F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 01:23
by spazsinbad
Maybe it is time to accumulate SRVL info for the UK CVFs? Here is a start.

Lightning II - new agility for the 21st century

"...Onboard the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers, the jet would take off at its maximum weight of nearly 27 tonnes using a UK-developed ski-jump and land either vertically or using the novel UK-developed Short Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) technique. This would enable the jet to land at a much higher weight than is possible in a purely vertical landing.

Wg Cdr Hackett said: "SRVL is under development for the carriers but it means the aircraft would fly in at around 60 to 70 mph (around 52-61 KIAS) and then brake to a stop on the deck, without the need for any costly arrester gear. It will be able to land up to 1.8 tonnes heavier than otherwise be possible, meaning unexpended weapons can be brought back to the ship."

This is 3,968 lbs extra on top of VLBB (see below).

Source: http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/9DEBC990 ... 2v1_2U.pdf (3Mb)

RE: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 04:15
by bigjku
To be honest for all the hassle it will entail that does not seem like much of an increase in bring back. What is bring back in vertical landing mode?

RE: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2012, 04:27
by spazsinbad
Try searching this forum for 'SRVL' because that is one thing I myself would do. Sorry that you are disappointed in the bring back but there you go. The KPP for VLBB (Vertical Landing Bring Back) has been itemised on this forum in many threads many times over. Try searching this forum for 'Scorecard' or 'Bowman' or download this little beauty: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html and search it for KPP.

So to answer about KPP it is taken directly from the 'Scorecard' PDF:

“The USMC has added STOVL performance as a service specific key performance parameter.

With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 550 foot [now 600 feet] (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) & with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, ~full expendables, & fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile.

The Marine Corps has used the more limiting deck launch, rather than a simple expeditionary airfield, to frame its requirement.”

Sadly there are no hard/fast figures on bringback weight because there are too many unknowns only described in words as above. There have been guesstimates but accuracy is lacking.

Attached is an old bringback approximation from:
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/J ... Update.pdf

Forget about external green stores (this is just a max load illustration not a VLBB). A 'back of a napkin' calculation gives approx. 5,000 lbs bringback. But youse knew that. So add some significant amount extra for SRVL and away you go.

RE: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 02 Sep 2012, 23:58
by spazsinbad
How about this compilation graphic for reference. Source URLs are on each part of the graphic.

RE: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2012, 00:05
by marksengineer
Fo what's it worth on p. 4 of the Code One magazine, 2nd qtr, 2002 the internal weapons included the MK-20 Rockeye, CBU-87/88/89, CBU-103/104/105 WCMD, and CBU-87 Gator. The artwork also depicts various marks of JDAM (noted as PIP) with an apparant seeker on the nose.

The AGM-84D Harpoon is shown as an external store but the JSOW is not (although it is included in the internal stores section.)

RE: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 04 Sep 2012, 00:16
by SpudmanWP
I am sure the weapons carried will greatly expand once UAI catches on with the manufactures.


btw, The recent F-15E JASSM integration was done through UAI (as all F-15Es since the F-15E is the SDD platform for UAI).

RE: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2012, 21:23
by spazsinbad
Had hoped that more info on STO, SKI JUMP & RVL testing would be known by now. Anyway earlier a PDF was cited on this forum about another matter (amongst other things replacing the LiftFan with a fuel bag capability). At the time I had overlooked the VLBB info repeated below for info. Performance details will have changed slightly according to info known today (rather than 2002) but good enough for the concepts involved. 'Scorecard' is the other good source. Earlier on this forum there was a discussion about 'tropical days' etc.

The STOVL Variant of Joint Strike Fighter: Are its’ Tactical Compromises Warranted?
Written by: Captain G.M. Beisbier, 01 March 2002

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf (54Kb)

“...STOVL JSF DESIGN REQUIREMENTS [pages 5-6]
The design requirements for the STOVL JSF mandated a Vertical Lift Bring Back (VLBB) capability of 5000lbs of fuel and ordnance on a tropical day. The STOVL JSF’s empty gross weight is 29,735 lbs, and it is equipped with a lift fan design capable of producing 39,800 lbs of vertical lift at sea level on a tropical day. An ability to produce 39,800lbs of thrust minus 29,735 lbs gross weight and 3000 lbs of thrust to safely maneuver the aircraft equals 7,065 lbs of VLBB. As a result the STOVL JSF thirty percent more VLBB then the requirements document mandated (Killea). This means in a worst case, sea-based scenario the STOVL JSF is more than capable of conducting a vertical landing with 4000 lbs, vise 2000 lbs, ordnance, plus two 325-lb radar missiles, and 2200 lbs of fuel for an approach, vertical landing, and reserve (Killea)....”

RE: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 13:08
by spazsinbad
Creepy HUH? :D

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts September 5, 2012

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/ ... 5-2012.pdf (164Kb)

"...BF-1 accomplished the first F-35 five Creeping Vertical Landings (CVLs) on August 23...."

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2012, 18:47
by neptune
Creepy Vertical Landings!

http://f-35.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/ ... 5-2012.pdf

- BF-1 accomplished the first F-35 five Creeping Vertical Landings (CVLs) on August 23.

I've yet to find a document for definition of "CVL" for the F-35B. Needless to say, now that the Brits have reconsidered the F-35B the resurgence of the SRVL envelope will become a lively discussion "once again". Perhaps the CVL is to address the SRVL requirement.

The F-35B has proven the VL (Oct, 2011) on the USS Wasp (LHD1) and all current landing operations at Eglin are conventional landings. LHA/ LHD have a 820 ft./ 844 ft. flight deck (106 ft. beam/ 35 ft. wingspan) with 20+ knots WOD capability.

Is the F-35B program now assessing the "lift on wings" coupled with the VL to allow increased bring back capacity for the envelope expanders?

Creepy landing may now be in order! :doh:

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2012, 03:24
by spazsinbad
Just adding old info for reference... From page 37 of the VLT 'Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC' there is this PDF with now 'old but interesting' insight into the USMC F-35B FUEL VLBB. Whether it applies today I claim not to know. However long discussion about how UK is likely to operate F-35Bs suggests that it will be similar to their Harrier Ops with a quick fast landing first time. You betcha.

VLBB Graphic has been reworked and reattached below:

The STOVL Joint Strike Fighter – From a Harrier Skeptic 2002 Captain A.R. Behnke USMC

http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada520417.pdf (129Kb)

http://www.f-16.net/attachments/the_sto ... 02_200.gif

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... ist#206678

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2012, 21:54
by spazsinbad
Repeat here of excerpts from a very long article about many testing things at PaxRibber but worth it. Mebbe we will see some info about SRVL and ski jump testing soon. [ excerpt from here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-20505.html ]

F-35 Flight Testing At Pax [excerpt] By Eric Hehs 15 October 2012

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_arti ... tem_id=110

"...While many test points are shared across all three variants of the F-35, others are variant-specific. The vertical lift capability of the F-35B, for example, creates a unique flight envelope that goes all the way down to zero airspeed at zero feet altitude. “The F-35B can fly backwards,” noted Eric Faidley, a Lockheed Martin flight test engineer assigned to BF-1. “In fact, its maximum backwards groundspeed is thirty knots.”

The only time an F-35B might hover at thirty knots in reverse in an operational setting would involve an overshot landing, Faidley explained. “In such instances, pilots would typically not back up and, instead, go back around in the pattern and attempt another landing,” he said....
&
"...Pilot Perspectives
All the F-35 test pilots at Pax are qualified to fly both variants. A subset has the qualifications necessary for executing STOVL test missions, that is short takeoffs and vertical landings. The ease of operating the aircraft in STOVL mode allows that test capability to be distributed broadly among the pilots. “A number of our pilots came here with no STOVL experience, but now they are flying STOVL test missions,” noted Etz.

“The ease of landing the B-model in STOVL mode is unprecedented,” explained Taylor, who had no STOVL experience before joining the F-35 ITF at Pax. “In the Harrier world, learning to operate in STOVL mode takes months of training. For us it is a couple of flights in the simulator and one, maybe two, flights in the airplane, because it is so intuitive. It is easy to land the F-35B in STOVL mode. We will never hear a Harrier pilot say the AV-8 is easy to land. The F-35B will hold whatever condition you command it to hold. It is like driving a perfectly aligned car down a perfectly straight highway with no wind. The F-35B will go straight until you tell it to do something else.”

“One of the beauties of this airplane is that it is so simple to land,” added Dan Levin, a Lockheed Martin test pilot and lead test pilot for the ITF at Pax. “Harrier airframes burn up about half their life in training pilots to land vertically. Landing vertically in a Harrier is a complex task. I’m a fixed-wing fast-mover pilot, and I was ready to perform STOVL operations after ten minutes in the simulator. STOVL operations are simple and intuitive. The flight control system is automated in the right ways. The pilot doesn’t even notice the transition between conventional flight and STOVL mode.”...

...Ease of vertical and carrier landings promises to significantly reduce the training time needed for these operations with the F-35B and F-35C, when compared to the aircraft the two variants are replacing. “The training required to keep a pilot comfortable in the STOVL environment is going to go to near zero,” Levin said...."

Nice new photo of F-35B aboard USS Wasp last year. CAPTION: "The initial sea trials for the F-35B were conducted in October 2011. Photo by Michael D. Jackson": http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/m ... 7_3248.jpg

This article otherwise has lots of info about various testing matters (testing in a good way). :D

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 02:41
by maus92
Interesting F-35B photo from the sea trials.

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 13:15
by quicksilver
From the article --

"The only time an F-35B might hover at thirty knots in reverse in an operational setting would involve an overshot landing, Faidley explained. “In such instances, pilots would typically not back up and, instead, go back around in the pattern and attempt another landing,...”

Rather than opine about operational stuff, flight test engineers should stick to flight test engineering. The jet hovers just as well at spot 4 as it does at spot 7 or 9. Well trained pilots will stop the jet alongside the ship and let the ship catch up (in a fashion). Depending on the relative wind, that may constitute "backing up" -- or it may not. Beats the heck outta spinning it once in the pattern to the tune of 2-3x total fuel burn.

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 16:02
by neptune
quicksilver wrote:...Depending on the relative wind, that may constitute "backing up" -- or it may not...


a back pedal or two is definitely not a "Bolter"! :wink: Finessing an "X -marks the spot" should be interesting in gusting (less than hurricane) cross winds. Not exactly the SRVL calmness the academics are wishing for. :)

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2012, 19:04
by spazsinbad
There will be a limit for gusting cross winds for a VL, which I gather the ship can adjust by a heading/speed change to get under whatever crosswind wind limit. A quick 'hover taxi' just outboard may be in order - if it is allowable. All pilot accounts stress how easy it is to fly the F-35B in STOVL mode making all kinds of adjustments possible during a difficult condition VL.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 00:32
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:There will be a limit for gusting cross winds for a VL, which I gather the ship can adjust by a heading/speed change to get under whatever crosswind wind limit. A quick 'hover taxi' just outboard may be in order - if it is allowable. All pilot accounts stress how easy it is to fly the F-35B in STOVL mode making all kinds of adjustments possible during a difficult condition VL.


Before they "C" the jets, the LSO will have talked to the Air Boss and the Air Boss will have talked to the bridge to put the recovery winds inside the wind star. Depending on the experience and general competence of the pilots, and the needs of the ship (a range of navigation, position or formation considerations) those winds may be heart of the wind envelope or they may be edge of the wind envelope. Because STOVL jets can also do cross-axial and bow-to-stern approaches sometimes the ship just maintains what it's already doing and the pilot and the LSO make the adjustment by using one of those patterns.

However, it is *extremely* rare for STOVL pilots to take their own wave off simply because they overshot the spot, the reason being it's generally a bad idea. There is no air taxiing -- one just adjusts ones speed relative to the ships motion until one is abeam the intended point of landing and the LSO give one the 'cleared to cross.' Pretty simple stuff, even in Harrier.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 00:38
by spazsinbad
Agree.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 00:48
by quicksilver
And a link to Harriers doing bow-to-stern recoveries during Libya ops.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5f8MsZiI2k

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 00:55
by spazsinbad
Great video. I have read somewhere some time ago that SHARs or RAF Harriers used to park themselves on deck after landing by taxiing backwards a bit (not air taxi - this idea came from a former SHAR pilot saying it was a possibility in an emergency to get to a clear deck spot rather than intended becoming foul by accident). I'll look again for a Harrier 'wind star/rose'. Could not find one earlier but there are lots of helo specific ones in flat deck NATOPS.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2012, 01:10
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:Great video. I have read somewhere some time ago that SHARs or RAF Harriers used to park themselves on deck after landing by taxiing backwards a bit (not air taxi - this idea came from a former SHAR pilot saying it was a possibility in an emergency to get to a clear deck spot rather than intended becoming foul by accident)...


True. Nozzles to the braking stop (nominally, 98.5 degrees which is ~17 deg fwd of the hover position, 81 deg).

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2012, 05:54
by spazsinbad
Well, Well, Well... Allo, Allo, Allo - what have we here...

JSF programme to proceed with UK-specific land-based carrier trials Gareth Jennings 09 Jul 2012

http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions ... oceed.aspx

"The Program Office for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is to shortly commence UK-specific trials for carrier operations of the short take-off/vertical landing (STOVL) variant F-35B, it was announced at the Farnborough Airshow 2012.

Speaking on 10 July, BAE Systems lead STOVL test pilot Peter 'Wizzer' Wilson said that 'ski-jump' launch trials will begin at Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River, Maryland, in the near future, while work on the shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) is also ongoing.

"A 'ski jump' is in place at Pax River that is based on the one [formerly fitted to HMS] Illustrious," he said, adding: "If we can get a few launches in over the next 12 months or so to help de-risk the programme, that would be something that [the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD)] would be interested in."

Wilson said the advantage of the 'ski jump' launch method is in the extra time it gives the pilot on take-off. "The real benefit is one of timing. Once airborne you are flying upwards rather than horizontal, and this gives you extra time to think if something should go wrong," he explained.

In addition, Wilson noted that the 'ski jump' saves approximately 100 to 150 ft of deck run over the standard 'flat top' carrier deck.

"Everything we have seen in modelling is that [the 'ski jump'] is the best way to get this aircraft airborne," he said.

Wilson noted that the lift-fan door behind the cockpit does not affect the aircraft's handling when open for the landing and take-off phases of flight.

"There are no issues in terms of drag," he said. "We can open [the door] up to speeds of 250 kt and you don't feel a thing in the cockpit."

With regard the SVRL landing technique, which is designed to increase the aircraft's fuel and/or weapons bring bag capacity, Wilson said that the Program Office is continuing the support the UK-specific work in this field, although he added that the UK government has not yet decided if it will adopt this technique on the two Queen Elizabeth-class ships (CVF) when they enter service...." [Fahgedaboutit] :D

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2012, 12:17
by fiskerwad
spazsinbad wrote:Wilson noted that the lift-fan door behind the cockpit does not affect the aircraft's handling when open for the landing and take-off phases of flight.

"There are no issues in terms of drag," he said. "We can open [the door] up to speeds of 250 kt and you don't feel a thing in the cockpit."


This part still just amazes me.
fisk

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2012, 16:32
by archeman
fiskerwad wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Wilson noted that the lift-fan door behind the cockpit does not affect the aircraft's handling when open for the landing and take-off phases of flight.

"There are no issues in terms of drag," he said. "We can open [the door] up to speeds of 250 kt and you don't feel a thing in the cockpit."


This part still just amazes me.
fisk


I wonder if that is because the fan is reducing the air pressure buildup that you would expect just in front of the door?
Even if the fan is reducing the effects the wind gusts at 250kt, those gusts would not be constant but the pressure pull from fan would be nearly constant.
So I'm not sure how the pilot couldn't feel the pressure difference hitting the aircraft surfaces.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2012, 16:47
by quicksilver
archeman wrote:
fiskerwad wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Wilson noted that the lift-fan door behind the cockpit does not affect the aircraft's handling when open for the landing and take-off phases of flight.

"There are no issues in terms of drag," he said. "We can open [the door] up to speeds of 250 kt and you don't feel a thing in the cockpit."


This part still just amazes me.
fisk


I wonder if that is because the fan is reducing the air pressure buildup that you would expect just in front of the door?
Even if the fan is reducing the effects the wind gusts at 250kt, those gusts would not be constant but the pressure pull from fan would be nearly constant.
So I'm not sure how the pilot couldn't feel the pressure difference hitting the aircraft surfaces.


The door opens to a lower angle at higher airspeeds within the Mode 4 envelope.

The lift fan 'pull,' as you call, it is not constant -- it varies pressure recovery (through VIGVs) in order to balance lift between its own output and the main engine.

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2012, 19:10
by spazsinbad
Some details which may change or have changed via subsequent testing or door hinge changes etc....

F-35 Begins Year With Test Objectives Unmet [STOVL IAS Change] Jan 4, 2011 By Graham Warwick

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 279507.xml
-
“...unreliable upper lift-fan door actuator redesigned, and no problems were experienced in the last quarter, he says. Vertical landings, halted since September after the discovery of wear on auxiliary inlet-door hinges, are set to resume this month. McFarlan says some hinge components have been redesigned & operation of the lift-fan door rescheduled to reduce airloads on the auxiliary doors during semi-jet-borne flight.

The lift-fan door was programmed to open to 65 deg. below 120 kt., and to 35 deg. above that airspeed. But with the large door fully open, loads on the auxiliary-inlet doors behind it are reduced, so the schedule has been changed to keep the lift-fan door open 65 deg. up to 165 kt. during a short takeoff, he says.
_____________

F-35B - Doors (Pt. 2) by Graham Warwick Dec/9/2011

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/av ... 17-3364-4f
bf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog%3aa68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost%3a41e6d676-ad38-4c26-a670-b72068fabeae&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

“Dorsal auxiliary air-inlet doors, which open in STOVL mode to increase mass flow into the engine & generate an additional 7,000lb of vertical thrust, were found to flutter in semi-jetborne flight, causing premature hinge wear.

The initial fix was to modify operation of the large lift-fan door forward of the auxiliary inlet to stay fully open to higher airspeed on short take-offs to ‘shelter’ the clamshell doors. Instead of closing to the 35° mid position at 125kt the aft-hinged lift-fan door now stays fully open at 65° to 170kt on take-off, & begins to open to 65° at 160kt on approach to landing.
_____________

F-35 Flight Testing At Pax [excerpt] By Eric Hehs 15 October 2012

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_arti ... tem_id=110

"...The test team at Pax is also exploring the maximum speed end of the STOVL portion of the flight envelope, which is 250 knots. “The buffet and noise is significant when we have the upper lift fan door all the way open, which is an angle of sixty-five degrees, at that speed,” Faidley said.... [Looks like during STOVL transition from wing-borne flight the Lift Fan door will open only to 35 degrees then full 65 degrees from 160-5 KIAS...]

...Some of the flight test aircraft have special software that allows the pilot to override the standard control laws that actuate the various doors and nozzle angles. The flight control laws for the STOVL variant have six modes that are associated with specific actuations. Mode 1 defines conventional flight. Mode 4 defines STOVL. The other four modes define transitional states between the two primary modes. “If a pilot loses a hydraulic system in Mode 2, we know that the doors associated with STOVL flight will be positioned a certain way,” Faidley explained. “We are seeing how well the airplane flies in those conditions.”...”

...[Dan Levin LM Test Pilot Pax] STOVL operations are simple and intuitive. The flight control system is automated in the right ways. The pilot doesn’t even notice the transition between conventional flight and STOVL mode.”..."

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2012, 11:54
by cerberus
So have the UK decided on the B now, because there was some talk of them getting the C a while back.

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2012, 12:23
by spazsinbad
Short answer is yes (to what though). Long answer may be found here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15969.html

I have a question - if you are from York - I forgot the question.

Unread postPosted: 10 Nov 2012, 15:23
by madrat
We used to have these toys while growing up that used little flashlight shaped fans to hold ping pong balls in the air. Its a shame the isn't some high tech way to use a similar concept to retrieve F-35B fully loaded.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2012, 00:04
by cerberus
I'm starting to lose faith in the F-35B. It might be okay for use by the army in short range ops with a low fuel load and few weapons but other than that I don't see the point. It's not VTOL and if it isn't VTOL, what's the point? STOVL has the complication of retrieving fully loaded aircraft and to operate from unprepared surfaces, an aircraft is either VTOL and can, or it can't. There is no 'STOVL'. Then you have the smaller internal bay issue.

I only see a use for the A and C until the engine gains an extra 8-10,000lbf to make it a proper VTOL like the Harrier.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2012, 01:19
by count_to_10
madrat wrote:We used to have these toys while growing up that used little flashlight shaped fans to hold ping pong balls in the air. Its a shame the isn't some high tech way to use a similar concept to retrieve F-35B fully loaded.

An F-35 is going to have a minimum speed at which it can maintain flight at any given load. The heavier that load, the faster it has to go.
So, the main difficulty of any recovery mechanism that attempts to increase that landing load is how to provide support while the aircraft is slowing down from that speed, and that means it will have to move with the aircraft relative to the landing platform for that stopping distance.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2012, 01:19
by spazsinbad
'cerberus' - you are a troll with that repsonse. Go AWAY. This thread is not about the efficacy of the F-35B it is about SRVL / STOVL matters for the F-35B which is NOT a VTOL aircraft designed nor built. F off.

Unread postPosted: 11 Nov 2012, 01:28
by count_to_10
Not that an effective VTOL F-35 wouldn't have interesting possible uses, but, like spaz said, their is clear demand for the STOVL Bee.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2012, 16:43
by cerberus
spazsinbad wrote:'cerberus' - you are a troll with that repsonse. Go AWAY. This thread is not about the efficacy of the F-35B it is about SRVL / STOVL matters for the F-35B which is NOT a VTOL aircraft designed nor built. F off.

I perhaps phrased my response badly.

A STOVL is useful but not as useful as VTOL and I think what I was trying to ask was, "is it really worth shrinking the weapons bay and limiting range just for STOVL?" If you're buying all 3 planes then it doesn't matter but if you had to choose just one carrier variant I'd probably go for the F-35C.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2012, 17:13
by 1st503rdsgt
cerberus wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'cerberus' - you are a troll with that repsonse. Go AWAY. This thread is not about the efficacy of the F-35B it is about SRVL / STOVL matters for the F-35B which is NOT a VTOL aircraft designed nor built. F off.

I perhaps phrased my response badly.

A STOVL is useful but not as useful as VTOL and I think what I was trying to ask was, "is it really worth shrinking the weapons bay and limiting range just for STOVL?" If you're buying all 3 planes then it doesn't matter but if you had to choose just one carrier variant I'd probably go for the F-35C.

Ah, I see Spaz has met our little friend. Well, someone's gotta do it.
Image
...and VERY persistent

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2012, 18:45
by count_to_10
cerberus wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'cerberus' - you are a troll with that repsonse. Go AWAY. This thread is not about the efficacy of the F-35B it is about SRVL / STOVL matters for the F-35B which is NOT a VTOL aircraft designed nor built. F off.

I perhaps phrased my response badly.

A STOVL is useful but not as useful as VTOL and I think what I was trying to ask was, "is it really worth shrinking the weapons bay and limiting range just for STOVL?" If you're buying all 3 planes then it doesn't matter but if you had to choose just one carrier variant I'd probably go for the F-35C.

At this point, a true VTOL fighter would require a lot of performance trade-offs, and the infrastructure already exists to support STOVL Harriers. You can wish for a VTOL fighter, and future developments may increase the F-35B's VTOL load to something operationally useful, but chances are it will be overtaken developmentally by VTOL drones.

Unread postPosted: 12 Nov 2012, 19:25
by spazsinbad
Insisting on using the term VTOL incorrectly does those people no favours. The F-35B is not VTOL so no point mentioning that term on this thread thank you. Wish for a VTOL fighter on a thread dedicated to that purpose. However that thread would not be on this forum because why? The F-35B is not VTOL.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2012, 21:47
by cerberus
spazsinbad wrote:Insisting on using the term VTOL incorrectly does those people no favours. The F-35B is not VTOL so no point mentioning that term on this thread thank you. Wish for a VTOL fighter on a thread dedicated to that purpose. However that thread would not be on this forum because why? The F-35B is not VTOL.

With an improvement in engine thrust in future developments, it may become VTOL. Looking at the new engine thread, a new core giving 10% more thrust on an F-35B would more or less give it VTOL ability with 12,000lbs of fuel and an air-to-air load. :)

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2012, 21:48
by bigjku
Yes but I don't think anyone that matters really cares if it is VTOL or not. They want a STOVL aircraft because it is just much simpler to use and building the strip is really no harder than building a place for the thing to take off vertically from anyway.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2012, 21:56
by spazsinbad
Perhaps we need a VTOLtrollIFFmodeFW?

Aircraft Identification Enters New Era

http://www.asdnews.com/news-46139/Aircr ... ew_Era.htm

"A new era in aircraft recognition is on the horizon with the projected first flight of the Mode 5 Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system aboard an F/A-18E/F Super Hornet expected this winter.

The Naval Air Traffic Management Systems (PMA-213) program office here leads the Mode 5 effort to upgrade the IFF system in use by the United States and its allies for more than 45 years...."

More proper info at the jump if interested.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2012, 22:02
by cerberus
bigjku wrote:Yes but I don't think anyone that matters really cares if it is VTOL or not. They want a STOVL aircraft because it is just much simpler to use and building the strip is really no harder than building a place for the thing to take off vertically from anyway.

Surely it gives the ability to take off from unprepared sites though. That could be useful.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2012, 22:07
by spazsinbad
Surely my IFF (mode FW) has identified 'cerberus' as a CLOWNtroll from this statement: "Surely it gives the ability to take off from unprepared sites though. That could be useful."

Never mind the FOD damage eh - very useful indeed.

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2012, 22:48
by 1st503rdsgt
spazsinbad wrote:Surely my IFF (mode FW) has identified 'cerberus' as a CLOWNtroll from this statement: "Surely it gives the ability to take off from unprepared sites though. That could be useful."

Never mind the FOD damage eh - very useful indeed.
:lmao:

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2012, 00:27
by count_to_10
"Unprepared sites" are not nearly as important as "the deck of every ship with a helipad".

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2012, 00:39
by spazsinbad
This thread is about F-35B SRVL info. What anything about 'non-required Vertical Takeoff for F-35B' has to do with SRVL please enlighten us all. BTW every ship with a helipad [which is able to take the weight/heat etc] is not going to take anything like what is suggested [VTO? or just VL?]. Perhaps an emergency vertical landing but that is it. What happens after that is up to the gods.

And yes as mentioned now a few times on various threads the F-35B will be tested in VTO mode but emphasise 'tested'. A lot of things will be tested because that is the nature of testing. However the F-35B is not operationally designed nor required to Takeoff Vertically. But trolls will say shite just because they can - until they cannot.

[Addition] Not forgetting that any emergency helipad landing on a suitable helipad will require otherwise good weather conditions for such an unlikely event. Small ships bob about more than large flat decks.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2012, 12:46
by spazsinbad
And again - this thread is NOT about the Harrier or Vertical Takeoff but hopefully you will f off soon enough. A helipad (where ever it may be) is just that - a helipad - DUH.

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2012, 13:53
by bigjku
Well the Harrier managed it.


Not very often. The unprepared field concept was not really utilized in combat on any regular basis. It was an idea for having an air force survive in an environment ripe with tactical nuclear and chemical weapons. In those circumstances you would have used the capability. Since no one is really planning around that basis anymore clawing back capability and not making the VTOL aspect a requirement makes all the sense in the world.

Unread postPosted: 21 Dec 2012, 12:14
by spazsinbad
Nothing on SRVL for a long time but here is an OLD but NEW video about preliminary Sim Modelling before USS Wasp first VL for the F-35B VIDEO. I'll guess that a lot of sim work will precede actual SRVLs aboard CVF or on land beforehand. I guess the SKI JUMP can be modelled also.

F-35B Manned Flight Simulator (2011) VIDEO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... gZz7o_VEjA

"Published on Nov 19, 2012
Courtesy: U.S. Naval Air Systems Command/NAVAIR
Watch how F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter test pilots and engineers use flight simulators to make flight testing more efficient and safer, particularly for the initial ship trials on USS Wasp (LHD 1) in October 2011."

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2012, 16:35
by quicksilver
The biggest challenges for SRVL are misalignment of the aircraft's fwd motion with the landing area (resulting in lateral drift after touchdown), and lack of a wave-off capability after touchdown. If you go back to the Qinetiq VAAC trials, most of the emphasis was on touchdown accuracy and rollout distance on a ship in low sea states, i.e. benign deck motion.

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2012, 16:51
by spazsinbad
A lot of information about SRVL is not on this thread but on other threads. There is an ability to have the aircraft touchdown point optimised for the sea state/ship movement and WOD. IF WOD is down centreline and aircraft is on centreline during approach how is there misalignment? Actual wheel speeds at touchdown will be slow if SRVL conducted at 60 KIAS with a WOD of 30 KIAS. IF natural wind high then ship speed can be slow if HIGH WOD is a problem (which is the case for conventional carrier approaches). In any case if an SRVL is deemed to risky then the aircraft can ditch stores/fuel to carry out a Vertical Landing which by every account is much safer in any circumstances. No risk to the aircraft then.

I can get quotes about ability to use SRVL in high sea states if required - otherwise these statements are on other threads. SRVL may not even be a requirement according to this:

JSF programme to proceed with UK-specific land-based carrier trials Gareth Jennings 09 Jul 2012

http://www.janes.com/events/exhibitions ... oceed.aspx

“...With regard the SVRL landing technique, which is designed to increase the aircraft's fuel &/or weapons bring back capacity, Wilson said that the Program Office is continuing the support the UK-specific work in this field, although he added that the UK government has not yet decided if it will adopt this technique on the 2 Queen Elizabeth-class ships (CVF) when they enter service....”

"Never mind the quality - feel the width" and forget about the no longer required JBD seen in this model view perhaps of a low and slow SRVL approach: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvfimag ... ct04-1.jpg Other info from: http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-01.htm & http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-02.htm
____________________

The BEDFORD ARRAY will help a lot and may become a feature of new approach technology - software and hardware - aircraft and approach aids - for future (CVFs) CVNs. See 'What Future Beholds': http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... st2011.pdf (2.2Mb)
________________________

Paddles Monthly August 2011
What the Future Beholds... Dan "Butters" Radocaj
Test Pilot/LSO VX-23 Ship Suitability

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... st2011.pdf (2.2Mb)

"...We may also need to add another lens-type glideslope indicator. One idea is called a Bedford Array. You can see in Figure 1 that a Bedford Array is like a lens spread of over the length of the LA. Unlike an IFLOLS which has 12 cells that are always on to create a glideslope reference, the Bedford Array is a set of Christmas lights and only the light corresponding to current position of the touchdown point is illuminated. Just as the dynamic touchdown point moves across the deck on the LSODS screen, the Bedford Array lights would “move” forward and back across the deck corresponding to the dynamic touchdown point. Figure 2 shows what your HUD may look like. You keep the ship stabilized velocity vector on top of the Bedford light that is illuminated. The datum is a reference line in your HUD. As long as the 3 all line up you are on glide path.

A Bedford Array and a ship stabilized velocity are indicators of glideslope that will show you if you are off glideslope more precisely but they still don’t make the airplane respond differently...."

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2012, 18:17
by spazsinbad
A consolidated graphic from above source with text: http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... st2011.pdf (2.2Mb)

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2012, 18:32
by spazsinbad
And now for something completely different... :D

Trials Ahead for Navy Carrier Landing Software by Armed Forces International's Defence Correspondent 21/10/2011

http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/tri ... tware.html

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2012, 19:14
by spazsinbad
Complete text (not yet proofread) of the patent application for Bedford Array is here on this forum: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... rvl#200269

Otherwise here is a précis graphic from: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20110121997.pdf

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2012, 15:36
by quicksilver
You might note that for the most part the discussions of the Bedford Array are about glideslope, leaving the question of lateral movement of the aircraft relative to the touchdown zone assumed to be aligned (as does an IFLOLS). IMO, that's a large assumption.

In an arrested landing by conventional tailhook-equipped aircraft, not only is the rollout distance after touchdown attenuated by the cable, so is lateral movement. 40 knots relative to the ship sounds really slow until one thinks about unrestrained lateral movements after touchdown. How would we feel about the risks associated with an unrestrained jet being taxied around the deck at 40kts? Not real good I'm bettin'. Same will eventually arise in the SRVL discussion.

Then of course, is the matter of a go-around after touchdown. The propulsion system goes to idle at wow...

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2012, 19:43
by spazsinbad
You seem to assume that a straight in approach with wind down the deck with the ship moving into the wind causing the wind to be straight down the deck to be the same as the situation with an angled deck carrier. It is not. Less reason or NO REASON to have any lateral movement by the aircraft at touchdown in an SRVL with ideal WOD. And look at the width of the landing area on a CVF (which is not a CVS).

Conventional landings along an angled flight deck have a built in tendency to be slightly off centreline and/or slightly not aligned fore and aft aircraft nose/tail with the angle deck centreline. This will always be an issue whilst the angle deck is moving from left to right and not only forward during a conventional carrier approach with the WOD - down the angle as best it can - with the ship always moving from left to right during the approach by the approximate amount of the angle deck angle, out of wind to stbd. Pilots are always quickly nibbling to the right to remain lined up on centreline from the beginning of the approach. There is no discernible or should not be discernible crabbing down the centreline. However as pointed out in another thread I have read that the velocity vector in a Hornet HUD can be placed on the 'crotch' to help keep line up (during an approach) but nevertheless the aircraft ideally should be fore/aft nose/tail aligned with the centreline.

If the aircraft is not aligned and drifting then it may well be waved off by LSO for being out of acceptable limits for such a condition. A late lineup correction can be hazardous so if 'at the ramp' the line up is not good then often the pilot/LSO accept the slight deviation to have a successful arrest with the arrested rollout being a bit wonky - usually going left. Apparently newbies in T-45Cs do that all the time - are drifting from right to left on touchdown which condition is exacerbated during arrested rollout.

The SRVL - IF USED - will have much better flat deck landing condition as described. There will be weather conditions / sea conditions limitations for SRVL on CVF which if exceeded will make the SRVL hazardous for sure. The same applies to a conventional carrier landing. HOWEVER the conventional bod has no other choice except depart for a landing ashore if possible whereas the F-35B baby can dump the excess baggage and do a VL. Problem solved.

As for the waveoff for the F-35B during an SRVL which will have the engine perhaps going to idle at touchdown. Do you know this as a fact? Perhaps the switch will know that for an SRVL it does not go to idle but will do so at pilot discretion? Problem solved.
___________________

We cannot see the IFLOLS in this 'pilot head cam' view of a T-45C catapult to arrest carrier circuit but at the end I believe we see the right to left drift phenomena during the arrest rollout - what a bad lad he is. But good on him for putting the video online.

Lap Around The Boat T-45C

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw4dZ2bJ ... r_embedded
____________________

Illustration of the carrier angle centreline moving from left to right with a T-45C carrier circuit is from their online pubs. Let me know if URLs needed.

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2012, 20:15
by spazsinbad
Screenshot(s) from the 'Lap Around the Boat' video above. First one shows the aircraft getting back to centreline after being lined up right at beginning of approach (lined up with the stbd ladder line defining landing area). Of course due to unknown parallax errors due head camera position it is difficult to compensate for what view the pilot is actually seeing. Anyway the screenshots do illustrate the point about being lined up correctly is important with the last screenshot showing how much the aircraft is off centreline after drifting from right to left during arrest.

Conventional carrier landings are precise (as best they can be from 'the start to arrest'. IF NOT the LSO will wave the offender off or bad things will happen.

3rd screenie shows the aircraft 'at ramp' or beyond with the nose NOT fore and aft so it is drifting from right to left but on centreline. Apparently this situation is OK on the CVN with newbies. NOT SO on HMAS Melbourne for example with a very small - not wide - landing area. 4th screenie will show the right to left drift result at end of arrest.

IF anyone here has not heard an LSO debrief then that can be arranged. :D Note that the first T-45C arrest at beginning of the video shows it ending up to left of centreline (by not that much). As mentioned it apparently is difficult for the Goshawk to keep on centreline on CVNs with the 9 degree angle deck. For A4Gs on MELBOURNE with a 5.5 degree angle things were a little easier - but did I mention the small landing area? :D

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2012, 20:50
by quicksilver
Anyone ever let you taxi on deck at 40 kts?

And if you're dumping stuff in the drink, that defeats the purpose of the capability.

No one is arguing against the idea, it's just not gonna be that easy in an operational context when ship roll, swirling winds and other aircraft and people in proximity are factors.

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2012, 21:10
by spazsinbad
What has that got to do with anything? Apparently in an actual SRVL (not carried out by the way - earlier only approaches to low waveoffs were carried out) only via computer simulation for the moment there is not a perceived problem. You seem to forget that the wind will be straight down the deck which is a very big benefit. Any ship movement is being adjusted for as explained by the Bedford Array abilities.

Different aircraft will have different taxi/wind speed restrictions with special precautions if it is deemed necessary to taxi (very slowly) in difficult wind conditions because during taxi on deck the ship may not be pointed into the wind and it may well be turning also. For an A4G wind conditions could be critical. Drifting from right to left just before touchdown on a moving deck was especially critical as evidenced by a movie / screenshot I believe already on this forum. I'll look for them.

However just making a question without any other detail at this stage is a little silly. What is your point about taxiing what aircraft on deck at 40 KIAS wheelspeed under what circumstances. I'll guess - NOT ONE. But then again I was not trying to land at that wheelspeed without being arrested. You sure do not understand what an SRVL is IMHO.

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2012, 10:08
by spazsinbad
'quicksilver' added extra text paragraphs to first sentence only original post: "Anyone ever let you taxi on deck at 40 kts?

And if you're dumping stuff in the drink, that defeats the purpose of the capability.

No one is arguing against the idea, it's just not gonna be that easy in an operational context when ship roll, swirling winds and other aircraft and people in proximity are factors."

OK we agree. However dumping stuff in the drink is more important (in context) if a satisfactory VL can be carried out rather than a dangerous (lose the ship/ lose the aircraft) SRVL. NO?

I'll have no problem if the SRVL is found to be wanting and is never used NOR required ever on the CVFs. That is a possibility. You may agree that the Brits have been investigating this SRVL for more than a decade now. During this process the SRVL was found to be worthwhile to pursue but time will tell from whatever tests are carried out at PaxRiver and on CVF in 2018 if so deemed.

As for 'swirling winds' then they are less of an issue on CVF with WOD straight down the landing strip. YES the 'burble' is an issue for angle deck carriers but I'll wager it is insignificant or not evident on CVFs. The Bedford Array takes care of ship movement.

Here is a good description of how precise the SRVL will be and I'll say that includes centreline accuracy... NOT forgetting the usefulness of JPALS when it is in service with centimetric accuracy.

JSF To Develop Landing Technique For U.K. Carriers Oct 15, 2010 Graham Warwick

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... /15/03.xml

“While the future of the U.K. Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers is uncertain, Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $13 million contract to incorporate shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) capability into the F-35B for the U.K.

SRVL will increase the payload that the F-35B can bring back to the carrier by 2,000-4,000 lb. above what is possible with a Harrier-style vertical landing, reducing the need to dump unused weapons or fuel before recovery.

The maneuver involves landing at a slow forward speed so that some wing lift is available to supplement lift provided by the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing (Stovl) propulsion system.

The 2 Q. E. Class carriers are designed around the STOVL F-35B....

...Development of the recovery technique by the Joint Strike Fighter team, Qinetiq and the U.K. Defense Science & Technology Laboratory required several potential safety hazards to be overcome, says Richard Cook, BAE Systems SRVL project lead. He spoke at last week’s International Powered Lift Conference in Philadelphia.

These included risks of the aircraft hitting the stern of the carrier on approach; the deflected main engine nozzle striking the deck on touchdown; exceeding the gear strength; and insufficient stopping distance after touchdown.

The result was development of a flexible SRVL maneuver in which the pilot flies a constant Earth-referenced glideslope to touchdown on the moving deck, at which point the aircraft de-rotates and brakes.

The maneuver uses a shipboard visual landing aid called the Bedford Array. This is an array of lights on the deck centerline that provides a glideslope indication stabilized for ship heave and pitch.

The lights illuminate based on ship motion to provide a stabilized aimpoint for the pilot. This array is used in conjunction with a special velocity-vector symbol and glideslope scale on the pilot’s helmet-mounted display.

Aligning the helmet symbology with the aimpoint provided by the lights on the deck allows the pilot to clear the ship’s aft ramp and touch down at the planned point with the specified descent rate, Cook says.

Flight tests of the SRVL were conducted on the French Navy carrier Charles de Gaulle using the Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control testbed Harrier, which was programmed with F-35B’s control laws.

Cook says the U.K.’s threshold & objective bring-back payload goals are “conditionally achievable” with SRVL, with further development required through flight trials of the F-35B and tests with the first Queen Elizabeth carrier.”
____________________________________________

Likening an SRVL wheelspeed landing at 40 knots compared to a conventional carrier arrested landing at approx. 100-10 knots is like comparing a 'parking bingle' to the mythical 'controlled crash'.

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2012, 10:13
by spazsinbad
A KPP graphic from the Knudsen brief from Jan 2007 Knudsen brief: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-11277.html (PDF 6Mb)

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2012, 10:25
by spazsinbad
If the LordHighPooBah's statement is true then we can decrease the 'bingle' speed to 35 knots wheelspeed from previous 40 knots if SRVL KIAS is 60...

Assembly of New Royal Navy Air-craft Carriers Gets Underway In Fife
(Source: U.K Ministry of Defence; issued September 21, 2011)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... erway.html

“...Chief of Defence Materiel, Bernard Gray, said:

...The Queen Elizabeth Class carriers will be the centre-piece of Britain's military capability and will routinely operate 12 of the carrier-variant Joint Strike Fighter jets, allowing for unparalleled interoperability with allied forces.

Each carrier will have nine decks, plus a flight deck the size of three football pitches, & two propellers weighing 33 tonnes — nearly two-and-a-half times as heavy as a double-decker bus — driving the ship at a maximum speed of over 25 knots (46km/h)....”

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2012, 13:30
by madrat
Brilliant sources, spaz. I don't know where you find the time, but it is admirable.

Do you think they will mainly operate the Royal Lightnings in low drag configurations while relying on SRVL? I would imagine any exterior load that doesn't have optimal glide ratios while underslung would pose some risk.

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2012, 13:38
by spazsinbad
'madrat' a lot of sources on this thread are repeated earlier elsewhere in other associated threads. At such a slow KIAS of 60 I do not believe any added drag is significant, whereas the extra drag probably helps keep engine RPM high (my guess) similar to that on older conventional carrier landing jet aircraft (which have speedbrakes out) to help keep engine RPM high for quick response. I guess these days with FADECs and terrific cross controls that mimic speedbrakes the same thing is achieved in a different way. There would be a limit to weight / drag combinations but again at such a slow approach speed such external store drag would not be significant for the F-35B.

I do not believe any carrier aircraft wants to glide at any time during a carrier approach except perhaps from 20,000 feet doing a fast descent to get to 'Charlie time'. Carrier approaches from the last couple of miles are done dirty at optimum angle of attack with engine RPM high. Going to idle/glide RPM is a recipe for making an underwater approach. Dirty/high drag is good within reason. It seems the F-35B has good excess power available. Going to low RPM in an F-35B SRVL approach will have the aircraft on the express down elevator. It is only semi-wingborne at that 60KIAS speed with the engine mostly holding it UP!

BTW most of the reference F-35/how deck land stuff is also seen in the 1GB PDF at GoogleDrive or earlier version on SkyDrive on the SpazSinbad page. Use the first two (TINY) URLs in my sig at bottom of each post here.

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2012, 15:16
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:What has that got to do with anything? Apparently in an actual SRVL (not carried out by the way - earlier only approaches to low waveoffs were carried out) only via computer simulation for the moment there is not a perceived problem. You seem to forget that the wind will be straight down the deck which is a very big benefit. Any ship movement is being adjusted for as explained by the Bedford Array abilities.

Different aircraft will have different taxi/wind speed restrictions with special precautions if it is deemed necessary to taxi (very slowly) in difficult wind conditions because during taxi on deck the ship may not be pointed into the wind and it may well be turning also. For an A4G wind conditions could be critical. Drifting from right to left just before touchdown on a moving deck was especially critical as evidenced by a movie / screenshot I believe already on this forum. I'll look for them.

However just making a question without any other detail at this stage is a little silly. What is your point about taxiing what aircraft on deck at 40 KIAS wheelspeed under what circumstances. I'll guess - NOT ONE. But then again I was not trying to land at that wheelspeed without being arrested. You sure do not understand what an SRVL is IMHO.


I have a full understanding of RVLs and their many potentialities dating from the early 80s -- that's how I can ask relevant questions that to this point have not been asked.

Ship operators don't let aircraft move around unrestrained on a flight deck at speeds greater than a fast walk because the risks of the jet heading in an unintended direction can be very high. Just because we're now calling this movement a landing of some kind doesn't mean that we've changed the inherent risks of a unrestrained jet moving on a flight deck at ~40 kts.

Winds around ships are highly variable even with the ship at a constant heading. The effect of this variability is, in relative terms, greater on an aircraft that is moving at only ~60 kts. Thus, we have to account for the potential impact of these variables. To date, no one in the public domain has done so.

You should also note that the USMC is not making any noise about SRVLs on big-deck amphibs either. Ever wonder why?

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2012, 15:54
by whitewhale
quicksilver wrote:

You should also note that the USMC is not making any noise about SRVLs on big-deck amphibs either. Ever wonder why?



The USMC have very much their own way of doing things, they never adopted ski jumps despite the unquestionable advantages it gave the Harrier. Not choosing SRVL is their own choice for how they do things any may change once testing is done.

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2012, 16:21
by quicksilver
The Marines were interested in SRVL when 'B' aboard the CVN was being considered. That interest was shelved with the planned purchase of 'C's that will say MARINES on the side.

The Marines are very much for anything that gives them more operational flexibility, particularly when it is essentially free (the UK is paying the bill). Any other guesses?

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2012, 16:47
by whitewhale
I made no guesses in order to add any more, merely stated that the USMC do things their own way and that may change as testing hasn't finished.

Anymore guesses?

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2012, 18:03
by spazsinbad
'quicksilver' you make a lot of kerfuffle about SRVL when it is still under investigation. And as noted has been under investigation and design for a very long time. Shirley any questions you raise have been looked at by some very informed UK people over this long time. You make a lot about an aircraft being on a suitably long empty deck (except for parked aircraft out of the way) 'taxiing' at some speed. WHOA. Who in their right mind even on an empty CVN deck would accelerate to your suggested speeds and then slow down to stop? Nobody. There is no reason to do it either except for a free takeoff by the prop aircraft or any stranded jets capable of a free deck takeoff (accelerating without the braking mind).

You live in an odd world where variable winds prevail at sea. Light airs perhaps but otherwise the sea is noted for the steady wind except perhaps in a real storm. OK make my day fly in a storm. In that case the venerable F-35B will VL whilst the other fixed wingers go ashore. And despite your squeamishness about SRVL it may not happen as pointed out. But please inform us as to what is so bad.

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2012, 22:35
by spazsinbad
Long screed (already posted on this forum) with detailed info on how the UK has been looking into SRVL with all the hazards it entails. There are many references to SRVLs while the excerpt below is only part of it. Scroll to the end of this page to the last long 'YourFather' post:

Date Posted: 11-Dec-2008 International Defence Review

http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1507&st=120

"...Low-key studies to investigate the SRVL technique were initiated by the MoD in the late 1990s, but the work has latterly taken on a much higher profile after the MoD's Investments Approvals Board (IAB) in July 2006 directed that SRVL should be included in future development of the JCA design...

...Back to reality
Accordingly, the CVF IPT (now subsumed into the wider ACA) in 2005 put in place a package of work to investigate SRVL impact on the carrier design.

This comprised three workstrands: analysis to establish the optimal SRVL recovery deck; sortie generation rate modelling; and MITL simulator trials to establish the most appropriate recovery profile, analyse VLAs [Vertical Landing Aids] and measure landing scatter.

Two separate simulation trials were conducted at BAE Systems' Warton facility using a representative CVF ship model and a JSF representative air and ground model. The results indicated that, at night or in higher sea states (above Sea State 3), an SRVL-specific approach aid was desirable, and Ship Referenced Velocity Vector (SRVV) symbology in the pilot's helmet-mounted display was an enhancing feature.

One significant outcome of the JCA Review Note promulgated by the IAB in July 2006 was the decision to add an SRVL capability into the overall SDD programme. Significant work has been performed since then, including land-based flight trials and extensive simulator-based development and evaluation.

As part of this work, QinetiQ was in 2007 contracted to use its Harrier T.4 Vectored-thrust Advanced Aircraft Control (VAAC) testbed to perform representative land-based flight trials and a ship-based SRVL demonstration. The latter saw the VAAC aircraft perform a series of SRVL recoveries aboard the French carrier Charles de Gaulle in June 2007.

According to the MoD, these flight trials "demonstrated that SRVL was a safe recovery method to the ship at Sea State 6 in day, visual conditions", although it added that Charles de Gaulle is a "particularly stable ship" and there is "no ship motion data to enable comparison to how CVF will react in the same sea conditions".

Other forthcoming work will include further investigations on an SRVL clearance aboard CVF, optimisation of the approach profile, reaching an agreement on the optimal post-touchdown technique, and mitigation for failure cases such as a burst tyre on touchdown.

Work is also to continue to mature the SRVL-optimised VLA arrangements, look at the possible 'tuning' of the JSF flight control laws, and further study the effect of SRVL on the CVF sortie generation rate, Rosa said, while acknowledging that the "exact scope of capability is only likely to be confirmed after First of Class Flying Trials" aboard CVF...."
OR
Youse can go here for the entire post also:
Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC AKA 'the very long thread'
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... iab#172162

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2012, 22:41
by spazsinbad
Rolling Recovery JDW 04 March 2009 by Richard Scott PAGES 26-29

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=3 ... v=sub&p=26

"The science behind the Bedford Array - so called because it was brainstormed at QinetiQ's Bedford lab - is deceptively simple. A linear array of software-controlled lights is installed along the centreline of the axial flight deck, using a simple mathematical algorithm to switch on the appropriate lights according to the ship motion reference input to the system. These provide a stabilised glideslope indication for the pilot's helmet display SRVV symbology.

"The system ensures that the pilot flying the 'rolling landings' makes an accurate approach to the deck, even in rough sea conditions," said Paines. "It takes inputs from external passive references and when combined with information in the pilot's Helmet Mounted Display, allows for a low-workload, stabilised pilot approach in even the worst conditions."

Nice graphics (already posted) and worth going to URL to read it all - as usual.

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2012, 02:30
by spazsinbad

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2012, 11:11
by spazsinbad
Never Mind the Quality (of the cloth) - Feel the Width (of the cloth). Old English Vaudeville Tailor Joke.

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.u ... rosyth.jpg

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2012, 16:19
by KamenRiderBlade
That is wide

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2012, 19:57
by whitewhale
It is a fairly early render and may not be entirely 100% accurate but the CVF definitely has a focus on a wide usable surface area, specifications for required OP rates and time between landings and take offs have been important considerations for the 'surge' elements and played into the design. The RN were eager to have a specific sortie rate and joint helicopter / jet capability early on and that is still in force today as part of the consideration of SRVL. IT is not just bring back but the effect it may have on landing rate and whether it would excessively hinder other on deck operations.

With the deck area and ski jump the CVF is a bit of a odd beast so the RN investigating other options for launchings and landings could provide some interesting results, some people scoffed at the idea of a ship having a flat deck purely for aircraft and declared it a waste of time and money but until you try you never know.

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2012, 21:40
by spazsinbad
Yes 'whitewhale' perhaps the USMC flat decks could have benefited from a ski jump - not only for safety during takeoff reasons - but also to be able to have a portion of the aft deck available for concurrent helo ops. A failed dream for some [not me - I give up] these days but one never knows. :D

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2012, 16:05
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:'quicksilver' you make a lot of kerfuffle about SRVL when it is still under investigation. And as noted has been under investigation and design for a very long time. Shirley any questions you raise have been looked at by some very informed UK people over this long time. You make a lot about an aircraft being on a suitably long empty deck (except for parked aircraft out of the way) 'taxiing' at some speed. WHOA. Who in their right mind even on an empty CVN deck would accelerate to your suggested speeds and then slow down to stop? Nobody. There is no reason to do it either except for a free takeoff by the prop aircraft or any stranded jets capable of a free deck takeoff (accelerating without the braking mind).

You live in an odd world where variable winds prevail at sea. Light airs perhaps but otherwise the sea is noted for the steady wind except perhaps in a real storm. OK make my day fly in a storm. In that case the venerable F-35B will VL whilst the other fixed wingers go ashore. And despite your squeamishness about SRVL it may not happen as pointed out. But please inform us as to what is so bad.


Spaz, I've been to the rodeo -- actually rode in it many, many times. I've heard the briefs -- in person. No one has uttered a peep about deck roll and lateral motion of the aircraft before and after touchdown. Nor about the effects of variable winds on STOVL jets doing RVLs on ships. The focus has been exclusively on roll-out distance.

The reason jets don't taxi around on a flight deck faster than a brisk walk is because it's beyond dangerous. So now, someone wants to have a jet moving on a flight deck at 40ish kts unrestrained by anything but its brakes. Oh, and the deck will be wet and oily and the non-skid will be worn to near bare metal. And the winds will swirl and gust around the bow, the cat walks, the ski-jump, and other aircraft on the deck and yeah, the beast will roll. Get the picture?

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2012, 19:06
by spazsinbad
'quicksilver' I get it. SRVL bothers you. We will see. If it proves to be too dangerous either in simulation (which does not appear to be the case otherwise SRVL would have been dropped aeons ago) or in limited testing under ideal conditions on the CVF then SRVL will be dropped. However if SRVL proves doable in limited circumstances then it MIGHT be used as required OR only in some kind of emergency and not as a regular operation. Who knows but to go on and on about any potential difficulty says something about how dangerous deck landings are - nevertheless these are done on a regular basis - up and till when they cannot be done for all the reasons you have outlined. So what.

You like to imply about the 35-40 knot wheelspeed 'taxiing' forgetting that the aircraft will be only at that speed at SRVL touchdown (from a higher approach angle) with engine at idle (engine nozzle not even pointing fore and aft) with good braking action as outlined in the recent Canadian F-35A thread about 6,000 foot runways etc. Here is the quote emphasing advantages of F-35 brake/control systems:

"...Q3.16 Does the F-35A Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) variant need more runway to land than other comparable fighter aircraft?

A3.16 No. Upon landing the F-35 uses an efficient braking system, which includes computer directed flight controls and an advanced anti-skid wheel brake system. The aircraft is capable of unaided stopping distances equivalent to those of Canada’s current CF-18...."
_____

Here is another good commentator from the otherwise often woeful Pprune Forum. 'Engines' has been involved in the F-35 saga while his posts about it have proved to be accurate over the years. This one is a good illustration:

‘Engines’: 28 April 2012 No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... 5b-31.html

“...The F-35B is required to be able to recover to the deck using a VL with a full internal weapons load of 2 x 1000 pound JDAMS and 2 AIM-120s. This drives the KPP (Key Performance Parameter) for VL Bring Back (VLBB). The F-35B meets this KPP under the climatic conditions specified in the JORD. The UK initiated the RVL studies because they want the aircraft to be able to do this at even more demanding conditions in the Persian Gulf [East of Sewers] in summer. I'm tempted to write this in capitals, as many don't seem to get the simple fact that the F-35 can bring back its weapons to a VL on a hot day. Not, I freely admit, on a super hot day. [Remains to be seen/proved that last bit about 'super hot day' - whatever that is.]

RVLs - I certainly don't claim that 'they are not a problem', mainly because they have not yet been tried. However, citing Harrier GR1 problems as a reason not to attempt them in a 35B is not relevant. The Harrier's 'bicycle' landing gear layout caused immense problems in its early days (P1127 onwards) & the GR1 still had some major issues that were only partially fixed on the GR3. The AV-8B's revised outriggers were, in part, an attempt to improve deck handling. On top of these, the braking performance of the Harrier was marginal at best. Finally, Harrier flying qualities at RVL speeds were really not very good.

F-35B has a good stable gear layout with very powerful main gear carbon brakes controlled by a sophisticated computer driven system. It's flight control systems are 50 years on from the Harrier, and precision RVL approaches should not be a high workload event. That's what the guys doing the test flying say.

CVF is a big deck with a longer run out area, and will be a lot more stable in roll and pitch than legacy Harrier ships like CVS or LPDs.

I'm not for one minute claiming that these will solve all the problems of RVLs, should the RN go for them. But they make the issue a wholly different proposition from the days of GR1s on small decks. That said, the whole issue of operating aircraft from carriers calls for dedicated aircrew and RN ownership. The UK tried a 'joint' unit and it failed. Best to learn from one's mistakes, in my view....”

Otherwise for you to bang on with your FUD argument (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) without any other evidence, other than assertion, I think you can be ignored. The Bedford Array takes care of ship movement as described. The actual slow aircraft speed is quickly brought down to nothing in the conditions. Better non skid coating THERMION will deal with old poor quality deck anti skid issues as described. Winds swirling? You got to be kidding me.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 02:55
by spazsinbad
Another PLAN view of CVF for F-35Bs. Another 'never mind the quality - feel the width' view. At around 65K tonnes it is going to be fairly stable hurtling along at 25 knots. YeeHah.... :D

http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a ... 6236_n.jpg

QE class: length 932'; beam 128'; width 240'; draught 36'

Nimitz class: length 1,092'; beam 134'; width 252' (early), 257' (late);
draught 37' (early), 39' (late)

Tooms and Buccaneers landed on this old Ark Royal - and we are concerned about possible 35 knot wheelspeed SRVLs on CVFs?

http://content.yudu.com/A1ob8a/navynews ... s.co.uk%2F

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 06:08
by spazsinbad
Here is an Youtube video made in FSX with the Dino Cattaneo F-35B making an 'SRVL' (I don't think the chap flying knows about this method - he just made up something) to a CVN angle deck. However we can get the idea with our imagination. No? The 'pitching deck' is an utility for use in FSX carrier work.

pitching deck f35b landing on carrier1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQwluBmy ... r_embedded

"Published on Jan 3, 2013
Dino's f35b landing on Javiers's Nimitz using Orion Lyau's pitching deck utility.
Please excuse the crappy flying... :) "

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 15:55
by lamoey
spazsinbad wrote:Another PLAN view of CVF for F-35Bs. Another 'never mind the quality - feel the width' view. At around 65K tonnes it is going to be fairly stable hurtling along at 25 knots. YeeHah.... :D


The new high tech bow will do as much for pitch stability as the increase in size. Those new bows reduces pitch motion dramatically and at speeds over 10-12 knots the drag is reduced significantly too, hence reduced fuel consumption for its size.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 16:55
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:'quicksilver' I get it. SRVL bothers you.


No you don't.

SRVL doesn't bother me -- all the 'free lunch' proclamation in advance of the proof does. It's not about the aircraft, its handling characteristics or its braking system (which still relies on differential braking however advanced the anti-skid system). It's not about the ability to place the jet at exactly the target location and airspeed (to single digit distance errors and one knot precision). And, it's not about the ability to control rollout distance; it's about the ability to control the lateral movement of a 20 ton jet that just performed a rolling landing on a wet, oily, rolling flight deck.

SRVL is a great idea -- it just has one conspicuous pitfall that none are talking about and which may limit it's ultimate utility.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 19:19
by spazsinbad
'quicksilver' said: "...it's about the ability to control the lateral movement of a 20 ton jet that just performed a rolling landing on a wet, oily, rolling flight deck...." Any carrier deck landing has limitations, even CVNs regarding deck movement. SRVL deck landings will have their own deck movement limitations. HOWEVER - unlike CVN conventional carrier ops via arrested landing - the CVF F-35B can jettison stores or dump fuel to be in the weight limit for a vertical landing and do just that. End of story - wet, oily or not. This point has been made a few times now but I guess you will persist with your FUD.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2013, 20:58
by spazsinbad
On page 37 of this thread (14 May 2012): UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... rvl#223470 we have what I presume is an accurate to scale SRVL animation with realistic touchdown point and wheelspeed. What's not to like? A 2Mb clip showing this night SRVL is on the page above. Text below is from the page above.

"'OLD’ 20Mb CGI Video of intended F-35B Ops aboard CVF with AfterBurner Ski Jump Takeoffs which must have been an 'old' idea a decade ago. Anyway this video shows a night time SRVL recreation which most likely is accurate including touching down more toward centre of deck as shown in screenshot (AFT Island in view). Video clip and screenshot(s) of (near) touchdown point is from the 20Mb .MP4 video:

Right mouse clicking on the video to select 'ZOOM' then 'Full Screen' view is useful

http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/pub ... dition.mp4 (20Mb)

NOW on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnB4lBltLAA

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 18:46
by spazsinbad
Graphics/Pictures From: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _Jan-U.pdf (4.5Mb). Text to follow.... This is not the exact text from the PDF but similar from another source. I'll have to work at getting the exact article text later.

Pilots prepare for landing on Royal Navy's new carriers

Originally Posted by Ministry of Defence | This report features in the January 2013 issue of desider - the magazine for Defence Equipment and Support.

http://www.arrse.co.uk/mod-news/192653- ... riers.html

"RAF and Royal Navy personnel have been training with the Flight Control Office - or Flyco - of the carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth at the BAE Systems simulator at Warton in Lancashire.

When the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 comes in to land on the deck of the UK’s next carriers it will be vital that pilots are well-versed in the skills of landing on a moving deck.

Pete Wilson, BAE Systems’ lead test pilot for the F-35 STOVL aircraft, said:
"We are very supportive here in trying to help the customer come to terms with what the change to the STOVL version means in terms of bringing that aeroplane back in to land on the Queen Elizabeth carriers.

We are reverting back to a manoeuvre called ‘shipborne rolling vertical landing’ which means we are going to bring the F-35B in to land on the deck at about 60 knots (111 kilometres per hour).

It’s a complex engineering problem to try to solve because we don’t want to come down too steeply - that could break the aeroplane.

We don’t want to come down too fast because we would not be able to stop and would run off the front of the carrier which is clearly a disastrous situation. We don’t have a hook on the aeroplane so we have to stop using our wheelbrakes alone.

And we can’t afford to come down too shallow because if the stern of the ship comes up high towards the flight path we could hit the back of the ship and that’s also disastrous."

Mr. Wilson added:
"The work we are doing is extremely important as a risk-reduction measure; what we are getting is an insight into the future so we are able to simulate the air around the ship, the lights which are embedded in the deck, and the procedures and radio calls we are going to use.

We are solving problems and putting design in place now when it is cheaper and easier than it would be later. I would say we are saving millions of dollars of potential design change in the future. It is immensely important work and that’s why we are here in this world class simulator facility."

In a busy year, Mr Wilson said that the team has met its milestones:
"Every month we have a certain number of test points we have to execute which means flying the aeroplane a lot and we have managed to surpass the testing point requirement for the year, which is a significant achievement.One objective of the trials has been to come up with a set of requirements that define which tools and techniques are required by the Landing Signals Officers in the Flyco, helping in the safe recovery of the approaching aircraft."

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2013, 19:22
by spazsinbad
Cleared to land! Testing on simulator gets to grips with helping UK F-35 pilots return ‘home’

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _Jan-U.pdf (4.5Mb)

"A room with a view – the Flight Control Office on the deck of HMS Queen Elizabeth has been at the centre of trials with RAF and Royal Navy personnel.

When the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 comes in to land on the deck of the UK’s next carriers it will be vital that pilots are well-versed in the skills of landing on a moving deck.

Pilots have been visiting the BAE Systems simulator at Warton in Lancashire to familiarise themselves with the deck they will land on and the office – Flyco as it is known – from where personnel will guide them in.

“We are very supportive here in trying to help the customer come to terms with what the change to the STOVL version means in terms of bringing that aeroplane back into land on the Queen Elizabeth carriers,” said Pete Wilson, BAE Systems’ lead test pilot for the F-35 STOVL aircraft.

“We are reverting back to a manoeuvre called Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing which means we are going to bring the F-35B into land on the deck at about 60 knots.

“It’s a complex engineering problem to try to solve because we don’t want to come down too steeply – that could break the aeroplane.

“We don’t want to come down too fast because we would not be able to stop and would run off the front of the carrier which is clearly a disastrous situation. We don’t have a hook on the aeroplane so we have to stop using our wheelbrakes alone.

“And we can’t afford to come down too shallow because if the stern of the ship comes up high towards the flight path we could hit the back of the ship and that’s also disastrous.”

