EMALS & JPALS for the JSF

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Aug 2013, 01:48

Shipboard Automated Landing Technology Innovation Program
John Kinzer Aircraft Technology Program Officer, ONR 351, 2 November 2011
"Shipboard Automated Landing Technology Innovation (SALTI)
VISION

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 recovery periods, reduced fuel consumption)
- Increased shipboard sortie rates, reduced ship and aircraft fuel consumption, recovery tanker “give” requirements, ship and squadron personnel fatigue, etc.
- Potential for common capability with DVE and obstructed LZ ops ashore

• Aircraft / ship design and maintenance
- Reduced landing gear and related structure
- Reduced number of wires / arresting gear engines
- Reduction in ship support systems (landing aids, displays, etc)
- Reduction in inspection and repair for hard landings
- Increased fatigue life

• Flight training
- reduction in training time / cost (decrease in ship landing initial training, qualification, and currency requirements)
- indirect benefits may include reduced environmental impact and public complaints due to FCLPs (noise), cost of equipping, maintaining, and manning outlaying landing fields, etc.
&
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
&
Technologies
- Flight Control
* Modified control laws for precision control
* Gust sensing and alleviation

- HCI and ship integration
* Ship based pilot displays
* Cockpit displays
* GCS and ship systems interface
* LSE interface

- Navigation systems
* GPS based precision landing algorithms being worked by JPALS, UCAS-D programs
* Supporting / alternate systems (ship and/or aircraft mounted)
• CVN: adapt existing systems/sensors, propose new sensors
• VTOL: EO/IR, radar, LADAR

- Deck motion prediction and compensation
* CVN, L-class, and small decks – existing algorithms adequate?
* Prediction and integration with aircraft control

• CONOPS: adjustments to take advantage of enhanced precision, efficiency, safety, envelope expansion, reduced maintenance"

http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace ... 20Tech.pdf (0.7Mb)
Attachments
JPALSautoLandSysArch.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post04 Aug 2013, 03:52

A Hybrid Integrity Solution for Precision Landing and Guidance April 2004
Kenn L. Gold and Alison K. Brown | NAVSYS Corporation
"Abstract
NAVSYS Corporation has designed a hybrid integrity monitoring solution for precision approach and landing in a GPS environment degraded by RF interference. The integrity solution described in this paper leverages the capabilities of next generation digital spatial processing and ultra-tightly-coupled (UTC) GPS/inertial integrated military User Equipment (UE). The design includes a spatial environment integrity monitor, a GPS/inertial RAIM solution that allows detection of small error drift rates before the blended solution can be corrupted and an integrity monitoring function embedded within the Kinematic Carrier Phase Tracking (KCPT) algorithms which provides a level of confidence on the final KCPT solution. Simulation results showing the expected performance of some aspects of this multi-level integrity monitoring approach are presented. A design for an aircraft GPS/inertial digital spatial processing receiver, the HAGR-A, is also included. This receiver, which is based on the NAVSYS Software GPS Receiver, will be used as a test bed for implementation and testing of these integrity monitoring techniques

Shipboard Relative GPS (SRGPS)
The Joint Precision Approach and Landing (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 ship-based 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. Faulty measurements, even if detected prior to transmission, impact system performance. Therefore, improvements are needed in the SRGPS shipboard reference station and signal processing to assure the continuity and integrity of the SRGPS corrections. Of particular concern are: (a) the robustness to signal blockages from the ship’s superstructure; (b) the ability to operate in the presence of multipath while maintaining the carrier-phase and pseudo-range integrity; and (c) the ability to continue operation in the presence of radio frequency (RF) interference (from both normal ship operations and jammers) in a tactical environment...."

http://www.navsys.com/papers/04-04-001.pdf (0.35Mb)

Similar / Later PDF by at least one of the authors above here on page 2 of this thread:

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... son#204057
Attachments
SGPGRSjpalsGraphic+text.gif
Last edited by spazsinbad on 04 Aug 2013, 04:19, edited 1 time in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

FlightDreamz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 789
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
  • Location: Long Island, New York

