EMALS & JPALS for the JSF

JPALS is for everyone also: Defense Tech International June 2010 p.42

http://au.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416128279&p=46

EDIT JPALS & EMALS story here now:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... ne=Carrier Launch System Passes Initial Tests
OR
http://alturl.com/q78x

If find it interesting that the current auto land system cannot acquire the F-35 due to its RCS. What band did the old auto land work in, any ideas anyone?

If find it interesting that the current auto land system cannot acquire the F-35 due to its RCS. What band did the old auto land work in, any ideas anyone?

You'ld think that the F-35C would have some gizmo to enhance its RCS fo such situations.

All the JSF aircraft will use JPALS - it will be used for not only military but civilian use eventually. Always best to move ahead to better more accurate systems IMHO.

Rather than post more than a dozen JPALS JPG pages from this PDF - I would prefer if you download the yourselves:

http://acast.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/up ... allace.pdf (5.5Mb)

12 forty-ton motors? Holy smoke!

SPN-41 is a Ku band radar while the SPN-46 is X band.

we try to land on carriers with GEAR DOWN, So i think you'll understand now

All the JSF aircraft will use JPALS - it will be used for not only military but civilian use eventually.

Many of the elements of JPALS come from US civil aviation and not the other way around.

US civil air carriers regularly conduct WAAS & to a lesser extent LAAS (GBAS) approach operations on scheduled flights. You will more than likely see more LAAS operations in the future. I flew LAAS tests in a civil transport as far back as the 90’s.

I’m familiar with the FANS CPDLC that is currently incorporated in some Airbus aircraft and is used regularly over the North Atlantic and can and will eventually probably be used domestically. It is basically “text messaging” with a purpose.

US carriers are at present in the process of incorporating ADS-B generated CDTI displays. Once again, way back in the 90’s, CDTI was provisionally flown as a Mode S alternative to TCAS for the cargo carriers. The cargo guys eventually went with TCAS at that time, but with ADS-B, CDTI is big again for onboard traffic separation, sequencing and flow with minimal ATC input and potential for controller error.

The FMS in the B737-800 always has incorporated the capability for 4D navigation with LNAV, VNAV capability and an RTA (required time of arrival) entry available for departure, enroute & arrival fixes. Other Flight Management Systems will certainly provide this through software upgrades.

Instrument approach capability has always been somewhat secondary in the land based fighter business. Unlike the Navy fighter CLS systems, the original USAF F-100’s, F-105’s & F-4’s didn’t even have an ILS. The A-7 may have been the first USAF fighter built with an ILS installed. It’s ironic that student pilots were trained and were checked to do ILS’s in the T-38, and then assigned to fighters that had only TACAN or PAR approach capability. For awhile the T-33 was the preferred fighter trainer when it came to instrument flying and students who completed training in the T-38 and went to certain fighters got additional instrument training in the T-33.

The USN has RNAV approach capability in their TC-12 trainers and P-3's, but as of a few years ago they didn't use it operationally. I think the C-17 is the only USAF transport built with a certified RNAV approach capability, although it may have been retrofitted to E-3’s & KC-135’s & 10’s.

Civil aviation is way ahead on the more “mundane” capability and uses of GPS.

GLOSSARY

WAAS: Wide Area Augmentation System
LAAS: Local Area Augmentation System
FANS: Future Air Navigation System
CPDLC: Controller to Pilot Data Link Communication
CDTI: Cockpit Display of Traffic Information
ADS-B: Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast
4D NAV: Latitude, Longitude, Altitude & Time define a single point in space

OL

(BTW, in the old days before the T-37 got a transponder, you had to put the gear down for a PAR pickup. The original LO airplane.)

outlaw162, thanks for the USN overview. Not my part of ship, being from Oz, initial jet training (many moons ago now) was in a Vampire which had a wooden fuselage but metal wings to aid in radar detection for a GCA (of course metal Goblin engine helped). TACAN became available in the A4G Skyhawk era then with the new Macchi MB326H to replace the venerable Vampire. Aahh the joys of modern instruments etc.