Mr Wilson added: “The work we are doing is extremely important as a risk reduction measure; what we are getting is an insight into the future so we are able to simulate the air around the ship, the lights which are embedded in the deck and the procedures and radio calls we are going to use.

“We are solving problems and putting design in place now when it is cheaper and easier than it would be later. I would say we are saving millions of dollars of potential design change in the future. It is immensely important work and that’s why we are here in this world class simulator facility."

In a busy year the team has met its milestones. “Every month we have a certain number of test points we have to execute which means flying the aeroplane a lot and we have managed to surpass the testing point requirement for the year, which is a significant achievement,” said Mr Wilson.

One objective of the trials has been to come up with a set of requirements that define which tools and techniques are required by the Landing Signals Officers in the Flyco, helping in the safe recovery of the approaching aircraft."

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2013, 19:48
by spazsinbad
UK relaunches F-35B/QE carrier simulation training By Gareth Jennings Jan/9/2013

http://www.janes.com/products/janes/def ... hannel=air

"The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is undertaking simulated training to operate the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL)-variant Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) from the decks of the future Queen Elizabeth (QE)-class aircraft carriers, the MoD revealed on 8 January.

Renewed training of Royal Air Force (RAF) and Royal Navy (RN) personnel on the F-35B at the BAE Systems simulator at Warton, Lancashire, follows the UK government's decision in 2012 to revert back to the STOVL aircraft after a brief dalliance with the carrier variant (CV) F-35C.

Speaking during a previous tour of the simulator facility when it was configured for the F-35C, BAE Systems officials told IHS Jane's that the change from one variant aircraft to another did not pose too much of a problem with regard to the company's simulator-based training.

As Mike Southworth, business development manager at BAE Systems' Engineering Integrated Solutions explained, the simulator at Warton runs the ATLAS software from Lockheed Martin, which has all the F-35 variants already embedded within it...."

One needs a subscription to read more - not me Chief.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2013, 02:26
by spazsinbad
One purpose of the UK CVF SRVL trials was: "...One objective of the trials has been to come up with a set of requirements that define which tools and techniques are required by the Landing Signals Officers in the Flyco, helping in the safe recovery of the approaching aircraft." Below is a screenshot of the LSO Sight in the Spanish LHD FlyCo, with approach angles in degrees (otherwise scribble on the window out of focus) from the recent 'Spanish AV-8s on their LHD' video. Probably something similar was in the UK CVSs and perhaps something similar if not the same will be in the CVFs? Perhaps with better low light cameras a screen (along with out gizmo dials - similar to the current USN LSO station) with readouts, may show F-35B approach details both day/night?

The USS Enterprise LSO Station JPG shows only part of the gizmos at the LSO station on current CVNs.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2013, 18:59
by spazsinbad
Okay Okay Okay - not an SRVL video but a WET DECK USN conventional CarOps on a wet day. NOTE BENE the slow taxi speed near deck edge and note the rain drops. :D NICE unobstructed view forward of a carrier approach (remember the camera is not at the same eye level as the pilot for meatball position). Plus we see some air refuellin'.

F/A-18F Super Hornet Flight (2012) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ-L1wxx ... e=youtu.be

"Published on Jan 7, 2013
Courtesy Video Defense Media Activity - Navy
Produced by Petty Officer 2nd Class James Evans.
Lt. Michael Loringer, assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron 22, pilots an F/A-18F Super Hornet during a mission flown from the flight deck of the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson. USS Carl Vinson and Carrier Air Wing 17 are deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility."

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2013, 20:42
by spazsinbad
Another 'feel the width' moment (never mind the quality):

Stunning graphics show UK’s future (twin-island) supercarriers January 9, 2013 Posted by David Cenciotti

http://theaviationist.com/2013/01/09/uk-future-carrier/

"Not as large as U.S. flattops but 280 meters in length hence longer than the London’s Palace of Westminster ["meeting place of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the two houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom"]: this is the size of HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, UK’s Royal Navy future flagships.

The team behind the future aircraft carriers have produced a series of rendering whose aim is to demonstrate the scale of the carriers. To give a better idea of the size of the 65,000-tons leviathan, the artists put the HMS Queen Elizabeth, on the Thames next to the Palace of Westminster, and the HMS Prince of Wales at Victory Jetty in Portsmouth...."

http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/up ... /QE-21.jpg [POW]
&
http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/up ... 1/QE-3.jpg [QE]

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 02:14
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:"...the CVF F-35B can jettison stores or dump fuel to be in the weight limit for a vertical landing and do just that. End of story - wet, oily or not.


No, the end of the story is the conversation the CAG has with the squadron commander about why they should continue dumping PGMs in the drink.

I can tell you from experience that the tolerance for such a thing will not last very long (about one time).

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 02:24
by spazsinbad
Well that is for the Brit CAG to decide - IF EVER IT IS REQUIRED. And we still are not there yet (using SRVLs in either testing on CVF or on land in UK). I know if the choice is between dumping a munition for a safe VL or testing the limits of a safe SRVL in potentially unsafe weather / ship conditions, I know where the choice will be. Consider that conventional aircraft likely would not fly in the same unsafe conditions and likely would have to divert ashore - IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE (yes yes I know about tanker aircraft - but where does the TANKER go if it cannot land back aboard?). Let us gather more information about such limits and whether or not the SRVL will even be required. I wonder why you yourself are so interested because after all it is an RN/RAF issue on CVF only at this point. No?

You seem to think that the Brits are clueless about SRVLs. They have been looking at this new way of landing for a long time. I recall the Brits invented a lot of new deck landing stuff during / just after WWII [mirror, angle deck etc.] and I guess there were a lot of naysayers then also.

Again if an SRVL was deemed at this stage to be unsafe/unuseful then planning / simulation would not proceed over such a long time frame (except I guess for the terms of a contract already taken up). Probably 'running landings at PaxRiver' are useful but I don't know if these are flown to the SRVL profile (6 degree glideslope at 60 KIAS).

Another bit of info:

Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation Report 2012 PDF

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com ... report.pdf (0.5Mb)

ONE example page/table of issues for the F-35B with several pages of text for both B/C (A versions have their own pages of course). So best read the PDF eh. F-35B STOVL Door Issues plus this (amongst other reasons) may be why we don't see/hear much about SRVL these days: [Some of this same text will be added to the appropriate threads]

TABLE here: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-21926.html

F-35B:
"...Planned wet runway testing, required to assess braking performance with a new brake control unit, has been delayed due to the inability to create the properly degraded friction conditions at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station (NAS), Maryland. The F-35B training aircraft at Eglin will be restricted to dry runway operations only until the wet runway testing is completed...."

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 04:05
by spazsinbad
Whether it is possible to know officially or not for CVN sea state operating limits at least the Brits are certain of being able to operate in 'sea state 6' as per this report (and there are others out there using the same terminology). I have evidence that - with JPALS - there will be NO operating restrictions for CVNs when JPALS is installed. So we can guess that either JPALS and the equivalent will be in use on CVFs also. SS6 report follows then a USN LSO method to bring 'em back when tings are tuff. Here is a quote from JPALS info PDF below:

"Ramp Strike Prevention System: An approach monitor function which includes projection of aircraft state and variable alarm limits for LSO monitoring and/or as part of vehicle flight control system integration."

http://acast.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/up ... allace.pdf
_____________________

'Sea State Six' info here: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... c&p=221219 stroll down
OR
Sea State Table: http://www.syqwestinc.com/support/Sea%2 ... 0Table.htm
OR
One definition of Sea State Six: "4 to 6 metres wave height - Very rough"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_state & Surface Wind speed from Table can be from 27-33 knots
_____________________

FARNBOROUGH: BAE to ramp up work on JSF production - By Craig Hoyle - 13/07/10 - Flight International

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... ction.html

“...Considerable work has already been conducted to prepare for the UK’s future operation of the F-35B. Qinetiq’s VAAC Harrier test aircraft supported the development of its flight control laws, & also tested a shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique. This will enable the STOVL type to return to the carrier’s deck at a greater landing weight, allowing unused stores to be kept on the wing, rather than jettisoned before landing.

Developed for the UK as an alternative to making a vertical landing, the concept also has the backing of the USMC, which plans to adopt the procedure when operating its F-35Bs from the US Navy’s Nimitz-class aircraft carriers. Now installed at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire, Qinetiq’s simulator for the VAAC Harrier - being adapted for additional use by the Empire Test Pilots’ School - perfectly demonstrates the generational advance brought by the F-35B.

Flying an approach to the RN’s new aircraft carrier in sea state six should be a daunting prospect for a novice pilot. But a single button press slows the aircraft to 60kt (110km/h) and automatically configures its flaps and nozzle deflection, making it a matter of merely flying an approach angle of 6-7° towards a series of white lights on the deck. Such design traits go to showcase the F-35B’s attraction for military user and industry alike. Each of the Royal Navy’s ski jump-equipped Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will be able to carry up to 36 F-35Bs.
UK’s STOVL HERITAGE LIFTS F-35B TEST PROGRAMME..."
_____________________

Pitching Deck

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesN ... ry2010.pdf

"The 2005 PBS Special documenting the Nimitz and Carrier Air Wing’s 11’ s combat deployment provided an interesting portrayal of life on board a carrier. For LSOs, however, episode seven stands out above the rest. With deck swings in excess of 30 feet, a recovery got very interesting for the paddles and pilots involved. Below is one CAG paddles’ thoughts on the day’s events.

As LSOs, we can manipulate the approaching aircraft to fly in a window that we can most easily manage. By this I mean we should use both voice and ball presentation to put a jet in a position where the pilot will have to make minimal power-off corrections.

Pick the glide slope (3.5-4.0 degrees) for the deck conditions and work hard to not let him get too high. I'm not suggesting that we should wave aircraft low. But consider this: the highest you can show a pilot on the MOVLAS is about half way up the lens. Once a pilot's energy state exceeds that presentation you now have a lot of work to do. Here is where you need to be able to pat your head and rub your belly. You must be able to talk and present the ball to the pilot in such a way that he knows exactly where he is on the glide slope so that he can judge the magnitude of his corrections. You need to be able to make him predictable.

This is what scares me about a pilot who is high with no reference other than Paddles? voice: he isn't very predictable up there. Each pilot should be familiar with your voice inflection. Each pilot should know what to do with the power based on your inflection.

And, as for the MOVLAS presentation, a pilot will know how to react to a red ball regardless of how far it is from what appears to be the middle. I would rather bolter a guy who is staying low with power calls and a red ball on MOVLAS than to use the power calls and a red ball to try to catch him coming off a high, flying through down. Ramp strikes occur (most of the time) when an aircraft goes from high to low. I believe this high and over–powered regime is more dangerous, with the current MOVLAS setup, than if the aircraft were a little low at the start to in the middle.

The reason is simple: we are not capable of providing as useful information to the pilot once he is above the limits of the MOVLAS. Keeping a pilot on glide slope will require you to exaggerate the ball displacement. He must be able to see it. You should plan on making radio calls if you aren't immediately getting what you want from the pilot. The harder you are working to get a pilot in the ballpark the farther out you should be moving the wave-off window regardless of where he is on the glide slope.

Voice calls are important and if you watch the PLAT tape of the 4 OCT recovery you will hear a lot of talking. Bug Roach wrote about how sometimes simply using “standard LSO comm” won't cut it. On the tape you will hear several screaming “Easy with it!” calls. Those were the equivalent to Bug Roach's “take some power off and land it” call. In the case of 4 OCT, with 700 miles to the nearest land, multiple low state aircraft and the weather getting worse, hard landings were a far better option than fuel starvation. Once you get the plane to a position where it has a reasonable chance to land you need to do what it takes to get it over the ramp and into the wires. One thing we learned from this recovery was that I probably should have been wearing the CAG LSO headset while working the MOVLAS. I was stepped on several times by the other CAG Paddles who was wearing it at the third position. All his calls were good but it was distracting for me as the controlling LSO.

That's about all I have. I wouldn't assume that the techniques I have discussed are the only and best way, but they are food for thought. Keep'm off the ramp.
C.G. Paquin CVW-11 LSO"

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 04:07
by spazsinbad
double post - 'bad' post above was posted - but not seen until now. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 04:09
by count_to_10
If things really go wrong, would they not be able to rig the deck for a barrier arrestment?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 04:15
by spazsinbad
IF things go wrong then a VL is easy. No? No need for a barricade. I'll imagine if an SRVL is deemed to be the only option to land, then (if this is an emergency) the deck will be cleared for best result. It seems to me that a lot of testing has been done with the STOVL mode in various combinations of faults, and with computer flying controls, things go well. You will have to dream up an emergency situation then we will have to dream up the answer. OK?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 04:19
by count_to_10
spazsinbad wrote:IF things go wrong then a VL is easy. No? No need for a barricade. I'll imagine if an SRVL is deemed to be the only option to land, then (if this is an emergency) the deck will be cleared for best result. It seems to me that a lot of testing has been done with the STOVL mode in various combinations of faults, and with computer flying controls, things go well. You will have to dream up an emergency situation then we will have to dream up the answer. OK?

Well, like the doors for the lift fan failing to open in flight? Or maybe just the clutch?

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 04:35
by spazsinbad
Tell him he's dreamin' - I don't have an F-35B NATOPS - so not me Chief. :D There must be situations where the aircraft - unable to get into a usable STOVL mode - will either divert ashore if that is possible; or otherwise pilot ejects (usually near the ship). These emergency situations are worked through, as much as possible, with the test aircraft so that SOPs/NATOPS (standard operating procedures) are worked out. Who knows what the outcome of that process will be? I'll assure you though that many minds are concentrated on this aspect, with the knowledge known now, for what might be done then. Bad things do happen in military aircraft when operating at their limits, so that ejection in a safe environment perhaps is the only option. You may recall that the F-35B has an auto eject function which at some point is out of the control of the pilot (except for switching it on/off and dialing in sensitivity but perhaps that last part has been removed).

There are situations for conventional carrier ops aircraft where diverting ashore is the best option; and sometimes at least taking the barricade is NOT an option, where crew ejection is the only option; but perhaps those aircraft are no longer in service (and I'm not going to research that aspect).

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 05:40
by spazsinbad
Adapting to the F-35C on CVFs was the subject of this article (now we know it is back to the future with the F-35B) but relevant due this quote:

All hands on deck! 'A win/win for the carrier and aircraft teams' by Steve Moore DESIDER Jan 2012

www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/EDEB42C2.../des ... an2012.pdf (3.5Mb)

“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 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 [F-35C] 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...."

These new ways will be in the F-35B SRVL also (indicated in previous posts on this thread).

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2013, 05:50
by spazsinbad
A good read for future conventional JPALS CVN approaches but relevant for the flexibility/precision aspect for SRVLs to CVFs via same process. Also remember the CVF will have an SRVL optimised approach gizmos, as indicated earlier on this thread....

Paddles Monthly Dec 2012

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... er2012.pdf

Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS)
"...JPALS slaves to the IFLOLS setting for nominal hook touchdown points for each cross deck pendant allowing the pilot to not only change glide slope, but even target a specific wire...."

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 11:03
by spazsinbad
From this recent DOTE report Jan 2013 comes an example of 'testing the F-35B' in an unusual condition - in STOVL mode with WHEELS UP:
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com ... report.pdf (0.5Mb)

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2013, 19:59
by spazsinbad
I could be accused of being a 'thread creep' :roll: with this post but it is done to illustrate some hazards of NavAv which may be mitigated by the usefulness of the F-35B/C gizmos that allow 'looking ahead' without the restrictions indicated on this old and bold aviator's story.... [Not forgetting the excellent JPALS precision landing aids - even in a total 'whiteout'.]

Random Naval Aviation Picture of the Day! November 14th, 2012 INSTAPINCH

http://instapinch.com/?p=2569

"Ahhh…..serendipitous! One I haven’t posted before :) Nov 21st, 1988. Low level over Sardinia in bad weather ended up with much of the airwing returning to the ship with salt spray on their windscreens. Jim “Rev” Jones and I landed about 3rd or 4th – with a bunch of right rudder in so Rev could see the deck. We skidded a bit on the icy deck as they shut us down, our nose along the foul line just ahead of the island. Dave “Hooter” Hoffman was coming in a few aircraft later and landed right of center line – and this is his wingtip after it slammed into our nose on a bolter. He took off again and they sent all remaining aircraft – including him – to a French base at Hyeres, France. This was taken the next morning. I can’t remember how they fixed the wing – if they had to replace the whole piece or if it was just the wingtip they were able to replace/repair. Perhaps some airframes guys can weigh in on that.

I kept a journal during that 88-89 Med cruise. It was nothing big – just my thoughts and observations of a first cruise LT. This was the entry for that day:

21 Nov 88
Busy, exciting, dangerous day. Weather bad – temps around 35 degrees, wind at 50 knots plus! Launched on a Low Level with Jim with Dave Hoffman and Boog as wingman and couldn’t finish the LL due to weather. Our INS was dicked up (no IMU or capability for SINS data), plus salt spray encrusted the front windscreen (after we launched!). Returned overhead with 51 knot winds down the deck. With little or no visibility out the front, we waved off our own first pass, and had LSOs talk us down after that. Weird in the pattern – fast on downwind and slow in the groove. Anxiety/comfort level high/low. We grabbed a 4 wire, only because the 20 foot up and down movement of the deck was coming up. We slid twice on the deck, nearly impacting a F-14 next to us. Parked on the foul line, Hooter came in for a pass and boltered (scared to death – me!) (watching from the deck). He came in for a second pass (third actually – he had a FDWO first), had a boat full of right rudder in so he could see, LSO helping a bit (small bit), he landed right and his right wingtip (2 1/2 feet) hit our radome, taking all but a foot away (a 6' radome). He boltered, minus the right wingtip, and successfully diverted to Hyeres. Jim and I were 3 feet, or 36" away from a possible fireball! We shut down and egressed soon after as there was a FOD walkdown to collect all the pieces. I was scared sitting there, nothing we could do, and I could see this wingtip at 150 knots coming at us. Handled well by all involved.

LSOs will probably be at fault as well as Hooter. He said he couldn’t see and since he’s only been with us for 3 weeks, something else should have been done. (in retrospect, of course). Didn’t start thinking about how close it was till much later. If he was 3 feet farther right, his wingtip would have hit the airframe part instead of a hollow fiberglass radome, probably causing his plane to pivot into the pack, as well as probably sending our plane along with it. He scraped two other F-14 radomes to our left, and if he had hit those the same way he would have pivoted and hit our plane broadside. I couldn’t sleep so rode the bike for 30 minutes around 1 am. Finally got to sleep and felt much better the next day.

On the 22nd, Jim and I had a 2v2 vs French F-8s from France (Foch had sent her fighters to beach – too much for them to fly in this weather!) Had Foch control, which was as bad as Egyptian and Italian control (“Garibaldi School of AIC”). Had 1 run, we shot them good pre and post merge, but one still got on our tail for guns, guns, guns (ie: didn’t honor our kill calls).

Still operated good concerning previous days events and a overall screwed up hop. Jim and I flew again at night (pinky actually), some 2v2 w/ an A-6 as our wingman! Had a good pass back home, and Jim said I did a hell of a job keeping him honest on the approach (yea!) (after a wave-off and a bolter this afternoon). Napped in PM, watched AU-Florida tape later on, awaiting pierside Marseilles tomorrow. We earned our money these past two days.

Warts and all! Funny re-reading that, 24 years later, with the “experienced observations” of a first-cruise lieutenant , exclamation points and all. We were still shutting down the aircraft when we were hit, so we were obviously still in the aircraft,, strapped in, canopy down. I don’t know, looking back at that, if those “fireball” concerns would have been realized had be been a bit farther to the right, but I can tell you it was rather sporty that afternoon!

And for reminders, here is what OUR nose looked like after that event:"

READ THE COMMENTS AT THE BLOGPOST URL ABOVE! Funny as... :D
_____________________

MORE SERIOUS (or not?) Comment example:
Flea Smith // Nov 15, 2012 at 6:11 pm
"I remember that wing tip day – I was the guy sent in to do the mishap report. I remember sitting in “Hooter’s” seat and could not see ANYTHING – the salt spray was so thick. Pretty amazing since I think Hooter was a nugget at the time. I scrapped a small vertical rectangle on the front windscreen – and took pictures to show the amount of visibilty that he had. I was amazed he could see the boat at all. The wing tip ‘cap’ was taken off and replaced – no major damage to the wing as I recall. This mishap made lots of discussion about how to find a rain storm to fly thru and clean the salt spray off before it became so hard. We even discussed flying into “dumped fuel” though I don’t think we had anyone try that one. That was a rough cruise weather-wise."

http://instapinch.com/blog/wp-content/u ... d-wing.jpg
&
http://instapinch.com/blog/wp-content/u ... ed-pic.jpg

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2013, 05:18
by spazsinbad
Is this an SRVL touchdown? Nope - this is a STO - but likely similar to what an SRVL T/D might look like: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/l ... 386662.jpg

USS WASP STO Oct 2011

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2013, 02:40
by spazsinbad
Latest available SAR has this page showing the VLBB requirements: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/ar ... 9-2012.pdf (0.7Mb)

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2013, 03:28
by spazsinbad
'count_to_ten' enquired about damage to F-35B (and of course it all depends on 'what damage' etc). Here is a short video about some testing of same with 'surface failures' or whatever else. Video mentioned already on the 'hi AoA test thread' but repeated here for relevance also:

Test Pilot Tuesday Episode 20 - Pete Wilson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... zDh6-rybXE

"Published on Oct 2, 2012
BAE Systems F-35 test pilot Pete Wilson answers the question, "Does the technology in the F-35 erode or enhance pilot skills?"

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2013, 08:21
by spazsinbad
Some more info from recent DOTE 18 page report for the 'count_to_ten' scenario...

http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com ... report.pdf

STOVL Propulsion System Test Series (page 14 of 18 - numbered 40)
• The program completed most of the STOVL propulsion system test series. The Program Office temporarily suspended this test series due to budget constraints without notifying DOT&E. The remaining lift fan-to-clutch drive shaft and lift fan clutch static and dynamic tests have been postponed until FY13.

-- The LFT&E STOVL propulsion system tests confirmed that back-ups to hydraulic systems that configure the STOVL propulsion system for its various operating modes worked as intended.

-- The completed test events targeted the lift fan rotating and stator components while the fan was static. The program assumed that the lift fan would most likely be hit while in forward flight and that hits during STOVL flight were less likely. In most test events, the system was then run up to simulate a STOVL landing sequence.

-- The results indicated that test damage introduced no measurable degradation in STOVL propulsion performance, including cascading damage effects, and would be undetectable by the system and the pilot. However, due to concerns for catastrophic lift fan or drive train damage that would risk loss of the test article for subsequent tests, this test series did not include dynamic tests to the inboard portion of the lift fan blade, where the cross section is smaller and centrifugal forces are higher, making failure more likely.

-- The engine manufacturer is providing damage tolerance estimates for these threat-target conditions, which still need to be evaluated."

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2013, 10:09
by spazsinbad
An F-35B RVL at unknown airspeed early on in the program video snippet + a dusty RVL addon.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2013, 10:22
by spazsinbad
Johnathan gets a bit carried away... OR is this breaking news?

Inside the F-35, the world's most futuristic fighter jet By Jonathan Glancey 16 Jan 2013

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... r-jet.html

"An aviation fantasy from the realms of Star Wars, the F-35 is the most sophisticated, expensive and controversial jet fighter ever produced. Jonathan Glancey takes its flight simulator for a spin...

"...It seems all so simple, so certain and seductive. Who wouldn’t want this all-but-invisible, all-but-invincible sky warrior on their side? There is no other military aircraft like it in the pipeline, much less in production; Russian and Chinese 'rivals’ are still essentially fourth generation. So why is the F-35 controversial? Why is Canada threatening to cancel its order? Why have there been so many spats between the Pentagon and Lockheed Martin?

Because the F-35 programme is at least five years behind schedule. Because costs have risen by more than 90 per cent. Because design, development and testing have thrown up many problems that insiders view as teething problems – the helmet needs further work; early tailhooks failed to catch the wire when planes landed on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Wasp; computer software is not all it should be, or not yet – and outsiders are determined to see as fundamental flaws...."

A lot of similar at the jump however there are the usual good pilot quotes about how easy the F-35B is to STOVL Hover and such.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 01:10
by spazsinbad
'count_to_10' asked: "If things really go wrong, would they not be able to rig the deck for a barrier arrestment?"

In the early days of NavAv I guess 'sandbagging' had a different meaning. I have been pondering that a simple barrier could be a possibility on a CVF if an F-35B has a rear nozzle fueldraulic actuator failure or similar for a shipboard recovery. Many tests would have to be carried out with the barrier ashore to ensure that it would not kill the pilot and also minimise damage to F-35B; otherwise not much point to it. The Chinese Navy PLAN to test their barricade on LIAONING with a real aircraft. This seems incredible and perhaps a 'lost in translation' effect. Much easier to test ashore with test facilities found at Lakehurst for such matters.

However if a conventional approach is needed to a barricade arrest then the approach KIAS will likely be very high (guessing 150+) similar to F-35A approach speed unless other devices still working on the BEE can mitigate the approach speed. I guess it all depends....

Pic needs clarification - date is 18 Jan 1911. 'You've come a long way Baby!' :D

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2013, 06:21
by madrat
Operationally the F-35B runs lighter so that should bring down the landing speed. If the exhaust doesn't hinge then you would hope the clutch still drives the lift fan, which the Alpha won't have. A bad clutch would probably be the bigger single point of failure next to an engine loss of course.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2013, 13:07
by mcraptor
Can the B variant carry a JSOW internally/externally?

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2013, 13:15
by spazsinbad
How about you ask that question on another thread please. Ask youself. What has this thread got to do with your question? Thanks. If you are puzzled where that thread or threads may be then use the 'search' function using the term "JSOW" or similar. There are recent threads about this exact question.

Thanks 'mcraptor'. NEW THREAD started about this question here:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-22029.html

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2013, 13:49
by mcraptor
Fine. I'll create a new thread for it.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2013, 14:03
by mcraptor
Is the UK still getting the B and not the C?

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2013, 16:28
by SpudmanWP
Yes, they are getting the B.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2013, 21:54
by mcraptor
I'd have gone for the 'C' but ho-hum, I'm sure that with 280m long carriers they need the STOVL ability more than the extra range, internal weapons carriage and wing area.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2013, 22:35
by spazsinbad
'mcraptor' you must be 'RipVanWinkle'? There is a long running thread about the 'muddling' UK twists and turns to ultimately decide on the F-35B as originally envisaged from an interim trip to the boonies, with a temporary run down a blind alley, with an emphemeral decision to change to the F-35C. I'm not going to regurgitate the facts but you can investigate for yourself here:

UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-15969.html

Probably working backwards from the last page will get to the rationale for choosing the F-35B again - despite your sad misgivings.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 19:15
by mcraptor
Cheers.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2013, 21:08
by spazsinbad
Insight into hover / VLBB ability of the BEE...

F-35 JSF Testers Report Progress, Problems By Guy Norris, Graham Warwick — With Amy Butler and Bill Sweetman in Washington. Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology 21 Jan 2013

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 03.xml&p=3

"...Recent test highlights include hovering the F-35B for 10 min. “It was record, hovering at max performance with more than 5,000 pounds of fuel before doing a vertical landing,” he says...."

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2013, 15:53
by spazsinbad
An RVL to near runway (then video stops because the demonstrator goes into an auto hover) video clip in F-35B mode in the simulator - low quality to fit.

REMEMBER - Select START then once the video starts to play right click on it to select ZOOM > Full Screen

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2013, 17:03
by spazsinbad
Another explanation about what youse see in the fillum above... From the great John Farley (and all credit to Mike Scaff in dat movie).

Excerpt from: THE RAF HARRIER STORY ROYAL AIR FORCE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

A V/STOL FLIGHT CONTROL JOURNEY ENABLED BY RAE SCIENTISTS by John Farley

http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk.nyud.net/do ... -Story.pdf (25.5Mb)

"...To continue with the main story. In 1983 I turned into a pumpkin and retired from Harrier test flying but the VAAC team were kind enough to keep in touch with me and I was invited back in 1993 and again in 1999 to fly the aircraft and comment on how I thought they were getting on.

In 1999 my safety pilot was one Sqn Ldr Justin Paines. When I got out after our couple of sorties at Boscombe, I told him that I thought the team had cracked it and that Unified was the way ahead.

Shortly after that, following a detailed and quantitative evaluation trial where the VAAC was flown by many test pilots including several from the USA (some of whom had never been in a Harrier before) the VAAC team was able to convince the US Joint Strike Fighter Programme Office that Unified should form the basis of the JSF flight control system.

Again there was much more to selling Unified to the US than my account might suggest. Justin Paines, who led the final test pilot push, was in no doubt that the opinion of Harrier squadron pilots, on both sides of the Atlantic, was bitterly divided. While some saw the attraction of Unified others were seriously opposed to it. The opposition even included senior BAE SYSTEMS test pilots. As I saw it the opponents all had many years of successfully using the nozzle lever and arguably it was that skill that made them feel better pilots than those who had no such experience. It made them better in the circuit, better in the bar, and probably better in bed. As for the mistakes some other Harrier pilots had made over the years it was only lesser mortals, not people like them, who moved the wrong lever. Expecting such successful senior operators to vote for abolishing the nozzle lever was akin to expecting turkeys to vote for Christmas.

In the end I am glad to say that the VAAC team’s arguments in favour of deskilling the process of flying jet V/STOL won the day, thus saving costly training as well as reducing the likelihood of accidents. The JSF will be in service for fifty years from now so many of its future pilots have yet to be conceived. Thankfully the aircraft is to be built with them in mind – not yesterday’s nozzle lever men.

Finally what about my wish for a ‘coffee bar button’? In many of the conversations I had with Harrier pilots about the controversial idea of Unified, I was at pains to point out that, although I wanted to get rid of their beloved nozzle lever, I was not a boffin’s nark and against the operational pilot’s point of view. In fact quite the reverse. I believed that while operational pilots were over the target (and being shot at on our behalf) their views about what they needed to do their job were paramount. However, once they turned their back on the target and their operational job was done, they should be able to press a ‘coffee bar button’ whereupon the aeroplane would then take them home safely, day or night, in any weather, regardless of whether they were exhausted, injured or (heaven forbid) it was just their day to make a mistake during their approach to land."
&
ANNEX – CONTROL LAW RESEARCH USING THE VAAC HARRIER
Two decades ago the controversial aspects of the Unified law were well appreciated by the VAAC team. This led them to thoroughly flight test various other concepts. By 1999 they were left with three serious contenders: Unified, Mode Change and Fusion.

UNIFIED. Unified was the most radical mode. Here the pilot pulls back on the stick to go up and pushes to go down, regardless of airspeed. At all speeds above 40 kt ground speed the stick commands flight path rate and so relaxing it to the centre position when the aircraft is flying level maintains height. If the aircraft is in a climb or a dive, relaxing the stick maintains the existing climb or dive flight path angle. As the aircraft decelerates through 40 kt the stick response blends to become a height rate control by 30 kt ground speed so, in the hover, with stick centre commanding zero height rate, it appears to the pilot as a height hold.

When flying up and away lateral stick commands roll rate. This blends between 130 and 100 kt to become a closed loop roll attitude control, so that relaxing the stick to centre below 100 kt commands wings level. Above 40 kt ground speed the rudder pedals command sideslip. Decelerating below this speed the pedals blend to a yaw rate command by 30 kt, providing a heading hold in the hover with feet central.

A throttle-type left hand inceptor, incorporating two detents, commands longitudinal acceleration.

Putting the inceptor in the centre detent holds the current speed. Acceleration or deceleration is selected by moving the lever forward or aft of the detent, with full travel demanding maximum available performance. Decelerating through 35 kt ground speed starts a blend and below 25 kt the aft detent commands zero ground speed. Either side of the aft detent gives the pilot a closed loop control of ground speed up to 30 kt forwards or backwards.

In summary, if the pilot centres both the stick and throttle when flying on the wings, the aircraft holds the existing speed, bank attitude and climb or dive angle. In the hover, centralising everything maintains the existing hover height, position and heading. Such hover characteristics are the stuff of dreams for every Harrier pilot..."

More about the other modes in the PDF excerpt indicated above now attached. RAF Harrier History is in the main LARGE PDF.

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2013, 01:44
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:'count_to_10' asked: "If things really go wrong, would they not be able to rig the deck for a barrier arrestment?"

In the early days of NavAv I guess 'sandbagging' had a different meaning. I have been pondering that a simple barrier could be a possibility on a CVF if an F-35B has a rear nozzle fueldraulic actuator failure or similar for a shipboard recovery. Many tests would have to be carried out with the barrier ashore to ensure that it would not kill the pilot and also minimise damage to F-35B; otherwise not much point to it. The Chinese Navy PLAN to test their barricade on LIAONING with a real aircraft. This seems incredible and perhaps a 'lost in translation' effect. Much easier to test ashore with test facilities found at Lakehurst for such matters.

However if a conventional approach is needed to a barricade arrest then the approach KIAS will likely be very high (guessing 150+) similar to F-35A approach speed unless other devices still working on the BEE can mitigate the approach speed. I guess it all depends....

Pic needs clarification - date is 18 Jan 1911. 'You've come a long way Baby!' :D


All this talk about crash barriers..,suddenly this image pops into mind of the early days before angled decks from "The Bridge at Toko-ri".. if the net didn't stop the jet, it would crash into a tractor/crane to protect other aircraft on the deck.. now THAT'S a barrier!

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2013, 05:52
by Conan
mcraptor wrote:Fine. I'll create a new thread for it.


Or you could just use the search function on this forum and look at any of the dozens of threads that already talk about this issue?

The thread, "F-35B and JSOW" might be where I'd start...

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2013, 06:11
by spazsinbad
From the overthepagedescription of INCEPTORS UNIFIED for the F-35B I'm wondering if through computer wizardry and just my guesswork IF during an SRVL on touchdown - instead of engine going to idle via the 'contact switch' (used for VLs) that SAFELY the engine can AUTOMATICALLY enable some reverse thrust via that 105 degree nozzle (yes no scorching the paintwork on deck) that will help with decel?

"...A throttle-type left hand inceptor, incorporating two detents, commands longitudinal acceleration.

Putting the inceptor in the centre detent holds the current speed. Acceleration or deceleration is selected by moving the lever forward or aft of the detent, with full travel demanding maximum available performance. Decelerating through 35 kt ground speed starts a blend and below 25 kt the aft detent commands zero ground speed. Either side of the aft detent gives the pilot a closed loop control of ground speed up to 30 kt forwards or backwards...." I WONDER. :D
___________________

For some more info on the backwardness of the Bee go here: (stroll down) [page 1 this thread]

F-35 Flight Testing At Pax [excerpt] By Eric Hehs 15 October 2012

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... rds#233535

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2013, 08:06
by spazsinbad
RN weather experts prepare for new carriers with US Navy 9 Nov 12 distributed by noodls on 10/11/2012

http://www.noodls.com/view/3FBA6956CA64 ... EB4B916EFB

"Two Royal Navy meteorologists are enjoying a taste of forecasting on board the US Navy supercarrier USS Harry S Truman.

Lieutenant Anna Townsend and Leading Seaman Paul Allen, both based with the Royal Naval Hydrographic Unit at HM Naval Base Devonport in Plymouth, are working for three months on board the Nimitz Class aircraft carrier.

The duo are learning about the differences in forecasting on a ship five times the size of Britain's current carriers to pave the way for the Royal Navy's return to large-scale aircraft carrier operations, complete with specially designed jets, when the HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales enter service.

Lt Townsend said:
"This has been an excellent opportunity to see how the US Navy provides hydrographic and meteorological support to strike operations and will definitely assist me in the set-up and execution of operations on the Royal Navy's future carriers."

The 100,000-tonne ship is exercising off the eastern seaboard of the United States and undergoing training in the Atlantic. This is another piece of the huge jigsaw preparing the Royal Navy for the two largest ships it has built.

However, there are clear differences in the size of the ships, the technology used, and the use of meteorological information which is vital for operating aircraft from the flight deck. For example, the US Navy produces a main 72-hour forecast to a range of 50 nautical miles (93km) from the ship, whereas Royal Navy forecasts look at the next 12 hours to a distance of 100 miles (160km).

For any carrier operations wind is needed to blow over the deck in order to launch and recover aircraft - typically 20 to 30 knots (38-55km/h) aboard the USS Harry S Truman. For safe operations there must be a minimal crosswind and a ship's roll of no more than two degrees.


As part of her Royal Naval training, Lt Townsend has also received warfare instruction. This means she can not only provide forecasting for carrier missions, but also support mission planning which focuses on how an aircraft's sensors and weaponry will perform over a target area - all dependent on weather.

Her experience on board the USS Harry S Truman is giving Lt Townsend a very useful insight into her likely role aboard the HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.

And the US Navy's insight into the training given to Royal Navy hydrographers and meteorologists prompted them to inquire about receiving it themselves.

Lt Townsend has recently returned from the Gulf where she provided expert advice aboard HMS Daring and Diamond - which both worked with US carriers during their deployments in the region.

Leading Seaman Allen can call on almost 20 years' experience as a meteorological observer ashore and afloat. He was impressed by the size of the US ship.

He said:
"Berthing and messing arrangements are on a large scale, but then you have to cater for 5,000 people.

"At the end of the day you are here to do a job and that is to provide forecasting support to naval aviation and operations in every way you can."

The USS Harry S Truman is one of ten Nimitz Class supercarriers and is home to 5,500 sailors and air group personnel - supporting up to 90 aircraft and helicopters. The under-build Royal Navy Queen Elizabeth Class carriers will be two-thirds of the size with 1,600 personnel aboard and 40 or so F-35 jump jets and helicopters.

Living arrangements aboard the USS Harry S Truman are much the same though, with the enlisted sailors (known in the Royal Navy as ratings) in 30 to 100-man messes, while officers are in one to four-man cabins."

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2013, 08:59
by spazsinbad
For 'popcorn' from previous page about 'barriers'... HEAPS of good info about barricades here:

LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER REFERENCE MANUAL (REV. B) 1999

http://www.sludgehornet.com/downloads/N ... bs/LSO.pdf (5.5Mb) Get it while you can.

New version c.2009 not yet available on t'internet. :-(

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2013, 09:17
by spazsinbad
LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER REFERENCE MANUAL (REV. B) 2009

http://www.sludgehornet.com/downloads/N ... bs/LSO.pdf (5.5Mb)

"...1.2.6 Effects of Deck Motion. During flight operations, deck motion seldom exceeds ±1.5 degrees pitch, ±2.2 degrees in roll, and 5.5 feet in heave...."

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2013, 11:32
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:For 'popcorn' from previous page about 'barriers'... HEAPS of good info about barricades here:

LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER REFERENCE MANUAL (REV. B) 1999

http://www.sludgehornet.com/downloads/N ... bs/LSO.pdf (5.5Mb) Get it while you can.

New version c.2009 not yet available on t'internet. :-(


Thanks Spaz..
RECTUM NON BUSTOS - Don't 'Bust Your a$$.. how apropriate :D

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2013, 12:42
by spazsinbad
From title page of 'LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER REFERENCE MANUAL' PDF

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2013, 13:31
by spazsinbad
I think these online Flight Global Archive PDF pages have probably been mentioned already in the 'very long thread' but this time not only are they mentioned but attached. Farley again on INCEPTS from: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 02360.html

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2013, 22:53
by spazsinbad
For 'popcorn' imagining 'Toko-Ri Bridges' here is some LSO info (the tractor/crane scenario is too ugly to contemplate).

http://thanlont.blogspot.com.au/2012/11 ... d-lso.html

"A readily available example of the activity on the LSO platform is provided by the excellent movie, Bridges at Toko-Ri."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pArF85wGh2E/U ... Barrel.jpg

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2013, 02:39
by spazsinbad
No wonder those decks did not MELT. I thought there was something fishy.... :D

‘How Carrier operations Work’ By Steve George BSc MSc CEng FRAeS Cdr RN

http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012/03 ... #_ftnref31

"...[31] The steel that is used to build CVN flight decks is specially toughened and treated to resist the thermal and mechanical loads without bending or cracking. Its composition is a closely guarded secret and it is made to special order only for the USN."

http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/wp-cont ... opsPTT.pdf (4.5Mb)

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2013, 04:43
by KamenRiderBlade
Hopefully none of those secret formulas / methodology ever gets leaked out to the likes of China / Iran / N. Korea.

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2013, 08:49
by spazsinbad
Strolling thru my stuff came across this tall tale but true from the leg end ary past. It highlights the hazards faced by even a small aircraft on a CVS (probably around mid 1960s even though APPROACH date is 1968) even when youse get hooked. Good oh the pilot survived. One can see the concern about deck conditions for SRVL - what we don't know at this point are what any safety criteria might be for CVF deck conditions/sea state WX etc.

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2013, 12:45
by whitewhale
If worst comes to worst then SRVL can always be abandoned and a standard VL could be utilised, it will just be more expensive dropping valuable equipment into the drink, its there purely to save running costs and one of the few benefits of the B is that versatility in how it can be landed. The harriers managed mostly OK in landing on the far far smaller deck area of the invincibles, they probably wont know what to do with all the room of the CVF's deck.

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2013, 14:10
by spazsinbad
Pushing large helos around on a small deck is no joke. The possibility that F-35Bs on CVFs will cohabit with a tonne of these whirlybirds will make the extra deck a real boon. I am sure no one will mind losing a few mil of expensive ordnance every now and then when SRVLs are verboten. Better the expensive bits rather than risk losing not only a very expensive F-35B - BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CVF AND HER CREW! :D

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2013, 22:56
by stobiewan
spazsinbad wrote:Pushing large helos around on a small deck is no joke. The possibility that F-35Bs on CVFs will cohabit with a tonne of these whirlybirds will make the extra deck a real boon. I am sure no one will mind losing a few mil of expensive ordnance every now and then when SRVLs are verboten. Better the expensive bits rather than risk losing not only a very expensive F-35B - BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CVF AND HER CREW! :D


Remind me again why we bought "an over priced and over spec white elephant" please ;)

The CVF's will be good old bird farms and that extra deck space will always be welcomed.

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2013, 23:26
by spazsinbad
On page 6 of this very same thread [ http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-75.html ] there is a photo of the LHD Juan Carlos 1 FlyCo from the inside showing a Harrier carrying out a VL (looking through the LSO sight). Attached is another inside view of that FlyCo. I'll guess that the LSO uses the swivel seat on the far left as required?

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2013, 10:25
by spazsinbad
For the STO deprived - an oldie but goldie - LOOK at the unreported smoking hole left in the deck - Oh my GollyGosh. STO me UP Scottie!

F-35B Short Takeoff from the USS Wasp Pump Up the Wolume

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu7ZUVXs6Ec

"Uploaded on Oct 18, 2011
F-35B conducts a short takeoff from the USS Wasp Oct. 18 during initial ship trials."

Unread postPosted: 14 Mar 2013, 16:40
by spazsinbad
Back on page 6 of this thread mention was made of THERMION. Let us hope it is the anti-skid of choice for CVFs....

Deployed Carrier Makes Do with Fewer Ships, Preps for Budget Cuts 09 Mar 2013 By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2013 ... udget-Cuts

"...Stennis has been carrying the burden alone in the region since late November, when the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower was forced to return home for a flight deck resurfacing, needed since the Ike’s deployment was being extended. Eisenhower is now on its way back to the region, but Stennis still doesn’t have a firm return date, although a spring return to Everett, Wash., is expected...."

I wonder if the CVNs will be using THERMION soon (if not now already?)?

Unread postPosted: 17 Mar 2013, 21:34
by spazsinbad
carrier waves Issue 1 - January 2009

http://www.aircraftcarrieralliance.co.u ... n-2009.pdf (0.9Mb)

Creating a unique and diverse ship-air interface page 7

It is in aircraft recovery that perhaps the greatest challenge exists and here too the team has been busy.

Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landings (SRVL) is a new manoeuvre, introduced to increase the bring back capability of the aircraft, which requires a radical change in the interface between the aircraft and the ship.

Aviation Director John Ward said: “Modifications to the visual landing aids, a stabilised glide path array and aircraft closure rate sensors coupled with glide path cameras are all being examined through studies, simulations and trials. Next year will see the formal introduction of these changes.”

The diversity in the ship-air interface is not limited to the challenges associated with the JCA. Other aircraft, including the Merlin and Apache helicopters and the Harrier jump-jet all bring their unique integration challenges to the UK’s largest warships."

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 02:50
by spazsinbad
Live from YummyYUMA with that special sauce (stealth) the first RVL (viewed from the side) with a bit o'dust sprinkled around by the F-35B (approach KIAS unk.).

Don't forget when video playing right click on it to select > ZOOM > FULL SCREEN

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 02:54
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:Live from YummyYUMA with that special sauce (stealth) the first RVL (viewed from the side) with a bit o'dust sprinkled around by the F-35B (approach KIAS unk.).

Don't forget when video playing right click on it to select > ZOOM > FULL SCREEN


Waaaay too fast for RVL. That was a 100kt SL (in Mode 4 of course).

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 03:00
by spazsinbad
Whatever the speed it was a Rolling Vertical Landing (even if at 100 KIAS). Perhaps NIL wind makes it look faster but I'm only guessing as you are guessing - not that it matters.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 14:09
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:Whatever the speed it was a Rolling Vertical Landing (even if at 100 KIAS). Perhaps NIL wind makes it look faster but I'm only guessing as you are guessing - not that it matters.


No, I'm not guessing.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 15:31
by Pecker
quicksilver wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Whatever the speed it was a Rolling Vertical Landing (even if at 100 KIAS). Perhaps NIL wind makes it look faster but I'm only guessing as you are guessing - not that it matters.


No, I'm not guessing.


Quicksilver is right on this. The landing was a Slow Landing. RVLs are not, to the best of my knowledge, cleared for the fleet at this point in time and are defined by a lower speed band.

There are defined bands covering SLs, RVLs and CVLs (slower again).

The flight on Thursday also included the first Yuma fleet VL. Very cool.....

http://www.dvidshub.net/unit/mcasy

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 15:44
by spazsinbad
Well it will be interesting to know how the SLs, RVLs and CVLs (Slow, Rolling Vertical and Creeping Vertical) landings are defined. We know already that SRVLs will be at 60 KIAS and AFAIK Creepies are at or below 30 KIAS so it stands to reason that anything above say 60 KIAS will be a SLOW landing? I saw a reference to the creepy landing elsewhere and will look it up.

Until then these terms are vague to say the least but in the spirit of being precise I have been looking into the use of 'Mode 4' which I would say is interchangeable with 'STOVL' mode probably for all intents and purposes. Others may disagree.

F-35 Flight Testing At Pax By Eric Hehs 01 Dec 2012

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_arti ... tem_id=110

"...The team is also flying the B-model in conventional mode but configured with various STOVL doors open. “The flight conditions mimic failure modes,” Faidley explained. “For example, we intentionally open the upper lift fan door after the engine nozzle has converted from STOVL to conventional flight mode.”

Some of the flight test aircraft have special software that allows the pilot to override the standard control laws that actuate the various doors and nozzle angles. The flight control laws for the STOVL variant have six modes that are associated with specific actuations. Mode 1 defines conventional flight. Mode 4 defines STOVL. The other four modes define transitional states between the two primary modes. “If a pilot loses a hydraulic system in Mode 2, we know that the doors associated with STOVL flight will be positioned a certain way,” Faidley explained. “We are seeing how well the airplane flies in those conditions.”..."

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 22:13
by quicksilver
Mode 4 is STOVL is Mode 4.

Most interesting part of the video is at the 2:20 mark when Maj Rusnok converts back to Mode 1 and you hear the lift fan wind down after the clutch disengages.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 22:51
by spazsinbad
'quicksilver' you have an interesting habit of repeating the obvious.

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2013, 23:24
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:'quicksilver' you have an interesting habit of repeating the obvious.


You seemed to have a question about 'Mode 4' -- hence your research. I was not and am not burdened by such doubt.

While you found the Mode 4 landing interesting enough to add it to the SRVL thread, I simply found the lift fan disengagement more interesting.

My desktop lacks the plug-in to view whatever you posted. More importantly, perhaps, I spend the neither the time nor the effort to read each and every new post on every thread every day... :wink:

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2013, 00:12
by spazsinbad
To be clear - my interest was to find out about the other modes - to have them described and sadly could not find such a description. To me - perhaps not to you - 'STOVL mode' is clear rather than 'Mode 4' but I happily accept that Mode 4 is also the way to describe STOVL mode. No problem. As for not viewing videos your computer probably needs the 'Windows Media Player' to be activated in your browser, if you are using Windows. About other operating systems I have no idea what they require but probably the same. Sorry about your lack to time to read this forum. I wish to get information rather than opinions when and if possible. The first video snippet on this page clearly states it is an 'RVL' (and then this is disputed and I have no problem with that either because the apparently 3 different runny landings can be described one day with more details perhaps not currently available). Sure - the whine down of the wind down was interesting.

The last TA4G whine down in mid 1984 is nostalgic - this same TA4G 880 is now back at NAS Nowra in FAAM on display after some 28 years with the Kiwis. [Otherwise 'wind' noise is prevalent in the camera microphone.]

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2013, 03:45
by spazsinbad
VIDEO: Jump jet simulator smoothes out landings 18 April 2013 | England UK By Tim Cooper

YOUTUBE CLIP of SRVL Touchdown + Approach View ONLY:
SRVL Touchdown CVF Simulation
http://youtu.be/R5FZGHs-ZvY

Download Complete VIDEO: (11.7Mb)

http://www.bfbs.com/news/sites/ssvc.com ... _pilot.mp4
"A unique computer simulator is helping to integrate the latest generation of aircraft carrier with its aircraft, the F35 Lightning II. Engineers are using high tech software to see what it will be like to land the fighter jet on the ship. The work is helping to iron out problems before they arise and save millions of pounds.

Interviewees:
Peter Wilson, BAE Systems
Dr Steve Hodge, BAE Systems Modelling and simulation
Lt Commander Chris Gotke, Air Ship Integration specialist"

http://www.bfbs.com/news/england/jump-j ... 63336.html

Unread postPosted: 22 Apr 2013, 15:13
by spazsinbad
I could look back throught the FastFACKs to see when some of these details changed but it is good to know the LIFTing POWer of the F-35B engyn... which may mitigate the requirement for any SRVLs? No?

NAH. The engine power was starting to be reported from about Feb 2012 Fast Facts and it is the same uninstalled specs as shown in recent graphic below.

F-35 Lightning II Program Status and Fast Facts March 14, 2013 http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17263.html (PDF 275Kbs)

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2013, 02:58
by count_to_10
Is that right? Does the B really have 1000 lbs more mil thrust than the A and C?

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2013, 05:50
by Corsair1963
Plus, the thrust is rated at 40,000 lbs yet I was told sometime ago by a LM Rep that it was 43,000 lbs

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2013, 06:27
by popcorn
Corsair1963 wrote:Plus, the thrust is rated at 40,000 lbs yet I was told sometime ago by a LM Rep that it was 43,000 lbs
s

Similar to the way the F119 is listed at 35K lbs but is announced as 37K lbs during F 22 airshow demos.

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2013, 06:37
by spazsinbad
OK - the fine print says: Extreme Left Hand Column
PROPULSION* (uninstalled thrust ratings)

Ask me what the INSTALLED THRUST is please? Answer: Whatever it is.

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2013, 20:29
by spazsinbad
This is such an excellent 'Hairier' pilot view of the process that it is worth posting here to contrast the SRVL info. One could imagine the F-35B VL process 'pilot view' will be similar - if not smoother? Depends on many variables I guess.

Harrier Flight (2013)
"Published on Apr 23, 2013
Video by Gunnery Sgt. Michael Kropiewnicki 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit
Capt. David Neely, an AV-8B Harrier Pilot assigned to Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 266 (Reinforced), 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), conducts flight operations off the USS Kearsarge (LHD3), Mediterranean Sea, March 28, 2013. The 26th MEU is deployed to the 6th Fleet's area of operations. The 26th MEU operates continuously across the globe, providing the President and unified combatant commanders with a forward-deployed, sea-based quick reaction force. The MEU is a Marine Air-Ground Task Force capable of conducting amphibious operations, crisis response and limited contingency operations. (U.S. Marine Corps motion media by Gunnery Sgt. Michael Kropiewnicki/Released)."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9l8o3tm4xI

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2013, 20:51
by Gums
Salute!

Sweet video, Spaz.

The guys I talked to at Eglin claim it is easier and faster to get on board in the Stubby ( trust me, when you see the thing flying about, it looks like a short, fat Eagle).

They seem to use throttle for forward and back, and stick for up/down, left/right, etc. You can do all kindsa things with FBW, huh?

Gums...

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2013, 01:29
by quicksilver
Great video.

Stuff to notice -- Left hand goes from throttle to nozzle lever right after the power goes in the corner for takeoff. At the end of the deck run, you'll notice his left hand moves the nozzle lever sharply aft. A few seconds of up and away time and then it's gear up, flaps to auto and some more nozzle-out before water injection off and a crack in the throttle position to extinguish the 15 second light or stay below the gear speed limit.

Pegasus high-bypass turbofan (sound) evident throughout.

Long deck run meaning hot/heavy and or little WOD for ambient conditions/TOGW combination. Landing was at spot 9, probably a no-grade from the LSO for a LIG LoBAW Taft LA (underlined). Perpendicular deck stripe evident at landing should have been under his bum at touchdown.

*Just looked at it again. That would be a LIG (underlined) plus the rest.

Unread postPosted: 01 May 2013, 18:51
by spazsinbad
Repeat info from this thread but relevant here for thread topic: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-23906.html U.K. Looks Ahead To F-35 Carrier Ops

U.K. Looks Ahead To F-35 Carrier Ops 29 Apr 2013 Tony Osborne, Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology
"...Simulator experiments have proven the validity of the deck parking layout for the aircraft. Because the U.K. ship in the simulator does not have an angled deck, landings are conducted down the length, but F-35s that are not flying can be parked on both sides of the deck. Initial experiments showed that at certain angles of parking on the port side, pilots on approach would adjust and push the aircraft to the right and closer to the ship's islands. However, by parking aircraft at a more acute angle to the stern of the ship, pilots were more comfortable touching down on the centerline.

The ships will also make use of a Bedford Array, which is a lighting system that includes a series of flashing units down the centerline of the ship at the landing point that are stabilized for the vessel's heave and pitch. On the pilot's head-up display is a new ship-reference velocity vector. By maneuvering the aircraft and the vector onto the Bedford Array, the pilot can comfortably make a 6-deg. glideslope landing using the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) method.

“With a 60-knot SRVL, the bring- back capability is significant,” said Wilson. “With vertical landings, you are not going to be bringing back 2,000-pound bombs but when was the last time the U.K. was using 2,000- pound weapons? More often than not we are seeing 1,000-pound or 500-pound weapons being used.”

Wilson said the SRVL work was also influencing how the Marine Corps may also use their F-35Bs on larger vessels such as the U.S. Navy's big-deck nuclear carriers. Several Navy carrier air wings feature Marine squadrons, and the Marines are examining if it might be possible to use SRVL on the larger vessels without issues with systems such as the arrestor wires...."

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 572845.xml

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2013, 06:50
by spazsinbad
On previous page there is a video clip of an SRVL simulation landing at BAE Wharton. Here is a tidbit about why 'so to speak'.
"...One of the specific aims of this trials was to allow customer pilots to provide feedback about the positioning of cameras on the deck of the carrier (to help the Landing Signals Officer on the deck have full visibility and awareness for an F-35 landing)...."

http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_ ... 0944745000

CAPTION: "Broadcasting Service checks out the F-35 simulator"

http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/pub ... 157939.jpg

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2013, 01:31
by quicksilver
"...Simulator experiments have proven the validity of the deck parking layout for the aircraft. Because the U.K. ship in the simulator does not have an angled deck, landings are conducted down the length, but F-35s that are not flying can be parked on both sides of the deck. Initial experiments showed that at certain angles of parking on the port side, pilots on approach would adjust and push the aircraft to the right and closer to the ship's islands. However, by parking aircraft at a more acute angle to the stern of the ship, pilots were more comfortable touching down on the centerline."

That's code for "we didn't like the proximity of parked jets to the landing area during SRVLs".

Imagine that! ...in a simulator, under nominal conditions no-less... :whistle:

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2013, 03:03
by spazsinbad
The same point was made here earlier but I know you do not have time to read much on this forum....

Posted: May 01, 2013 http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-23906.html U.K. Looks Ahead To F-35 Carrier Ops
"Interesting comment on how the deck aircraft on port side are arranged influenced the pilot centreline adjustment - why would they just not land on the centreline? Perhaps it was more a perception thing and they land on centreline anyway but feel more comfortable with aircraft ranged at a more acute angle - thus creating more space on the left side. I'll put the SRVL bits on the SRVL thread also."


If it was possible (by having the parked aircraft ranged) to 'widen the landing lane' then why not? As has been said this is what the simulations are finding out. You can whistle all you wish (I won't say 'Whistle Dixie' because that may offend some YANKS!). :D :devil:

Unread postPosted: 07 May 2013, 01:49
by spazsinbad
Probably relevant to SRVLs?

STRIKE TEST NEWS Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 23 Newsletter 2012 Issue
"...F-35B (STOVL) FLIGHT SCIENCES AIRCRAFT
For each variant, Flight Sciences aircraft specifically go after flight test data requirements that would not be available in a production configuration. Each aircraft has a unique set of instrumentation that has been incorporated throughout the airframe, making them truly one-of-a kind. They were the first to roll off the production line in Fort Worth, and each one is critical to the completion of the flight test program. The Flight Science jets do not have full sensor suites installed and do not run the block software that provides warfighting capabilities for the jet. Recent lines of testing are defined below for each aircraft. The BF-1 team completed loads testing of the new Auxiliary Air Inlet (AAI) door configuration in January 2012 with positive results. BF-1 has continued loads testing with unflared slow landings in STOVL mode...."

http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... oad&id=670 (PDF 2.1Mb)

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2013, 01:56
by spazsinbad
Looks like SRVL is back....? I'll have to find this NAO Report....

Navy carrier jets 'can't land in hot weather' 10 May 2013 Nick Hopkins
"Report warns of problems with Joint Strike Fighter and exposes costs of MoD U-turns.

The hi-tech jets that will be flown from the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers cannot land on the ships in "hot, humid and low pressure weather conditions", a report warns today.

The version of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) that has been bought for the £5.5bn carriers is still in development but currently cannot land vertically – as its predecessor the Harrier jump jet could – in warm climates without jettisoning heavy payloads, the National Audit Office says.

Though the Ministry of Defence insists the problem will be overcome by the time the first carrier is ready for service in 2020, it is one of a number of concerns pointed out by the NAO over a project that has been bedevilled by delays and cost increases....

...Other hurdles must also be overcome, the NAO states, including the landing difficulties. "The STOVL is unable to land vertically on to a carrier in hot, humid and low pressure weather conditions without having to jettison heavy loads. The department advised decision makers of this risk but stated the solution it is developing will be ready by 2020."...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/1 ... ot-weather

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2013, 03:37
by spazsinbad
Carrier Strike: The 2012 reversion decision 10 May 2013
(repeated here from the 'muddle' thread due to SRVL non-info)
The MOD acted promptly to revert to the decision to buy the vertical take-off version of the Joint Strike Fighter but will have to manage significant

Carrier Strike: The 2012 reversion decision | National Audit Office

Downloads:
• Executive Summary (pdf - 117KB)
http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... ummary.pdf
QUOTE BELOW FROM page 26 [28] of report below - what a startling lack of detail.
• Full Report (pdf - 332KB)
http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... report.pdf
"...3.10 An important enabler of the UK’s STOVL Carrier Strike capability will be the ability to conduct Ship-borne Rolling Vertical Landings (SRVL). This landing technique will be necessary where a conventional vertical landing is less likely to be possible without jettisoning large weapons or fuel load when in hot, humid or low pressure weather conditions. [East of Suez when youse fall off the edge - there be dragons] At present the technology is not proven with redesigns required to the carrier deck and aircraft software. The capability will be required for operations by 2020 and the Department included a provision to complete development as part of the cost of reverting to STOVL. The Department is confident it will develop the technique within the required timescale...."

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/upload ... report.pdf (0.3Mb)

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2013, 07:08
by madrat
It seems like technology is getting to the point where the computers can land the airplanes on a pitching deck within mere centimeters. They can make robotic arms balance balls on the point of a cone. I cannot imagine they couldn't solve the hot day landing issues with a shipboard power source to soften landings. Directed puffs of air to aid the lift of the jet down to the carrier deck.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2013, 11:42
by count_to_10
Or maybe on those rare days they will just reduce it's load or do a rolling landing, and wait for the vertical thrust to be improved.

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2013, 13:41
by spazsinbad
Britain likes to whine about 'East of Suez' - like they are ever going to be there? Not likely. The SRVL will only be required seldom given the KPP requirements for VLBB are already known to be OK on a USMC W/X of:

Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN — April 2008
"The USMC has added STOVL performance as a service specific key performance parameter. The requirement is listed as follows: With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 550 [now 600] foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) & with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile = ["...2,200 lbs of fuel for an approach, vertical landing, and reserve (Killea) see below]."

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html (0.3Mb)
_______________

The STOVL Variant of Joint Strike Fighter: Are its’ Tactical Compromises Warranted? Written by: Captain G.M. Beisbier, 01 March 2002
“...STOVL JSF DESIGN REQUIREMENTS [pages 5-6]
The design requirements for the STOVL JSF mandated a Vertical Lift Bring Back (VLBB) capability of 5,000lbs of fuel and ordnance on a tropical day. The STOVL JSF’s empty gross weight is 29,735 lbs, and it is equipped with a lift fan design capable of producing 39,800 lbs of vertical lift at sea level on a tropical day. An ability to produce 39,800lbs of thrust minus 29,735 lbs gross weight and 3,000 lbs of thrust to safely maneuver the aircraft equals 7,065 lbs of VLBB. As a result the STOVL JSF thirty percent more VLBB then the requirements document mandated (Killea). This means in a worst case, sea-based scenario the STOVL JSF is more than capable of conducting a vertical landing with 4,000 lbs, vise 2,000 lbs, ordnance, plus two 325-lb radar missiles, and 2,200 lbs of fuel for an approach, vertical landing, and reserve (Killea)....”

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD ... tTRDoc.pdf (54Kb)
_________________________

Graphic from: Strike Fighter – From a Harrier Skeptic Captain A.R. Behnke, Mar 2002

http://dodreports.com/pdf/ada520417.pdf (129Kb)

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2013, 21:32
by popcorn
SMSgt Mac weighs in on the SRVL, the Harrier and F-35B..with the latter offering a significant advantage over it's predecessor.

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2013, 21:59
by spazsinbad
For sure - the F-35 and F-35B detractors seem to have no perspective on what the aircraft is able to do. [For example VLBB the KPP loads specified a zillion times on this forum.] I think Col. Tomassetti summed up the situation some time ago with a neat turn of phrase - I'll have to find it. The UK situation is about their KUR (?) requirements. I think I found that somewhere on the 'BEEDALL' CVF website but as I recall the KUR on this very point about 'East of Sewers' hot conditions was opaque. I'll follow that up again. Following the twists and turns of CVF development and what aircraft was selected over a long period of time is not for the faint hearted and I have not followed this shemozzle from the beginning and only playing catchup at moment. :D

Here is a TROPICAL/HOT temperature reminder from 'Raptor_claw': http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... cal#222686

"There are four specific "non-standard" atmospheric models that are defined in MIL-STD-210A. They each have their own temperature vs altitude profiles, but at sea-level:

(US, 1962)
Standard : 59 deg F
"Cold" : -60.0 def F
"Polar" : -15.7 deg F
"Tropical": 89.8 deg F
"Hot" : 103.0 deg F


TWO PDF made from: http://www.pdas.com/milstd210.html attached

The US Defense Department Non-Standard Atmospheres
______________________________

"...Col. Tomassetti:...I think we finally built the STOVL aircraft that we’ve been trying to build for about six decades.

We have an airplane that is comparable to its conventional counterpart that has all of the capabilities that its conventional counterpart has. It doesn’t really sacrifice much in the way of significant capabilities in order to retain its STOVL capability.

And for that STOVL capability, we have an airplane that’s easy to fly, which means we won’t spend a lot of time having to teach people how to fly STOVL. And we won’t spend a lot of time practicing STOVL when we’re out there.

We will spend the majority of our time with this airplane focusing on tactics and missions...."

http://www.sldinfo.com/an-update-on-the ... eglin-afb/
___________________

"...Col. Tomassetti: It is ultimately disappointing constantly to see in the news all of the things that the F-35B hasn't been able to achieve yet or can't do and people completely missing what we've already achieved.