Unread post04 Aug 2013, 03:57

Interesting that the SGPGRSjpalsGraphic+text.gif still shows a F-14 Tomcat in the landing pattern (a "D" model for maybe one of the Tomcat2000 proposal's I suppose) instead of an F/A-18 or a F-35C! D@mn! I miss the Tomcats!
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Aug 2013, 21:32

CATAPULT DEVICES and EMALS History only EMALS excerpts (part) here below:

Launch and Recovery: From Flywheels to Magnets 05 August 2013 NAN Naval Aviation News Summer 2013
"...The Future
To paraphrase Yogi Berra, it is déjà vu all over again for the Navy. Aircraft with a wider range of sizes, weights, and launching needs are entering the fleet. The F-35 Lightning II will soon replace the venerable F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, both heavy and light unmanned aerial systems such as the X-47B and ScanEagle will occupy space on the flight deck, and a catapult is needed to operate flexibly around these aircraft’s launch requirements while continuing to increase sortie rates.

“Currently, steam catapults are capable of launching today’s carrier aircraft as well as the future F-35C Lightning II and X-47B unmanned aircraft that are not yet operational in the fleet,” said Capt. James Donnelly, program manager for the Navy’s Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment program. “EMALS is designed to launch today’s current air wing as well as all future carrier aircraft platforms in the Navy’s inventory through 2030 with reduced wind-over-the-deck requirements when compared to steam catapults, and additional capability for aircraft growth during the 50-year life of the carrier.”

To that end, the Navy is betting all their chips on EMALS.

EMALS is composed of an energy storage unit, a power conditioning system, and a closed-loop control system. The catapult will also use linear induction motors, which directly produce motion in a straight line, to allow the aircraft to launch at speeds ranging from 55 to 200 knots.

“The Navy has been considering electromagnetic technology since the World War II era,” said George Sulich, the integrated product team lead for EMALS. “It wasn’t until 1982 that a concept feasibility study determined an electromagnetic launcher could successfully be used to launch aircraft from a carrier that research and development began on technologies that have evolved into the current EMALS program.”

According to Sulich, EMALS will provide several distinct benefits over its steam predecessor, including a wider energy range that expands the carrier’s capability envelope to accommodate heavier aircraft as well as lighter unmanned air vehicles. EMALS will also allow: increased operational availability because of its electrical and electronic components; a health monitoring system that prevents the catapult from launching if something is wrong; linear motors to launch, brake, and retract the shuttle (instead of the multiple systems used on a steam catapult); and a 10-fold increase in efficiency when compared to steam catapults.

EMALS will also generate higher sortie rates, reduce overall maintenance to the system and aircraft, and require fewer Sailors to operate.

“As the steam catapult system ages, it frequently requires additional personnel to monitor a gauge or tend to maintenance issues,” said Donnelly. “EMALS will monitor its own condition and keep the operator informed of system status, providing information on, and criticality of, any compromised components as well as aid maintainers in troubleshooting down to low-level components. This will permit a significant reduction in the manpower workload required to operate and maintain the system.”...

...“Actual EMALS operation and sustainment costs are still being determined, but given the fiscal climate facing the Navy now and in the future, EMALS technologies must be affordable and reduce the total life-cycle cost over the existing systems,” he said. “These reductions in cost are directly related to the 30-percent reduction goal in the number of operators and maintainers required for the EMALS. Depot-level maintenance associated with EMALS is also expected to be reduced over the life-cycle of the carrier.”

With these tests complete, the full-scale catapult was deemed operational on 13 November 2009 at a ceremony at Lakehurst, and the system began dead-load launching shortly thereafter. On 18 December 2010 the program reached its most meaningful milestone with the historic first launch of an aircraft using an electromagnetic aircraft catapult. An F/A-18E Super Hornet piloted by Lt. Daniel Radocaj of VX-23 took to the skies of eastern New Jersey following EMALS maiden launch.

“I thought the launch went great,” said Radocaj, echoing the statements of Edward Feightner more than 50 years before. “I got excited once I was on the catapult but I went through the same procedures as on a steam catapult. The catapult stroke felt similar to a steam catapult and EMALS met all of the expectations I had.”

