Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Anyone for Stennis? First Sea Lord visits US carrier in Gulf 9 January 2012

http://www.navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/3211

"BRITAIN’S most senior sailor flew on to one of the most powerful warships in the world for a first-hand look at front-line carrier operations....

...The carrier is also home to one Fleet Air Arm aviator, Lt ‘LOThAR’ Collins (‘Loser of the American Revolution’, a callsign given him by his American comrades), who’s flying a single-seat F18 strike fighter from the Stennis’ deck with the ‘Tophatters’ (Strike Fighter Squadron 14) on missions over Afghanistan. Lt Collins is one of numerous Royal Navy pilots flying with the Americans. Their experiences will be crucial as the Senior Service looks to re-learn the art of carrier strike operations ahead of Her Majesty’s Ships Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales entering service later this decade....

...No aircraft carrier experience would be complete however without the live launch and recovery of fast jets, and what better way to gain a first hand perspective of the utility of carrier strike than from the cockpit?

In the experienced hands of Cdr Vorrice ‘Heavy’ Burks USN (Commanding Officer of the ‘Black Aces' – Strike Fighter Squadron 71) Admiral Stanhope proceeded to “kick the tyres and light the fires”, strap himself into the back of a twin-seat F18 and accelerate off the front end. Safely recovered, and having “buzzed the tower”, Admiral Stanhope reflected on his experiences aboard the flat-top:

“Being catapulted from 0-150 knots in a couple of seconds is certainly a tick in the ‘Taskbook of Life’. “We know carrier aviation is a hugely-complex business and we will get there again; the Royal Navy will once more be able to project an unhindered fixed-wing strike capability anywhere that the government wants UK power and influence to be felt.”...

F-16.net Sponsor

I believe the MoD won't mind that their entire article is posted here (rather than just excerpt the good bits) because it is best to be read in entirety.

Leave The Landing Light On

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Defen ... ightOn.htm

The deck of the new Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers may be the size of four football pitches and supported by the best part of 65,000 tonnes of steel but, from three miles (5km) out, when viewed through the BAE Systems simulator at Warton, it's tiny and the target area for landing looks even smaller.

Add in your 150-knot (278km/h) speed, a keen wind, a rolling sea state, a touch of mist, a black night, and you can see why landing an aircraft on a ship is probably the most difficult task most pilots will ever face.

Welcome to the deck of one of the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, due in service by the end of the decade. Well, not quite the real carrier, which is under construction at Rosyth. This is BAE Systems' simulator at Warton, the only one in the world where the F-35 aircraft meets the future pride of the 2020 Royal Navy.

But this is not about training pilots, nor honing the skills of the personnel whose deck-based task is to guide the aircraft in safely.

This is about designing the flight deck, making sure its massive array of coloured lights and lenses, deck markings and arrestor gear make for the safest environment for recovering the aircraft.

Tests are at an advanced stage using US Navy F-18 pilots, hugely experienced in taking off from and landing on carriers.

This is something new for the UK. Our carriers, remember, have operated the short take off and vertical landing (STOVL) Harriers for more than a generation. Skills in landings are, shall we say, a little rusty.

Tests will inform the Aircraft Carrier Alliance on design of the deck. With every simulated landing, Defence Equipment and Support's Joint Combat Aircraft Team learns more about the behaviour of the F-35's Carrier Variant (CV), the F-35C, which the UK will be operating - a decision firmed up by the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

The simulator at BAE Systems in Warton is hosting tests to design the deck of the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers:

"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 arrestor 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 the Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) Team's 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 Wing Commander 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 the aircraft will be equipped with the 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 focused than current generation sea-based aircraft and will keep UK air power at the front rank of military powers."

So who benefits most from the current carrier testing? Back to Mr Symonds:

"Well actually it's both the Aircraft Carrier Alliance [ACA] and the Joint Combat Aircraft Team," 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."