The fact is that we have a STOVL airplane that every pilot who has flown it says that it's easy to fly. In 60 years of trying to build jet airplanes and do this, we've never eve been there before. We've never had a STOVL airplane that was as full spectrum capable as its' conventional counterparts. We've never done that before in 60 years of trying.

It's an amazing engineering achievement; [what] we've already accomplished is completely being missed by some observer."

http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=21300

Unread postPosted: 10 May 2013, 22:47
by spazsinbad
UK KURs not much help - I'll keep digging....

Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) Queen Elizabeth Class Part 4

"Key User Requirements

Nine top-level Key User Requirements (KURs) for CVF have been laid out, which define the capabilities required. They are as follows:

- KUR 1, Interoperability: CVF shall be able to contribute to joint/combined operations;

- KUR 2, Integration: CVF shall be able to integrate with the joint battlespace to the extent required to support air group operations, command, control, communications, computers and intelligence (C4I) functions and survivability;

- KUR 3, Availability: CVF shall be able to provide one operational and available platform at all times;

- KUR 4, Deployability: CVF shall be able to deploy for operations worldwide;

- KUR 5, Sustainability: CVF shall be able to sustain operations;

- KUR 6, Aircraft operation: CVF shall be able to deploy offensive air power to the sortie-generation profile specified without host-nation support;

- KUR 7, Survivability: CVF shall be able to achieve a high probability of survival;

- KUR 8, Flexibility: CVF shall be able to operate the largest possible range of aircraft; and

- KUR 9, Versatility: CVF shall be able to operate in the widest possible range of roles.


Each of these is supported in more detail by a series of so-called user requirements documents (URDs), and there are typically 10 of these per KUR.

A solution is developed which meets each of these URDs but, almost invariably, the result is too expensive or too difficult to achieve.
It is the responsibility of the IPT, in conjunction with the customer and the supply chain, to examine these capability requirements and seek a solution that would measure trade-offs, and meets the available budget. This is necessarily an iterative and lengthy process, requiring both analysis and synthesis of a complex set of variables. A few examples of the cost - capability trade-off's faced have entered the pubic domain:

KUR 1, Inter-operability: This capability is essentially the degree to which information can be generated, gathered, supplied, and distributed through a variety of national and multinational systems. Such a capability may require an enhanced communication fit, radars, antennae, as well as complex distribution systems and the ability to integrate complex messages that the embarked staff can comprehend and issue the necessary commands. The capabilities for trading are very wide including, for example, intensive manpower that might be required to operate and maintain the systems.

KUR 3, Availability: The CVF shall provide one platform at high readiness for its principal roles at all times. This one almost speaks for itself – but the trade-off considerations include the life of the vessel, on-shore maintenance requirements, hit reliability, system redundancy and readiness. It also, of course, drove the need for two ships. The carriers have an availability which is very similar to that of cruise ships – of about 300 days per year.

KUR 6, Aircraft operations: The physical size of the air wing, the volume of the hangar and the sortie generation rate – that is, the total number of aircraft flights per day – are major influences on the capability. Perhaps less well understood are the demands of high sortie generation rates on weapon handling and spaces for weapon preparation, prior to their delivery to the aircraft. Considerable modelling has been undertaken to optimise the ability to handle a large number of aircraft on the flight deck and in the hangar, and deliver weapons to them. Such modelling has inputs, for example, on the number and size of the aircraft lifts; the arming and refuelling positions, as well as related matters of provision of aircraft maintenance spaces, reading rooms, mission planning and so on. The trade space is extensive.

KUR 8: Flexibility: This capability is virtually guaranteed with a ship of this size, with its flexibility to be reconfigured to operate different aircraft and to operate, for example, a landing platform helicopter role, similar to HMS Ocean, for humanitarian support. Consideration was also given to fitting catapults and arresters, demanding space and power throughout the ship, to fit future systems, representing a huge area of potential trade-off...."

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/cvf1-04.htm

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2013, 04:39
by spazsinbad
For our SRVL Horde/Hoard :D

F-35 Flight Test Update 10 By Eric Hehs Posted 11 May 2013 [Eric Hehs is the editor of Code One.]
"...23 March 2013: BAE test pilot Peter Wilson performed the first slow landing in an F-35B with external stores. The flight— BF-1 loaded with a centerline gun pod and six wing pylons, including two pylons loaded with AIM-9X missiles —occurred at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland...."

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=116

BIG PHOTO: (just before touchdown?) Photo by Andy Wolfe (cropped version attached)

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/m ... 7_8310.jpg

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2013, 01:05
by spazsinbad
USN / USMC testing secret SuckDownSuckUp Lifting Phenomena At Sea (SDSULPAS): http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iPGz-F2sdoE/U ... 0569_n.jpg

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2013, 02:16
by count_to_10
When weather attacks.

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2013, 16:41
by f-22lm
Sources say that test pilots at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, performed the first Lockheed Martin F-35B Joint Strike Fighter vertical take-off on 10 May.

The US Marine Corps' short take-off and vertical landing variant had a requirement to perform vertical take-offs right from the outset of the JSF programme. However, the capability is not emphasised because the F-35B would not be able to carry a tactically significant payload in that configuration.

Operationally, the USMC envisions its F-35Bs performing short rolling take-offs carrying a full load of ordnance and fuel, and then performing a vertical landing once the aircraft returns to the amphibious assault ship or expeditionary airfield.

The concept of operations is similar to that currently flown by the USMC's Boeing AV-8B Harrier II squadrons. Although the Harrier is often touted as a vertical take-off and landing machine, it flies a similar short take-off and vertical landing profile for the overwhelming majority of its missions.

The original X-35B prototype demonstrated the ability to take off vertically in 2001.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ff-385757/

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2013, 17:34
by XanderCrews
popcorn wrote:SMSgt Mac weighs in on the SRVL, the Harrier and F-35B..with the latter offering a significant advantage over it's predecessor.

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/


Thank god for SMSGT Mac.

I was all for the JSF before I realized that it had to obey the same laws as all the other vertical landing aircraft before it.

I am seriously waiting for the "If the JSF slows to a certain speed the airflow over the wings will cease and it will fall from the sky" story. Seriously, just wait-- it will happen. The "Thermite decks" story convinced me anything is possible.

and BTW, as giant (and I try not to be this crass here) reminder to the F-35B critics, I say F**K you. You want to talk about "hot conditions?" Yuma, Arizona in the Summer. Don't tell me the F-35B "can't land" in hot conditions as you spin your tales. 8)

http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimat ... h/USAZ0275

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2013, 20:39
by spazsinbad
'ohnametolongtoremember' Nice Yuma temp chart. 'East of Sewers' (off the edge of the planet) the stench of Bullshite is overpowering. I was reading the SharkeyBlog about SRVL in stormy weather and how hot temps/nil wind equated with those conditions at sea. OK so low pressure may be common but fantasy land weather is something to experience. :D

And to add to the HeatedMisery.... Elevation is 213 feet MSL for YUMAns

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2013, 04:13
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:'ohnametolongtoremember' Nice Yuma temp chart. 'East of Sewers' (off the edge of the planet) the stench of Bullshite is overpowering. I was reading the SharkeyBlog about SRVL in stormy weather and how hot temps/nil wind equated with those conditions at sea. OK so low pressure may be common but fantasy land weather is something to experience. :D


The first time I visited yuma it was a 114 F afternoon, in August. Its one of those places where "hot" just doesn't do it justice.

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2013, 04:21
by spazsinbad
I guess it is dry (not humid) heat though? Over last summer here in Sydney and West of it (less humid) we had our highest ever recorded temp of just over 43 degrees C [109.4+ F] (where I am inland). Thankfully after one or two days of that the rain came along (to reduce risk of bush fires).

Have just looked it up - record (for Sydney) recorded more or less in the CBD:

Sydney (Observatory Hill) 45.8 [C = 114.5 F] on 18 Jan 2013: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/s ... mary.shtml

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2013, 20:57
by spazsinbad
Have asked 'ENGINES' at pPrune for any info he is able to send to me as per the last para in the last quote below.... 'LO' is 'Low Observable' (reputed to be a well known journalist biased against the F-35 and USMC in particular). 'Engines' is a very knowledgable ex-RN individual whilst 'John Farley' is the UK Harrier Test person of World Renown. :D (Author of the 'incepts' articles if youse care to search this forum on 'incepts' or 'inceptors'.)

Overall page URL for these messages: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... t-138.html

'Engines': "LO, not sure I quite understand your reference to a 3000 foot runway and the special concrete for the F-35B. The aircraft can operate off a 1,500 foot runway with the specified load for that mission, and the special concrete is for a specific VTOL training pad. There are a number of techniques that can significantly reduce the thermal footprint of the B, including a creeping landing. (JF may be able to help here - I think that this was a technique used on Mexepads in the 60s). However, happy to be corrected. And the F-35B's replacing the AV-8Bs first, as far as I understand the programme."

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7882427
______________________
'John Farley': "LO

I know you realise this but others may not.

There are two basic types of landing:
1 where you can hover
2 where you are too heavy to hover

With 1 you may not necessarily choose to land vertically. If you can hover but you choose to move forward for the touchdown then you are doing a rolling vertical landing. An example would be when you do not wish to make the surface hot. We must always remember that heating effects depend on both temperature and residence time. The pilot has no control over the temp element but he has total control over the residence time. Even walking pace forwards makes the residence time negligible. (I am not talking about blast effects just temp ones). Of course residence time can be high if people insist on landing on a specific spot to show how good they are or because (say) the deck is painted that way. Another reason for having forward speed is if the surface is loose and will blow about. In this case you need to move forward sufficiently fast that the bow wave of debris (be it stones, earth, water, snow or sand) stays just behind the intake. With the Harrier family this required 50 kt ground speed in still air. Clearly a good head wind helps to reduce this speed. I don’t know what it is for the B but it will be determined by the fan efflux since we already know that the fan efflux prevents the hot stuff from spreading forward.

With 2 you are doing what is properly called a slow landing. With the Harrier I wing you needed some 90kt before you carried much extra weight in. With the Harrier II wing 50kt – 60kt really helped.

The B produces real lift at low speeds hence the business of "shipboard rolling vertical landing". Which if you strip the politics out of it is of course no such thing - it is just a very slow slow landing."

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7882571
_______________________________
'Engines': "...LO, again I'd like to suggest that we may both be right. The F-35 has a spec sortie to be able to deploy to a 1500 foot bare strip, shut down and wait orders to launch for a sortie, do the job and then recover to the ship. You might think that's a rubbish scenario - hey, we can all have opinions, that's a good thing. But the fact is that you need just 1500 feet to 'operate' an F-35B in that particular scenario. More if you use another one.

I'm glad you're interested in the improvised-base ops demos - so am I. One thing to note, that builds on JF's excellent post. This aircraft has a level of stability and control in the hover and transition that is a whole generation on from the Harrier. There are a variety of potential landing and takeoff modes that the test team are working through, with the able assistance of some excellent Brit TPs. I'm sure that the USMC will find ways to exploit them.

On the prepared surfaces stuff - I had a great time managing a whole set of surface erosion trials at Warton. These were far beyond anything ever attempted for Harrier, and delivered a ton of data to the programme. happy to give more info over PMs if anyone's interested.

Best Regards as ever to those fine STOVL folk

Engines"

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7882607

Unread postPosted: 07 Jun 2013, 23:43
by spazsinbad
THis'LL be good if 'John Farley' (the real deal) does put up more info... FIRST PART REPEATED FROM PREVIOUS THREAD PAGE TO KEEP ITEMS TOGETHER.

'John Farley' 07 Jun 3013:
"...There are two basic types of landing:
1 where you can hover
2 where you are too heavy to hover

With 1 you may not necessarily choose to land vertically. If you can hover but you choose to move forward for the touchdown then you are doing a rolling vertical landing. An example would be when you do not wish to make the surface hot. We must always remember that heating effects depend on both temperature and residence time. The pilot has no control over the temp element but he has total control over the residence time. Even walking pace forwards makes the residence time negligible. (I am not talking about blast effects just temp ones). Of course residence time can be high if people insist on landing on a specific spot to show how good they are or because (say) the deck is painted that way. Another reason for having forward speed is if the surface is loose and will blow about. In this case you need to move forward sufficiently fast that the bow wave of debris (be it stones, earth, water, snow or sand) stays just behind the intake. With the Harrier family this required 50 kt ground speed in still air. Clearly a good head wind helps to reduce this speed. I don’t know what it is for the B but it will be determined by the fan efflux since we already know that the fan efflux prevents the hot stuff from spreading forward.

With 2 you are doing what is properly called a slow landing. With the Harrier I wing you needed some 90kt before you carried much extra weight in. With the Harrier II wing 50kt – 60kt really helped.

The B produces real lift at low speeds hence the business of "shipboard rolling vertical landing". Which if you strip the politics out of it is of course no such thing - it is just a very slow slow landing.
&
The advantages of landing from a hover
In my experience the interests of the squadron pilot are not always given the priority they deserve when it comes to procuring the aircraft they will use to fight wars on our behalf. I would like to discusses some piloting factors during takeoff and landing that I feel should be taken into account when choosing a combat aircraft. In particular I will try to explain the limited potential of Slow Landing to provide safety and operating site flexibility. In concentrating on these piloting issues, I fully accept no account has been taken of such matters as inter-service rivalry, company self-interest, industrial partnerships or politics. While history shows there are good reasons for supposing that such non-piloting matters are likely to seriously effect the acquisition of an aircraft, surely that is no argument why all concerned should not clearly appreciate what is at stake for the pilots if such considerations are allowed to unduly influence matters

A case can be made that future landing needs would be satisfied by providing a conventional or slow landing capability on land or an arrested landing at sea. There are piloting reasons why this view should be questioned. To clarify this, the advantages that result from being able to hover before landing are listed below. The reasoning behind these points is explained later. It is important to note that the term "hover" has a specific meaning here. It refers to a hover in free air outside ground effect. It should not be taken as necessarily implying that a vertical landing or vertical takeoff capability also exists, or indeed is needed for the hover under discussion to be worthwhile. Following such a hover, the pilot may choose to step forward into a ‘rolling vertical’ landing at low forward speed to avoid hot gas recirculation, foreign object damage (FOD) or damaging the surface with the exhaust efflux.

An aircraft that can hover offers the following advantages:

(a) Operating site choices are increased on land and at sea increasing operational flexibility and effectiveness.

(b) Peacetime landings provide valid training in the event that restricted site operations become necessary in wartime.

(c) Weather is less of a problem on the approach.

(d) The landing surface can have standing water, ice or snow that would preclude a safe short landing.

(e) A landing can be made with aircraft defects that would require ejection in the absence of a hover capability.

(f) The landing is easier for the pilot.

An examination of the reasons underlying these assertions involves the following topics:

Pilot workload
Size of operating site
Weather effects
Training
Aircraft defects and combat damage
Operational flexibility
Safety

I am happy to put these up (perhaps one at a time as I dunno wot a max length a post should be?)"

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7882861

I'm wondering if what we think will be an SRVL today may be modified for future use in some ways hinted at above?

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2013, 00:06
by spazsinbad
Impact of Surface Profile on Thermal Spray Adhesion 14 Feb 2012
James Martin (6138), John Wegand (6130), Paul Slebodnick (6138) & Edward Lemieux (6130)
Naval Research Laboratory
Center for Corrosion Science and Engineering
4555 Overlook Avenue
Washington, DC 20375

James Tagert
Vision Point Systems Incorporated
10201 Fairfax Boulevard
Fairfax, VA 22030

Cameron Miller
Rotator Staffing Services, Inc.
557 Cranbury Road
East Brunswick, NJ 08816
"ABSTRACT
The upcoming integration of Joint Strike Fighter, F-35B Variant—short take off/vertical landing (STOVL)—aboard amphibious ships within the U.S. Navy has introduced an operational issue as it relates to flight deck nonskid coatings. Based on scaled nozzle testing at projected F-35B operating parameters, qualified traditional (epoxy) nonskids, currently used in the Fleet, would not survive a full deployment. The traditional products severely degrade after at most 15 to 20 simulated vertical landings. Therefore, the US Navy needs to identify alternative nonskid technology applicable for intended JSF operational scenarios and conditions. Leveraging program efforts initiated by the Office of Naval Research and Naval Sea Systems Command, thermal spray technology appears to be the most viable solution.

Given the adhesion issues of thermal sprays previously encountered within the U.S. Navy, an assessment of the role of surface profile on adhesion was executed using the leading candidate system [THERMION] for Joint Strike Fighter. The objective was to maximize adhesion and to optimize the application process independent of the steel. Therefore, an evaluation of both steel and aluminum oxide abrasive grits of various sizes was conducted on the three main deck steels employed—HY-80, HY-100, and HSLA-100. Angularity, profile depth, and total effective surface area of each resulting surface profile were assessed, and then the relative impact of that profile on adhesion was determined. The resultant of the analysis was that abrasive blasting with a 16/24 Aluminum Oxide grit package provided the optimum grit for surface preparation.

INTRODUCTION
With the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) on the horizon and the recent fielding of the MV-22 Osprey, short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft aboard amphibious assault ships has presented a challenge for standard nonskid due to the elevated temperatures during aircraft operations. Traditional epoxy nonskid degrades in only 15-20 simulated JSF landings. Therefore, to meet desired operating requirements for STOVL airframes, thermal spray coatings were evaluated.

Through programs sponsored by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) a thermal spray coating produced by Thermion was determined to have the required high temperature performance and nonskid properties required for Navy use. Thermion TH-604 is a hollow 1/8” aluminum wire filled with ceramic powder and applied by twin-wire-arc spray. Based on testing results, the coating was selected for a shipboard application on USS Wasp LHD-1 to support JSF demonstration testing (DT #1); however, before the DT #1 application, a full-scale industrial application was necessary.

The industrial application was executed on a mock deck structure (MV-22 Thrust Stand) at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in June 2010. The deck structure was 24’x24’, (7.3m x 7.3m) and constructed of HY-80 and HSLA-100 steel deck plate. During application of the Thermion system, adhesion-failure occurred between the substrate and coating on the HSLA-100 steel only. To understand why the system failed on the HSLA-100 and not the HY-80 plates, a detailed test plan was developed and executed.

Because thermal sprays require careful surface preparation, the initial suspicion was that failure resulted from inadequate surface preparation for the proper adhesion to occur—note that steel surface preparation was carried out using steel grit blasting and a 3.5 mil, (88.9?m) surface profile was established. Consequently, Phase 1 of NRL’s test plan involved a preliminary metrology study of blasted steel substrates of varying hardness, which were to be prepared using different blast media types. The purpose of the study was to understand the impact of and establish optimum surface preparation by comparing angularity and profile depth generated by steel and aluminum oxide grits on deck steels (HSLA-100, HY-100 and HY-80) using various methodologies....

...CONCLUSION
Given the adhesion issues of thermal sprays previously encountered within the U.S. Navy, an assessment of the role of surface profile on adhesion was executed for Thermion TH-604, the leading nonskid candidate system for shipboard use in designated Joint Strike Fighter landing zones. As discussed, the objective was to maximize adhesion and to optimize the application process independent of the type of steel, in particular HY-80, HY-100, and HSLA-100. Angularity, profile depth, and total effective surface area of each resulting surface profile were assessed, and then the relative impact of that profile on adhesion was determined. The resultant of the analysis was that abrasive blasting with a 16/24 Al2O3 grit provided the optimum method for surface preparation for any type of deck steel. AMASteel HG-10 and Al2O3 8 mesh produced the deepest, most angular, and most complex surface profiles but abrasive blasting with that type of media is impractical for large scale applications. AMASteel SG-25 is capable of producing the profile depths required for HY-80, but is inadequate for HY-100 and HSLA-100; commonly found ship deck steels. Further, profile angularity is also not ideal."

https://www.corrdefense.com/Spotlight/2 ... 0Spray.pdf (1.2Mb)

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2013, 09:45
by spazsinbad
'John Farley' 08 Jun 2013:
"PILOT WORKLOAD
A slow landing differs from a conventional landing in that ground roll is greatly reduced however important piloting problems remain so long as the aircraft cannot hover. During the approach to a slow landing, the following constraints apply:

(a) A minimum speed set by limits of lift or control.

(b) A maximum speed set by stopping ability and the strip remaining at touchdown.

(c) The approach path angle must be within narrow limits.

(d) The track over the ground must be accurately aligned with the strip in the final stages or the aircraft will leave the side of the strip shortly after touchdown.

(d) In order to avoid an undershoot or an overrun, very little height variation is allowable as the strip is reached.

Considerable pilot effort and skill can be necessary to fly within these constraints. This workload increases rapidly as the landing strip dimensions are reduced towards those needed by the aircraft when it is flown perfectly.

We all know that an inability to stop, whether on foot or in any vehicle, brings with it a fundamental need to plan ahead. In the case of an aircraft, any minimum flying speed limit requires the provision of overshoot and diversion procedures, together with the fuel reserves to carry them out. These procedures bring air traffic control problems and lead to repositioning sorties and logistic complications.

Because of these issues, pressure on the pilot is further increased at the very time that he is expected to perform at peak skill levels leading to the possibility of reduced accuracy and increased risk of failure. Even worse, the pilot may continue towards an inevitable accident because, under this pressure, he subconsciously rejects all options other than the approach in progress, despite the fact that the approach is beyond his capabilities or those of his aircraft.

Given a hover capability, these demanding requirements do not apply and the pilot just needs to establish a hover with the landing spot in view. This fundamental change reduces his workload for several reasons:

(a) The approach speed can be varied to suit external factors such as poor visibility or the need to fit in with other aircraft in the air or on the ground.

(b) Any descent path angle can be used so long as it is above local obstacles.

(c) The direction of the approach is not linked to the landing.

(d) Aircraft height at the end of the approach needs only to be above any obstacles and below any cloud.

(e) Because it is easy to adjust position over the surface once in the hover, acceptable position limits for the end of the approach can be measured in hundreds of metres to the left, right, forwards or backwards.

It is important to note that any trial results aimed at comparing pilot workload during different types of landing will only be valid if the landing sites chosen are equally limiting. Vertical landings on the small aft platform of a ship or in an urban car park may only be properly compared with slow or conventional landings made on a strip with a bomb crater or other genuine limit at each end. It is misleading to rely on measured short landing data obtained on a runway that is much wider and longer than aircraft performance alone would dictate. As discussed later, peacetime flying from an oversize runway is also inadequate training for any wartime restricted strip case.
&
SIZE OF OPERATING SITE
Since the area required for a landing from the hover is small, it is clearly easier to provide or find suitable locations for this as opposed to a short landing strip. However, it is sometimes suggested that, because a short takeoff strip has to be provided for a VSTOL aircraft to take off at max weight, then the existence of this takeoff strip means that it can be used for short landing and hence STOL is all that is necessary. This view takes no account of several reasons why an STO, even at maximum weight, can be safely carried out from a much shorter and narrower strip than is acceptable for a slow landing even at a lighter weight. First consider factors affecting strip length:

(a) An aircraft can be positioned for takeoff at the very beginning of the strip and the subsequent ground roll required to unstick can be very accurately predicted (as a function of weight and thrust), making it acceptable to plan to unstick close to the end of the strip. On the other hand, some distance will be needed for a landing at both ends of the strip to allow for scatter in touchdown position and stopping performance.

(b) The acceleration available for takeoff may well approach 1g and be unaffected by a wet or icy surface but it is difficult to design for a similar level of deceleration throughout the ground roll when landing, even in good conditions. Given slippery conditions, wheel braking effects can all but vanish.

(c) The use of full power on takeoff maximises the lift effect of thrust, reducing the speed needed to fly at a given weight. However, in order to have a go around capability when landing, some power margin must remain at touchdown. This results in a reduction of the lift element from thrust on a slow approach, compared to that available during a STO. Replacing this powered lift with V squared aerodynamic lift can need a surprisingly large increase in V at the lower approach speeds of short landing aircraft, countering the advantage to be expected from reduced weight at the end of the sortie.

A narrower strip is acceptable for takeoff compared to landing because:

(a) An aircraft can be lined up very accurately before a takeoff, whereas there is a need to allow for lateral scatter when landing.

(b) Direction can be controlled relatively easily during the slower first part of the takeoff ground run and then the quality of aerodynamic directional control improves as speed increases. The opposite applies when landing and the use of brakes, aerodynamic devices and reverse thrust all tend to degrade directional control and stability. This stems from the use of large forces to slow down quickly on the ground and so quite minor asymmetries in those forces can cause the aircraft to veer. Experience shows that such asymmetries can also result from crosswinds interacting with the complex flow patterns around an aircraft using high power or aerodynamic devices for deceleration.

Provision must be made at the end of a strip used for landing for the aircraft to turn round and backtrack or clear the strip at the side, whereas places for landing from the hover can be provided some way away from the short takeoff strip, thus easing flow control on the ground through the land/hide, replenish/takeoff sequence. When the same strip has to be used for both takeoff and landing, a larger and more complicated site layout becomes necessary. Even in the orderly peacetime world of civil aircraft operations, the advantages and smooth traffic flows that result from using different runways for takeoff and landing are apparent for all to see."

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7883206
&
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7883216

Unread postPosted: 08 Jun 2013, 13:44
by spazsinbad
The last....

'John Farley' 08 Jun 2013:
"WEATHER EFFECTS
In the absence of full autoland, pilots need time to make final visual corrections to an instrument approach before landing. The length of time taken to carry out these corrections can be shown to depend on the size of the approach error, the manoeuvrability of the aircraft, pilot skill, ground speed, crosswind, turbulence and the accuracy of touchdown required. Provision of this time interacts through any minimum speed of the approach to determine the lower limits for cloud base and visibility. The greater the time needed then the higher the cloud base and the better the visibility must be.

Given a hover capability, speed on the approach can be reduced to suit the visibility, avoiding a minimum visibility cut off below which a landing will not be possible. Similar relaxations apply to cloud base considerations with the additional advantage that a hovering aircraft need not be constrained to a shallow approach path angle but can descend more steeply once it has passed obstructions in the chosen approach sector. Indeed the approach sector may be deliberately chosen to avoid obstacles as the aircraft is not constrained to line up the approach with any ground roll.

Crosswind is of little concern to an aircraft that can hover because it can be yawed around in the hover to point into wind for the actual touchdown. If a rolling touchdown is required, then the optimum starting position can be set up accurately while in the hover, before stepping forward for the landing. This avoids approach errors caused by crosswind being carried forward into the ground roll on a narrow strip.

Turbulence has adverse effects on the stability and control of all aircraft. Because the extent of these effects depends on the ratio of the local gust velocity and the aircraft lifting system velocity, the lower the lifting velocity the greater the distortion of flow around the aircraft for a given gust. In the case of a jet lift aircraft in the hover, the lifting system velocity is that of the jet efflux. Since this velocity is very high when compared to gust velocities, the hovering jet lift aircraft hardly reacts at all to turbulence levels that seriously degrade the control of other fixed wing aircraft and helicopters.

Water, snow, ice or sand contamination of the landing surface causes fewer problems for aircraft that can hover because of the slower nature of their touchdowns. In addition, such aircraft do not have to rely on surface friction for control of direction and speed on the ground but have reaction controls and reverse thrust to back up brakes and nosewheel steering. In many cases jet lift aircraft can use their own efflux to clean an area before takeoff or landing.

An example of poor weather capability if you can hover was provided during the Falklands war when Sea Harriers crawled up the wake of their ship in poor visibility and very low cloud base just by following flares thrown onto the water, indicating the way to the deck (like a motorist in fog lucky enough to have cats eyes leading to his garage). In this case, the only flight path limits that had to be observed were to remain above the sea, below the cloud and clear of obstacles. Since the ship was an obstacle, the top of which was in cloud, the landing pilots kept to port of the flare centreline and corrected to the landing spot once in the hover alongside the deck. Put even some of these circumstances, let alone the radio silence needed because of the submarine threat, into the recovery of conventionally arrested naval aircraft and it becomes likely that some, or even all, would have been lost when operating non-diversion.

TRAINING
Because of the scatter in conventional landing performance (whether this scatter is caused by aircraft characteristics, pilot performance or ambient conditions is immaterial), operators only clear aircraft to land routinely on runways that are much wider and longer than perfect performance requires. An acceptable peacetime accident rate is quoted as the reason for this conservatism. Common sense in the face of reality would be another way of putting it. What price the landing accident rate for the Hawk and Tornado, the F-16 or the MiG-29 if the runway width and length normally available was only that needed with man, machine and the elements all on top form?

In some quarters (although not crew rooms), it is felt that things will be routinely achievable during war without constant practice in peacetime or that accidents would be the least of people’s worries. Put another way, attrition in war will only occur due to the additional element of enemy activity and that an unacceptable peacetime accident risk will not carry over to wartime.

In fact nothing could be further from the truth. If a procedure is unacceptable in peacetime due to the risk of accident and attrition, then in war it carries an even higher risk due to the extra pressures present during hostilities.

Because of the increased chance of an accident, there is no precedent in RAF or RN operations for conventional fast jet operation into limiting sized landing sites other than with the use of arrester gear or when the aircraft can hover. It is not clear what aspect of a short landing capability is going to change this in the future but, without such a change, where will be the peacetime training of the wartime case? Only a hover capability can permit this critical training.
&
AIRCRAFT DEFECTS and COMBAT DAMAGE
A landing from the hover is tolerant of many defects that make a forward speed landing hazardous. Indeed, where the option exists, it is the landing of choice in the event of any malfunction or suspected problem with gear, brakes, steering, tyres and flaps. There have been several cases of wheels up vertical landings in Harriers with only cosmetic damage and none with any injury to the pilot. This fall out from a vertical landing capability becomes a significant force multiplier and cost saving in the real world of operating aircraft.

All systems associated with deceleration and steering of a short landing aircraft on the ground have to be fully serviceable to achieve minimum distances. The operation of some of these (e.g. lift dumpers, reverse thrust, parachutes, tyres and auto configuration changes dependent on weight on wheels switches) cannot be fully checked in flight before landing. The need to rely on such systems is one of the reasons why commanders will not approve routine training into performance limited sites unless the aircraft can hover.

In the limit, the pilot of a Harrier (not an F-35B of corse) only needs power, a variable nozzle angle and reaction controls to come to the hover.

Therefore, as soon as combat damage is suspected and, while remaining at cruise speed, the ability to land vertically can be confirmed by simply opening the throttle to check rpm response, momentarily pulling the nozzle lever back to check nozzle rotation and by moving the stick and rudder with the nozzles deflected to check reaction control response. As previously mentioned, flaps, airbrakes, gear, steering and tyres are not necessary in order to carry out a safe landing. No other type of fast jet can offer such damage tolerance and still land safely.

OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY
In addition to the operational flexibility that stems from being able to operate from smaller sites, the ability to hover provides further operational advantages.

Such an aircraft can, if required, operate in the VTOL mode. Whilst restricted in payload/radius of action, the VTO mode is always the ultimate in flexibility so far as dispersal, quick response time to airborne or even ease of moving aircraft between theatres are concerned, for example, Atlantic Conveyor in the Falklands.

These days Commanders rely on flight refuelling to give them operational capability in many roles from air defence to tactical strike. Few would disagree with this point of view which is why flight refuelling close to base following VTO provides a unique flexibility of operation.

Some proposals exist based on short landing aircraft being able to return to base and land between the craters. How will the length of these strips be ascertained by the pilots? How will they be defined? Will they land between the craters regardless of FOD from small debris or just on the clean areas? How will they be marked so that the pilots can identify them? Will they be able to taxi from the isolated strip to the hide/dispersal/hardened aircraft shelter (HAS) or will they be on the ground exposed and unable to taxi due to having no safe route?

A hovering capability eliminates all these problems as it allows an aircraft to land at the entrance of any serviceable HAS. When required it can also emerge from a HAS, VTO at once and deploy to the nearest available weapons or fuel if the HAS cannot be supplied for any reason. Only such an aircraft can take itself to supplies or engineering resources that have become trapped in the rear echelons. This sort of flexibility provides a force multiplier factor that is beyond value in times of disarray and tactical confusion.

SAFETY
Easier tasks tend to produce fewer mistakes so the reduced pilot workload when landing from the hover can be expected to result in fewer pilot error accidents during the landing phase, in both the lack of skill and error of judgement categories. However, if a landing accident should occur despite this, the situation is inherently safer than during a short landing because the energy remaining at touchdown is less. (The dents, scratches and lost pride associated with car accidents at city centre speeds compare favourably in most people’s minds with the aftermath of high speed motorway pile ups.)

Safety also reduces attrition and the exchange rate between attrition and operational cost effectiveness is a high one.

CONCLUSION
To land from the hover offers many piloting advantages compared to doing a short, arrested or conventional landing."

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7883433
&
http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7883426

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2013, 01:03
by spazsinbad
'John Farley' 08 Jun 2013 "...I have a confession to make. I wrote that 39 years ago (apart from the mention of the F-35B) but having read it again I saw no reason to change a word.

BTW it was not well received in 1984 by my employer whose centre of gravity had by then moved to Warton."

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7884089

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2013, 13:40
by quicksilver
"If a rolling touchdown is required, then the optimum starting position can be set up accurately while in the hover, before stepping forward for the landing. This avoids approach errors caused by crosswind being carried forward into the ground roll on a narrow strip."

They won't be starting an SRVL from a hover. Hence my concern until they can demonstrate reduction of said errors to near zero. The above quote from Mr. Farley suggests he would agree.

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2013, 14:46
by spazsinbad
As we can see Mr. Farley has not taken into account the modern flight control tech of the F-35B (why? because the text was written 39 years ago). When the Bedford Array and ship based tech talking to F-35B will minimise touchdown errors to optimise the touchdown point - even in bad weather conditons - things look good (hypothetically/simulatingly speaking). It remains to be seen. Why - the SRVL may prove to be irrelevant - perhaps even unsafe. Too soon to know (from public knowledge anyway).

Remember Mr.Farley help devise the incept/inceptors in use today on the F-35B (and the family) via the VACC Harrier - which he has written about - we await him saying more - perhaps about SRVL or other issues.

Anyway the quote is taken out of context because of this "...approach errors caused by crosswind..." which will not happen during an SRVL - ships will be pointing into the wind just for this reason alone - at least making steerage headway if not more to optimise the WOD. And he does also refer to 'ground roll on a narrow strip' - which a ship ain't. A ship can be an 'obstacle' though; as he rightly points out elsewhere. :D

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2013, 21:51
by quicksilver
Spaz it's not about the touchdown point -- it's about line up errors; or, perhaps more accurately -- misalignment of the aircraft vector and the longitudinal axis of the landing area of the ship with the ship in motion. I guess no one ever any line up problems on the Melbourne with winds right down the angle, eh?

Of course, the weather itvo CVF will always be CAVU, the winds will always steady and right down the deck, the ship won't be pitching or rolling, and there won't be any turbulence coming off the ski jump with 30 kts of WOD either...

Out of context? You posted an quote about the ease of landing a STOVL jet whilst it is already in the hover. What does that have to do with SRVL? The recounting from Farley overstates the case for ease of landing because it begins from the standpoint of a jet already in the hover, thereby ignoring the most difficult portion of STOVL flight -- the transition regimes between fully wing-borne and fully jet-borne flight. F-35B or not, it will remain a challenging regime -- particularly so when we're talking about a rolling landing with a 40,000# aircraft on a flight deck with out an arresting system. :?

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2013, 22:02
by spazsinbad
What are you talking about? CVF is the platform for SRVL at the moment. The landing lineup is axial. The CVF steams into the wind - where is the crosswind?

HMAS Melbourne had only a 5.5 degree angle deck. However like any angle deck landing the aircraft has to cross the wake to line up early and remain lined up by jinking to the right (as has been explained probably a few times now in several threads on this forum but I am happy to explain again with diagrams if requested) in 'nibble bits'. Why? because the angle deck is moving to the right with the ship steaming into the wind so as to cause a WOD down the angle deck centreline. There was no line up problem except that caused by pilot inattention to detail of 'Meatball, LineUp and Airspeed (Optimum Angle of Attack)'. CRABbing along the angle deck centreline was not allowed because the aircraft fore and aft axis needs to be aligned with the angle deck centreline as much as possible. If all the required criteria are not achieved the LSO will waveoff the aircraft.

Unfortunately John Farley did not reveal the oldentymes nature of his long posts until the end. Initially I took his comments as general - and they still are. Yes they do not address SRVL but the nature of the virtues of VLs. So what? Have the moderators delete them and I will edit/compress what may be applicable. However I would rather emulate 'galoot' in that respect of having a stream of consciousness rave about nothing in particular. :D

At least once on this thread and at other times on other threads the virtues of having the Bedford Array and the computer flight controls of the F-35B and the HMDS view with direct comms of the situation on the ship transmitted to the F-35B the synergy will allow precision landings SRVLwise. You can rage against the weather all you wish however several statements have been made about the viability of SRVL in rough conditions (force whatever - I'll check - I believe ???). A CVF captain will make the best conditions available for SRVL if required. And I'll say again - if the SRVL is not thought to be safe in the extant conditions then the F-35B will dump ordnance/fuel to carry out a VL. DUH.

You can continue with your FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) about SRVL all you wish. However people who know a lot more about these issues for more than a decade continue to investigate the SRVL (under contract) believing it to be viable. Who knows how it will turn out in the end? Do you?
________________

Thank goodness the chaps on this 'milnut' forum have copied the entire article [slightly outdated now from 2008] which gives an excellent overview of CVF/F-35B/SRVL issues with only the 'Force 6 by day' SRVL quote with context below...

Preparing for take-off: UK ramps up JSF carrier integration effort 11 Dec 2008 International Defence Review
"...According to the MoD, these flight trials “demonstrated that SRVL was a safe recovery method to the ship at Sea State 6 in day, visual conditions”, although it added that Charles de Gaulle is a “particularly stable ship” and there is “no ship motion data to enable comparison to how CVF will react in the same sea conditions”. [Whilst CVF is 60,000 tons with stabilisation and large deck equivalent.]

Other forthcoming work will include further investigations on an SRVL clearance aboard CVF, optimisation of the approach profile, reaching an agreement on the optimal post-touchdown technique, and mitigation for failure cases such as a burst tyre on touchdown.

Work is also to continue to mature the SRVL-optimised VLA arrangements, look at the possible ‘tuning’ of the JSF flight control laws, and further study the effect of SRVL on the CVF sortie generation rate, Rosa said, while acknowledging that the “exact scope of capability is only likely to be confirmed after First of Class Flying Trials” aboard CVF...."

http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1507&st=120

Do not be put off by the top of the page 'requirement to join' because if youse scroll down almost to the end there will be a VERY LONG QUOTE of the entire article referenced.... :D

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2013, 23:18
by spazsinbad
This same info being relevant to potential actual SRVL trials aboard CVFs, plus other bits, is also repeated here: http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 398#253398

Parliamentary Answers – to 6th June 2013 Jun 2013 : Column 1186W H/T THINK DEFENCE
"...Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft
Alison Seabeck:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he expects F-35B Lightning II aircraft to take part in the carrier sea trials in 2017. [157888]
Mr Dunne: F-35B trials from the Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier are scheduled to take place in 2018. This follows the first F-35B Squadron undergoing training in the US from 2016...."

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/06/p ... r_Aircraft

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2013, 02:09
by spazsinbad
After the long old posts Mr.Farley adds his admiration for the flying qualities of the F-35B such....

'John Farley' 08 Jun 2013
"...The F-35B is a fly by wire aircraft so the handing is whatever the pilots want. The GR9 standard Harrier had better handling than the GR1 but in no way can it be compared to the immaculate standard provided by fly by wire....

...As to handling at low speed (or any speed for that matter) the F-35B's handling will never be in doubt and removes at a stroke the Harrier selection, training and currency issues."

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7883894

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2013, 20:54
by spazsinbad
An updated edited 2013 graphic/PDF single page (same same) of the Approach Landing Aids mooted by AGI. This original 2 page PDF includes a page for helioplickers on small decks:

http://www.agiltd.co.uk/visual_landing_ ... g-Aids.pdf (1.7Mb)

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2013, 04:19
by spazsinbad
8.5Mb .MP4 Video of RAF SqdnLdr Schofield talking about F-35B experience. Not really SRVL related but nevertheless indicates the 'ease of flying' built into the beast. PRESS THE RED STOVL BUTTON and all will be well.... :D I guess the video is online at a better SHORTer URL. I'll go look....

http://redirector.c.youtube.com/videopl ... 6%2C910075 (8.5Mb .MP4 Video)

YOUTUBE: Interview with the first Royal Air Force test pilot to land the F-35B vertically
"Published on Jun 11, 2013
Royal Air Force Sqdn. Ldr. Jim Schofield describes performance of the F-35B Lightning II. Schofield is a test pilot at the F-35 Integrated Test Force facility at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxDXrnZX-XQ

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2013, 00:08
by spazsinbad
A good source has given this clue about the 'East of Suez - there be Dragons' concerns of the UK for their CVF F-35B ops (which temp/pressures are not KPP - the 'tropical day STO for USMC' has already been met)....
“The figures that were being used for the UK Hot Day [requiring an SRVL] were actually 35.5C, 992Mb. These came from a detailed survey of the temps experienced at sea during the hot middle of the year. The US Mil Spec Hot day was 32.1C, 1013Mb.”

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2013, 20:13
by exheadshedguy
Hey Spaz, you slipped up in your linking!

That quote is from this place http://ontheroger.proboards.com/thread/ ... sea?page=2

Unread postPosted: 23 Jun 2013, 09:42
by spazsinbad
These short videos absolutely sh*t me - why? Because there is unnecessary music and crap when at least the comments could be longer with perhaps more detail or at least the comments can be edited together. But at least sometimes the comments and video clips are relevant. In this instance we see what looks like the beginning of a creepy landing and also a rerun of that sudden slowdown before touchdown during a VL - but I still reckon that slowdown has been edited in as mentioned. Happy to be wrong though. Anyhoo watch for the creepy bit early on with a later faster RVL with the dust flying...

Test Pilot Tuesday Episode 28 VIDEO YOUTUBE
"Published on May 7, 2013
Dan Levin, a test pilot whose flight experience is primarily with the F-16, talks about his first time flying the F-35B in short takeoff/vertical landing mode."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFUAFJG ... r_embedded

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2013, 01:56
by spazsinbad
Creeping VLs illustrated by these Yak-38s in this video (along with a VTO)...

Yak-38 and Yak-38U VTOL
"Uploaded on Oct 16, 2011
Yak-38 and Yak-38U aircraft carrier landings"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... yhmrunQPA0

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2013, 21:29
by spazsinbad
A repeat of info from UK Parliament - House of Commons 17 Jun 2013 - recent - which is explicated earlier elsewhere....

"...John Glen: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he confirm that the F-35Bs will always be embarked on the carriers when they are out of port?

Mr Dunne: As my hon. Friend knows, the aircraft will be based at RAF Marham in Norfolk. The precise mix of aircraft embarked will depend on the mission, but the carrier will routinely have 12 fast jets embarked for operations whenever she sails outside of home waters, while retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 previously planned, providing combat and intelligence capability much greater than legacy systems. The aircraft carrier will also be able to carry a wide range of helicopters, including up to 12 Chinook or Merlin transports and eight Apache attack helicopters...."

...Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab): How many joint strike fighter aircraft do the Government plan to have operable by 2020?

Mr Dunne: The Government will make their decisions on the next substantial order by the time of the strategic defence review. We expect to place an order for the first squadron this autumn, so by 2020 we are talking about an expected order of 48 aircraft....

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 7-0001.htm

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2013, 20:44
by spazsinbad
UK Will Try To Boost F-35B Landing Weight by Chris Pocock AIN Defense Perspective 05 July 2013
"Senior British military officials confirmed that the UK will conduct shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL) trials on the F-35B version of the Lockheed Martin Lightning II stealth combat jet. The SRVL technique would allow the aircraft to land at higher weights than is currently possible in the VTOL mode....

...The officials said they are satisfied that the F-35B could bring back the internal weapons load that is initially planned, comprising–in the UK case–two AMRAAM air-air missiles and two Paveway IV smart bombs weighing some 5,000 pounds. But, one added, when high temperature and/or low pressure conditions prevail–such as in the Gulf of Oman–it would be prudent to achieve another 2,000 to 4,000 pounds of bring-back weight, for either fuel or weapons, especially since the F-35 will be able to carry additional weapons on wing pylons, when stealth is not a requirement....

...the UK’s three T&E jets will embark on the new Queen Elizabeth II aircraft carrier for trials in the same year[2018]."

http://ainonline.com/aviation-news/ain- ... ing-weight

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2013, 21:38
by spazsinbad
Another hint for auto VL landing perhaps....?

Jim’s vertical landing is a Lightning II eye-opener desider 02 July 2013
"SQUADRON LEADER Jim Schofield has again praised the capabilities of the Lockheed Martin F-35B after completing a vertical landing of the short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) version of the Lightning II.

After the flight from Naval Air Station Patuxent River in the US, Sqn Ldr Schofield said: “The F-35 has truly revolutionised STOVL flying. With legacy types, such as Harrier, the pilot was always working hard to land the aircraft onto a hover pad or ship.

“Now with F-35B, at the press of a button the aircraft transforms into ‘short take-off or vertical landing’ mode whereupon the aircraft can take off or hover hands-off. This means pilots will require less training and operating the aircraft will be much safer than legacy types. It’s a fantastic aircraft to fly...."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ly2013.pdf (6.5Mb)

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2013, 03:35
by spazsinbad
This same video info repeated on the JPALS thread but also relevant here as shown: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-60.html

VIDEO on Youtube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=165cQsfxNzw

VIDEO Airwaves: 9 July 2013
"On this edition of Airwaves, weather watchers keep their eyes to the sky to ensure aircrew safety during tests; plus, a "magic carpet" makes carrier landings safer for pilots; and the Navy's newest unmanned air vehicle flies high above Palmdale, Calif., during its first flight.
&
(Transcript) "A new landing system aims at making carrier landings safer.
Engineers at manned flight simulator are testing magic carpet – a landing system designed to reduce the workload of pilots and improve carrier touch-down performance. By using manned flight simulator, engineers can test the system under normal and adverse conditions, giving them a better idea of how the system will respond at sea. The goal is to reduce landing variability allowing pilots to focus more on the mission.

James Denham / Senior Engineer, Aeromechanics Division 4.3.2
“Airplanes today have very good computer systems, redundant and reliable flight control computers. We are capitalizing on those systems and then providing augmentation in the flight path access for the airplanes. So we are taking a lot of the tasks that the pilot has to do manually and letting the computer take care of those tasks and give him direct control of what he is trying to do which is fly the flight path and line up the touchdown.

In addition to increasing safety, the system is expected to save on training costs for carrier landing signal officers. Engineers are currently testing the system for use on the Hornet and F-35C."

http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... 36B1E3C033

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2013, 21:09
by spazsinbad
RAMP UP Deck-mounted ski-jump assembly marks key step toward U.K. carrier-based JSF operations
Guy Norris, Aviation Week & Space Technology / 19 Aug 2013 pp.33-35
"...Design work is also close to completion on the ship-borne rolling-vertical-landing (SRVL) system, which is being developed for the U.K. by Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman. The SRVL technique, which will also be used by the U.S. Marine Corps while operating F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variants from U.S. Navy carriers, enables the aircraft to land at heavier weights than possible when making a vertical landing. Initial flight trials of the F-35B, including SRVLs, are expected in 2018.

Under this technique, the aircraft will follow a conventional 2.5-3-deg. glideslope from 1,000-ft. toward the carrier until leveling off at 200 ft., where it will stabilize for a final approach at 7 deg. Flying at around 60 kt., compared to 120 kt. for a conventional carrier approach, up to 5-10 % of the overall lift will be generated by forward flight.

"This increases the recovery weight above vertical landing and enhances the bring-back load by an extra 2,000-4,000 lb.," says Atkinson. "The intention is always to stop with brakes and engine at idle, compared to the carrier landing where the intent is always to bolter (aka touch-and-go). The SRVL touchdown point is variable with ship motion, while the carrier landing point is always on the arresting wires.

Pilots will fly the approach using a stabilized and illuminated aim point on the ship's deck and a ship-referenced velocity vector on their helmet-mounted displays. The technique is being developed using a modified flight simulator at BAE's Warton, England, facility.

The company has also been running tests at its hot-gas test rig at the same site to replicate the aero-thermal environment caused by the F-35's exhaust.

"The F-35 has a much more powerful propulsion system so we have to take account of the high-energy, hot-cold flow. We looked in the simulator at the repeatability of approaches and at how much of the catwalks we would have to sterilize (heat treat). We also looked at hover transition corridors for aircraft to land. We used computational fluid dynamics and subscale model tests to protect areas from heat transfer; along with full-scale testing," says Atkinson.

BAE built a 15.7%-scale model of a QEC catwalk with containers, fuel systems, life rafts and sections of the ship's deck. It then used the hot-gas test rig at Warton to expose the model to the full-scale pressure of a F-35 gas stream. "We've been testing things like life rafts without and with all sorts of covers. We want to protect for a single pass in areas that would not normally be overflown," he adds."

Unread postPosted: 06 Sep 2013, 13:35
by spazsinbad
Looks like an SRVL simulation video clip to me. Perhaps more info will be forthcoming soonish?

Landing an F35B on HMS Queen Elizabeth [SRVL]
"Published on Sep 6, 2013
What will it look like of pilots coming in to land, at night, on HMS Queen Elizabeth? This simulation will give you an idea..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... qrpo6cSb4Y

The SRVV Ship Referenced Velocity Vector graphic is from: http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... st2011.pdf (2.2Mb)

Quote is a repeat but what the heck...

Paddles Monthly August 2011 ‘What the Future Beholds...’ Dan "Butters" Radocaj Test Pilot/LSO VX-23 Ship Suitability
“...We may also need to add another lens-type glideslope indicator. One idea is called a Bedford Array. You can see in Figure 1 that a Bedford Array is like a lens spread of over the length of the LA. Unlike an IFLOLS which has 12 cells that are always on to create a glideslope reference, the Bedford Array is a set of Christmas lights and only the light corresponding to current position of the touchdown point is illuminated. Just as the dynamic touchdown point moves across the deck on the LSODS screen, the Bedford Array lights would “move” forward and back across the deck corresponding to the dynamic touchdown point. Figure 2 shows what your HUD may look like. You keep the ship stabilized velocity vector on top of the Bedford light that is illuminated. The datum is a reference line in your HUD. As long as the 3 all line up you are on glide path. A Bedford Array & a ship stabilized velocity are indicators of glide-slope that will show you if you are off glide-slope more precisely but they still don’t make the airplane respond differently....”

http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... st2011.pdf (2.2Mb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2013, 13:17
by spazsinbad
Increstin' tidbits especially NOT ABLE TO FLY IF NOT UP TO DATE.... :doh: :devil:

LEAP OF FAITH 17 Dec 2013 Craig Hoyle
"The UK's involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter's development has enabled its services to prepare the ground for their future STOVL F-35B fleets...

...Thanks to years of flight control law trials and other work performed in the UK in support of the STOVL JSF's development, the F-35B's capability as a carrier-based asset will also represent a jump from previous-generation aircraft, such as the nation's retired BAE Systems Harrier GR9. "It's taking the mystique out of VSTOL [vertical/short take-off and landing] operations," says one pilot of the new type's handling characteristics.

COMFORTABLE LANDINGS
While a vertical landing is likely to be the typical means of recovery in peacetime, a UK-pioneered shipborne rolling vertical landing technique will allow pilots to return to an aircraft carrier with its typical stores "bring-back" limit of around 2,270kg increased by between 908kg and 1,810kg. This will be achieved by approaching the carrier on a 7˚ glide path while flying at around 60kt. The use of a UK-developed "Bedford array" will enable the pilot to maintain a constant aiming point on the deck, despite vessel movements in rough sea conditions.

"Pilots will require less training and operating the aircraft will be much safer than legacy types," says Schofield.

"The aircraft, right from the outset, was developed to have high reliability and a high sortie-generation rate," another UK pilot adds, with a full prognostic support system to be available by around 2020. "Operating the aircraft at sea will be no different to landside, in terms of maintenance hours."

In order to ensure a smooth introduction and through-life employment of the F-35, the UK is making a major investment in simulation, with 50% of its pilot training planned to be performed using synthetic environments. Four full mission simulators will be acquired and installed at RAF Marham, with other equipment including a deployable mission trainer also to be purchased.

The use of advanced synthetic training devices will allow the UK's F-35 pilots to get the most out of every live flying hour, one RAF pilot notes. "When you PIN into the aircraft, if you're not booked into the training system or don't have currency on the aircraft, you cannot get into it and fly it," he adds....

...Once operational, the F-35 will receive upgrades on a two-yearly cycle, alternating between software modifications only, and both software and hardware changes which will be implemented every four years...."

http://www.flightglobal.com/fg-club/in-focus/uk-f-35/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2013, 12:56
by popcorn
Impressive projected weight figures for weapons bring back with SRVL.
Are there any published figures for max weapons load possible with 600-ft. KPP in STO mode?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2013, 07:15
by popcorn
popcorn wrote:Impressive projected weight figures for weapons bring back with SRVL.
Are there any published figures for max weapons load possible with 600-ft. KPP in STO mode?



Is this one of those "we can tell you but then we have to kill you" questions? :devil:

Re: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2013, 08:20
by spazsinbad
I would imagine the accurate info will be in NATOPS - when NATOPS will be in public domain I have no idea.

Otherwise you can look back through the thread to extrapolate roughly. As I recall there are some rubbery figures somewhere that do not mean a great deal without other details. Much the same way people endlessly quote range/fuel figures without the flight profile and drag index if external stores carried and on and on.

I'll guess that perhaps after the DT II recently more is known about what you seek. Perhaps an enterprising reporter will get some info.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2013, 10:43
by spazsinbad
This info is perhaps a repeat (in part) from elsewhere on the forum (I'll look) but anyway just to refresh the generalities of STO....

BLUE SKY OPS [from Air International - F-35 Lightning II Publication 46 pages c.Early 2011]
"...F-35B Take-off Options
The F-35B STOVL variant has a range of take-off options using different modes to suit the basing. Take-offs from a ship, with either a flat deck or one with a ski jump, are also possible with a mode for each scenario. These are short take-off scenarios that can be achieved at speeds as low as 50kts with a deck or ground run of no more than a 200ft (60m). In the same mode, a take-off as fast as 150 knots is possible if the weight of the aircraft requires that speed. If the aircraft is light it can take off at a slow speed and faster when heavy.

Take-off at speeds as low as 5, 10, 15, 20kts (9, 18, 27 and 36km/h) are also possible, each of which is effectively a vertical take-off while moving forward. There are different ways of rotating the aircraft in STOVL mode, including the usual ‘pull on the stick’. Other ways are by pressing a button or programming a ground distance required after which, the aircraft control law initiates the rotation and selects the ideal angle for climb-out...."

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 85z7aH1Q-O (PDF 12Mb

Re: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2013, 10:56
by popcorn
I guess there must be a reason why the UK has commissioned all that SRVL work and the projected increased bring back allowance does hint at the payloads they are thinking of launching with... good enuf for now.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2013, 11:04
by spazsinbad
I believe it has been stated without details that a fully laden (whatever that means) F-35B is able to ski jump in some unknown weather conditions. You see there are so many variables, when it has been made clear at least in the case of the Harrier, that WOD is important. And on that note the heaviest possible Harrier STO was done on an Italian carrier ski jump by USMC test pilot - that gives an indication of the usefulness of WOD and a Ski Jump for max STO. CVFs have ski jumps.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL INFO - updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2013, 13:13
by bjr1028
spazsinbad wrote:I believe it has been stated without details that a fully laden (whatever that means) F-35B is able to ski jump in some unknown weather conditions. You see there are so many variables, when it has been made clear at least in the case of the Harrier, that WOD is important. And on that note the heaviest possible Harrier STO was done on an Italian carrier ski jump by USMC test pilot - that gives an indication of the usefulness of WOD and a Ski Jump for max STO. CVFs have ski jumps.


CVF has one ace in the hole there as well: size. She's both bigger and has a bow to fantail runway which the purpose build STOVL carriers do not. it ads up to about another 200ft. WOD is definitely important, but in a pinch, they could start launching jets from the fantail for heavier payloads.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2013, 16:22
by spazsinbad
Good to see you back but please explain what you mean by this 'bjr1028' thanks.
"...bow to fantail runway which the purpose build STOVL carriers do not...."

The LHAs used by the USMC have an end to end runway of whatever length there is available. The CVFs are whatever size they are also. I do not follow what you are saying. If an LHA takeoff length from end to end is not the same as a CVF with ski jump or vice versa then so be it.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2013, 20:18
by spazsinbad
Fly Formation on the Earth in an F-35B - so sayeth this pilote....

Test Pilot Tuesday Episode 34 Published on Nov 5, 2013
"Hear from F-35 Test Pilot Dan Canin about what it's like to fly the F-35B in conventional and short takeoff/vertical landing mode with the same stick and throttle."


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2014, 01:20
by spazsinbad
Probably this article was written 2008-2009 approx. - I have lost these details. Anyway it is from Jane's - if details found they will be posted. Similar articles written by Scott around this time are online with 'cut/paste' sections the same and other bits added. This LSO excerpt I do not believe has been posted here before....

BRIEFING: SHIPBORNE ROLLING VERTICAL LANDING
Richard Scott is Jane’s Naval Consultant, based in London
"...The [SRVL] touchdown position on the axial flight deck is about 150 ft from the stern, similar to that of a conventional carrier....

...QinetiQ has also been tasked to examine the function, location and support of the landing safety officer (LSO) on board CVF. Fred Scorer, lead engineer for QinetiQ’s VAAC JSF risk reduction programme, said; “We explored how the LSO, located in the Flyco [Flying Control] station in CVF’s aft island, could use a video system to ‘talk down’ a pilot making an SRVL recovery.

“The concept we developed uses an electronically stabilised camera, bolted to the ship’s superstructure, which takes a feed from the same inertial reference sensors as the Bedford Array and so depicts the same stabilised approach to the LSO.”

Having been proven in a simulator, this so-called ‘Scorer camera’ [funny haha] system – using off-the-shelf camera and display technology – was also trialled onboard Illustrious. “All the assessor pilots in the VAAC Harrier flew ‘talk down’ approaches on the LSO glideslope,” said Scorer. “We had very positive results, confirming that the system was straightforward and accurate.”..."

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=3 ... v=sub&p=28

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2014, 15:31
by quicksilver
From Farley --

(a) An aircraft can be lined up very accurately before a takeoff, whereas there is a need to allow for lateral scatter when landing.

(b) Direction can be controlled relatively easily during the slower first part of the takeoff ground run and then the quality of aerodynamic directional control improves as speed increases. The opposite applies when landing and the use of brakes, aerodynamic devices and reverse thrust all tend to degrade directional control and stability. This stems from the use of large forces to slow down quickly on the ground and so quite minor asymmetries in those forces can cause the aircraft to veer. Experience shows that such asymmetries can also result from crosswinds interacting with the complex flow patterns around an aircraft using high power or aerodynamic devices for deceleration.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2014, 17:52
by spazsinbad
The 'landing lateral scatter' is mitigated by the steeper than usual (compared to a 3.5 degree carrier landing approach) 6-7 degree SRVL approach by the F-35B; at a much slower IAS that culminates in a ground/wheelspeed on touch down of less than 40 knots. This info is in the same article and I'll quote it later. Pity the Zinio article from Jane's is no longer online however the same author has cut/pasted bits from this article into other articles online from my search for the mentioned article yesterday. Usually I record the date but somehow lost that info that may be found by me again. Dunno. OR... I could just paste the entire article here I suppose....

Anyway I will add the 'scatter on landing reduction bit'. As for the other John Farley quotes let me say that most of it does not apply to the F-35B conducting an SRVL, there are no aerodynamic devices in the sense Farley is saying I assume (such as large wing spoilers on A-4Fs and above) nor is there reverse thrust. The engine goes to idle on touchdown with the computer controlled carbon fibre brakes being very effective we are told by the Brits along with the soft tyres that will wear away very quickly we are told also. Lots of rubber on the hot deck eh. :D

Also there are no crosswinds down the axial deck landing line on CVF. This is not an angle deck approach with 'burble' from the island.

OH, also I discovered the 'boltering' ability of the F-35B down and up the ski jump. Never had that bit of info in my head until yesterday. I read a lot of material that in the past was not relevant to my 'historical research' on the A-4 in general and the A4G in particular. That F-35B Bolter escaped my memory (like most things these days). :doh:

Here is the landing scatter - I have read 6-7 degree approaches also - one must bear in mind this article was written circa 2008. A lot more will be known these days from much better computer simulation and actual air knowledge of the F-35B... Along with the bolter bit - remember the dates as seen in this article from 2008.
"...An aircraft executing an SRVL approach would follow a constant glidepath (5-6 degrees) to the deck (this angle is about twice that of a normal CV approach, offering increased clearance over the stern [landing 150 feet in from it] and less touchdown scatter)....
&
....Further feasibility investigations were conducted in 2000-01 using generic aircraft and ship models. Simulation work conducted over this period gave increased confidence in some SRVL operational aspects. “It was found that manual approaches required some form of tailored pilot visual aids, and that ‘wave-offs’ could be conducted much closer to the carrier than for CV operations due to the low approach and sink speed,” reported Rosa. Also, ‘bolters’ – defined as a decision to abort the landing when already on deck – could be conducted safely from a performance perspective using the bow ski-ramp.”..."

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2014, 18:08
by spazsinbad
Here is the entire article as best I could manage from the original form.

BRIEFING: SHIPBORNE ROLLING VERTICAL LANDING [SRVL] c.2008
"Richard Scott is Jane’s Naval Consultant, based in London

The UK is examining the practicalities and safety issues associated with the use of a rolling vertical landing manoeuvre on board its next generation of aircraft carriers. Richard Scott examines the background to the technique and the technology that could enable its realisation

• The UK has been exploring the possibility of adding a shipborne rolling vertical landing capability to the Joint Strike Fighter

• The SRVL would increase the JSF’s bring-back payload when recovering to the deck of the UK’s next-generation Future Aircraft Carrier

On 01 May 1982, while conducting a ground attack mission over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands, a UK Royal Navy (RN) Sea Harrier FRS.1 of 800 Naval Air Squadron piloted by Flight Lieutenant David Morgan was hit by a single 20 mm round that blasted a hole through the aircraft’s tail. The Sea Harrier remained flyable, but the possibility of damage to the aircraft’s reaction controls ruled out a standard vertical recovery to the aircraft carrier HMS Hermes.

Morgan’s memoir, Hostile Skies, recounts what happened next. “I… decided to try a rolling vertical landing. This entails running the aircraft onto the deck with about 50 kt of forward speed and is not a cleared manoeuvre, as there is a distinct danger of running over the side into the sea. It does however reduce reliance on the reaction controls and might give me the option to over· shoot and try again if the controls jammed.

“I stabilised the speed at 50 kt and adjusted the power and nozzle angle to give me a gentle rate of descent towards the stern of the carrier. Slight adjustments were required to compensate for the rise and fall of the deck but I managed to achieve a good firm touchdown about 50 ft past the round down and braked cautiously to a halt before following the marshaller’s signals to park at the base of the ski-jump.”

Today, almost 27 years after Morgan was compelled to dramatically pioneer that ‘not cleared’ manoeuvre to recover on board Hermes, the shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) is very much back on the agenda.

However, this time the context is very different. Rather than being an emergency manoeuvre to recover a damaged aircraft the UK is now looking at SRVL as a means to significantly improve the ‘bring-back’ payload with which the F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) – the UK’s preferred option to meet its Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) requirement – can recover to the deck of its next-generation Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF).

The two CVF vessels – to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales – are expected to enter service in 2016 and 2018 respectively. JCA is currently planned to achieve an initial operational capability in 2017.

It is no secret that the UK’s decision to pursue the F-35B short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) variant of JSF to meet its JCA requirement has been, and remains. a contentious issue. Advocates of the assisted launch and recovery F-35C Carrier Variant (CV) argue that it offers greater range and persistence, a larger internal payload and increased payload (fuel and ordnance) bring-back. They also raise concerns over the intrinsic engineering complexity of STOVL flight and propulsion control, and point to the ‘knife edge’ of thrust over weight experienced by legacy STOVL types in hot day conditions.

The STOVL versus CV variant debate has in fact been revisited by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) on three separate occasions since the UK made public its preference for the F-35B in 2002. Each time the conclusion was that while the judgement was finely balanced, there was no need to deviate from the STOVL solution based on the available evidence.

However, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is acutely aware that the ability of the F-35B to meet JCA Key User Requirement (KUR) 4, which sets out a vertical recovery bring-back threshold, remains in doubt. The UK vertical landing bring-back requirement calls for a recovery in hot day (34 degrees C) conditions with a payload of just over 4,000 lb (essentially two precision guided bombs, two AIM-120 missiles and a fuel reserve). Current projections predict a performance shortfall of about 175 lb, though this could increase to 360 lb if the US Marine Corps’ less stressing Key Performance Parameter only is delivered.