Since then, EMALS has launched a variety of aircraft from the older C-2A Greyhound to the F-35C, and its components are being delivered to Gerald R. Ford for installation...."

http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... o-magnets/
OR
http://nanarchive.omnitecinc.com/20102019.aspx (Navigate to 2013 for 7Mb PDF download of entire issue)
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

h-bomb

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 303
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
  • Location: South Central USA

Unread post07 Aug 2013, 02:10

FlightDreamz wrote:Interesting that the SGPGRSjpalsGraphic+text.gif still shows a F-14 Tomcat in the landing pattern (a "D" model for maybe one of the Tomcat2000 proposal's I suppose) instead of an F/A-18 or a F-35C! D@mn! I miss the Tomcats!


That paper was from 2004 and the F-14 was already well on its way to pasture... I think it really shows how long this project has been in work. Some of the sources he quoted were from 2000. I would assume that the Navy may have started in the early 90's. That was when GPS was going to do everything. But between piece dividends and processing technology, it may not have been viable till the later 90's.

I have worked on a first Gen I JTIDS on an AWACS, it is a huge multi LRU monster. Similar to the Rockwell- Collins cabinet system they Navy uses on ship. By the mid 90's the Navy's E-2 were testing a full system smaller then E-3s transmitter alone.

And yes we were jealous! :D
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post22 Nov 2013, 21:27

:cheers: 'NavyDave' must have some good USN sources....

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 GPS-based 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-co ... ing-system

"CAPTION: An F/A-18C Hornet, assigned to the Salty Dogs of Strike Aircraft Test Squadron (VX)23, tests the Joint Precision Approach Landing System (JPALS) aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71). US Navy Photo"

http://i2.wp.com/news.usni.org/wp-conte ... =624%2C415
Attachments
Hornet Arrest Salty Dog VX-23 JPALS.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post30 Nov 2013, 04:50

HOW NOT TO SETUP ACLS....

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2013 Issue [produced 11 Oct 2013]
Precisions Approach and Landing System (PALS) Mode I Performance and Winds LCDR Pat “ WHO?” Bookey
"You’ve probably seen us borrowing your jets during CVN flight deck certifications and watched us zorch around low and fast conducting endless Mode I approaches. Our goal is to verify that the Improved Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (IFLOLS), SPN-41 Instrument Carrier Landing System (ICLS) and SPN-46 Automatic Carrier Landing System (ACLS) function properly, are aligned with each other and lead the pilot to a good start. We leave your ship after having ensured that the systems, specifically Mode I, are operating correctly within certification limits and available for those rare but much needed times when the pilot is otherwise incapable of getting aboard on his/her own (low visibility, IFR in the cockpit, injury, etc.) These systems, specifically the ACLS, are aging, and although we at VX-23 do our best to ensure proper functionality, degradations to their performance can be expected over time. Because we only come out every two years for verifications and there is no clear replacement for ACLS in the near future, it falls on the ship and Airwing to recognize when the system is misbehaving and report it to us so we can evaluate and fix it. Sometimes there are hardware-related problems which need to be corrected, but sometimes we field concerns from the Airwing resulting from misconceptions regarding how the system is intended to function. This year, in an effort to educate the fleet on the Mode I, we’re going to focus on wind conditions, displayed wind sources and their effect on Mode I performance.

The wind over the deck (WOD) is measured from three anemometers on the ship (FWD, STBD, and PORT). These three anemometers feed the Moriah System, which is the wind display in PriFly and the bridge that is used to drive the ship to get recovery WOD. The Moriah display from the Mini Boss station allows the different anemometers to be selected individually. The FWD anemometer is at the top of the navigation pole to the right of catapult #1. The PORT and STBD anemometers are at the top of the mast 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 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 ... oad&id=767 (PDF 1.8Mb)
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Dec 2013, 11:56

Electromagnetic Catapults Are Emblematic Of U.S. Navy's All-Electric Era 07 Dec 2013 William Pentland
“In November, the U.S. Navy christened the first Ford-class aircraft carrier at Newport News Shipbuilding, marking the end of the beginning of for new era of naval warfare.

