F-35 pilot, it’s his job to get the squadron’s other pilots — nearly all with 3,000-plus hours flying F/A-18s off carrier decks — up to speed as instructor pilots. “It’s 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. “That’s 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 Hornet’s HUD rests on top of the cockpit’s 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.”...”

NAVAIR Flight Ready: Magic Carpet [video transcript] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMTf_Z9rMh0

The broader idea of MAGIC CARPET [Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies] is simply to make landing at the ship easier; to make it repeatable, to make it safer and just in general less work or easier for the pilots to do a very difficult task, to do that repeatedly. Magic carpet is kind of a two-part program; it is a change to the flight controls on the Super Hornet so it adds direct lift control and then the other part is the HUD symbology, it gives us some ships cueing that makes it easier to land on the boat. What we are doing differently here is we are really providing the pilot direct control of what he is trying to do which is to control the flight path; so the flight control computer is controlling and closing the loops around flight path, which is important for landing on the carrier and is something we don’t do today. As you are trying to land on the boat, the boat is moving away from you, [and to the] right, so you have to continuously chase after the boat to get to it. All of the symbology we have right now in the HUD, or in our heads up display, is kind of in reference to the actual airplane, so what is the airplane doing? Well, this

new HUD symbology, you actually input the speed of the boat and it takes into account the winds, so now, it accounts for that movement of the boat, so I don’t have to worry about that, so I don’t have to lead, I don’t have to have that experience to figure out what is the boat doing, I just put the velocity vector now in the landing area of the boat and that is exactly where the airplane goes because it already compensates for the movement of the boat. It is going to reduce the workload so we can focus on maintaining the proper glide slope and proper approach so we don’t get too low and we don’t get too high and it will be easier for day and night and we can take that reduction in workload and stress overall throughout the flight and maybe apply that to other areas, to tactics or whatever. So they can focus more on that and make the ship landing a more administrative task. It definitely makes it a lot safer. I flew about 30 touch and gos in a 2-hour period, and I don’t think I would have had the mental capacity to be able to do that safely if it wasn’t for this technology. And I think that is just going to make it safer when guys are coming back from long missions, six to seven hours over Iraq or Afghanistan or whatever and they come back to the boat, and they are tired and exhausted and this is just going to make it a no-brainer to land at the boat. Another perspective is from the LSO

perspective, the landing signal officer, the guys on the ship that are helping the planes land, safety is their number one concern, so (cut) the LSO knows, that the jet hopefully the throttle is linked up and the altitude of the jet is constant, so he is not worried as much about the new pilot, (cut) pulling the throttles back to idle and possible crashing into the back of the ship. So to date, we are really getting very good correlation with our simulation results to what we are seeing in the airplane, so in terms of lowering the pilots workload, in terms of performance on the flight path, holding and controlling the meatball for landing is all there. So the overall result has been much more repeatable, much more consistent between pilots even with different techniques and that is the goal with taking this to the fleet between new guys and very old Salty guys that have been around for 25-30 years, the deviations that you should expect are now going to be much smaller across the board. It is awesome to be able to be in one of the first landings in Magic Carpet to experience this technology, and you know, I just want to tell everyone in the fleet that it is awesome and the first time anyone gets to fly it they are going to be like, “this is wow, this is what I want, this is what I need.” http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home. download&key=C2D4B2A4-9FD4-47BD-9CF2-3D18A15E6C76

Magic Carpet F/A-18EnF&G EMALS AAG X-47B Hook14

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

X-35C Handling Qualities X-35C Handling Qualities Model-Based Development of X-35 Flight Control Software Greg Walker 2 May 2002

Pilot Comments “IDLC Performance was Excellent.”(Throttle Modes) “Crosswind Landing was Easily Controlled.”

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Straight-In Field Landing Approach Flare/Landing Offset Field Landing Approach Offset Correction Flare/Landing FCLP (VMC, Case 1) - Nominal AOA Meatball Lineup FCLP (VMC, Case 1) - Overshooting Start AOA Meatball Lineup

X-35C Flight Test “Airplane is Solid Through The Pattern. AOA Control Straight-In Field Landing Approach is Solid. Good Control of Flare/Landing Glideslope.”(Manual FCLPs) Offset Field Landing

“Use of APC Reduced Workload Significantly Throughout the Pattern.”

1

Manual Powered Approach Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

min avg max 1

Approach Power Compensation Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 2

3

Approach Offset Correction Flare/Landing FCLP (VMC, Case 1) - Nominal AOA Meatball Lineup

http://sstc-online.org/proceedings/2002/SpkrPDFS/ThrTracs/p1417.pdf

Better

4

5

6

7

8

9

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, November–December 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]

F-35C Integrated Direct Lift Control: How It Works Written by: Eric Tegler on October 9, 2012

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. IDLC’s 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.

“What provides a huge benefit to the pilot is that [IDLC] moves the trailing edge flaps up or down to increase or decrease lift, which gives the airplane a very precise glide path control. It almost feels like a predictive control because it happens so quickly and you can get such effective changes in glide path. The trailing edge flaps are pretty large on the F-35C. For a carrier approach we nominally set them to 15 degrees trailing edge down, which is a half-flap configuration. So there’s room for the flaps to come down and to come up and either increase or decrease lift.” In essence, one could call IDLC “automatic flap response.” Its effect is to literally “heave” the airplane in the vertical axis, Buus says. “The F-35C is designed to be an auto-throttle flyer on approach. So the pilot will engage auto-throttles and then he just has to fly glide

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

path and lineup with the stick. When he makes pitch-stick inputs to control the glide

IDLC will make carrier approaches easier A few months ago NAVAIR issued a press release touting the F-35C’s new Integrated Direct Lift Control (IDLC), highlighting its potential to make flying carrier approaches easier. The press release described ILDC as new flight control software that “translates pilot commands into choreographed changes to engine power and control surface movement, greatly improving

Cmdr. Eric “Magic” Buus touches down at Patuxent River Naval Air Station in F-35C airframe during a test sortie. Lockheed Martin photo

slope – if he pulls back on the stick a little – the airplane will respond by lowering the flaps to increase lift. The seat-of-the-pants feel is a lot more in the vertical axis. It actually changes the G-level of the airplane; as the flaps come down, they add lift, increasing G and vice versa.”

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. “It’s 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. It’s 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-35C’s 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.

Benefit of IDLC for F-35 (& 'Magic Carpet') 14 Jun 2014 'johnwill': 14 Jun 2014: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=25627&p=273289 “A couple of points to be made about IDLC. First, note in the video that the flaps and tails are both operating to maintain flight path. The preceding discussion has mentioned the flap movement to control incremental lift to adjust flight path. However, as the flaps are providing lift changes, they are also changing airplane pitch moment, which would change angle of attack (and lift) in the wrong direction. Say the flap goes down a few degrees, increasing lift. But the lift is aft of the CG (negative pitch moment), so the AoA goes down, reducing lift, not what you want. Trailing edge up tail movement is needed to provide a positive pitch moment, to maintain AoA and get the desired positive lift increment. Second point is that this is nothing new, as in 1982 (!) the AFTI F-16 demonstrated this same capability, plus other similar capabilities in both vertical and lateral axes. The airplane could move vertically without AoA change, could point the nose up or down without flight path change. could move laterally without any sideslip, and could point the nose left or right without changing the flight path. These new control modes were for up and away flight, not landing as the Navy uses the F-35C. So give the Navy credit for using old technology in a new application. Even further back in time, the F-111B (1966) and F-14 (1972) used wing spoilers to provide partial direct lift control. The spoilers were closer to the CG, so did not provide much pitch moment effect. However, the spoilers could provide only down direct lift, not upward. Note that Leading Edge Flap is not used for IDLC, probably because it is not as effective as the TEF and its surface rate is too slow to give the necessary response. Which brings up another point - the LEF is not a control surface. Flaps, ailerons, tails, and rudders are control surfaces since their deflections provide the forces and moments to change the airplane flight path. But the LEF deflection is a response to airplane motion (AoA, g, etc).” ____________________ -

'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.”

New Flight Control Mode Improves F-35C Handling

IDLC,” said Marine Corps Lt. Col. Matthew Taylor, an F-35 test pilot. would have been comfortable on Landing Approach “Imaking the approaches in the carby Tamir Eshel July 25, 2012 rier environment after just two to VIDEO NOW ON NEXT PAGE three passes.” Precise glide path VIDEO: F-35 New Flight Control Software: control is critical to landing safely http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jl on the carrier as a pilot concenqRo3oBYZ8&feature=player_embedded trates on maintaining glide slope, Flying approaches for a carrier angle of attack and lineup. landing just might be a little easier “Landing on a carrier with curin the future. The F-35 Integrated rent fleet aircraft requires the pilot Test Force at Patuxent River to make dozens of precise threecompleted the first dedicated test part power corrections,” said Lt. flight May 4 to evaluate the F-35C Cmdr. Robert Bibeau, carrier suitLightning II Joint Strike Fighter’s ability department head for Air Test approach handling characteristics and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23. with new flight control laws. Part of “It’s an acquired skill, needs pracsoftware version 2A the new flight tice and intense concentration, like control software, called Integrated hitting a baseball.” Direct Lift Control (IDLC), transPilots typically qualify to land lates pilot commands into choreoon a carrier by completing around graphed changes to engine power 30 landings while in initial flight and control surface movement, training and at their fleet replacegreatly improving glide path control, ment squadrons. “We have to according to one test pilot. spend a significant amount of train“I’ve landed [F/A-18] Hornets on ing time on carrier landings, espea carrier, and I can tell you there is cially night landings,” Bibeau said. a lot less lag in the F-35C with the “To make all the little high-pressure

adjustments takes headwork, intellect and reflexes. It’s unforgiving.” But with the new flight control software IDLC in the F-35, Taylor sees “the potential to reduce the training burden for new pilots going to the ship.” The F-35C carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is distinct from the F-35A and F-35B variants with its larger wing surfaces and reinforced landing gear to withstand catapult launches and deck landing impacts associated with the demanding aircraft carrier environment. The F-35C is undergoing test and evaluation at NAS Patuxent River prior to delivery to the fleet. Another change to the F-35C is the redesigned tail hook. Lockheed Martin is confident the redesigned tailhook will be ready for the planned carrier flight tests currently scheduled for 2014. The original hook did not perform well and caused the aircraft to miss the arresting cable too often. http://defense-update.com/20120725_new-flight-control-mode-improves-f35c-handling-on-landing-approach.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_ campaign=new-flight-control-mode-improves-f-35c-handling-on-landing-approach

-

Click Screen to view an F-35C Test Pilot Talk about New Flight

Control Software for Integrated Direct Lift Control (IDLC)

Tailored to Trap Frank Colucci Dec 2012 Avionics Magazine http://www.30atc.ir/magazines/December%202012.pdf -

“...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. “There’s no reason, though, why the flight control system couldn’t 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, “I’d break out of it inclose the few times I did one. The pilot doesn’t’ 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

) 5,'$<0$5&+  

/DQGLQJ6\VWHPKHLJKWLQFUHDVHGIURPIHHWWRIHHW IRU'DWXPOLJKWV EHWWHUNQRZQDVWKH%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

Please see next page...

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 VRXQGDQGDORXGRQH RI)5(('20

F-35 System Development and Tailored to Trap Demonstration (SDD) plans now call

Frank Colucci 01 Dec 2012 for first arrested carrier landings in

early 2014. With common control laws and largely common airframes, the Joint Strike Fighter has always Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) test pilots been three airplanes in one — the F-35A flown from concrete runways, in July began using an Integrated the F-35B for Short Takeoff/VertiDirect Lift Control (IDLC) scheme meant to improve approach perfor- cal Landing (STOVL) on small ships, and the F-35C to launch and trap mance and reduce pilot workload aboard aircraft carriers. The flight in carrier landings. Tailored control control software, hosted in identiresponses in part differentiate the cal Vehicle Management Computcarrier-based F-35C from its runers (VMC), uses a scheme called way and small-deck siblings. Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Canin at dynamic inversion (DI). DI allows Patuxent River Naval Air Test Center, the desired aircraft response — linear and angular accelerations — to Maryland, explained, “What IDLC be implemented directly in control does is improve the flight path response of the airplane, allowing the laws, thereby reducing the control pilot to make almost instantaneous gain “tuning” required in the develcorrections to glideslope while main- opment process. At the heart of the JSF DI imtaining a constant angle of attack.” plementation is a variant-specif“The landing approach in the ic On-Board Model (OBM). The OBM F-35C is flown with the stick only,” predicts, for the current state of the noted Canin. “The throttle is automatic.” IDLC may someday facilitate aircraft, the response that will rehands-off landings and other possi- sult from various control surface deflections. Given pilot commands, ble F-35 shipboard enhancements. F-35C control laws give Navy pilots Integrated Direct Lift Control for easier carrier landings, & they open the door for future landing aids.

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, there’s 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, “That’s the beauty of using this approach when you’re 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 we’re 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, there’s 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

that reference point proportional to the rate of throttle movement. Canin said, “With IDLC, we change the symmetric deflection of the flaps and the ailerons in response to pitch and throttle commands by the pilot. The glideslope response is immediate, and doesn’t require a speed or alpha change. This is a tremendous advantage over a stiffwing airplane.” Legacy F-14 fighters and S-3 patrol jets had simple Direct Lift Control that let pilots command spoilers in or out with a dedicated button. “Ours is much more intuitive and natural,” said Canin. “It’s an integral part of the flight control system and responds to the pilot’s normal stick and throttle movements, without requiring a separate control.” The flight control system also compensates for the pitching moments induced by the lifting surface deflections — F-35C ailerons pitch the airplane on approach almost as much as the big horizontal stabilizers — to maintain the proper angle of attack.

IDLC is commanded by an Approach Mode Control button on the F-35 active inceptor stick. “You really could have done this with any other airplane,” acknowledged Canin, “but the implementation would have been more complicated.” He added, “It’s easier and cleaner to do this with a flight control system that’s naturally a pitch-ratecommand system.”