As a result, the MoD has been exploring the ‘third way’ of SRVL – a ‘running landing’ that would take advantage of the greatly increased safety margins afforded by the significantly larger flight deck of CVF and the superior flight control qualities of the F-35B. This technique, which allows the JCA to land with a much higher fraction of fuel and ordnance, would be of particular value in hot day/low pressure conditions where vertical recovery margins become critical.

An SRVL recovery would exploit the ability of the F-35B to use vectored thrust to slow the speed of the aircraft approach to about 35 kt of closure relative to the carrier (assuming a forward airspeed of 60 kt and 25 kt wind over deck) while still gaining the benefit of wingborne lift. This in turn offers the possibility of a significant increase (estimated at more than 2,000 lb) in bring-back compared to a vertical recovery. SRVL could also reduce propulsion system stress to increase operational flexibility and propulsion system life.

An aircraft executing an SRVL approach would follow a constant glidepath (5-6 degrees) to the deck (this angle is about twice that of a normal CV approach, offering increased clearance over the stern and less touchdown scatter).

The touchdown position on the axial flight deck is about 150 ft from the stern, similar to that of a conventional carrier. No arrestor gear is employed. Instead, the aircraft brakes are used to bring the aircraft to a stop.

Low-key studies to investigate the SRVL technique were initiated by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in the late 1990s, but the work has latterly taken on a much higher profile after the MoD’s Investments Approvals Board (IAB) in July 2006 directed that SRVL should be included in future development of the JCA design to mitigate the risk to KUR 4. Accordingly, the JCA IPT amended the CVF integration contract in mid-2008 to include this requirement.

Bigger margin
Speaking at the Defence HQ Maritime Air Warfare conference at Yeovilton in February 2008, Commander Tony Rae, then JCA desk officer in the MoD’s Directorate of Equipment Capability (Deep Target Attack), now Deputy Commander Joint Force Harrier, said: “We are attempting lo give the pilot a bit more of a margin, giving him or her the ability to recover with a greater weapon load and a fuel reserve more representative of a conventional fast jet rather than a STOVL aircraft. The manoeuvre must demonstrate that it brings the benefits of both stop and land [STOVL] and land and stop [CV] and the disadvantages of neither.’’

He added: “What the UK is particularly anxious to maintain is the sheer ‘predictability’ that comes with a vertical landing, where we see 99.99 per cent of recoveries achieved off the first approach.”

Addressing the Royal Aeronautical Society’s International Powered Lift Conference (IPLC 2008) in July 2008, Martin Rosa, JSF technical co-ordinator in DSTL’s air and weapon systems department, said the SRVL studies to date had shown that “a way forward exists to achieving operationally useful increases in bring-back, compared to a vertical landing, on board CVF with an appropriate level of safety”.

DSTL began early work to examine the feasibility of employing the SRVL manoeuvre in 1999. According to Rosa, initial pre-feasibility investigations demonstrated the potential payoff of the manoeuvre in terms of increased bring-back, but also threw up four key areas demanding further examination: performance (as affected by variables such as deck run, wind over deck, aerodynamic lift and thrust margin); carrier design; operational issues (such as sortie generation rate); and safety.

Further feasibility investigations were conducted in 2000-01 using generic aircraft and ship models. Simulation work conducted over this period gave increased confidence in some SRVL operational aspects. “It was found that manual approaches required some form of tailored pilot visual aids, and that ‘wave-offs’ could be conducted much closer to the carrier than for CV operations due to the low approach and sink speed,” reported Rosa. Also, ‘bolters’ – defined as a decision to abort the landing when already on deck – could be conducted safely from a performance perspective using the bow ski-ramp.”

DSTL also organised a safety workshop. “This showed that there were no show-stoppers, and no SRVL-specific safety critical systems were identified,” said Rosa. “Also, the ability to ditch weapons and carry out a vertical landing instead of an SRVL in the event of a failure was seen as a powerful safety mitigation.”

During 2002, more representative F-35B information became available, which altered assumptions with respect to aircraft ‘bring· back’ angle of attack (from 16 degrees to about 12 degrees, so reducing the lift co-efficient); wing area (revised downwards from 500 sq ft to 400 sq ft, reducing lift available on approach at a given speed by 8 per cent); and jet effects in the SRVL speed range (which were significantly greater than those in the hover).

Aggregated, these revised assumptions significantly reduced predicted bring-back performance. Even so, the improvement offered by an SRVL recovery was still substantial, and MoD interest continued.

In the 2003-04 time frame, Lockheed Martin became formally engaged in the investigation of SRVL recovery, with the JSF Program Office contracting with Team JSF for a study into methods for Enhanced Vertical Landing Bring Back. SRVL came out top, according to Rosa, because “no airframe changes were required, while changes to vehicle systems and mission systems were considered feasible if incorporated early into the JSF development programme”.

A subsequent phase – predominantly man-in-the-loop simulations of the day visual flight rules SRVL task, backed up by desktop modelling – showed safety and performance characteristics to be broadly encouraging. “However,” pointed out Rosa, “at this stage work on the adaptable CVF design was progressing rapidly…. Consequently the obvious next step was to consider the detailed impacts that SRVL might have on the CVF design.”

Accordingly the then CVF project in 2005 put in place a package of work to investigate SRVL impact on the carrier design. This comprised analysis to establish the optimal SRVL recovery deck; sortie generation rate modelling; and simulator trials to establish the most appropriate recovery profile, analyse Visual Landing Aids (VLAs) and measure landing scatter.

Two separate simulation trials were conducted at BAE Systems’ Warton facility using a representative CVF ship model and a JSF representative air and ground model. The results indicated that, in night or higher sea states (above Sea State 3), an SRVL-specific approach aid was desirable, and Ship Referenced Velocity Vector (SRVV) symbology in the pilot’s helmet-mounted display as an enhancing feature.

One significant outcome of the JCA Review Note promulgated by the IAB in July 2006 was the decision to add an SRVL capability into the overall JSF System Design and Development programme. Significant work has been performed since then, including land-based flight trials and extensive simulator-based development and evaluation.

As part of this work, QinetiQ was in 2007 contracted to use its Harrier T.4 Vectored-thrust Advanced Aircraft Control (VAAC) test bed to perform representative land-based flight trials and a ship-based SRVL demonstration. The latter saw the VAAC aircraft perform a series of SRVL recoveries aboard the French carrier Charles de Gaulle in June 2007.

VAAC conducted 18 representative approaches during the course of the campaign. According to the MoD, these flight trials “demonstrated that SRVL was a safe recovery method to the ship at Sea State 6 in day, visual conditions”.

Work is now continuing to finesse detailed aspects of the SRVL manoeuvre and better understand its impact on ship operations. This includes optimisation of the approach profile, mitigation for failure cases (such as a burst tyre on touchdown), possible ‘tuning’ of the JSF flight control laws and further study of the effect of SRVL on the CVF sortie generation rate. However, Rosa acknowledges that the “exact scope of capability is only likely to be confirmed after “First of Class Flying Trials” aboard CVF.

Landing aids
With SRVL now likely to he used as a primary recovery technique on board CVF, there is an additional requirement to augment the baseline landing aids suite with a landing aid appropriate to the SRVL approach manoeuvre. To this end QinetiQ has been contracted to research, conceptualise and prototype a new VLA concept, known as the Bedford Array, which takes inputs from inertial references to stabilise against deck motions (pitch and heave). The software-controlled lighting pattern provides an aim-point for the recovering pilot.

Justin Paines, development test pilot for QinetiQ, said: “Study work and simulator flying have shown that the F-35B has a critical vulnerability to deck motion for the SRVL manoeuvre. So while there is confidence that SRVLs can he performed safely in benign conditions with good visibility, it was apparent that the real task drivers for the manoeuvre were higher sea states and night/poor weather conditions.”

Simulator flying undertaken on both sides of the Atlantic, including work at BAE Systems’ Warton Motion Dome Simulator in December 2007, had brought the problem into sharp relief. “Quite simply, these simulations showed that pilots would crash in high sea state conditions without a suitable stabilised visual reference,” said Paines. “The need for some sort of VLA optimised for SRVL was therefore apparent.”

Although an unstabilised approach aid was looked at early on, the ‘top end’ (recovery in Sea State 6) requirement saw it ruled out on grounds of pilot workload and risk. So a stabilised VLA quickly emerged as a sine qua non.

Existing systems were evaluated, including the US Navy’s Improved Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (IFOLS). “However, the verdict on IFOLS was that it was reasonably expensive, not night-vision goggle compatible and, as a mechanical system, presented an additional maintenance burden to the carrier,” says Paines. “So the concept of the Bedford Array was conceived, developed and fully tested in around a year in direct response to MoD requirements.”

The science behind the Bedford Array – so called because it was brainstormed at QinetiQ’s Bedford lab – is deceptively simple. A linear array of software-controlled lights is installed along the centreline of the axial flight deck, using a simple mathematical algorithm to switch on the appropriate lights according to the ship motion references input to the system. These provide a stabilised glideslope indication for the pilot’s helmet display SRVV symbology.

“The system ensures that the pilot flying the ‘rolling landings’ makes an accurate approach to the deck, even in rough sea conditions,” said Paines. “It takes inputs from external passive references and when combined wilh information in the pilot’s Helmet Mounted Display, allows for a low-workload, stabilised pilot approach in even the worst conditions.”

A trial of the Bedford Array concept was undertaken aboard the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious in November 2008, with QinetiQ using the VAAC Harrier test bed to fly approaches to a demonstration Bedford Array mounted on the ship, in order to evaluate its ability to accurately indicate an SRVL glideslope aim-point. For the purposes of the trial, the lighting array was installed in the port catwalk adjacent to Illustrious’ flight deck.

The VAAC Harrier did not actually perform SRVL recoveries to the ship, owing to the limited dimensions of the flight deck. Instead, it flew representative SRVL approach profiles to the catwalk array (down to a safety height of about 40 ft above deck) and then performed a low go-around.

QinetiQ’s VAAC Harrier flew a total of 39 sorties in the southwest approaches between 12 and 19 November 2008 to prove the Bedford Array concept. In all, 67 vertical landings and around 230 SRVL approaches were flown.

A second lighting array was rigged on the carrier flight deck itself. This was used for a parallel evaluation of the visual acuity of the lighting system, in different ambient conditions, on deck.

“This series of trials was designed to refine the operational concept, mitigate failure cases and optimise the Bedford Array visual landing aids arrangement,” said Lieutenant Commander Chris Götke, VAAC project pilot and one of the six assessor pilots participating in the trial. “The solution was first tested in QinetiQ labs and has now been proved by successful trials, and will be implemented on the new carriers.”

QinetiQ has also been tasked to examine the function, location and support of the landing safety officer (LSO) on board CVF. Fred Scorer, lead engineer for QinetiQ’s VAAC JSF risk reduction programme, said; “We explored how the LSO, located in the FlyCo [Flying Control] station in CVF’s aft island, could use a video system to ‘talk down’ a pilot making an SRVL recovery.

“The concept we developed uses an electronically stabilised camera, bolted to the ship’s superstructure, which takes a feed from the same inertial reference sensors as the Bedford Array and so depicts the same stabilised approach to the LSO.”

Having been proven in a simulator, this so-called ‘Scorer camera’ [funny haha] system – using off-the-shelf camera and display technology – was also trialled onboard Illustrious. “All the assessor pilots in the VAAC Harrier flew ‘talk down’ approaches on the LSO glideslope,” said Scorer. “We had very positive results, confirming that the system was straightforward and accurate.”

It would be wrong to suggest that everyone in the UK naval aviation community is yet fully convinced by the virtues of SRVL. Conventional wisdom suggests that the fixed-wing naval aviator should either land and stop or a carrier (with the benefit of a tailhook and arrestor wire) or stop and land (using vectored thrust to effect a vertical recovery).

A manoeuvre that involves landing on the carrier deck with forward air speed but no arrestor quite naturally raises concerns as to risk factors and safety margins. Yet the signs are that the MoD and the RN believe SRVL can he made to work through a novel combination of manoeuvre and technology.

Since the end of the Second World War, the UK can lay claim to pioneering a number of innovations that have improved the safety and operability of high performance jet aircraft from aircraft carriers. That record includes the angled deck, the steam catapult, the mirror landing sight and the ski-jump – the odds appear to be shortening on SRVL becoming the next."

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=3 ... v=sub&p=28

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2014, 22:42
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:The 'landing lateral scatter' is mitigated by the steeper than usual (compared to a 3.5 degree carrier landing approach) 6-7 degree SRVL approach by the F-35B; at a much slower IAS that culminates in a ground/wheelspeed on touch down of less than 40 knots. This info is in the same article and I'll quote it later. Pity the Zinio article from Jane's is no longer online however the same author has cut/pasted bits from this article into other articles online from my search for the mentioned article yesterday. Usually I record the date but somehow lost that info that may be found by me again. Dunno. OR... I could just paste the entire article here I suppose....

Anyway I will add the 'scatter on landing reduction bit'. As for the other John Farley quotes let me say that most of it does not apply to the F-35B conducting an SRVL, there are no aerodynamic devices in the sense Farley is saying I assume (such as large wing spoilers on A-4Fs and above) nor is there reverse thrust. The engine goes to idle on touchdown with the computer controlled carbon fibre brakes being very effective we are told by the Brits along with the soft tyres that will wear away very quickly we are told also. Lots of rubber on the hot deck eh. :D

Also there are no crosswinds down the axial deck landing line on CVF. This is not an angle deck approach with 'burble' from the island.

OH, also I discovered the 'boltering' ability of the F-35B down and up the ski jump. Never had that bit of info in my head until yesterday. I read a lot of material that in the past was not relevant to my 'historical research' on the A-4 in general and the A4G in particular. That F-35B Bolter escaped my memory (like most things these days). :doh:

Here is the landing scatter - I have read 6-7 degree approaches also - one must bear in mind this article was written circa 2008. A lot more will be known these days from much better computer simulation and actual air knowledge of the F-35B... Along with the bolter bit - remember the dates as seen in this article from 2008.
"...An aircraft executing an SRVL approach would follow a constant glidepath (5-6 degrees) to the deck (this angle is about twice that of a normal CV approach, offering increased clearance over the stern [landing 150 feet in from it] and less touchdown scatter)....
&
....Further feasibility investigations were conducted in 2000-01 using generic aircraft and ship models. Simulation work conducted over this period gave increased confidence in some SRVL operational aspects. “It was found that manual approaches required some form of tailored pilot visual aids, and that ‘wave-offs’ could be conducted much closer to the carrier than for CV operations due to the low approach and sink speed,” reported Rosa. Also, ‘bolters’ – defined as a decision to abort the landing when already on deck – could be conducted safely from a performance perspective using the bow ski-ramp.”..."


Ref the "most of it doesn't apply..." above -- actually it does, which why I snipped it from his commentary about VSTOL jets vs conventional jets. An RVL is an RVL regardless of where it occurs. In the case of a ship, the landing spot happens to be moving.

The other matter is that of exhaust reingestion and the potential for FoD. 40Kts will be well below the likely critical reingestion speed. (Harrier is up around 60). Some would ask why 40 is of concern when the jet lands at 'zero'. The answer is that the hover before the descent in a VL tends to sweep the landing area, in a fashion, before the jet descends into ground effect. Not-so for RVL.

Good for them if it works. I am unconvinced, and will remain so until they demonstrate the capability in flight test.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2014, 22:58
by spazsinbad
Hang on. My comment still stands - how does it apply to an F-35B SRVL? I would like to see the link to the commentary. Is it for the long screeds posted earlier from John Farley.

I'm not following your second paragraph as it applies to SRVLs & FOD? Why is there FOD on the deck? FOD is FOD no matter where it is and always a problem for any air intake for an engine in whatever circumstances - even if the aircraft is not in motion with some clod putting FOD down an intake via soles of boots picking it up and getting boot into an intake via a ladder - many different ways. FOD is a hazard anywhere under any circumstances. Hence the FOD walkdowns.

There should be no FOD on the deck whether it is blown away beforehand (in a VL) or not. Are runways going to be swept before F-35B RVLs? Probably the runway will be swept as it always is for other aircraft ops.

Re-ingestion of F-35B gases is not a problem due to the nature of the cool curtain at front and hot exhaust at back keeping things tidily separate.

BTW there are hazards to any landing either ashore or afloat. So what makes the SRVL so hazardous again compared to say a carrier landing - an RVL - a VL etc.? ALL VIDEOS are very short - highlight the RVL/SRVL/Engine etc. + a John Farley pic of the 'curtain effect' etc. is here [ http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v145/ ... xhaust.jpg ] but I have edited as you see below. Comments on edited version are from: http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... anding.htm

Meanwhile a landing sequence is shown in following pic from:
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes ... ighter.pdf (4.7Mb)










Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 01:43
by quicksilver
How does it apply to SRVL? SRVL is just an RVL on a narrow landing strip that is afloat and moving. Thus, the concerns expressed by JF about the potential for lateral excursions after touchdown are germane. Farley is from your own post, this thread, page 13, 8 June 2013, 2145.

None of the video depicts RVL. Those are all VL or an SL at or above 100kts. Jet was not cleared to do otherwise. RVL aero under the jet is different.

RVL induces greater potential for FOD due to the unique aerodynamics of powered lift under the jet. In simple terms, anything loose on the ground under the jet is picked up and spit forward of the conventional intakes by the lift fan exhaust -- if the ground speed is less than the critical reingestion speed. In Harrier, critical reingestion speed was roughly 60kts, assuming that the aircraft attitude remained nominal for the landing. Pull the nose up just a degree or two and that would change a bit. Remain above the critical reingestion speed and the efflux remains positioned sufficiently aft to prevent ingestion by the main engine.

The critical reingestion speed for RVL is not the same issue as 'hot gas ingestion' (that the photo and comment addresses).

Flight decks are not 'clean' and powered lift exposes materials to liberation and movement in ways that conventional jets do not. RVL is probably the worst in that regard given it's 'nearness' to the critical reingestion speed.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 02:07
by spazsinbad
By 'SL' you are saying that these 'SLs' are slow landings as compared to an RVL - Rolling Vertical Landing? What is the difference? Slow landings you say above 100 knots? How do you know this. Slow landings if we want to call them that have gone to much lower speeds, especially before the first VL. Testing has been underway on all sorts of SL/RVL landings according to many reports. Why is the ideal SRVL speed noted as 60 KIAS?

Farley [his earlier 'LONG' quotes were written well before the F-35B came along] and others have written about the excellent brakes on the F-35B and also acknowledge other aircraft such as the Harrier do not have the same tricycle layout as the F-35B. I fail to see again how the hazards you name are any different for any landings by any aircraft. Sure the tolerances are tighter on a moving ship. However these SRVLs have been investigated as best they can by computer simulation, by aircraft simulation; and F-35 sim computers for more than a decade. Safety concerns are not known to be insurmountable after all this time? That beggars belief. I'll say again the SRVL on a CVF has to be shown to work not firstly by computer simulation and then by runway testing but also on the CVF if such an SRVL is deemed safe to test in around 2018.

Below is the quote referencing the F-35B and I'll look for the dates of the other long segmented posts by Farley....

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7882571

"...2 where you are too heavy to hover

...With 2 you are doing what is properly called a slow landing. With the Harrier I wing you needed some 90kt before you carried much extra weight in. With the Harrier II wing 50kt – 60kt really helped.

The [F-35]B produces real lift at low speeds hence the business of "shipboard rolling vertical landing". Which if you strip the politics out of it is of course no such thing - it is just a very slow slow landing."

Now the full quote:
"There are two basic types of landing:
1 where you can hover
2 where you are too heavy to hover

With 1 you may not necessarily choose to land vertically. If you can hover but you choose to move forward for the touchdown then you are doing a rolling vertical landing. An example would be when you do not wish to make the surface hot. We must always remember that heating effects depend on both temperature and residence time. The pilot has no control over the temp element but he has total control over the residence time. Even walking pace forwards makes the residence time negligible. (I am not talking about blast effects just temp ones). Of course residence time can be high if people insist on landing on a specific spot to show how good they are or because (say) the deck is painted that way. Another reason for having forward speed is if the surface is loose and will blow about. In this case you need to move forward sufficiently fast that the bow wave of debris (be it stones, earth, water, snow or sand) stays just behind the intake. With the Harrier family this required 50 kt ground speed in still air. Clearly a good head wind helps to reduce this speed. I don’t know what it is for the B but it will be determined by the fan efflux since we already know that the fan efflux prevents the hot stuff from spreading forward."

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 02:23
by spazsinbad
I'm still looking for when I believe John Farley says he first wrote those long segmented text passages at the URL(s). Anyway as I have stated a few times now I can agree that 'stopping then landing' are the best methods if your aircraft can do it (having myself only landed and stopped). So if after all the exhaustive investigation and not just the marvellous word of one experienced pilot (not on the F-35B though) the SRVL is deemed 'no go' then so be it. At moment this maneuver affects only the CVF / F-35B and any ashore landings that may mimic an SRVL (I suspect the F-35B can land at any speed below the maximum tyre speed given sufficient runway etc. in STOVL Mode; which itself has to be below 250 knots (I don't think anyone will be landing near that speed - I believe the F-35A tyre speed max. is around 170 KIAS; so it may be lower for the softer F-35B tyres). Anyway I can agree with this Farley statement.
"...SAFETY
Easier tasks tend to produce fewer mistakes so the reduced pilot workload when landing from the hover can be expected to result in fewer pilot error accidents during the landing phase, in both the lack of skill and error of judgement categories. However, if a landing accident should occur despite this, the situation is inherently safer than during a short landing because the energy remaining at touchdown is less. (The dents, scratches and lost pride associated with car accidents at city centre speeds compare favourably in most people’s minds with the aftermath of high speed motorway pile ups.)

Safety also reduces attrition and the exchange rate between attrition and operational cost effectiveness is a high one.

CONCLUSION
To land from the hover offers many piloting advantages compared to doing a short, arrested or conventional landing."


Always always always it is made clear that in the event of the potential for an unsafe SRVL - with too much load for a VL - then the load will be dumped for a safer VL. That plus the bolter up the ski jump (providing the thing is kept straight enough) is a goer. Maybe none of it is a goer - we'll see....

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 02:29
by spazsinbad
Found it: top of the next page at Pprune with the long 'John Farley' posts. Here is the direct quote/link:
"...I have a confession to make. I wrote that 39 years ago (apart from the mention of the F-35B) but having read it again I saw no reason to change a word.

BTW it was not well received in 1984 by my employer..."

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost7884089
_________________

The same info was on this thread also at the end of the quotes here:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=265131&hilit=confession#p265131

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 02:49
by quicksilver
Why RVL? Because you have a short runway (must limit rollout distance) and no suitable means to VL (either for reasons of performance or suitable surface).

Here is a description of the aero under Harrier, including the 'why' for minimum ground speeds. Similarly, lift fan exhaust from F-35 will flow both forward and aft of the impingement point. How far it flows forward of the impingement point is a bit more complex because the vane box nozzles are part of the flight propulsion control system and program to a range of positions dependent on ambient conditions, Grnd Spd commanded, gross weight, CG position (thrust split), and effects of the impinged exhaust on the jet and flight control surfaces.

"If a jet of air is directed at a solid surface like the ground it does not bounce off. The jet flows away smoothly in a
radial pattern as a sheet of air from the center of the impact area. This is called a wall jet, and at the center point of
impact a high pressure exists (stagnation point).When two ormore of these sheets meet the effect is a rising jet sheet
flow. Close to the ground the Harrier’s four exhaust jets, in a normal hover attitude, interact to create a rising fountain
at a point centered laterally about the aircraft and slightly aft of the center point between the nozzles. This interaction
results in a fountain that rises and flows rearward. As the aircraft descends the upflow increases in strength and the
fountain moves forward relative to the aircraft. At touchdown the fountain impinges at maximum strength directly
on themain gear and belly just forward of the main gear doors. This fountain is the cause of the “cobblestone” effect
identified by a high frequency buffet of the aircraft when in close proximity to the ground in a hover. The fountain
describes the concentration of the upflows, but in reality there exists a sheet of rising flow all along the center line
of the aircraft fore and aft. While FOD has the possibility to ride this upflow and damage the airframe aft of the intakes,
its most dangerous region is the part of the upflow that goes to the intakes. When the nozzles are deflected aft the
upflow biases in a rearward direction, however some forward--moving upflow persists down to jet impact angles as
small as 20° to the ground. When the aircraft is moving forward the upflow tends to move rearward. This effect is
dependent on throttle position and nozzle angle. As the ground speed decreases the upflow will move progressively
forward towards the intakes until 50 knots, at which point the up flow will move forward of the intakes. It is this reason
that RVLs should target 60 knots ground speed, and should never be flown at less than 50 knots. It is also the reason
than PNB should cease at 60 knots. If lower airspeeds are used it must be understood that the risk of FOD increases.
After PNB, selecting idle below 50 knots will also help reduce FOD."

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 03:36
by quicksilver
"Testing has been underway on all sorts of SL/RVL landings according to many reports. Why is the ideal SRVL speed noted as 60 KIAS?"

"Testing" does not constitute a flight clearance for operational jets to perform rolling landings below certain speeds. The video from Yuma is a VMFA-121 jet -- not a test aircraft. At the time of the video, rolling landings were restricted to speeds above 100 kts IIRC. They targeted something above that to make sure they didn't violate the restriction.

Why 60kts? See my earlier post with quoted explanation.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 03:54
by spazsinbad
I have never seen any suggestion of FOD ingestion mentioned regarding the SRVL IAS. It is 60 knots (not because of the olde worlde Hairier speed) because that is the best speed - period - for an SRVL, for wing lift provided for approach angle for all sorts of reasons to do with the F-35B doing a safe SRVL approach at the correct angle. IF FOD ingestion was a factor I would have thought there would have been evidence of that by now from the NAYsayers. You are the exception of course but I think you are referring to the Hairier are you not? The F-35B is a different beast in so many ways. The B has moved way beyond the 'pilot overload' concerns of John Farley from 40 years ago, with better undercarriage/brakes/computer controls - you know the score.

I'm fine with the YUMA people doing what they are allowed to do. Later they will be allowed to do more and so they will. More importantly the RN/RAF people will get on with their SRVL investigations at PaxRiver or where ever/ when ever they are allowed. I believe that to be this year some time. There are contracts to be fulfilled unless they are cancelled in the mean time.

Like hook testing - it takes results - so we will see regarding SRVLs in turn.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 14:23
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:I have never seen any suggestion of FOD ingestion mentioned regarding the SRVL IAS. It is 60 knots (not because of the olde worlde Hairier speed) because that is the best speed - period - for an SRVL, for wing lift provided for approach angle for all sorts of reasons to do with the F-35B doing a safe SRVL approach at the correct angle. IF FOD ingestion was a factor I would have thought there would have been evidence of that by now from the NAYsayers. You are the exception of course but I think you are referring to the Hairier are you not? The F-35B is a different beast in so many ways. The B has moved way beyond the 'pilot overload' concerns of John Farley from 40 years ago, with better undercarriage/brakes/computer controls - you know the score.

I'm fine with the YUMA people doing what they are allowed to do. Later they will be allowed to do more and so they will. More importantly the RN/RAF people will get on with their SRVL investigations at PaxRiver or where ever/ when ever they are allowed. I believe that to be this year some time. There are contracts to be fulfilled unless they are cancelled in the mean time.

Like hook testing - it takes results - so we will see regarding SRVLs in turn.


F-35B has many of the same issues as Harrier because it uses propulsion system lift. Many things about the jets are different -- the laws of physics are the same.

I agree that 60kts was chosen for the best combination of propulsion and aerodynamic lift, braking action and rollout distance at a nominal gross weight. However, because they will be below critical reingestion speed, FOD is going to be in play as will hot gas ingestion -- all, of course, before we put the 40K# beast on the flight deck at 40kts of ground speed and make sure it doesn't bump into people or things before it comes to a stop.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 18:50
by spazsinbad
'quicksilver' you keep suggesting "... because they will be below critical reingestion speed, FOD is going to be in play as will hot gas ingestion..." for the F-35B. Do you have URL links/quotes to these 'facts'? Thanks.

I think my graphics and other threads if not this thread posts have dealt with the 'hot gas ingestion' idea for the F-35B and the cold curtain from the front keeping the rear hot gases at bay to the rear. So where is the FOD problem?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 19:18
by SpudmanWP
I do not think that FOD is going to be an issue with SRVL for two reasons:

1. It will be mainly used on carriers where FOD is almost non-existent.

2. The lift fan has vanes underneath that are slightly pointing to the rear during SRVL.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 19:47
by lamoey
quicksilver wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:I have never seen any suggestion of FOD ingestion mentioned regarding the SRVL IAS. It is 60 knots (not because of the olde worlde Hairier speed) because that is the best speed - period - for an SRVL, for wing lift provided for approach angle for all sorts of reasons to do with the F-35B doing a safe SRVL approach at the correct angle. IF FOD ingestion was a factor I would have thought there would have been evidence of that by now from the NAYsayers. You are the exception of course but I think you are referring to the Hairier are you not? The F-35B is a different beast in so many ways. The B has moved way beyond the 'pilot overload' concerns of John Farley from 40 years ago, with better undercarriage/brakes/computer controls - you know the score.

I'm fine with the YUMA people doing what they are allowed to do. Later they will be allowed to do more and so they will. More importantly the RN/RAF people will get on with their SRVL investigations at PaxRiver or where ever/ when ever they are allowed. I believe that to be this year some time. There are contracts to be fulfilled unless they are cancelled in the mean time.

Like hook testing - it takes results - so we will see regarding SRVLs in turn.


F-35B has many of the same issues as Harrier because it uses propulsion system lift. Many things about the jets are different -- the laws of physics are the same.

I agree that 60kts was chosen for the best combination of propulsion and aerodynamic lift, braking action and rollout distance at a nominal gross weight. However, because they will be below critical reingestion speed, FOD is going to be in play as will hot gas ingestion -- all, of course, before we put the 40K# beast on the flight deck at 40kts of ground speed and make sure it doesn't bump into people or things before it comes to a stop.


IRCC one of the reasons the X-35B won over the X-32B was the reduction, or even elimination, of ingestation of hot gasses as well as FOD, during vertical/short takeoff/landing. The reason is that it takes the air from the top and not from the front of the aircraft like the Harrier during vertical landing or takeoff as well as short takeoff. I don't know if there is a mix between top and front intake, and if there is a gradual opening of the front intakes as forward speed increases.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 19:56
by spazsinbad
'lamoey' the graphics on previous page showing the IR cold/hot curtain effect explain the NO Hot Gas ingestion effect somewhat. I'll look for more text references:
“...Lockheed Martin has developed a STOVL lift system that uses a vertically oriented Lift Fan. A two-stage low-pressure turbine on the engine delivers the horsepower to drive the STOVL Lift Fan. The Lift Fan generates a column of cool air that produces nearly 20,000 pounds of lifting power using variable inlet guide vanes to modulate the airflow, along with an equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft. The Lift Fan has a clutch that engages for STOVL operations and a telescoping “D” -shaped hood to provide thrust deflection. Because the lift fan extracts power from the engine, exhaust temperatures are reduced by about 200 degrees compared to traditional STOVL systems....”

http://ve.ida.org/rtoc/open/SIP/jsf.html
____________________________

John Farley comment:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... nding.html
“The potential for a sudden power loss due to recirculation is present with any jet engine although only those used for jet VSTOL applications are seriously at risk. Thus for any powered lift design to be successful it must - by design – arrange some way of keeping the hot exhaust gases out of the intakes. Both the Harrier and the F-35 designs achieve this by having more thrust come out of the front relatively cold nozzle(s) than out of the rear hot ones. Then when the front exhaust hits the ground and spreads radially in all directions the part that goes rearwards stops the hot component coming forward dead in its tracks as shown in this infra red pic [now on previous page with same text in same graphic] where hot is white. (I have added an arrow to show where the cool front fan ex-haust is coming down).”
&
“For a hovering jet lift aircraft to experience deck edge effects - it would have to be low enough to be flying in ground effect when over the deck – likely to be less than (I’m guessing) 12 ft for this class of exhaust. With the Harrier you needed to be less than 8 ft wheel clearance to experience handling issues because of ground effect.”

______________________________

ENGINES’ 17 April 2012 [Thread ‘No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?’]

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... 5b-25.html
“...Is it just me, or is there a baseline presumption of trouble/stupidity/omission when it comes to the JSF programme? This is definitely not to be confused with healthy cynicism & free speech, of course.

The F-35B programme has taken particular pains to investigate, measure and model the efflux of the jet operating from a number of surfaces. The result is the best understanding that has ever been achieved of the temperatures, pressures and flow velocities around and under the aircraft, and on the surfaces called out in the specification. This effort was led by the Brits and carried out in an exemplary manner (according to the US tech specialists who were watching VERY closely).

On top of this, the USN is a knowledgeable and demanding customer that will not do ship trials on any other basis than professionally and carefully.

So, what does all this mean? It means that the team getting the 35B to sea know what they are do-ing & are not, repeat not, trying to hide any bad news. Were there any, you can bet anyone's bottom dollar that it would have been fully reported, like all the other F-35 issues.

Here's the bottom line as I understand it. The F-35B efflux is different to the Av-8B's, and the aft nozzle is certainly hot and energetic. However, existing deck coatings can stand quite a bit of ex-posure to it, and predicted coating lives were not much worse than those for Harrier. There are ways to mitigate the effects, the best being to do a 'creeping' landing with a knot or two forward speed. This 'smears' out the hot exhaust footprint and greatly reduces deck wear. This technique was developed in the 60s for 'Mexepad' operations by the Kestrel joint test squadron.

Cross decking to unmodified decks should be wholly practicable, in my view.

I know that these facts are less entertaining than the stories we get about 'deck steel melting' and 'ship trials being rigged for PR purposes'. Sorry about that. However, just occasionally, I'd like to see the teams doing the hard work getting a little credit.”

________________________

Navy Sees Few Anomalies in F-35B Ship Trials Oct 31, 2011 by Amy Butler Onboard the USS Wasp
“...Although in land testing the F-35B pilots often conduct hovers around 100 ft., Cordell says that on deck they have narrowed that down to 40 ft. “It is counterintuitive, but the airplane has a less harsh environment hovering at 40 ft. than it does at 100 ft.,” he says. “Land-based, we did most of our hovers at 100 ft. to avoid kicking up rocks . . . and then we worked our way to a reasonable height for the ship.”...

...Thermal impacts to the ship’s deck have been a concern leading up to these trials. Though formal data haven’t yet been analyzed, Tom Briggs, the integrated test team engineering lead at Patuxent River who is helping to oversee the ship trials, says the aircraft is performing as predicted by the models in terms of heat ingestion on the ship. Officials had been concerned that the F-35B would reingest its own hot exhaust, im-pacting performance of the propulsion system and potentially damaging hardware. There are no such perfor-mance impacts thus far, Cordell says. “We feel like we are running where we intended to crawl.” Additionally, there is “nothing mysterious” about the thermal qualities of the F-35B on the deck, says Ansis Kalnajs, a test director for Naval Sea Systems Command who is leading the effort to study the aircraft impacts on the ship.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... avy&next=0
________________

Vertical Validation by GUY NORRIS 03 Oct 2011
"...The challenge of hot gas ingestion (HGI) also remains a key test focus. Performance in the hover suffers due to HGI, which reduces engine thrust. Pretest modeling indicated the worst-case conditions would be found “at around the height of a two-story house, and we have found a close match to predictions,” Wilson says. Testing of the HGI effects and how to mitigate them will be the focus for future work. “We’ll be doing more of that as we continue investigating HGI,” says Wilson.

HGI, which may ultimately be handled with software changes, is not an issue for the shipboard tests, according to Wilson. “We wouldn’t be going to the ship if we were not comfortable with our compatibility,” he says...."

Aviation Week & Space Technology October 3, 2011; pages 31-32

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2014, 21:08
by joost
Already expected, but here some new signals the first bigger F-35B order for the UK is due in a few weeks (14 aircraft are mentioned).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/news ... h-jet.html


Britain's Ministry of Defence is close to placing its first major tranche of orders for the F-35 fighter jet, with an award for about 14 of the “stealth” warplanes due in the next few weeks.

The orders for the new plane, being built in an international project led by US defence giant Lockheed Martin, will signal the increasing role of the British military in the controversial F-35 programme.

But the aircraft is also of vital importance to UK manufacturing companies, with more than 500 British companies, led by the likes of BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, working on the project.

As the only top-tier international partner, Britain is building 15pc of every jet in a project supporting 25,000 jobs. At peak production, the programme is expected to be worth £1bn a year to British industry. Stephen Ball, Lockheed Martin UK chief executive, said: “The economic story of the F-35 is massive for the next 20 years.”

Costing as much as $1.5 trillion (£910bn) on some estimates, the F-35 project is the most expensive Pentagon defence programme in history, envisaging the construction of more than 3,000 jets.

Britain has signalled its intention to take 138 over 20 years, though the order for 14 jets will be the first firm awards from the MoD so far, apart from the four training aircraft it has already acquired.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2014, 22:01
by spazsinbad
Just for the record a record of a slow landing with weapons.... (for some reason the CODE ONE website often is not accessible - today for example so here are two alternative URLs for this news item)....

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=116

F-35 Flight Test Update 10 by Eric Hehs
F-35B Slow Landing With External Stores 23 March 2013
"BAE test pilot Peter Wilson performed the first slow landing in an F-35B with external stores.

The flight—BF-1 loaded with a centerline gun pod and six wing pylons, including two pylons loaded with
AIM-9X missiles—occurred at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland."

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/2 ... 8_6369.pdf (16Mb)
OR
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=13143&start=105

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2014, 09:44
by spazsinbad
Integration of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter with the UK QUEEN ELIZABETH Class Aircraft Carrier
David C. Atkinson, BAE Systems; Rob Brown, BAE Systems; Richard Potts, BAE Systems; David Bennett, BAE Systems; John E. Ward, Aircraft Carrier Alliance; Eddie Trott, Aircraft Carrier Alliance
Chapter DOI: 10.2514/6.2013-4267; Publication Date: August 12-14, 2013
"..The additional bring-back achieved by SRVL is calculated through knowledge of ship speed, natural wind speed, allowable overtake speed, glideslope angle, aircraft trim setting requirements and any aircraft structural limitations to allow for ship motion conditions. In simple terms, for a set of given ship and environmental conditions, bring-back is enhanced by increased overtake speed and aircraft angle of attack, which are primarily limited by technical safety considerations. Following touchdown, the aircraft is stopped on the flight deck centreline using the wheel brakes alone, therefore consideration needs to be given to stopping distance margins and the potential for deviations from the runway centerline, control of which limits the maximum overtake speed....

...SRVL uses fall out capability from the F-35B, i.e. the manoeuvre limitations have been designed to live within the existing capabilities and characteristics of the aircraft with the minor addition of a Ship Referenced Velocity Vector and Glideslope Scale marker in the F-35’s Helmet Mounted Display System (HMDS). The primary changes needed to implement SRVL are installed in the aircraft carrier:

1) New runway tramline lights to provide longer range runway centerline cues to the pilot;

2) Aim point and limit lights in the tramlines for the pilot to use with the HMDS to fly an accurate approach;


3) Landing Signal Officer Situational Awareness Aids

The LSO situational awareness aids needed significant development for SRVL. Assessments were conducted in the BAE SYSTEMS Warton flight simulator, where a F-35B piloted cockpit simulator has been linked to a second simulator projection of the LSO’s view from FLYCO and a realistic LSO workstation. This has allowed pilot and LSO in-the-loop experiments to be conducted to develop the requirements for LSO aids and to test options for solutions. This work concluded that the LSO needs a centerline camera view to assess line up with the runway, a view of the approach that allows judgement of the accuracy of the final descent path, plus WOD and ship motion parameters...."

http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2013-4267
OR
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdfplus/10.2514/6.2013-4267

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 01:46
by spazsinbad
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=183979&hilit=newsletter#p183979

Worth mentioning again here for the SRVL in it and the BOLTER [up the ski jump ramp] mention from wayback....

OLD NEWS but relevant to long running SRVL research (Jan 2006):

NASA SimLabs News Volume 6, Issue 1 http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov

2. Lockheed Martin Continues Joint Strike Fighter Tests at SimLabs January 2006
"Lockheed Martin continued evaluations of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft in SimLabs’ Vertical Motion Simulator (VMS) http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/vms/vms.html [amazing setup] by recently completing four weeks of simulation experiments. The unique motion and acceleration capabilities of the VMS are ideally suited to evaluate the handling qualities of several variants of the F-35. The JSF is a next-generation supersonic combat aircraft designed to reduce costs by utilizing a common design with variants to meet a wide range of needs serving the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marines, as well as several international partners. Two variants were recently evaluated in the VMS: The Short Take-off Vertical Landing (STOVL) configuration and the Conventional Take-off and Landing / Carrier Variant (CTOL/CV).

The STOVL configuration was the primary variant studied. This configuration required high fidelity motion cues to evaluate tasks that included bolter and ski ramp take-off. A bolter is an aborted carrier touchdown that requires full thrust to take-off after the abort. The ski ramp take-off is a short deck take-off at full thrust [in STOVL MODE] using a ramp at the end of the deck. Both maneuvers require high vertical acceleration cues to simulate accurately.

A secondary variant was the CTOL/CV. For this variant, most of the effort was aimed at first flight readiness and tasks such as formation flying or offset approaches requiring a high level of motion fidelity to ferret out any issues with the control system.

As part of this study, representatives from the United Kingdom Ministry of Defense evaluated a Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) procedure as one more determinant in their choice between the variants mentioned above. The procedure is tied to a new aircraft carrier design under consideration and will have significant cost ramifications on the carrier design. For the SRVL procedure, touchdown dispersion and ramp clearance under various shipboard and environmental conditions were evaluated. Several aircraft controls handling issues were identified that need further investigation giving designers the opportunity to improve the system while the vehicle is still under development."

http://www.simlabs.arc.nasa.gov/newslet ... 01_06.html

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 02:24
by quicksilver
SpudmanWP wrote:I do not think that FOD is going to be an issue with SRVL for two reasons:

1. It will be mainly used on carriers where FOD is almost non-existent.

2. The lift fan has vanes underneath that are slightly pointing to the rear during SRVL.


The cold nozzles on Harrier point slightly aft also (on average, roughly 7-10 degrees from the vertical) during RVL -- FOD remains an issue below the critical reingestion speed.

Unlike Harrier, VAVBN vanes vary as necessary to maintain fwd velocity and thrust split. Aero gets really complex in ground effect. So, predicting critical reingestion speed will be a bit more complex.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 02:31
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:'lamoey' the graphics on previous page showing the IR cold/hot curtain effect explain the NO Hot Gas ingestion effect somewhat. I'll look for more text references:
“...Lockheed Martin has developed a STOVL lift system that uses a vertically oriented Lift Fan. A two-stage low-pressure turbine on the engine delivers the horsepower to drive the STOVL Lift Fan. The Lift Fan generates a column of cool air that produces nearly 20,000 pounds of lifting power using variable inlet guide vanes to modulate the airflow, along with an equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft. The Lift Fan has a clutch that engages for STOVL operations and a telescoping “D” -shaped hood to provide thrust deflection. Because the lift fan extracts power from the engine, exhaust temperatures are reduced by about 200 degrees compared to traditional STOVL systems....”

http://ve.ida.org/rtoc/open/SIP/jsf.html
____________________________

John Farley comment:

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... nding.html
“The potential for a sudden power loss due to recirculation is present with any jet engine although only those used for jet VSTOL applications are seriously at risk. Thus for any powered lift design to be successful it must - by design – arrange some way of keeping the hot exhaust gases out of the intakes. Both the Harrier and the F-35 designs achieve this by having more thrust come out of the front relatively cold nozzle(s) than out of the rear hot ones. Then when the front exhaust hits the ground and spreads radially in all directions the part that goes rearwards stops the hot component coming forward dead in its tracks as shown in this infra red pic [now on previous page with same text in same graphic] where hot is white. (I have added an arrow to show where the cool front fan ex-haust is coming down).”
&
“For a hovering jet lift aircraft to experience deck edge effects - it would have to be low enough to be flying in ground effect when over the deck – likely to be less than (I’m guessing) 12 ft for this class of exhaust. With the Harrier you needed to be less than 8 ft wheel clearance to experience handling issues because of ground effect.”

______________________________

ENGINES’ 17 April 2012 [Thread ‘No cats and flaps ...... back to F35B?’]

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... 5b-25.html
“...Is it just me, or is there a baseline presumption of trouble/stupidity/omission when it comes to the JSF programme? This is definitely not to be confused with healthy cynicism & free speech, of course.

The F-35B programme has taken particular pains to investigate, measure and model the efflux of the jet operating from a number of surfaces. The result is the best understanding that has ever been achieved of the temperatures, pressures and flow velocities around and under the aircraft, and on the surfaces called out in the specification. This effort was led by the Brits and carried out in an exemplary manner (according to the US tech specialists who were watching VERY closely).

On top of this, the USN is a knowledgeable and demanding customer that will not do ship trials on any other basis than professionally and carefully.

So, what does all this mean? It means that the team getting the 35B to sea know what they are do-ing & are not, repeat not, trying to hide any bad news. Were there any, you can bet anyone's bottom dollar that it would have been fully reported, like all the other F-35 issues.

Here's the bottom line as I understand it. The F-35B efflux is different to the Av-8B's, and the aft nozzle is certainly hot and energetic. However, existing deck coatings can stand quite a bit of ex-posure to it, and predicted coating lives were not much worse than those for Harrier. There are ways to mitigate the effects, the best being to do a 'creeping' landing with a knot or two forward speed. This 'smears' out the hot exhaust footprint and greatly reduces deck wear. This technique was developed in the 60s for 'Mexepad' operations by the Kestrel joint test squadron.

Cross decking to unmodified decks should be wholly practicable, in my view.

I know that these facts are less entertaining than the stories we get about 'deck steel melting' and 'ship trials being rigged for PR purposes'. Sorry about that. However, just occasionally, I'd like to see the teams doing the hard work getting a little credit.”

________________________

Navy Sees Few Anomalies in F-35B Ship Trials Oct 31, 2011 by Amy Butler Onboard the USS Wasp
“...Although in land testing the F-35B pilots often conduct hovers around 100 ft., Cordell says that on deck they have narrowed that down to 40 ft. “It is counterintuitive, but the airplane has a less harsh environment hovering at 40 ft. than it does at 100 ft.,” he says. “Land-based, we did most of our hovers at 100 ft. to avoid kicking up rocks . . . and then we worked our way to a reasonable height for the ship.”...

...Thermal impacts to the ship’s deck have been a concern leading up to these trials. Though formal data haven’t yet been analyzed, Tom Briggs, the integrated test team engineering lead at Patuxent River who is helping to oversee the ship trials, says the aircraft is performing as predicted by the models in terms of heat ingestion on the ship. Officials had been concerned that the F-35B would reingest its own hot exhaust, im-pacting performance of the propulsion system and potentially damaging hardware. There are no such perfor-mance impacts thus far, Cordell says. “We feel like we are running where we intended to crawl.” Additionally, there is “nothing mysterious” about the thermal qualities of the F-35B on the deck, says Ansis Kalnajs, a test director for Naval Sea Systems Command who is leading the effort to study the aircraft impacts on the ship.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... avy&next=0
________________

Vertical Validation by GUY NORRIS 03 Oct 2011
"...The challenge of hot gas ingestion (HGI) also remains a key test focus. Performance in the hover suffers due to HGI, which reduces engine thrust. Pretest modeling indicated the worst-case conditions would be found “at around the height of a two-story house, and we have found a close match to predictions,” Wilson says. Testing of the HGI effects and how to mitigate them will be the focus for future work. “We’ll be doing more of that as we continue investigating HGI,” says Wilson.

HGI, which may ultimately be handled with software changes, is not an issue for the shipboard tests, according to Wilson. “We wouldn’t be going to the ship if we were not comfortable with our compatibility,” he says...."

Aviation Week & Space Technology October 3, 2011; pages 31-32


Cold nozzle exhaust and lift fan exhaust are only "cold" relative to hot nozzle or main engine exhaust -- not what we humans consider 'cold.' (like...400 F)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 02:32
by spazsinbad
I'm amazed at how long ago the investigation into SRVL started and how long it seems to run without any F-35B trials so far on the PAX River Centrefield setup. Maybe soon this will happen. I seem to recall reading that the F-35B in STOVL Mode is not like the Harrier - so making comparisons is not always useful - we'll see - as always.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 02:36
by quicksilver
lamoey wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:I have never seen any suggestion of FOD ingestion mentioned regarding the SRVL IAS. It is 60 knots (not because of the olde worlde Hairier speed) because that is the best speed - period - for an SRVL, for wing lift provided for approach angle for all sorts of reasons to do with the F-35B doing a safe SRVL approach at the correct angle. IF FOD ingestion was a factor I would have thought there would have been evidence of that by now from the NAYsayers. You are the exception of course but I think you are referring to the Hairier are you not? The F-35B is a different beast in so many ways. The B has moved way beyond the 'pilot overload' concerns of John Farley from 40 years ago, with better undercarriage/brakes/computer controls - you know the score.

I'm fine with the YUMA people doing what they are allowed to do. Later they will be allowed to do more and so they will. More importantly the RN/RAF people will get on with their SRVL investigations at PaxRiver or where ever/ when ever they are allowed. I believe that to be this year some time. There are contracts to be fulfilled unless they are cancelled in the mean time.

Like hook testing - it takes results - so we will see regarding SRVLs in turn.


F-35B has many of the same issues as Harrier because it uses propulsion system lift. Many things about the jets are different -- the laws of physics are the same.

I agree that 60kts was chosen for the best combination of propulsion and aerodynamic lift, braking action and rollout distance at a nominal gross weight. However, because they will be below critical reingestion speed, FOD is going to be in play as will hot gas ingestion -- all, of course, before we put the 40K# beast on the flight deck at 40kts of ground speed and make sure it doesn't bump into people or things before it comes to a stop.


IRCC one of the reasons the X-35B won over the X-32B was the reduction, or even elimination, of ingestation of hot gasses as well as FOD, during vertical/short takeoff/landing. The reason is that it takes the air from the top and not from the front of the aircraft like the Harrier during vertical landing or takeoff as well as short takeoff. I don't know if there is a mix between top and front intake, and if there is a gradual opening of the front intakes as forward speed increases.


While aux inlet on top of fuselage provides better portion of mass flow to main engine in STOVL ops, conventional intakes still provide significant portion of mass flow to main engine.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 02:48
by spazsinbad
Here is a quote which is probably somewhere else on the forum (I'll check). So the question is: WHAT DEGREES?
“…Lockheed Martin has developed a STOVL lift system that uses a vertically oriented Lift Fan. A two-stage low-pressure turbine on the engine delivers the horsepower to drive the STOVL Lift Fan. The Lift Fan generates a column of cool air that produces nearly 20,000 pounds of lifting power using variable inlet guide vanes to modulate the airflow, along with an equivalent amount of thrust from the downward vectored rear exhaust to lift the aircraft. The Lift Fan has a clutch that engages for STOVL operations and a telescoping “D” -shaped hood to provide thrust deflection. Because the lift fan extracts power from the engine, exhaust temperatures are reduced by about 200 degrees compared to traditional STOVL systems….”

http://ve.ida.org/rtoc/open/SIP/jsf.html

It looks like that website is kaput. I think the engine/LiftFan designer talks about the cool air somewhere....

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 02:53
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:The 'landing lateral scatter' is mitigated by the steeper than usual (compared to a 3.5 degree carrier landing approach) 6-7 degree SRVL approach by the F-35B; at a much slower IAS that culminates in a ground/wheelspeed on touch down of less than 40 knots. This info is in the same article and I'll quote it later. Pity the Zinio article from Jane's is no longer online however the same author has cut/pasted bits from this article into other articles online from my search for the mentioned article yesterday. Usually I record the date but somehow lost that info that may be found by me again. Dunno. OR... I could just paste the entire article here I suppose....

Anyway I will add the 'scatter on landing reduction bit'. As for the other John Farley quotes let me say that most of it does not apply to the F-35B conducting an SRVL, there are no aerodynamic devices in the sense Farley is saying I assume (such as large wing spoilers on A-4Fs and above) nor is there reverse thrust. The engine goes to idle on touchdown with the computer controlled carbon fibre brakes being very effective we are told by the Brits along with the soft tyres that will wear away very quickly we are told also. Lots of rubber on the hot deck eh. :D

Also there are no crosswinds down the axial deck landing line on CVF. This is not an angle deck approach with 'burble' from the island.

OH, also I discovered the 'boltering' ability of the F-35B down and up the ski jump. Never had that bit of info in my head until yesterday. I read a lot of material that in the past was not relevant to my 'historical research' on the A-4 in general and the A4G in particular. That F-35B Bolter escaped my memory (like most things these days). :doh:

Here is the landing scatter - I have read 6-7 degree approaches also - one must bear in mind this article was written circa 2008. A lot more will be known these days from much better computer simulation and actual air knowledge of the F-35B... Along with the bolter bit - remember the dates as seen in this article from 2008.
"...An aircraft executing an SRVL approach would follow a constant glidepath (5-6 degrees) to the deck (this angle is about twice that of a normal CV approach, offering increased clearance over the stern [landing 150 feet in from it] and less touchdown scatter)....
&
....Further feasibility investigations were conducted in 2000-01 using generic aircraft and ship models. Simulation work conducted over this period gave increased confidence in some SRVL operational aspects. “It was found that manual approaches required some form of tailored pilot visual aids, and that ‘wave-offs’ could be conducted much closer to the carrier than for CV operations due to the low approach and sink speed,” reported Rosa. Also, ‘bolters’ – defined as a decision to abort the landing when already on deck – could be conducted safely from a performance perspective using the bow ski-ramp.”..."


Steeper approach does not mitigate lateral scatter -- it reduces longitudinal scatter (i.e. short/long)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 03:07
by spazsinbad
From: Dr. Paul Bevilaqua - Lockheed Martin Skunk Works: (also not available but probably in forum docs?)
http://www.nps.edu/Academics/Institutes ... ighter.pdf [Dec 2009]

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 03:10
by spazsinbad
You can go on and on about various aspects of SRVL but statements/claims without evidence get a bit tiresome - no wonder the F-35B tyres wear out quickly - it is just too tiresome - all this conjecture. Facts are good. Provide them.

The Ultimate Fighter? Air & Space magazine, February 2012 By Richard Whittle
"...Part of the lift fan’s genius is that it allowed designers to put the F-35’s engine at its rear, the best placement in a non-STOVL aircraft as well, says Paul Park, who left Lockheed last year after three decades but previously led the team of engineers who determined the outer shape, internal arrangement, and other major aspects of the F-35. Having two equally powerful col-umns of vertical thrust is yet another big advantage in a STOVL plane, Park adds, for in designing such an aircraft, “the num-ber-one challenge is not just the lift, it’s getting the vertical lift balanced around the weight.” That’s why the Harrier’s engine is in the center of the fuselage, he says. The cool air coming from the F-35B’s lift fan also “shields people around the airplane from the hot exhaust in the back,” Park says, and helps prevent the engine from ingesting its hot exhaust, which could cause it to stall...."

http://www.airspacemag.com/military-avi ... c=y&page=2

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 03:14
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:I have never seen any suggestion of FOD ingestion mentioned regarding the SRVL IAS. It is 60 knots (not because of the olde worlde Hairier speed) because that is the best speed - period - for an SRVL, for wing lift provided for approach angle for all sorts of reasons to do with the F-35B doing a safe SRVL approach at the correct angle. IF FOD ingestion was a factor I would have thought there would have been evidence of that by now from the NAYsayers. You are the exception of course but I think you are referring to the Hairier are you not? The F-35B is a different beast in so many ways. The B has moved way beyond the 'pilot overload' concerns of John Farley from 40 years ago, with better undercarriage/brakes/computer controls - you know the score.

I'm fine with the YUMA people doing what they are allowed to do. Later they will be allowed to do more and so they will. More importantly the RN/RAF people will get on with their SRVL investigations at PaxRiver or where ever/ when ever they are allowed. I believe that to be this year some time. There are contracts to be fulfilled unless they are cancelled in the mean time.

Like hook testing - it takes results - so we will see regarding SRVLs in turn.


Critical reingestion speed is a function of ground speed not IAS. Below from Harrier --

"When the nozzles are deflected aft the upflow biases in a rearward direction, however some forward--moving upflow persists down to jet impact angles as small as 20° to the ground. When the aircraft is moving forward the upflow tends to move rearward. This effect is dependent on throttle position and nozzle angle. As the ground speed decreases the upflow will move progressively forward towards the intakes until 50 knots, at which point the upflowwill move forward of the intakes. It is this reason that RVLs should target 60 knots ground speed, and should never be flown at less than 50 knots. It is also the reason
than PNB should cease at 60 knots. If lower airspeeds are used it must be understood that the risk of FOD increases."

Similar aerodynamic mechanisms in play under F-35 -- as the jet slows down the vane box nozzles move progressively forward and the lift fan also produces more thrust because we're trading aero lift for propulsion lift, and the thrust required to fly the jet increases.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 03:17
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:You can go on and on about various aspects of SRVL but statements/claims without evidence get a bit tiresome - no wonder the F-35B tyres wear out quickly - it is just too tiresome - all this conjecture. Facts are good. Provide them.


Google is your friend only when it gives you an answer you agree with? See page 11-42 of Harrier NATOPS for RVL aerodynamic FOD mechanisms. Same things affect F-35; ground speed may vary but potentially not for the better since the lift fan produces proportionally more thrust than cold nozzles do for Harrier.

Do you still not understand the difference between HGI and RVL critical reingestion?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 03:24
by spazsinbad
'quicksilver' you do not get it at all. I'm happy to provide information that I find - you quote some or all of it back to make your points. So why does the info I provide 'only agree with whatever my viewpoint is'? It is clear you have misgivings about SRVL. It is clear I do not share those misgivings. However I'm happy to investigate and to find information to post here. If you choose to always comment negatively then so be it.

The challenge for you is to find info to back up your claims - you seem to be doing that - with online references so we can follow it up - to better understand? It is also surprising to me that the UK - despite whatever issues/misgivings they have that may or may not be shared by you - continue to investigate - after all this time - knowing probably way more than you claim (I make know such claim) the benefits and whatever negatives there are to SRVLs on their CVFs.

I'll repeat: IF it comes to nothing then it will be good to know why given all the positive evidence nevertheless that has gone before. And find NON-HARRIER Material. We speak about the F-35B here.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 03:33
by quicksilver
No, you prove me wrong. Show us where they've done RVLs in the real jet.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2014, 03:53
by spazsinbad
This is weird. How can they have done RVLs in WHAT JET? You should know who I am by now if not then your bad luck. As has been stated earlier the SRVL [which will be an RVL on land] testing is yet to occur. You keep making distinctions without explanation. Make a list of the different methods of an F-35B slow landing for us. These range from fast to slow to creeping running landings to VLs with a taxi backwards at 30 knots - from what I have read.

I have asked you to provide evidence for your claims NOT FROM THE HARRIER but for the F-35B. Yes it may be difficult. I'm now a civilian only able to access the internet - so what. Here is some more from the LiftFanMan....

The Shaft Driven Lift Fan Propulsion System for the Joint Strike Fighter 1997
Paul M. Bevilaqua ASTOVL Program Manager
"...Because the net pressure drop from the turbine entry to the nozzle exit does not change, the static temperature of the exhaust jet is also unchanged. Therefore, extracting power from the gas stream does not change the waste heat, which is the excess static temperature of the exhaust jet. However, the total temperature of the jet is reduced. The equation for the change in turbine power is
[forumula I'm not going to replicate]
so that extracting 25,000 shaft horsepower reduces the total temperature of the jet approximately 250 degrees Fahrenheit in this engine....

...Therefore, the reduction in total temperature appears as a reduction in thrust at the nozzle exit. However, it reappears as a reduction in stagnation temperature when the jet impinges on the ground during vertical landings, and this reduces heating of the surface material....

...Summary
The shaft driven lift fan provides a solution to many of the problems associated with the development of a supersonic STOVL strike fighter. It provides high levels of thrust augmentation, with a relatively cool, low pressure footprint. The aircraft is balanced in hover because thrust is transferred from the rear of the aircraft to the front, without increasing frontal area. Pitch and roll control power are also obtained by transferring thrust around the aircraft without changing total lift. Since the cruise engine is optimized for conventional flight, the performance of the engine is not penalized for STOVL capability. Removing the lift fan creates a conventional strike fighter with little penalty for commonality...."

http://www.dtic.mil/dticasd/sbir/sbir032/n184.doc

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2014, 17:02
by SpudmanWP
They have actually done plenty of RVLs.

Remember that they "snuck" up on a true VL by doing RVLs.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2014, 18:34
by spazsinbad
Yes I get that thanks SWP. :D It seems there is a need for definitions about what is what for different speed 'running landings' as I have asked earlier. Probably I could guess my own list but I'm waiting for others to chime in on it.

A summary about SRVLs was downloaded by me the other day. In this summary it is clear that a minimum ground/deck speed has been decided upon without explanation. So I gather this minimum has to do with perhaps the Hot Gas Ingestion issue pointed to by others. Yet otherwise in this thread I hope it is clear that an F-35B in STOVL Mode is not similar to a Harrier. The briefing slide from Bevilaqua makes that point - especially about HGI. And yes 'cooler' is not like the 'cool air' when youse open the fridge door; however it seems the 'cooler air' out put from the LiftFan is significant to keep most of the HGI issues at bay - I guess in all circumstances - except in the regime below the minimum SRVL ground speed and a creeping VL landing. FOD ingestion is an ever present danger for any jet engine and could be a factor in the minimum SRVL ground/deck speed also. Perhaps more details will emerge as the SRVL and ski jump testing gets underway.

We know that 'creeping' VLs have been carried out and the higher speed RVLs as described by SWP. Anyway I will post excerpts from the summary to be accurate. Here is an old report about the PRE 1st VL testing and it will have been repeated probably on the very long thread yonks ago now.

TEST FLYING THE JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER NEWSLETTER NUMBER 30 - SUMMER 2011 The Hawker Association
"Graham Tomlinson came to the Hawker Centre on February 9th to talk about his last test flying job: the STOVL F-35B Lightning II....

...For STOVL testing the F-35B was flown to the NATC at Pax River on Chesapeake Bay where there were 25 BAES flight test people (in addition to the peak number of 160 BAES staff at Fort Worth). Facilities included VTOL pads, a ski-jump, austere strips, hot pits (for refuelling without shutting down), telemetry, chase aircraft and a simulator for mission practice. Testing started with in-flight conversions, decelerating and accelerating at 5,000 ft and 210 kn, fixed throttle. There was no pitching but some mild heave. Testing then progressively approached the hover flying at 200 - 100 kn at 3-5,000 ft followed by slow landings (SL) at 130 - 110 kn ; then decelerations at less than 100 kn blending to the hover followed by SLs at 90 - 70 kn. Apart from some intake door chatter causing a linkage distortion, and the failure of a flight test antenna, all went well. The Short takeoff (STO) mode was checked at altitude followed by 100kn STO and then 80 kn STO, circuit and VL from 150 ft on 18 March 2010. Post touchdown the procedure was all automatic. There were no problems in STO...."

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/hawkerassoci ... ter030.pdf (1Mb)
_________________________

Development of the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) Manoeuvre for the F-35B Aircraft Richard Cook, SRVL Project Lead; David Atkinson, F-35 Safety Manager; Richard Milla, Lead Aerodynamicist; Nigel Revill, Senior Specialist Aerodynamics; Peter Wilson, F-35 Test Pilot | 5-7 Oct 2010
"...For an SRVL, speeds in the region of 25 to 35 knots faster than the ship’s groundspeed are typically used, where this parameter is referred to as the ‘overtake’. Typical airspeeds are in the range 50 to 80 knots, depending on the magnitude of the wind over deck (WoD)..."

&
"...THE FLEXIBLE SRVL MANOEUVRE
The activities performed by TJSF using the tools described previously, coordinated with other SRVL stakeholders led to the development of the flexible manoeuvre. This describes how a SRVL recovery is flown to the QEC Carrier, starting from the point the pilot commands deceleration to the touchdown speed. Prior to this point the aircrafts flight-path is the same whether an SRVL or VL is intended. The manoeuvre is segmented to separate pilot tasks to eliminate peaks in workload, see figure 7. These are notionally described as:

• Plateau: Level flight at 200ft altitude to achieve line-up and monitor deceleration

• Pushover: Initiate descent based on glideslope

• Short finals: Maintain descent using HMD symbology and VLA to achieve desired landing point

• Landing: Un-flared touchdown on main landing gear, de-rotation and propulsion system spool-down to ground idle

• Rollout: Application of brakes to achieve taxi speed and clear the runway

The term ‘flexible’ refers to how bring-back performance is optimised for differing external conditions by allowing the settings for an individual recovery to be varied within the system constraints. Specifically the settings for the VLA, described below, are variable as well the aircraft related parameters of airspeed, glide-slope angle and pitch trim...."

&
The summary mentions this...:
"...• At a conceptual level, no fundamental safety issues preventing SRVL were identified, however a number of safety hazards were identified and needed to be addressed during manoeuvre development. These are referred to later in the paper by the numerical identifiers below:

1. Aircraft collision with the stern of the carrier; termed ‘stern ramp strike’.

2. Main engine nozzle clearance to the carrier deck at point of touchdown; the combination of aircraft pitch angle and nozzle angle at point of touchdown means the relative vector angle of the nozzle to the carrier deck is approximately
vertical placing the two in close proximity.

3. Exceedance of the landing gear or carrier deck strength capability at touchdown.

4. Insufficient stopping distance after touchdown during roll-out potentially resulting in a ‘bolter’.

5. Main landing gear tyre burst prior to, or at touchdown resulting in wide lateral deviation during roll-out down the carrier deck.

Simulator trials and analysis identified that a bolter manoeuvre is feasible after SRVL, however it is not a suitable response to aircraft technical failures. It is always safer to attempt to stop with the exception of a long landing when the pilot judges that stopping is not possible.

• The QEC straight deck take-off runway was selected for recovery of SRVL as opposed to the angled deck layout. The bolter conclusion was also a factor in this decision because the ski-jump provides additional stopping distance in an emergency...." [bolter?]

https://vtol.org/store/product/developm ... t-9024.cfm

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2014, 19:11
by spazsinbad
This summary above is about 12 PDF pages and is quite concise. I'm not going to excerpt it all but in response to a suggestion that 'testing' has not been done (I gather no specific F-35B testing done so far - but there is a contract remember) here is a quote (to summarise many articles/reports about SRVL that are in the 'very long thread').
"...SRVL development continued along a number of strands by the aforementioned stakeholders; QinetiQ and ACA focussing on VLA [Vertical Landing Aid - now Bedford Array] development and TJSF [Team JSF] with a specific study investigating air vehicle Control Law performance during the SRVL manoeuvre, characterisation of the environmental outwash and feasibility of and requirement to perform a ‘bolter’ after an aborted SRVL recovery.

Piloted simulations are one of the primary tools used during SRVL development and were conducted at a number of facilities including NASA AMES, BAE Systems Warton and QinetiQ Bedford.... Flight testing using the Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier were also conducted recovering using SRVL to the Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier (see reference 3) ahead of the First of Class Flight Trials of the F-35B and QEC carrier. The VAAC Harrier was used in the development of the F-35B control laws and was the most representative aircraft available in this timeframe,..."

&
"...The genesis of the SRVL concept is the land-based Rolling Vertical Landing (RVL) technique executed by the aircraft operating in STOVL mode. This involves landing at a slow forward speed, so that some wing lift is available to supplement lift provided by the propulsion system. A constant earth referenced glideslope [not ship referenced as explained in a diagram] is flown to touchdown at which point the aircraft de-rotates and brakes are then used to arrest the aircraft..."

& UK 'East of Suez Day' defined:
"...UK Hot Day conditions... [footnote 3] Ambient Temperature: 35.5ºC and Pressure: 992mb..."

https://vtol.org/store/product/developm ... t-9024.cfm

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2014, 00:27
by spazsinbad
Perhaps this graphic from above PDF requires explanation. Anyway here it is for now....

The CVF Deck Layout Overhead is from: http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-a ... 6236_n.jpg

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2014, 21:56
by spazsinbad
Earlier 'John Farley' mentions "...in the absence of autoland...". I wonder these capabilities are going for the F-35B as demonstrated by the VACC Harrier in 2005. Here are some details of that event below. Elsewhere on forum there is a bunch of stuff about this 'milestone'. Perhaps this autoland and of course JPALS anyway will help with the SRVL issues for the F-35B aboard CVFs.

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
QinetiQ has recently undertaken a programme of research into the technology readiness and feasibility of generic GPS based shipboard recovery architectures and concepts on behalf of the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD).

In parallel with this activity, QinetiQ has also undertaken a risk reduction and flight test demonstration activity, as part of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme.

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). A series of flight trials, involving the QinetiQ Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier fly-by-wire research aircraft and a Royal Navy Invincible Class Aircraft Carrier (CVS), has been conducted to obtain validation data, culminating in a world-first automatic landing of a STOVL aircraft on a ship....

...INTRODUCTION
The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has a requirement to operate aircraft safely from a range of aviation capable platforms by day and at night. Although the majority of recoveries to Royal Navy (RN) ships are conducted in reasonable weather and clear visibility conditions, with the pilot using cues derived solely from the visual scene, there are instances where adverse weather or low visibility conditions prevent this. In these situations the recovery of the aircraft can be facilitated by electronic systems to assist the pilot or automatically guide the aircraft to a point where the pilot has sufficient visual cues to perform a landing. A number of ship-aircraft combinations that are under consideration for embarked operations over the next 10-15 years have been identified and it is considered that GPS based shipboard recovery systems have potential to enhance the operating envelope of all maritime aircraft, fixed and rotary-wing, thus maximising their effectiveness.

Through it’s research programme, the UK MoD funds research into specific requirements for military platforms and equipment thus maintaining its status as an intelligent procurement customer. As part of this activity QinetiQ has recently undertaken a programme of research into the technology readiness and feasibility of generic GPS based shipboard recovery architectures and concepts.

It is the stated goal of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) programme that the Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing (STOVL) variant should have a fully automatic approach and landing capability at sea and ashore in day/night/adverse weather. To mitigate the risks associated with meeting this goal, a risk reduction and flight test demonstration programme, termed “Autoland”, was conducted as part of the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase. The Autoland Demonstration sought to validate the requirements for automatic shipboard approach and vertical landing for the STOVL JSF (F-35B). A series of flight trials, using the QinetiQ Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control (VAAC) Harrier fly-by-wire research aircraft, was conducted to obtain validation data, culminating in a world-first shipboard automatic landing of a STOVL aircraft, aboard a Royal Navy Invincible Class Aircraft Carrier (CVS).

QinetiQ’s 2-seat T.Mk.4a Harrier XW175,... provides a unique research and development platform for guidance, control and navigation flight research. The flying controls in the rear cockpit are routed via a digital Flight Control System (FCS), with the guidance and control algorithms hosted within an experimental computing system. Programmable Head-Up and Head- Down Displays (HUD/HDD) are available and full experimental flexibility of the guidance, control and navigation systems is maintained in house. The front seat retains the conventional mechanical controls linked directly to the throttle, flaps, elevator, nozzle, aileron and rudder and accommodates the Safety Pilot who - together with an Independent Monitor (IM) system - can disengage the experimental system at any time. This unique combination of the 2-seat configuration, Safety Pilot and IM means that experimental software/hardware need not be flight critical and allows for rapid prototyping of new systems in a flexible and fully representative operating environment....

...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....

...CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK
This paper has demonstrated a real time architecture for an SRGPS Landing System. Trials data has shown that carrier phase techniques can provide the accuracy for STOVL Autoland. It has been shown that the code aspects of the GBAS integrity monitoring scheme may be used for SRGPS with a set of modified thresholds to take into account the unknown position of the ship. Further work is currently being undertaken looking at a full set of carrier monitoring techniques, various frequency combinations and analyzing the interference environments of the various platforms that may be used. The results of this further work will be reported in a follow on paper.”


http://www.beidoudb.com:88/document/upl ... 5562a9.pdf

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2014, 13:28
by popcorn
One looks forward to the day when F-35B replaces Typhoon providing air defense for the Falklands, mitigating the threat to the crucial runway from new Argentinian Mirages or special forces raid.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/461 ... o-military

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Mar 2014, 19:23
by spazsinbad
Previous articles from USN LSO Monthly Newsletters (now discontinued) point to this conventional aspect of the Bedford Array used for SRVLs being perhaps useful for F-35C approaches to CVNs (with whatever other gear is required). I have no access to the rest of the article however it likely points to the Bedford Array being used either by replacing the current IFLOLS or being used in conjunction with IFLOLS (during transition because other aircraft need to use IFLOLS). Plus the 'delta flight path' for the F-35C and better control laws or whatevers....

US Navy sees benefits in SRVL for F-35C carrier recovery 18 Mar 2014 Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

“The US Navy (USN) has seen benefits in aspects of the UK's Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) technique for recovering the Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter on to the deck of its aircraft carriers, it was disclosed on 19 March.

Work being undertaken at BAE Systems' simulator facility in Warton to test the SRVL technique for landing the UK's short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B aboard the Queen Elizabeth (QE)-class aircraft carriers is being closely studied by the USN, and a number of benefits have been identified, the company said.

"Joint research efforts on both sides of the Atlantic have developed enhanced aircraft flight controls and displays which are applicable to both the F-35C...”

SOURCE: http://www.janes.com/article/35640/us-n ... r-recovery


http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2013-4267

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2014, 11:04
by spazsinbad
Not sure if this info has been posted earlier - anyway here it is....

Rolls-Royce Bags Contract To Produce & Support LiftSystem For F-35 Lightning II 25 Nov 2013
“...Moreover, the F-35B fleet nears multiple major milestones. In more than 450 flights of Mode 4 operation, F-35B aircraft have completed over 1,000 short take-offs, 640 vertical landings, comprising over 150 aboard the USS Wasp, 550 slow landings and 250 hover test points....”

SOURCE: http://www.rttnews.com/2229092/rolls-ro ... ng-ii.aspx

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2014, 19:13
by spazsinbad
As a counterpoint to the 12 aircraft on deck graphic on previous page, here is the surge 40:

http://www.queenelizabethcruises.net/wp ... r-arms.jpg

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2014, 20:09
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:..., [b]550 slow landings...]


Howdy Spaz, does the QE include JPALS (PS-RN)???, in some form?

The Brits like to dabble in interesting areas and usually prefer to emphasize some digression (improvement??), so have they searched in a direction of a JPALS for the QEs?

I know they will have some form of optical system for the final "line-of-sight", but getting to the carrier and "lining up" and meeting the 5" spherical requirement should be a challenge for them, or not?

I can't find any references for the above, ..interesting??

Secondly, 550 slow landings, any references for those fleshing out the ordinance load and (versus stall) minimums for SR (Bring Back)?

enjoy the tidbits, :)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2014, 20:40
by spazsinbad
Brit participation in JPALS development would be mentioned early on in the long thread about JPALS (& EMALS). An AUTOMATIC VACC Harrier Vertical Landing in 2005 was done with initial version of a ship referenced GPS system - although perhaps the term JPALS was not used then (see previous page of this thread for some details - other info on other threads). CVF will have JPALS - I think this is mentioned several times on the CVF forum threads because of various reasons, including the requirement (perhaps) to not only auto land with accuracy, but the non-appearance of F-35s (without loonylens) on conventional ATC radars mandates JPALS use.

Vertical Landings are straightforward and would use JPALS to get within visual range if 'an auto land mode' is not available etc. As noted about SRVL a few pages back - starting from 200 feet altitude - means the straightaway for an SVRL (after approaching this point in level flight in STOVL mode) and lining up will be easy. I'll guess work will proceed on an 'auto SRVL' if that is deemed necessary. SRVL has to be tested and then deemed necessary so we will see (the sea?). :D

THE BEDFORD ARRAY is the optical landing system and I believe work will proceed to harness this with computer technology already in use to allow auto SRVLs - with the aid of JPALS - in the mix. If reading is done on CVF & Bedford Array then it is known that the aircraft communicates with the ship and vice versa to calculate the best landing spot which will move if the ship is moving in a seaway - see earlier diagrams on this matter on this thread.

All I know about F-35B slow landings is posted here. What has not been posted so far is a 'complicated' blurb from a recent PDF about calculating SRVL landing weights/airspeeds which is predicated on the deck groundspeed required and all the other factors in the mix such as any crosswind and of course WOD. However it is all apparently clear cut to those requiring this info at the time. Perhaps I'll post some of it here soonish.

From previous page of this thread (further info on this weight/speed equation will be forthcoming):
"...For an SRVL, speeds in the region of 25 to 35 knots faster than the ship’s groundspeed are typically used, where this parameter is referred to as the ‘overtake’. Typical airspeeds are in the range 50 to 80 knots, depending on the magnitude of the wind over deck (WoD)..." https://vtol.org/store/product/developm ... t-9024.cfm

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2014, 21:11
by spazsinbad
Just a reminder that there is a big info thread on JPALS here (with other threads contributing some extra info):

EMALS and JPALS for those requiring same:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14115&hilit=EMALS&start=60

Core Avionics Master Plan 2012 Appendix A-3 - Navigation 3

"...3. Funded Enhancements and Potential Pursuits.
Digitally Augmented GPS-based Shipboard Recovery (JPALS). (2017) JPALS is a joint effort with the Air Force and Army. The Navy is designated as the Lead Service and is responsible for implementation of shipboard recovery solutions (Increment 1). The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Block 5 will be the first JPALS configured platform. It will start with a temporary solution that will provide needles to the operator to enable a “JPALS assisted” approach. The interim solution will not equip the aircraft to broadcast its position in a manner that can be monitored by JPALS equipment on the ship. Legacy radar will have to be used for the shipboard monitoring of the approach. The Unmanned Carrier-Launched Aircraft Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) will be the second platform. It will be forward fit with full functionality. JPALS will also be installed on air-wing aircraft (C-2A, E-2C/D, EA18G, F/A-18E/F and MH-60 R/S) to support CVN-79 around 2021-2022. JPALS will eventually replace the ACLS on carriers, SPN-35 radars on LH Class Amphibious ships, and may replace ILS, TACAN, and Precision Approach Radar (PAR) systems at shore stations. JPALS will be interoperable with civil augmentation and FAA certifiable. Shipboard JPALS will use Differential GPS (D-GPS) to provide centimeter-level accuracy for all-weather, automated landings. D-GPS provides a SRGPS reference solution for the moving landing zone. A JPALS technology equipped F/A-18 has demonstrated fully automated recoveries to the carrier. JPALS will also enable silent operations in Emission Control (EMCON) environments...."

SOURCE: http://www.navair.navy.mil/pma209/_Docu ... _Final.pdf (3.3Mb)

_______________________

On last page of above thread is this (watch video if necessary): viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14115&hilit=EMALS&start=90
"...Lack: JPALS in the future is primarily going to be in the F-35 B and C models for the Navy and Marine Corps and also the UCLAS Unmanned air systems. It utilizes the existing GPS constellation it brings those signals in, does mathematical computations between two assets, and aircraft and then a ship, and it calculates a touch-down point onto an aircraft carrier deck...." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6q49h_dC0U



Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2014, 00:48
by spazsinbad
Refer to the SRVL posts in lower half of Page 16 of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=265248&hilit=Referenced#p265248

Also refer to the same source on previous page to tie in the two sets of info. There is plenty more in this succinct summary PDF and I'm not going to excerpt any more because it would not do justice to the overall summary. Best one obtain a copy for oneself. I may add a graphic though - just need to check what is already available on previous page.

As one can see from the text: touchdown scatter is reduced with NIL Crosswind - makes sense eh. From the graphs (perhaps to follow) that crosswind effect is perhaps better quantified. I'll wager most operational SRVLs (if needed) will be into the WIND - that is what aircraft carriers are for - put their nose into the wind like joyriding car dogs, with their heads out tha winda. :D

Development of the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) Manoeuvre for the F-35B Aircraft referred to on previous page also

"...Hazards 1 to 4; stern ramp strike, main nozzle clearance to deck, Landing Gear (LG) loads exceedance and deck roll over-run represent constraints in the longitudinal plane with a direct effect on aircraft performance and are the focus of the following section. Hazard 5; excessive aircraft deviation on deck due to tyre burst is a constraint in the lateral plane and does not directly form part of the aircraft performance calculations. The other lateral axis issue considered in developing the SRVL manoeuvre is the effect of cross-wind and determination of potential cross-wind limits.

Simulated SRVL recoveries with a cross-wind have shown that lateral touchdown scatter increases which is also a contributor to excessive deviation on deck. Recovery in a cross wind causes landing with an aircraft yaw angle relative to the carrier deck which generates landing gear side loads, which is another consideration in setting cross wind limits.
The following section focuses on performance optimisation in the longitudinal plane within the constraints defined by safety hazards 1 to 4.

QEC CARRIER SHIP MOTION & AMBIENT WIND
Ship motion parameters and ambient wind (speed and direction relative to ship heading) are key external conditions in determining whether SRVL is possible and, if possible, the maximum achievable gross weight for recovery....

...SRVL OPTIMISATION METHODOLOGY
A methodology has been determined that utilises the ship, aircraft and day type, applies the appropriate constraints, respects the manoeuvre design risk targets and optimises each SRVL recovery to achieve maximum bring-back. All
calculations within the methodology are consistent with those used on the baseline F-35B Program.

By linking ship motion parameters and ambient wind speed to sea state and by defining ship motion parameters across the full range of ship speed, ship-to-wave heading and sea state, the methodology becomes a two-dimensional optimisation based on solving overtake speed and glideslope angle. The specification of a set of input conditions (aircraft CG,
day type, sea state, ship speed and ship-to-wave heading) leaves overtake speed and glideslope angle as the undefined parameters in the SRVL setup calculations.

Both overtake speed and glideslope angle are constrained to defined ranges, therefore solving the SRVL set-up calculations for every permissible combination of those two variables allows the maximum achievable bring-back to be found for the specified input conditions. Iteration on input conditions then allows a complete definition of performance capability envelopes to be built-up for a given aircraft CG and day type. This method provides a robust optimisation approach that always achieves maximum capability and provides sensitivity information within the solution space....

...PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISATION
...The maximum achievable bring-back occurs at maximum ship speed in head seas (180° wind / wave heading) because of this has the maximum WoD available. The greater the value of the WoD available means the airspeed can be increased for a given overtake speed and as already described, aircraft performance is directly proportional to airspeed. The contour plots show that the maximum achievable SRVL bring-back weight is a function of ship speed and heading....

...CONCLUSION...
...This concept, termed the flexible manoeuvre, in conjunction with a VLA providing a stabilised glideslope indication are the key to maximising potential SRVL capability over largest range of conditions, particularly for achieving safe SRVL recoveries in higher sea states.

The flexible manoeuvre is explained in terms of pilot technique and the methodology for balancing the multiple constraints limiting SRVL recovery. The methodology maximises SRVL bring-back for a given set of conditions through optimisation whilst addressing the safety hazards identified during SRVL evolution through design risk targets....

...A graphical representation of SRVL performance capability was presented to highlight key relationships and trends with ship motion, sea state and WoD; however the subject of conveying SRVL data accurately, succinctly and in a way that could be carried forward into an operational scenario is a subject in it’s own right.

SRVL development must continue with further analysis, simulation and systems integration of all stakeholders involved; through to First of Class Flight Trials for F-35B and the QEC carrier with a formal set of requirements to qualify and accept against."

SOURCE: https://vtol.org/store/product/developm ... t-9024.cfm

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 07:12
by spazsinbad
ON 20 Mar this year on previous page there is a truncated JANES report (rest behind paywall) - here are the FREEbie versions. Soon we may hear more about SkiJumping and SRVLing - one hopeth. :drool:

UK and US demonstrate new concepts for landing F-35 aircraft on carriers 25 March 2014

“The UK and the US have jointly conducted piloted flight simulation trial at the BAE Systems' F35 Simulation facility at Warton to test new concepts for landing fixed wing aircraft on aircraft carriers.

The trials demonstrated a new shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) manoeuvre concept, designed by BAE for recovering the UK Ministry of Defence's (MoD) Lockheed Martin-built F-35C Lightning II joint strike fighter on to the deck of its new Queen Elizabeth-class (QEC) aircraft carriers.

Both the nations have developed enhanced aircraft flight controls and displays for the F35C carrier variant arrested recovery and the F35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant SRVL recovery to the aircraft carrier.

During the testing, the enhanced control law modes for F35C arrested recoveries have been validated to a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, resulting in positive feedback from the US Navy and F35 test pilots.


The US Naval Air Systems Command Aeromechanics division James Denham said: "During this trial we've identified improvements to deliver more accurate touchdowns, less bolters and reduced pilot training.

"Ultimately, what we've been able to test in this simulated environment allows us to inform future concepts of operation," Denham added.

The SRVL manoeuvre offers enhanced 'bring back' payload, including weapons and fuel, capability for the F-35 aircraft when compared to vertical landings owing to the wing lift created by forward airspeed at touchdown.

Further trials to test the same control law mode for F35B SRVL recoveries are scheduled to commence soon for the UK's QEC aircraft carriers with the US Navy observing.

SOURCE: http://www.naval-technology.com/news/ne ... rs-4202921

&
US and UK join forces in recent F35 ship integration trials 24 Mar 2014 [Repeat of above with added bits below]

"...The SRVL manoeuvre provides enhanced ‘bring back’ meaning the aircraft is capable of bringing back more payload i.e. weapons and fuel over vertical landings owing to the wing lift created by forward airspeed at touchdown. Joint research efforts on both sides of the Atlantic have developed enhanced aircraft flight controls and displays which are applicable to both the F35C Carrier Variant arrested recovery and the F35B STOVL variant SRVL recovery to the aircraft carrier, albeit separated by some 70 knots approach airspeed.

The recent flight simulation trials at Warton tested these enhanced control law modes for F35C arrested recoveries to a Nimitz class carrier and gained positive feedback from the US Navy and F35 test pilots involved in the trial....

...Our facility at Warton is currently engaged in supporting UK carrier integration and risk reduction studies, realistically simulating the landing and take-off characteristics of a F35B STOVL variant to and from the Queen Elizabeth class carrier allowing engineers and pilots to help define and refine the design, layout and operations for both platforms. The work being undertaken in the simulator is generating large savings as refinements can be fed into the design phase of both programmes.

The simulator can also be switched to represent the F35C Carrier Variant and US Nimitz carrier deck, as was demonstrated in this trial. Further trials are due to take place soon to test the same control law mode for F35B SRVL recoveries to the UK’s QEC aircraft carriers with the US Navy observing."

SOURCE: http://www.baesystems.com/article/BAES_ ... su1987c8_4

http://www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/pub ... 92x277.jpg

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 08:10
by spazsinbad
:devil: Booby will be the nickname I reckon :devil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booby

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blue- ... a_nebouxii)_-one_leg_raised.jpg

Now for some OPs with the doz onboard (only Eleven in this graphic - one below probably):

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zLM6-NPZRyE/U ... b854_k.jpg

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 08:33
by spazsinbad
Nothing that is not already here about SRVL over here but a good graphic:

http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot ... -more.html

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7pn_HAMwOoM/U ... +crane.jpg

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 08:48
by spazsinbad
OOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPSSSS! Many salaams to the Janes. Here is the article - complete I imagine. Noice. Only good bit excerpted below. An OLD USN LSO report in their OLD Monthly Newsletter (since discontinued) made much of the aspect highlighted below.

US Navy sees benefits in SRVL for F-35C carrier recovery 18 Mar 2014 Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

"...According to James Denham from the Aeromechanics division at the US Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), simulations show that adopting aspects of the SRVL manouvre for F-35C conventional landings result in more accurate touchdowns, less bolters, and reduced pilot training.

The SRVL landing technique involves the F-35B performing a conventional landing with a touchdown speed of just 30 kt relative to the ship's forward motion, and has been developed to improve the aircraft's 'bring back' capability of fuel and weapons. BAE Systems officials have previously declined to quantify this 'bring back', except to say it is "several thousand pounds, and well worth having".

The technique works by having the pilot acquire the Bedford Array deck lighting system, which was invented by a former UK Harrier pilot. The array features a series of evenly spaced lights that run the length of the flight deck centerline, only one of which flashes at any given time. The illuminated light changes in sync with the pitching of the ship, enabling the pilot to focus on one point on the deck regardless of the relative movement of the ship.

The USN has been taken by the improved safety and ease of use of the Bedford Array in particular, as the optical landing system ('meatball') currently used on its Nimitz-class carriers require the pilot to climb and descend the aircraft in the final stages of the approach to a pitching deck in order to keep the landing lights in view.

SOURCE: http://www.janes.com/article/35640/us-n ... r-recovery

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 15:00
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 12 Apr 2014, 15:13
by spazsinbad
'neptune' asked above:
"...does the QE include JPALS (PS-RN)???, in some form?

The Brits like to dabble in interesting areas and usually prefer to emphasize some digression (improvement??), so have they searched in a direction of a JPALS for the QEs?..."

UK JPALS Development - page 7 of this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=241164&hilit=Pitching#p241164 (scroll down)

download/file.php?id=16850&t=1

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2014, 21:01
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 02 May 2014, 20:11
by spazsinbad
SRVL requires a ROUGH DECK DUH! :doh: :devil:

ANALYSIS: UK aircraft carrier nears programme milestone 02 May 2014 Craig Hoyle

"...The scale of the new-generation vessel is underlined first by taking the 110 steps from dock-side to its flightdeck, and then by surveying the latter. Roughly 300m (984ft) long and 73m across at its widest point, this “four acres of sovereign real estate” includes the vessel’s signature “ski-jump” ramp, installed from late last year. Approximately 61m long and over 13m wide, this will assist with launching the carrier’s future strike capability: the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B.

...Once in use, the Queen Elizabeth will be capable of mounting sustained operations with an embarked air wing of up to 40 aircraft,... Up to 24 F-35s can be accommodated on the flightdeck, which has room for 12 fully-equipped aircraft servicing points.

Below, the ship’s 163m long and 26m wide hangar has room for 20 fighters, and its two aircraft lifts are each capable of transferring a pair of F-35s within 1min. They will also be able to move a Royal Air Force Boeing CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter with its rotor blades still attached, unlike on the navy’s legacy carriers.

The entire flightdeck will eventually be coated with a thermal metal spray, similar to that used in the offshore oil and gas sector. This will feature a unique rough finish, which will last significantly longer than traditional deck paint, which proved inadequate during previous at-sea testing conducted with the US Marine Corps. It will also provide the increased grip essential for aircraft landing using the UK-developed shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique, says Eddie Trott, aviation and platform lead (STOVL reversion) for the Aircraft Carrier Alliance. [Not sure what is meant by the 'inadequate' jibe but anyway...]

Flight activities will be managed from the “flyco” flight operations centre, which is contained within the vessel’s aft of two islands. Simulation-based work has already demonstrated that the Queen Elizabeth-class ships will be able to “equal or better” the Ministry of Defence’s required sortie generation rate, says David Atkinson, who is responsible for aircraft to ship integration work on the F-35 for alliance member BAE Systems.

Trials are scheduled to take place off the eastern seaboard of the USA in the fourth quarter of 2018, involving at least two of the UK’s initial operational test and evaluation examples of the F-35B. Only at that point will the UK be able to test its SRVL technique under embarked conditions: an advance that will also be of great interest to the USMC.

For now, large-deck carrier experience is being gained by RN personnel via a special skills programme agreement with the US Navy, which currently includes having deck handlers and pilots on the USS Harry S Truman.

The UK has so far received three test-phase examples of the F-35B, with a fourth now on order to support its training activities in the USA. A recently anticipated contract signing for its first 14 operational jets has yet to be made, with the delay attributable to ongoing cost uncertainty, driven by the US Department of Defense’s fiscal year 2015 budget approval process...."

SOURCE: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ne-398781/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2014, 18:36
by spazsinbad
ON previous page 17 of this thread is a bunch of stuff about 'AutoLando for the VACC Harrier' which may/may not transfer to the F-35B - certainly the control laws did but anyway. I never grokked that USAF do not auto land. :mrgreen: Home of the brave... I guess a reaon why USAF have lost interest in helping develop/pay for JPALS.
Joint Strike Fighter PERSPECTIVES
Code One Magazine July 1996 Vol. 11 No. 3 - Mike Skaff, Pilot-Vehicle Interface [PVI]

“...He [Mike Skaff] is also closely reviewing PVI issues related to specific services." In hover mode," says Skaff; "the pilot does not have much time to make the decision to eject. The Russians have used auto-eject systems successfully on their STOVL aircraft for several years. That system will make for a good JSF trade study. We are also looking at an auto approach and auto landing mode. This flight mode is nothing new for the Navy, but it has never earned its way onto an Air Force fighter.

Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/C ... 8_7528.pdf

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2014, 19:15
by spazsinbad
Profile, Captain E M Brown CBE DSC AFC FRAeS RN
THE GUILD OF AIR PILOTS AND AIR NAVIGATORS JUNE 2009 No. 175 p 9-10 Pat Malone

"...He was the first man to land a jet on an aircraft carrier, one of his record-breaking 2,407 carrier landings...

....Captain Eric Melrose ‘Winkle’ Brown CBE, DSC, AFC, FRAeS, RN now lives in active semi-retirement in Copthorne, in West Sussex, surrounded by aviation memorabilia and paintings of his favourite aircraft. He still consults, writes articles and makes speeches, but far from dwelling on past achievements he looks to the future as a great age in aviation, particularly naval aviation, where his heart lies. He has been directly involved in planning for the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers Queen Elizabeth II and Prince of Wales and is filled with enthusiasm and optimism for their prospects. As Deputy Director of Naval Warfare in 1962, Capt Brown headed the think-tank responsible for a new large strike carrier designated CVA 01, cancelled in February 1966.

“The new carriers incorporate some of the features of CVA 01,” he says. “The parallel deck is the main thing, as opposed to the angled deck. The angled deck removed the problem of needing a barrier, which caused God knows how many losses of aircraft, but it created other problems. If the angle gets too wide – and in one carrier we went up to ten degrees – it is difficult for the pilot turning in at the final stages, particularly in bad weather. When you break out in very low cloud, the first thing you see is the phosphorescent wake of the ship, which is an absolutely straight line, and it’s is not the line of the deck.

“When you go parallel, you have a landing lane, a separate taxi lane, and a catapult lane for take-off. Originally one had to limit the width of a carrier to make sure it could go through the Panama Canal, but with the new ships, much of the deck is overhang so that’s not a problem.

“I think that the potential is there for a really perfect defence facility for this country provided we make all the right choices. We must closely examine everything to make sure we’ve got it right, and leave ourselves with options to change when necessary.

“We had a lot of discussion about VTOL versus conventional carrier aircraft, and there are advantages to both types. There’s a penalty to pay for VTOL, mainly in weight carrying capability. You may go off on a sortie with weapons aboard your aircraft, and if for some reason you can’t carry out your sortie, you’re left with your weapons. Do you jettison them? Nowadays you’re dumping a huge amount of money, so it is necessary to bring your weapons back to the ship. I have argued that they should have arrester gear on to allow landing at a very low speed, maybe 50 knots. A facility has been made for arrester gear to be put in, but they want to leave that until after two years in service. [?]

“The F35 is going to be an outstanding aircraft for these carriers. I was invited by Lockheed Martin to fly the simulator at Fort Worth, and it’s very impressive. The US Navy has gone for the conventional model, the US Marine Corps and ourselves for the STOVL version. The lift engine depends for its operation on a clutch, which is another good reason to ensure that you have arrester gear available should it fail – otherwise you’d have to ditch, and you’d be ditching a very expensive piece of machinery.”...

...After a term as Naval Attache in Bonn Capt Brown commanded RNAS Lossiemouth before leaving the service in 1970 to become Chief Executive of the British Helicopter Advisory Board and the European Helicopter Association – he had the distinction of having flown his first helicopter, the Sikorsky R4, without benefit of lessons. He gave up flying in 1992. “I had to accept that I was getting older, that my reactions were not what they’d once been,” he says. “I missed it desperately for about a year; it was like withdrawal from a drug of addiction, but the feeling slowly wore off and I’ve long ago come to terms with it. But I think it’s a wonderful time to be just starting out in naval aviation today, because the F35 and the new carriers offer a very bright future.”

Source: https://www.airpilots.org/ruth-document ... news/GUILD NEWS June 09 pt1.pdf (104Kb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2014, 20:54
by simon257
Hello their, I've been a long time lurker of this great forum. So it's about time, I posted something of interest! You maybe interested in this Youtube video which is of a recent BBC Documentary of Captain Brown:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bi45UWBj2Ug

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2014, 21:35
by spazsinbad
Thanks for that. I was hoping this doco would get to Oz eventually. Nice to see it now online.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2014, 23:08
by spazsinbad
:mrgreen: Feel that WIDTH! All the better to SRVL upon m'lud. :devil:
HMS Illustrious, top, the last of the Invincible Class Carriers is dwarfed by the vast HMS Queen Elizabeth next to her at Babcock Marine's Rosyth Dockyard in Scotland." [June 2014]

Source: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/ ... 64x722.jpg

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2014, 23:10
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2014, 19:14
by spazsinbad
Great video showing computer sims of SRVLs on this page (scroll down). I think the chap says that the SRVLer stops in 200 feet. I'll try to capture the video however Windows 8 has broken all my capturing skills. :-( Graphic is the CVF LSO display.

Queen names new Royal Navy aircraft carrier in Rosyth
04 Jul 2014 BBC News UK

"The BBC's Jonathan Beale looks at how to land a fighter jet on a warship"

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28146412

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2014, 21:18
by spazsinbad
SRVL Demo Sim CVF


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2014, 01:52
by stereospace
Interesting video. Thanks Spaz. Also, interesting that the Queen Liza was commissioned on Independence Day. Are they sending us a message?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2014, 02:27
by spazsinbad
Yep - the message is there - watch out - somebody stop me... THE MASK. Perhaps it was only CHICKEN MAN - he's everwhere - he's everywhere - dadaddledah da.


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2014, 03:57
by neurotech
stereospace wrote:Interesting video. Thanks Spaz. Also, interesting that the Queen Liza was commissioned on Independence Day. Are they sending us a message?

Maybe Frank Kendall or Debra Lee Jones will put on a flight suit, make an Independence Day speech to rally the troops, then go up in a F/A-18 Super Hornet :D
Looked like this in the movie.
Image
Image

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2014, 05:31
by spazsinbad
SRVL F 35B Demo CVF Sim + extras


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2014, 03:38
by spazsinbad
For the SRVL innit:
‘Vanguard of power projection’
July 2014 'desider' DE&S Director Ships Tony Graham

"...HMS Queen Elizabeth will eventually be fitted with a unique lighting system called the ‘Bedford Array’ (a UK invention) that will allow Lightning II jets to fly in at low speed to land on the ship – rather than landing vertically – which permits jets to carry extra weight...."

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ly2014.pdf (9Mb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2014, 09:34
by mk82
The HMS Queen Elizabeth makes HMS Invincible look like a toy!

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2014, 16:03
by blindpilot
mk82 wrote:The HMS Queen Elizabeth makes HMS Invincible look like a toy!


I'm so glad she is finished and we can say that now. It just wasn't polite for us Yanks to say that during exercises in the past. I mean "The Nimitz makes the ...." just has no class. The QE holds her own. Welcome back to the seas UK! We have a RCOH due ... can you cover an AOR for us? :) :D

BP

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2014, 19:57
by gtx
blindpilot wrote:I'm so glad she is finished


Errr…a while to go yet...

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2014, 18:11
by whitewhale
Well, with no more sponsons to go on she is essentially as big as she is going to get and structurally complete. A hell of a lot of ancillary work of course but with flood out this month I think it's fair to say she is a ship now rather then a construction.

There are also a lot of bits of the Prince of Wales waiting at the side of the dock for Big Liz to get out of the way so construction of her should be pretty quick.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2014, 23:35
by spazsinbad
I guess when jump de ski testing starts then a separate 'ski jump' thread could be started - or an old one restarted - there are a few... [FOUND an appropriate SKY/SKI JUMP/-JUMP/RAMP thread here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14082&p=275108#p275108 ] But anyway here is one piece of info I overlooked, being reminded recently by the inestimable 'Engines' over on pPrune (who may have been the engineer responsible for this innovation - only my guess) for STOing off the SKY JUMP. I have not seen the Uhmericans mention this feature - it seems from my reading that the roll control doors are closed when not needed with the air being blocked by them. http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... ost8450458 Anyway....
CVF ski-jump ramp profile optimisation for F-35B
A. Fry, R. Cook and N. Revill, FEBRUARY 2009 VOLUME 113 NO 1140

"...1.4 F-35B STOVL lift and propulsion system
The F-35B has a number of unique elements that facilitate its STOVL capability, and these are critical in the optimisation of a ski jump ramp profile for the aircraft. A basic description of the layout and function of the lift and propulsion system... described below:

● a Lift Fan driven by a shaft from the main engine which provides vertical lift through a variable area vane box nozzle using louvered vanes to vector thrust between vertically downwards and partially aft.

● a three-bearing swivel module (3BSM), which vectors the main engine exhaust thrust from the core engine through vertically downwards to fully aft – the latter being the default for conventional mode flying.

● roll nozzles, ducted from the engine and exiting in each wing providing roll control and vertical lift. These are closed off during the initial portion of the short take-off (STO) in order to maximise forward thrust from the main engine, opening towards the end of the ramp in order to provide control and lift during the fly out...."

Source: http://www.raes.org.uk/pdfs/3324_COLOUR.pdf [not available now]

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2014, 10:13
by spazsinbad
F-35 and Carrier Integration: A test pilot's perspective
15 Jul 2014 BAE Systems PLC

"F-35 test pilot Pete Kosogorin reveals how our simulation facilities are playing a crucial role integrating the F-35B aircraft with the HMS Queen Elizabeth Class CarrierA dedicated simulation facility at our site in Lancashire is allowing pilots and engineers to ‘fly’ the F-35B short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft to and from the deck of the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers. The multi-million facility has been playing a critical role ensuring the smooth integration of the F-35B aircraft with the QEC Carriers. Ultimately this will assist UK pilots in landing aircraft which are expected to carry at least twice the payload of the Harrier....

...“There are various shipborne systems [Bedford Array & SRVV - Ship Referenced Velocity Vector] that will help the pilot when landing, particularly in high sea states when the conditions are challenging and the deck is moving around quite a bit – or at night when there is limited visibility.

“But the simulator work hasn’t just been about developing the flight controls software in the aircraft, it’s also about finding out how to fly and carry out certain manoeuvres, and working out various flying techniques such as shipborne rolling vertical landing. We’ve brought together a cross-section of individuals to do that, from very experienced Harrier pilots with legacy experience to US Navy conventional F18 pilots, and also Royal Navy and other Airforce pilots who have no shipborne or STOVL experience. This has ensured the design is optimised for all levels of ability.”

Source: http://www.asdnews.com/news-55973/F-35_ ... ective.htm

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Jul 2014, 23:40
by spazsinbad
A bit of a repeat but with INFO about the LSO etc....
Britain’s Queen Elizabeth Carrier Prepares for JSF Flights
15 Jul 2014 Kris Osborn

"...“We’ve been developing this concept of shipboard rolling vertical landing to enhance the bring back of the F-35B. The Queen Elizabeth Class flight deck is big enough to allow us to do a forward rolling vertical landing on the flight deck and stop using the brake,” Atkinson added.

Atkinson explained how the F-35B STOVL aircraft will have the option to hover and perform a vertical landing or perform the shipboard rolling vertical landing, or SRVL, depending upon mission requirements or operational need.

“The performance of the aircraft is affected by the airspeed. It is all about the matching of the wind on the deck relative to the flight speed of the aircraft. You will always have your vertical landing capability. SRVL is a quick maneuver where the aircraft does not have to hover,” Atkinson added.

Performing the SRVL will allow the F-35B to travel with an additional few thousand pounds of payload such as extra fuel or weaponry, he said.

The Queen Elizabeth carriers plan to place a trained F-35B pilot in the ship’s control room area in order to facilitate successful communication with approaching JSF aircraft, Atkinson said. A landing signal officer will be placed at a special work station on board the carrier.

“From the earliest stages, a lot of attention has been paid to the human-machine interface and precisely what is needed in order to make that flight control work in the most efficient possible way,” he said.

“The landing signal officer will be a fully qualified F-35 pilot with additional training to be the subject matter expert on the F-35.”

Since there is no arresting gear, the SRVL landing will need to succeed in achieving the correct speed, descent and glide slope while approaching the deck of the carrier so as to be able to come to a complete stop by merely using brakes.

The success of this effort will be assisted by a velocity vector [SRVV Ship Referenced Velocity Vector] placed into the helmet mounted display of the F-35 which will help the pilot know when it is time to catch a final descent down onto the ship’s deck, Atkinson explained.

Visual landing aids in the form of different colored lights are built into the tram lines on the carrier deck to help pilots land as well, Atkinson said." [BEDFORD ARRAY]

Source: http://defensetech.org/2014/07/15/brita ... f-flights/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2014, 22:18
by spazsinbad
British Carrier Remains Controversial
18 Jul 2014 Chris Pocock, AIN Defense Perspective

"...the ACA is striving to make the carriers as flexible as possible. They can be reconfigured from the strike role, with 12 F-35Bs embarked, to a ship that can carry 44 helicopters and deploy 1,000 soldiers in amphibious or littoral maneuver operations. Moreover, “there is enough storage space to make a real difference in humanitarian operations,” Zambellas said.

Rear Admiral Russ Harding, the Navy’s senior airman, says that the QE-class “compresses a 2,000-acre airfield onto a four acre space that is moving in six axes. Therefore operations have to be intuitive, and they require intensive training.” But the UK withdrew its last (and much smaller) aircraft carrier in 2010, thus posing the danger of “skills fade.” Courtesy of the U.S. Navy British sailors have been deployed in small numbers on CV- and LHD-class warships, and pilots to F/A-18 squadrons, to keep them current on carrier operations. The French have also helped out, by offering slots on their warships, and in their carrier fighter squadrons. Meanwhile, there’s always simulation. BAE Systems provided a briefing at the Farnborough airshow this week on the simulator that it has developed, to determine exactly how the F-35 will operate from the carrier.

In his briefing at the UK’s DSEi event last year, Harding made reference to the unusual QE-class flight deck design, with ship operation conducted from a forward “island,” and flight operations from an “aft” island. Harding admitted that this was “a compromise…but I’m not as worried as some about the separation,” he said. Some have noted that the twin islands are more survivable, if the ship should be attacked. Harding further noted that the flight deck design is very flexible. For instance, there’s a ski ramp to launch the F-35s, but also an angled deck from which UAVs or UCAVs might be launched in the future....

...What is beyond question is that the B version has struggled with weight issues, sacrifices range and payload for STOVL capability and costs more to acquire and operate. For this reason, the MoD is studying a mixed fleet of F-35As and F-35Bs, a senior RAF officer told AIN, on condition of anonymity. It seems that the mandarins in the ministry don’t want to admit this, after the previous flip-flop that saw the UK switch from the F-35B to the conventional carrier-landing F-35C version in 2010, and back again in 2012. The combat radius of an F-35B on a hi-hi-hi mission is only 450 nm, versus 590 nm for the F-35C....

...The British contribution continues with development for the F-35B of the shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique that was successfully employed by the Harrier [only on LAND runways however]. This increases the permissible landing weight: vertically landing F-35Bs will not be able to “bring back” to the carrier, a full (unexpended) external weapons load, especially in high temperature or low pressure conditions. SRVL boosts the landing weight by 4,000 pounds. BAE Systems F-35 test pilot Pete Wilson told AIN last week that SRVL flight trials will take place on the QEII in 2018. In the meantime, “robust” simulation of the technique has been achieved. But there is still some risk attached “since the F-35B is designed to stop and land, rather than vice versa,” he said. The U.S. Marine Corps might adopt the technique for landing F-35Bs onboard the U.S. Navy’s large aircraft carriers. (The assault ships that will routinely carry USMC F-35Bs are too small for SRVL).

Speaking more generally about landing the F-35B, Wilson noted how easy it is, compared with the Harriers that he previously flew. They had separate levers to control the throttle and the nozzle angle. “Pilots sometimes grabbed the wrong lever. In the F-35B, we’ve designed out such cognitive failures,” Wilson explained. “The F-35B holds zero groundspeed, height and lateral [roll] angle very precisely. The pilot makes only a single-axis input. There’s nothing to do!” he added...."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... troversial

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2014, 22:26
by spazsinbad
Over on the 'UK MOD MUDDLE' thread [ viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=275669&hilit=IIRC#p275669 ] 'quicksilver' said this:
"19 Jul 2014 08:13

IIRC engine thrust is less than 30% within one second of WOW.

They have some opposing challenges --

1) the want to get stopped in some distance before the jet exits the bow into the water
2) they have to preserve control of the aircraft while on the flight deck at speeds nominally in the 20-40ktgs
3) they want to preserve a 'bolter' option

The first two mandate a rapid thrust reduction once the jet touches down. The third requires preservation of rapid engine spool-up time by limiting the thrust reduction at touchdown. IOW, the third puts the first two at risk.

SRVL will require its own flight/propulsion control logic."

I would agree that the SRVL if needed will have some different logic (probably hinted at in the specific posts about same from the people developing the manoeuvre - however as I have stated over and over - being now a civilian I have NO ACCESS to any information other than what is in the public domain - if I find it).

Recently the video about sim SRVL had the chap saying the aircraft stops within 200 feet. If the intention on an ordinary day (not a bucking bronco deck day) is to land 150 feet in from the back end then we have used 350 feet of a nominal 850+ feet (which will include the ski jump) for other contingencies as they may arise at touchdown. The aircraft is approaching at an approximate KIAS of 60 which when minus the 20 Knot WOD has a ground speed of 40 then things look relatively simple. However I have no access to the simulator to find out more. Previous posts (not all information can be posted I hope people realise due to the restrictions placed on my posts that no more than some part can be posted) indicate some of the reasoning about the whys and wherefores of the SRVL and how if it a FLEXIBLE manoeuvre etc. with a matrix that will calculate (via computers) what should be the correct airspeed and touchdown point in the conditions - especially when the deck is moving a lot.

I would suggest that IF the F135 via the WOW (weight on wheels) switch is at 30% RPM within one second then the acceleration via the FADEC must be good also - any ideas on that score?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2014, 00:06
by spazsinbad
The Hairier was noted for the MASSIVE acceleration for take off - eye watering apparently. From this F-35B STO onboard WASP description recently then the same seems to happen in story below. Note the aircraft / engine accelerate from 34%. Full quote from part of the story made available recently here: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=24438&p=274982&hilit=Rusnok#p274982
Jumping Jack Flash
July 2014 unknown author AIR International F-35 Special Edition

...STO-ing...
...Maj Rusnok noted:...
...The pilot also has command of the throttle. Two power setting options are available for take-off: Mil STO and Max STO [have not read about this before], as Maj Rusnok explained: “When you taxi to the tram line you stay in mode one, the conventional flight mode. You convert the aircraft into mode four, the STOVL flight mode, and it takes about 15 seconds or so for the doors to open up and the lift fan to engage.

“Then you push the throttle about halfway up the throttle slide into a detent position at about 34% engine thrust request. It sits there and you check the engine gauges: if the readings are okay you slam the throttle to either Mil or Max position and then release the brakes simultaneously. Pushing through to max is like an afterburner detent. But it’s not an afterburner – you can’t go to afterburner in mode four.

“It’s a very fast acceleration. The closest we would spot from the bow is 400 feet, so about 175 feet before we would actually start rotating the aeroplane [at the STO rotation line]; so very, very quick.”..."

Source: AIR International F-35 Special Edition July 2014

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2014, 09:05
by quicksilver
"Note the aircraft / engine accelerate from 34%."

...which is not where the engine is at idle, nor are the nozzles and VAVBN where they would be at touchdown on SRVL.

Think about it -- from what power setting did you start your takeoff run in your trusty A-4? Ever do a section go from a land base? What power setting did you start the takeoff roll from? Ever wonder why?

To illustrate the challenge of engine response time from idle (or some intermediate thrust condition), recommend a search for "turbofan power response curve."

Here's a link -- http://books.google.com/books?id=hbsgAw ... ve&f=false

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2014, 09:51
by spazsinbad
I'm wondering how a pair land takeoff is relevant. We talk about an SRVL bolter. I have only the information I provide. You keep talking about irrelevant stuff. The A4G (and similar models) did always a manual fuel control throttle check, or whatever it was called, at 80-85% RPM. Most pilots had just enough leg power to keep on the brakes for those few seconds and in a pair takeoff to stay a little longer before following leader into a formation takeoff where actually leader would not slam the power but bring it up relatively slowly so as to allow No.2 some leeway to stay in formation (sometimes that did not happen). In other training jets I think we could stand on the brakes at full power but I would have to think about all of that because it was a long time ago now. Still do not see relevance for an SRVL bolter.

I know only too well all kinds of (at that time) old and new jet engine throttle response times. I have mentioned already in other threads flying the GOBLIN engine Vampire which had only pilot throttle control - there was no other fuel control. This engine could be easily overfuelled when accelerating from any near flight idle condition RPM. It could be deadly to be in a no power over fuelled engine approaching the runway incorrectly (low / slow or both). One learnt fast how to get the best acceleration out of that engine without overfuelling. Then the Sea Venom had a rudimentary fuel control that was necessary for carrier flying but I never did that in the Venom at the end of its days. Then the A4G with a magic for those days fuel control which allowed the pilot to slam the throttle to get the maximum power in the quickest time and I did that once at night. Then the MACCHI had a similar but probably slightly more advanced fuel control which sadly could malfunction at the wrong time - so we had to take some judicious care. So what is the point?

We are doing an SRVL which likely will have a STOVL mode especially for that landing. So it is not likely the WOW will operate at first T/D perhaps. I do not know. Mostly the SRVL will be as easy as falling off a log. It has been described adequately already many times. Starts at 200 feet on a 6 degree glideslope at approx. 60 KIAS depending on other factors already mentioned a few times in this thread now. Then we have the knowledge that the touchdown point under most circumstances is 150 feet in from the back end. The aircraft should stop within 200 feet under usual conditions. On CVF there is at that point 500 feet of deck ahead which includes the ski jump of approx. 200 feet. Where is the problem?

Going off the ski jump at less than flying speed is fine as long as there is enough time for the aircraft to accelerate further after leaving the ski jump. Probably the danger for a bolter is going too fast up the ramp but I would guess that will be taken care of by the bolter computer technology. At any rate it seems to me the bolter is highly unlikely except in some emergency situation one could dream up.

Again it seems to me to be a no brainer - otherwise why do the Brits pursue it? They are not silly. They invent new ways of doing NavAv. Good on them and good luck to 'em.

And note this: "....“Then you push the throttle about halfway up the throttle slide into a detent position at about 34% engine thrust request...." This is not engine RPM this is thrust (my experience has only ever been with RPM and vaguely only knowing what that might be (depending on circumstances) in actual thrust from engine. RPM % is not the same as thrust %. Different engines have different percentages of RPM to provide the same thrust percentage.

From the recent quotes and many others over the years it seems to me the F135 is a very powerful responsive engine near the ground and for example in FCLP gives up and away response bar none apparently. STOVL Mode I'll guess is very good also especially with more than 500 feet in front of the aircraft with a ski jump to boot. This distance with ski jump is better than the KPP for the Brit CVN for STO distance. Sheesh. They could stop AND go again - what a demo that would be.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2014, 10:19
by quicksilver
I keep talking about issues central to "powered lift" which is what STOVL is all about. Perhaps if you read some of the stuff you post, you would come to a better understanding of it. :wink:

It's real simple -- an F-35 that goes to idle at touchdown will take a long time to spool back up to thrust levels necessary for the jet to fly at bow/ramp exit if the intent is to bolter. If it doesn't go to idle at touchdown, then the residual thrust and position of the nozzles will affect either controllability on-deck during rollout (you're making the jet lighter on the gear), or the ability of the jet to stop within the desired distance (you're repositioning the thrust direction further aft).

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2014, 20:03
by spazsinbad
How about you get hold of the documents that I am able to only post part thereof. Otherwise post some details about what you refer to - rather than just make bland statements that mean little without said details.

For example we do not know under what circumstances an F-35B will be required to bolter. I could guess a few but these do not make sense to me without knowing more about SRVLs. However I would assume the pilot knows at touch down - because it has gone wrong for some reason - that he needs to bolter OR the pilot is instructed to bolter by the LSO for a reason not known at the time to the pilot. In these circumstances the pilot may touchdown and go to full power straight away so where is the problem? I can imagine that the aircraft computer controls configure the nozzles appropriately for the bolter quick smart. There is a video of the first STO showing the 3BSN moving quite rapidly along with other flight controls just before lift off. So we can gather that the nozzles/controls are not an issue to be configured for a bolter.

If as stated by a STO pilot that the throttle is slammed from 34% thrust then where is that a problem for SRVL? Which is itself a power on running landing with the engine already at some high thrust level and likely NOT going to your mythical low - is it RPM - 34% in one second. So you should read all the material on this thread and whatever is NOT on the thread in the documents/PDFs available online. You could read them for free if you download my PDFs on the matter. See my signature for clues to where they are and look for appropriate folder/file names.

And I'll repeat - to me it would seem that the SRVL is going to be a doddle in the appropriate circumstances for the ship/aircraft combination - because it is a flexible manoeuvre worked out for the weight and ship sea way / wind conditions at the time. The aircraft touches down in a zone that is safe, if the deck is moving a lot, that is within safe parameters for stopping (and I will guess for a bolter if that is somehow required). IF conditions are unsafe for an SRVL, for whatever reason, then the pilot safely drops whatever ordnance is required, to be able to the VL safely. Big deal.

You seem to make assumptions I have not made nor stated. I would think a bolter needs to occur immediately after touchdown - when there is a bolter requiring event. Once the aircraft is down and stopping safely then no bolter required. End of story.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jul 2014, 22:34
by spazsinbad
For the record.... I had trouble earlier remembering how the Vampire/MACCHI MB326H conducted formation pair takeoffs. The aircraft (same as Vampire) being a training air force job was able to be at full power with the brakes on (unlike the A4G). So the Vampire/Macchi pair (in same type) would go to full power with leader then easing off power before signalling (in RAN - radio in RAAF) brakes off for takeoff (pilots would check engine OK in the short interval at full power with brakes on). The leader would be at about 97-98% RPM (the Vampire did not have a percentage RPM gauge but an actual RPM gauge so the leader would ease off a number of RPM - takeoff RPM was something like 10,750, shown on a three needle circular readout) - as I recall - to allow No.2 to keep up. The Sea Venom I flew was at the end of days with sometimes only one available so I never did a formation takeoff in it. Meanwhile here is a 'running landing' of some speed with STOs ashore and afloat video with a bit to show how quickly the 3BSN - and controls otherwise - can move.


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2014, 05:20
by spazsinbad
Carrier countdown
30 June 2014 Tim Robinson

"...TIM ROBINSON talks to some of the engineers responsible for putting the 'air' in aircraft carrier.

“The thing to bear in mind with the QEC,” says David Atkinson, F-35 Integration Lead, BAE Systems, “is the sheer scale of the flight deck. It is just huge — three times bigger than the Invincible-class deck.”...

...Leveraging simulation
Integration of the F-35 with the QEC, in particular, has harnessed the growing power of simulation and synthetic modelling to de-risk the process. Inside a F-35 motion simulator at BAE Warton's facility, test pilots can assess the aircraft in the landing pattern, develop CONOPS (CONcepts of OPerationS) and take-off and land on a ‘virtual’ HMS Queen Elizabeth. The simulation is not bound to the F-35B and QEC either — it can also emulate F-35C and CVN characteristics. Additionally, to enhance realism and develop procedures for take-off and recovery, other multiple ‘virtual’ F-35s can be inserted into the simulations — to allow the pilot to assess how a formation of aircraft would recover to the ship. Says Atkinson: “There is a unique capability here in the UK at BAE Systems at Warton, which is to simulate operation of the F-35 with our, or anybody else’s, aircraft carrier who provides their model to us.” He observes: “It is the result of many years of [flight simulation] experience in the facilties at Warton which has resulted in the leading edge that we have and can bring to bear on these two hugely important programmes.”

Though the F-35B’s advanced fly-by-wire flight control system has taken much of the hard work out of vertical landings — the simulation has already proved its worth in helping test the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) manoeuvre, which is a UK-specific landing technique that allows higher ‘bring-back’ (several thousand pounds additional weight) of weapons and fuel — especially in hot climates. SRVL sees the pilot land in hover mode but with forward speed — enabling the wings to generate useful lift. Unlike a traditional carrier approach at 130kts, where the pilot is prepared to ram the throttle open in case of a 'bolter' — the SRVL ends with the aircraft automatically moving the propulsion system to idle and the pilot applies the brakes. Input from test pilots in the simulator has also added SRVL-specific symbology — a ship-referenced velocity vector to the pilots HMDS (Helmet Mounted Display System), to better judge the approach path using this recovery technique.

Lights, camera, action
Indeed the SRVL concept has also made another change in the F-35/QE integration — that of a new stabilised lighting system or ‘Bedford Array'. Independent of the two glide path indicators (for both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft) in the port catwalk, this proprietary system, developed by QinetiQ and manufactured by AGI Ltd uses LED lights in the deck tramlines to provide a gyro-stabilised glidepath alignment cue and a forward and aft limit line to F-35B pilots carrying out SRVL approaches. The ‘Bedford Array’ approach lighting was trialed with QinetiQ's VAAC Harrier testbed in 2008. Indeed, work on the QEC visual landing aids goes back even further, to the very start of the CVF programme and these aids have been progressively developed using the Warton flight simulator.

The lighting on the QEC is innovative in other ways. Giant TV-style ‘departure boards' on the side of the islands allow information (and even video) to be viewed by flight deck personnel or aircrew sitting in readiness. It can also, if needed, project white light, acting as floodlights for maintenance or other operations at night.

Not your father's ski-jump
The QE-class's ski-jump, too, has been carefully designed and engineered from the beginning... The QEC's ski-jump is longer (200ft) than the Invincible-class (150ft) and designed so that the aircraft has all three (including the nose) wheels in contact right up until the point where the aircraft leaves the deck — giving positive nosewheel authority throughout. Additionally, the F-35Bs smart flight control system ‘knows’ when it is going up a ramp and will pre-position the control surfaces and effectors to launch at the optimum angle to avoid pitch-up or down.

Thermal challenges
However, the biggest engineering challenge in F-35 integration, says Atkinson, is the aero-thermal environment surrounding the hot-exhaust gas of the F-35B and its 40,000lb thrust F135 engine. This challenge is not novel to the F-35 but has been known about since the 1960s and the Hawker Siddeley P.1154, when it was realised that any supersonic P.1127/Harrier follow-on would need extra effort to tackle this problem. Indeed, a scale F-35 hot-gas test rig has been used at Warton for some years to explore the aircraft's external thermal environment.

For the QE-class this has been dealt with in the development of a thermal metal spray to protect the flight deck against high-exhaust temperatures. This says Atkinson, was a unique challenge — while thermal metal spray existed, for use on an aircraft carrier it had to combine heat-resistant properties with those needed by a flight deck — for example the friction characteristics needed to grip aircraft tyres in wet conditions. Thermal proofing measures such as higher temperature resistant paints and shields also extends to the catwalk and liferafts. Says Atkinson: “The historic STOVL knowledge and experience that was developed throughout the 60s to 80s has allowed UK understanding of ground erosion and hot gas to be brought to bear on this aircraft's ship interface.”..."

Source: http://aerosociety.com/News/Insight-Blo ... -countdown

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2014, 22:23
by spazsinbad
There are some odd grammar constructions or howlers in original text - only some corrected below but a worthwhile look at what goes on for the SRVL in it.
BAE Systems use simulation to refine F-35 and QEC integration
21 July 2014 Berenice Baker

"...To optimise the interaction between the aircraft and the ship, BAE Systems uses the simulator to try out the positioning of lights, lines, cameras and information systems to enable the jet to perform the best it can.

The company's F-35 simulator facility at Warton has the same capabilities as the Lockheed Martin simulator at Dallas Fort Worth as part of the integration contract, but for the Ministry of Defence (MOD) it has integrated the ship model into the simulator.

"We've taken all the hydrodynamic data from the Aircraft Carrier Alliance (ACA) to ensure the motion of the ship is simulated correctly, and we've been able to trial them the latest design information of any options that have been running in the ACA in conjunction to being able to fly this aircraft as close to reality as possible," says Atkinson.

Visual landing aids
Each trial phase has involved six to eight test pilots, including team JSF integrated test pilots from Pax River & Fort Worth, to ensure the decisions that have been made can offer the capability they need form the ship when it goes into service.

"Since around 2003, we've been working on the visual landing aids on the flight deck, firstly the colour of the lights to catch the pilot's attention, how far apart, what the pilot sees out of the cockpit and side, hover height, cues the pilots would pick up on to position himself in the right place to conduct recover and launch from the ship," says Atkinson.

The ship motion can go from nothing right up to the maximum requirement for the ship - sea state 6 - enabling the BAE Systems team to push the limits through the whole programme to ensure that genuinely we will be able to operate the aircraft can be operated up to the requirement that the MOD has for the ship.

"As well as the pilot's point of view, we've extended the simulator to show what the guys in Flyco - flight control - see the situation and aircraft when it's hovering alongside the ship," says Atkinson.

The team has also been exploring option like deck floodlighting for maintenance activities. While the UK prefers using aircraft carriers in the dark, that is not universal among other navies, so this adds flexibility to interoperability. Having different lighting schemes that do not necessarily focus on the Royal Navy's needs enables operators from other navies whose pilots are used to different ways of illuminating flight decks.

ACA and team JSF support have together developed a fully-integrated set of visual landing aids for the QE class of aircraft carriers which will be installed on QE at Rosyth dockyard....

...LSO integration
To this end, BAE Systems is integrating its Warton simulator with a new LSO simulation facility that is part of the same virtual world so the LSO can sit at his workstation and interact in real time with a pilot flying the F-35 simulator.

"Scenarios can be presented to really stretch the limits of the interaction between the LSO and the pilots, including night, bad weather, the ship moving significantly or aspects of the aircraft or ship not quite working properly," says Atkinson. "We can explore that in a virtual environment and ensure we optimise that interface from day one."...

..."When we developed that it was unique in the world. We found our friends at NAVAIR picked up on that and they're now doing LSO-in-the-loop on their simulators as well," says Atkinson.

Developing new manoeuvres
The integrated simulation is now so comprehensive it can be used to develop new manoeuvres, including not just the ability of the aircraft to do the manoeuvre itself, but also the concept of operations, the visual landing aids needed on the ship, and what the LSO's feed from Flyco.

"For the MOD we're been developing this concept of ship-borne rolling landing to enhance the bring-back clearance for on the F-35B to the QEC flight deck," explains Atkinson. "The QEC flight deck is big enough to enable us to do a forward-rolling vertical landing to the flight-deck then stop using the aircraft's own brakes..."

Source: http://www.naval-technology.com/feature ... n-4321576/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 22 Jul 2014, 07:23
by spazsinbad
On the 16th July 2014 a similar article (more or less the same) was pubbed by BerryNICE so in the above artickle these last two paras were missing. I like 'em - so here they are....
INSIGHT – BAE Systems uses simulation to refine F-35 and QEC integration
16 Jul 2014 Berenice Baker

"...Cues in the pilot’s helmet-mounted display will indicate that it is time to catch the final descent path down to the ship. This is a critical stage in the manoeuvre from a ship integration point of view, ensuring the pilot has all the necessary information to land, and conversely the ship needs to check from its point of view the pilot is on the correct path and can confidently allow the aircraft to land on the ship.

BAE Systems’ integrated simulation system is doing more than preparing pilots and shop crew for the first real flights of the F-35B from the QEC carriers, it is also revealing new ways in which aircraft and ship can be better used together."

Source: http://www.strategicdefenceintelligence ... and_qec_i/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2014, 05:45
by spazsinbad
ACTIVE STICK & THROTTLE FOR F-35
16 Oct 2008 Joseph Krumenacker; NAVAIR Flight Controls / JSF Vehicle Systems

"...• Throttle:
– Variable aft & forward end-stops (e.g. STOVL mode is different from CTOL mode)
– AB gate (when STOVL system is not deployed)
– Launch gate (CV only)
– STOVL center detent (zero commanded acceleration)

– STOVL on-ground power braking force gradient

– Back-drive

• Auto-Throttle Approach (all variants)

• STOVL Decel-to-Hover..."

Source: http://www.csdy.umn.edu/acgsc/mtg102/SubcommitteD/F35 AIS Krumenacker SAE 081016.ppt (13.8Mb)

PDF remake (1Mb): download/file.php?id=19248

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Jul 2014, 20:50
by spazsinbad
Forgive me (nah don't) if I think this is more good news probably for future SRVLs? :devil:

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=25800&p=276369#p276369
"...unique flight test conditions for SLs and all directional control and anti-skid wet runway testing. All testing was performed with BF-4..."

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2014, 05:16
by spazsinbad
THE PERFECT PARTNERSHIP
MAI Magazine Issue 14 BAE Systems

"....“The beauty of this is the carrier has been designed with the aircraft in mind,” explains Pete [Kosogorin - BAE F-35 test pilot].

“It’s not an anti-submarine carrier that has been modified for F-35 – the QE carrier has been designed for F-35 right from the outset, so I think the two will integrate very well.

“That work began many years ago and the stuff we’ve done in the simulator at Warton has been incredibly important because many of the results of those trials fed into the design of the deck – the markings on the deck, the lighting on the deck, the systems. “There are various shipborne systems that will help the pilot when landing, particularly in high sea states when the conditions are challenging and the deck is moving around quite a bit, or at a night when there is limited visibility.

“But the sim work hasn’t just been about developing the flight controls software in the aircraft, it’s also about finding out how to fly and carry out certain manoeuvres, and working out various flying techniques, such as shipborne rolling vertical landing.

“We’ve brought together a cross section of individuals to do that, from very experienced Harrier pilots with legacy experience to US Navy conventional F18 pilots, and also Royal Navy and other Airforce pilots who have no shipborne or STOVL experience. “That has been done to ensure the design is optimised for all levels of ability, and all levels of scale.”...

...“Obviously I work for BAE Systems, but I think the fact that we’ve got a team of 30 or so engineers out here who are intimately involved in this, not just on the STOVL side and the B model but we also have one of the lead engineers on the C model which is the US Navy variant, is a great success story.

“Some of these guys have been working on the design and development side for 10 years plus, and now we are into the flight test stage, they are either working on the flight tests directly or they are engineers who are looking at and analysing the data we produce from those flight tests.

“It may be weeks later before we find out that the point we flew was good, or there was a problem in the point that we need to look at again, or we might need to change the software.

“So it’s not just about expanding the envelope of the aeroplane, it’s also about developing the software to make the aircraft better, and each member of the BAE Systems team is vitally important to that process....

...But what can those test pilots lucky enough to be chosen for those trials expect? And how will the F-35B compare to its predecessor, the Harrier, which was the aircraft of choice for the old Invincible class carriers?

“By the time the F-35 comes into service and has been fully tested, there won’t be many Harrier pilots flying it – it will be a much younger generation,” says Pete. “The aircraft itself, and the control and handling it has in slow speeds in STOVL mode 4, is exceptional.

“I’ve landed at night on a ship in the Harrier and that’s a really exciting – but also scary – event.

“You are probably the most aroused you will ever be as a pilot in terms of focused concentration, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make a mistake.

“When a pilot is working really hard, he’s using up a high proportion of his capacity and his ability to spot things, to see things, and to cope with things is affected. “In the Harrier, you could easily miss one aspect of your technique, miss a problem with the aircraft, or not hear a radio call, so it was easy to lose track of what was going on.

“But this aircraft works so well for you, the extra capacity that allows you is a big bonus. It means a pilot can deal with an emergency better, or follow a particular technique better, so the execution of your approach and landing on a ship is going to be way more efficient.”

Source: http://www.baesystems.com/download/BAES ... artnership (PDF 300Kb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2014, 05:02
by spazsinbad
MISSED putting the SLOW LANDING bits in the quote from: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=25800&p=276369#p276369 above
F-35B successfully completes wet runway and crosswind testing
01 Aug 2014 Manufacturing Group

"The testing, completed in 37 missions, achieved 114 test points, including 48 of 48 wet runway test points....

...19 of 23 unique flight test conditions for SLs and all directional control and anti-skid wet runway testing..."

Source: http://www.onlineamd.com/f35b-wet-runwa ... _LKbJB-8kJ

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 03 Sep 2014, 15:14
by spazsinbad
On previous page of this thread I had a question about what Maj. Rusnok was saying about the max/mil throttle positions for STOing (19 Jul 2014 'Jumpin' Jack Flash): viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=275686&hilit=Rusnok#p275686
FLIGHT TEST: F-35 Simulator - Virtual fighter
31 Jul 2007 Mike Gerzanics

"...Seated in the simulator, my left hand fell to the large throttle, called the "cow pie" due to its size and shape, which moves along a long linear track. The active throttle is back-driven by the autothrottle system and has variable electronic detents for afterburner and STOVL operations. There is no "cut-off" position, a single guarded engine master switch performing that function...."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... er-215810/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 10 Sep 2014, 09:54
by spazsinbad
Stepping-Stones
Tony Osborne AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY / SEPTEMBER 8, 2014

"...Test pilots have completed much of the trials work required for the shipboard rolling vertical landing (SRVL), a technique developed for the U.K. to allow the F-35 to land on the ship without having to offload fuel or expensive ordnance beforehand, particularly in warmer regions of the world such as the Middle East.

Trials of creeping vertical landings onto runways at speeds of 10-150 kt. have proven the viability of the SRVL technique, according to BAE Systems test pilot Pete "Wizzer" Wilson. However, the technique now needs to be put to the test on the ship, which is likely to occur on the U.S. East Coast at the end of 2018.

Approach speeds to the ship will probably be 50-60 kt., taking into account the ship's speed and aircraft overtake velocity.

After touchdown, the pilot simply applies the brakes. Once stopped, the fighter can be maneuvered to its parking position, allowing aircraft behind to land in quick succession.

According to Wilson, the U.S. Marine Corps has expressed interest in the SRVL capability, which would enable operation of F-35Bs from a U.S. Navy carrier without an arrestor hook. "One of the reasons Harriers have never been on board is because of that need to do a vertical landing, which slows the pace of carrier operations," says Wilson. "SRVL could be one way of cross-decking with the F-35B." [See SRVL Bedford Array view of CVN - PERHAPS below]

The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force expect to do a 50:50 mix of SRVL and standard vertical landings, but managers close to the program anticipate an increased number of SRVLs because they help to reduce the load on engines and thereby increase engine service life.

Deck landings can be performed at up to sea state 6—with waves 4-6 meters (13-20 ft.) in height with assistance from the Bedford Array developed by U.K.'s Qinetiq. The system uses a series of flashing lights located on the centerline of the ship at the landing point. The pilot's helmet-mounted display has a ship-reference velocity vector; by maneuvering the aircraft with vector lined up on the Bedford Array lights, the pilot can make a 6-deg. glideslope approach and landing...."

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l261/ ... st2011.gif

Source: AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY / SEPTEMBER 8, 2014

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2014, 01:24
by spazsinbad
VX-23 Strike Test News 2010 - 14 INDEX: [same info below with the F-35C info repeated here: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=26634&p=281771&hilit=nawcad#p281771 ]
http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... 4E8876769E
VX-23 Strike Test News 2014 [02 Sep 2014]:

"...SHORT TAKEOFF AND VERTICAL LANDING (STOVL)
The F-35B continued sea trials last summer aboard the USS Wasp (LHD 1). Lessons learned from the previous ship trials in 2011 were incorporated and evaluated. Centerline tracking during short takeoffs (STOs) was drastically improved with the combination of an improved NWS schedule and the use of the Three-Bearing Swivel Nozzle (3BSN) for yaw control. BF-1 and BF-5 were utilized for the sea trials to further expand the wind and performance envelope for F-35B STOVL operations on L-class ships. Mission systems testing, to include the Night Vision Camera (NVC) and Distributed Aperture System (DAS) was accomplished by BF-4.

The F-35B STOVL envelope expansion continued last year. The Rolling Vertical Landing (RVL), Creeping Vertical Landing (CVL), Vertical Landing (VL), Slow Landing (SL), Short Take Off (STO) and Vertical Takeoff (VTO) envelopes were all expanded. RVL testing included main runway testing with some crosswind testing. CVL testing began and was completed on both the main runway and the Expeditionary Airfield (EAF). The VL wind envelope was further expanded, with up to 10 knots of tail wind and 15 knots of crosswind. SL and STO testing included crosswind expansion out to 20 knots, completed primarily at Edwards Air Force Base and NAWS China Lake during a wet runway and crosswind detachment. STOVL formation testing began this year, which included formation STOs and SLs. VTO expansion occurred concurrently with AM2 soft soil pad certification....

Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/nawcad/index ... oad&id=820 (PDF 2.8Mb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2014, 05:44
by spazsinbad
As you have all probably guessed by now - I have a tinea :mrgreen: ear for how the F-35s land. That aspect DOES interest me a lot and because two of the three variants will be landing on flat decks at sea - why bleedin' not? :mrgreen: Go here for the gen and the same info will be posted on the newish thread about the F-35C trials and tribs (NOT) aboard NIMITZ recently: [same info here on the appropriate F-35C thread: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=26634&p=281944&hilit=Hipple#p281944 ]
Sea Control 28 (East Atlantic) – The F-35
March 2014 By LT Matthew Hipple speaking to STEVE GEORGE

"For the inaugural edition of Sea Control’s “East Atlantic” series, Alexander Clarke brings on Steve George, former engineer with the F-35 program and Royal Navy veteran to discuss the challenges and misconceptions of the F-35 program."

AUDIO: http://cimsec.org/wp-content/uploads/20 ... c-F-35.mp3 (28Mb)

Source: http://blog.usni.org/2014/03/31/sea-con ... c-the-f-35

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2014, 22:27
by spazsinbad
Ski Jumpin' Specs and an SRVL pilot view via computer sim in this video: [repeated elsewhere do ski jump info]


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 05 May 2015, 10:27
by spazsinbad
Also posted today on another thread yet relevant here also: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=27140&p=290495&hilit=MILESTONES#p290495
F-35 2014 MILESTONES
2014 Annual Edition CODE ONE

"...31 December 2014 Flight Test Totals
The F-35 Integrated Test Force at Edwards AFB, California, and NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, exceeded 5,000 total flights in the System Development and Demonstration phase of the F-35 program. For 2014 alone, the program completed 1,354 test flights that covered 10,000 test points. The F-35B test fleet completed ninety-eight vertical landings, 297 short takeoffs, and 253 short landings."

Source: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/images/2 ... 8_7318.pdf (7.6Mb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2015, 01:11
by spazsinbad
SKI JUMP TEST part of this article is here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20138&p=293591&hilit=Jennings#p293591
F-35B begins 'ski-jump' trials for carrier operations
23 Jun 2015 Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

"...Although the JSF programme is being chiefly driven by the United States, the UK is leading the way in developing technologies and techniques for employing the F-35B at sea. As well as the 'ski-jump', BAE Systems has developed a Bedford Array deck-lighting system (invented by a former UK Harrier pilot) to allow the recovery of the jet using the short rolling vertical landing (SRVL) method.

The SRVL landing technique involves the F-35B performing a conventional landing with a touchdown speed of just 30 kt relative to the ship's forward motion. This enables the aircraft to bring back significantly more fuel or munitions than possible with a standard vertical landing. The system works using a series of evenly spaced lights that run the length of the flight deck centreline. Only one light flashes at any given time, the specific light changing in sync with the pitching of the ship. This allows the pilot to focus on one point on the deck regardless of the relative movement of the ship for a relatively simple approach and recovery.

As part of this work Wilson himself has developed new helmet-mounted symbology, known as the Ship Reference Velocity Vector (SRVV), to help the pilot better judge his approach to the ship.

BAE Systems has also built a networked 180° panoramic cockpit position and a 180° panoramic landing safety officer (LSO) position to simulate and help train for carrier deck movements. While all of these technologies and techniques are being developed chiefly with the UK in mind, both the US Navy and US Marine Corps have shown strong interest and may well adopt some or all of the concepts for their own use."

Source: http://www.janes.com/article/52509/f-35 ... operations

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2015, 01:22
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2015, 07:40
by spazsinbad
UK Parliament SRVL TEST Question - 790 – Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft (Answered)
10 Jun 2015 Posted by Think Defence

"Douglas Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many successful shipborne rolling vertical landings have taken place using the F-35B with (a) an empty weapons load and (b) the maximum weight weapons configuration to date.

Mr Philip Dunne: No shipborne rolling vertical landings have taken place with an F-35B. The plan is to commence this activity in 2018 as part of First of Class Flying Trials. Ahead of these trials there is a range of de-risking work being undertaken which includes aircraft trials and synthetic modelling. The concept has already been demonstrated on the French carrier Charles de Gaulle using a modified Harrier aircraft. The primary approach aid was tested on HMS Illustrious."

Source: http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/06/7 ... -answered/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2015, 16:26
by spazsinbad
This'll go here because it mentions a few creepy :mrgreen: things.... Single page PDF only attached below.
2015 STRIKE TEST NEWS
2015 Maj M. Andrew “Tac” Tacquard VX-23

"...F-35 Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing (STOVL) Mode
The F-35B team continued to expand the STOVL envelope last year in the clean wing configuration and with symmetric and asymmetric external stores. The process began with flying qualities testing in semi-jet, short takeoff, and jet borne modes to clear the aircraft for takeoff and landings. The team completed testing at airspeeds as low as 70 knots with 24,000 lb of asymmetry and jet borne with 10,000 lb of asymmetry. Next year, the team will feature jet borne testing to 19,000 lb of asymmetry.

Flying qualities during asymmetric testing were nearly identical to symmetric testing from the pilot’s perspective. The team performed Rolling Vertical Landings (RVL), Creeping Vertical Landings (CVL), Vertical Landings (VL), Slow Landings (SL), and Short Take Offs (STO) tests with nominal winds at Patuxent River. They continued landing and takeoff testing during a detachment to Edwards AFB, Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, and at NAWS China Lake. Testers focused on expanding the crosswind envelope with crosswinds of up to 25 knots. We also performed the first high altitude CVL and VL during the detachment.

The test team also conducted mission systems testing in the STOVL environment. Together, we accomplished Daytime STOVL Distributed Aperture System (DAS) testing during VLs. Additionally, we completed Nighttime DAS and Night Vision Camera (NVC) testing with the GEN III helmet. Testing included main runway-aided conventional takeoff and landings, SLs, and STOs. The team also conducted aided STOs and VLs during field carrier landing practice sessions at the expeditionary airfield aboard NAS Patuxent River.

Last, the first-ever F-35B ski jumps made aviation history June 19 and July 10 at the NAS Patuxent River Expeditionary Airfield. The ski jump tests — major milestones achieved by the joint U.S.-U.K. ski jump team — will determine the aircraft’s compatibility with British and Italian aircraft carriers. (The U.K. and Italy use the ski jump approach to carrier operations as an alternative to the catapults used aboard U.S. aircraft carriers. The U.K. and Italian carriers feature upward-sloped ramps at the bow of their ships. A ski-jump ramp simultaneously launches aircraft upward and forward, allowing aircraft to take off with more weight and less end-speed than required for an unassisted horizontal launch.)

Source: http://issuu.com/nawcad_pao/docs/striketest2015_single (3.6Mb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 04:52
by spazsinbad
Relevant to wet deck CVF SRVLs potential. Bear in mind there is a computer generated matrix which determines the aircraft / deck conditions suitable for SRVL so I'll guess that 'wet deck' is factored in also. Don't ask what figures are.
Salty Dogs & Funky Jets
Oct 2015 Mark Ayton

"...Wet Runway Testing
It’s strange that wet runway testing must be conducted at Edwards Air Force Base in the Mojave Desert. Annual rainfall on America’s east coast requires runways to drain away quickly and does not provide sufficient time to conduct wet runway tests.

The main Edwards runway is ideal for wet runway tests. It has a flat section that allows a sheet of water an eighth of an inch thick and a layer of AFFF (aqueous film forming foam, which is used for fire fighting) to be laid down. This gives a window of about five minutes when the runway is wet enough to meet the runway condition rating (RCR) criteria.

The pilot runs the aircraft up to the wet section at which point he applies moderate braking. Cdr Ted Dyckman explained: “That represents 60% peddle deflections while tracking down the runway to see how it stops to determine anti-skid performance. We have directional control points that indicate where the pilot enters the wet section and corrects back to centre line from an off set of 20 feet.

“We conduct two verification flying points. First we fly and land in the wet section to make sure there are no directional control issues. The F-35A and the F-35C each use similar types of main tyres but the F-35C’s double nosewheel configuration gives slightly better tracking performance than its single-wheel stablemates. The team conducted wet runway tests with normal field service tyres and carrier surface tyres. The latter simulates catapult launches and arrested landings back on the ship.

To prevent carrier surface tyres from rolling on the deck because of the side forces applied they are inflated to a higher pressure which makes them track well but hydroplane. They also take further to stop because the tyre’s surface area in contact with the deck is reduced by the higher pressure. The field service tyres also tracked well and stopped in the same distance.

Test points were conducted at 60, [SRVL is approx. 60KIAS - not quite the same perhaps] 90, 110 and 130 knots using wet sections measuring 2,500, 3,000, 4,000 and about 6,000 feet respectively. As soon as the RCR meets the test point (measured by an instrumented truck tracking down the side of the section to avoid the painted centre line which would give a very inaccurate value) criteria, the pilot runs down the wet section replicating a landing run, conducts the braking test and clears the area. The truck remeasures the RCR value and records the time between the two for an average figure. During the directional test, when the main tyres run over the centre line, the aircraft skids slightly because of the effect of reduced friction on the paint. The test team completed the trials in mid-April.

Source: Air International OCTOBER 2015 Vol.89 No.4

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 06:33
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad"]..The primary approach aid was tested on HMS Illustrious."...quote]

Now that Delta Path/ Magic Carpet has become "passee" or Old News for the F-35C/ SBug perhaps the Marines/ Brits will soon morph the Magic Carpet (Aero Controls) into the SRVL of the F-35B to augment the VL "landing button" bring back restrictions. :)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 06:47
by spazsinbad
The other threads with 'Magic Carpet' and 'Delta Flight Path' have statements to the effect that these technologies are in all the F-35 variants (Magic Carpet derived from F-35 IDLC) whilst it is obvious that the F-35C (and stated thusly) benefits most from IDLC Integrated Direct Lift Control and DFP. That is why it was interesting to me to see and read the statement by the F-35A pilot that they keep the same AoA on approach to an aero brake landing - simples. The other two variants will do the same as is demonstrated by them in various videos when they do conventional landings on runways. I'll find the internal URLs to this stuff later. Short Clip says F-35 IDLC transferred to Super Hornet for Magic Carpet & then the F-35C short clip about IDLC/DFP from Hook2015 brief.

F-35C Delta Flight Path IDLC Tailhook 2015 Clemence Brief


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 16:38
by spazsinbad
This 97 Mb 520 page PDF necessarily has a lot of supporting information around the SRVL for UK F-35Bs on CVFs. Please let me know if there are any problems registering for FREE to download for FREE to view for FREE this or any other PDFs/videos on the SpazSinbad OneDrive or GoogleDrive pages. Remember to always right mouse click on a file to 'Save File As' to your computer first before viewing it with the latest Adobe Reader suitable for your operating system. This same PDF will be on GoogleDrive soon so that URL will be added soon as.

FOLDER: _SRVL & Ski Jump F-35B Information PDFs

https://onedrive.live.com/?id=CBCD63D63 ... E6&group=0

PDF: F-35B VL & SRVL via VACC Harrier & Landing Aids pp520.pdf (97Mb)
____________________

FOLDER: SpazSinbad_PDFs_Videos (same PDF as above - same register / download advice)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... EJvU09qWDQ

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 18:06
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad"]..F-35A pilot that they keep the same AoA (same as other earlier a/c types ("on glide slope, on course" / ILS)) on approach to an aero brake landing - simples. ..quote]

...understand but if the runway (LHA) is moving away at 20+ knots, a bit of maneuvering should be required for SRVL (heavy bring back), would it not? .... :?:

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 18:35
by spazsinbad
It seems to me 'neppie' that you are not understanding something from every question you ask about carrier/flat deck landings. I recommend you download and read at your leisure - pick and choose, the 'how to deck land' PDF pages can be searched for key words or looked at as thumbnails via 'pages panel' so that you have a better understanding. Perhaps you disagree however you are asking a lot of questions that I reckon have been answered before. To start: download the recent 'SRVL PDF' and it will become clear what is going on. Read this thread and the same will happen.

The SRVL starts at 200 feet at an approximate 6 degree glideslope at around 60 KIAS. However these are variables according to conditions while the optimum touchdown point on the CVF deck is calculated for the approach conditions including weather/sea state. It is always best that the CVF moves into the wind so that the WOD is straight down the axial deck. However because of the islands there may be a better optimum WOD angle. Anyway a minor point.

The SRVV Ship Reference Velocity Vector takes care of the ship moving whilst the Bedford Array moving deck lights indication shows where to point the touchdown indication. I believe all of this is explained in this thread. For me at 0330 local time I have had it (preparing the PDF recently uploaded). So I'll leave to you to look at the two options mentioned.

What is the 'manouevring' you refer to again? The F-35B motors along in STOVL mode at 200 feet until reaching the approach point at approx. 6 degrees then motors on down. Simples. Again all of this is described in detail. Perhaps this video is helpful. In this first one the opening still shots show the tip over point for SRVL - left view of screen below.




Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2015, 19:43
by neptune
[quote="spazsinbad"]It seems to me 'neppie' ..quote]

thanks for the utubes -no more questions- can wait for SRVL on the decks with heavy bring backs-
:cheers:

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2015, 00:20
by madrat
Theoretically could one prop wash the deck using wind generators towards the approaching F-35B to enhance the safety on SRVL?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2015, 00:58
by spazsinbad
We've been around this forum for a while eh 'madrat'. I recall you mentioning something similar a few years back. The SRVL will be as safe as it is deemed. At the moment it exists in the F-35B world as a computer simulation and perhaps some practice on a land runway [with old simulations with the VACC Harrier years ago] - early days. This long thread has a lot of argey bargey about how 'safe' an SRVL is in theory. Given that there will be solid criteria that accounts for all possible variables, including whether the pilot is SRVL experienced or not, will make the maneuver safe. IF an SRVL is not safe on CVF then carrier landings are not safe.

As indicated in the second video above, an SRVL with a groundspeed at touch down of 40 knots is doable - stoppable with the potential to go around - straight ahead - using the ramp. IF before the approach the SRVL is NOT safe then a VL is carried out. One would rather jettison some ordnance than jettison the aircraft. Remember the aircraft is on a steep approach to a specific touchdown point from 200 feet at approx. 1/3 to 1/4 NM at approx. 60KIAS with the ship moving at perhaps 20 knots. It will be like an S-2E/G Tracker approach - the LSOs used to go to sleep during them. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2015, 01:48
by quicksilver
"IF an SRVL is not safe on CVF then carrier landings are not safe."

Splain that one pls.

"As indicated in the second video above, an SRVL with a groundspeed at touch down of 40 knots is doable... - stoppable with the potential to go around - straight ahead - using the ramp."

The landing is doable. There was nothing in the video about go-arounds after touchdown.

"IF before the approach the SRVL is NOT safe then a VL is carried out."

How so? What would make the SRVL unsafe (particularly in light of your above comment about SRVL on CVF)?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2015, 02:34
by madrat
Spaz, previously I said jet stream from the deck under the F-35B. A jet stream is narrow, the wash of a wind generator is wide.

Another musing is all. Just as I said the F-35B experience would be enhanced with an ogee (s-curved) rail or ramp launch, since catapult launch is unobtainable. When I see skateboarding ramps I imagine engineering the idea on a larger scale is well within material technology.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2015, 04:22
by spazsinbad
Tongue in cheek comment indeed but a good example of how landing on any deck is dangerous when the deck is at sea - even for helicopters: ""IF an SRVL is not safe on CVF then carrier landings are not safe."" I could give any number of reasons/examples. I go with the thought that if the SRVL is deemed not to be safe on CVFs then that is that. It is neither here nor there for me if they are safe or not however I trust that all the effort put into developing them is for good reason - not my call whether they are put into operation or are safe.

Sure the comment about "'boltering'" down the ski jump is NOT in the video however it is in this thread (search for same). We have had several words about it in this thread.

This is interesting:
"'QS': 'SS': "IF before the approach the SRVL is NOT safe then a VL is carried out."

'QS': How so? What would make the SRVL unsafe (particularly in light of your above comment about SRVL on CVF)?

I do not have access to the numbers/conditions which will make an intended SRVL safe/unsafe, however I think it would be obvious (like any deck landing) there will be weather/operational/aircraft conditions that make any intended landing unsafe thus requiring an alternative landing - if possible - or divert ashore - or to another deck where landing is safe.

However with the F-35B - if possible to jettison stores to allow a VL (in safe VL conditions that are unsafe for SRVL) then that is the way to land. IF (because of aircraft malfunction) stores cannot be jettisoned for a safe VL etc. then the emergency is there to be solved somehow.

It is the safety net for SRVLs in most circumstances that weight can usually be reduced (perhaps expensively but less expensive than jettisoning the aircraft) for a VL. Again - I await my copy of F-35B/C NATOPS to know the details.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2015, 04:31
by spazsinbad
'madrat' CVFs are deemed to be 'wind making machines - wide' and that they go fast enough for same at 25 knots (+ always possible it seems from some quotes). Hughie! usually kicks in some windage as well (wind rather than rain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Send_%27er_down,_Hughie!)

NukeCVNs go faster but if the sea is not flat then the weather / sea state will affect the WOD and how the ship behaves in the seaway - going fast. It seems CVFs go fast enough for the money.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2015, 04:50
by spazsinbad
Problematic Helo landings (& after) at sea examples: Video of Oz ARMY Blackhawk crash at sea (I'm hoping they are well trained for our new LHDs) while recently a USN similar helo was washed overboard after landing with also two lives lost.

The 'SLOW' S-2(E/G) Tracker approach to HMAS Melbourne might be a Seaking helo emulating same but I'll go with what the AWM says (they are not always correct however - believe me it is sad). Then there is the 'probably unsafe sea conditions A4G landing [don't tell the seniors though]' with the Albatross gliding around. And then the USN Exchange pilot having an A4G wire break adventure - surviving well indeed thankfully - quick reactions and a good seat lifting and not his fault (was a wire servicing problem under the deck - after a refit).
Australian army helicopter crash 2006
Uploaded on Jun 18, 2007 A1X4

"Video footage released by the Australian military of the crash of an Army helicopter in November 2006. The helicopter is seen coming in above regulation speed and skids off the eastern side of the rear of the frigate [nope HMAS Kanimbla http://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-kanimbla-ii ], breaking the tail rotor off and sending the rest of the helicopter spinning into the ocean. Two naval [ARMY] servicemen died as a result. I hope this video isnt viewed as means of 'entertainment' like a number of the others, instead a reflection upon the extraordinary conditions our servicemen/women are placed in that us ordinary people take for granted."








Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Sep 2015, 00:03
by spazsinbad
neptune wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:..F-35A pilot that they keep the same AoA (same as other earlier a/c types ("on glide slope, on course" / ILS)) on approach to an aero brake landing - simples. ..quote]

...understand but if the runway (LHA) is moving away at 20+ knots, a bit of maneuvering should be required for SRVL (heavy bring back), would it not? .... :?:


Having people ask questions is always helpful to me to add/edit material in my 4.4GB PDF about RAN FAA Fixed Wing and How to Deck Land. Two pages glommed from an ex-RAAF Sabre pilot book about how to fly is in the this PDF because it gives another view of the carrier approach/landing issues. I think about it differently so perhaps this 'way of thinking' is what 'neptune' thinks? Anyway the relevant info is reproduced below. The small PDFs made by the ex-RAAF pilot are still online freely available here : http://www.flybetter.com.au/index.html & http://www.flybetter.com.au/id4.html

The NAVYway is to use the meatball - which is on the ship moving with it - that takes care of the glideslope issues. Now MAGIC Carpet and F-35B/C aircraft will have an SRVV Ship Referenced Velocity Vector HUD indication which allows for the ship movement (not available before - the 'Hornets' had only a HUD VV Velocity Vector which was useful (usually placed on the 'crotch' to aid line up & long range glideslope indication before transferring to the meatball method etc.).
A RAAF VIEW on ‘Deck Landing’ http://www.flybetter.com.au Book Two “Aeroplane Handling Techniques”
25 Oct 2010 Noel Kruse

“...imagine that the runway we wish to land on is an aircraft carrier moving through a calm ocean on a windless day. A person standing on the deck of the carrier will experience a relative wind equal to the speed of the ship and will say that an approaching aircraft has a ‘headwind’. But from your aeroplanes point of view it is just the carrier moving in the same direction that the aircraft is moving. When making an approach to this moving target you will have to aim the aeroplane not at where it is now, but where it will be in about two minutes time. Assuming we are making our approach from 1000ft and our rate of descent is averaging about 500ft/min in the slow speed descent configuration, then the approach is going to take two minutes. If we also assume that the aircraft carrier is ‘steaming’ (nuclearing?) at 10kts in the same direction as we are flying then the landing threshold will have moved 650 meters away from us in that time. If we were to simply put our ARP (Attitude Reference Point - discussed in earlier chapter) on the aim point and hold it there, the motion of the ship would cause our approach path to progressively flatten out and the final approach would be so flat that the ‘trees’ could become a problem. Judging the final slow down point is also more difficult if we are too flat. The diagram at Figure Eight shows this flattening effect. In this situation we must ‘lead the target’, which means that initially we should aim the aeroplane (ARP) 800 meters down the runway (650+150) and progressively ‘drift’ the ARP back to the aim point as we progress down the approach, thereby maintaining a constant approach path to the aim point, (Figure 9).”

You will have to read the book to know more about the ARP however this quote is important:
"...Now I must emphasize that this [ARP] is not a velocity vector, it is only a cross on a windscreen and therefore it has some errors [do tell :mrgreen: ]...."


Source: http://www.flybetter.com.au/sitebuilder ... dition.pdf (1.5Mb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 07:41
by spazsinbad
No Slubscribee so this is all she rote....
Test Plan To Cut F-35B Rolling Landing Risk
08 Oct 2015 Guy Norris

"While early sea trials of the Joint Strike Fighter have focused on ship suitability for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, a wave of upcoming tests are about to evaluate roles geared primarily for U.K. operations of the Lockheed Martin F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical landing (STOVL) version. Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and U.S. and U.K. military test units are set to begin an intensive second phase of envelope expansion flights using the ski jump ramp at the U.S. NAS Patuxent River, ..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/test-pl ... nding-risk

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 17:28
by blindpilot
I sometimes think some folks have no understanding of what "envelope expansion," is.

When put into the context of discussions of "I wonder if the F-35 can fly?" the answer is....

If an Ex-Harrier, lotsa hours, lotsa sim time, test pilot had taken BF-1 out to sea, just after its Ft Worth shake out flights, and done a "Oh my God, I wonder how to do this..." SRVL approach and landing on the Wasp, it likely would have been safer than the safest Harrier SRVL landing ever made... (based on pilot reports on how easy the F-35 is to fly)

Envelope expansion is a disciplined method of going through every expected flight condition, such that the test pilots are the first to do whatever that is. They then write the books on how that goes. No fleet pilot should ever be the "first to do that!" ever.

However it does still happen. Not long ago a marine pilot landed a Harrier with the nose wheel up and locked and sat the nose gently on a makeshift "stool" the ship's crew put together. I'm pretty sure the test guys had not checked that out during envelope expansion ...

... but maybe we should put the test point in the F-35B test?? :D If we did, that does not mean the F-35 can't "land on a stool" until they test it .. There is not a "land on a stool switch" that has to be wired before the test. The first aircraft (if software is done) can do it just as well as the aircraft that does the test point test..and the planes after.

Might something go hay wire in early testing of a new aircraft. Sure. It happens all the time. Might some features be enabled/integrated with new software? Sure that's why they have block releases. All of this is why they do testing. But when we look at SRVL... it may be worthwhile to consider just how dicey landing a Harrier was/is ... and consider the improvements in the F-35B systems.

Just a thought,
BP

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2015, 18:31
by spazsinbad
'BP' I have not researched 'SRVL' for the Harrier but have come across several statements that (even if it was tested ashore and of that I'm not certain however obviously slow landings were carried out there) 'SRVL for Harriers' was deemed unsafe on their much smaller CVSs (designed as ASW Helo Carriers then pressed into service as "Harrier Carriers" with an extra dollop of ski jumpiness added because....). The ONLY real life 'Harrier SRVL' was carried out as an emergency landing during the Falklands War by a RAF pilot - tail shot up with worries about VL flying qualities - this story is told on this forum somewhere however it is worth repeating perhaps.
David Morgan: The Sea Harrier's Baptism of Fire [& 1st & Only SRVL]

"For many the Falklands War of 1982 was the Sea Harrier's finest hour. Lt Cdr David Morgan DSC served with 899 NAS during the conflict and tells that story in a vivid memoir entitled "Hostile Skies". David has kindly agreed to provide three features for GAR's Harrier series and here is the first, telling the incredible story of the attack on Port Stanley on 1st May 1982....

...Once back in the overhead of Hermes, I circled at a height of 5,000 feet whilst Flt Lt Ted Ball came up to inspect the damage. After a fruitless inspection of the left side of the aircraft, he swapped over to the right side and after a few seconds said 'Ah yes... you have got a bloody great hole in the tail'. I moved the control surfaces to and fro and was told that they appeared to be working correctly but there was a distinct possibility that the reaction controls, critical for vertical landing, might have taken some damage. I therefore let everyone else land before setting myself up to carry out a rolling landing. This entails running the aircraft onto the deck with a certain amount of forward speed and is not an approved manoeuvre as there is a distinct danger of running over the side into the sea. It does, however, reduce the reliance on the reaction controls and might give me the option to overshoot and try again if the controls jammed.

I selected my undercarriage and flaps to the landing position, tightened my lap straps and set myself up for a straight-in approach to the back end of the ship, from about one mile out. As I got closer, everyone on the flight deck started to creep forwards to get a better view of the impending arrival. This worried me somewhat as, if I had lost control, I might have taken a lot of people with me. I transmitted a short call to that effect to the ship and the flight deck crews soon got the message and headed rapidly for the comparative safety of the catwalks on either deck edge!

I stabilised the speed at 50 knots and adjusted the power and nozzle angle to give me a gentle rate of descent towards the stern of the carrier. Slight adjustments were required to compensate for the rise and fall of the deck but I managed to achieve a good firm touchdown about 50 feet in and braked cautiously to a halt before following the marshaller's signals to park at the base of the ski-jump. As the chain lashings were attached and I started my shut-down checks, I became aware that I was sweating profusely, despite the biting 30 knot wind whipping in through the open cockpit canopy. The adrenalin flow also made it difficult to unstrap and undo the various connections to the ejection seat, before standing up to leave the cockpit. Outside, on the windswept and slippery deck stood a crowd of people staring at my tail. Having given a thumbs-up to Bernard Hesketh, the BBC cameraman, I walked a little un-steadily round the tail of the aircraft to inspect the damage...."

Source: http://www.globalaviationresource.com/r ... rganp1.php

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 11:59
by bring_it_on
Test Plan To Cut F-35B Rolling Landing Risk

While early sea trials of the Joint Strike Fighter have focused on ship suitability for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, a wave of upcoming tests are about to evaluate roles geared primarily for U.K. operations of the Lockheed Martin F-35B short-takeoff-and-vertical landing (Stovl) version.

Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and U.S. and U.K. military test units are set to begin an intensive second phase of envelope expansion flights using the ski jump ramp at the U.S. NAS Patuxent River, Maryland, site in the build-up to trials with the ramp-configured U.K. Royal Navy’s new HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier in 2018-19. In addition, a new round of work is about to further refine techniques for the shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique in development for the U.K. and potentially other F-35B operators.

The ski jump tests are aimed at risk-reduction measures “as well as some development to make sure it works as advertised,” says BAE Systems lead F-35B Stovl test pilot Peter “Wizzer” Wilson. Speaking to Aviation Week at the Society of Experimental Test Pilots symposium in Anaheim, California, Wilson says only three takeoffs have so far been made using the ramp at Patuxent River, “but we have a backlog of over 100 to clear that capability, so we have quite a long way to go.”

The ski jump idea was conceived in the 1970s as a means of improving the slow-speed-takeoff performance of the Harrier from a ship’s deck. However, unlike the Harrier, which has a separate inceptor for controlling the angle of the nozzles that vector engine thrust for short takeoffs, the operation of the F-35’s lift system is automatic. “There was the potential for cognitive errors in the Harrier that led to failures,” says Wilson. The Harrier ski jump takeoff technique required pilots to move the nozzle control lever to vector thrust down as the aircraft exited the deck. However, pilots would sometimes accidentally move back the throttle lever instead.

“A few people didn’t fly away from that. With the F-35B that cognitive action has been designed out,” says Wilson. Like the push-button command which enables the aircraft to reconfigure from forward flight to Stovl operation, “It has become remarkably simple thanks to the cleverness of the airplane,” he adds. For a ski jump takeoff the pilot lines up, advances the throttle and maintains alignment with the main nozzle fully aft. When the ramp is reached, rate sensors on the aircraft recognize the change in attitude and deploy the nozzles to the appropriate vectoring angle. Once airborne, weight-on-wheels sensors signal the flight control system to reconfigure the aircraft for up-and-away flight.

Future F-35B testing also includes completion of external stores trials. “We haven’t completed that in Stovl mode and [have] not yet completed it in up-and-away mode, particularly at high alpha [angle-of-attack],” he adds. “Nor have we gone to the maximum speeds yet that you can go to with external stores. So nearly every flight we do now is with external stores, either symmetric or asymmetric,” says Wilson. Several tests include takeoffs with asymmetric loads to enable recoveries in conditions that simulate the return from a mission with expended weapons.

External weapons testing will also form part of the focus for a third set of F-35B sea trials provisionally planned for the second half of 2016. The aircraft was last taken to sea in May for the first shipboard phase of operational testing for the Marine Corps on the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD-1). “We are not sure yet which LHD ship it will be, but the objectives for the third entry to sea will be to do external weapons testing, and get some motion on the carrier, so we’ll be looking for (high) sea state,” says Wilson.

The work will also include more night-flight and performance testing, including deliberately slower-than-normal takeoffs from the deck to assess tolerance to errors. Wilson expects the margin to be satisfactory because of the F-35B’s slow speed lift capability, despite its relatively small wing. “The aircraft does well at slow speed because of the amount of lift you get off the wing. You are getting 1,000s of pounds of lift at speeds you would drive your car at.”

The U.K. in particular is counting on this lift performance for successful development of its SRVL technique, which will be used to increase the “bring-back” weight of stores and fuel the F-35B will be able to land with on the ship. In SRVL, the aircraft will be brought in to land in hover mode but with sufficient forward, or “overtake” speed to generate useful lift. Target landing speed will be around 30 kt., which when added to the ship’s forward speed and headwind of more than 30 kt., will be the equivalent of a 60 kt.-plus landing speed.

Although the U.K.’s F-35Bs are expected to be capable of bringing back a typical internal weapons load of around 5,000 lb., the SRVL technique is under development to boost that by over 2,000 lb. for high temperature conditions. The added capacity will allow the aircraft to return with large pylon-mounted weapons, such as the U.K.’s Storm Shadow standoff, air-launched missile.

“We have not yet done the equivalent of a SRVL, though we have done a lot in the simulator,” says Wilson, who adds that an intensive simulator trial is planned at BAE Systems in Warton, England, in the last quarter to “massively derisk the problems.” The tests will use the combined high-fidelity Queen Elizabeth carrier simulator with the program-level F-35B simulator to fly SRVL approaches using the aircraft’s Delta path system. Similar to the Magic Carpet approach system developed for the F-35C, the F-35B’s autopilot is designed to hold a 6-deg. descent angle, or gamma, toward a touchdown spot on the deck. The pilot will be aided in the task of laterally steering by visual cues including a ship-referenced velocity vector shown on the Helmet-Mounted Display System and the Bedford Array lighting system in the deck, which provides a gyro-stabilized glidepath alignment cue and a forward and aft limit line.

Trials will also look at two potential concerns with the SRVL, namely pilot workload and failure cases. The latter, says Wilson, are “critical to us so you can retain the mode you want to use despite the fact that you have failures in the air.” Then once on the deck, the relatively narrow landing path (between parked aircraft, vehicles and other deck objects) and limited stopping distance means “you can’t afford to burst a tire too often. I’m concerned about the possibility of a tire burst and whether you can keep it straight on touchdown. The simulations suggest we’ll be OK as long as we limit our speed, so we will have a maximum overtake speed. We don’t know what that will be yet but it is on the order of 40 kt.,” says Wilson.

Lockheed Martin also revealed details of a recently introduced change to the flight control software for the F-35B, to correct a problem discovered during envelope expansion of the conversion from conventional flight to Stovl mode. Following the push of a Stovl conversion button, the 15-sec. sequence normally starts with the opening of all Stovl doors and the propulsion system preparing to engage the clutch. With all doors open, the clutch engages to spin the lift fan up to engine speed. Once the speeds are matched, a mechanical lock is engaged to remove the torque load from the clutch and permit operation to full lift fan power. After the lock engages, the propulsion system responds to aircraft commands.

During testing at 250 kt. in a turn at elevated angle of attack, however, the pilot received a caution that the process had halted because the lift fan exhaust doors would not close. The situation was rectified by flying straight and level. Post-test analysis showed the actuators controlling the doors had been overcome by the air loads acting on the belly of the aircraft.

“The solution in the longer term is to open the nose gear doors as a spoiler. This disrupts the airflow over the lift fan exhaust doors in such a way that they don’t stall,” says Wilson. “The pilot still pushes the conversion button and the nose gear doors will open automatically if the speed is above 200 kt. This change is in the software we are flying today and, although we’ve not flown all the test points, the early indications are very promising,” he adds.


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 14:41
by spazsinbad
Many thanks for this FULL article 'brungITback'.

The AvWeakers have made an edited version available now for the NON AvWeakerSubHumanScribers. :mrgreen: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35b-t ... nding-risk
"This is a summary of the article "Test Plan To Cut F-35B Rolling Landing Risk". Click here to read the full article, which reveals more technical detail behind the trials, available to subscribers only."

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 01 Nov 2015, 11:08
by spazsinbad
More of this artickle with a 5 page PDF attachment here: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=28046&p=308002&hilit=sylvia#p308002

2.4Mb PDF: download/file.php?id=22014
ALL AT SEA F-35B/F-35C test update
SHOWCASE 2016 SYLVIA PIERSON AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL

"......WET RUNWAY, BRAKING VALIDATION AND HIGH CROSSWIND TESTING
ITF testers proved the aircraft can stop safely in extreme weather conditions and validated the aircraft envelope out to a 25-knot crosswind with high asymmetric air-to-ground loadings. Even in a maximum asymmetry configuration (up to 26,000 lb·ft) with weapons stores on one wing, the aircraft performed well – in fact, the high asymmetry and crosswind
required little additional attention from the pilot....

...F-35 STOVL MODE TESTING
The PAX ITF continued to expand the STOVL envelope last year in the clean wing configuration and with symmetric and asymmetric external stores. Flying qualities testing featured semi-jet, short take-off and jetborne modes to clear the aircraft for take-off and landings and airspeeds as low as 70kts with 24,000 lb of asymmetry and jet borne with 10,000 lb of asymmetry. The team performed rolling vertical landings (RVL), creeping vertical landings (CVL), vertical landings (VL), high altitude CVLs and VLs, slow landings (SL), and short take-off (STO) tests with nominal winds and crosswinds of up to 25kts. Test pilots reported that flying qualities during asymmetric testing were nearly identical to those in symmetric testing...."

Source: SHOWCASE 2016 AEROSPACE TESTING INTERNATIONAL

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2016, 10:56
by spazsinbad
Some info from another forum (from DEFaero but cannot find it) about SRVL as well as Ski Jump testing tacked on below.

FOUND IT: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -2018.html
UK F-35Bs "On Schedule" to Enter Service In 2018
(Source: British Forces News; posted Jan 21, 2016)

"The jump jets for Britain's new aircraft carriers are on schedule to enter service in 2018, according to a written parliamentary statement by the Minister for Defence Procurement.

Philip Dunne also announced that shipborne landing tests of the F-35B Lightning II fighter began from a mock-up of the ski ramp on the new carriers in the US in 2015, with 20 test launches having taken place by the end of the year.

He added that the programme of test launches from the land-based ramp is scheduled to be completed in late 2017, with shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) testing to begin on HMS Queen Elizabeth from the following year.

While it isn't the jump jet version we'll see on Britain's aircraft carriers, the performance in the air and the stealth technology are the same. ????????????????????????????????? [Have no idea what this is about] (ends)

Parliamentary Written Questions
(Source: compiled by Defense-Aerospace.com; posted Jan 22, 2016)

"PARIS --- Douglas Chapman, the Member of Parliament for Dunfermline and West Fife in Scotland, on Jan. 13 asked the Ministry of Defence two questions about the service introduction of the F-35B.

His questions and Philip Dunne’s replies are as follows:
-- To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department has commenced a programme of testing shipborne rolling vertical landing of the F35B Lightning II.

Answered by: Mr Philip Dunne on 20 January 2016:
“Shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) testing will begin during the UK's F-35B first of class flying trials, which are scheduled to take place aboard HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH from 2018. SRVL testing is scheduled for completion in 2020. A programme of SRVL simulation testing will continue until first of class flying trials begin.”

“F-35B ski ramp jump testing at Naval Air Station Patuxent River began in 2015 and, as at 31 December 2015, 20 test launches had successfully been completed. The programme of test launches from the land-based ski jump ramp is scheduled to be completed in late 2017.”

Source: http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.c ... 132/type/0

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2016, 17:57
by stobiewan
Well, according to this, US carrier decks are four inches thick and the UK carriers only have one inch thick decks to they'll melt like runny cheese. It's written by a pilot and *everything*.

http://sharkeysworld2.blogspot.co.uk/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2016, 19:31
by spazsinbad
Deck thickness referenced before at the time 2013, especially LHA decks, by 'quicksilver' here:

LHA/D mods to operate F-35 viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24053&p=254045&hilit=thick+ward#p254045

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 04:29
by lookieloo
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016 ... acity.html

Looks like SRVL isn't just for the F-35B now.

The Navy is tweaking takeoff and landing procedures to increase the cargo load of its helicopter of the future -- the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey.

Helicopter Test Squadron 21 performed nine days of tests in October aboard the aircraft carrier USS Eisenhower, said Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Billy Ray Brown. The team flew 25.6 flight hours, performing 69 short take-offs and minimum run-on landings. This maneuver is used to transition from forward flight to a landing when there may not be sufficient power available to sustain a hover as might be the case when the helicopter/airplane hybrid is at high gross weight.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 04:49
by spazsinbad
Good to know - we have a V-22 MROL thread here: Nov 2015 Latest example but there are many others - search on MROL

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=23690&p=308836&hilit=MROL#p308836

OLD MROL INFO here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=23690&p=250993&hilit=MROL#p250993
&
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=195783&hilit=MROL#p195783
OR
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=176554&hilit=MROL#p176554

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17415.html (1.1Mb) This link to PDF still works - praise be.... to download this PDF from here, original link does not work from here: http://www.vtol.org/f65_bestPapers/test ... uation.pdf

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 09:26
by stobiewan
spazsinbad wrote:Deck thickness referenced before at the time 2013, especially LHA decks, by 'quicksilver' here:

LHA/D mods to operate F-35 viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24053&p=254045&hilit=thick+ward#p254045



Cheers - I have my head in my hands after reading that article - Ward really seems to like making stuff up (US carriers launch and recover at forty knots apparently, which might be a surprise to some USN guys here..)

I'm all for healthy debate but making stuff up isn't it.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 09:44
by spazsinbad
I have said this before: I will always have a healthy respect for Sharkey Ward and his deeds in the Falklands War - before and after. However since his retirement and lapse into early dotage he does seem to 'make things up'. Which is sad indeed. Sharkey does not seem to realise that in the age of the internet it is easy to fact check - there is no point in 'making things up'. Anyway that blog post is some three years old. Sharkey appears to have left the stage; but I have not been looking for any new 'made up stuff' either.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 10:32
by stobiewan
Absolutely - I read Sea Harrier with avid attention and have every respect for his service in the conflict. However, when you're still posting costs for an aircraft at near $200 million when it's a matter of public record that they're rather less....that sort of easily verifiable error doesn't serve debate well.

Neither do I understand why the Superhornet can take off and land on a CVF while F35C can't (because it's been designed to work off US carriers doing 40 + knots)

I don't know if Lt Cdr Ward is still in circulation - things appear to have been quiet since 2013 - I wish him well in his retirement.

On a positive note, I may get a back stage pass for the QE at some point - I'm not counting my chickens etc but it's a possibility I could get included on a tour. Fingers crossed eh?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2016, 10:42
by spazsinbad
A couple of repeat videos to get you in the mood 'stobiewan opencanopy' :-) good luck with the tour....




Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 01:45
by quicksilver
Good that the handling qualities are so good.

Some subtle items to note for future reference --

Watch the first video from the 1:24 mark to the 1:29 mark. Take note of the position of the velocity vector (or if you prefer, flight path marker). The vv/fpm is the 3/4 circle with the wings and tail on it, and indicates a roughly 5.5 degrees flight path with a projected touchdown point left of the tram centerline at the 1:24 start.

It remains left of the tram until the pilot makes a gentle 'right for line-up' correction at about 1:26-1:27 mark. Note the continued right hand drift of the vv/fpm until the video ends at the 1:29 mark. That drift is indicative of the principal aircraft vector at touchdown; it is not aligned with the tram. That will be something they address as flight test continues. Will be interesting to see what kind of wind star and ship motion limits are imposed.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 01:53
by spazsinbad
Thanks for explanation 'QS'. That part of the mentioned video was tacked on at the end from this short bit - sadly not good quality - however I'll slow it down to one eighth speed and add the slomo version here soon. Screen grab added now.

This is the slightly edited (time line removed) 'quicksilver' remarks added here for ease of reading with video.
"Take note of the position of the velocity vector (or if you prefer, flight path marker). The vv/fpm is the 3/4 circle with the wings and tail on it, and indicates a roughly 5.5 degrees flight path with a projected touchdown point left of the tram centerline at the start. It remains left of the tram until the pilot makes a gentle 'right for line-up' correction. Note the continued right hand drift of the vv/fpm until the video ends. That drift is indicative of the principal aircraft vector at touchdown; it is not aligned with the tram. That will be something they address as flight test continues. Will be interesting to see what kind of wind star and ship motion limits are imposed."


I have no experience with HUDs or Velocity Vectors VV. What difference will be seen or is seen with F-35B/C SRVV Ship Referenced Velocity Vector? I'll assume that is what we see in this video clip? I have and there are many HUD videos for conventional carrier approaches on YouTube. I'll have one below as an example. Third (best) example below SIM Video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L26QsWpuqrw & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw1RDzll9_Q




Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 02:35
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:Thanks for explanation 'QS'. That part of the mentioned video was tacked on at the end from this short bit - sadly not good quality - however I'll slow it down to one eighth speed and add the slomo version here soon. Screen grab added now.

This is the slightly edited (time line removed) 'quicksilver' remarks added here for ease of reading with video.
"Take note of the position of the velocity vector (or if you prefer, flight path marker). The vv/fpm is the 3/4 circle with the wings and tail on it, and indicates a roughly 5.5 degrees flight path with a projected touchdown point left of the tram centerline at the start. It remains left of the tram until the pilot makes a gentle 'right for line-up' correction. Note the continued right hand drift of the vv/fpm until the video ends. That drift is indicative of the principal aircraft vector at touchdown; it is not aligned with the tram. That will be something they address as flight test continues. Will be interesting to see what kind of wind star and ship motion limits are imposed."


I have no experience with HUDs or Velocity Vectors VV. What difference will be seen or is seen with the SRVV Ship Referenced Velocity Vector? I'll assume that is what we see in this video clip? I have and there are many HUD videos for conventional carrier approaches on YouTube. I'll have one below as an example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L26QsWpuqrw & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw1RDzll9_Q



Note sure what 'stuff' they had enabled for the creation of this video. Also dont know who was flying, nor the WOD (in either velocity or relative direction). SRVV integrates ship velocities (straight ahead) but not sure about "body motion" like vessel pitch and roll.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 02:38
by spazsinbad
Yes I was just thinking that the simulation clip could have been any old test clip and not indicative of an 'ideal' approach. At/near the beginning of this thread (or maybe elsewhere) there is an explanation of what is taken into account - I'll look.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 02:59
by quicksilver
The deviations are not large and the correction applied suggests this pilot wasnt the Mayor on a community relations tour.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 03:01
by spazsinbad
'QS' I get that testing is a serious business and no one mucks around but they do test situations that are not always ideal.

Back on page four of this thread there is one of the simplest best explanations of the Bedford Array by an USN LSO. The reference PDFs no longer exist online for public viewing but may be available in USN LSO non-public website. Dunno.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=240022&hilit=Radocaj#p240022
What the Future Beholds...
Aug 2011 Dan "Butters" Radocaj Test Pilot/LSO VX-23 Ship Suitability Paddles Monthly August 2011

"...We may also need to add another lens-type glideslope indicator. One idea is called a Bedford Array. You can see in Figure 1 that a Bedford Array is like a lens spread of over the length of the LA. Unlike an IFLOLS which has 12 cells that are always on to create a glideslope reference, the Bedford Array is a set of Christmas lights and only the light corresponding to current position of the touchdown point is illuminated. Just as the dynamic touchdown point moves across the deck on the LSODS screen, the Bedford Array lights would “move” forward and back across the deck corresponding to the dynamic touchdown point. Figure 2 [I'll find that graphic soon] shows what your HUD may look like. You keep the ship stabilized velocity vector on top of the Bedford light that is illuminated. The datum is a reference line in your HUD. As long as the 3 all line up you are on glide path.

A Bedford Array and a ship stabilized velocity are indicators of glideslope that will show you if you are off glideslope more precisely but they still don’t make the airplane respond differently...."

Source: http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... st2011.pdf (2.2Mb)

Another repeat of the view from page 14 this thread: download/file.php?id=18075&t=1

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 03:12
by quicksilver
We've talked about this before Spaz. Glideslope is not off-axis motion relative to tram centerline at touchdown.

You should also note that the reference moves forward and back with no mention of lateral motion.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 03:27
by quicksilver
Many aircraft have 'ghost vectors' (my term) for wind-corrected VVs that would aid in these kind of approaches as long as the VV and the landing area remain within the HUD FOV.

STOVL jets become more sensitive to crosswinds as they get slower and tend to weather-vane, moving the nose (longitudinal axis) out of alignment with the landing area. Thus, at sea or in any confined area landing (like an SRVL) precision alignment of the aircraft VV with the axis of the landing area is critical; not impossible, simply far more important than it might be on a runway of 75 or 100' width.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 04:28
by spazsinbad
Just lost a long reply so this will be brief. There is a runway crosswidg landing F-35B video which shows the 'weather-vane' issue - some examples seen have large corrections at/just before touchdown. I'll guess many conditions/techniques tried. Pilot reports at time say that it was 'easier than expected' but that is very vague. I'll make a 'short example video' soon.

Anyone know the width of the CVF landing lane? Buehler? Anyone? I do not recall what it is now.

CVF will create wind down the axial deck or within known limits so crosswinds - if any - will always be within limits. Lateral ship motion is unknown and I have yet to get to any detailed explanation of SRVL as mentioned earlier (or in lost post - 'Wizzer' Wilson is one author, he being an expert). Limits will become known at least to the F-35B community on CVF and whether this becomes public knowledge I have no idea - probably not. One reason why LSO Newsletters gone....?

Below is an example of the 'Six Degrees of Freedom' of ship movement issue during any deck landing. AND CVN roll limit for aircraft ops as seen on page 9 of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=242815&hilit=roll#p242815
RN weather experts prepare for new carriers with US Navy
09 Nov 2013 noodls

"...For any carrier operations wind is needed to blow over the deck in order to launch and recover aircraft - typically 20 to 30 knots (38-55km/h) aboard the USS Harry S Truman. For safe operations there must be a minimal crosswind and a ship's roll of no more than two degrees...."

Source: http://www.noodls.com/view/3FBA6956CA64 ... EB4B916EFB

I think this NOW OLD LSO Reference Manual is on this forum now as an attachment?
LANDING SIGNAL OFFICER REFERENCE MANUAL (REV. B) 1999
entry on this thread pg 09 viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=242819&hilit=Reference#p242819

"...1.2.6 Effects of Deck Motion. During flight operations, deck motion seldom exceeds ±1.5 degrees pitch, ±2.2 degrees in roll, and 5.5 feet in heave...."

Source: http://www.sludgehornet.com/downloads/N ... bs/LSO.pdf (5.5Mb) No Longer Available there


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 05:08
by spazsinbad
On previous page 'stobiewan' mentioned the 'Sharkey' Ward concern for melting decks. UK FAA Engineer comment about CVN Decks page 9 this thread: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=242947&hilit=MELT#p242947
‘How Carrier operations Work’
Steve George BSc MSc CEng FRAeS Cdr RN

"...[31] The steel that is used to build CVN flight decks is specially toughened and treated to resist the thermal and mechanical loads without bending or cracking. Its composition is a closely guarded secret and it is made to special order only for the USN."

Source: http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/2012/03 ... #_ftnref31 OR
http://www.phoenixthinktank.org/wp-cont ... opsPTT.pdf (4.5Mb) as expected no workee - another title of same or similar material is "'The Particular Mechanics of Carrier Aviation'"

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 11:24
by quicksilver
Good video that captures the weather-vaning of the jet as it gets slower. In some instances the crab angle is large enough that the pilot is viewing the landing area outside the HUD FOV (or what we would have called a quarter-panel before one-piece windscreens). In other words, the HMD FOV does not overlay the intended touchdown point during the approach since the primary flight references are aligned with a vertical axis that runs through the water line symbol (the little 'W' near the heading scale toward the top of the HUD display), or more simply -- the nose of the aircraft and where it's pointed.

Notice also that they land in a crab and the jet aligns itself with the principle aircraft vector at touchdown -- that's the little 'dance' it does after touchdown on some of the landings. An alternative is to kick out the crab angle just before touchdown. However, that induces some sporty aircraft movement in ground effect that is not conducive to the kind of stability and predictability that one wants in aircraft motion before we plant the 20 ton jet on a flight deck at 40-ish knots with little/no restraint other than brakes and NWS. The nose will also tend to wander on its own in ground effect due to the interaction of the reflected jet efflux from the landing surface. The good news is there is plenty of control bandwidth in yaw because the primary effector is the main engine nozzle.

The wind envelope for SRVL recoveries are going to be somewhat more restricted (down the deck plus or minus a little) in order to minimize crab angle during the approach and touchdown and enhance the ability of fleet-average pilots to have the thing aligned with the tram at touchdown.

Interesting also that the intended touchdown point is not further aft. I suspect this is done in order to minimize the effects of ship motion both during the approach and after touchdown.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 12:07
by spazsinbad
Yes I'll imagine that the cross winds will be minimised for any SRVLs. Have yet to reach the more detailed explanations from 'Wizzer' et al. However the details are still obscure even then but their explanations show all the points to consider that 'QS' has outlined. The landing spot does have to be within a maximum & minimum for safety - so there is room to stop and NOT hit the ramp. No one is going to suggest that an SRVL is safer than a VL - but I can only guess for both instances.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 12:16
by spazsinbad
Long article but just an excerpt about LSO involvement in SRVLs for safety:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=265072&hilit=Consultant#p265072 ( both on p 15 this thread)

Entire article here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=265112&hilit=Consultant#p265112

Two years ago a detailed report about SRVLs by Wizzer & others was available starting here page 16 of this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=265248&hilit=Integration#p265248 Graphics below....

Here is the start of the section in this thread on page 17 of the FLEXIBLE SRVL Manuever....

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=266730&hilit=Development#p266730
Development of the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) Manoeuvre for the F-35B Aircraft
5-7 Oct 2010 Richard Cook, SRVL Project Lead; David Atkinson, F-35 Safety Manager; Richard Milla, Lead Aerodynamicist; Nigel Revill, Senior Specialist Aerodynamics; Peter Wilson, F-35 Test Pilot

"...For an SRVL, speeds in the region of 25 to 35 knots faster than the ship’s groundspeed are typically used, where this parameter is referred to as the ‘overtake’. Typical airspeeds are in the range 50 to 80 knots, depending on the magnitude of the wind over deck (WoD)..."
&
"...THE FLEXIBLE SRVL MANOEUVRE
The activities performed by TJSF using the tools described previously, coordinated with other SRVL stakeholders led to the development of the flexible manoeuvre. This describes how a SRVL recovery is flown to the QEC Carrier, starting from the point the pilot commands deceleration to the touchdown speed. Prior to this point the aircrafts flight-path is the same whether an SRVL or VL is intended. The manoeuvre is segmented to separate pilot tasks to eliminate peaks in workload, see figure 7. These are notionally described as:

• Plateau: Level flight at 200ft altitude to achieve line-up and monitor deceleration

• Pushover: Initiate descent based on glideslope

• Short finals: Maintain descent using HMD symbology and VLA to achieve desired landing point

• Landing: Un-flared touchdown on main landing gear, de-rotation and propulsion system spool-down to ground idle

• Rollout: Application of brakes to achieve taxi speed and clear the runway

The term ‘flexible’ refers to how bring-back performance is optimised for differing external conditions by allowing the settings for an individual recovery to be varied within the system constraints. Specifically the settings for the VLA, described below, are variable as well the aircraft related parameters of airspeed, glide-slope angle and pitch trim...."
&
The summary mentions this...:
"...• At a conceptual level, no fundamental safety issues preventing SRVL were identified, however a number of safety hazards were identified and needed to be addressed during manoeuvre development. These are referred to later in the paper by the numerical identifiers below:

1. Aircraft collision with the stern of the carrier; termed ‘stern ramp strike’.

2. Main engine nozzle clearance to the carrier deck at point of touchdown; the combination of aircraft pitch angle and nozzle angle at point of touchdown means the relative vector angle of the nozzle to the carrier deck is approximately
vertical placing the two in close proximity.

3. Exceedance of the landing gear or carrier deck strength capability at touchdown.

4. Insufficient stopping distance after touchdown during roll-out potentially resulting in a ‘bolter’.

5. Main landing gear tyre burst prior to, or at touchdown resulting in wide lateral deviation during roll-out down the carrier deck.

• Simulator trials and analysis identified that a bolter manoeuvre is feasible after SRVL, however it is not a suitable response to aircraft technical failures. It is always safer to attempt to stop with the exception of a long landing when the pilot judges that stopping is not possible.

• The QEC straight deck take-off runway was selected for recovery of SRVL as opposed to the angled deck layout. The bolter conclusion was also a factor in this decision because the ski-jump provides additional stopping distance in an emergency...." [bolter?]

Source: https://vtol.org/store/product/developm ... t-9024.cfm

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 13:11
by spazsinbad
Page 18 of this thread has info from the above main explanation PDF (by 'Wizzer') about cross wind limitations etc.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=269333&hilit=stern#p269333
Development of the Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) Manoeuvre for the F-35B Aircraft
5-7 Oct 2010 Richard Cook, SRVL Project Lead; David Atkinson, F-35 Safety Manager; Richard Milla, Lead Aerodynamicist; Nigel Revill, Senior Specialist Aerodynamics; Peter Wilson, F-35 Test Pilot

"...Hazards 1 to 4; stern ramp strike, main nozzle clearance to deck, Landing Gear (LG) loads exceedance and deck roll over-run represent constraints in the longitudinal plane with a direct effect on aircraft performance and are the focus of the following section.

Hazard 5; excessive aircraft deviation on deck due to tyre burst is a constraint in the lateral plane and does not directly form part of the aircraft performance calculations. The other lateral axis issue considered in developing the SRVL manoeuvre is the effect of cross-wind and determination of potential cross-wind limits.

Simulated SRVL recoveries with a cross-wind have shown that lateral touchdown scatter increases which is also a contributor to excessive deviation on deck. Recovery in a cross wind causes landing with an aircraft yaw angle relative to the carrier deck which generates landing gear side loads, which is another consideration in setting cross wind limits.

The following section focuses on performance optimisation in the longitudinal plane within the constraints defined by safety hazards 1 to 4.

QEC CARRIER SHIP MOTION & AMBIENT WIND
Ship motion parameters and ambient wind (speed and direction relative to ship heading) are key external conditions in determining whether SRVL is possible and, if possible, the maximum achievable gross weight for recovery....

...SRVL OPTIMISATION METHODOLOGY
A methodology has been determined that utilises the ship, aircraft and day type, applies the appropriate constraints, respects the manoeuvre design risk targets and optimises each SRVL recovery to achieve maximum bring-back. All
calculations within the methodology are consistent with those used on the baseline F-35B Program.

By linking ship motion parameters and ambient wind speed to sea state and by defining ship motion parameters across the full range of ship speed, ship-to-wave heading and sea state, the methodology becomes a two-dimensional optimisation based on solving overtake speed and glideslope angle. The specification of a set of input conditions (aircraft CG, day type, sea state, ship speed and ship-to-wave heading) leaves overtake speed and glideslope angle as the undefined parameters in the SRVL setup calculations.

Both overtake speed and glideslope angle are constrained to defined ranges, therefore solving the SRVL set-up calculations for every permissible combination of those two variables allows the maximum achievable bring-back to be found for the specified input conditions. Iteration on input conditions then allows a complete definition of performance capability envelopes to be built-up for a given aircraft CG and day type. This method provides a robust optimisation approach that always achieves maximum capability and provides sensitivity information within the solution space....

...PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISATION
...The maximum achievable bring-back occurs at maximum ship speed in head seas (180° wind / wave heading) because of this has the maximum WoD available. The greater the value of the WoD available means the airspeed can be increased for a given overtake speed and as already described, aircraft performance is directly proportional to airspeed. The contour plots show that the maximum achievable SRVL bring-back weight is a function of ship speed and heading....

...CONCLUSION...
...This concept, termed the flexible manoeuvre, in conjunction with a VLA providing a stabilised glideslope indication are the key to maximising potential SRVL capability over largest range of conditions, particularly for achieving safe SRVL recoveries in higher sea states.

The flexible manoeuvre is explained in terms of pilot technique and the methodology for balancing the multiple constraints limiting SRVL recovery. The methodology maximises SRVL bring-back for a given set of conditions through optimisation whilst addressing the safety hazards identified during SRVL evolution through design risk targets....

...A graphical representation of SRVL performance capability was presented to highlight key relationships and trends with ship motion, sea state and WoD; however the subject of conveying SRVL data accurately, succinctly and in a way that could be carried forward into an operational scenario is a subject in it’s own right.

SRVL development must continue with further analysis, simulation and systems integration of all stakeholders involved; through to First of Class Flight Trials for F-35B and the QEC carrier with a formal set of requirements to qualify and accept against."

SOURCE: https://vtol.org/store/product/developm ... t-9024.cfm

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 13:29
by spazsinbad
Again on p 18 of this thread there is an answer to how wide is the landing lane perhaps "...more than 13 meters/42 feet".

Again below from page 20 is info about the testing of SRVL for various pilot experience levels etc.... And again on page 20 a good explanation at: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=275767&hilit=Countdown#p275767
ANALYSIS: UK aircraft carrier nears programme milestone
02 May 2014 Craig Hoyle

"...The scale of the new-generation vessel is underlined first by taking the 110 steps from dock-side to its flight deck, and then by surveying the latter. Roughly 300m (984ft) long and 73m across at its widest point, this “four acres of sovereign real estate” includes the vessel’s signature “ski-jump” ramp, installed from late last year. Approximately 61m long and over 13m wide [42 feet], this will assist with launching the carrier’s future strike capability: the short take-off and vertical landing F-35B.... [GRAPHICS suggest the landing lane is wider than the ski jump width - so I'll guess 50 feet?]

...The entire flightdeck will eventually be coated with a thermal metal spray, similar to that used in the offshore oil and gas sector. This will feature a unique rough finish, which will last significantly longer than traditional deck paint, which proved inadequate during previous at-sea testing conducted with the US Marine Corps. It will also provide the increased grip essential for aircraft landing using the UK-developed shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique, says Eddie Trott, aviation and platform lead (STOVL reversion) for the Aircraft Carrier Alliance...." [Not sure what is meant by the 'inadequate' jibe but anyway]

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... ne-398781/

F-35 and Carrier Integration: A test pilot's perspective
15 Jul 2014 BAE Systems PLC

"F-35 test pilot Pete Kosogorin reveals how our simulation facilities are playing a crucial role integrating the F-35B aircraft with the HMS Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier. A dedicated simulation facility at our site in Lancashire is allowing pilots and engineers to ‘fly’ the F-35B short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) aircraft to and from the deck of the Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers. The multi-million facility has been playing a critical role ensuring the smooth integration of the F-35B aircraft with the QEC Carriers. Ultimately this will assist UK pilots in landing aircraft which are expected to carry at least twice the payload of the Harrier....

...“There are various shipborne systems [Bedford Array & SRVV - Ship Referenced Velocity Vector] that will help the pilot when landing, particularly in high sea states when the conditions are challenging and the deck is moving around quite a bit – or at night when there is limited visibility.

“But the simulator work hasn’t just been about developing the flight controls software in the aircraft, it’s also about finding out how to fly and carry out certain manoeuvres, and working out various flying techniques such as shipborne rolling vertical landing. We’ve brought together a cross-section of individuals to do that, from very experienced Harrier pilots with legacy experience to US Navy conventional F18 pilots, and also Royal Navy and other Airforce pilots who have no shipborne or STOVL experience. This has ensured the design is optimised for all levels of ability.”

Source: http://www.asdnews.com/news-55973/F-35_ ... ective.htm

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 13:59
by spazsinbad
I would like to know more about this aspect of the throttle - TOP of page 21 entry:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=276182&hilit=Krumenacker#p276182
"...– STOVL on-ground power braking force gradient..."

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 14:25
by quicksilver
On the ground (and in the air), the jet can direct the vane box nozzle (vanes) and the main engine exhaust forward of the vertical for the purpose of slowing the jet down; on the ground, it's not unlike what an airliner does after touchdown. The mechanisms are different but the concept is the same.

Harrier can do the same thing, but it's manual, of course. In F-35 the pilot moves (pulls) the throttle aft out of the detent position that is commanded when the jet converts to mode 4. Movement aft out of the detent while airborne tells the jet that the pilot wants to decelerate, and the jet adjusts the vector of the vane box vanes, the main engine, and adjusts thrust levels to maintain the current flight condition as the jet decelerates. On the ground, it simply directs the thrust forward. The further aft the throttle is pulled the more the jet decelerates. I dont know the limiting angles, conditions or ETR limits that govern its use.

If you look at the still image at the front of the final approach video that includes the HUD symbology, the little aircraft symbol in the lower left of the HUD tells the pilot both vavbn and main engine nozzle angles as well as the current ETR (engine thrust request; the throttle doesnt command an RPM, it commands a thrust level).

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jan 2016, 19:54
by spazsinbad
I'm wondering if this 'engine brake' on the ground will be utilised in an SRVL? Probably not I suppose because the engine will go to ground idle (WOW switch) during computer controlled non-skid braking on deck - which should be short & sweet. There is a screen grab (lower left corner) in this thread (repeated below) showing the nozzle angles as seen on the PCD.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2016, 00:09
by spazsinbad
Now on bottom of page 21 of this thread we can see how the A & C variants have been tested on wet runways etc. So I'll guess the B has undergone similar testing: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=303854&hilit=Salty#p303854
__________________________

On page 22 there are links on how to get the SRVL & Ski Jump info that has been collected up to recently:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=303873&hilit=supporting#p303873
__________________________

On page 23 some SRVL test clarifications (quote from longer text article): viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=305643&hilit=focused#p305643
Test Plan To Cut F-35B Rolling Landing Risk
08 Oct 2015 Guy Norris

"...“We have not yet done the equivalent of a SRVL, though we have done a lot in the simulator,” says Wilson, who adds that an intensive simulator trial is planned at BAE Systems in Warton, England, in the last quarter to “massively derisk the problems.” The tests will use the combined high-fidelity Queen Elizabeth carrier simulator with the program-level F-35B simulator to fly SRVL approaches using the aircraft’s Delta path system. Similar to the Magic Carpet approach system developed for the F-35C, the F-35B’s autopilot is designed to hold a 6-deg. descent angle, or gamma, toward a touchdown spot on the deck. The pilot will be aided in the task of laterally steering by visual cues including a ship-referenced velocity vector shown on the Helmet-Mounted Display System and the Bedford Array lighting system in the deck, which provides a gyro-stabilized glidepath alignment cue and a forward and aft limit line.

Trials will also look at two potential concerns with the SRVL, namely pilot workload and failure cases. The latter, says Wilson, are “critical to us so you can retain the mode you want to use despite the fact that you have failures in the air.” Then once on the deck, the relatively narrow landing path (between parked aircraft, vehicles and other deck objects) and limited stopping distance means “you can’t afford to burst a tire too often. I’m concerned about the possibility of a tire burst and whether you can keep it straight on touchdown. The simulations suggest we’ll be OK as long as we limit our speed, so we will have a maximum overtake speed. We don’t know what that will be yet but it is on the order of 40 kt.,” says Wilson...."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/test-pl ... nding-risk

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Jan 2016, 00:30
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:I'm wondering if this 'engine brake' on the ground will be utilised in an SRVL? Probably not I suppose because the engine will go to ground idle (WOW switch) during computer controlled non-skid braking on deck - which should be short & sweet. There is a screen grab (lower left corner) in this thread (repeated below) showing the nozzle angles as seen on the PCD.


I would be surprised if they hadn't considered such a thing and trialed it in the sim.

I dont know enough about the integrated flight/propulsion control logic to understand whether they could do such a thing within the existing laws or whether it would take some adjustments (i.e. time and money).

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2016, 11:54
by spazsinbad
The UK at Pax River: Integrated, Innovative and Creating 21st Century Airpower
04 Feb 2016 Robbin Laird and Ed Timperlake

"...Question: You are part of the F-35B process as well as the coming of the new UK carrier. What changes involved with the ship affect the F-35B and how does the F-35B handling process affect the ship?

This question was discussed by both Gordon Stewart and Squadron Leader Edgell and they focused on four key elements.

First, the handling qualities of the aircraft are so dramatically different from the Harrier that they could approach ship operations very differently. Rather than being heavily focused on flying the airplane, they could focus upon the mission.

Squadron Leader Edgell: “I can still remember vividly a Harrier flight from HMS Illustrious in really rough sea conditions where I launched to conduct 1v1 training with the Typhoon. As I was fighting the Typhoon, the whole time, in the back of my mind, I was thinking of the difficulties that awaited me when recovering to the carrier. My mind was not fully on the task of fighting the Typhoon because I was concerned with the challenges that lay ahead.

With the F-35B, this problem is significantly ameliorated. The whole confidence factor of getting home safely is just another step in the generational jump provided by this aircraft.”

Second, the U.S. was building the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) as the ship-air integration pairing system; the Brits were building in a new system, the Bedford Array Landing System, onboard the carriers, to work with the F-35 man-machine system, to enhance the safety and effectiveness of landing at sea.

Squadron Leader Edgell: “The Bedford Array Landing System is a formation of lights embedded within the deck.When the ship is pitching, then the system compensates by changing which lights are illuminated so that from the pilot’s perspective he has a fixed aim point for landing. But, in reality, the aim point is actually moving up and down the deck.”

Third, the UK carrier and its ski jump provided a way to better use deck space.

Gordon Stewart: “The ski jump offers improved take off performance compared to a flat deck take off. For a heavily loaded jet, this translates into a shorter deck run or lower wind over deck requirements, which offers the ship flexibility in how the deck is used.”

Fourth, based on all of the above, the UK was very successfully pioneering SRVL or Shipboard Rolling Vertical Landings.

Squadron Leader Edgell:
“Normally, RVL (a slow speed, fixed glidepath approach in the semi-jetborne flight regime) is a land-based recovery option. Historically, when we took Harriers back to a ship, we recovered via a vertical landing, which is purely jetborne flight.

Given the culmination of various qualities of the F-35B, we can now conduct semi-jetborne rolling vertical landings onto the carrier, known as Shipborne RVLs. Using the additional airflow over the wing, and the subsequent gain in lift, this approach provides flexibility in operations due to the extra ‘bring back’ – a term given to payload returning to the carrier vice jettisoning prior to recovery.”

We then returned to the earlier discussion of the ITF approach and its future.

But, prior to that we asked Tom Briggs to clarify what has become almost the holy writ for some analysts, namely, that the F-35B engine is a showstopper for the decks of the ships on which it will land, because of the impact of engine heat on the deck.

Briggs: “We have focused on this from the beginning and it is clearly not a show stopper — and, at this point, not even a serious issue. When we were on the first sea trials aboard the Wasp there was deck degradation from a hot engine, but that engine belonged to the Osprey. The landing was not perfect, so there was some deck scorching from the Osprey engine.

It’s not that the F-35B engine is not putting out a lot of heat; it is. But, in part, the flight control system and the propulsion system are controlling that output and reducing the amount of time you’re exposing heat onto the flight deck.”

The next DT test will focus in part on the F-35B and its flying qualities in terms of operations in higher sea states and difficult sea operating conditions.

Gordon Stewart: From a purely handling point of view, we expect this aircraft to operate much better than the Harrier in returning to the ship in difficult sea states. We expect to have better systems to guide you back to the ship and to get you on there more safely and effectively.”..."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/the-uk-at-pax-ri ... -airpower/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Jun 2016, 20:05
by spazsinbad
The need for SRVL may be mitigated by this engine improvement - entire article posted by 'bring_it_on' here: viewtopic.php?f=56&t=27205&p=342244&hilit=Aerospace#p342244
Pratt ‘Builds Confidence’ In F-35 Engine Upgrade Plan
15 Jun 2016 Guy Norris, Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

"EAST HARTFORD, Connecticut—As Pratt & Whitney nears completion of the extensive F135 system development and demonstration (SDD) engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the company is revealing new details of a proposed upgrade plan that could cut fuel burn by as much as 7% on aircraft entering service by the early 2020s....

...The Navy, meanwhile, has “put hard constraints” on the extent of the changes with a view to simplifying eventual integration of the upgrades into the existing engine, Kenyon says. “We can’t mess with the diameter because it has to be retrofit-able and variant common. So whether it is increasing thrust, or fuel burn reduction, or if the Marine Corps needs additional powered lift [for the F135-600 powered F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant] this gives you that capability.” Maintaining commonality with the existing footprint of today’s turbine and compressor sections “allows you to really improve the cost of cutting this into production without any major changes to the rest of engine. It reduces disruption, which is a big deal, and also allows you to do this at the first depot interval.”

The concept is designed for “downward compatibility,” F135 vice president Mark Buongiorno says. “By the time it cuts into production, if there are, say, 1,000 aircraft, then you get the opportunity to bring those 1,000 aircraft up to that current standard. That’s a significant number and it is therefore important to keep the support of the international partners, some of which will have majority of their aircraft delivered by then. That’s how the program will really continue to progress.”..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/pra ... grade-plan

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2016, 06:04
by spazsinbad
We may see more F-35B/SRVL related articles from the UK RIAT/Farnborough Air Show Season - here's hopin'.
Rolls-Royce LiftFan Adds STVOL Operations to F-35's Capability
16 Jun 2016 Richard Gardner

"...As more service test-pilots and future instructors sampled the F-35B, they became very enthusiastic advocates of the aircraft, happily extolling the outstanding flight stability in the hover and at slow forward speeds, especially transitioning to a landing. With a lift thrust that allows a payload in excess to that carried by the Harrier, and the ability to bring home unused ordnance in a rolling vertical landing, the F-35B’s unique STOVL capabilities, combined with stealth and high speed, promise to bring a step change in air operations from carriers and land bases.

The LiftSystem has now been evaluated in severe conditions, including operating in crosswinds as high as 20 knots, while still keeping within stability requirements. Early issues involving the robustness of some components have been overcome, and revised cooling solutions have solved the over-heating problems.

Speaking recently to the author, the UK’s Chief of Staff for the joint RAF/RN Lightning Force and designated future Commander of the famous 617 Squadron, Wing Commander John Butcher, confirmed that the F-35B is very easy to fly in the transition and landing/take-off modes. In his opinion, it will allow pilots, whether from the air force or navy, to adapt easily to carrier deck or traditional land-based operations. Butcher has considerable Harrier experience and said that the highly automated design of the STOVL version of the Lightning II will indeed enable pilots to fully exploit all its unique features, offering an unbeatable combination of stealthy operations, extreme situational awareness and the ease of STOVL handling....

...Asked if the flight tests were reflecting accurately what was expected in simulations of the control and performance aspects of the propulsion program, Jones confirmed that the LiftSystem operation and performance had met or exceeded predictions throughout the flight envelope.

One of the issues that has been subject to some speculation concerning F-35B operations has been linked to landings on ship decks and runway surfaces. Asked if tests had indicated that ingestion or surface damage had required any new attention or changes, Jones said, “Both shipboard deployments were completed without any surface damage to the USS Wasp landing surfaces and no deterioration has been accumulated on the PAX [Patuxent River test facility] runways during flight testing. We’ve also not encountered any LiftFan damage due to ingestion of surface material during the flight test program.”

The UK has said that rolling vertical landings will be a feature of operations from its new RN aircraft carriers. Jones underlined the fact that the LiftSystem was designed for such rolling vertical landing capability and this had been successfully demonstrated during the flight test program, so it won’t make any difference to operating flexibility or require any design changes in the system, he said.

Another subject that often surfaces when looking at future F-35B operations by the UK services concerns what is being put in place for the shipboard support of the LiftSystem aboard the new carriers. Jones said, “Ski-jump takeoffs have been demonstrated during the flight test program in support of the UK aircraft carrier application, and maintenance trials will be conducted during the third aircraft carrier sea trial scheduled for later this year [USN / USMC]. Our plans for supporting both the USMC and UK Royal Navy shipborne operations are well developed and we are also working on our support capability plan for the overall UK fleet.”

Completion of the SDD phase for the LiftSystem is on schedule, and the sand ingestion test is the last one left to complete. It will demonstrate the durability of the LiftSystem when operated in remote or sandy environments...."

Source: http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... capability

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Jun 2016, 19:38
by bring_it_on
Deleted

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2016, 03:41
by popcorn
Found this

https://tacairnet.com/2015/10/02/the-ro ... iet-style/

The Royal Navy Plans on Landing Their F-35Bs at Sea, Soviet-Style

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2016, 02:52
by spazsinbad
From 'bumtish' reference (pdf) earlier today... viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=348084&hilit=newsflash#p348084
Combat Aircraft SPECIAL: F-35 LIGHTNING II F-35: A Test Pilot’s Perspective
June 2016 Andrew Drwiega [Aviation Writers need to learn their spelling & craft but I guess that is hard]

“Andrew Drwiega talked to Lockheed Martin Test Pilot Lt.Col. (Ret.) Paul Hattendorf, who has been testing aircraft for Lockheed Martin for over 13 years. His flight experience both military and civil is as extensive as one would imagine.... [page 7]

...Flying the F-35 “I would say the F-35 is the easiest aircraft I have ever flown,” stated Hattendoft firmly. “The flight control laws are seamless and the F-35B is extremely easy to handle. We could take someone off the street, put them in a simulator and teach them how to land and operate the short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) characteristics of the aircraft within a half hour - that is how easy the control laws have made it to fly.”

“An aircraft like the AV-8B HARRIER II was all manual like the old analogue helicopters,” said Hattendorf. “You had to do ten different things at once” unlike the F-35 where “I knew there was a lot going on but it has been made easy for the pilot.”

This smoothness is translated into actions such as landing the aircraft: “It lands like an F-16. I would say that around ten percent of my F-16 landings were what I would consider to be really good. In the F-35, I would say that feeling is up around 60-70 percent. Often the only time you know it is on the runway is because you stop sinking.”

When taking a new aircraft out for the first time there is a standard pattern that the test pilots follow. “For the F-35A/C modes there are two flights, for the F-35Bs there are three flights. The first flight profile for every aircraft is the same. We are looking at airworthiness and basic systems: does the engine, hydraulics, avionics and so on work correctly. After that we test the backup systems and check electrical redundancy.”

Hattendorf explained that the first flight takes an hour and a half and that a chase flies along, typically an F-16. During the second flight checks move on to the missions systems and redundancies. “Typically if something breaks it will do so during the first five hours or so. Ideally we get the initial checks done in two to three hours, then hand over to government between five to seven hours,” he said. “The F-35B model is a little different because it has less fuel and less endurance. During the first flight we do everything conventionally and don’t activate the STOVL; this only happens in the second flight. We take off in conventional mode, then accelerate to 200 knots and go into STOVL mode. We then slow down to minimum speed; you cannot actually vertically hover right after we take-off unless you were to fly with a light fuel load. The aircraft is smart enough to know its minimum speed [for STOVL] so we check that. When we are in STOVAL the flight controls laws will not allow us to accelerate past 250 knots which is the maximum speed in that mode. Once that is checked we reconvert to the conventional mode then progress to mission systems checks as previously described. When we get to 6,000-8,000 lbs fuel we return to the field for slow landings. The first will be at around 120 knots and we’ll do a touch and go. Then we slow down and hover over the end of the runway. without landing - that is the traffic stopper as people love to see the aircraft do that. We take it from 150 feet down to 70 feet, and then accelerate forward and land on the main runway. When we are in the STOVL mode we are burning a lot of fuel, around 400 lbs per minute and typically so when we land we will have around 3,000-4,000 lbs remaining.”

“The F-35B puts out 40,000 lbs of vertical thrust depending on the temperature and pressure altitude. Its zero fuel weight is around 34,000 lbs with a 6,000 lb margin for fuel and or stores. You have to get down to that weight before a vertical landing. But the great benefit of the F-35B is the vertical landing for small carriers. You can come in for a 60-80 knot approach and you can stop within 500 feet with almost a full load of ordinance [sic] [ORDNANCE] and fuel,” he explained....”

Source: Vol.XL Combat Aircraft SPECIAL 2016 http://www.monch.com/mpg/dpm/CombatAirc ... l_F-35.pdf (1.3Mb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2016, 02:32
by spazsinbad
Again 'bumtish' had a nice find about F-35B testing with these morsels about SRVL Simulation Testing before going to CVF - MAYBE. Go here for original post: viewtopic.php?f=57&t=51344&p=348556&hilit=Asymmetric#p348556
F-35 Asymmetric Tests Pave Way for DT-3 Sea-Trials
13 Jul 2016 Lara Seligman, Tony Osborne & Angus Batey

"...With Britain wanting to rebuild its carrier strike capability, the UK plans to begin maritime flight trials of the F-35B from the new HMS Queen Elizabeth in late 2018. “This will not be a DT phase,” said Wilson. “Testing on the Queen Elizabeth will be like DTs 1, 2 and 3 combined.”

“We don’t need to use fully instrumented aircraft; we already understand most of the loads on the aircraft systems, as we have tested that during earlier tests,” added Wilson. The trials, off the East Coast of the U.S., are expected to take several months.

The ship rolling vertical landing process, developed for the UK to increase bring-back capability, will also be tested during the 2018 trials. In the first quarter of 2017, a major project will be conducted to “produce a body of work to prove whether or not SRVL is fundamentally safe procedurally,” Wilson says.

The program will fully occupy BAE Systems’ simulator in Warton for between two and three months. Up to 10 STOVL-qualified pilots will be flying simulated SRVLs in combinations of “every load you can fly, day and night, every ambient temperature, pressure, all the wind conditions and ship speeds,” Wilson says. Simulated failures – to brakes, nose gear, computers and helmet-mounted display – will also be included.

The developing SRVL conops involves the jet maintaining a speed of 35 kt. relative to the carrier, which permits bringing the aircraft to a halt with the toe brakes inside 200 m (657 ft.). Wilson expects the difficult parts of the envelope to be aircraft approaching at lower airspeeds in asymmetric configurations. “If we come out of that [simulator trial] looking good, then we know that we’re ready,” he says. “And if we don’t, then we may have more work to do.”"

Source: http://aviationweek.com/shownews/f-35-a ... sea-trials

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2016, 04:31
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:...The developing SRVL conops involves the jet maintaining a speed of 35 kt. relative to the carrier, which permits bringing the aircraft to a halt with the toe brakes inside 200 m (657 ft.). ..


35kts +25kts(ship speed)= 60kts. (OK, as previously discussed)
657ft.(200m)/ 920ft.(280m) (ship length)= >2/3 ship length for SRVL@ 35kts. relative

F-35B

MTOW= 60klb. (ski jump?)
32.3klb. empty
13.3klb. fuel
14.4klb. ordnance

Max. SRVL weight= 32.3klb. + 5.0klb. ordnance + 4.0klb. ? = 41.3klb. plus fuel?

(daring young men and their flying machines??)

:)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 27 Jul 2016, 04:55
by spazsinbad
The SRVL ConOps - from info in early pages of this thread (or perhaps another thread?) - will involve pilot/flyco determining the weight available to the F-35B in the conditions at the time (WOD/sea state/any crosswind due CVF course restrictions & pilot experience). I have to post this due to forum problems whilst I look for the info in this thread.

One clue: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=275672&hilit=matrix#p275672

BEKUZ my max. amount of posts have been reached today I'll have to attach this 162 page PDF about F-35B SRVLs on CVFs here. Pages 26-31 explain the graphic also attached. It is not cut and dried how the SRVL will be conducted in conditions.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2016, 00:32
by quicksilver
"Max. SRVL weight= 32.3klb. + 5.0klb. ordnance + 4.0klb. ? = 41.3klb. plus fuel?" -- Neptune

What is the 4.0klb you included above...fuel?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2016, 06:12
by neptune
quicksilver wrote:"Max. SRVL weight= 32.3klb. + 5.0klb. ordnance + 4.0klb. ? = <41.3klb plus fuel?" -- Neptune

What is the 4.0klb you included above...fuel?


http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2013-07-05/uk-will-try-boost-f-35b-landing-weight

UK Will Try To Boost F-35B Landing Weight
by Chris Pocock
July 5, 2013

"The officials said they are satisfied that the F-35B could bring back the internal weapons load that is initially planned, comprising–in the UK case–two AMRAAM air-air missiles and two Paveway IV smart bombs weighing some 5,000 pounds. But, one added, when high temperature and/or low pressure conditions prevail–such as in the Gulf of Oman–it would be prudent to achieve another 2,000 to 4,000 pounds of bring-back weight, for either fuel or weapons, especially since the F-35 will be able to carry additional weapons on wing pylons, when stealth is not a requirement."

:)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2016, 07:42
by quicksilver
Your "...plus fuel?" question at the end was the distractor.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2016, 10:31
by jessmo111
So Is Vert takeoff any different? If you need 5k of weapons and fuel for a vert landing then you need the same for a vert take off correct? I can see a scenario where you need to scramble some F-35s off the deck without the time to play with the ski jump. You wouldn't get far on less than 5kLbs of fuel, but it would be great for point defense.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2016, 12:43
by quicksilver
jessmo111 wrote:So Is Vert takeoff any different? If you need 5k of weapons and fuel for a vert landing then you need the same for a vert take off correct? I can see a scenario where you need to scramble some F-35s off the deck without the time to play with the ski jump. You wouldn't get far on less than 5kLbs of fuel, but it would be great for point defense.


Lets start with a hover and move to VL... I'm not sure they've even cleared VTO yet for fleet use.

It's just laws of physics with some aero effects thrown in to make it interesting. If the jet weighs 32K# empty, all it "needs" to hover is enough thrust output from the propulsion system to keep 32K# aloft -- plus whatever else we've added to the jet to make it useful. "Useful" stuff we have to account for starts with: a pilot (in his or her flight equipment); other POL (oil and coolants); and, suspension equipment for the weapons. Let's say that totals 1K#; that means we now have a jet that sits on the ramp at about 33K# -- without any fuel or weapons on board. Our propulsion system now needs to produce at least 33K# of vertical thrust.

Of course, we want it to fly, so we add JP. JP-5 used to be standard use in the naval services (a higher flashpoint compared to JP-4...good for ship use; I think they use JP-8 now). Jet holds a bit over 13K of JP as it sits on the line. Since it is a whup a$$, VLO, supersonic, STOVL warfighting machine we also put some bombs and missiles in the weapons bays -- let's say 2xGBU32s and 2AIM120s. That totals about 1.7K#. So now, our jet weighs about (32+1+13+1.7) 47.7K#. Our proplusion system needs to produce 47.7K# of thrust in order to hover.

Oops, it doesn't.

How much vertical thrust does it produce? I dont know the actual numbers, but for discussion purposes, let's say 43K#. That means if we want to hover we need to shed some stuff off of the jet before we come back to hover (and land vertically). Because GBUs and AIM120s are expensive, we're gonna count those things as stuff we have to bring back; JP is the stuff we will vary to adjust aircraft weight for landing. So, our jet is now 32+1+1.7 (34.7K#) plus whatever fuel we need to have on board to recover and land, BUT less than what the total vertical thrust the propulsion system produces (43K#). 43-34.7= 8.3. So, in this little discussion, we would be able to bring back the weapons plus 8300# of JP.

It so happens we want to control the jet in some fashion whilst we're hovering the beast so we throw in some margin for that as well -- that is decremented as fuel weight; I dont know how much that is. And, because it takes more thrust to VL than to hover (remember that 'aero' thing I mentioned? Search "suck down effect") -- we have to decrement fuel for that margin as well.

So, to answer your question about what it 'needs' -- only a pilot and some JP. 'How much' is the operative question; more is better but the propusion system and the laws of physics limit that answer on the top end. Hence, that is why the UK finds the SRVL attractive because it adds 'wing lift' to 'propulsion system lift' to increase that bring back weight on the top end. How much increase depends on how fast (KIAS) an approach speed they can use while retaining the ability to come to a stop once the jet is on the deck.

Footnote: ref the use of JP with higher flash points -- iirc, tomorrow marks the 49th year since the fire aboard FORRESTAL in the Gulf of Tonkin...49 years... :salute: to all who served.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Jul 2016, 13:56
by spazsinbad
jessmo111 wrote:So Is Vert takeoff any different? If you need 5k of weapons and fuel for a vert landing then you need the same for a vert take off correct? I can see a scenario where you need to scramble some F-35s off the deck without the time to play with the ski jump. You wouldn't get far on less than 5kLbs of fuel, but it would be great for point defense.

I'm wondering what there is to play with the ski jump or no ski jump. You mean a STO Short Take Off - what do you think is the time difference between a sequential STO or VTO? Aircraft will be readied for STO with weapons anyway and parked ready for STO. Then they have to be defueled and deweaponised for a VTO? I don't get it. You seem to be unaware that Naval Aviation is not for the faint of heart. Be Prepared and Ready To Go - Mob Handed if need be and I could go on.

Here is a poor quality video to show that VLs are made to a spot - no matter what goes on around it - not a VTO though.


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2016, 00:15
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2016, 10:57
by popcorn
A former Harrier pilot sings the praises of the F-35B.
http://www.pilotweb.aero/news/flying_th ... _1_4730983

Flying the UK’s new fighter: Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

The supremely capable fifth-generation jet fighter that outdoes everything that went before - and is the easiest yet to fly

more..

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2016, 13:10
by sferrin
Uhm, he's flying a simulator.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2016, 13:46
by popcorn
Clear enough to anyone who reads the article. Many pilots are on record IIRC attesting to the realism of the simulator vs. the real thing.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2016, 14:09
by spazsinbad
Article is here also attached as 8 PDF pages: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=51397&p=350328&hilit=thumb#p350328

download/file.php?id=23357 {PDF 2.2Mb}

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2016, 10:58
by spazsinbad
CVF Wharton Simulator F-35B views with SRVLs & Test Pilot Pete Kosogorin talking about CVF F-35B Ski Jump Ops VIDEO.


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 23:25
by spazsinbad
Also in WIRED post on this other CVF thread by 'popcorn' earlier today: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=363905&hilit=Brits#p363905
Flying the F-35B: inside BAE's secret war machine simulator tucked away in a quiet UK village
03 Mar 2017 Liat Clark

“...The simulator is designed to let pilots practice, over and over, the hardest parts of their takeoff and landing on the HMS Queen Elizabeth, to mitigate those risks. It also helps with the more mundane aspects of navigating around a 280-metre-long carrier and its many moving parts, and the details of how all the communications networks onboard will eventually work together.

“We focus on the areas where we think the risk is greatest or there is most to be learnt,” says Wilson. “Most of the time we’re testing the final stages of that SRVL landing with a lot of ship motion, that’s really the majority of the time. Different configurations of weapons, friction on the flight deck where it’s slippery, oil that can still contaminates this new surface.”...

...There are inherent risks with the SRVL landing, which is only possible because of the size of the flight deck on HMS Queen Elizabeth. Risks like, the jet falling off the deck when it comes in to land.

“You might have a slippery deck, or you’re too close to the front, or the engine doesn’t go idle at the right time - there are several things that can happen and you’re just going to drop off the front and lose the airplane. So this is why it’s super important to do this level of engineering to make sure we are safe in every respect that we can possibly understand before we go out and execute it.” All of these aspects of the landing, are trialled in the simulator. Everything from the weather conditions, traction on the deck and the weight of the aircraft can be manipulated....

...“If you have a carrier that’s moving up and down on the water, and you’re trying to land on it; if you’re coming down a fixed glide path and not trying to go up and down with it which is awkward, it’s unpredictable where you’re going to touch down,” explains Wilson. “If the carrier is low you might land very long, remember we talked about the possibility of running off the end?” The new lighting system flashes on and off, up and down the deck in such a way that the pilot always has a fixed point to aim for, no matter the movement of the ship or the weather.

“It’s the reason why we bothered with this,” Wilson says, indicating to the simulator. “If it’s done properly, you learn so much.”...

...The F-35 simulator, and future iterations, are designed to help the Royal Navy and others get to that position of precision. It’s about mitigating the risks to the pilot and everyone on board a carrier. But also hopefully limiting the likelihood of the chaos usually associated with warfare.

“Until you’ve done it, you don’t know quite how it’s going to go,” Wilson admits when discussing a specific manoeuvre (returning with an uneven load on the F-35). “So we have very good modelling, we go to the simulator, we train and we practice and we talk about it a lot in our meetings. We plan the test in intricate detail; we reduce the risk as much as we can but ultimately, when you go and do it for the first time, you've just got to suck it and see. There is some inherent risk in that, but we have become very good over the years at reducing that risk down to the minimum.””

Graphic: https://wi-images.condecdn.net/image/X4 ... /crop/1020

Source: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/f35-simu ... ems-warton


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 11 Apr 2017, 07:25
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2017, 08:49
by spazsinbad
This 'Sharkey' Ward rave could go on the 'UK MOD in a MUDDLE' thread however it is specifically about SRVL & suchlikeness.
Safety fears raised Royal Navy aircraft carriers’ new fighter-jets
15 Apr 2017 TOM COTTERILL

"...In a report to the UK’s defence committee – which scrutinises the government’s armed forces policies – Cdr Ward said the jets would be unable to land safely on the carriers in bad weather.

In Cdr Ward’s letter to the panel of MPs, he said there was ‘real danger to life and limb’ using the F-35B to conduct shipborne rolling vertical landings. [SRVLs]

He claimed the jets had ‘no true vertical lift’ capability, instead relying on a short take-off and vertical landing method (STOVL). [MIND NUMBING!]

He added that a new form of approach lights, [BEDFORD ARRAY] which have been installed on the 65,000-tonne carriers to guide pilots back to the ship were flawed – particularly in rough seas and foul weather.

And he claimed when ships were ‘heaving’ in turbulent seas, [remember the HOGGING article from mid Dec last year?] pilots may end up following the up and down movement of the approach lighting – a ‘cardinal sin’ which could cause jets to crash.

‘Just wait until the real conditions are experienced at sea in bad weather, by night and in warmer climes,’ he said.

‘It is not exaggerating to state from experience [BUT NOT in THE F-35B!] that the F-35B flight operations from and to the deck will be hounded by flight safety considerations.’..."

Source: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defenc ... -1-7916943

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2017, 09:16
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:This 'Sharkey' Ward rave could go on the 'UK MOD in a MUDDLE' thread however it is specifically about SRVL & suchlikeness.
Safety fears raised Royal Navy aircraft carriers’ new fighter-jets
15 Apr 2017 TOM COTTERILL

"...In a report to the UK’s defence committee – which scrutinises the government’s armed forces policies – Cdr Ward said the jets would be unable to land safely on the carriers in bad weather.

In Cdr Ward’s letter to the panel of MPs, he said there was ‘real danger to life and limb’ using the F-35B to conduct shipborne rolling vertical landings. [SRVLs]

He claimed the jets had ‘no true vertical lift’ capability, instead relying on a short take-off and vertical landing method (STOVL). [MIND NUMBING!]

He added that a new form of approach lights, [BEDFORD ARRAY] which have been installed on the 65,000-tonne carriers to guide pilots back to the ship were flawed – particularly in rough seas and foul weather.

And he claimed when ships were ‘heaving’ in turbulent seas, [remember the HOGGING article from mid Dec last year?] pilots may end up following the up and down movement of the approach lighting – a ‘cardinal sin’ which could cause jets to crash.

‘Just wait until the real conditions are experienced at sea in bad weather, by night and in warmer climes,’ he said.

‘It is not exaggerating to state from experience [BUT NOT in THE F-35B!] that the F-35B flight operations from and to the deck will be hounded by flight safety considerations.’..."

Source: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defenc ... -1-7916943


JPALS to the rescue for SRVL in "rough weather"!
:)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2017, 09:37
by spazsinbad
I have not seen any info about 'JPALS for SRVL on CVFs' - nada. Eventually JPALS will be able to guide F-35Bs to a automatic vertical landing but not at moment. The BEDFORD Array (plenty of info on this thread) will - along with special symbology in F-35B virtual HUD - allow the pilot to SAFELY touchdown within a SAFE touchdown zone on CVF deck in conditions that would likely prohibit 'cats 'n'Flaps' approaches to arrest - even with JPALS - but 'whoNoze' - certainly Sharkey is displaying wilful ignorance, or dementia, given all the info available to us PLEBs on the internet these days.

And still and all it is a landing for when bringback is more than KPP weight for a VL. WHICH MAY BE NEVER ENCOUNTERED in practice and yet must be practiced for - at least in the simulators. Ongoing testing of sim SRVLs - with ordinary F-35B pilots will see how they fare. One would think Sharkey these days is a complete nut case - seems only this paper cares.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2017, 12:09
by spazsinbad
Attached 155 page 11Mb PDF has the latest collected information about SRVLs on CVF albeit only computer simulated.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2017, 15:57
by neptune
spazsinbad wrote:Attached 155 page 11Mb PDF has the latest collected information about SRVLs on CVF albeit only computer simulated.


....nice summary.....no, I don't believe JPALS is a panacea but it could be a better move to back up the Mark 1 (eyeball) in rough weather (as we both know)....unlike the USN placing the differential GPS sensors in the flapping antenna nest, they may be more effective mounted down on the flight deck and placed in a triangle to measure the 3-axis deck movement...but I'm not a Brit and not part of JPALS but have been in the "below minimums", that your Sharky is bellowing about and see "maybe" a better way to remove the panic from making that 30kt. delta approach in the 100+ million dollar "new" a/c, before dumping the ordinance load bring back and move to the "landing button"....(JPALS is built into the a/c program whether it is used or not)....'nough said!
Neptune
:wink:

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2017, 18:14
by steve2267
Poor ol' Sharkey. He's either suffering from dementia onset, OR he's a wiley old flyer figuring if he complains loud enough, the MP's will want the advantage of his experience and wisdom and will order the MOD to put him in a "Bee" simulator. (That's all he wants... a ride in the new toy.)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2017, 20:54
by spazsinbad
PDF Pages 98 & 99 have a simple explanation of the BEDFORD ARRAY SRVL Approach whilst the video shows how it is done:

Pages with explanation (with various more in the PDF cited above):

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=314322&hilit=Radocaj#p314322
&
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=314322&hilit=Radocaj#p314322

Carrier Queen Elizabeth, night F-35B rolling landing


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2017, 07:26
by spazsinbad
Another story about the Warton Simulator with a good photo of moving sim F-35B on CVF deck with SRVL lights gleaming.
Pilots begin training on new F-35 fighter jet simulator
03 Apr 2017 Helena Pozniak

"Pilots are preparing for operations with the F-35 fighter jet using a new virtual reality simulator worth £2 million....

...“Real” fighter jet trials from the new Queen Elizabeth Class carrier won’t take place until 2018, after teams have gathered the extensive evidence and data required from simulated flights. Simulators save millions of pounds worth of testing and wear and tear on the planes themselves. “Seventy years ago my job would have been high risk and my life expectancy low,” says Mr Wilson. “Today that level of risk for men and women is not acceptable.”

This is no ordinary simulator. Housed within a vast dome at Warton aerodrome in Lancaster, the immersive environment is so real, sometimes Mr Wilson genuinely fears he may crash. “This is nothing like the types of simulator rides you might find at a fairground,” he says. “It’s important to get as close to reality as possible – it has to feel right.” The height and angle of the seat, the view from the cockpit, the thrust of acceleration and pitch of the plane – every element is as true to life as possible, to create an utterly credible experience for the pilot. Even the waves on the ocean and whitecaps look real. “The computing power required to create this level of virtual reality is huge.”

In a simulator, pilots also test certain procedures until the team is confident these would work in a real situation. “If a pilot is going too fast relative to the speed of the ship, he might literally roll off the end and a pilot is not best placed to judge this. So we would put another person in the loop on the carrier to assess this, for instance,” says Mr Wilson.

Over the next four months, different test pilots will “fly” BAE Systems’ simulator to assess weaknesses in the plane and pilot and test just about every scenario. These new fighter jets are fitted with the most advanced technology ever deployed...

...While technology exists to send out unmanned drones, it will be decades before a fighter jet such as this functions solely on autopilot, says Mr Wilson. “This is about the decision making process and you need a pilot, there will always be the need for a human in the loop. You can’t have situational awareness unless you are really there.”"

PHOTO: "An immersive environment: these simulators get pilots as close to reality as possible" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/ ... -large.jpg & "Advanced technology: the computing power required to create this level of virtual reality is huge" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/ ... -large.jpg


Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/st ... or-pilots/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2017, 03:07
by spazsinbad
You guessed it good - I've been looking for stuff and found some old stuff and this stuff is from Airforces Monthly Magazine April 2014. Not only about SRVL but the UK F-35B in general and suchlike stuff. 14 page PDF attached below.
Phoenix Rising for JSF
April 2014 Lewis Gaylard

"...New carriers, new concepts
With the decision taken to revert to short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) operations, rather than the traditional ‘cat and trap’ (catapult and arrested landing), the innovative ‘Bedford array’ landing system will be a first in world maritime aviation. The Bedford array is a simplistic set up that incorporates a system of flashing lights down the centreline of the ship at the intended landing point. It will be stabilised to allow for the carrier’s heave and pitch at sea. In the F-35B cockpit, the pilot’s head-up display (HUD) will include a new ship-reference velocity vector – the pilot will position the vector onto the Bedford array, allowing the aircraft to approach on the correct glide slope and enabling a safe landing onto the carrier.

Using the new landing aid requires the F-35B pilot to perform a ship-borne rolling vertical landing (SRVL), which uses both the vertical thrust from the lift fan and forward lift from the wings. Unlike its Sea Harrier predecessor, where the aircraft would come into a steady hover on the port side of the ship and then side-slip across over the flight deck to perform a vertical landing, the F-35B will make a rolling landing and come to a stop using the disc brakes in the landing gear. This landing method does not require use of the arrestor wire and tail hook employed in conventional landings on a carrier. There are operational advantages with the SRVL – the F-35B will have a considerably larger ‘bringback’ weapons load capability compared with the Harrier. In addition, wear on the lift fan and engine should be reduced (extending their operational life) along with lessened impact on the carrier’s flight-deck surface caused by extreme heat from the jet exhaust during vertical landings...."

Source: Airforces Monthly April 2014 Issue 313

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2017, 18:03
by spazsinbad
From about 4 minute mark Justin Paines talks about the VAAC Harrier SRVL development along with CLAW for F-35Bs.



Justin Paines Test Pilot Career + X-35 Info starts from about minute 26 before that all about early Harrier flying etc. From about minute 37.5 he talks about X-35 hovering and just before that talks about X-35 FBW FlyByWire excellence.


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2017, 09:50
by spazsinbad
This is just SRVL info - the main article is noted in the 'MoD in a Muddle' thread in the other sub-forum thread here:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=374283&hilit=Toledo#p374283
UK F-35B - on final approach to QEC
18 Aug 2017 Tim Robinson

"... pilots are also tasked with developing and de-risking the new Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) technique which will allow higher bring-back of stores in hot climates than the traditional hover. This uses a straight-in approach with the aircraft slowing from about 140kt to approximately 60kt over the carrier’s stern - with the aircraft still getting some aerodynamic lift from the wings. As well as allowing higher bring-back weights, SRVL also has side benefits, such as reduced wear and tear on the LiftFan and less damage on the same landing deck 'spot' from the powerful rear-nozzle exhaust.

While some critics worry that it could be more workload-intensive in bad weather or a fouled deck, others describe it as a 'doddle' in the sim. One F-35B pilot is sanguine about the technique, pointing out that a short, slow landing is nothing new for land-based Harriers and observes: "In fact, if we were still operating Harriers now, we'd probably be using it". It will thus be for Edgell, Wizzer and the rest of the team to prove this concept at sea....

...The next phase in the second four-week period, will hopefully see the SRVL testing for real, as well as more challenging testing, including stores, asymmetric loads and high-deck motion STOVL operations. Inert stores will be used in these trials, as there is no requirement to conduct the testing with live weapons or do firings “We've already proved live weapons will fall off this jet” says Edgell. Following these two trials next year, a third development period is scheduled some nine months later in 2019....

...Interestingly, for those wondering about the SRVL and stopping a heavy aircraft without an arrestor wire on a short deck, this correspondent found that the carrier’s deck proved remarkably 'sticky' with a fair bit of throttle needed to get the aircraft moving. BAE says the modelling in the simulator includes dry, wet and flooded decks - and it has also carried out friction studies with F-35 tyres and the deck material...."

Source: https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-f-3 ... ch-to-qec/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2017, 15:33
by steve2267
UK F-35B - on final approach to QEC
18 Aug 2017 Tim Robinson

"... pilots are also tasked with developing and de-risking the new Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) technique which will allow higher bring-back of stores in hot climates than the traditional hover. This uses a straight-in approach with the aircraft slowing from about 140kt to approximately 60kt over the carrier’s stern - with the aircraft still getting some aerodynamic lift from the wings. As well as allowing higher bring-back weights, SRVL also has side benefits, such as reduced wear and tear on the LiftFan and less damage on the same landing deck 'spot' from the powerful rear-nozzle exhaust.


Am curious to know more about how the LiftFan incurs less wear and tear during SRVL. If the goal is to "allow higher bring-back of stores," it seems to me that the LiftFan will be working just as hard during a SRVL as a VL, just that during the SRVL you are taking advantage of some wing-borne lift to increase your bring-back load?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2017, 16:30
by spazsinbad
Are you willing to look back/search this thread (perhaps other threads in the F-35 forum?) for such information? This statement "reduced wear and tear on the LiftFan/[ENGINE]" has been made a few times already so I'm guessing it is true but otherwise do not know the details. Here is the first such statement in this thread which includes Engine & LiftFan:
"...In addition, wear on the lift fan and engine should be reduced (extending their operational life)..."
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=367664&hilit=reduced#p367664

In another thread about the BEDFORD ARRAY Patent there will be this:
"...or to land at the same weight but with a reduced power setting as compared to the vertical landing thereby potentially increasing engine life...." viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15821&p=200269&hilit=reduced+power+setting+patent#p200269

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2017, 22:25
by johnwill
I don't have any way to know how long high power settings are required for SRVL or pure VL, but the reduced wear and tear on engine/lift fan may come, not from SRVL reduced power settings, but from less time at high power. I also wonder if SRVL may require more training and practice than VL, thus losing the advantage of reduced wear and tear.

I suspect in fleet usage, SRVL may not be required very often, thus making it more important to maintain skills with more practice. If an SRVL is botched, requiring a touch and go, how easy is it to switch from landing to takeoff mode?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Aug 2017, 22:57
by spazsinbad
Good points and good questions. Seems to me the comments by ordinary or even test pilots so far carrying out simulator SRVLs is that it is easy enough - notwithstanding any emergencies during such SRVLs. The approach is short and sweet, whilst a video shows what it looks like (in sim) from pilot viewpoint I doubt there will be touch and goes. Remember an LSO (who will be a Landing Safety Officer rather than 'Signal' in CVFs) may wave off some nuggets from either VLs / SRVLs, that seems unlikely, except for last second foul decks or other ship emergencies - perhaps temporary poor weather.

The SRVL descent starts from 200 feet above deck, 6 deg glideslope at 60 KIAS, 1,900 feet from touchdown point. I guess depending on whether the VL or SRVL becomes the standard landing technique then more or less practice for SRVL will be flown. Recall that the FMS will allow SRVL practice in same way enabling VL practice - assuming SRVL will be in the FMS.

Still and all early days on real life SRVLs and I suppose we will know more in 2019 about it for CVFs? The F-35B will be in Mode 4 for SRVL and will be in same mode for take off / go arounds / wave offs if required. Just a matter of adding power whilst computer will handle things as per usual. Bolters have been discussed earlier in this thread and I'll assume more info will be known about how to deal with them at some future point - one hopes aviation reporters will ask questions.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 00:18
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:Am curious to know more about how the LiftFan incurs less wear and tear during SRVL.


Agree, for the same reasons you suggest.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 02:10
by spazsinbad
IF one puts eyes very close to computer screen when viewing the SRVL simulated HUD view of the approach one may see the 'engine/liftfan' RPM fluctuate between around 94 to 95 % RPM combined while separately? during the SRVL 6 deg glideslope approach descent. One may gather this reduced 'engine/liftfan' RPM will help reduce engine wear and tear?

As an example IIRC the J52 P8 engine in the A4G had a time limit of 10 minutes in military 100% RPM but reduce RPM by 5% to 95% and the engine could be run at that RPM until the fuel ran out.

FWIW the meme will not die 'rong/rite' & says here: "... also reduce the level of wear on the lift engines and extend their operational life...." 02 Sep 2016 https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/simulat ... -carriers/


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 03:02
by spazsinbad
A4G Engine Limits were reduced to that easy to remember RANFAA SOP rather than the complicated NATOPS limits below.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 03:55
by spazsinbad
F-35B Pilots Will Make Rolling Landings Like This To Board Royal Navy Carriers
04 Aug 2017 Tyler Rogoway

"...The Royal Navy wants their F-35Bs to be able to the return to the ship with more gas and weapons than they normally could by landing vertically on the decks of their two new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. The aim is to accomplish this by making a slow-speed—57 knots indicated airspeed to be exact—rolling recovery down the ship's landing and departure area, instead of a vertical landing. Officially this hybrid maneuver, which uses lift from the aircraft's wings and thrust from its engine and lift fan, has been dubbed a "Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing," or SRVL for short.

Another advantage of standardizing this recovery concept is that it will put less wear and tear on the F-35B's costly lift fan and its associated subsystems and linkages—a move that could potentially save large sums of money over the aircraft's operational life. It would also help alleviating thermal wear on the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales titanium injected deck coatings....

...UK F-35B pilots have been working on perfecting this landing concept in the simulator, a video [best quality example will be seen at YOUTUBE site above] of which you can see below. Make sure you have the audio on so you can hear the play-by-play narration. Also note the little pictograph of the F-35 in the lower left corner of the Helmet Mounted Display's virtual HUD. It appears to show the pilot the lift fan and main engine RPM. [NO the ENGINE RPM is as shown in graphic above aircraft with individual engine/liftfan nozzle deflections below aircraft] Pretty neat stuff....

...Still, simulating something is different than doing it in real life consistently and in different weather conditions and sea states. Also, the whole affair relies heavily on the F-35's digital anti-skid breaking system. It would be interesting to hear what would happen if that system failed and the jet was sent careening down the deck towards the ship's ski jump at highway speeds, or even worse, into rows of aircraft parked on each side of the landing area....

Source: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13 ... y-carriers

VL ONLY in CVF Simulator Warton:

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 04:01
by spazsinbad
VIDEO REPEATED from link/STORY here but worthwhile for the sheer enthusiasm of 'Wizzer' Wilson Lead STOVL test pilot.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=363907&hilit=Liat+Clark#p363907


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 04:28
by spazsinbad
The second [NOW FIRST VIDEO at URL] video shows Mike Scaff demonstrating the F-35B VL with ZOOM views of the left bottom of PCD as seen at: EDITED to reflect ETR NOT RPM as in original graphic - Thanks 'QS'.

VIDEO: Mike SKAFF Demo VL in Travel Sim: https://youtu.be/XSfCdna7nH0?t=120 [ScreenGrab Below]


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 06:36
by spazsinbad
MEME probably started back in the dreamtime circa 2009:
"...[SRVL] also has the potential to reduce propulsion system stress and therefore extend engine life...." 2009 http://articles.sae.org/5783/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 06:47
by steve2267
F-35B Pilots Will Make Rolling Landings Like This To Board Royal Navy Carriers
04 Aug 2017 Tyler Rogoway

...Still, simulating something is different than doing it in real life consistently and in different weather conditions and sea states. Also, the whole affair relies heavily on the F-35's digital anti-skid breaking system. It would be interesting to hear what would happen if that system failed and the jet was sent careening down the deck towards the ship's ski jump at highway speeds, or even worse, into rows of aircraft parked on each side of the landing area....

Source: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/13 ... y-carriers


Well, ol' Tyler did jump ship to go to work for TheDrive - a website focused on, ahem, driving, not flying. So can Tyler be forgiven for pinning the success or failure of the F-35B SRVL on the landing gear (i.e. wheels) braking system and not on the bloody FLCS... you know, the computers actually flying the aircraft and enabling (hands off - no less) vertical flight? Hell no! He's still a putz. Evidently, Tyler has little technical training, for he seems to have no appreciation for what engineers have accomplished, and the degree to which computer simulation enabled the flippin' F-35 to perform all its magic tricks in the first place. What's the expression for which I vainly search.... is it "Hey Tyler, sod off!"

Spaz, you made a comment about adding power on a SRVL go-around. In Mode 4, if memory serves, the pilot is not controlling power at all anymore -- Fred is. (My flight instructor used to call the auto-pilot Fred. Maybe he's George over in the UK?) Rather, the pilot has the "go faster" lever in his left hand (throttle), and he uses the stick to go up and down (pull back, push forward), and left/right stick translates left/right. I don't think the pilot is controlling roll, then, anymore in Mode 4. Although there must be some blending as he transitions to Mode 4.

So a go'round would appear to be quite simple -- pull back on stick, point nose in direction of least bad result with rudder pedals, and either go faster or slow down with throttle. I would guess go faster (throttle forward) is in order to transition back out of Mode 4 to conventional flight.

QS, I think johnwill was on to something. What we don't know at this point is how long a Bee remains in Mode 4 for a typical Mode 4 VL and for a Mode 4 SRVL. Total time in Mode 4 may be the 1st order metric here pertaining to wear and tear.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 08:27
by spazsinbad
Yes a lot of SRVL details need pondering without said detail. Recall that the throttle goes to idle auto at touchdown so how does the F-35B get airborne in case of a go around/bolter? I think this is not an important detail because there will be no such thing. IF the LSO thinks the approach is unsafe the F-35B in Mode 4 STOVL mode at 95% RPM during the glideslope descent pilot will have to do something to get climbing again - whatever it is - and good luck to them & their computers.

The F-35B will STOP with the computer controlled brakes in about 200 feet with a touchdown wheelspeed of around 35 knots perhaps (all depends on WOD. Approach KIAS minus WOD = touchdown speed) - how else? Anyway if one reads this thread a matrix of detail is looked at to decide if an SRVL approach can be made given weather and aircraft weight etc.
"...“But the simulator work hasn’t just been about developing the flight controls software in the aircraft, it’s also about finding out how to fly and carry out certain manoeuvres, and working out various flying techniques such as shipborne rolling vertical landing. We’ve brought together a cross-section of individuals to do that, from very experienced Harrier pilots with legacy experience to US Navy conventional F18 pilots, and also Royal Navy and other Airforce pilots who have no shipborne or STOVL experience. This has ensured the design is optimised for all levels of ability.”
From a post 3 years ago: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=275404&hilit=Kosogorin#p275404 [Pete Kosogorin]

&
"......But what can those test pilots lucky enough to be chosen for those trials expect? And how will the F-35B compare to its predecessor, the Harrier, which was the aircraft of choice for the old Invincible class carriers?

“By the time the F-35 comes into service and has been fully tested, there won’t be many Harrier pilots flying it – it will be a much younger generation,” says Pete [Kosogorin]. “The aircraft itself, and the control and handling it has in slow speeds in STOVL mode 4, is exceptional. “I’ve landed at night on a ship in the Harrier and that’s a really exciting – but also scary – event. “You are probably the most aroused you will ever be as a pilot in terms of focused concentration, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make a mistake.

“When a pilot is working really hard, he’s using up a high proportion of his capacity and his ability to spot things, to see things, and to cope with things is affected. “In the Harrier, you could easily miss one aspect of your technique, miss a problem with the aircraft, or not hear a radio call, so it was easy to lose track of what was going on.

“But this aircraft works so well for you, the extra capacity that allows you is a big bonus. It means a pilot can deal with an emergency better, or follow a particular technique better, so the execution of your approach and landing on a ship is going to be way more efficient.” viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=276741&hilit=Kosogorin#p276741


TIME in STOVL Mode 4 SRVL only applies to UK F-35Bs at moment. Already we know FMS is used a lot for training for VLs so why not is it used for SRVL training? And again we can ponder a lot without detail for training for Mode 4 probably the 'Bs that Power' ponder how training will be done for same - aircraft are still in development with SRVL testing yet to come.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 09:11
by spazsinbad
Great Video with Wizzer in the SIMULATOR at Warton explaining stuff:
Landing a plane on UK's new warship
26 Jun 2017 BBC

"Flight simulator allows pilots to test the HMS Queen Elizabeth’s new F-35B fighter before the ship sets sail."

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-40405476/ ... n-new-ship

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 10:59
by spazsinbad
Watch left BTM corner for ENGINE THRUST REQUEST ETR along with the 2 Nozzle Deflections - on deck RPM zero.


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 12:36
by quicksilver
Having flown the traveling version of the simulator at a semi-public event at an airshow, a few things...

Conversion to or from Mode 4 is controlled entirely by the pilot via a button on the upper left-hand corner of the fwd inst panel. In the 'A' and 'C' the same button lowers the hook (not sure if/how the 'A' retracts).

In Mode 4, both the right and left 'inceptors' (the throttle and the sidestick) 'talk' to the engine. Remember it is an integrated flight propulsion control system. The conceptual idea behind what one does with ones hands to make the jet do what one wants the jet to do does not change from conventional flight to Mode 4 (unlike Harrier). Ones left hand commands go forward, faster or slower (and aft on rare occasions); ones right hand controls go up/down, go right/left. If you think about it like that you wont have a problem. If you are a former helicopter or Harrier driver, you usually do -- at least for a few minutes longer than those who have no old habits to erase.

When Mode 4 is selected (below 250KIAS), a motor in the throttle quadrant drives the throttle (left inceptor) to a 'detent' position at roughly the mid range of throttle travel (not unlike an afterburner gate). Movement forward out of the detent commands acceleration (go faster); movement aft tells the jet to go slower; leave it in the detent and the jet will maintain the speed at which you commanded conversion. If you pull the throttle all the way to what would normally be the 'idle' position in a conventional jet, the aircraft will decelerate all the way through zero airspeed to its limiting rearward speed, 30KIAS.

Once in Mode 4, my preference was to use a 'command speed' function activated by a hotas function under my left ring finger on the throttle. When it is activated, you will see "CMD" followed by the airspeed you have commanded above the airspeed indicator in the VHUD. The switch was a two-position rocker with another two position z-axis function. Short clicks commanded increments/decrements of one knot; slightly longer clicks, ten knots. First z-axis to call up command speed; hold it longer and one commands an automatic deceleration to a hover (hands off if you want). There is also a z-axis function on one of the buttons on the stick that commands glideslope; press it and the jet will fly whatever glideslope the flight path marker/vv currently indicates.

Once in Mode 4, the pilot has progressively less control over aircraft attitude as the jet decelerates. Below 45ish KIAS the jet's attitude in pitch does not change.

ETR is 'engine thrust request' not rpm.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 12:46
by quicksilver
johnwill wrote:I don't have any way to know how long high power settings are required for SRVL or pure VL, but the reduced wear and tear on engine/lift fan may come, not from SRVL reduced power settings, but from less time at high power. I also wonder if SRVL may require more training and practice than VL, thus losing the advantage of reduced wear and tear.

I suspect in fleet usage, SRVL may not be required very often, thus making it more important to maintain skills with more practice. If an SRVL is botched, requiring a touch and go, how easy is it to switch from landing to takeoff mode?


Spaz, refresh our memory -- how much addtional bringback is the UK expecting? I'd be interested to see the lift curves below 150KIAS.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 15:00
by Dragon029
It's an additional 2000lb (threshold) / 4000lb (objective) of payload on top of the 5000lb of fuel + weapons that the F-35B is designed to bring back vertically:

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... ing-weight

The officials said they are satisfied that the F-35B could bring back the internal weapons load that is initially planned, comprising–in the UK case–two AMRAAM air-air missiles and two Paveway IV smart bombs weighing some 5,000 pounds. But, one added, when high temperature and/or low pressure conditions prevail–such as in the Gulf of Oman–it would be prudent to achieve another 2,000 to 4,000 pounds of bring-back weight, for either fuel or weapons, especially since the F-35 will be able to carry additional weapons on wing pylons, when stealth is not a requirement.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Aug 2017, 18:49
by spazsinbad
'QS' Thanks for RPM change to ETR Engine Thrust Request - somehow missed that vital bit of info + sim explanation. As 'Dragon029' indicates the 'bringback' for SRVL is a rubbery figure decided by testing etc. and I have no info about lift.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 22 Aug 2017, 22:22
by spazsinbad
SRVL Night Lighting Control Panel for BEDFORD ARRAY QNLZ in FlyCo controlled by LSO one may assume: 7 deg glideslope.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Aug 2017, 20:05
by talkitron
Here is an article on self defense for the new Royal Navy carrier strike group(s). The F-35B is the main weapon system of these groups so the article touches a little bit on the F-35.

Royal Navy aircraft carriers – vulnerable or fit for the fight?


http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/royal-n ... the-fight/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2017, 12:02
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 21:37
by spazsinbad
Posted in UNIT F-35 subsection earlier but repeated to illustrate a LAND SRVL. viewtopic.php?f=59&t=45896&p=381065&hilit=yIu1AMRgwU4#p381065


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2017, 21:53
by SpudmanWP
Why did they make it slo-mo in the end?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 07:59
by spazsinbad
You'd have to ask the RAF - here is what it is ALL ABOUT (one day soon) SRVL aboard CVF but First the WARton SIM UK.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 15:11
by steve2267
Spaz, as an aside, does the RAN have any plans to get back into the carrier game? 2-3 light carriers (heck, even one) with 10-20 Lightnings would be a formidable presence in your parts. I say "light" as in less tonnage should equate to less expensive, maybe even affordable.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 18:57
by spazsinbad
At 0445 my time that is a question long answered in several long threads in this F-35 sub forum - one very long but long ago now.... Short answer: NO. Last I looked Australia had a population of some 24 million people and not enough money for any kind of extra 'aircraft carrier' on top of the two fairly recent acquisitions of TWO LHDs, with no plans for F-35Bs on their ski jumps. Long ago now a former Chief of Navy hothead expressed interest in a third LHD with F-35Bs - but no go.

Probably - if situation up north gets increasingly worrisome for Australia - a third LHD may be considered or even a similar 'aircraft carrier' for F-35Bs (I can't see a requirement for a conventional aircraft carrier with F-35Cs) but that will be in the future far. An interim step to above COULD BE purchasing the last TRANCHE of F-35s (not yet decided but in a few years) to be Bs. However as I have posted many times now that idea won't fly unless those same F-35Bs have a role in the RAAF most times ashore with the occasional foray embarked on an LHD as required - maybe never - but only on exercise. Then I would have to again repeat why / how these embarked F-35Bs would go ashore as soon as to free up LHD.

The ADF/RAN is still coming to grips with the two LHDs and all the new possibilities - these LHDs are not fully operational.

However let us not pollute this thread with nonsense about an RAN aircraft carrier - this thread is solely about TITLE!

I'll look for links to previous endless but now dead discussions about this issue but PLEASE - no more comments except on the links provided. This thread is about: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

PLEASE JUMP IN ON THIS THREAD (or there are others yet to be found) to continue or ask the question again for a more complete answer which necessarily will entail links to this same and other threads about 'Oz F-35B on Oz LHDs'.

Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=361454#p361454

Maybe useful? F-35B/C and the Ski-Jump?: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14082&p=341098#p341098

Question here also: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=380879#p380879

A SPECIFIC PAGE - ONE OF MANY SUCH: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=281666&hilit=Schreer#p281666

So please ask this question - again - on an appropriate thread and please no responses here because - as explained above.

GO HERE TO FIND OUT THE ANSWER: Does the RAN have any plans to get back in the carrier game?

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=53630

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 19:26
by spazsinbad
SpudmanWP wrote:Why did they make it slo-mo in the end?

These comments by an UK/RN F-35B authority (from another forum altogether) were sent to me by e-mail:
1. Note the rock steady attitude of the aircraft as the various powered lift doors open up - and the lack of big control surface deflections required to achieve that. Good flight control laws there - and they're developed by Brits.

