EMALS & JPALS for the JSF

[outlaw162]

"Expeditionary JPALS fits in five transit cases and could be repackaged for a variety of small transit vehicles transportable by C-130.

Not to mention the myriad larger vehicles to transport the PSP or whatever they use now to create the FOL, and in advance the security forces to protect the FOL. Why not just operate out of where-ever the C-130 landed with all the 'stuff'?

Once on the ground, the system can be fully operational in under 90 minutes."

I would think it would have to be flight checked first by one of them fancy military flown Challenger 604s.

[madrat]

Maybe some young, enterprising lad will figure out how to bring this technology to land bases where they can avoid damage spots on runways during emergencies and in war-time. Keep runways open when they are not in peak condition.

[sferrin]

Maybe some young, enterprising lad will figure out how to bring this technology to land bases where they can avoid damage spots on runways during emergencies and in war-time. Keep runways open when they are not in peak condition.

That was the plan back in the days of the F-15 SMTD:

It amazes me they still don't have something like this online by now.

[mixelflick]

I think as the SCS situation heats up, we'll see renewed interest in this kind of STOL capability.

To date though, it hasn't been pursued. I'm guessing because it hasn't been a major problem in the various wars we fought. How many cratered runways did we have to deal with in Vietnam, GWI, GWII, Afghanistan etc??

But past experience isn't necessarily a good indicator of future events. It's a pretty safe bet the Chinese will be out to destroy our runways in the pacific and elsewhere. If memory serves, the short takeoff/landing requirement of the ATF was dropped toward the end. That may change going forward. Will be interesting to see what the PCA requirements are, and if STOL is specified.

If so, will be quite the engineering solution. Going to be a big bird...

[marauder2048]

Experiences in 80's and 90's showed just how resilient runways were to attack even when
the attacker has air superiority; the RAF failures against Iraqi runways are notable.

In most of the recent campaign modeling that I've seen from RAND, it's so easy and cheap
for Blue to amass the materials and improve runway repair capacity that Red shfits
focus to shelters and fuel supply/storage/transfer which are much harder for Blue to repair.

[spazsinbad]

Raytheon Pitching its Precision Landing System for USAF Expeditionary Aircraft
19 Jun 2019 Brian Everstine

"...Matt Gilligan, Raytheon’s vice president for Intelligence, Information, and Services, said the company is pitching the system for aircraft such as C-130s that operate in locations without established runways.

The GPS-based system uses multiple antennas and data links to guide an aircraft to a precision touch down point on an airstrip. The company claims it “really revolutionizes precision landing in real austere conditions,” Gilligan said in an interview at the Paris Air Show....

...Raytheon has prototypes in transit cases that can be carried on C-130s or under helicopters and set up at an austere field within 90 minutes, Gilligan said. The sea-based version lets aircraft securely acquire a signal from 200 miles away, and when the aircraft gets within 60 miles those at the landing location will be notified the aircraft is on approach.

Raytheon demonstrated the technology to the Air Force, along with the other services and four international services, earlier this year at NAS Patuxent River, Md. The company plans another demonstration late this year at Edwards AFB, Calif. So far, the company is developing the mobile prototype at its own cost."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... craft.aspx

[spazsinbad]

Some old JPALS forde USAF austere (no golf course) detail here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14115&p=376674&hilit=drew#p376674

"...Beyond the F-35 and V-22, Raytheon says Jpals could support next-generation precision approach for the Air Force F-16, HH-60G Pave Hawk and U.S. Army Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk. “If they wanted to do dispersed basing, maybe a small unit of F-35s in a remote location instead of having everybody together, we could put an expeditionary or mobile version Jpals at any airfield or any site,” Cleveland says. “It will give you precision landing to 20 cm [8 in.] on the runway and can control up to 50 airplanes with one system out to 20 nm.”

He says the system has a demonstrated reliability rate greater than 99% for automatic landings, including in harsh weather on pitching ships. The mobile version for land applications is based on a single Humvee with four GPS antennas and four UHF antennas. It can be air dropped from a Lockheed C-5M or Boeing C-17 and set up within 1 hr., Raytheon claims...." http://aviationweek.com/afa-national-co ... ding-f-35a

& from: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14115&p=402118&hilit=reim#p402118

"...Raytheon says it is building a Humvee portable version of JPALS which could be transported to expeditionary air bases aboard a C-130J transport and set up in 60 to 90 minutes. The system would be able to manage 50 different aircraft making different approaches within a radius of 20nm....

...Initially designed to help a pilot land on an aircraft carrier in poor visibility or after long, tiring flights, the auto-landing system can put down an aircraft in a 20cm by 20cm box, says Raytheon. “It was so precise that when they were testing it that they were having to move around the touchdown point on the aircraft carrier because the deck was getting worn out by the tail hook hitting the same spot,” says Brooks Cleveland, Raytheon’s senior aviation advisor for precision landing systems." https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... em-452040/

ASLO: FRUM: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14115&p=417805&hilit=reim#p417805

"...Pilots returning to a carrier for a landing will first engage with JPALS at about 200nm (370km) away, where they start receiving range and bearing information, then at 60nm the jet automatically logs into the JPALS queue, receiving more precise data while beginning two-way data-link communication. At 10nm the pilot starts receiving precision data for landing, following visual cues to land on an exact spot.