Flying With Feeling

The triplex-redundant flight control system of the F-35 has flight control laws embedded in three identical, independent Vehicle Management Computers (VMC) made by BAE Systems in Endicott, N.Y. Corin Beck, BAE product director for fixed-wing control systems, said typical quadredundant legacy flight control systems route all interfaces back to a central Flight Control Computer. The F-35 VMCs are separated for survivability and work as network controllers. They interface with aircraft sensors, active inceptor controls, actuators, and utilities and subsystems, and they provide a bridge to

the pilot tactile cues with resistance the F-35 mission system network. The distributed network replaces big, ramps, gates and stops to provide aircraft “feel” and warnings. Undedicated wire bundles with highlike traditional springs, stick shakers speed serial buses to save weight. and other mechanical force-feedThe VMC was also designed back mechanisms, the motorized for affordability and meant to control life-cycle sustainment costs with sidestick varies feedback forces with aircraft condition. managed obsolescence. The baseThe throttle is likewise backline configuration supports two Freescale PowerPC 7410 processing ele- driven to give the pilot situational ments and can expand to support up awareness about the energy state of the airplane and the corrections to four such processors and three SAE AS5643 1394b high-speed seri- being made. If or when the pilot breaks out of Approach Mode, the al buses. Based on BAE experience throttle position is synchronized to with F-22A, F-16, F-15 and F/A-18 the engine thrust request (ETR). “If flight control systems, Beck stated the expandable VMC design is more the throttle is physically jammed, the approach mode will still work. than sufficient to manage any likely growth or added functionality over One of the redundancy features of the airplane is that the physithe life of the F-35 program. cal throttle linkage is no longer reBAE Systems Electronic Systems in Rochester, U.K., also makes quired,” Canin said. Engine thrust request is the the F-35 active inceptor system including the active throttle quadrant driver for IDLC surface deflection. The Moog electro-hydrostatic acassembly, active side-stick control tuators that move the F-35 conassembly, and an interface control unit. The motorized inceptors trans- trol surfaces promise survivability and maintainability advantages mit pilot inputs to the F-35 fly-byover more conventional hydraulic wire flight control system and give

actuators. They also provide slightly greater bandwidth than hydraulic actuators for IDLC. However, Canin observes, “We could have done this with hydraulic actuators. The magic is in the control laws.”

Implementing IDLC

Lockheed Martin engineers develop F-35 control law software using MATLAB and Simulink tools from MathWorks in Natick, Mass. Software and hardware come together in the Vehicle Systems Integration Facility (VSIF) in Fort Worth, Texas. “VSIF consists of an F-35 spread out over a gymnasium-sized area. It’s a hardware-in-the-loop testbed that runs real code on real hardware, including the flight control surfaces themselves. When you fly that simulator, the flaps actually move. There’s even equipment producing forces that oppose them, replicating the expected airloads,” said Canin. The big systems integration facility full of F-35 hardware is nevertheless costly to operate. For routine control law development, Lockheed Martin engineers and

the baseline control law,” said Canin. test pilots use a VIF motion-based Since F-35 production software and simulator made by Rexroth in the test software are the same, LRIP Netherlands. “That’s what we use for more of aircraft will actually have the FTAs incorporated but no FTA switch with the pilot-in-the-loop development which to activate them. work,” said Canin. “The VIF runs All three variants of the F-35 the actual flight control software in actual VMCs, but it doesn’t have provide some measure of IDLC. “Glideslope is always important,” oball the power systems, hydraulics served Canin. “Anything you can do and actuators of the VSIF. We can do carrier landings, formation flight to improve flight path control on approach is a good thing. Wave-off and other high-gain control tasks. performance is also improved with Proposed control law changes can be checked out very quickly in this IDLC, since it can stop or reduce your rate of descent while you’re sim, and then given to us to fly.” waiting for the engine to spool up.” Unlike production F-35s, the The IDLC function is not idenJSF SDD aircraft have a Flight Test tical in all the three F-35 variants, Aid (FTA) system that allows pilots however. “The IDLC gain is much to evaluate different control gains and mechanizations in flight. Using higher in the C-model than the other FTAs, for example, pilots were able two,” said Canin. “We only have one to look at IDLC gains of 150 percent, release of software for the three 200 percent and 300 percent of the variants. It configures itself when it wakes up and discovers which type original baseline gain, eventually of F-35 it’s in.” The F-35B does not settling on 300 percent. “We can do this safely, because use IDLC at all in jet-borne (vertical if we ever see anything we don’t like, landing) mode, when aerodynamic we can press a paddle switch on the control surfaces are fixed. Even with its innovative flight stick to put us immediately back to

controls, the F-35C, from the pilot’s 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 ship’s 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 that’s changed with this airplane, but what we’re 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,

and uses that pitch rate to establish a glideslope,” noted Canin. “There’s no reason, though, why the flight control system couldn’t 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, “I’d break out of it in-close the few times I did one. The pilot doesn’t’ 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 selfcontained approach — an internally generated glideslope from GPS.” IDLC is just one part of the F-35 test program which will now include tests of a refined tailhook for arrested landings. “We look at approach handling qualities every chance we get,” said Canin. “Where the rubber meets the road, though, is at touchdown. Until recently we haven’t had a loads clearance that allowed us to do carrier-type landings, but now we do, so now we’ll be able to look at our control precision to touchdown.” Canin concluded, “Carrier landings, particularly at night, are still considered to be the hardest thing to do in aviation. But I think we now have an airplane, and the people in our control laws group, that can kill that notion forever. The carrier approach is a very well-defined problem, and there’s no reason why this airplane can’t completely change the game.” http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/ military/Tailored-to-Trap_77964.html

SRVV – Ship Referenced Velocity Vector http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyAugust2011.pdf

CVF Explanation next page...

Paddles Monthly August 2011 ‘What the Future Beholds...’ Dan "Butters" Radocaj Test Pilot/LSO VX-23 Ship Suitability: http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesMonthlyAugust2011.pdf -

“...We may also need to add another lens-type glideslope indicator. One idea is called a Bedford Array. You can see in Figure 1 that a Bedford Array is like a lens spread of over the length of the LA. Unlike an IFLOLS which has 12 cells that are always on to create a glideslope reference, the Bedford Array is a set of Christmas lights and only the light corresponding to current position of the touchdown point is illuminated. Just as the dynamic touchdown point moves across the deck on the LSODS screen, the Bedford Array lights would “move” forward and back across the deck corresponding to the dynamic touchdown point. Figure 2 shows what your HUD may look like. You keep the ship stabilized velocity vector [SRVV] on top of the Bedford light that is illuminated. The datum is a reference line in your HUD. As long as the 3 all line up you are on glide path. A Bedford Array & a ship stabilized velocity are indicators of glide-slope that will show you if you are off glide-slope more precisely but they still don’t make the airplane respond differently....”

JSF wing spreads by Bill Sweetman http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogscript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBl ogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Af8cdf63d-e706-409e-9ab5-0be0b200c7de -

“...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)

X-35C Navy Flight Testing By Eric Hehs

This article appeared in the Second Quarter 2001 issue of Code One Magazine.

The X-35C banks left over a choppy Chesapeake Bay on approach to NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. Flaps hanging low, the aircraft straightens and glides over the water to the approach end of runway 32. At less than 135 knots airspeed in a brisk headwind, the jet’s relative ground speed is slightly more than DC commuters speeding to work on the freeways below. The roar of the Pratt & Whitney engine intensifies as the aircraft nears. Puffs of smoke signal the tires of the main gear have touched down. Suddenly, the pilot throttles to military power and the X-35C jumps back into the air for another circuit around the air station. This completed landing, brief though it was, creates more data points for a database already filling with field carrier landing practices, or FCLPs. These landings and takeoffs represent a large portion of the testing to be done by the X-35C at the Naval Air Warfare Center’s Aircraft Division at Patuxent River. NAWCAD, as it is known, supports research, development, test, evaluation, engineering, and fleet support of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. It is the steward of the ranges, test facilities, laboratories, and aircraft necessary to support the Navy’s acquisition requirements. It is also home to the United States Naval Test Pilot School. It is now the home of the X-35C, the Navy variant of Lockheed Martin’s JSF demonstrator aircraft.

“We brought the X-35C to Pax River because it is the Navy’s 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 Navy’s 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

to less ideal approaches. This range of approaches is conducted at varying distances from the touchdown point and at varying high and low offsets at each distance. “The pilot intentionally deviates from an ideal landing path,” explains Glen Harbison, the lead flight test engineer for the X-35C, “so that we can evaluate how well the aircraft allows the pilot to compensate for these deviations. We also evaluate how quickly the airplane and pilot can recover from an offset approach and still land safely.” A bolter occurs when the aircraft’s arresting hook fails to catch a wire. This may be caused by ship’s motion, a hook skip (where the hook bounces over a wire), wind gusts, or pilot technique. Bolter testing ensures the flying qualities and performance of the aircraft are sufficient enough to allow the aircraft to touchdown after the last arresting cable and to allow the aircraft to safely lift off again by the time it reaches the end of the landing area. “Because many factors can cause the aircraft not to catch a wire, Navy pilots always prepare for the possibility that they are going to miss the arresting cables on a carrier landing,” explains Tom Briggs, the carrier suitability flight test engineer, one of three Navy flight test engineers working on the X-35 program. “As soon as the wheels touch the deck, the pilot immediately throttles to full military power to prepare for another takeoff. If the pilot catches the wire, he decelerates. If he misses the wire, he takes off and tries to land again.” Waveoff testing covers the performance of the aircraft during an aborted landing. “We try to land aircraft every forty-five seconds on a carrier,” continues Briggs. “If the crew has a hard time clearing an aircraft from the landing area, they have to make a ‘fouled deck’ waveoff.” Pilots rely on the landing safety officer on the deck to signal a waveoff with a Fresnel lens optical landing system. By pressing a button, the LSO activates a pattern of colored flashing lights on this system. (The landing system is normally used to give pilots a visual indication of their relative position with respect to a prescribed glideslope.) Waveoff commands are also issued over the radio.

“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

determining how to safely bring the aircraft aboard the carrier.” “Landing on a carrier has to become second-nature to every Navy pilot,” adds Harbison. “This testing ensures that we have designed an airplane that makes carrier landings second nature.” The X-35C is designed to survive carrier landings, which tend to be more severe than typical Air Force landings. In numerical terms, when a pilot flies the X-35C on a carrier landing, the rate at which the aircraft hits the runway, called the sink rate, is approximately eleven feet per second. The aircraft is designed to withstand a sink rate of almost eighteen feet per second. By comparison, the typical sink rate for an X-35A landing, the conventional takeoff and landing variant of the JSF demonstrator, was around two feet per second.

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.

Commonality also reduced cost. Everyone who flew the X-35A— including test pilots with Navy, Marine, and Air Force backgrounds—was very pleased with the way it landed: It was very easy to land. Both variants are also very similar in up-andaway flight. Handling characteristics between the two aircraft are not noticeably different. Performance differences are more noticeable, for example how fast the aircraft accelerates and climbs and how well it maintains energy in turns. The control laws on the X-35C have a couple of extra features that take advantage of the extra control surfaces. These features give the pilot more precise control of the glide path.” “On every approach, we look for good glideslope control,” adds Fenton. “We have to be able to put the airplane down with pinpoint accuracy to hit one of the four wires on a carrier deck, within plus or minus forty-five feet or so. The airplane has to track glideslope precisely and make small glideslope changes on short order.” A carrier box painted on the runway at Pax River indicates the amount of deck area the aircraft has to land and then takeoff again. “During bolters, I could tell from the cockpit that the aircraft was well off the ground before the edge of the carrier deck,” reported Fenton in one of his many flight debriefs. “Engine and aircraft response was positive and quick.”

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 isn’t 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 numbers—Mach, 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, you’ve 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 pilot’s left hand (throttle) out of glideslope control,” explains Harbison, “leaving him only the control stick to maintain glideslopeand lineup.”

edge flaps and the rudders to slow the airplane. Unlike the F-22, the F-35A and F-35B have no ailerons. That explains why it uses a combination of leading- and trailingedge flaps and rudders to slow down. I found that the buffet levels were very low, essentially the same as buffet levels of the F-16 with the speed brake in operation. Deceleration rates in the F-35 are similar to the F-16 as well, which is a design goal.” http://www.codeone

“The F-35, like the F-22, doesn't have a dedicated speed brake like most previous fighters. Instead, it decelerates through the flight control software by deflecting control surfaces in the same manner as the Raptor. We use the leading-edge flaps as well as the trailing-

“And that’s the primary reason we are here—to prove that the Lockheed Martin JSF design meets the Navy’s 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 we’re 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 pilot’s 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....” -

_______________ -

CV LOADING Mar 2009 “...F-35C Shipboard Bringback ~10,000 lbs...” http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/JSF_Program_Update.pdf _______________ -

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

(Ch-2) The current estimates changed from the Dec 2009 SAR due to design maturation. Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Mission Performance changed from 524 ft to 544 ft. Combat Radius Nautical Miles (NM) - STOVL Variant changed from 481 to 469. Combat Radius NM - Aircraft Carrier Suitable (CV) Variant changed from 651 to 615. CV Recovery Performance, Approach Speed changed from 143.0 kts to 144.6 kts.

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

141103-N-MX772-359 PACIFIC OCEAN (Nov. 3, 2014) Landing signal officers observe an F-35C Lightning II carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter as it lands on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68). Nimitz is currently underway conducting routine training exercises. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Siobhana R. McEwen/Released

https://www.flickr.com/photos/compacflt/15521756107/

LM's Navy JSF Completes Historic Flight-Test Program.

PATUXENT RIVER, Md., 12 March 2001 /PRNewswire/

"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

-

“Handling qualities of the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter “exceeded expectations” on the June 6 first flight, says Lockheed Martin test pilot Jeff Knowles. Handling with landing gear down was a key focus of the first flight as the F-35C has a 30% larger wing and uprated flight controls to reduce takeoff and landing speeds compared with the other F-35 variants.

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/

Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN — 2008 April — [PDF 325Kb 'bowman0558.pdf'] https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/q_mod_be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe-670c0822a153/q_act_downloadpaper/q_obj_19233467-2759-4d04-8da4-e22afe648499/display.aspx?rs=enginespage -

"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." &

KPP = Key Performance Parameter

"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’

Pentagon Slackens Difficult-To-Achieve JSF Performance Requirements J. Sherman Mar 1, 2012 http://insidedefense.com/201203012392003/Inside-Defense-General/Public-Articles/pentagon-waters-down-difficult-to-achieve-jsf-performance-requirements/menu-id-926.html -

“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

December 2014 SAR

Logistics Footprint - CV Variant Less than or equal to 34,000 cu ft., 183 ST

Performance Characteristics Current APB Development Objective/Threshold

SAR Baseline Development Estimate

Demonstrated Performance

Current Estimate

With four 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM120s, full expendables, execute a 600 foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) and with a combat radius of 550 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile.

With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM120s, full expendables, execute a 600 foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) and with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile.