The USS Gerald Ford, which weighs more than 100,000 tons and spans a length of more than 1,000 feet, is the first of the U.S. Navy’s new generation of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, which are also called supercarriers. With a price tag of $13.7 billion, the Ford-class carrier is the most expensive military vessel built in the history of the world.

Equipped with two cutting-edge nuclear reactors, the carrier will be capable of producing 250% more electric power than previous carriers.

And it will need every one of those electrons to power what is perhaps the supercarrier’s most revolutionary technology (at least among those that are unclassified) – the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS).

General Atomics, the San Diego, CA CA +1.11%-based defense contractor, pioneered the EMALS for the Ford-class aircraft carriers.

The EMALS uses a 300-foot linear induction motor (LIM) catapults airplanes off the carrier at a speed of 150 miles per hour. The LIM, which is integrated in the flight-deck structure, converts electrical current into electromagnetic forces to launch aircraft with significantly more precision than the conventional steam-powered system. The enhanced precision allows EMALS to launch more kinds of aircraft, from heavy fighter jets to light unmanned aircraft.

Of the carrier’s many technological marvels, the EMALS is perhaps the most emblematic of the Navy’s planned all-electric ships.

The whole EMALS juggernaut depends on the delivery of massive 122 megajoule-jolts of electricity to catapult planes into the sky. The jolts are so huge that the EMALS includes an elaborate energy storage system to supplement power provided by the nuclear reactors. The system stores a staggering 400 megajoules on four disk alternators.

After launching an aircraft, the alternators can be recharged in only 45 seconds. The supercarrier will be able to launch 220 sorties per day, about 25% more air missions per day than the current carriers.

China’s military is reportedly in hot pursuit of its own EMALS.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampent ... ctric-era/
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Dec 2013, 13:22

Attachments
ChinaEMALStestSite.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post03 Jan 2014, 20:23

U.S. Navy Completes JPALS Ship-Based EMD Phase AIN Defense Perspective 03 Jan 2014 Bill Carey
"The U.S. Navy recently completed engineering and manufacturing (EMD) development of the ship-based component of the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (Jpals). The EMD phase of Jpals Increment 1A for ship systems included auto landings by F/A-18C Hornets to the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt. The Increment 1B phase calls for integrating the system on aircraft.

Jpals is a GPS-based precision approach and landing system that will help ship- and land-based aircraft land in all weather conditions, providing guidance to 200 feet decision height and half-nautical-mile visibility. It is a tri-service program with multiple increments to include Air Force and Army requirements, eventually replacing “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 Department of Defense (DoD).

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.

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....

...Future development efforts are focused on supporting integration of Jpals with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and on improving support for unmanned aircraft systems, Navair said."


CAPTION: "The Navy’s VX-23 air test and evaluation squadron flew 60 autolands to the deck of the USS Theodore Roosevelt using the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System. (Photo: Navair)"
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... -emd-phase

http://www.ainonline.com/sites/default/ ... jpals2.jpg
Attachments
jpals2.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7691
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post05 Jan 2014, 03:17

What's with all the decals on the Hornet?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post05 Jan 2014, 04:30

These same decals in different places are on some of the weapon drop F-35s so that cameras recording from various angles are able to reconstruct parameters from known positions. Don't know if these decals required for JPALS but they might if side cameras are recording touchdowns for accuracy and glideslope angle, for example. I saw a pic of an F-35 with all these decals but did not save it. :doh:

VX-23 is Strike Test NAS Patuxent River, so their Hornets must be used a lot for this purpose (not just JPALS).
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7691
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post05 Jan 2014, 05:55

Ahhh.. mystery solved.. :salute:
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post06 Jan 2014, 14:28

I'll find a much better photo of the dotty F-35 seen recently meanwhile here is a fuzzy dotty foto:

https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/m ... R8kFA.jpeg
Attachments
DottyF-35AmissileFire.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7691
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post06 Jan 2014, 15:08

Even the missile is dotted.. :)
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests