EMALS & JPALS for the JSF

[quicksilver]

Did not the VAAC Harrier demonstrate an AUTO LANDING in 2005? albeit in good weather because it was the first time.

World's first STOVL aircraft automatic landing on HMS Invincible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tbgF616PJk

They may have (istr they did), but the landing is often the easiest part. Getting the decel right (in addition to the track and glide slope) — particularly at night and/or in bad wx — was biggest challenge.

[spazsinbad]

IIRC the VAAC auto land was not just the VL part but the approach using an old version of "JPALS" or whatever it was then. I'll look it up for more info IIRC there is a track of how it did this first approach etc. Anyway here is some initial LHA stuff:

"[17 Nov 2016] On board the USS America (LHA-6), the team continues to expand the F-35B envelope for the fleet to utilize during deployments. The Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) is an important feature the team successfully tested during this at-sea period. The JPALS system works on both the F-35B and the F-35C, enabling the jet to synchronize speeds with the ship, in the F-35B’s case, an amphibious assault ship.... the F-35B matches the speed and trajectory of the ship exactly to not only land on board, but to hover in parallel position, allowing the pilot to
transition the F-35B over the deck and then execute a vertical landing. This innovative technology not only makes it easier for pilots to accomplish a vertical landing onboard a ship moving at speeds of up to 30 knots, but also makes pilot training much easier for young fleet pilots to safely land...." Jeff Babione LM F-35 Head Honcho https://a855196877272cb14560-2a4fa819a6 ... _17_16.pdf

& a quotable quote for the 'optimist' amongst us....

"[20 Dec 2018] ...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,”...etc https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... em-452040/

[outlaw162]

Just a quick sidebar, then back to JPALS.

The Navy’s newest instrument landing system (ILS) is installed at NAS Patuxent River’s Trapnell Airfield

Last time I was at Pax (in the 90s), they were still using PAR.

The first commercial service ILS was flown in 1938. 82 years ago. At this rate, JPALS should be up and running in 2102.

[spazsinbad]

I think you have made a point for the USAF in you HOWEVER having the USAF pull out of JPALS put a DENT in it so recover.

Precision Ship-Landing System Could Be Game-Changer at Bare Airfields
19 Sep 2018 Hope Hodge Seck

"...JPALS works by enabling communication between a landing aircraft and systems on the ship or ground that can guide the plane in safely and accurately, even on a pitching ship deck or a zero-visibility landing zone. Since the JPALS-equipped F-35B embarked on historic first shipboard deployments with the 31st and 13th Marine Expeditionary Units earlier this year, Cleveland said the system has been 99.9 percent reliable.

"To us on the ships, it's unheard of," he said. "Just off the top of my head, about one out of every three times I came back, the landing systems weren't working, so you're just doing it by sight, which is kind of frustrating, off an eight-hour mission. [The pilots] love it, so that's been very successful."..."

Source: https://www.military.com/defensetech/20 ... ields.html

& anotherie OPTIMAL quotable quote....

"[28 Feb 2019] ...Using multiple touchdown points is meant to reduce the likelihood of damage to ship decks, Jaynes [retired US Navy Rear Adm. C.J. Jaynes, executive technical advisor for precision landing systems at Raytheon Intelligence, Information, and Services] told Air Force Magazine in a subsequent interview, since JPALS’ consistency in leading aircraft to land within approximately 20 cm of its intended target during a recent test led to noticeable wear to the landing surface...." http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... ades-.aspx

"...In July 2018, the USS Wasp amphibious assault ship used JPALS for the first time to guide a US Marine Corps (USMC) F-35B onto its deck. The USS Essex has also been using the system. Both assault ships carry engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) units that will be replaced with production versions...." 30 April - 6 May 2019 Flight International

ON PREVIOUS PAGE is recent DOT&E JPALS report which has this tidbit: "...F-35B coupled flight capability on LH-type ships." Whatever that means. DUNNO. I'll guess 'match ship speed' as quoted earlier?

[spazsinbad]

I had now deceased GREAT Harrier Test Pilot John Farley in mind erroneously for the RED Button quote - twas PAINES!

Push button plane landing hailed
21 May 2005 BBC News

"...The first automatic ship landing by "short take-off vertical landing" (STOVL) aircraft was achieved during a test on HMS Invincible. It is part of the Ministry of Defence's £2bn contribution to America's $40bn Joint Strike Fighter programme.