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%

Combat Radius NM -CV Variant 730

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

Logistics Footprint - STOVL Variant L-Class Less than or equal to 15,000 cu ft, 104 ST

Less than or equal to 15,000 cu ft, 104 ST

Less than or equal to 21,000 cu ft, 136 ST

TBD

Less than or equal to 17,500 cu ft, 102 ST

3.0/2.0/1.0 2.5 ASD

TBD

4.0/3.0/2.0 2.5 ASD

3.0/2.0/1.0 1.8 ASD

TBD

4.0/3.0/1.0 1.8 ASD

4.0/3.0/1.0 1.1 ASD

TBD

6.0/4.0/2.0 1.1 ASD

Vpa at required carrier landing weight (RCLW) of less than 145 knots.

TBD

Vpa. Maximum approach speed (Vpa) at required carrier landing weight (RCLW) of less than 144 knots.

Sortie Generation Rates - CTOL Variant 4.0/3.0/2.0 2.5 ASD

4.0/3.0/2.0 2.5 ASD

Sortie Generation Rates - CV Variant 4.0/3.0/1.0 1.8 ASD

4.0/3.0/1.0 1.8 ASD

Sortie Generation Rates - STOVL Variant (USMC) 6.0/4.0/2.0 1.1 ASD

(Ch-1)

Combat Radius NM -STOVL Variant 550

TBD

6.0/4.0/2.0 1.1 ASD

Combat Radius NM -CTOL Variant 690

Less than or equal to 46,000 cu ft., 243 ST

Logistics Footprint - STOVL Variant

STOVL Mission Performance - STO Distance Flat Deck With four 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 600 foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) and with a combat radius of 550 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.

Less than or equal to 34,000 cu ft., 183 ST

CV Recovery Performance (Vpa) Vpa. Maximum approach speed (Vpa) at required carrier landing weight (RCLW) of less than 140 knots.

Vpa at required carrier landing weight (RCLW) of less than 140 knots.

Mission Reliability - CTOL Variant 98%

98%

Mission Reliability - CV Variant 98%

98%

F-35

December 2014 SAR

UNCLASSIFIED

Classified Performance information is provided in the classified annex to this submission.

Mission Reliability - STOVL Variant 98%

98%

Logistics Footprint - CTOL Variant Less than or equal to 6 C- Less than or equal to 6 C Less than or equal to 8 C TBD 17 equivalents -17 equivalents -17 equivalent loads

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

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ASD - Average Sortie Duration CTOL - Conventional Takeoff and Landing CU FT - Cubic Feet CV - Aircraft Carrier Suitable Variant JDAM - Joint Direct Attack Munitions KTS - Knots NM - Nautical Miles RCLW - Required Carrier Landing Weight ST - Short Tons STO - Short Takeoff STOVL - Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing Vpa - Max Approach Speed WOD - Wind Over the Deck

http:// www.f-16. net/forum/ download/ file.php? id=20510

Hook Touch Down Point • IFLOLS – 230’ Nominal • ACLS – 230’ Nominal (doesn’t change with IFLOLS) Trappable Length • HTDP to 4-Wire • Nominal HTDP (230’) • 291’ – 230’ = 61’

X

X

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

X

268’ – 10” 261’-10” 220’ 180’

CVN 76 3-Wire Configuration

Cats, Traps & a Rooster Tail

support the development of ini- 20 to 30kt and high is in extial aircraft launch and recovery cess of 30kt. The team’s 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 Navy’s [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,

1

deficiencies and developments to aid them in their OT test design and planning. Conversely, as a developmental test pilot with OT experience, I aid the DT test team [the F-35 ITF at Pax River] in identifying issues that may pose problems during operational testing before the jet reaches an OT period. The goal is to identify areas that may affect operational effectiveness and suitability early in the programme so they can be addressed, hopefully leading to successful OT periods and fleet introduction. “Carrier suitability is extremely important to the navy’s OT community. My participation in DT I was undertaken from an operational tester and a fleet operator’s points of view to help ensure the F-35C is suitable for its intended operational environment, the aircraft carrier. Information gained from DT I will be

used to help plan F-35 OT test periods embarked onboard an aircraft carrier.”… & …ENGINEERING MASTER Tom Briggs was designated Chief Test Engineer for development test and oversees the execution of testing and approving any required changes to the test plan or the conduct of testing from an engineering perspective. As Chief Test Engineer, he helped prepare the ITF team (comprising more than 230 people from the F-35 ITF and the crew of the USS Nimitz) for testing at sea and helped co-ordinate the expectations of the ship’s crew as to what would be tested and how planned testing would integrate with their operations. Tom told AIR International: “The main test points were to verify that the F-35C’s approach handling qualities were

satisfactory across a variety of wind conditions; to determine its launch characteristics and performance from all four of the ship’s catapults and across a variety of wind conditions; to look at the integration of the aircraft with the ship both on the flight deck and in the hangar bay; and to test the ability of the F-35C to use the ship’s flight-related systems to perform inertial alignments, instrument approaches and basic navigation to and from the ship. “Use of the aircraft’s sensors and its fuel dump function were also tested. Data obtained from the tests will now be analysed to support the overall verification of the F-35C against the Joint Contract Specification as well as developing the initial aircraft launch bulletins and verifying that the initial aircraft recovery bulletins are satisfactory.” pp 42-47 Air International Dec 2014 2

The Distributed Aperture System and 360-Degree Situational Awareness | p.24

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 we’re 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 they’re 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

X

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.

Building the Queen Elizabeth

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.

LSO School OIC, CDR ‘Weeds’ Wedertz and LCDR ‘Frodo’ Beaty discuss carrier design issues with engineers from Aircraft Carrier Alliance

British Officers and Engineers review flight deck design specifics of the Queen Elizabeth with Captain Stoops and the LSO School Staff

Original Queen Elizabeth Design - Utilizing F-35B

Current Angled Flight Deck Design - Utilizing F-35C

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 Navy’s 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 QEC’s 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/

prototypes (CF-2 and CF-3).

´&µ/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

The trio comprises the test fleet for the

Eric Tegler 03 Oct 2011

carrier variant of the F-35, distinguished by its larger, folding wing and control surfaces, carrier-spec landing gear, tailhook, and other details. Lockheed Martin’s press materials proclaim the F-35C to be “The World’s Only 5th Generation Carrier Aircraft,” lauding its “ruggedized stealth” and its internal/external weapons carriage. Stealth efficacy and weapons flexibility will be tested over the coming few years, but first the F-35C must prove its compatibility with an aircraft carrier.

$QDLUWRDLUSKRWRRI)&DLUFUDIW&) UHYHDOVWKHODUJHUZLQJDQGWDLOVXUIDFHVRI WKHFDUULHUYDULDQW&)LVRQHRIWKUHH) &VFXUUHQWO\XQGHUJRLQJIOLJKWWHVWLQJDW 1DYDO$LU6WDWLRQ3DWX[HQW5LYHU0G /RFNKHHG0DUWLQSKRWRE\'DYLG'UDLV

The C had begun to do so before delivery of the second and third prototypes, when in March CF-1 performed the first test hookup with the TC-7 catapult at NAS Pax River. The test gave rise to a minor alteration to the aircraft’s launch bar, giving it a greater range of motion. Enlightening though that preliminary test was, it will be a footnote to the carrier-suitability testing begun at Joint Base McGuire-DixLakehurst (MDL) in New Jersey in late June. The very first MDL tests focused on Jet Blast Deflector (JBD) analysis, assessing deck heating, JBD panel cooling, and vibro-acoustic, thermal, and hot-gas ingestion environments. The tests were expected to take about two weeks, and on June 25, CF-2 arrived at MDL with Buus at the controls. Testing commenced the following week.

'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 he’d racked up in the

From there, Buus said, “We’re 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 Navy’s 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.

“There was no requirement for EMALS [testing] in the STD test phase of the program,” Buus said. “But obviously EMALS is going to be out there in the fleet, so logically there will be some EMALS testing with the airplane at some point.”

)&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 F-35C prototypes at Patuxent River represent two T different software configurations. The “flight science” aircraft, CF-1 and CF-2, operate with basic Block 0.5 software while CF-3 is a mission-systems aircraft, flying with the Block 1 software version. As of spring 2011, the standard software version for Initial Operational Capability (IOC) will be Block 3 for the USAF and USN while the Marines plan to declare IOC with Block 2B.

F-35C carrier-suitability testing will hinge on

The various software blocks are essentially the same across all variants, with little tailoring to

sticking to the test schedule, a feat not easily accomplished with such a complex, new aircraft. In early June, F-35C testing was suspended for six days to remedy a software problem. On June 17, flight test engineers at Pax River discovered a “logic fault” that affected the wing folding mechanism. Flight testing resumed with some minor restrictions and a software fix was in progress in late June.

each specific model. However, the F-35C’s 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.

On board carrier testing is slated for 2013, and in May the F-35C made good strides toward reaching that goal. According to Lockheed Martin, the three variants of the F35 flew a combined 94 System Development and Demonstration (SDD) flights, the most achieved in a single month thus far. As of May, the F-35C lagged behind its sister variants, having flown 62 times in 2011 versus 183 and 166 flights for the (more numerous) F-35A and B test aircraft.

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/ stories/%E2%80%9Cc%E2%80%9D-legs-2/

The same can be said for the F-35’s 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. “I’d go so far as to say nothing at all. It’s the same engine.” The F-35C test team stresses that they are very early in the aircraft’s development phase, a view echoed by a May report from the Government Accountability Office that stated just 4 percent of the F-35’s 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.

Hornet. With respect to the F-35C, Buus, whose flying background is predominantly in legacy and Super Hornets, thinks the comparison is a fair one. “We’re early on in flight test so we haven’t fully expanded the envelope, but it’s certainly comparable. The projected E-M diagrams are similar and what we’ve found thus far in testing hasn’t differed from that too much.” Aside from its maximum performance parameters, the user-friendliness of the F-35C is, as with all fleet aircraft, of major importance. Its qualities will soon enough be put in front of fleet pilots. “Because it is a different airframe, most of the flight envelope expansion with the C model has had to be done on its own. The aerodynamic and structural properties of the C are probably the most different compared to the other airplanes.”

:KLOHWKH)&PXVWFDUU\WKHDGGHGZHLJKW RIODUJHUIOLJKWVXUIDFHVDVZHOODV VWUHQJWKHQHGIXVHODJHWDLOKRRNDQGODQGLQJ JHDULWDOVRFDUULHVWKHPRVWIXHOPDNLQJLW WKHORQJHVWUDQJHG)YDULDQW/RFNKHHG 0DUWLQSKRWR

Through late spring and early summer 2011, F-35A development continued, with the first low-rate initial production (LRIP) airplanes (AF-6 and AF-7) in use as test aircraft at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB) and later at Eglin AFB for maintenance training. At that time these LRIP aircraft were expected to be limited to a 350 knot/4 g flight envelope for training.

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.

What the initial cadre of VFA-101 instructors and operational test pilots are likely to find is a Joint Strike Fighter that, early testing indicates, handles much like a Hornet or Super Hornet, according to Buus. “We haven’t flown the airplane a whole lot yet but it flies very well. In general the aircraft is similar to a Hornet/Super Hornet. The folks who’ve designed the flight control laws have really done a nice job. You can put the airplane where you want to and let go of the controls and it stays right there.”

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.”

The limits of that envelope are not yet concretely known, but in late spring published reports compared overall F-35 flight characteristics to the F/A-18, citing EnergyManagement (E-M) diagrams (which convey aircraft energy and maneuvering performance within its airspeed range and load factors) that resembled those of the http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/%E2%80%9Cc%E2%80%9D-legs-2/

/RFNKHHG0DUWLQGHOLYHUHGLWVWKLUG) /LJKWQLQJ,,FDUULHUYDULDQWDLUFUDIWNQRZQDV &)WRLWVSULPDU\WHVWVLWHDW1$63DWX[HQW 5LYHU0G-XQH/RFNKHHG0DUWLQWHVW SLORW'DQ'RJ&DQLQSLORWHGWKHDLUFUDIW GXULQJLWVKRXUIOLJKWIURP1$6)RUW:RUWK -RLQW5HVHUYH%DVH&)WKHWKDLUFUDIW

Throughout the initial phases of F-35B testing, BAE Systems Lead STOVL (short takeoff/vertical landing) Pilot Graham Tomlinson sang) the praises of the B and its ease of operation in STOVL flight modes as compared to the Harrier. Ease of operation around the carrier will be an important characteristic for the F-35C as well.

GHOLYHUHGLQMRLQVWKHFXUUHQWIOHHWRI) WHVWDLUFUDIWIRFXVLQJRQPLVVLRQV\VWHPV ZHDSRQVLQWHJUDWLRQVXUYLYDELOLW\DQGFDUULHU VXLWDELOLW\WHVWLQJ/RFNKHHG0DUWLQSKRWRE\ 'DYLG'UDLV

Favorable carrier approach/landing characteristics not only enhance pilot safety, the test team points out; the increased boarding rates they generate improve the tactical efficiency of the carrier strike group. Along with the physical development of the F-

35C’s launch and recovery equipment and techniques, its around-the-boat flying qualities will be further fleshed out. “We’re working on the development to do that,” Buus explained. “I don’t know how soon we’ll 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 we’ll need to tweak a bit but it’s 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 don’t 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-35C’s range. Lockheed Martin nominally lists the C’s max range at 1,200 nautical miles and its combat radius at 640 nautical miles. Boeing’s Super Hornet has a combat radius of 390 nautical miles. Working in the F-35C’s favor is a considerably larger internal fuel capacity, at 19,750 pounds versus the single-seat F/A-18E’s 14,400-pound capacity. Likewise, the aircraft will have internal weapons carriage, aiding its aerodynamic drag profile in addition to its stealth.

“Just from a pilot perspective,” Buus said, “for a comparable loadout, the F-35C is going to be clean, stealthy with no external weapons or pylons out there. It will be a slick airplane with more fuel.”

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 “I’ll go anywhere/I’ll 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 F35’s “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 we’ve gotten test airplanes here at Pax, I believe we’ve been beating our flight test expectations for this year. I’m feeling very positive about the airplane so far.”

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/%E2%80%9Cc%E2%80%9D-legs-2/

F-35C Carrier Tests Slated for November on USS Nimitz 25 Sep 2014 Dave Majumdar

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 November’s 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....”

“...Sealing the gap between the inboard & outboard leading-

edge flaps on the Navy version of the F-35 eliminated un-commanded lateral activity or delayed the activity to a higher angle-ofattack.”