Landing on the new carriers - what the pilot sees
Aircraft approach the stern as the carrier steams into the wind. Pilots aim for the second or third of the arrestor wires - the safest, most effective target.

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 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 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 arrestor wires, ending in a landing more akin to Fosbury than any of the elite pilots who have been using the simulator for their landings.

The flight deck has about 250 metres of runway distance for landing aircraft. A runway on land would be around 12 times longer. And doesn't move.

Landing on a carrier deck pitching up and down by up to 30 feet (9m) in a rough sea can be daunting enough. A pilot has to place the aircraft's tailhook in a precise part of the deck 150 feet (46m) long by 30 feet (9m) wide to catch the arrestor wires, and do it at night too.

The arresting wire system can stop a 25-tonne aircraft travelling at 150 miles per hour (240km/h) in just two seconds in a 300-feet (90m) landing area. Deceleration is up to 4Gs."

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C6E9E956 ... rrier1.jpg

IN FOCUS: Royal Navy chief looks to the future with carrier, F-35 programmes
? By: Craig Hoyle 26 Jan 2012 London

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-367441/

"..Due to be accepted during May, short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft BK-l and BK-2 will support the UK's participation in US-led initial operational test and evaluation activities at Edwards AFB, California. Another should follow in 2014, with the US Marine Corps having agreed in principle to swap a C-model carrier variant for London's originally intended third F-35B. This was requested after the UK swapped its interest to the largest version of the JSF, as part of the SDSR.

An in-service date for the F-35C will be defined as part of a Main Gate investment decision next year, although final numbers will not be determined before the UK's next defence review, planned for 2015.

The decision to jump from the STOVL version has prompted changes to the Queen Elizabeth design, with Stanhope now expecting second-of-class ship the Prince of Wales to gain an electromagnetic aircraft launch system/advanced arresting gear, for "cat and trap" operations....

...Specification changes should be finalised by the end of 2012, when the UK will also confirm the expected in-service dates for its largest ever warships. This was originally targeted for around 2020, but Stanhope noted: "The big question is what happens to the Queen Elizabeth."...

SELL IT TO OZ your Great Pillock! AND THEN take the bugga back like youse did with INVINCIBLE youse IndianGivers! Very Happy

Another puzzled writer has a British dumm spit in two places: (which leads into his following story in next entry)
The Strange Story of Britain's Joint Strike Fighter January 29, 2012 by Angus Batey

http://www.angusbatey.com/index.php?id= ... egory=blog

"...However, the history of changed minds among those in the UK whose job is to procure defence systems for the nation does not appear to be helping the test team, or Lockheed, to get the aircraft ready. Britain has gone from a position that was clear and, while the aircraft was always likely to cost more and arrive later than hoped, made strategic sense. The Coalition government's change of the order from the B to the C appeared rushed; and as the true costs of re-engineering the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers to fit catapults become clearer, and are added to the costs that will be caused by the work lost to British industry if the government sticks to their Strategic Defence and Security Review's promised reduction in the size of its F-35 order, the idea that much money is going to be saved seems to be disappearing before our eyes...."

The F-35 could soon be Britain's most awe-inspiring fighter plane...if the budget, design flaws and delays get sorted out 28 Jan 2012 by Angus Batey

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/home/mosl ... lane-.html

"...the UK is about to take delivery of its first stealth fighter, and an RAF Squadron Leader is already test-flying them in the U.S.

‘This aircraft will provide the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy with an unprecedented capability, both from land and sea,’ says Squadron Leader Jim Schofield.

‘The stealth is one reason. But the handling and performance mean I’m able to devote more of my mental resources to the mission.

‘Information is presented in front of me seamlessly. I’ve got visual, radar, infra-red, and to a large extent wherever I look I can see what’s out there.

'It’s unparalleled. It means the next generation of pilots who fly these will be able to come home. Before, they’d have at least got very scared, if not actually shot down.’