It's something Harrier pilots have always wanted - a big red button to push and take you straight to the coffee bar Pilot Justin Paines

The device works by linking a STOVL aircraft, via satellite and radio, to an aircraft carrier, Mr Howitt said. It enables the aircraft and the carrier to know the relative location of one another to within 10cm.

Qinetiq pilot Justin Paines, 41, who was on the Harrier jet equipped with the new system said it made things "completely automatic". In the new procedure, pilots have to press the button to plot a route in, press it again to accept and then a third time to engage...."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4567923.stm

QinetiQ achieves world’s first automatic landing
20 May 2005 QINETIQ

"...Origins of Automatic Landing
● The technology behind this recent world first automatic landing of a STOVL is the latest in a long line of development, by QinetiQ and its predecessors of the capability on military and for civil aircraft.

● In 1947, The UK Blind Landing Experimental Unit (BLEU) was established within the Royal Aircraft Establishment, now QinetiQ. BLEU conducted the world’s first fully automatic landing in 1950 and had significant involvement in the development programme for the world’s first Cat IIIb landing system for civil airliners.

● Later technology developed by QinetiQ’s predecessor include the Microwave Aircraft Digital Guidance Equipment (MADGE), developed as a tactical approach and landing system and was subsequently adopted by the Royal Navy for precision recovery of aircraft to the INVINCIBLE class aircraft carriers.

● Recent work by QinetiQ’s forebears on automatic landing systems has focussed on the use of differential and relative-GPS systems. A number of flight trials were conducted during the 1990s to explore the use of GPS as a means for recovery of helicopters to restricted sites, concentrating particularly on ship operations.

● In 2001, QinetiQ demonstrated a relative-GPS-based automatic recovery to a moving vehicle and automatic landing using the VAAC Harrier, including 4D operation - i.e. respecting both temporal and spatial constraints. This work has lead to the involvement of the team in the development of the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) capability for the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter.

● QinetiQ’s recent ship trial aboard HMS INVINCIBLE has demonstrated the world’s first fully automatic STOVL shipboard recovery and landing."

Source: http://www.qinetiq.com/home/newsroom/ne ... first.html

[spazsinbad]

Performance of Integrity Monitoring Techniques for Shipboard Relative GPS Landing Systems
13-16 Sep 2005 Christopher Mather, Alex Macaulay, Steve Mole, John Goddard QinetiQ Ltd, Bedford, United Kingdom

"ABSTRACT… [I'll make a PDF maybe later]
...The Autoland Demonstration, undertaken in collaboration with the UK Joint Combat Aircraft IPT, the JSF Joint Program Office (JPO) and the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) programme, was undertaken to investigate the Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for automatic shipboard approach and vertical landing for the STOVL JSF (F-35B)....

...JSF STOVL Autoland Demonstration Requirements
It was the top-level aim of the Autoland demonstration programme to provide verification of automatic landing system requirements and concepts of operation for the F-35B. In addition, it was designed to deliver an improved understanding of the performance and risk associated with the complex real-time interactions between the aircraft, ship and automatic landing system, allowing lessons learned to be incorporated in F-35B production solutions. In order to achieve these top-level goals the following demonstration objectives were set:

• Near-field automatic recovery to alongside an aircraft carrier – i.e. from within 6 miles – exploring STOVL specific issues such as speed/height profiles for the deceleration to a relative hover alongside;

• Automatic translation over the deck to a high hover station-keeping position exploring requirements for pilot consent to manoeuvre and associated pilot/vehicle interface issues;

• Automatic vertical descent to touchdown, again exploring requirements for pilot consent to manoeuvre and associated pilot/vehicle interface issues.

• Simulated failure cases through disengagement of the automatic system at various points during the approach with reversion to manual flight directed guidance.