Transonic Free-ToRoll Analysis of the F/A-18E and F-35 Configurations

http://www.ntrs.nasa. gov/archive/nasa/casi .ntrs.nasa.gov/200401 10952_2004115779.pdf

Tailored to Trap [Quotes]

…“It’s an integral part of the flight control system and responds to the pilot’s 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, “It’s easier and cleaner to do this Test Center, Maryland, explained, “What with a flight control system that’s 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 em“The 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 doesn’t 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.”….

provide a bridge to the F-35 mission system network…. …BAE Systems Electronic Systems in Rochester, U.K., also makes the F-35 active inceptor system including the active throttle quadrant assembly, active side-stick control assembly, and an interface control unit. The motorized inceptors transmit pilot inputs to the F-35 fly-by-wire flight control system and give the pilot tactile cues with resistance ramps, gates and stops to provide aircraft “feel” and warnings. Unlike traditional springs, stick shakers and other mechanical force-feedback mechanisms, the motorized sidestick varies feedback forces with aircraft condition. The throttle is likewise back-driven to give the pilot situational awareness about the energy state of the airplane and the corrections being made. If or when the pilot breaks out of Approach Mode, the throttle position is synchronized to the engine thrust request (ETR). “If the throttle is physically jammed, the approach mode will still work. One of the redundancy features of the airplane is that the physical throttle linkage is no longer required,” Canin said. Engine thrust request is the driver for IDLC surface deflection. The Moog electro-hydrostatic actuators that move the F-35 control surfaces promise survivability and maintainability advantages over more conventional hydraulic actuators. They also provide slightly greater 1

have one release of software for the three bandwidth than hydraulic actuators for IDLC. However, Canin observes, “We could variants. It configures itself when it wakes up and discovers which type of F-35 it’s in.” have done this with hydraulic actuators. The F-35B does not use IDLC at all in jetThe magic is in the control laws.”… …Unlike production F-35s, the JSF borne (vertical landing) mode, when aeroSDD aircraft have a Flight Test Aid dynamic control surfaces are fixed. (FTA) system that allows pilots to evalEven with its innovative flight controls, uate different control gains and mech- the F-35C, from the pilot’s perspective, anizations in flight. Using FTAs, for ex- is relatively conventional coming aboard ample, pilots were able to look at IDLC the carrier. “Determining where you gains of 150 percent, 200 percent are with respect to lineup and glideslope is all visual,” acknowledged Canin. and 300 percent of the original base“For lineup, you look at the ship and line line gain, eventually settling on 300 up on centerline … easy enough if the percent. “We can do this safely, because if we ship’s heading is steady, but tricky if the ever see anything we don’t like, we can ship is wallowing,” noted Canin. “As for glideslope, you have to watch the meatpress a paddle switch on the stick to ball and see small deviations. Then you put us immediately back to the baseline control law,” said Canin. Since F-35 have to put the ball back in the middle, production software and test software with the right rate of descent so it stays there. None of that’s changed with this are the same, LRIP aircraft will actually have the FTAs incorporated but no airplane, but what we’re giving the pilot FTA switch with which to activate them. is more responsiveness and bandwidth to do that.” All three variants of the F-35 provide The F-35 uses a BAE Helmet Mountsome measure of IDLC. “Glideslope is aled Display (HMD) instead of a conventionways important,” observed Canin. “Anyal Head-Up Display (HUD). Like a classic thing you can do to improve flight path control on approach is a good thing. Wave- HUD, the HMD shows the pilot a flight path marker (or velocity vector), with a brackoff performance is also improved with IDLC, since it can stop or reduce your rate et to indicate if the aircraft is “on speed” of descent while you’re waiting for the en- or flying fast or slow. Meanwhile, a caret moves up or down in reference to the flight gine to spool up.” path marker to give an acceleration-decelThe IDLC function is not identical in all eration cue. the three F-35 variants, however. “The Ashore, when the aircraft is on glidesIDLC gain is much higher in the C-model lope, the pilot simply puts the flight path than the other two,” said Canin. “We only

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. 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. “There’s no reason, though, why the flight control system couldn’t 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….”

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/ military/Tailored-to-Trap_77964.html

2

Code, Builds & Blocks AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014 Ian Harding “The F-35 Lightning II is a software-driven aircraft with 8.1 million source lines of code for airborne operation, four times the amount used for the F-22 Raptor – the world’s first fifth-generation fighter. Development of the F-35 is based on iterative builds of software known as ‘Blocks’. The software controls all of the aircraft’s functions: flight controls, radar, communications, navigation and identification, sensor fusion, electronic protection, electronic warfare, electronic attack and weapons. All Blocks are a continuation of the previous build. For example, Block 2B expands on the infrastructure and initial sensor work included in the previous Blocks and adds sensor modes, weapons and data link capabilities. Sub-sets are contained within each Block: there are eight in Block 2B. Specific requirements are integrated in each Block by Computer Software Configuration Items. Concurrent development is ongoing within mission systems and vehicle systems: the two major components of the aircraft’s airborne software.

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

provides the main aspects of each different build. Block 0.5 provided the infrastructure with some initial sensor capabilities. Blocks 1A and Block 1B added to that. Block 2A and Block 2B provided further capability. Block 3i will include some new capability and will operate on new hardware: the updated integrated core processor which runs faster and offers increased memory storage. Block 3F will give more sensor modes, datalink, and the capability to carry more types of weapon. Block 1 comprises 76% of the source lines of code required for full combat capability. Block 1A was a training configuration, while Block 1B provided initial multi-level security. The final Block 2A build was released in June 2013 to specifically enhance training. It includes mission debrief capabilities and increases functionality to the fusion engine, as well as enhancing sensor integration, initial datalinks, and basic electronic warfare and electronic attack capability. Block 2B has an additional 500,000 lines of code. It adds new electronic warfare and radar operating modes, an initial weapon capability (AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, GBU-12 laser-guided bomb and GBU-31/ GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions) and expanded data link capabilities. The development and integration subsets within Block 2B are 2BR1 (the initial flight test release), 2BR1.1, 2BR2, 2BR4, 2BR4.1, 2BR4.2 (completed in February 2014), and the final flight test releases

2BR4.3 (completed in March 2014) and 2BR5 (completed in May 2014). The last two are problem report cleanup fixes for the aircraft’s mission system and offer no new capability. Block 2BR5 will remain in flight test with Lockheed Martin until the end of the final quarter of 2014. The US Marine Corps plans to declare its F-35 initial operating capability in 2015 with Block 2B. Block 3i is an intermediate version that the US Air Force will use to work up to its full operational capability with Block 3F. Development of Block 3i is on-going. Its integration is scheduled to run until mid2015 – this will be after the flight test phase finishes because the last Block 3i integration phase will include updates for air vehicle systems that will cut into Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) lot 8. Block 3F is the final build for the F-35’s initial operational test and evaluation phase: once certified it will be used by all three US services, the UK, Norway and the Netherlands. It will have 8.1 million lines of code. Of that total approximately 98% is already developed; 89% of which is currently in flight test at Fort Worth. The build is designed to give the F-35 full combat capability including datalink transfer of imagery, more sensor modes and additional weapons: AIM-9X Sidewinder missile, GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb Increment I, GAU-22/A Cannon and the UK’s Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM).” AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014

FARNBOROUGH:

Lockheed remains confident in F-35 ahead of international debut

26 Jun 2014 Jon Hemmerdinger http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-lockheed-remains-confident-in-f-35-ahead-of-international-400065/ “Art Tomassetti, Lockheed’s F-35B Marine Corps project manager, notes that tests continue to uncover ways Block 2B can be improved. The improvements have included fixes to software problems and updates recommended by pilots, such as changing the colour of cockpit indicator lights, says Tomassetti, a former USMC F-35 instructor who flew the model’s experimental predecessor, the X-35. “The challenge is trying to get all this new stuff in before we hit the deadline,” he says. Lockheed expected to reach initial flight clearance for 2BR5, the version of the 2B software that will allow the F-35B to reach IOC status, within the first half of June. By the end of May it had completed seven “weapons delivery accuracy tests” with the software; 15 such tests are required to verify combat capability, the company says. It adds that more information about software development will be available in a Congressionally mandated review that the DoD says will be released by the end of June. Confidence has also come from USAF Lt Gen Christopher Bogdan, head of the military’s F-35 programme. On 26 March, Bogdan told the US House Armed Services Committee that he expects the F-35B to reach IOC by summer 2015, saying the software is “within 30 days” of being completed on time. “There is fundamentally very, very little risk in delivering the [software] capability to the US Marine Corps,” he said. But Bogdan said a more pressing threat is the programme’s ability to quickly upgrade the IOC aircraft, which will have already been delivered, to the 2B standard. He told Congress that modifications of older aircraft “is even more [of] a problem than the software in 2015”....” -

Pentagon Develops F-35’s 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 2020’s through the 2040’s 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.” -

Cost Savings through

the Use of Optical

Interconnects for JSF 2014 Navy MANTECH Project Book “...A2337 – Photonic Printed Wiring Board

Objective

The objective of this Navy ManTech Electro-Optics Center (EOC) project is to develop electronics using optical interconnections with focus on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Integrated Core Processor (ICP). This project will develop new manufacturing technologies that will enable both electrical and optical signal transmission in ICP modules, while also redesigning the ICP Fibre Channel Switch (FCS). Payoff

The JSF ICP demands extremely high performance processing that will utilize optical interconnects. Success of this effort will prevent processing systems from becoming I/O bound and therefore realizing higher performance for a constant Size, Weight, and Power (SWaP). This project will

validated against performance and environmental requirements, will be the project acceptance criteria for approval by the JSF Joint Program Office (JPO) representative. This ManTech project will develop the photonic printed circuit board technology and manufacturing processes specifically intended for use within the F-35 ICP FCS module, provide performance testing and a limited set of environmental tests intended to bring qualification risk to an acceptable level. The JSF JPO will fund the development of an Engineering Change Package designed to coordinate configuration changes and Implementation qualification activities which are necThe transition event for this project essary to accomplish incorporation will occur with the build of the JSF of the new design and its integration ICP FCS module prototype and proof into a future JSF ICP build. The JPO that manufacturing processes can will also fund the build of production produce interconnect systems that JSF ICPs which are configured with meet performance requirements. The the Photonic Printed Wiring Board FCS switch sits at the center of the technology. Implementation is targetF-35 Mission Systems Network and ed for the JSF Mission Systems Aviprovides 32 Fibre Channel interfaces onics Suite with the planned producfor module-to-module and system-to- tion insertion point in FY16.” system communication. A demonstrahttp://www.onr.navy.mil/Science-Technology/ tion of the FCS module using PhotonDirectorates/Transition/Manufacturing-ManTech/~/ media/Files/03T/2014-Navy-ManTech-Project-Book.ashx ic PWB manufacturing technologies, be the first implementation of an optical wave guide on a printed circuit board, which will enable lower cost, high bandwidth transmission for many platforms. The programs that will benefit are those that demand high performance at a minimal SWaP, including F-35, F-18, E-2D, UCLASS, BAMS, and MMA. The initial benefit is for the JSF F-35 ICP module, specifically the Fibre Channel Switch. The cost savings is estimated at $58K per aircraft for a projected return-on-investment of 51 and payoff within one year of insertion.

http://i619.photobucket.com/ albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/ f-35_VRC-droptest.jpg OR

Click above - DROP TEST VIDEO clip

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

“…The tests were successfully carried out between March and April [2010], and 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.…”

http://www.key.aero/view_feature .asp?ID=71&thisSection=military

F-35C carrier variant successfully 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 & will help confirm the F-35C's structural integrity for carrier operations. The jet, a groundtest 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, & 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, [1,600 fpm] as well as various angles & weight distributions. The tests were used to mimic the wide range of landing conditions expected in the fleet.

An Aircraft Carrier at Jefferson Street?

The F-35 Lightning II is produced in three variants: conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) designed for the U.S. Air Force, short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) designed for the U.S. Marines, and carrier variant (CV) designed for the           introduce profound capability improvements over existing       variants share the same avionics suite – the most powerful and      !"       are built on the same assembly line, share the same engine and are up to 80 percent common in their structures and systems.

is measuring every quiver, shudder, and pulse that is emitted from the test jet. Technically speaking, however, F-35 Drop Test Director Tom Foster says they are measuring strain, acceleration,

      !     "      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

not possible in the old days when high  " "   recording equipment was used in this application. Eventually, there will be about 53 landing gear drop tests at various sink aircraft roll, pitch and landing sync rates performed on this one jet. A stack of bombs in the corner of the room awaits their turn alongside a row of missiles to be loaded onto the jet to test for maximum landing weight conditions. Of course, they are dummy ordnance but they are fabricated to weigh in as a real load. Today, Vought is one of only two test labs remaining in the United States that has full-scale carrier suitability drop test capabilities. The other is at Boeing, St. Louis. According to John Vaught, Test Lab Manager, the F-35 Drop Test Program in total represents a very high level of complexity generally not seen on

Vought Test Lab Simulates Jet Landing on an Aircraft Carrier The anticipation was palpable as Vought engineers and our customer watched Lockheed Martin’s F-35C Lightning II Carrier Variant dangle from its harnessed position just below the rafters in building 94 at the Jefferson Street site. When the wheels reached their 138 knot speed, the countdown began. 10, 9, 8, 7… The lanyard releasing the quick release safety latch           brief seconds. This “drop test” is done to simulate a landing on an         of a carrier, forty-six thousand pounds of airplane is traveling at 138 knots and hitting the deck with a thud, stressing the airframe and especially the jet’s landing

gear with thousands of pounds of pressure. Every part of the gear must withstand that tremendous stress time after time with no structural failure. So how can we assure that the gear is suitable for carrier landings, and there won’t be any catastrophic failures? How do we prove that the design engineering was correct? That’s where Vought’s Test Lab comes in. The lab is capable of lifting a fully-loaded, full           dropping it. Lockheed Martin has contracted with us to drop test the F-35C Lightning II Carrier Variant,                Hundreds of wires snake along the sleek lines of the light green jet, connected to an array of instruments that are streaming signals back to a computer for correlation to computer models that engineers spent many months designing. This data acquisition system

http://www.asdnews

-

News

Continued from page 1

Vought Test Labs Since 1948, Vought’s test laboratories have been offering state-of-the-art capabilities in   # $$  $ facility. With U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy and Federal Aviation

$ %

&  and Department of Defense security clearances, Vought’s 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

previous drop test programs. “The ability and know-how to do these drop tests are very unique,” he said. With the level and type of test capabilities the labs possess, Vought has a long, and very reputable history of accomplishing carrier suitability testing for the Navy, said John. “We can go all the way back to the XC-142, F-8, A-7, S3A, and now the F-35. All of these legacy aircraft programs required fullscale drop testing to qualify for aircraft carrier operations. Full-scale dynamic tests of this nature present a very complex test set of problems to run,” he said. The F-35 tests at Vought should be completed within the next few months; then it will go back to Lockheed Martin for a series of additional tests. They estimate that the Carrier Variant F-35C        quarter of 2010.