Using JPALS is more covert than relying on a legacy tactical air navigation system and radio transmissions between a pilot and air traffic control, says CJ Jaynes, Raytheon executive technical adviser for JPALS. "You do not have to have an air traffic control tower. You don't have to have anyone talking to you," she says. "A system can be on the ground and a pilot can go all the way to his landing point without any communication whatsoever."... https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-457458/

OlAS here 2: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14115&p=402013&hilit=seck#p402013

"...JPALS ground components can be set up within 90 minutes and can offer pilots 50 different possible approaches at multiple airfields within a radius of 20 nautical miles, Watkins [business development manager for Raytheon and a retired Air Force colonel who flew F-16 Fighting Falcons] said. Approaches, he said, can be tailored to accommodate challenging terrain or hazardous weather…." https://www.military.com/defensetech/20 ... ields.html

[outlaw162]

Now the PR pitch is,

....and set up at an austere field within 90 minutes,

Previously the pitch was,

Once on the ground, the system can be fully operational in under 90 minutes.

There's a considerable difference between using a sophisticated LAAS-based RNAV system for guidance to a boat where all the elevations within 200 NM are sea level.....and using the system in variable or even mountainous terrain.

The approaches in to the austere field will have to be developed using routings based on safe terrain clearance around the field to be used in all phases of the approach, and then coded for the flight management system for a particular type aircraft that is going to use the facility. Not all of this can be done well in advance of positioning the system.

Then, as I mentioned, International Flight Inspection crews, military pilots and technicians, in Challenger 604s out-fitted with the necessary test equipment, same planes co-owned with the FAA, will have to validate and certify the approaches. Some of this validation can be done in a simulator, but not all. Then they'll get their published approaches.

I did simulator validations of complicated RNAV approaches with RF turn segments to skirt high terrain into challenging airfields for years. I worked with an ex-Dragon Lady (U-2) driver whose follow-on assignment had been military Flight Inspection in the Hawker 800s previously used for this. Used quite a bit in Iraq & 'Stan. My next door neighbor's kid, previous C-130 & MC-12 spec ops guy showed up at the FAA to fly International Flight Inspection in the Challengers. The ex-mil U-2/Hawkmobile driver retired militarily and transferred over to the FAA Flight Inspection bunch eventually.

The military is not going to put a high value 'asset' into 200 and 1/2 wx in mountainous terrain without ticking all the boxes....automatic precision touchdown is a wonderful thing, easy peasy....once you get over the hill. (so to speak)

Short of a national emergency, 90 minutes would probably turn into 90 days, lest we end up with AGCAS at times competing with and overriding JPALS.

edit: I see now they're pitching 60-90 minutes. HaHa. They really don't have to exaggerate, it's the only game in town....

edit2: Air dropped

edit3: 50 different aircraft within 20 NM should serve to rush the development of ACAS

[spazsinbad]

Yes it would be nice to know how JPALS is tuned for different terrain/approaches. Will they tell us? Do they need to do so?

[outlaw162]

Magic and mirrors. The LAAS/JPALS technology is pretty well proven, it's the individual aircraft type (not just the F-35) systems, auto-pilot and other avionics that need to be adapted to this next big thing.

Short flight inspection story:

We used the Honolulu Flight Check 727 for student type rating training occasionally (nice TDY). One afternoon, the flight check guys needed a qualified 727 IP to go along on a the flight inspection and to also check their pilot in the 727. I volunteered, figuring I'd be back before the 'Shorebird' wet t-shirt contest got going.

The navaid being checked was a TACAN.....on a destroyer about 200 NM out of Honolulu. The Wx was about 1000-2000 feet overcast in the entire area. So we went out of HNL VFR underneath found the boat, and shortly after we set up for the required checks their TACAN went unserviceable. They apologized and we headed back. Along the way back, we went head to head with a P-3 doing their MAD tracks. I'm not sure who was more surprised.

Flight Inspection, though generally mundane....had its moments.

[spazsinbad]

You've reminded me of my meeting/near miss with an USN P-3 near the Philippines (somewhere near Manila). MELBOURNE radar swore there was NOTHING near me during my descent to a CCA at night. Trouble was I was IMC for that HEAD ON!

Storm weather around HONARURU can be deadly. Whilst we were disembarked with VC-1 at NAS Barbers Point one of their new sprog A-4C pilots was lost during an instrument approach in a night storm. We had met him only the previous night.

[marauder2048]

We're some number of IceSat-2 orbits away from sub-meter elevation (DTED Level 5) resolution of all of
the square footage of any austere airbase of interest.

Not sure where that leaves the human element in validating approaches but deconfliction might not be automatic.
It was the latter than snarled austere airbase uses in the Balkans.

[spazsinbad]

Some of the previous quotes indicate that an Air Traffic Control Tower will not be needed with Expeditionary JPALS.

For Example see 'aslo: frum:' above:

"...Using JPALS is more covert than relying on a legacy tactical air navigation system and radio transmissions between a pilot and air traffic control, says CJ Jaynes, Raytheon executive technical adviser for JPALS. "You do not have to have an air traffic control tower. You don't have to have anyone talking to you," she says. "A system can be on the ground and a pilot can go all the way to his landing point without any communication whatsoever."..."

[outlaw162]

"A system can be on the ground and a pilot can go all the way to his landing point without any communication whatsoever."..."

With an ADS-B In display in the individual aircraft avionics repertoire and interval management software in the FMS and associated speed commands displayed prominently (+ 4D Nav capability for individual waypoints), you might be comfortable with onboard separation for 4 or 5 aircraft.....50 not so much.

[marauder2048]

Some of the previous quotes indicate that an Air Traffic Control Tower will not be needed with Expeditionary JPALS.

For Example see 'aslo: frum:' above:

"...Using JPALS is more covert than relying on a legacy tactical air navigation system and radio transmissions between a pilot and air traffic control, says CJ Jaynes, Raytheon executive technical adviser for JPALS. "You do not have to have an air traffic control tower. You don't have to have anyone talking to you," she says. "A system can be on the ground and a pilot can go all the way to his landing point without any communication whatsoever."..."

It's not clear that the expeditionary version has the two-way datalink; in at least some of the previous
envisioned versions it did not.