System Operation Overview
Each automatic recovery is begun with the Evaluation Pilot engaging the experimental flight control system. The flight controls were response matched to the characteristics of F-35, and the Evaluation Pilot was able to fly in two-inceptor (Unified) control mode with a Sidestick controller. When commanded via the Head Down Display (HDD), the recovery management system generates a trajectory from the aircraft current location through the approach gate waypoint to a station keeping point alongside the ship. This approach phase trajectory is fully user definable enabling a range of flight profiles to be generated. If the pilot accepts the trajectory, he is then provided with a flight director on the Head-Up Display (HUD) to enable manual tracking under Unified control. The automatic recovery guidance system can then be engaged, by inceptor input, which then executes a fully automatic recovery along the trajectory ending in a station keeping hover alongside the ship. Once in the alongside hover, the system would transition to an automatic translation across the deck to a station keeping hover over the intended landing spot from where a controlled automatic descent to landing would be undertaken. During the translation, hover, and land phases the aircraft was able to track a user definable proportion of ship motion, within aircraft performance and pilot comfort limits, and the system was configured to enter each phase only on pilot consent...."

Source: http://www.beidoudb.com:88/document/upl ... 5562a9.pdf [not there now]

[quicksilver]

Looks like it’s all over ‘cept the testing and the ship installs...

[marsavian]

Testing suggests the US Navy's $13 billion supercarrier isn't ready to defend itself in combat

https://www.businessinsider.com/testing ... &r=US&IR=T
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tests-show

The USS Gerald R. Ford — the US Navy's $13 billion supercarrier that is over budget and behind schedule — is not yet ready to defend itself in combat, according to the latest assessment from the Pentagon's testing and evaluation office.

Fiscal year 2019 testing aboard a test ship revealed deficiencies and limitations with three important combat systems, namely the SLQ‑32(V)6 electronic warfare system, the SPY-3 Multi‑Function Radar (MFR), and the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) reported.

"These deficiencies and limitations reduce the overall self-defense capability of the ship," DOT&E explained in its report.

During developmental tests, the MFR and CEC "failed to maintain directions and tracks for one of the threat surrogates in the multi-target raid," and the SLQ-32(V)6 electronic surveillance system "demonstrated poor performance that prompted the Navy to delay additional operational tests until those problems could be corrected," the testing office revealed.

The US Navy only conducted only one of the four planned CVN-78 self-defense test ship (SDTS) tests during FY 2019. "If the Navy does not conduct all of the remaining events, testing will not be adequate to assess the operational effectiveness of the CVN 78 combat system," the report explained.

In the case of the three problematic systems mentioned in the DOT&E report, the Navy would have run them through different scenarios aboard the test ship to see how they track, manage, and communicate to other systems about specific targets.

As Bloomberg, which first reported on the Ford's self-defense setbacks, wrote, the various self-defense capabilities of a carrier are important, especially given rising concerns about their vulnerability to stand-off weapons, such as anti-ship missiles.

"Those three systems are intended to provide the self-defense function for the carrier," Bryan Clark, a defense expert and former Navy officer, told Insider.

"The SLQ-32 is designed to detect active missile radars and also jam them," he explained, adding that this system can inform the Ford's self-defense capabilities, such as the Rolling Airframe Missiles and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles and close-in guns.

"The multifunction radar is supposed to pick up that contact," he added. "And, then that gets passed by the CEC to maybe a nearby ship that can help figure out how to engage the target."

These combat capabilities, Clark told Insider, are "necessary to defend the Ford class carriers. But, also, if it doesn't work right, it is missing a huge opportunity to be able to be part of a battle network as opposed to simply being the defended asset."

The Navy's older Nimitz-class carriers have limited sensor capabilities and are very dependent on the cruisers and destroyers that escort them for radar tracking and missile defense.

"The Ford has improved sensors," he explained, "that should be able to at least detect potential threats or be a part of the network of sensors that is detecting threats and share that information. So, if these systems can't work together, then the Navy misses out on a lot of the investments they made in self-defense for the Ford."

The Navy insists that it is working to make the Ford into the carrier it was meant to be. "Compared to Nimitz-class ships, USS Gerald R. Ford is equipped with significant updates to its integrated combat system," the US Navy told Insider, adding that the Ford "continues to progress in a series of rigorous test events to demonstrate the effectiveness of the ship's combat system in self-defense."

The service added hat the Navy has conducted more tests events on the Ford than any previous carrier, explaining that it plans to "execute additional developmental and operational tests on CVN 78 over the next 15 months as the ship prepares for Combat System Ship Qualification Trials in 2021."

The Ford is, the Navy said, expected to complete its final ship self-defense testing on schedule in 2023.

[spazsinbad]

I'd like to know how the last post above is relevant to the EMALS / JPALS - even AAG portion/title of this thread - thanks.

I see the PDF attached is relevant to the thread - but related to the text post above - is it related to this thread. ????