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.…”

LM F-35 Navy Jet Confirms Carrier-Landing Strength Predictions http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-f-35-navy-jet-confirms-carrier-landing-strength-predictions-96983089.html -

“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

drop conditions included sink rates, or rates of descent, up to the maximum design value of 26.4 feet per second’ is incorrect. The maximum design sink rate is 21.4 fps. Airplane structural certification almost always involves a lab test, followed by flight test. The lab test conditions usually apply 150% of the largest loads expected in service usage. Flight test requires demonstration at 100% of the largest loads expected in service usage. In the case of carrier airplanes, flight test is conducted on land first, followed by carrier landings, up to 100% limit conditions. The 26.4fps sink rate test was a lab drop test, designed to provide assurance the airplane could withstand 150% of design load for high sink rate conditions. The sink rate limit of 21.4fps will result in 100% of design load on service airplanes. Why was 26.4 fps chosen for the lab test? Because gear loads at high sink rate landings are roughly proportional to sink rate squared. (26.4 /21.4) ^2 = 1.52 very close to the ratio of 150% to 100% gear load.” http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&p=273304#p273304

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 fluid-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 Corporation’s 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 world’s 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 specifications to meet the aircraft’s requirements for applied loads, stroke, landing gear Goodrich, the design team identified 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 find 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 fluid 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 specific volume that we stroke in. Rather than directly connecting the chamber up to the aircraft’s hydraulic system, we attach a transfer cylinder to the aircraft’s high-pressure hydraulic system which is a relatively low flow rate system,” said Bill Luce. “We use the high pressure to stroke a piston with a mechanical disadvantage, to stroke a larger volume of fluid, at a lower pressure, into the shock strut chamber using the higher pressure fluid 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 fitted with a system to detect levels of fluid 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 Navy’s 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 aircraft’s maintenance system to help the maintainer assess the level of the gas and oil in each shock strut during servicing. aircraft carrier. LOCKHEED MARTIN

G

Mark Ayton explains the highly complex landing gear systems used on the F-35 Cats and Traps Landing gears for the F-35C CV variant have to be able to withstand extreme high energy landings typical of naval aircraft operating from an aircraft carrier as well as the nose tow launch. Both the F-35C nose and main gears are made primarily of Aermet 100 steel. The nose gear of the CV variant is a dual stage gas over oil cantilever strut with a staged air curve that provides a source of high energy, which helps the aircraft to achieve adequate angle of attack when released from the catapult during take-off from the aircraft carrier. The CV nose gear carries a complex mechanism which positions the launch bar in readiness for various stages of operation during the launch of the aircraft off the carrier. The mechanism is driven by a power unit comprising a number of powerful springs and a small internal actuator. There are two reasons for having a staged shock strut for the nose gear on the F-35C CV variant. One is to provide a stable platform for loading and unloading weapons and for engaging the catapult equipment. The second is to store energy gained from the compression of the strut under the high pressure effect of the catapult. When the catapult lets go of the launch bar, the energy is released, providing a rotation that helps achieve the angle of attack necessary to get off the deck. Similarly when the aircraft hits the deck on landing the strut is compressed and energy is stored to help rotate the aeroplane and get it back off the deck if the arrestor cables are missed and a ‘go-around’ or ‘bolter’ is required. Bolter is the term used when the aircraft’s tail hook misses the arrestor cables on the carrier deck forcing the pilot to go around for another landing. The CV nose gear also has a locking drag brace and a launch bar that acts to transmit the high launch load from the catapult equipment to the airframe. A separate retract actuator provides the force to retract the gear into the wheel well. One end of the retract actuator is attached to the landing gear structure and the upper end to the airframe structure. Fitted to the aft of the strut is a power unit housing an actuator that hydraulically lowers the launch bar to the deck to engage the catapult. When the launch bar hits the deck a second set of springs inside the power unit provide lighter power so that the launch bar can move up and down to engage the shuttle, without jamming or binding, or badly wearing the deck or the launch bar. Large powerful springs are able to pull the launch bar back up to an intermediate position when the hydraulic power is released. The power unit also has a linkage that operates off the motion of the drag brace during retraction to position the launch bar in a stowed position (virtually parallel to the strut) when the gear is retracted. During the retraction process the launch bar moves upwards but also rotates around the strut to reduce the actual footprint within the stowage bay. The torque arms that typically maintain alignment between the strut piston and the steering unit are on the aft of the strut as well, and have a fitting at the apex that engages the repeatable release holdback bar (RRHB) of the ship. This bar holds the aircraft back during engine runs and while the load builds during the start of a catapult sequence. Once the load reaches an adequate level, the RRHB releases the torque arm

An F-35A CTOL nose gear in a test jig. GOODRICH BELOW: Main gears of the F-35B STOVL variant are dual stage gas over oil cantilever struts manufactured primarily from Aermet 100 steel. LOCKHEED MARTIN

fitting, allowing the aircraft to be catapulted to flight. 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 specifically 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-35C’s 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-35C’s main gear has a shrink mechanism to shorten the strut prior to retraction so it will fit within the available space. The Goodrich-proprietary shrink mechanism utilizes a novel transfer cylinder to convert high pressure and low flow aircraft hydraulics into a low pressure and high flow 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 significantly more robust than the CTOL and STOVL variants, because of the high energy landings on top of arrestor cables.

Navy Prepares F-35C for Carrier Landing By Kris Osborn 13 June 2014

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 what’s 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-35C’s 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 what’s 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.

“We’ve done about 90 carrier-style landings,” said F-35 Test Pilot Lt. Cmdr. Tony Wilson, or “Brick.”

Wilson referred to the JSF’s 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-35C’s 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 Force’s 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 what’s 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 boat’s motion itself is moving away from you — so you can’t 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 Martin’s F-35C — the carrier version of the joint strike fighter — doesn’t 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 don’t 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 Navy’s 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 plane’s flutter execution system to measure loads on the airframe. “One of the biggest things that jumps out to me is that it’s very easy to fly,” he said. The thrust is good, and there’s 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.”

F-35 Offers Dream Capabilities for Pilots Who Have Flown It 11 Feb 2014

Robert K. Ackerman http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=node/12336

“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 jet’s 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 don’t want parity.” Cmdr. Burks offered that the aircraft’s 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-35’s 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

pilots and maintainers will transfer over to that squadron as the seed corn – the initial expertise – to help complete its July 2014 Mark Ayton AIR International F-35 Special Edition transition. Consequently, we will lose a lot of experienced folks and have a dip in “...Between the summer of 2014 and July manpower when that happens,” he said. 2016, VFA-101 is also tasked with trainThe first squadron to transition from ing Navy pilots who will undertake opthe F/A-18 is planned for the west coast, erational tests of the F-35C with Air Test but a specific Naval Air Station has yet and Evaluation Squadron 9 (VX-9) ‘Vam- to be determined.... pires’, as part of the Joint Operation...In a change of command ceremoal Test Team with its own in-house perny held at Eglin on September 13, 2013, sonnel at Edwards Air Force Base in CDR Rick Crecelius, a former F-14 TomCalifornia.... cat, Hornet and Super Hornet pilot, took ...CDR Enfield [VFA-101’s command- command of VFA-101.... er between August 2012 and August ...To declare IOC, the Navy must 2013] outlined the method to be adopttransition one strike fighter squadron ed: “Our first goal is to build up our pool from F/A-18 to F-35C, and do so in time of instructors and get them trained in for the unit to undertake the standard time for a F/A-18 unit to stand-up as the air wing work-up ahead of deployment. first F-35C fleet squadron. To accomplish Crecelius outlined the requirements: that, we [VFA-101] trained the mainte“Deployable combat capability is impornance department in how to maintain tant for the Navy and, in order to dethe F-35C and their pilots how to fly it. clare it, the squadron has to be able to “It’s a very similar model to the one function within the air wing. The carrier used for Hornet to Super Hornet transtrike group is a combat tool available to sition. The entire unit will come to Eglin, the theatre commander, that has to be learn the new systems and procedures, able to synergise with all of its assets as and start to operate aircraft in a staged a single functioning unit. It’s not enough way, all under the supervision of VFA-101. just to have the squadron trained in the When the squadron is ready to go on aeroplane; the squadron has to underits own, it will stand up as an F-35C unit stand its role and be able to function and move to its home station to begin within the air wing, and the air wing’s unit level training. A lot of the junior

capability has to integrate seamlessly, and complement the strike group so that it’s deployable.” Based on the latest published plan, the first squadron is due to arrive at Eglin in July 2016 and “go to the boat” for carrier qualification in the early part of 2017. This reflects a six- to eightmonth syllabus, but the timeline depends on various factors that include how the transition process works, the weather, and aircraft availability.... ...Between the summer of 2014 and July 2016, VFA-101 is also tasked with training Navy pilots who will undertake operational tests of the F-35C with Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 9 (VX-9) ‘Vampires’, as part of the Joint Operational Test Team with its own in-house personnel at Edwards Air Force Base in California.... ...“Then, of course, we undertake landing pattern work both at Eglin and Naval Air Facility Choctaw, which is located to the west on the coast. Choctaw is equipped with a Fresnel lens and arrestor gear for FCLPs. We send a Landing Signals Officer [LSO] there for all landing pattern work,” enthused the skipper. “We are currently limited in our rate of descent for landing, which prevents us from doing true carrier bouncing [a naval term for carrier style touch 1

and goes], but we do fly a standard Navy pattern at 600 feet AGL [182m] with a standard approach turn, as used at the ship. [b]We can’t fly that type of pattern at Eglin[/b].” Prior to receiving NATOPS qualification, the pilot has to be chased by another jet: either an F-35C or an F/A-18. The fam syllabus culminates with a NATOPS emergency procedures check in the simulator. Once the check ride is complete, the pilot is NATOPS qualified. His next objective is to complete 15 more hours currency training before starting the IUT (Instructor Under Training) syllabus. This is a qualification that allows an instructor to teach the basic fam and formation phases of the standard syllabus.

fly, they may not get a chance to qualify, but they will be on the LSO platform and work with the air boss and the carrier’s commanding officer to make sure they gain experience of the challenges of carrier integration,” said Crecelius. “If we are able to accomplish that on DT I, two or possibly three LSOs from VFA-101 will actually carrier qualify [make arrested landings on the carrier flight deck for the first time] at the end of DT II, which is the second carrier evolution currently planned for the summer of 2015. If DT II does not work out for us, then we will look to schedule a specific carrier to qualify our LSO cadre, and possibly one or two other instructors. And if there is a DT III, which would occur sometime in the summer of 2016, that’s when 101 would go to the ship,” he said....

also attain pilot-friendly landing pattern handling characteristics that resemble those of an F-18C – that’s 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 I’ve got one motor. If you have a problem you don’t have anything to fall back on. So it’s 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 Raptor’s 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) wouldn’t 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 don’t do in F/A-18s. It’s 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

2

Navy Test Pilot Knows His ABCs Lexington Park, MD April/5/2012 http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NAVAIRNewsStory&id=4964 -

“...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. “We’ll 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 can’t 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.”... -

VIDEO [with captions]: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.VideoPlay&key=AA523D01-1E69-4A0D-95B1-92E9C213A6B0

OR http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ake76DI5iNw

Navy’s F-35C Takes Historic Step Navy’s 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-35C’s 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 Navy’s 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 service’s 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 Nimitz’s Mewbourne, commander of Carrier Strike Group 11. flight deck. Last week’s 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 Navy’s 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 it’s 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

testing to make sure we were ready to come out here. However, the big difference is you can’t simulate rolling off the edge of an aircraft carrier when you are shore based.”

Success Amidst Budget Problems Successful test flights on the F-35C program could be seen as a welcome development for a program that experienced budget cutbacks earlier this year. The Navy’s five-year budget plans outlined in the service’s 2015 budget request cut the planned buy of F-35C aircraft almost in half, from 69 to 36. Although service officials at the time said the numbers would be made up in future years, some observers questioned if the reduction indicated hesitations about the program overall. A second round of developmental testing is slated for next summer to study the aircraft’s ability to operate on a carrier while carrying weapons internally, Wilson said. A third period of testing with external weapons on board is also slated, all designed to bring the aircraft to operational status by 2018, Navy officials said. “In this main round of testing, we’re looking at the basic aircraft. We’re 1

looking at the approach and handling qualities. We’re looking at high headwinds, low headwinds, crosswinds and a bunch of different wind variations as well,” said Chris Karapostoles, an F-35C test pilot. Being engineered for a carrier, the F-35C’s 51-foot wingspan is larger than the Air Force’s F-35A and Marine Corps’ F-35B. An empty F-35C weighs 34,800 pounds, carries up to 19,000 pounds of fuel and 18,000 pounds of weapons. It is configured to fire two AIM-120C air-to-air missiles and two 2,000-pound guided bombs, or Joint Direct Attack Munitions. It can reach speeds up to Mach 1.6 and travel more than 1,200 nautical miles.

is on the right “center line” or “glide slope,” Karapostoles said. “If he [the pilot] is on glide slope, he will see a centered amber ball in between the horizontal green lights. If he goes high on glide slope, he will see the ball rise above the green lights. If he goes below glide slope, he will see the ball fall below the green lights,” he explained. The F-35C is also engineered with a technology referred to as Delta Flight Path, a system that uses software to help the flight control computer automatically correct course and adjust the aircraft’s flight path as needed. “Instead of manually controlling thrust and pitch attitude, our flight control engineers have cut out the Landing a Stealth Fighter at Sea middle work so the flight path is conAs part of the testing, pilots practrolled directly. It gives us spare catice maintaining their glide slope by pacity to monitor the other systems watching a yellow light on the flight on the jet. We are landing the jet aldeck called the Fresnel Lens. It inmost exactly where we want almost cludes a vertical row of yellow lights every time,” said Cmdr. Christian between two horizontal rows of green Sewell, a F-35C test pilot. lights. Using a series of lights and Pilots try to land the F-35C in bemirrors, a pilot’s approach is reflected tween the second and third of four by the position of the yellow light in cables arranged on the landing deck, relation to the green lights above and Sewell explained. below, displaying whether the aircraft In order to properly align for an

approach to the flight deck about three-quarters of a mile away, pilots make a sharp, descending 180-degree turn to slow the aircraft and begin descending from about 600 feet, Wilson said. “Once we arrive on center line and on glide slope, that is where the precision comes in because your runway is essentially moving sideways on you,” he explained. The testing is also assessing how the F-35C catapults off the deck. The steam catapult on board the Nimitz is thrusting the aircraft off the deck at a range of speeds in order to test the slowest and fastest potential takeoff speeds, said Lt. Eric Ryziu, catapult arresting gear officer. Aircraft are able to reach speeds up to 160 knots in about 2.5 seconds as a result of being thrust forward by the steam catapult, which stretches about 300 feet. The steam catapult generates 520 PSI (pounds per square inch) of pressure pushing pistons forward. The pistons push cylinders connected to a shuttle attached to a launch bar, which pulls the aircraft forward, Ryziu explained. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/11/14/navy-f35ctakes-historic-step-forward-after-budgetary-turmoil.html

2

The US CVN 21 Aircraft Carriers Programme: Capability Requirements, Concepts and Design by Rear Admiral David Architzel David Architzel is the US Program Executive Officer (PEO), Aircraft Carriers. He describes the concept and design of the future US aircraft carriers and how they will provide a major increase in capability at lower cost than the current class.