BTW the Vampire was more or less invisible to GCA (Ground Controlled Approach) Radar in any kind of rain - not that it flew well in rain either (water leaks). The only other Nav instrument was ADF (direction finder for radio beacon), which is really precise.

Thanks for starting this topic and the links Spazinbad! I WAS looking at the electronic catapult at work while on break friday (since they foolishly block f-16.net!) but forgot to forward the article link to my home computer.

[quote="outlaw162"][quote]All the JSF aircraft will use JPALS - it will be

. The cargo guys eventually went with TCAS at that time, but with ADS-B, CDTI is big again for onboard traffic separation, sequencing and flow with minimal ATC input and potential for controller error.

That is totally incorrect Outlaw. TCAS and any derivative of it was and still never is used for ATC seperation of a/c, flow of a/c, or in any way, shape, manner or form to replace ATC control instructions. TCAS is simply a last line of defense to prevent a mid-air collision, whether it be from controller error or pilot error. Matter of fact, if a pilot reports he is responding to a TCAS resolution, the controller is relieved of ALL separation requirements until the a/c acting on the TCAS advisory is through with it and if a loss of separation was caused due to it, legal separation standards have been re-established. And yes, I have saw pilots respond to a TCAS advisory before when ATC had them separated but was to busy to tell the pilot exactly what he was doing and a loss of required separation occur. Even though a controller knows he has the a/c separated, if a pilot advises he is responding to his TCAS advisory, ATC cannot tell him do not do it. All we could do was simply issue traffic and hope they don't hit while doing what their computer told them to do! So in short, NO, TCAS will never be used as a means of conducting air traffic control. It's just one tool in a last ditch effort to prevent a mid air collision.

Beazz

Will the tech that allows a UCAV to automatically land on a CVN allow a SH or F-35C to land w/o any pilot intervention?

The PDF indicated is informative. My understanding is that CASE III (fully automatic landings) are seldom practiced for various reasons but encouraged. Pilots like to do manual landings for the skill in it. However there have been emergencies (smoke/fog in cockpit that have required almost fully auto landings sometimes). Probably a USN pilot needs to explain further. I only read about this stuff in APPROACH magazine or similar (all these new fangled gizmos are after my time in RAN FAA). The 2nd last graphic explains about the CASE I,II & III approaches.

Will the tech that allows a UCAV to automatically land on a CVN allow a SH or F-35C to land w/o any pilot intervention?

As the JPALS info provided by the distinguished RAN Vampire pilot states, the key to the very precise automated boat landings is the LAAS. This system provides for GPS 3D positional accuracies down to incredible values. On the civilian side, the intent is to eventually use this system down to Category III weather minimums, Cat IIIC being zero/zero. The guaranteed landing footprint using this type of guidance can be that small. Any advanced aircraft autoflight system can be coupled to follow a particular approach guidance system to an autoland. The challenge is to have approach system accuracy that guarantees the touchdown point. It’s the demonstrated touchdown footprint that is critical. LAAS will eventually provide the boat guys and the airlines with touchdown footprints much better than a civil Cat III ILS system, with less upkeep.

I hate to say this, but a 100+ mil piece of flying equipment trying to hit a half cubic meter position in space at night in very bad weather might be more wisely placed under the control of an autoland system rather than a mere pilot. In the same vein, I guarantee that if you’re a passenger on a flight going into Seattle when the weather is near zero/zero, you want “George” flying the airplane.

The pilot gets to put the gear and the hook down and will have to climb out of the cockpit on his own.

OL

(B: “Totally incorrect” covers a lot of territory. I keep hearing Hudson’s line from “Aliens”:

“Hey man, maybe you haven’t been keeping up with current events……”

Cancel IFR)