[marsavian]

This thread's technology relies on a working CVN-78 to be able to be used in combat. It is background information useful say for the previous post which suggested it was all over when there are other problems required to be worked through apart from EMALS, AAG and the Elevators.

[spazsinbad]

This thread's technology relies on a working CVN-78 to be able to be used in combat. It is background information useful say for the previous post which suggested it was all over when there are other problems required to be worked through apart from EMALS, AAG and the Elevators.

Tell me then "what is all over" in your opinion? I would ask the poster what was meant by that remark myself but as you may see I've been busy posting relevant information on this thread. Yes the elevators are not mentioned much because this is the 'EMALS & JPALS for the JSF' thread. An attempt to keep things simple but I can see you want to complicate. After all this is a sub forum on F-16.net about the F-35/JSF. Do we need to note the weather every day? That is complex.

[marsavian]

Tell me then "what is all over" in your opinion?

The EMALS and AAG.

An attempt to keep things simple but I can see you want to complicate.

No, just consolidating relevant CVN-78 information to the most detailed thread about it and if it is prevented from sailing it is relevant to the implementation of the take off and landing technology on it. Pretty much In the same way all QE carrier information is posted on the UK F-35B thread even when it does not specifically involve the F-35B.

[quicksilver]

“This thread's technology relies on a working CVN-78 to be able to be used in combat.“

Huh? We were talking about JPALS fully coupled auto approaches in F-35B. It’s clearly much farther along than I was aware of. However, there is substantial testing to complete as well as installation of the system on all relevant platforms.

[spazsinbad]

...

An attempt to keep things simple but I can see you want to complicate.

No, just consolidating relevant CVN-78 information to the most detailed thread about it and if it is prevented from sailing it is relevant to the implementation of the take off and landing technology on it. Pretty much In the same way all QE carrier information is posted on the UK F-35B thread even when it does not specifically involve the F-35B.

You may notice probably most QE posts are by the person typing this. I'm familiar with the thread, I don't believe anyone has posted anything like your recent post text that I complain about which has nothing to do with the thread whatsoever. The PDF from DOT&E is relevant so why not post extracts from it instead of the irrelevant text from another source?

[marsavian]

As you wish but the UK F-35B thread does have non F-35B stuff in it like about the carrier helicopters. I thought rather than start a CVN-78 stand alone thread I would throw that post in here with the rest of the CVN-78 detail here which after all is the launch vessel for EMALS/AAG but as I suspected I fell foul of your pedantic nature .

EMALS

• Through the first 747 shipboard launches, EMALS suffered 10 critical failures. This is well below the requirement for Mean Cycles Between Critical Failures, where a cycle represents the launch of one aircraft. The Navy identified 9 unique Incident Reports (IRs) that resulted in the 10 critical failures for EMALS. Of the nine IRs, one fix was installed during PSA and is in place to support flight operations during CVN 78’s Post Delivery Test and Trials (PDT&T). Four IRs will be corrected commencing in late FY20. The four remaining IRs occurred only once during pre-PSA operations, are deemed low priority, and will be monitored during future flight operations.

• The reliability concerns are exacerbated by the fact that the crew cannot readily electrically isolate EMALS components during flight operations due to the shared nature of the Energy Storage Groups and Power Conversion Subsystem inverters on board CVN 78. The process for electrically isolating equipment is time-consuming; spinning down the EMALS motor/generators takes 1.5 hours by itself. The inability to readily electrically isolate equipment precludes EMALS maintenance during flight operations.

AAG

• The Program Office redesigned major components that did not meet system specifications during land-based testing. Through the first 747 attempted shipboard landings, AAG suffered 10 operational mission failures, including one incident to the engine that supports the barricade. The Navy identified 7 unique IRs that caused the 10 operational mission failures for AAG. Of the seven, six fixes have been installed and will be in place to support flight operations during CVN 78’s PDT&T. The one remaining IR occurred once, is deemed low priority, and will be monitored during future flight operations.

• This reliability estimate falls well below the re-baselined reliability growth curve and well below the requirement for Mean Cycles Between Operational Mission Failures, where a cycle represents the recovery of one aircraft.

• The reliability concerns are magnified by the current AAG design that does not allow electrical isolation of the Power Conditioning Subsystem equipment from high power buses, limiting corrective maintenance on below-deck equipment during flight operations.