T

he US Navy is currently engaged in one of the largest ship designs in history. The Navy’s 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 1000–1200 fewer sailors than

‘With all the additional capability and flexibility, the new ship will be operated by a smaller crew’

NIMITZ class ships with their embarked air wing. With detailed design work well under way, Northrop Grumman Newport News Shipyard is already building the first advanced construction hull units for the CVN 78. The lead ship of the class will be delivered in 2015 and will operate for 50 years.

Figure 1: Artist’s Conception of CVN 78

Identifying the Requirement The quest for required capabilities of the future aircraft carrier began as long ago as 1996, when an Analysis of Alternatives was conducted to balance the mission need against the state of the art in ship systems and equipment. In October 1998, it was determined that a large deck (75+ aircraft), nuclear-powered aircraft carrier would best meet the projected mission needs of the US Navy, winning out over other small- and medium-sized ship designs for reasons of speed, endurance, economy of scale, survivability and striking power. An evolutionary acquisition strategy was envisioned: a new integrated warfare system would first be incorporated into a transitional NIMITZ class ship (CVN 77), then a new propulsion and electric

plant would be designed for the first new ship, called CVNX1, which would capitalise on significant manpower reductions, and have the electrical capacity to introduce the first electromagnetic aircraft launching system. The CVNX2 would then afford the Navy the opportunity to introduce other technologies, which would provide dramatically increased survivability, sustainability, and aircraft sortie generation rates. In December 2002, this three-ship evolutionary strategy was replaced by a single leap to the CVN 21 Program. The lead ship of the CVN 21 Program will deliver all the thresholdlevel mission capabilities originally planned for CVNX1 and CVNX2, but in the time frame originally planned for CVNX1.

Key Performance Parameters The Key Performance Parameters for KPP CVN 21 Threshold Objective the CVN 21 Program are shown in Table Sustained SGR 160 220 1. Surge SGR 270 310 A higher aircraft sortie generation Service Life Allowance 5%Wt / 1.5 ft KG 7.5%Wt /2.5 ft KG rate requires the ability to re-arm, refuel Interoperability Attain Critical IERs Attain all IERs and service aircraft with a speed and Electrical Capacity 2.5X NIMITZ 3.0 X NIMITZ agility beyond that of any aircraft Manpower (ships force) 500 reduction 900 reduction carrier, while at the same time, the new class must reduce the manpower http://www.google.com/url? required to deliver this capability. The sa=t&source=web&cd=90&ved=0CDAQFjAJOFA&url=http%3A%2F Table 1: CVN 78 Key Performance Parameters %2Fwww.rusi.org%2Fdownloads%2Fassets% new ship will have nearly three times the 2Farchitzel.pdf&ei=8O8TTfuLIceHcdSogOYK&usg=AFQjCNHdhOA ZnwOgiKjHLgB18PT2bsaD9g electrical generating capacity of the • The enhanced flight deck, which will • The new propulsion and electric plant NIMITZ class, which will allow the feature deck expansions in two areas – with a new high-voltage zonal introduction of high power systems, the finger extension will reduce launch electrical distribution system such as EMALS (Electromagnetic restrictions from catapult number four, incorporating an enhanced design and Aircraft Launching System), and of and a shelf extension on the starboard arrangement that will contribute other new technologies over the life of side aft of the island will increase significantly to the ship’s warfighting the ship. The Service Life Allowance for aircraft parking space or allow for a capability. The system will triple the Weight and Stability will allow flexibility helicopter launch and recovery ship’s electrical output, allowing for for future growth and improvements in location. With a smaller island improved aircraft launch systems, ship ship systems and aircraft. The USS structure and three aircraft elevators, self-defence and combat systems. This Midway (CV-41) started off flying there will be more room on the flight new design propulsion plant will cost propeller-driven F-6F Hellcats, and was deck for aircraft handling, contributing less to build and operate, cut Reactor flying F-18 Hornets when it was retired. to increased sortie generation rates. Department manning by 50% and From Hellcats to Hornets on one ship is reduce maintenance requirements by a testament to the adaptability of the • Advanced Weapons Elevators and over 30%. carrier. The CVN 21 Program is dedicated ordnance handling areas, designed for adaptability. The which will streamline the process of requirement for interoperability means moving ordnance, thus reducing that the ship will seamlessly operate in a manpower, increasing ship survivability net-centric environment. and contributing to increased sortie With all the additional capability and generation rates. flexibility, the new ship will be operated by a smaller crew. Shipboard billets are • Pit stop servicing, which will allow being engineered out of the design by aircraft to be fully serviced with simplifying the flow of materials, and electrical, fuelling and armament needs work, as well as by reducing at one location. watchstanding and crew maintenance requirements. An added benefit from the Perhaps the most striking upgrade ship’s reduced manning will be a feature in the CVN 78 will be the significant improvement in quality of life unprecedented adaptability and • The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch for our sailors. Large elevators will flexibility of the command centres and System (EMALS), which will replace simplify material movement, all but mission control spaces. These spaces are steam catapults. EMALS will use eliminating the need for labour-intensive being designed to be easily electrical linear motors to generate a working parties. The CVN 78 berthing reconfigurable and adaptable to moving magnetic field to propel compartments will each have a smaller changing mission requirements. aircraft to launch speed. EMALS number of accommodations, more Modularity in design will allow for easy benefits include reduced manpower personal storage space, adjoining movement of lighting and ventilation, and operational costs, and reduced sanitary facilities and lounge areas that furniture and even joiner bulkheads. The stress on the aircraft. can be closed off from the sleeping flexible, adaptable spaces are a vital part quarters. This will not only afford sailors of the programme’s technology • The Advanced Arresting Gear, which more privacy, but it will also enable far will replace the arresting gear currently insertion strategy. The shipbuilder will greater flexibility in terms of the ship’s be able to easily install the latest displays installed on NIMITZ class carriers. ability to accommodate mixed gender and command and control systems at Benefits include reduced manpower crews. and maintenance requirements, and an the end of the ship construction period, Some of the major design features in which means more capability for the enhanced recovery envelope. the lead ship (CVN 78) include:

‘Even with its increased capability, the CVN 21 is projected to reduce acquisition life-cycle costs by over $5Bn per ship’

“Handling with landing gear down was Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet a&key of the first flight as the EA-18Gfocus Growler F-35C has a 30% larger wing & uprated flight controls to reduce takeoff and landing speeds compared with the other F-35 variants. 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 57-min. first flight focused on gear-down handling and 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.” Jeff Knowles, 06 June 2010 http://url.com/fnsk

warfighter when the ship is delivered. The new flexible spaces will also make ‘tech refresh’ much simpler for the Fleet throughout the life of the ship. The CVN 78 is being designed to accommodate a host of new aircraft currently under development. From the new, more advanced Joint Strike Fighter to advanced unmanned vehicles, EA-18G, F/A-18E/F, and MH-60S/R, the air wing of the future will ensure that US Naval Aviation capability will remain the preeminent warfighting force into the foreseeable future. Design features such as electromagnetic catapults and advanced arresting gear will have broader operating envelopes to accommodate the aircraft of the future. Figure 2 shows the CVN 78 notional flight deck layout and the air wing projected to be in place during her operating life.

Increased Capability at Less Cost The big payoff for the CVN 21 Program is increased capability, while reducing the manpower and maintenance requirements, which reduces the total

ownership costs for the Navy. Even with its increased capability, the CVN 21 is projected to reduce acquisition costs by over $300M and life-cycle costs by over $5Bn per ship compared to the legacy

‘Perhaps the most striking upgrade feature will be the unprecedented adaptability and flexibility of the command centres and mission control spaces ’

NIMITZ class aircraft carriers. With a $5.6Bn investment in state-of-the-art technology and design and construction tools, the CVN 21 represents a technological leap in capability while

simultaneously reducing acquisition costs. The lead ship acquisition cost is projected at $8.1Bn, which is nearly $300M less than the acquisition cost to procure an 11th NIMITZ Class ship in FY08. The 1000–1200 billet reduction, system simplifications and design improvements will contribute an additional $5Bn in reductions for lifecycle costs, over the life of each ship. Now, and into the future, the aircraft carrier with its embarked air wing will continue to be a dominant force in the battle space. Centrepiece of the Sea Strike Pillar, and integral to Sea Shield and Sea Basing, the aircraft carrier is the premier forward asset for crisis response and early decisive striking power in a major combat operation. CVN 21 Class ships and the Carrier Strike Group will provide forward presence, rapid response, endurance on station and multi-mission capability. The future aircraft carrier will balance improved warfighting capability, quality of life improvements for our sailors and US Navy requirements for reduced acquisition and life cycle costs.

Figure 2: CVN 78 Flight Deck and Projected Air Wing of 2020

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 couldn’t 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/

High Threat (Stealth) ~ 5,200 lbs internal High Threat (Stealth) ~ 5,200 lbs internal Post-SEAD/DEAD ~ 18,000 lbs total Shipboard Bringback ~10,000 lbs

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:

How it Works: F-35C Carrier Operations

1. Let’s 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-

Feature Article // October 28, 2014

The F-35C at Sea

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 Navy’s 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 pilot’s 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-35C’s wingtips also fold to allow When a pilot’s mission is complete, or when we are running low on fuel during a routine for more room on the carrier’s 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

correcting for line-up as they’re coming down the chute.

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 shouldn’t 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 pilot’s 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 it’s 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 Officer’s (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. Let’s say I’m now at the bottom of the stack and it’s 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 they’re 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 it’s 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 they’ll 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 pilot’s 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 you’re 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 they’ll be fine. This maneuver is called a “bolter.” Once a pilot has successfully caught the wire and gone to full power, they’re going from about 145knts to 0knts in two seconds. It’s pretty eye-opening. Once they’re 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 Monday’s 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 ship’s steam-powered catapult system, but the launches were scrapped because of telemetry issues. “It’s nothing that we can’t recover from for tomorrow,” Buss said. The arrested landings were especially remarkable because the F-35C’s 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 didn’t 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.

Clean Sweep: F-35 Fighter conduct night ops on the first det,” meaning developmental test. Confounds Critics With To say that carrier-based air opPerfect Performance In erations are challenging is an unFirst Tests At Sea derstatement. Jets designed to

21 Nov 2014 Loren Thompson fly faster than the speed of sound

There’s a tradition in the U.S. Navy that when missions are a complete success, a broom gets raised up the mast to signal a “clean sweep.” That’s what happened on November 14 when the F-35C Lightning II completed its first series of developmental tests on the U.S.S. Nimitz aircraft carrier. Sailors sent a broom up the mast below the flag to signal the tests had gone very well. How well? For starters, the two weeks of scheduled tests were completed three days early with 100% of threshold test points accomplished. For the first time ever, a new carrier-based aircraft conducted night operations during its initial round of testing at sea — operations that are usually performed in later rounds. As one Navy test pilot observed in an official news release, “It’s unheard of to

must take off and land on a short runway while the ship is pitching in the sea and wind is blowing across the decks. The catapults that provide the initial push to get airborne accelerate the planes from zero to 170 miles per hour in two seconds. The arresting wires that trap the planes when they land bring them to a dead stop in two seconds. And since there’s always a chance the plane could miss the arresting wires while attempting to land, the thrust can’t be cut too much because a pilot might have to get his or her jet back into the air real quick. So the risks are high and the physical forces at work are extreme. In this harrowing environment, two F-35C fighters managed to accomplish 124 catapults and arrestments, 222 touch-andgo landings, and a host of other

operations without a hitch. On their first try. It was a world-class performance for the carrier version of what used to be called the Joint Strike Fighter, and a vindication for prime contractor Lockheed Martin. As the Navy news release put it, “The aircraft demonstrated exceptional performance throughout its initial sea trials.” Two follow-on sets of tests are scheduled in 2015 and 2016, but the Navy can now be confident that the F-35C will be ready for its first scheduled fielding with the fleet in 2018. The success of the tests has important implications for the whole joint force. Pentagon leaders are warning that other countries have begun closing the technology gap with U.S. warfighters, and the fighters the Navy operates today won’t be able to survive in contested air space indefinitely. The F-35 program was conceived to replace the Cold War tactical aircraft of three U.S. military services and over a dozen allies with affordable multi-role fighters that not only can 1

survive, but will sweep the skies of enemy aircraft while destroying well-defended ground targets. The F-35 accomplishes this with an integrated stealth design that makes it nearly invisible to enemy radar and an advanced sensor package that provides comprehensive situational awareness to the pilot. Precision-guided munitions give it pinpoint accuracy in attacking surface targets, while its electronic-warfare suite can defeat a wide array of hostile emitters. When these features are combined with the speed and maneuverability afforded by Pratt & Whitney’s revolutionary F135 engine, the result is what military experts call a “fifth-generation” fighter. Developing such an aircraft in multiple variants for three different services may well be the most challenging military-technology project ever. The Air Force variant needed to be cheap enough for overseas allies to afford, the Marine version needed a mid-fuselage lift-fan and vectored thrust for vertical takeoffs

and landings, and the Navy version needed to be sufficiently rugged to withstand the stresses of carrier catapults and arresting wires. The F-35C — the carrier version — may be the most challenging variant to build. It has bigger wings, stronger landing gear, and greater fuel-carrying capacity than the other variants to meet the Navy’s unique operating requirements. Those features make it possible for the plane to fly farther with a larger payload, while being able to conduct its final carrier approach at a slow enough speed for safe landings. One key feature on the naval variant that performed well in the recent tests was a system called Delta Flight Path that enables the F-35C to automatically capture and maintain the optimum glidepath on final approach to the carrier — reducing the pilot workload, increasing safety, and making F-35C, in the words of the Navy’s testing team leader, “a carefree aircraft from the

pilot’s 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 Navy’s 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 let’s 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

‘Automated Carrier Landing of an Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle Using Dynamic Inversion’

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

X-47B HOOK HERE

“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.”