The aircraft Schofield is talking about is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. He’s part of a 22-strong team of pilots, commanders and engineers currently embedded within the U.S.-led F-35 test team at Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland...."
&
"...Discussions have taken place between UK and U.S. governments about the possibility of swapping the third British jet from a B to a C, but a decision has not yet been reached.

It is still not known how much money the switch will actually save. The one carrier we will use will have to have catapults and arrestor gear inserted – current estimates suggest this will add at least £800 million to the cost. The UK may also have to buy new missiles to use inside the F-35C, because the C cannot accommodate some of Britain’s current weaponry.

Yet extraordinarily, Live has discovered that despite what was published in the SDSR, the UK Government is still telling Lockheed it intends to buy 138 F-35s....

...Some have been here for over two years and the switch from the B to the C version was a surprise to them too.

‘As I understand it, the decision was made pretty much in the minister’s office,’ says Commander Bow Wheaton, the Royal Navy officer in charge of the British test team.

Did he find out about it at the same time as the rest of us?

‘You bet we did,’ he says.

‘We were watching the live broadcast when the Prime Minister stood up and came out with it.’

The similarities between the two jets do at least mean that working on one helps you understand and work better on the other...."

Another LONG article - as always best to read it at original URL above....

caption: Instrumentation inside the cockpit of an F-35 simulator
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/01/ ... 34x445.jpg

Lord Alexander Hesketh, UKIP's (an opposition party?) defence spokesman wants the government to scrap the F-35C and develop a naval Typhoon instead:

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=18574

maus92 wrote:

Lord Alexander Hesketh, UKIP's (an opposition party?) defence spokesman wants the government to scrap the F-35C and develop a naval Typhoon instead:

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=18574

UKIP? You might as well just go ask some random guy on the street and report back what he said.

"...UKIP holds 11 seats in the European Parliament (down from 13 won due to defections) and two in the [UK] House of Lords (both due to defections from Conservative peers). UKIP has never won a seat in the [UK] House of Commons...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Independence_Party

Not much clout for this chap eh. About equal to an USMC C-130 pilot bitchin' 'bout the F-35B recently. Very Happy

___________

OOPS! I see 'hb_pencil' has beat me to a good punch line. Perhaps this little overview from same URL will give a flavour of the UKIP:

"...Defence
The UK Independence Party claims that the Armed Forces are 'starved' of money, insufficient resources, equipment and expensive, wasteful military operations. On the War in Afghanistan, UKIP aims to create a single, clear objective or look to negotiate a withdrawal from the area. The party is also committed to NATO and is fully against the creation of a European Army: Eurocorps. UKIP also agrees that defence spending should be increased; the party believes that the structure of the Ministry of Defence is bureaucratic and wasteful. UKIP plans to cut bureaucracy and waste but increase spending in the Armed Forces and improve equipment. UKIP also pledges to:[47]

Spend an extra 40% on defence annually, another 1% of GDP.
Expand the Army by 25% to 125,000 personnel and double the size of the Territorial Army.

On naval affairs; UKIP wishes to restore the Royal Navy to its 2001 strength with three new aircraft carriers and nearly 70 other ships, at the same time guaranteeing the future of the Plymouth, Portsmouth and Rosyth naval bases.

On air force affairs; UKIP plans on increasing the Royal Air Force's capability by buying more essential helicopters, transport aircraft and 50 extra Joint Strike Fighter Lightning aircraft.

Cut the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Defence, which has one civil servant for every two military personnel.

UKIP aims to introduce better pay, conditions and medical care for the British Armed Forces personnel and their families."
______________

I like this 'dummy spit' quote from the 'maus92' referred article above:

"...Lord Hesketh, who resigned from Babcock in 2010 after saying the QE-class carrier programme was making the country a "laughing stock",..."

hb_pencil wrote:

maus92 wrote:

Lord Alexander Hesketh, UKIP's (an opposition party?) defence spokesman wants the government to scrap the F-35C and develop a naval Typhoon instead:

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_s ... p?id=18574

UKIP? You might as well just go ask some random guy on the street and report back what he said.