Navy Closer to Unmanned Aircraft Operation on Carriers By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jonnie Hobby, USS Harry S. Truman Public Affairs

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....”

7KH ;% DERDUG 866 *HRUJH +: %XVK &91   DIWHUVDIHO\ODQGLQJ'XULQJWKH-XO\WHVWWKH;% FDXJKW WKH  ZLUH ZLWK WKH DLUFUDIW¶V WDLOKRRN 7KH DUUHVWHG ODQGLQJ HIIHFWLYHO\ EURXJKW WKH DLUFUDIW IURP DSSUR[LPDWHO\NQRWVWRVWRSLQOHVVWKDQIHHW

1$9< 8&$6 ;% ,17(*5$7(' 7(677($0 1$9<810$11('&20%$7$,5 /&'5%ULDQ³'XPS\´+DOO 'HSDUWPHQW+HDG

6<67(0&$55,(5'(021675$7,21 352*5$029(59,(:

7KH 8&$6' WHVW WHDP SODQQHG DQG GHYHORSHG D FRPSUHKHQVLYH VDIH DQG HI¿FLHQW WHVW SURJUDP IRU WKH ;% DQG DOO RI LWV VXUURJDWH WHVW DFWLYLWLHV &XUUHQWO\ IRUPDOL]HG DQG VWDQGDUGL]HG JURXQG DQG ÀLJKW WHVW SURFHGXUHV GR QRW H[LVW IRU 8QPDQQHG $LUFUDIW 6\VWHPV 8$6  7DNLQJ OHVVRQV OHDUQHG GLUHFWO\ IURP RWKHU XQPDQQHG WHVW HIIRUWV DQG DGDSWLQJ SURFHGXUHV IURP PDQQHG DLUFUDIW WHVWLQJ WKH WHDP GHYHORSHG RYHU  SDJHV RI GHWDLOHG WHVW SODQV DQG SURFHGXUHV VSHFL¿FDOO\ WDLORUHG WR WKH;%WKDWHYDOXDWHDOOGHVLJQUHTXLUHPHQWVDQG HQVXUHGDOOWHVWLQJLVWKRURXJKVDIHDQGHI¿FLHQW$V DUHVXOWRIWKLVWKRURXJKSODQQLQJWKHWHDPFRQGXFWHG D VXFFHVVIXO JURXQG DQG ÀLJKW WHVW SURJUDP RI RYHU VHSDUDWHWHVWHYHQWVHIIHFWLYHO\PDQDJLQJDKLJK OHYHORIWHFKQLFDODQGRSHUDWLRQDOULVNRIDQLPPDWXUH GHYHORSPHQWDOXQPDQQHGDLUFUDIW

,Q VXSSRUW RI WKH ¿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³6SRRO´ LQIUDVWUXFWXUHWRVXSSRUWIXWXUHGHYHORSPHQWDQGWHVWLQJ 5H\QROGV RIIXWXUH&9FRPSDWLEOH8$6¶V&ULWLFDOWHFKQRORJLHV /62 EHLQJPDWXUHGLQFOXGHDXWRQRPRXVRSHUDWLRQVLQWKH &91 HQYLURQPHQW DLU YHKLFOH JXLGDQFH QDYLJDWLRQ DQG FRQWURO ÀXVK DLU GDWD V\VWHPV WDLOOHVV YHKLFOH DHURG\QDPLFVFRQWURO ORZ ODWHQF\ VDIHW\ RI ÀLJKW FRPPDQG DQG FRQWURO &  SUHFLVLRQ QDYLJDWLRQ LQ D&DUULHU&RQWURO$SSURDFK&&$ HQYLURQPHQWDQG &RQWURO'LVSOD\8QLW&'8 GHFNKDQGOLQJGHFNRSHUDWLRQ 7KH &'8 LV GHVLJQHG WR WD[L WKH ;% DURXQG WKH &RPSRQHQWVRIWKHV\VWHPLQFOXGHWKHDLUYHKLFOHWKH ÀLJKWGHFNRIDQDLUFUDIWFDUULHURXWRIWKHODQGLQJDUHD ;%WKHVXSSRUWVHJPHQWFRPSULVHGRIHTXLSPHQW /7$OODQ³.UHHS\´ IROORZLQJDVXFFHVVIXODUUHVWHGODQGLQJDQGLQWRWKH WR PDLQWDLQ DQG WD[L WKH YHKLFOH DVKRUH DQG RQ WKH -HVSHUVHQ FDWDSXOWIRUODXQFKRSHUDWLRQV6XFFHVVIXOFRPSOHWLRQ ÀLJKW GHFN WKH FRQWURO VHJPHQW FRPSULVHG RI WKH 0LVVLRQ2SHUDWRU'HFN RIWKH&'8WHVWLQJHQDEOHGH[HFXWLRQRIVKRUHEDVHG PLVVLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG PLVVLRQ FRQWURO HOHPHQWV WKH FDWDSXOWORDGWHVWLQJ7KLVWHVWLQJPDWUL[ZDVDQRWKHU 2SHUDWRU &9 VHJPHQW LQFOXGLQJ VKLSERDUG FRPSRQHQWV DQG ¿UVW IRU *URXS  XQPDQQHG DLUFUDIW DQG D FRPSOHWH LQWHUIDFHV WR FRQWURO WKH DLUFUDIW RQ DQG DURXQG WKH FKDQJHLQSDUDGLJPIRU1DYDO$YLDWLRQDQG&9ÀLJKW DLUFUDIW FDUULHU 7KH 1RUWKURS *UXPPDQ &RUSRUDWLRQ GHFN RSHUDWLRQV 7KLV VLJQL¿HG 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

WKH 866 +$55< 6 7580$1 &91   7KHVH WHVWV ZHUH H[HFXWHG GXULQJ FKDOOHQJLQJ FRQGLWLRQV XQGHUZD\ RII WKH PLG$WODQWLFFRDVWGXULQJ'HFHPEHU7KLVWHVWLQJ ZDVFULWLFDOWRDFKLHYH¿QDOTXDOL¿FDWLRQRIVKLSERDUG LQVWDOOHGV\VWHPVIRUWKHFRPPDQGDQGFRQWURORIDQ XQPDQQHG LQ WKH FDUULHU HQYLURQPHQW ([HFXWLRQ RI WKLVWHVWLQJUHTXLUHGWUDQVSRUWRIWKHDLUFUDIWE\EDUJH IURP 1$6 3DWX[HQW 5LYHU 0' WR 16 1RUIRON 9$ 7KHDLUFUDIWZDVWKHQFUDQHGRQWR&91$IWHUWKH WHVWLQJZDVFRPSOHWHWKLVHIIRUWZDVUHYHUVHGWRUHWXUQ WKHDLUFUDIW7KLVDWVHDSHULRGHQDEOHGWKHFRPSOHWLRQ RISODQQHGDQGUHTXLUHGWHVWSRLQWVWRVXSSRUWIXOO V\VWHPFDUULHUTXDOL¿FDWLRQ 7KHVH HIIRUWV FXOPLQDWHG LQ WKH 8&$6' WHDP PDNLQJ1DYDO$YLDWLRQKLVWRU\ZLWKWKH¿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¿FDWLRQ RI WKLV FRPSOH[ V\VWHP UHTXLUHG PXOWLSOH .LQJ$LU VXUURJDWH WHVW ÀLJKWV GXULQJ $SULO DQG0D\RI)LQDOO\GXULQJ-XO\RIQHDUO\ ,77SHUVRQQHOHPEDUNHGDERDUGVKLSWRVXSSRUW WKH KLVWRU\PDNLQJ FDUULHU RSHUDWLRQV RI WKH ;% 6XSSRUWZDVVLPXOWDQHRXVO\UHTXLUHGDW1$63DWX[HQW 5LYHU0'DQG1$6$:DOORSV9$WRHQDEOHPXOWLSOH VDIHDQGH[SHGLWLRXVWUDQVLWVRIWKHDLUFUDIWIURP1$6 3DWX[HQW5LYHUWR&91RYHUWKHFRXUVHRIGD\V ,Q VXPPDU\ WKH 8&$6' ,77 KDV DFKLHYHG VHYHUDO VLJQL¿FDQW ¿UVWV DQG PLOHVWRQHV JUHDWO\ DGYDQFLQJ 8$6FDSDELOLWLHVDQGHQDEOLQJLQWHJUDWLRQZLWKFDUULHU RSHUDWLRQV )XUWKHU WHVWLQJ ZLOO EH DFFRPSOLVKHG DERDUG WKH &91 LQ )< WR PRGHO EXUEOH À\LQJ TXDOLWLHV$VDOZD\VSOHDVHGRQ¶WKHVLWDWHWRGURSXV DOLQH

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test & Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2013 Issue

Navy: Carrier Drone’s 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 airContractor’s Claim (NAVY TIMES 15 0CT 12) Joshua Stewart

The Navy is disputing claims the unmanned X-47B can’t be waved off in less than five seconds before a carrier landing. Safety issues were raised at this year’s 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 plane’s 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. It’s part of the unmanned

craft can operate from a carrier alongside manned aircraft. The Northrop Grumman employee’s evaluation at Tailhook came from old requirements for the program that are no longer relevant, Engdahl told Navy Times in September. Early in the UCAS-D program, engineers set a “wave-off window” that was two seconds further out from its manned counterparts. A wave-off window is the last point in an aircraft’s, approach where it could safely abort a landing, using regular procedures. It was expected, however, that the distance would change as the program’s capabilities became clearer, said Engdahl, who serves under Naval Air Systems Command. “We set it pretty far out and said, ‘Let’s learn a little bit more about the vehicle,’” Engdahl said. The exact wave-off window for the X-47B won’t be known until carrier testing. An official from Northrop Grumman said that it’s expected to complete its first trap on the aircraft

puter models have used a variety of sea conditions and 96 percent of the landings caught either the two or the three wire — the ideal landing zone, depending on the carrier. The X-47B is programmed to fly a precise, GPS-guided flight plan, an advancement that shortens the response time and makes it more predictable, Engdahl said. Adding to the complexity, however, is the plane’s tailless design. It’s uncertain how it will perform while flying through the “burble,” or the wake in the air created by the carrier’s superstructure, Engdahl said. He also said it takes around a tenth of a second for an LSO, who monitors flight paths, to signal a wave-off and abort a landing. It takes another tenth of a second for the X-47B to respond, Engdahl said. At that point, a variety of factors could effect the wave-off, including the amount of fuel onboard and wind, Engdahl said. http://www.hrana.org/news. asp#NavyCarrierDronesWayoff

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. What’s really interesting about this is that the jet wasn’t controlled by someone in the carrier the way current drones are controlled from ground stations. No, this jet simply received a command from the carrier’s air traffic control to enter the landing pattern and execute the landing all on its own; the same way a piloted jet would. “Once he’s 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; we’ve 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, there’s

no one that’s 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 Hornet’s 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 they’ll 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."

Navy UCAS Achieves

Milestone Aboard Eisenhower Patuxent River, MD - 5 July 2011

"The Navy is one step closer to demonstrating the first carrier-based recoveries and launches of an autonomous, low-observable relevant unmanned aircraft. Aboard USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69) July 2, a team from the Navy Unmanned Combat Air System program office (PMA268) accomplished the historical first carrier touchdown of an F/A-18D surrogate aircraft emulating an unmanned vehicle using systems developed as part of the Unmanned Combat Air System Carrier Demonstration (UCAS-D) program. “What we saw here today is cutting edge technology for integrating digital control of autonomous carrier aircraft operations, and most importantly, the capability to automatically land an unmanned air system aboard an aircraft carrier,” said Capt. Jaime

Engdahl, N-UCAS Program Manager. “Successfully landing and launching a surrogate aircraft allows us to look forward to demonstrating that a tailless, strike-fightersized unmanned system can operate safely in the carrier environment.” Demonstrating the UCAS-D system with a proven carrier aircraft, the F/A-18D, significantly reduces risk of landing an unmanned system aboard the ship for the first time. The F/A-18 surrogate aircraft, provided by Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 23, is controlled with actual avionics and software that are being incorporated on X-47B UCAS-D aircraft. “Surrogate testing allows us to evaluate ship systems, avionics systems, and early versions of the unmanned vehicle software with a pilot in the loop for safety,” said Glenn Colby, team lead for UCAS-D Aviation/Ship Integration. “With this we can verify our interfaces and functionality while minimizing

the risk to an unmanned vehicle.” Along with the F/A-18, the test team employed a King Air surrogate aircraft operated by Air-Tec, Inc. According to Colby, the King Air gives the team a low-cost test bed to evaluate the ability of the UCAS-D avionics and ship systems to properly adhere to existing carrier operations procedures. PMA-268 is using the King Air to test all of the system functionality that does not require actually landing on the ship. “The most important thing we have done is adapted the ship’s systems to handle a vehicle without a pilot, then seamlessly integrated it into carrier operations,” said Rob Fox, UCAS-D Aviation/Ship Integration deputy team lead. “We’re using both current aircraft carrier hardware and software systems and processes, and introducing new systems and processes to accommodate an unmanned system.” The vast majoity of today’s carrier flight operations are

flown manually and visually by Naval Aviators. The pilot gives the ship information about the aircraft over the radio; all air traffic control instructions are by voice and even a good portion of navigation data has to be read over the air by the ship. The purpose of the UCAS-D integration effort is to digitize the communications and navigation information flow to incorporate capabilities required for UAS flight operations aboard a carrier, with minimal impact to existing hardware, training and procedures. “This test period shows us very clearly that the carrier segment hardware and software, and the Precision Global Positioning System (PGPS) landing technologies are mature and ready to support actual unmanned operations with the X-47B,” said Engdahl. To support an autonomous vehicle, PMA-268 has modified shipboard equipment so that the UCAS-D X-47B air vehicle, mission operator

and ship operators are on the same digital network. For current fleet aircraft, the Landing Signal Officer (LSO), who is charged with safe recovery of aircraft aboard the ship, uses voice commands and visual signals to communicate with a pilot on final approach. Since a UAS cannot reliably respond to voice and visual signals, the LSO’s equipment communicates directly with the aircraft through the digital network via a highly reliable interface. Similar digital communication capability has been integrated with the ship’s primary flight control (“tower”) and Carrier Air Traffic Control Center (CATCC) facilities. Most importantly, the UAS operator’s equipment, installed in one of the carrier’s ready rooms, is integrated with the very same network. In addition to communications, an unmanned system requires highly precise and reliable navigation to operate around the ship. Today’s first arrested landing of the

F/A-18D surrogate aircraft aboard the Eisenhower was enabled by integrating Precision Global Positioning System (PGPS) capabilities into the ship and the aircraft. According to Engdahl, these tests demonstrate that PGPS landing technologies and the carrier segment hardware and software are mature and ready to support actual unmanned operations with the X-47B. In addition, these capabilities have the potential to make manned aircraft operations safer and more efficient. “Our team has worked vigorously over the past five years to modify and develop systems required to operate unmanned aircraft around and aboard a carrier,” said Adam Anderson, team lead for UCAS-D Aviation/Ship Integration System Build, who has worked on the program since 2006. “This was a very complex and challenging task that required innovative, hard-working and dedicated individuals to get the job done.”

The first experiments supporting unmanned carrier operations were conducted in 2002 followed by at-sea testing of a King Air in 2005. With the basic concept proven, the UCAS-D team began the detailed design of the carrier integration in 2007. The PMA-268/NAVAIR team worked closely with experts from PEO (Carriers) and the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) to determine the details of system installation on a carrier, while working to minimize impact to ongoing missions and capabilities aboard the ship. Initial capability of the ship equipment was verified in January 2010 during testing aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. In fall 2010, ship modifications began on the Eisenhower. The UCAS-D team worked closely with ship’s company personnel to lessen disruption to other activities required for normal operations and maintenance of the ship. Initial surrogate testing took place during the ship’s sea trials the week of

June 13, which validated the system’s readiness for carrier landings. “This was truly a team effort with our industry partners, including Northrop Grumman, Rockwell Collins, Honeywell, L-3 Communications, SAIC, ARINC and Sierra Nevada Corporation, PEO Carriers, NAVSEA and, of course, the crew of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower,” Engdahl added. “The exceptional support and collaboration of the entire team has set us up very well to achieve our ultimate milestone –autonomous landing of an actual unmanned, low-observable relevant aircraft on the aircraft carrier in 2013.” The UCAS-D program continues ship integration and X-47B flight test activities in preparation for sea trials in 2013. Flight testing is underway at Edwards Air Force Base and will transition to Pax River later this year." http://www.thebaynet.com/news/ind ex.cfm/fa/viewstory/story_ID/23048

“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 “NUCAS AND P ADDLES ” M ARTY P AULAITIS, WITH AIRINC, CLEARS THE AIR REGARDING P ADDLES CONCERNS OVER NUCAS... X “The Dean’s Corner” THE LSO SCHOOL OIC TAKES A MINUTE TO DISCUSS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CENTERLINE...

X “VX-23 PALS D ISCUSSION ” LT L UKE “S MUGGLA” J OHNSON

x x

October 2012

Paddles monthly

DISCUSSES THE FINER POINTS OF THE

ICLS...

x

ADDRESSING THE NEEDS OF THE LSO COMMUNIT Y

THROUGH SAFETY DISCUSSIONS, OPERATIONAL UPDATES,

NUCAS and Paddles

There are two primary goals in developing the Navy’s 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 ¾ mile (Case I) or 1¼ to ¾ 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.

x

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.

x

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.

x

(Figure 1)

http://www.hrana.org/documents/ PaddlesMonthlyOctober2012.pdf

AND HISTORICAL READINGS.

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

“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 X- 47B 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.”

LSODS

http://www.hrana.org/documents/ ‘Paddles Monthly’ October 2012 PaddlesMonthlyOctober2012.pdf

NUCAS and Paddles (cont.) Unique Requirements: Since all interaction between the LSOs and the AV is through digital messaging, there needed to be some way to ensure these messages were being sent and received. LSODS “Roger Ball” indication changing from red to green when the AV responds to the “Roger Ball” message is one example of this. Another came at the request of the LSO community three years ago. Prior to recovery, the LSOs do a functional test of the cut and waveoff lights. The LSOs wanted some way to test whether cut and waveoff electronic messages were being sent to have confidence the UCAS-D ship systems were functioning end-to-end. An LSO Loopback System was designed with an independent receiver that listens for the cut and waveoff signals and displays this with separate icons on LSODS. Additionally, the small antenna icon illuminates green when the UCAS-D systems are transmitting the heartbeat signal properly. This icon will illuminate yellow if there is a system degrade or red if there is a systems failure; it will not display at all if the system is powered off. Addressing a Potential Concern: One of the most common fears expressed in the fleet is that the AV would make an approach to the boat and nobody would be able to wave it off. The procedures used today by manned aircraft were written from years of experience and unfortunate mishaps. Experience molded the framework for UCAS-D systems design: x

The AV will not continue below 200’, let alone land, without a “Roger Ball.”

x

The AV will attempt to execute a waveoff anytime the LSO or Air Boss presses the waveoff button.

x

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.

x

If the AV loses its datalink outside the autonomous waveoff inhibit region (three seconds or greater from touchdown), it will wave itself off.

x

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 LSO’s 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 don’t want it.

-Marty Paulaitis works for AIRINC, has attended the last several LSO OAGs, and has a close working relationship with the LSO School.

F/A-18 Shows UCAS-D Can Land On Carrier

| Jul 8, 2011 By Graham Warwick

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/07/08/05.xml&headline=F/A-18 Shows UCAS-D Can Land On Carrier -

“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 Navy’s distributed control concept, in which a mission operator on the carrier always has positive control of the aircraft, but the ship’s 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

Using the control display unit (CDU), the deck operator will maneuver the unmanned aircraft around the flight deck, in and out of the arrestor By Graham Warwick 03 Dec 2012 wires and catapult, and up and down the elevators, says Don Blottenberger, Source: Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Navy deputy program manager. The U.S. Navy’s unmanned combat air Demonstrated in earlier ground system demonstrator has taken two taxi tests at Patuxent River, the CDU key steps toward demonstrating auenables the operator to wirelessly contonomous operation from an aircraft trol engine thrust, nose-wheel steercarrier at sea next summer. ing, main-wheel braking, flight-control On Nov. 29, the first Northrop sweeps and lowering and raising the Grumman X-47B air vehicle, AV-1, tailhook. made its first catapult launch from a Back at Pax River, the Navy will land-based test facility at NAS Patuxclear the limited catapult-launch enent River, Md. A second launch was velope planned for the demonstration planned for Nov. 30. while it completes development of the Earlier in the week, on Nov. 26, software load required to begin shorethe second X-47B—AV-2—was hoisted based arrested landings. These are exaboard the aircraft carrier USS Truman pected to begin early in 2013, Blottenat NAS Norfolk, Va., to begin a few berger says. weeks of deck-handling trials in port A redesign of the tailhook point to and at sea. ensure it catches the wire has been So far, AV-2 has completed ensuccessful, says Capt. Jaime Engdahl, gine runs, telemetry and communicaNavy program manager. The original tions checks, and been moved around design used an F-14 hook point, but the flight deck and hangar bay. Once did not reliably catch the wire in tests. the Truman is underway, the X-47B will “We did a quick redesign, in 45 be maneuvered through simulated car- days, and have done three arrestrier operations using a wireless hand ment roll-ins, all successful,” he says. controller. The problem is caused because the

tailhook is closer to the main gear on the tailless X-47B and has less time to bounce back. On the first steam-catapult launch, the X-47B reached 147.6 kt ground speed and 151.3 kt airspeed at launch, says Mike Mackey, Northrop Grumman UCAS-D program manager. On climbout the aircraft reached 12.5-deg. peak pitch, with nominal loads, he says. The unmanned aircraft reached 1,200-ft. altitude during its 10-min. autonomous flight and flew a standard carrier precision-approach pattern, Mackey says, flying a 3.25-deg. glideslope to a landing rollout and full stop on the runway at Pax River. Blottenberger says there is an option to fly AV-1 into the carrier-controlled airspace around the Truman while it is at sea, conducting deck-handling trials with AV-2. The carrier to be used for the 2013 launch and recovery demonstration has not been identified. All of the Navy’s East Coast-based Nimitz-class carriers are being modified temporarily to operate with the X-47B, Engdahl says. This includes installing a mission control element, relative navigation system and data links. http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/ article-xml/asd_12_03_2012_p03-01-523288.xml

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

X-47B UCAS first-ever carrier arrestment on 10 July.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0b384xslgI

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/X-47B-arrestor-hook.jpg

Northrop Grumman, U.S. Navy Conduct First Arrested Landing of X-47B Unmanned Demonstrator http://www.globenewswire.com/newsarchive/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=10031586 -

“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.”

“130710-N-YZ751-426 ATLANTIC OCEAN (July 10, 2013) Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) Ray Mabus and Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert, observe an X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator preparing to make an arrested landing on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), July 10. George H.W. Bush is the first aircraft carrier to recover an unmanned aircraft at sea. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Tony D. Curtis/Released)”

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

Navy Tests X-47B on Another Carrier

11 Nov 2013 Kris Osborn

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 vehicle’s 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. “We’re 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

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 X-47B UCAS first-ever carrier arrestment on 10 July.”

“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.”

Navy X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System completes carrier tests

20 Nov 2013

PEO(U&W) Public Affairs http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.NavairNewsStory&id=5495 -

“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 aircraft’s 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 week’s 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.”

X-47B fails fourth trap attempt 16 Jul 2013 Dave Majumdar http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/07/x-47b-fails-fourth-trap-attemp.html -

“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."...”

X-47B Continues Sea Trials on the USS Theodore Roosevelt 26 Nov 2013 Amy Butler http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a39b07e9c-d962-456b-bd3b-f0482a15c1c0 -

“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.

Nominal conditions are winds up to 25 kt. right down the runway on deck. Testers were looking for 35 kt. of relative winds and crosswinds up to 7kt. Here are a few statistics from the tests: The Ami26 total deck touchdowns able 21 of those were touch and gos Butler five catapult launchs and five trap landings five wave offs (two planned and three owing to software logic that automatically conducted a wave off owing to extreme wind conditions). Below are some videos from the deck that I took while on assignment.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ELMzlYTzU8&feature=player_embedded &

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZBn3hAxD8cQ

Latest X-47B Tests

Conducted In OffNominal Winds U.S. Navy continues to resist aerial refueling tests with X-47B Dec 2, 2013 Amy Butler and Aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt Aviation Week & Space Technology

The U.S. Navy has quietly added new sea trials to its X-47B demonstration, but an actual hookup and passing of gas through an automated aerial refueling (AAR) system remains an elusive goal. Navy officials are focusing AAR flight testing on a Learjet surrogate aircraft, sparking some in industry to push for an actual contact and fuel transfer with one of the service’s two Northrop Grumman X-47B demo aircraft. “The Navy has determined that demonstrating AAR

technologies and standard refueling procedures can be accomplished utilizing a Learjet surrogate aircraft,” says Kelly Burdick, a spokeswoman for the Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) project. “Data from the demonstration will be used to assess system performance for multiple AAR refueling technologies, validate the AAR procedures and concepts, and support further development of future unmanned systems.” The Learjet is being used to test end-to-end X-47B AAR operations, including autonomous rendezvous, approach, plugging and safe separation. Earlier in the UCAS program, one of the air vehicles was outfitted with an AAR receptacle to allow for full testing with the actual X-47B aircraft. The Navy, however, has yet to back full testing using the aircraft. One industry official says that while the

Learjet testing will validate the X-47B software, the use of the actual aircraft would better validate, among other things, how it behaves in the wake of the refueler. Service officials are still examining the results of a third— previously unplanned—round of sea trials for the stealthy, unmanned X-47B after the team returned to port Nov. 19. The demonstrator aircraft conducted 26 deck touchdowns, 21 of which were touch-and-go tests. It also executed five catapult launches and arrested landings, five wave-offs by the landing signal officer (two planned and three for wind conditions) and two autonomous waveoffs, Burdick says. They were executed due to excessive wind gusts. “The aircraft responded with a preplanned flight maneuver and executed a waveoff,” Burdick says. 1

The third round of sea trials was hastily added to the program. Tests were conducted on the USS Harry S. Truman late last year, and the first-ever arrested landing of a tailless, stealthy unmanned aircraft occurred in July on the USS George H. W. Bush. During the most recent flights on the USS Theodore Roosevelt, operators were seeking to conduct X-47B operations on and around the carrier in a broader on-deck envelope than before. Nominal conditions include calm seas and wind blowing straight down the deck at up to 25 kt. Operations this month included a 35kt. relative headwind and 7 kt. of crosswind, Burdick says. “We learned how the X-47B responds to ship air-wake during approach and landing phases with higher off-axis winds,” she says. “We also gathered data that will

help improve ship air-wake models for use with other carrier-based aircraft.” The test team also determined that electromagnetic interference was the cause of a control issue that prevented a planned takeoff Nov. 10, when media were invited to observe operations on the ship, Burdick says. Tail No. 502 failed to execute a launch when operators were unable to command it to exceed flight idle power, which is required for takeoff. The crew tried both the primary and backup arm-mounted controllers operated for taxiing and commanding the aircraft on deck and also switched batteries out on one set, with no results. The controller troubleshooting led Capt. Beau Duarate, UCAS program manager, to surmise that day that the issue was with the aircraft. After a 90-min. “reboot” of

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

2

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\RIRQHQDYDODYLDWRUZKRKHOSHGODQGWKH¿UVWDXWRQRPRXV 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

2Q-XO\KHJRWDFKDQFHWRSXWKLVWUDLQLQJWRWKHWHVWDERDUG866*HRUJH+:%XVK&91 :LWKWKH secretary of the Navy, the chief of naval operations and the media all standing behind him on the LSO platform, he landed Later, as technological advances made their way to the fleet, the ship added a system of colored lights, known as "the ball," the X-47B twice. to assist aviators. "Back in the 50s, as they started developing the new lens, the optical landing aid system to help airplanes land, they thought "It's good to come to the culmination of quite a bit of work," said Reynolds. "And not just work on my part, but years of then that they could get rid of LSOs," said Pothier. "The accident rate increased dramatically when they got rid of the LSO, work on the part of the team.... So it's satisfying to kind of help them get to the point where we can successfully interface with the ship." so they immediately brought them back into the fold and the accident rate obviously diminished."

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