There is more chance of me getting in and introducing the Naval F-16 than UKIP ever being anything.

The USN used to have F-16N?s as 'aggressor/adversary' aircraft. I was pleased to see that these birds (do all F-16s?) have AoA indexers. That is a start! Very Happy

Graphic to follow - what else? Twisted Evil

From: http://www.scribd.com/doc/26400980/F-16 ... ght-Manual

Not having been an F-16 pilot nor having used a HUD I have a question about the 'HUD Display' as shown in the above graphic: Should not the HUD 'bracket & ball' simple graphic be reversed so that for 'fast indication' for example the HUD indicator should match the 'fast AoA' indexer to be at bottom of HUD bracket? In effect the AoA Indexer Arrow and HUD bracket indicator should match so that as in Naval Aircraft - when fast - the AoA Indexer arrow is pointing UP. This is what the nose needs to do - be pulled up - to stop being fast (if otherwise aircraft kept on glideslope during carrier approach by reducing power also perhaps - a different technique but standard for NavAv).

spazinbad, until someone who really knows comes along, my non-expert opinion is that the HUD display is not an AOA indicator, but is a flight path marker. For the top graphic (high AOA) your flight path will be relatively low compared to optimum. The center graphic shows a flight path in line with optimum AOA, while the bottom graphic (low AOA) shows a flight path above optimum. This works for the F-16 because the FPM is also used in normal up and away flying on what is called a pitch ladder, which is a series of lines in the HUD parallel to the ground plane 10 degrees apart. The pitch ladder shows your climb and dive angles. As you roll the airplane, the pitch ladder stays parallel to the ground. Sideslip angle also causes the FPM to displace laterally on the pitch ladder.

'johnwill', perhaps I have mislead by my interchangeable random use of 'indexer and indicator' when I have always meant to use ONLY 'Indexer' as seen in the diagram above which is straight out of that F-16C/D flight manual. I have not looked at the 'Indicator' on the far left of that diagram so apologies. Always my reference is to the middle 'indexer' with the doughnut and arrows up/down and the 'Hud Display' on the right of the illustration of three columns. I guess I should amend the diagram to illustrate what I mean.

Could well be that the original flight manual illustration is correct. However Naval Aviators would find that initially confusing (another issue about colours which I think was covered some years back). Anyway my amended illustration harmonises the INDEXER and HUD INDICATOR as shown.

In this fashion when slow in F=16 (RED) push the nose down according to RED DOWN ARROW etc.

AFAIK RED - for FAST - is used in Naval Aircraft because being too fast into the arrestor gear will break the gear and aircraft. Otherwise GREEN is used for SLOW and ORANGE for Optimum AoA. Arrows indicate what to do with nose UP/DOWN.

No apologies required. I got your meaning from the start, and I was indeed referring to the "HUD DISPLAY" that you were addressing. Please go back and re-read my post and see if it makes more sense. An F-16 pilot could probably describe it better in language more familiar to you.

I think the manual is correct, and it is not confusing if you understand it is FPM, especially since FPM is a normal display in the HUD for up and away flight.

The key point is the icon in the HUD DISPLAY is not an indexer or AoA indicator, but is a flight path marker (that's where the flight path will take you). In case you are not familiar with FPM, consider climbing flight with airplane pitch angle of 45 degrees and an AoA of 5 degrees. Your actual climb angle (flight path) is 40 degrees, and that is what the FPM will show in the HUD. So, FPM = pitch angle - AoA.

The Navy A-7E had the same HUD bracket functionality as the USAF A-7D which was the same as the F-16 is now, 16N or otherwise, as displayed in the first diagram.

However, the service pilots do wear different dress uniforms. Very Happy

(edit: If you think about it Spaz, the bracket is a thrust command, on a constant flight path as indicated by the FPM, which is more Navy than the Navy.)

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

UK MOD in a MUDDLE over F-35C