2. Good landing, with a fair amount of clearance between the aft nozzle and the deck - that was a point of concern early on in the development of the idea. Appears light on the nose wheel for the first few seconds after touch down.

3. Note that the aircraft doing this work is a UK aircraft, not one of the SDD development fleet - shows that they are well on down the flight test curve, and don't need the heavily instrumented test fleet to support this activity now. Expect to see landings with lots of external stores soon.

4. Don't forget that the USMC have a very definite SRVL requirement of their own for deployment to short land strips - and these are required at a fairly heavy weight of fuel and bombs....

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 20:02
by SpudmanWP
Let me clarify. "Slo-mo" was referring to the speed of the video and not the approach speed.

I was wondering why they altered the playback speed of the landing instead of playing it in real time.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2017, 20:23
by spazsinbad
I get that but it offered another opinion on the video itself - perhaps not answering your specific unanswerable question. How do we know what others do if those others do not explain? I am flummoxed. However changing [video] speed to slow for the actual landing allows the observation made by the commenter elsewhere - perhaps this was the reason? Dunno.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 03:26
by neptune
SpudmanWP wrote:Let me clarify. "Slo-mo" was referring to the speed of the video and not the approach speed.

I was wondering why they altered the playback speed of the landing instead of playing it in real time.



sarc?? [ Gee, I don't know about that! There are many references where the 60kt. approach air speed is offset by the 30kt. ship/ deck speed! 30kts. is rather 'Slo-mo" after all!] sarc??
:roll:

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 06:29
by steve2267
Neptune, are you suggesting that the video playback speed was NOT in slow-motion?

I would have to disagree there. The movements of the aft horizontal stabilators, especially just prior to touchdown, appear to be significantly slower than their motion in other videos (e.g. Paris Air Show 2017).

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 12:35
by optimist
For those that care, the wing nav light timing may give a clue to the timing of video.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 13:57
by madrat
If you plan to investigate the properties of something using video it only makes sense to use more frames per second. Playback would appear like slow motion when you play it back at 29.97 fps.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 14:26
by steve2267
madrat wrote:If you plan to investigate the properties of something using video it only makes sense to use more frames per second. Playback would appear like slow motion when you play it back at 29.97 fps.


Absolutely, but wasn't this video released for public consumption? Typically a video will be played at full (normal) speed first, then perhaps a section or two or three may be repeated at slow motion. Here the entire landing event does not appear in normal (video) speed.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 14:38
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 16:54
by SpudmanWP
optimist wrote:For those that care, the wing nav light timing may give a clue to the timing of video.

Nice catch

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 20:57
by Gums
Salute!

That approach and rollout looks like one I saw this spring at Eglin.

That day we had a three-ship and on first low approach pass one Stubby had all the doors open. I think it ws a VIP demo with all three variants.

Anyway, the basic models landed but the B stopped and hovered, then did a close pattern and did a very short rollout. Had all the doors open, so I am pretty sure it was a "roll on", s the sucker couldn't have been faster than 100 knots on final and turned off about 2000 feet down the runway.

I also think that the great stability when transiitoning to the landing mode is more due to the aero than the FLCS. If it was mostly control laws, then the slab would have been moving a lot more. Atta boy to GD.

Gums sends...

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2017, 16:31
by rheonomic
Gums wrote:I also think that the great stability when transiitoning to the landing mode is more due to the aero than the FLCS. If it was mostly control laws, then the slab would have been moving a lot more. Atta boy to GD.


There's a lot of effort devoted to suppressing transients between mode switches.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2017, 09:49
by monkeypilot
The approach was set using Harrier VAAC no?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2017, 10:18
by spazsinbad
By 'approach' can we assume you mean the 'flight control laws' for the F-35B via the VAAC Harrier which (as best it could) simulated the F-35B in STOVL Modes? There is a lot of information about this aspect in this very forum (repeated from other sources of course). Some 'greatest hits': viewtopic.php?f=60&t=52507&p=356421&hilit=Vaac+control+unified#p356421

In this thread a tonne of words: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=266824&hilit=Vaac+control+unified#p266824

Elsewhere: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24054&p=252995&hilit=Vaac+control+unified#p252995

The rest can be found if required by searching. Example: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24054&p=252995&hilit=Vaac+control+unified#p252995

PDFs about such matters: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=23199&p=247994&hilit=Vaac+control+unified+pdf%2A#p247994

IF interest expressed a PDF about UNIFIED Control Laws may be made or refound as required. CLAW/engine for example:

F-35+STOVLengine&FlightControlSystemPotPourriPP137.pdf
download/file.php?id=23780 (PDF 10.8Mb 137 pages)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2017, 20:32
by monkeypilot
I meant the "very slow rolling approach". However 'm interested in the pdf.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2017, 21:43
by spazsinbad
OK - would be good if you described it easily by 'SRVL' - that is the name of this thread. So there is a heap of info about said SRVL in this thread. Search this thread using VAAC. Good video here: [From about 4 minute mark Justin Paines talks about the VAAC Harrier SRVL development along with CLAW for F-35Bs.] I should except the VAAC bit I guess....

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=373976&hilit=VAAC#p373976

Anyway you'll find at least ten more hits using VAAC - just type that term into the search box top left of the page here.


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2017, 22:33
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2017, 11:55
by monkeypilot
TY. i'll remember SRVL

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2017, 12:23
by spazsinbad
No worries - are you familiar with 'rockapes'? For them I'll make just an SRVL PDF excerpt from my recent 4.4Gb PDF about the A4G, How to Deck Land and the F-35B/C particularly because they are at the forefront of NavAv on a MAGIC CARPET!

See the link at the btm of my posts for how to get aholt of the humungoid PDF & please follow the download instructions.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2017, 13:54
by spazsinbad
A 190 page 'all about SRVL' PDF attached made from a recent 4.4Gb PDF as described above. The SRVL PDF has been reprinted (prn) which flattens the pages and reduces file size however the URL links are lost but URL text still visible.

Pages are a bit jumbled because I got fed up at midnight trying to rearrange them so bear with - be happy but worry. :devil:

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2017, 19:03
by spazsinbad
Found some more SRVL pages to add so now there are 212 - same info as previous post above - new info (posted already in thread) on WIND OVER DECK theoretical measurement with photos of recent actual wind measuring instruments.

SEE NEXT POST BELOW!!! :doh:

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2017, 02:29
by spazsinbad
Had some time to review the SRVL PDF pages - deleted some irrelevant ones and added some more info about V-22 MROL Minimum Run On Landings (very useful for CVN COD V-22s one can imagine) & some stuff about SHOL/SEA STATEs. FINISH.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 26 Nov 2017, 09:56
by spazsinbad
Repeated the SRVL COMPILATION VIDEO here - because of the SRVL Compilation PDF available for free download above.


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 22:48
by monkeypilot
Nice one. TY.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 28 Nov 2017, 22:53
by spazsinbad
No worries. Of course looking through my archive SRVL have found some 'wind over CVF deck sims' that did not make it. I'm working on making PDFs out of them & see if they can be added to SRVL PDF & still be under file limit - probably not.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Nov 2017, 10:24
by spazsinbad
Not sure if this graphic posted here also or just on another forum but anyway it comes from:
The Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers: Airwake Modelling and Validation for ASTOVL Flight Simulation
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mi ... lation.pdf (1.7Mb)

Then: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ma ... arrier.pdf (about 1Mb or so) [LINK is LONG]

LINK to Page to get the PDF: Using airwake simulation to inform flight trials for the Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ss_Carrier

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 01:18
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 06:28
by spazsinbad
This PDF mentioned above is on a page however the URL is very long & problematic for the PDF so the page URL will do:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Simulation (PDF 1.7Mb) [CLICK GRAPHIC & ZOOM IN! Why don'cha]

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 09:30
by neptune
Spaz,

I haven't located any references for the SRVL Program for the F-35B and the DFP ("credited the F-35C's Delta Flight Path (DFP) technology with significantly reducing pilot workload during the approach to the carrier, increasing safety margins during carrier approaches and reducing touchdown dispersion.") and JPALS ("JPALS is a differential GPS-based precision landing system that guides aircraft to carriers and amphibious assault ships in all weather conditions and in surface conditions to sea state 5") and the 60 kt. (+2klb. load carrying) SRVL approach speed. JPALS seems to have been a "big" contributor to the X-47B program CVN approach and landing successes.

Are you aware if there any documents referencing the association of these proven software "algorithms" and SRVL?; any help is appreciated!
:)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Nov 2017, 09:43
by spazsinbad
JPALS has not been installed on CVF QE but will later be used when OKed by the USN on CVNs I expect. For the moment QE will have only the SPN-41(info on Mod In A Muddle thread I think). The F-35B will be in STOVL Mode 4 for an SRVL which is not the same as a 'Delta Flight Path' for the F-35C. However IF you read this thread (& probably others) about SRVL approaches then a group of technologies including the SRVV (Ship Referenced Velocity Vector) in the vHud and Bedford Array on the flight deck will enable precise SRVLs up to sea state 6 are envisaged (via computer sims at moment).

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=375073&hilit=sponson#p375073
&
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=279438&hilit=sponson#p279438

Give me your tired - your poor - those yearning for JPALS: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=269569&hilit=JPALS#p269569
&
SRVL description (videos this thread also): viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=240066&hilit=JPALS#p240066

RN FAA CMDR Pilot talking in video above is Nathan Gray, who will become the 1st F-35B test pilot onboard QE next year.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2017, 02:04
by rheonomic
spazsinbad wrote:up to sea state 6


I'm going to add that to my "things I don't want to ever do" list...

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2017, 02:11
by spazsinbad
Sea State Six: Waves start to roll.
HIGH SEA: Sea begins to roll, dense streaks of foam and much spray. Wind strong gale, 40-48 knots. Beaufort 9. Loose gear and light canvas may part.” http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a118181.pdf

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2017, 03:32
by spazsinbad
Slightly OFF TOPIC (I ain't no helioplickerpilote) HOW TO via CFD aboard QE or somesuch:

PILOTED FLIGHT SIMULATION FOR HELICOPTER OPERATION TO THE QUEEN ELIZABETH CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... T_CARRIERS

PDF: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mi ... RRIERS.pdf (1Mb)

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mi ... elines.jpg

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2017, 03:48
by spazsinbad
WOT is RONG with this 3D model (at $295 no less): https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d ... aft/547776

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 01 Dec 2017, 16:23
by spazsinbad
More text & 2 page PDF of entire article posted in the 'UK MoD in a Muddle' thread earlier but this bit is puzzling.... LINK:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=382226&hilit=Hoyle#p382226
UK prepares the ground for its first Lightning IIs to strike
5-11 Dec 2017 CRAIG HOYLE

"...HMS Queen Elizabeth, will be commissioned by her namesake in Portsmouth on 7 December. The 65,000t vessel will go on to host the first landings by an F-35B in the second half of 2018, during trials conducted off the US east coast.

Further testing will take place in 2019 using HMS Prince of Wales, which will be delivered with a so-called Bedford Array system installed, enabling pilots to employ a shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL) technique...."

Source: Flight International | 5-11 December 2017

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 00:21
by spazsinbad
Prolly from the QE FaceBook page but I got it via e-mail....

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2017, 18:28
by zerion
spazsinbad wrote:Prolly from the QE FaceBook page but I got it via e-mail....


Actually it came from Twitter but whatever.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 05:09
by spazsinbad
I'm BITTER about TWITTER because it seems to be for and used by NUMnuts IMHO! Then again I don't have a mobile phone.
:applause: NICE 'alloycowboy' found this article & noted here: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=52872&p=386162&hilit=proof#p386162

Thought to extract relevant SRVL bits (leaving out stuff we know already; that has been Beaten to Death on this thread).
F-35 'incomparable' to Harrier jump jet, top test pilot tells El Reg
18 Jan 2018 Gareth Corfield

"...SRVL – a thoroughly British bit of innovation
...With the SRVL technique, however, the pilot combines the vertical landing and a traditional horizontal landing like you'd see at an airport. By doing this the amount of Bernoulli lift available is increased – and, in naval aviation terms, the number of unused missiles that can be brought home to fight again with is increased.

"It's a 35-knot overtaking speed at a seven-degree angle relative to the boat," Andy said. [WOD and ship speed ahead flatten the glideslope to 6 degrees prolly - this happens with glidepath for conventional carrier landings] "You're literally coming down at the perfect speed and the perfect angle. This is British, utterly British," he enthused. "Everything we've done with the VAAC Harrier at places like Boscombe [Down, home of British military aviation research], stuff with modelling on how aircraft flies, it's brilliant."

"The VAAC Harrier developed this years ago, with landings [they were SRVL APPROACHES AFAIK as the VAAC was not built for SRVL touchdowns on a flat deck but waved off LOW - otherwise the VAAC did VLs on the FrogCrarrier] on [French aircraft carrier] Charles de Gaulle and the principles behind it were invented by the British," said Andy. The VAAC (Vectored thrust Advanced Aircraft Control) system, developed over the 1980s and 1990s by the British aeronautical industry, was eventually incorporated in the production F-35B, as is being flown by the RAF, the Royal Navy, the US Marines and Italy. [Perhaps the reporter misinterpreted the 'approaches' quote for "landings"?]

That theme of automation also plays into the training for operating the F-35. According to both Andy and BAE Systems, the biggest sub-contractor on the F-35 project, around 3,000 hours of test flying have been completed on the full-motion simulator at BAE's Warton plant. Faith in the fidelity of the simulators is critical for the "flight" trials taking place in the UK, which includes both test flying and the training of landing signals officers (LSOs), who are F-35 pilots tasked with talking their comrades safely down to the deck. The simulators for both are linked, meaning the trainee pilot and trainee LSO can interact...."

Source: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/1 ... im_flight/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 05:18
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:WOT is RONG with this 3D model (at $295 no less): https://www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/3d ... aft/547776


I give up.. what's wrong?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 05:23
by spazsinbad
Aren't you good. :D Perhaps if you ZOOM in by clicking the image &/OR using your browser ZOOM function you will see? 8)

CLUE: middle of the deck - back a smidge - more or less....

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 05:34
by SpudmanWP
Maybe he based it off this 2016 article?

Image

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/b ... rs-9259482

1. Both islands are jacked up
2. JBD
3. The right side is supposed to be straight, not bulged out.

Here is a 4k * 3k image of the deck

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 753%29.jpg

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 06:05
by spazsinbad
NOICE CVF Image - thanks 'SWP'. One can see that is a poor 3D graphic not worth much. I'll concede your points - my main interest was the JBD which was removed from the design c.2008 per.... [nice long informative article BTW - repeated....]

All of it: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=172162&hilit=scheduling+integration#p172162
Preparing for take-off: UK ramps up F-35 carrier integration effort
11 Dec 2008 International Defence Review

“...In the final analysis, the decision has been taken to delete the JBD from the STOVL CVF design. Cdr Lison explains: "We determined from the CFD modelling that the legacy JBD did not offer adequate protection. Alternative designs were considered which offered some benefit, but two considerations persuaded us to delete the requirement.

"First, the nozzle scheduling of the F-35B on take-off has yet to be fully established, and there was a risk that the jet blast would simply 'bounce' over the JBD. Second, the JBD was in a single fixed position on the flight deck, so there was no flexibility with regard to the length of the take-off run."...”



Source: http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1507&st=120

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2018, 11:21
by spazsinbad
Lightning Force takes shape [ download/file.php?id=26667 (1.36Mb) ]
March 2018 Alan Warnes [more quotes from same article: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=389042&hilit=Warnes#p389042 ]

"...Shipborne rolling vertical landing
At Pax River, Sqn Ldr Edgell is part of a team of 220 personnel, a mix of UK/US military and civilians. They form the ITF that will execute the autumn trial. He preferred not to give the exact dates of the trials, which are now set in stone, but confirmed there would be two phases within the two months of work.

“We are capable of doing two months at sea, but it’s a challenge to continue the high level of concentration, efficiency and effectiveness, so we are breaking it down in two phases, with a week’s break in between.”

He explained that first-of-class flight trials will always start at a safe and comfortable part of the F-35B’s envelope. “We will conduct vertical landings and short take-offs from the ship, while it is at low speed and with little crosswind, nothing too significant, but then build up the forward speed with a little bit of tailwind, then crosswinds with asymmetric stores on the aircraft and night-phase ops. We will expand the vertical and short take-off regime, but an extra aspect for us is the shipborne rolling vertical landing [SRVL].”

This is a concept invented by the UK on the VAAC (Vectored-thrust Aircraft Advanced Control) Harrier, which was proven during trials aboard the French Navy’s Charles de Gaulle carrier in 2007. When returning to the carrier, an in-service Harrier would normally pull up beside the ship, and then hover sideways across the deck and land, just as the F-35 will. However, SRVL enables the aircraft to keep the forward speed, with the onboard computers able to help the jet create wing lift. At the same time, the thrust from its engine and lift fan creates the forward momentum that can directly translate to a bring-back capability. This enables the aircraft to accomplish a slow landing speed of 57kts, and the ability to return with more weapons and fuel. Normally, this would have had to be dumped before landing, particularly when working in hot climates, so the SRVL will save the British taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Edgell added: “The F-35Bs will fly at about 35 knots overtake, or, simply put, 35 knots faster than the boat on a seven degree flight path, then when the jet hits the deck the pilot will jump on the brakes. We couldn’t do it with the Harrier and the [Invincible-class] ships were not long enough.”

Four pilots will be involved in trials, and potentially a fifth pilot in reserve. The ITF team will comprise UK and US test pilots, possibly alongside specialists such as BAE’s Peter ‘Wizzer’ Wilson, the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) lead test pilot. It will deploy for eight weeks, utilising VX-23’s specialised test F-35B Block 3F jets, which the UK bought into.

A year after the tests are completed, in autumn 2019, No 17(R) Squadron, with elements of No 617 Squadron, will carry out the operational F-35B tests on HMS Queen Elizabeth. This is part of Lightning IOC (Maritime) planned for late 2020 that will pave the way for the carrier and ‘Dambusters’ F-35Bs to make an inaugural deployment together in 2021. These are exciting times for the F-35 Lightning Force, as the fifthgeneration fighter shapes up to spearhead air power for decades to come, on land and at sea."

Source: AirForces Monthly Magazine March 2018 No.360

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 21:54
by steve2267
spazsinbad wrote:
Lightning Force takes shape [ download/file.php?id=26667 (1.36Mb) ]
March 2018 Alan Warnes However, SRVL enables the aircraft to keep the forward speed, with the onboard computers able to help the jet create wing lift. At the same time, the thrust from its engine and lift fan creates the forward momentum that can directly translate to a bring-back capability.

Source: AirForces Monthly Magazine March 2018 No.360


Ho Ree Chit! Looks like I gotta give the Brits credit where it's due: figuring out how to create wing lift with onboard computers! And a lift fan that doesn't create lift, but forward momentum! Dang, but if the Brits aren't clever chaps.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2018, 00:23
by spazsinbad
Perhaps a misplaced comma is involved? I feel for the knowledgeable journo aviationwise who attempts to quickly explain complicated aviation issues relatively simply for those not so well informed. For example let us parse that sentence again.... Yep the words can be changed and re-arranged however I'll just change/add the comma - see what happens....
"... SRVL enables the aircraft to keep the forward speed [KIAS], with the onboard computers, able to help the jet create wing lift. At the same time, the thrust from its engine and lift fan creates the forward momentum.... ['momentum' is BAD because it is KIAS wot does it]

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 23 Apr 2018, 11:01
by spazsinbad
Earlier MUCH LONGER excerpt from JANES PDF is here: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=393241&hilit=FOCFT#p393241
Lining up the approach: RN prepares for F-35B trials on Queen Elizabeth
06 Feb 2018 Richard Scott, Jane’s Defence Weekly

...SRVL testing
While ski-jump launch and VL envelopes will be prioritised in the early part of the test programme, SRVLs have also been included in the plan. “For the first four weeks we will be looking to do vertical landings in fairly benign sea states, working up to higher sea states and then into rolling vertical landings,” Cdr Gray told Jane’s . “Our ambition is to include SRVL in the first portion of testing.”

Pilots making a vertical recovery will use a glide slope and long-range line-up indicator system incorporating two Advanced Stabilised Glide Slope Indicators (ASGSIs). The two ASGSI projectors, situated one forward and one aft on the port side of the flight deck, provide a long-range line-up indication.

The execution of an SRVL has required the development of a quite different VLA known as the ‘Bedford Array’. Originated and initially prototyped by QinetiQ, the Bedford Array uses software-controlled LED lights in the deck tramlines to provide a stabilised glidepath alignment cue and a forward and aft limit line to F-35B pilots carrying out SRVL approaches.

“The Bedford Array will give us a [SHIP?]geostabilised approach for the SRVL so we maintain on glide slope whatever the ship is doing in the higher sea states,” said Cdr Gray. “We also have the LSO [in the FLYCO], who is absolutely critical to flight safety.

“The SRVL [approach] is a very precise profile, which needs to be flown to make it safe and repeatable, so the LSO … will have all the technology, with the glide slope scale, to talk us down and, if necessary, to wave us off so we can go back around and re-attempt. “From our simulator trials we’re confident [that SRVL is] going to be safe and effective,” he continued. “It will allow us to bring back considerably more weapon payload or fuel. If it’s fuel then that makes it inherently safer to operate because it gives us the option to divert, or maybe to make another approach.”

Even so, as Atkinson pointed out, there remains an element of the unknown when it comes to SRVL. “We have conducted a lot of work on the manoeuvre in the simulator, but we have never flown an SRVL with an F-35 to a real ship before,” he noted, warning that “in that case we must progress cautiously; SRVL is in a very different state of maturity than vertical landing. “In the latter case we are absolutely confident we know the capability we can obtain and possibly extend beyond what is already available on the US Navy’s LHDs [landing helicopter dock amphibious ships] because our islands are so much further away from our landing spots, so the airflow characteristics over the deck for a vertical landing ought to be good.”...

Source: http://www.janes.com/images/assets/632/ ... zabeth.pdf (0.85Mb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2018, 09:59
by spazsinbad
Pilot's eye view of F 35B Lightning from HMS Queen Elizabeth [includes ski jump STO & SRVL]


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 23 Jul 2018, 17:33
by spazsinbad
Could go in the other thread 'MoD in a Muddle' however I'll plonk it here for the specific bit about Bedford Array fitment.
The HMS Queen Elizabeth and Crafting the Way Ahead for Its Initial Deployment
15 Jun 2018 Robbin Laird

"...Captain Blackmore highlighted the way ahead: “We accepted the ship last December and she will go off for the next two years to do fixed wing trials. “We will do Developmental Test (DT) one and two this Autumn, DT three next Autumn, then Operational Test with the goal of achieving an initial operational capability (IOC) for carrier strike in December 2020 and then about four months later, we plan to deploy CSG-21.

“My focus is clearly on this end point, namely the first deployment wherever it is finally decided to do the initial deployment. “Prince of Wales comes on about two years astern to Queen Elizabeth and she will be seen off the US Eastern Seaboard early next decade to do the rolling landing trials.

“We have a new landing aide called a Bedford array which is fitted to Prince of Wales which allows us to exploit the full enveloped of rolling landing and gives the pilot visual cues which enhance his capability to come back to the ship with more fuel and weapons as needed, The Queen Elizabeth will then be fitted with the new system.”

A key element for the carrier is clearly its integration with the F-35 for which the developmental test will expound[? -EXPAND?] this Fall off of the Virginia coast. The declaration of full operational capability for the carrier is correlated with the operation of the first 24 F-35Bs, which will occur by 2023...."

Source: https://sldinfo.com/2018/06/the-hms-que ... eployment/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 02:01
by spazsinbad
Page 23 of this thread has links to other V-22 MROL info so I thought to put this latest news here instead of elsewhere:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=314261&hilit=MROL#p314261
The Future of U.S. Navy Onboard Delivery Missions [JPG Reminds me of "Look Ma No Hook" C-130 tests long ago 1964?]
10 Aug 2018 Petty Officer 3rd Class Roland John USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)

"...In August 2018, Osprey pilots successfully tested rolling landing and takeoffs in excess of 57,000 pounds on the flight deck of the ship. This key capability allows the Osprey to haul more weight than the C-2A, which is limited to landing at 49,000 pounds. GHWB’s onboard testing included integrating the MV-22 into flight deck operations, and heavy gross weight rolling landings and takeoffs....

...The Navy COD crews piloting CMV-22 aircraft will land and take off with forward airspeed, which allows flight at a much higher weight....

...The CMV-22 Osprey is expected to achieve Initial Operational Capability by 2021. As compared to the MV-22B, the Navy variant has extended operational range, a beyond line-of-sight HF radio, improved fuel dump capability, a public address system for passengers, and an improved lighting system for cargo loading."

Photo:"Photo By Petty Officer 3rd Class Roland John | 180801-N-FA806-0068 ATLANTIC OCEAN (Aug. 1, 2018) An MV-22 Osprey, assigned to Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (HX) 21, lands on the flight deck aboard the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77). The ship is underway conducting routine training exercises to maintain carrier readiness. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Roland John)" https://www.dvidshub.net/download/image/4617247 (1Mb)


Source: https://www.dvidshub.net/news/288382/fu ... y-missions

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 22:33
by spazsinbad
Carrier Bush, Osprey COD trials Aug 2018


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 00:33
by Corsair1963
If, only the UK had a modest number of Osprey's for it Queen Elizabeth Carriers. Which, could perform AEW&C, Tanker, and COD Missions. Then you could really exploit the F-35B's. :twisted:

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 01:41
by spazsinbad
IF ONLY the UK had heaps of money to spare for such things - maybe later. They struggle as it is.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 03:47
by Corsair1963
The UK could afford more. Just the Government chooses not too....... :|

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2018, 22:24
by spazsinbad
Jeepers I had forgotten that USN had carried out MROL tests on a CVN in 2015:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=23690&p=308836&hilit=speke#p308836
V-22 Testing Could Lead To Higher Takeoff Weights
12 Nov 2015 Tony Osborne

"DUBAI – Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has been working to widen the V-22 Osprey’s flight envelope by testing rolling landing [MROL] and takeoffs, which could pave the way for higher takeoff weights. Speaking at the Dubai Airshow on Nov. 10, Col. Dan Robinson, V-22 program manager, said the tests would be applicable to the Osprey’s use as the Navy’s future carrier/vertical onboard delivery (COD/VOD) platform as well as amphibious assault ships.

The tests were carried out on one of the Navy’s aircraft carriers in October, and saw the Osprey perform 69 minimum roll-on landings using the angled deck for the landing and takeoff runs. Crews also performed 14 takeoffs at the MV-22’s maximum gross weight of 60,500 lb., some 3,500 lb. over the Osprey’s current maximum rolling takeoff weight of 57,000 lb. The current maximum vertical takeoff weight is 52,600 lb. The aim is to make Osprey’s maximum gross weight also the rolling maximum takeoff weight, industry officials told Aviation Week.

“This was done as a target of opportunity,” Robinson told reporters. “The same handling qualities can be used on the Marine amphibious assault ships.”..."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/v-22-te ... ff-weights

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 17:56
by spazsinbad
Good SIM Pilot Views of SRVL Approaches plus other GUFF.

F-35B and QEC integration testing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKbFb9Mln18


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 18:43
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:Good SIM Pilot Views of SRVL Approaches plus other GUFF.

F-35B and QEC integration testing https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKbFb9Mln18



Excellent video. I noted a couple things in no particular order of significance --

1) The change in lift fan rpm upon commencement of the descent.
2) Use of the command speed function (note "CMD" above the airspeed circle on the left side at 1:01) with 64kts (calibrated) selected (at least at the point I could see it).
3) Touchdown at 65 kts calibrated and 53 kts GS at about the 650' mark with rollout of about 300' to the 350 mark.
4) A great look at what the propulsion system is doing with ETR (Engine Thrust Request) as well as fan and main engine nozzle angles during the approach and after touchdown.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2018, 18:47
by spazsinbad
Thanks for looking at detail - bin busy so I'll look again for all those clues - yes engine noise is good to hear in the sim.
Role of simulator hailed in preparing pilots for flying new fighter
30 Oct 2017 Iain Lynn

"...RAF test pilot Squadron Leader Andy Edgell has been using the simulator, featuring a replica cockpit on a moving platform and domed screens, to train in ahead of the trials next year. The 37-year-old, when quizzed on the facility's importance, said it is a "critical piece of the puzzle" regarding their preparations.

"This simulator is by far the most realistic simulator that I have ever been in. "You sometimes forget that it is not real," he told the Press Association. "Sometimes your heart rate increases on some of the manoeuvres that we are performing, some of the more challenging conditions that we are flying in. "You genuinely feel as though you are in the real environment. Without the sim... we would be going significantly less prepared....

...Sqn Ldr Edgell said it is a "fantastic capability", adding: "We are landing on the back of the carrier whilst moving forwards. It is an interesting challenge. "Not something the Harrier Jump Jet was capable of, he said the F-35 and Queen Elizabeth class carrier together now produce a system where a jet can land with forward speed, without the need for an arresting hook or cable. "I appreciate it might not be exciting for all, but certainly for testers, test pilots and test engineers, this is experimental stuff, this is fascinating," Sqn Ldr Edgell said of the "incredibly complex and detailed work"....

Photo: "Royal Air Force Squadron Leader Andy Edgell, the UK's lead test pilot, using a specialist fighter jet simulator at BAE Systems in Warton" http://www.lep.co.uk/webimage/1.8831018 ... /image.jpg


Source: https://www.lep.co.uk/news/politics/rol ... -1-8831020

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 00:41
by spazsinbad
A screenshot from 1min 1sec from video above. I'll look to zoom in to vHUD view if good enough. Click the JPG then click again to zoom in. Top Left of ZOOM we see CMD DFP approach 64 KIAS closing speed 55 KIAS. The BTM Left F-35 ICON reminds me of the DOG Trumpet MAMBO LOGO: https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/0f2 ... d4261d3396

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 01:10
by quicksilver
Nice screen capture. What tells us that is at 1:01 because that is clearly further along in the approach? Perhaps you grabbed the wrong video whilst you were singing along with your dog?

You can see the CMD speed earlier at 82KCAS with 64 'commanded' while the jet is still decelerating. I had to watch it full screen and dynamically to see it. Doesnt stay visible long because of blue v white background in the visual image.

You might also note the difference between the aircraft FPM/VV at ~4-4.5 degrees while the jet is driving to the SRVV and the DFP-referenced glide path of something steeper. Note also how close SRVV/DFP reference is to Bedford array.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 16:25
by zerion

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 16:53
by spazsinbad
Thanks for that 'zerion'- looks like a doddle - a walk in the park. :mrgreen: Of course there will be other factors to consider....

HMS Queen Elizabeth First F 35B SRVL 14 Oct 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3BSdHh6ewY


__________________________________________________________________________________

F-35 pilot makes history with revolutionary way of landing jet on board HMS Queen Elizabeth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP0rUkDz_Fg


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 19:32
by steve2267
Damn... that's just cheating...

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 21:59
by marsavian
That seemed slower and perhaps more hesitant than I expected but conversely it hardly used any horizontal runway. Could the Marines adopt this ?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 23:13
by spazsinbad
marsavian wrote:That seemed slower and perhaps more hesitant than I expected but conversely it hardly used any horizontal runway. Could the Marines adopt this ?

"Could the Marines adopt this?" Sadly there are two threads about such matters with probably lots more in asides in other threads. However this thread should have some discussion about WHY the USMC won't adopt the SRVL. Anticipating this very question again (despite other discussions) a comparo between CVF & LHA was made to visually show why probably the USMC are not interested - after all they required the KPP for VL and they have it with added bring back weight bonus most likely (such details are not known by us however the KPP has been met). Some say the USMC will find out all about SRVL if they train for it when they go aboard QE in a year or so. HOWEVER even though we have seen one of the FIRST SRVLs we don't know if the test pilots will think it is a good idea in different conditions so that the SRVL is signed off for the general use of UK F-35Bs OR whether or NOT the UK put SRVLs in their bag o'tricks because they may be well satisfied with the bringback for VLs in their extreme conditions (still to be decided also). Patience about such matters is good.

DECKs: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=402861&hilit=comparo#p402861 WITH decks below: download/file.php?id=28469

The USMC was interested in SRVL when they perhaps were going to operate their F-35B ONLY force on CVNs - but not now.

Image

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2018, 23:29
by spazsinbad
Aviation history made on board HMS Queen Elizabeth
14 Oct 2018 SaveTheRoyalNavy

"...The aircraft touched down 755 feet back from the end of the carrier’s ski jump, the jet came to a complete standstill at the 580-foot mark. Using powerful brakes, the aircraft decelerates from about 40 knots to a standstill in around 175 feet.

Previously STOVL aircraft have conducted only vertical landings, hovering by the side of the ship before moving sideways over the deck and descending slowly. During SRVL the aircraft approaches the ship directly from behind at relatively low speed. A combination of thrust from its nozzle and lift-fan and lift created by air over the wings allows it to land with up to 7000lbs greater all up weight (UAW). Without SRVL capability, the F-35B would be forced to ditch some or all of the unused fuel and weapons when returning to the ship. Fuel is a precious resource and munitions are expensive. For example a single AIM-120D AMRAAM missile costs around £2.4 Million. With limited stocks and such a price tag, not something you want to casually jettison into the sea if unused. [There is a GOOD VL KPP for bringback weight]

Early critics of the STOVL version of the F-35 said SRVL could not be conducted safely. Their criticism was based on experience with the Harrier where this procedure was found to be too dangerous to be a feature of operational flying. The F-35 is a very different aircraft to the Harrier, with a great deal of automation that drastically reduces pilot workload. HMS Queen Elizabeth also has much more available deck space for the aircraft to roll along than the CVS.

This first SRVL was conducted in very benign conditions but will be more demanding at night on a wet and heaving while deck carrying weapons. Although early days, this is an encouraging start and validates years of work in the simulator. It also indicates the FOCFT programme is progressing fast and has not encountered any problems.

The UK is the only nation currently planning to use SRVL although the US Marine Corps is following developments closely as its aircraft are likely to be frequently embarked aboard the QEC carriers. USMC Test pilot, Major Michael Lippert is on board and commented “This is one of the main reasons we are here. It is of interest to the service at large and we are learning from each other. I will have the honour of conducting the first SRVL at sea for the US military so I’m excited. It’s what we all join up for – this is truly experimental test flying.”..."

Photo: "Pete “whizzer” Wilson, BAE Systems test pilot who flew the aircraft making the first real SRVL. Working as part of the JSF programme for 17 years, in preparation he had already conducted 2000 SRVLs in the simulator at Warton in Lancashire." https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/wp-con ... -Pilot.jpg



Source: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/aviati ... elizabeth/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 00:54
by spazsinbad
A repeat diagram / info about how to calculate an SRVL approach from whatever is given for the conditions as shown:

NOTE how the port side F-35Bs are parked at an angle to increase the 'width' or impression of WIDTH for SRVL pilots. :mrgreen:

http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm & download/file.php?id=22502

Image

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 02:21
by sferrin
spazsinbad wrote:
DECKs: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=402861&hilit=comparo#p402861 WITH decks below: download/file.php?id=28469

The USMC was interested in SRVL when they perhaps were going to operate their F-35B ONLY force on CVNs - but not now.

Image



Wouldn't the length be closer than you show given that some of the QE2's is taken up by the ski-jump up front? Also, there are videos of USMC F-35Bs performing SRVL on land runways several years old.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 02:46
by spazsinbad
'sferrin' said: "Wouldn't the length be closer than you show given that some of the QE2's is taken up by the ski-jump up front? Also, there are videos of USMC F-35Bs performing SRVL on land runways several years old."


I don't know if you have followed the 'USMC SRVL discussions'. An RVL on land runways is NOT the same as an SRVL. On a flat deck at sea there are SIX Degrees of Freedom of Movement for the flat deck. About the only thing different from an angle deck landing are the points summarized ad nauseam such as wind down the axial (perhaps) and it is a short straightaway from a low start altitude at a low KIAS as seen in the diagrams and now a REAL VIDEO. Perhaps the ski jump length of some 200+ feet is usable for an 'srvl bolter' (mentioned years ago now but not since then). To me it seems everyone gets ahead of what is happening as I have highlighted a few times recently now. NEVER MIND THE QUALITY (length) FEEL THE WIDTH. I'm not happy to see an SRVL on a narrow LHA deck but you may be as neither of us have to do it. As time goes by we will know more about 'what it is like to actually SRVL (without a BEDFORD ARRAY) onboard the QE'.

I recall a now old Warton Sim Video where the 'scoffers' scoffed at the claim that the F-35B stopped within 200 feet.

SRVL F-35B Demo CVF Sim + extras [04 Jul 2014] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uPWjq23vL0
&
SRVL F-35B Test Pilot 'Wizzer' Wilson 1st Approach/Landing [14oct2018] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0KT1BxeqLk




Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 04:09
by spazsinbad
HMS Queen Elizabeth: Video shows British F-35 pilot carrying out ‘revolutionary’ first rolling landing on £3bn carrier
14 Oct 2018 Byron Melton

"...In the HMS Queen Elizabeth’s ‘packed but eerily silent’ flying control centre, it was Royal Navy lieutenant and landing safety officer [LSO] Christopher Mould who gave the historic SVRL the go-ahead – seconds before the F-35 jet carrying Mr Wilson touched down. ‘It was a pretty intense experience. It's the first time we’ve ever done it,’ he said. ‘As the independent checker, I have to make sure that what we are seeing in the flying control centre is also what the pilot is seeing and call it as I see it.’...

...The USMC, which also flies the F-35B variant used by HMS Queen Elizabeth, will join the ship when she deploys operationally for the first time in 2021. Maj Lippert said: ‘This is one of the main reasons we are here. It is of interest to the service at large and we are learning from each other. ‘I will have the honour of conducting the first SRVL at sea for the US military so I’m excited. It’s what we all join up for – this is truly experimental test flying.’

Source: https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/defen ... -1-8668370

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 18:53
by spazsinbad
'SaveTheRoyalNavy' complained about a dodgey PR blurb with YARDS in it. So here it is - I guess the USN just repeated it.
F-35 ITF conducts first Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing on HMS Queen Elizabeth
15 Oct 2018 PEO(JSF) Integrated Test Facility Public Affairs

"...The first SRVL was conducted by Peter Wilson, a BAE Systems U.K. test pilot with the F-35 Pax River Integrated Test Force, and took place at 10:30 a.m. Oct. 13, 2018, off the east coast of the U.S. Landing 755 yards back from the end of the carrier’s ski jump, the jet came to a complete standstill at the 580 yard mark...."

Photo Caption: "The first ever Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) has been carried out with an F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighter jet conducting trials onboard the new British aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth. The U.K. is the only nation currently planning to use the maneuver, which will allow jets to land onboard with heavier loads, meaning they won't need to jettison expensive fuel and weapons before landing. The landing, conducted by Peter Wilson, a BAE Systems UK test pilot with the F-35 Pax River Integrated Test Force, took place at exactly 10:30 a.m. Oct. 13, 2018, off the east coast of the U.S. Landing 755 yards back from the end of the carrier's ski jump, the jet came to a complete standstill at the 580 yard mark. Royal Navy photo"


Source: http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fu ... ry&id=6947

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 19:44
by marsavian
I suppose a land base could use this technique too, a short landing to go with their short takeoff. Considering the plane can take off vertically too as well as land that way there is total symmetry in the exit/return phase options making this plane as flexible as you can get in basing/payload trade-offs.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 19:49
by spazsinbad
There is no 'suppose' needed. However to save engine wear and tear (apart from practicing a land short landing in STOVL Mode 4) the F-35B will land in the same way a conventional aircraft lands (for example the other variants F-35A & F-35C).

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 19:58
by SpudmanWP
Austere ops use SRVL-types of landings. They have been doing that since the Harriers.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 20:18
by spazsinbad
Perhaps it has not been explained enough. The F-35B can land conventionally (which it will do most of the time on suitable land runways). Then for 'austere' ops it can land in STOVL MODE FOUR from a relatively fast airspeed (because it has lots of extra weight onboard / fuel/ weapons) to a very slow forward airspeed then down to a vertical landing when if the wind direction / speed is an issue such as when onboard, the aircraft can fly BACKWARDS at 30 KIAS (when in effect it may be in a hover with the wind down the tail pipe). Of course these are extremes however as noted show the versatility.

IIRC the maximum ground speed for tyres is 175 knots. Add on wind from the front during a land landing in STOVL Mode 4 or even a conventional landing to get the KIAS maximum when extra heavy whilst remaining under whatever the maximum weight for landing limit (I have no idea what that is). However in conventional mode a FLARE could cushion such things.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2018, 21:14
by spazsinbad
HMS Queen Elizabeth, first SRVL, comparisons https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au-Jh-Fayvg


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 01:05
by spazsinbad
IF that is a GoPro or similar camera in the WILSON photo ZOOM, we may get to see some video of the first approach?
“The first ever Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing (SRVL) has been carried out with an F-35B Lightning II joint strike fighter jet conducting trials onboard the new British aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth. The U.K. is the only nation currently planning to use the maneuver, which will allow jets to land onboard with heavier loads, meaning they won't need to jettison expensive fuel and weapons before landing. The landing, conducted by Peter Wilson, a BAE Systems UK test pilot with the F-35 Pax River Integrated Test Force, took place at exactly 10:30 a.m. Oct. 13, 2018, off the east coast of the U.S. Landing 755 feet [YARDS amended to FEET] back from the end of the carrier's ski jump, the jet came to a complete standstill at the 580 foot mark. Royal Navy photo” http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/ ... 99-002.jpg & http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/ ... 99-006.jpg

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 02:51
by weasel1962
SRVL is good news. Add engine improvements e.g. growth option 1A which would increase vertical thrust (and hence bringback) by another 2k lbs + future growth option 2A, could the 2x2800lb external fuel tank carriage become a technical reality for the B in terms of carrier ops?

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 03:10
by spazsinbad
A few IFS in that conjecture. Why does the BEE need EFTs if the extra engine power/less fuel used is utilized? How that will affect extra range is unknown (unless you know) and how the extra external fuel will be useful for range (perhaps useful for buddy tanking but deemed unnecessary for the UK F-35B ops at moment - perhaps the USMC will find them useful in some new scenario?). Too many known unknowns methinks. F135 engine upgrades for BEE & others will be nice.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 03:55
by weasel1962
Assuming the 2x 426 gal EFTs. ~5500 lbs of fuel could add at least 150 nm to combat radius. It will mean 19k lbs of fuel (A carries 18k lbs, C - 19.6k lbs).

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2018, 04:32
by spazsinbad
There has been discussion for using EFTs/CFTs a few times with lots of vague advantages mentioned but nothing from an official source (except perhaps long ago now) with a consensus YMMV (YM seems to vary) that nothing much by way of miles is gained by the added drag/weight of such EFTs especially. That seems to be the reason development of such extra tankage has been ignored (except perhaps by Israel however we have heard nothing for a long long time). Remember that the extra weight of tanks/fuel probably needs to be offset by fewer weapons carried (depending on circumstances of the launch). USMC has an LHA MTOW limit of which we are not aware. We know CVFs can launch an F-35B at MTOW with a known number/weight of weapons from longest mark on the deck. I reckon just guessing is a waste of time otherwise.

I have read comments that because the F-35B does not require the same amount of bingo fuel as the F-35C for example that without that 'extra baggage' & using the fuel it has the Bee can have a similar range to the Cee (just a guess though).

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 10:07
by spazsinbad
200 pages (reprinted PRN so no live URL links) of SRVL goodness as up to date & relevant as can be - for the time being.

F-35B SRVL INFO 18 Oct 2018 PRN pp 200.PDF (9.7Mb) attached below.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 16:29
by quicksilver
Why no SRVL for USMC on LHA/Ds? Space available (lateral...on LHA/Ds, between the scuppers and the foul line) and deck motion. QE much larger and much more stable vessel than large Gators.

Will be interesting to see if they even test such a thing on the US ships. USN made quite a conniption about it for CVN.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 18:39
by steve2267
If they are intended as aviation-centric boats, with an eye towards use as Lightning carriers with updwards of 20-25 F-35B, IMO adding ramps to LHA-6 and LHA-7 increases the strike power of those vessels. Maybe this makes more sense if the USMC / USN adopt the SRVL recovery technique.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 20:04
by quicksilver
steve2267 wrote:If they are intended as aviation-centric boats, with an eye towards use as Lightning carriers with updwards of 20-25 F-35B, IMO adding ramps to LHA-6 and LHA-7 increases the strike power of those vessels.


They still remain multi-purpose ships; the principle enablers of those purposes are aviation centric and are mostly tilt-rotor/RW. The cost/benefit of such mods have never made the cut priority-wise. They can probably pull such trades off-the-shelf from previous go-rounds on the topic.

steve2267 wrote:Maybe this makes more sense if the USMC / USN adopt the SRVL recovery technique.


Ramps do not obviate the principle challenge (as I mentioned above) which is the width of the available landing area. When combined with limits on deck motion (principally roll), the operating envelope would be very small.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 20:25
by steve2267
Copy all, QS. Thank you for the informative reply. I think I finally "gittit."

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 22:19
by quicksilver
Stevie, there are a couple pics here that give one a better perspective on how tight things are on the flight deck of a large amphib. There may be some foreshortening effect from the lens but not much...

I think there is 57' feet from the deck-edge scupper to the foul line. One cannot see the foul line in those pics but it is a (painted) red and white segmented line the runs parallel to the deck edge near the island. The white gear that you see next to the island in the pics are just outside (on the 'safe' side of) the foul line.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=54421&p=401681&hilit=lha+flight+deck#p401681

Here's another link to a pic that shows the foul line and the space available in the landing area.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q ... 4053143691

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2018, 23:07
by spazsinbad
:devil: Are those 'A's in the GOOGLE image above from the RADAR interfering with digital camera? :doh: ALAMing.
"A CH-53 Super Stallion helicopter lands on the flight deck of future amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA 6) while in transit to San Francisco Bay for the Navy’s 34th annual fleet week. During the visit, the crew is scheduled to participate in a variety of community relations projects throughout the Bay area. America is scheduled to be ceremoniously commissioned near the end of fleet week, Oct. 11. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ryan Riley/Released) San Francisco First Responders visit 141006-N-MZ309-015 - Image ID: HFD227
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-ch- ... 79423.html

:mrgreen: FireFlies appear to have got into the camera for next photo. :roll: Island clearance from 'wall' visible. Next USS Wasp view in F-35 Travel Simulator?: http://media2.fdncms.com/sevendaysvt/im ... 77fa45.jpg

LOTsa grafix for USMC mini carrier with deck/hangar plans: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -schem.htm

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2018, 00:18
by quicksilver
Wonder is it's an optical illusion or the sim people got the tram lineup wrong? (Tram is the wide yellow line referenced for lineup on TO/Lndg; in the real world, it is off-center)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2018, 01:03
by spazsinbad
Yeah. The camera is off center to the panels so already there is a perspective error - we don't see what sim pilot sees. There is a great photo of an LHA from an approach angle down the centerline - I may find it soon.... Different views but not THE ONE here: https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/sto ... ica-lha-6/ An old LHA pic in this: http://seabeemagazine.navylive.dodlive. ... pter-8.pdf (1.5Mb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2018, 01:08
by quicksilver
Actually, not referring to the pilot's line-up. Rather, the position of the tram in the area between the deck edge and the foul line. The tram is off-center in the real world; I've forgotten the reason. You can see it most clearly in the pic with the '53s.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2018, 01:11
by quicksilver
Here's a good shot --

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/im ... 3hgbxr.png

Spaz, the black and white of Peleliu highlights the unique arrangement of that class of (earlier) LHA. They had flight deck cutouts for the gun mounts; you can see the CIWS port side aft, and if you look closely those forward, both port and starboard. At one time the forward stations mounted 5" guns. Not sure about what was aft. The tram line was actually slightly angled to give the aircraft the appropriate separation from the cutout at bow exit. Important for Harrier with the outriggers positioned where they were -- notably closer for AV-8A given the wing tip position.

You will also notice that there was no room whatsoever between the foul line and the island on that class LHA...

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2018, 01:52
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2018, 02:26
by spazsinbad
AV-8B NATOPS has this graphic (it could be improved more but wot the hell I'll attach the page PDFwise riteWayUP! also.
http://www.filefactory.com/file/5mxvt1q ... ndbook.pdf (28Mb) AV-8B NATOPS 1984 Preliminary
AV-8A NATOPS: 1973 https://www.filefactory.com/file/4cjegc ... AV8A-1.pdf (80Mb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2018, 00:15
by spazsinbad
Now that SRVL is a reality and given the HEAPS of info about it perhaps this video of F-35B vHUD in sim makes more sense?

F-35B SRVL Warton Shipborne Rolling Vertical Land Sim ZOOM [watch nozzles move after T/D F-35B ICON BTM LEFT]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8M7RcWuZMs



F-35B SRVL Warton Shipborne Rolling Vertical Landing Sim https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02krA7oRK9Y


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2018, 16:36
by Gums
Salute!

Great HUD video.

I was surprised that there was not a steering symbol and that the pilot had to basically use the pitch references that HUD's have displayed for a hundred years along with the FPM. It's what we did in the Sluf, Jag and other early jets with a HUD and good inertial.

I now see why USMC plans on the vertical landing when deck space is considered. The doggone jet is easier to land vertically than the Harrier and prolly uses lots less gas. It zips in, stops, slides to the side and plops down. I bet it does the drill in half the time than a Harrier.

OTOH, the rolling landing would seem appropriate on a short runway/austere environment when bringing back ord or empty tanks or....

Gums sends...

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 07 Dec 2018, 20:51
by spazsinbad
Several previous stories (perhaps from other news outlets AFAIK) have stated the BEDFORD ARRAY is NOT installed on QE - it will be installed later. The array will be installed aboard HMS Prince of Wales during construction however. Anyhoo…
ANALYSIS: UK on a roll after F-35B carrier trials
07 Dec 2018 Richard Scott

"...Fifteen SRVL recoveries were performed using integrated test force (ITF) development aircraft BF-04 and BF-05 during the two periods of development testing (DT-1/DT-2) during the ship's recent first-of-class flight trials. Pilots and test engineers from the ITF embarked for the activity confirm that initial testing validated simulations and has given confidence in the innovative manoeuvre….

...Other benefits of the SRVL manoeuvre include reduced deck wear, extended engine life and reduced fuel burn.

When executing an SRVL recovery, a pilot descends the aircraft to a 200ft plateau to line up and decelerate, before flying short finals along a 7˚ glideslope at a speed of approximately 60kt (110km/h). Assuming 25kt wind over the deck, this equates to a 35kt overtake speed. The pilot can fly a manual approach or engage "Delta Flight Path" mode to automatically fly the glideslope with minimum intervention....

...A ship-referenced velocity vector is incorporated in the pilot's helmet-mounted display, to provide a flightpath marker corrected for ship speed. HMS Queen Elizabeth is also equipped with an SRVL-specific visual landing aid, in the form of a mini fixed array of lights in the flightdeck tramlines, which provides a stabilised glideslope indication.

The SRVL manoeuvre also requires close co-operation with the ship's landing signal officer (LSO) in the flying control tower, or "FLYCO". The LSO monitors the aircraft's approach to the deck to check that glideslope, airspeed, attitude and line-up remain within parameters....

..."In my view, this is the way to land that airplane on this carrier, because it gives you so much capability," he [BAE Systems F-35 STOVL test pilot 'Wizzer' Wilson] says. "At this point, if you want me to go and land an F-35B on Queen Elizabeth, I’m going to do an SRVL." [deck spotter supreme huh]

RN Cdr Nathan Gray, another of the ITF test pilots involved in DT-1/DT-2, observes that flight testing has proved the SRVL to be a benign manoeuvre, and suitable for fleet pilots. "It represents our biggest win from this test from an experimental point of view," he says. "SRVL will give us somewhere between 2,000lb and 3,000lb [880-1,320kg] of extra bring-back, which is phenomenal for a STOVL aircraft."

The 15 SRVL recoveries flown during DT-1/DT-2 were designed to demonstrate initial manoeuvre capability and gather evidence to validate prior simulations. "Throughout that initial demonstration, we've shown very good robustness to all the clearances, all the loads, all the handling qualities," says Martin Peters, BAE's F-35 flight-test manager and STOVL test lead. "It’s all been very good, and it looks like we've got a platform that is absolutely viable. What we will look to do next year [in DT-3] is expand that envelope."

Maximum bring-back still has to be established. Real-world data captured during DT-1/DT-2 will be fed back into laboratory models and the Warton simulator. "We’ll refine the models based on the real-world use cases [and] start to extrapolate from there," Peters says.

While the UK is currently the only F-35B operator planning to utilise the SRVL recovery, the US Marine Corps has also shown interest in the manoeuvre."

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ls-454087/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 08 Dec 2018, 00:14
by spazsinbad
Turns out the BEDFORD ARRAY is fitted on QE - makes sense - otherwise 'testing' SRVL relies on a 'deck spotter test pilot'.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 11:16
by spazsinbad
On p.102 of 'MUDDLE' thread 'SWP' quoted from a UK Parliament review about 'press reported' problems refuted by inquiry:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=383701&hilit=parliament+cmdfence#p383701 DEC 2017

Two pages about F-35B 'WEIGHT' are attached excerpts from this report with a quote also below.
Unclear for take-off? F-35 Procurement
12 Dec 2017 UK Parliament Inquiry

"...Weight
...114. Overall, Air Commodore Taylor was enthusiastic about the “simply exceptional” performance of the F-35:
"We are bringing back and vertically landing on to the carrier full stores loadout, with enough fuel to land or, if you cannot land the first time, to go round and have another go and still land vertically with the aeroplane."


Source: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/c ... 26/326.pdf (0.33Mb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 13:17
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:Turns out the BEDFORD ARRAY is fitted on QE - makes sense - otherwise 'testing' SRVL relies on a 'deck spotter test pilot'.


Actually, the BA adds redundancy to what is provided visually with the GS and SRVV references in the vHUD. SRVL easily performed without the BA, or with the BA if the vHUD fails.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 15:13
by spazsinbad
Difficult to imagine any of it just viewing a few videos with written material, my impression is that the Bedford Array is needed when conditions are difficult because the landing spot will move as the ship moves, thus providing a safe 'over the ramp' height with sufficient stopping distance from landing spot and a safe descent rate so that nothing breaks. I'll guess when it all gets too much in extreme conditions then either the LSO or the system itself tells the F-35B pilot to wave off. Of course there are conditions which prevent an SRVL so then a VL is performed by dumping weight fuel/ordnance etc.

http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=3 ... v=sub&p=28 & PADDLES URL no longer valid & https://vtol.org/store/product/developm ... t-9024.cfm & http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2013-4267
"...The system works using a series of evenly spaced lights that run the length of the flight deck centreline. Only one light flashes at any given time, the specific light changing in sync with the pitching of the ship. This allows the pilot to focus on one point on the deck regardless of the relative movement of the ship for a relatively simple approach and recovery. As part of this work Wilson himself has developed new helmet-mounted symbology, known as the Ship Reference Velocity Vector (SRVV), to help the pilot better judge his approach to the ship...." http://www.janes.com/article/52509/f-35 ... operations

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 16:29
by quicksilver
"Difficult to imagine any of it just viewing a few videos..."

I know; first time I flew a jet w a HUD (close to four decades ago) I thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Makes sooo many things that much easier, so much so that some become HUD-crippled. No-HUD EPs get lotsa attention in the sim as a result.

In the case of SRVL, the HUD and HOTAS mech is not unlike DFP in the 'C'. One dials in the GS reference and the ship velocity and then flies the SRVV to the intended touchdown point. The depiction you provided above illustrates, but the rest of the story is how the flight control/HOTAS mech contribute to the ease of flying. Add to that a 35kt approach speed (relative) and one has plenty of time to correct for deviations. Night time probably a bit more sporty, but still monumentally simpler.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 16:48
by spazsinbad
Notwithstanding your explanation (I have flown only using an F-18 HUD in MsFlightSims which of course is LUDICROUS) one needs to account for ship movement in the 'six degrees of freedom' mostly the PITCH & HEAVE as illustrated above. It is 0255 here, I have been working on making a better SRVL PDF but I'll have to stop and get going again later this morning.

However there is a recent SRVL 200 page PDF from whence came the illustrations above along with heaps of explanations.

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=403872&hilit=reprinted#p403872

F-35B SRVL INFO 18 Oct 2018 PRN pp 200.PDF (9.7Mb) download/file.php?id=28580

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 17:30
by quicksilver
‘...one needs to account for ship movement in the 'six degrees of freedom...’

SRVV does that.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 17:58
by spazsinbad
I'll guess if the PDF is perused one may see that there is more to it than my cryptic remark. I'm back but not for long. NOT having seen the simulator with the SRVL etc and as described having to 'imagine' how it all works it then becomes difficult to describe accurately & succinctly what the SRVL entails in all the glory of the real deal in conditions that are not great.

Having some olde schoole deck landings without using modern aids except a mirror and an AoA Indexer I could describe an A4G carrier approach well enough using few words that could be understood - but notso the SRVL - I can only imagine.

And yet the PDF in many ways does describe how various factors are taken into account: braking distance, ramp clearance, safe not exceed descent rate and on and on - not all of these are accounted for by the SRVV - the Ship Referenced Velocity Vector. Given time later I could mash up an explanation from all the various references in the latest PDF as indicated above (the new PDF yet to be uploaded just ices dat cake). So my cryptic explanation matches other 'only SRVV cryptic' explanations for the moment. How many pages in this thread? Most of the material refernced in this thread is in the latest PDF made available recently. Sure 200 pages is a lot to read and absorb - but there it is.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2018, 21:59
by spazsinbad
As good an explanation as any (wordy perhaps) about the need for the BEDFORD ARRAY for SAFE SRVLs aboard CVF S.S.6:
BRIEFING: SHIPBORNE ROLLING VERTICAL LANDING [SRVL]
c.2008 Richard Scott

"...Landing aids
With SRVL now likely to he used as a primary recovery technique on board CVF, there is an additional requirement to augment the baseline landing aids suite with a landing aid appropriate to the SRVL approach manoeuvre. To this end QinetiQ has been contracted to research, conceptualise and prototype a new VLA concept, known as the Bedford Array, which takes inputs from inertial references to stabilise against deck motions (pitch and heave). The software-controlled lighting pattern provides an aim-point for the recovering pilot.

Justin Paines, development test pilot for QinetiQ, said: “Study work and simulator flying have shown that the F-35B has a critical vulnerability to deck motion for the SRVL manoeuvre. So while there is confidence that SRVLs can he performed safely in benign conditions with good visibility, it was apparent that the real task drivers for the manoeuvre were higher sea states and night/poor weather conditions.”

Simulator flying undertaken on both sides of the Atlantic, including work at BAE Systems’ Warton Motion Dome Simulator in December 2007, had brought the problem into sharp relief. “Quite simply, these simulations showed that pilots would crash in high sea state conditions without a suitable stabilised visual reference,” said Paines. “The need for some sort of VLA optimised for SRVL was therefore apparent.”

Although an unstabilised approach aid was looked at early on, the ‘top end’ (recovery in Sea State 6) requirement saw it ruled out on grounds of pilot workload and risk. So a stabilised VLA quickly emerged as a sine qua non. [SEA STATE 6: “4 to 6 metres wave height - Very rough & Surface Wind speed from Table can be from 27-33 knots” Sea State Table: http://www.syqwestinc.com/support/Sea%2 ... 0Table.htm & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_state ]

Existing systems were evaluated, including the US Navy’s Improved Fresnel Lens Optical Landing System (IFOLS). “However, the verdict on IFOLS was that it was reasonably expensive, not night-vision goggle compatible and, as a mechanical system, presented an additional maintenance burden to the carrier,” says Paines. “So the concept of the Bedford Array was conceived, developed and fully tested in around a year in direct response to MoD requirements.”

The science behind the Bedford Array – so called because it was brainstormed at QinetiQ’s Bedford lab – is deceptively simple. A linear array of software-controlled lights is installed along the centreline of the axial flight deck, using a simple mathematical algorithm to switch on the appropriate lights according to the ship motion references input to the system. These provide a stabilised glideslope indication for the pilot’s helmet display SRVV symbology.

“The system ensures that the pilot flying the ‘rolling landings’ makes an accurate approach to the deck, even in rough sea conditions,” said Paines. “It takes inputs from external passive references and when combined with information in the pilot’s Helmet Mounted Display, allows for a low-workload, stabilised pilot approach in even the worst conditions.”

A trial of the Bedford Array concept was undertaken aboard the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious in November 2008, with QinetiQ using the VAAC Harrier test bed to fly approaches to a demonstration Bedford Array mounted on the ship, in order to evaluate its ability to accurately indicate an SRVL glideslope aim-point. For the purposes of the trial, the lighting array was installed in the port catwalk adjacent to Illustrious’ flight deck.

The VAAC Harrier did not actually perform SRVL recoveries to the ship, owing to the limited dimensions of the flight deck. Instead, it flew representative SRVL approach profiles to the catwalk array (down to a safety height of about 40 ft above deck) and then performed a low go-around.

QinetiQ’s VAAC Harrier flew a total of 39 sorties in the southwest approaches between 12 and 19 November 2008 to prove the Bedford Array concept. In all, 67 vertical landings and around 230 SRVL approaches were flown.

A second lighting array was rigged on the carrier flight deck itself. This was used for a parallel evaluation of the visual acuity of the lighting system, in different ambient conditions, on deck.

“This series of trials was designed to refine the operational concept, mitigate failure cases and optimise the Bedford Array visual landing aids arrangement,” said Lieutenant Commander Chris Götke, VAAC project pilot and one of the six assessor pilots participating in the trial. “The solution was first tested in QinetiQ labs and has now been proved by successful trials, and will be implemented on the new carriers.”..."

Source: http://www.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=3 ... v=sub&p=28 [no worketh now] so go here: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=265112&hilit=Paines#p265112 [& not quite the same article: http://militarynuts.com/index.php?showtopic=1507&st=120 ]

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 04:23
by spazsinbad
Attached is a 222 page PDF of UK F-35B SRVL goodness via Warton Sim & VAAC Harrier Program + SHOL explained a bonus.

F-35B SRVL INFO 30 Dec 2018 PRN pp 222.pdf (11Mb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 12:38
by quicksilver
Spaz, I don’t have to imagine; I’m trying to help you imagine.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 12:57
by spazsinbad
Again: being cryptic is NOT helpful. I have given you the explanation for the Bedford Array. I can imagine deck spotting to get onboard with my own SRVL - no other aids needed except eyeball it. However as the screed makes clear 'good luck' doing that in bad weather (and I have simplified there are lots of considerations - found in the PDF uploaded). This story says it all - anything is possible: An old bold ex-Sea Venom pilot turned A4G driver arrested aboard MELBOURNE when the mirror was still covered (an error by Mirror Control Officer helper) in unusual circumstances. This pilot called the ball and only after arresting OK did the LSO realise there was NO BALL to be seen. Harsh words ensured. Said pilot (unknown to most) wore glasses when flying (not done in my day) so he may or may not have been wearing same during the approach.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 23:05
by quicksilver
“I can imagine deck spotting to get onboard with my own SRVL - no other aids needed except eyeball it.”

Recommend you re-imagine w a vHUD, a GS reference and an SRVV. If the vHUD fails, overlay HUD symbology on the DAS in a PCD window.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2018, 23:19
by quicksilver
Obtw, some air forces call the ‘velocity vector’ a ‘flight path marker’; it makes lotsa stuff really easy because one just places the fpm over the intended point of landing, presses a button and monitors/corrects for deviations...and the jet responds to one’s most subtle inputs (or not). It’s that easy.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2018, 00:19
by spazsinbad
quicksilver wrote:Obtw, some air forces call the ‘velocity vector’ a ‘flight path marker’; it makes lotsa stuff really easy because one just places the fpm over the intended point of landing, presses a button and monitors/corrects for deviations...and the jet responds to one’s most subtle inputs (or not). It’s that easy.

I'll get to the DAS window later, however 'AIR FORCES?!' WTF?! Who cares wot 'AirForces' do. 'AirForces' land (usually) on runways that are LOONNGG, not displaying any SIX Degrees of Freedom, in sometimes ADVERSE Sea STATES. GameOver.

I have read about USN Hornet pilots placing the VV on the CROTCH during a CVN approach for the LINE UP innit [and getting to a good start from a LONG WAY out] (straight in I guess because otherwise WAVE OFF; LONG IN GROOVE by LSO), however they must take out the crab misalignment at some point but it is helpful. Sure experienced carrier pilots can do ANYTHING as I pointed out earlier but woebetide any problems occurring - I would not like the PLEASE EXPLAIN. I think already I have posted an NAN Winter 2011 GranPawPettibone story about a NU-GENT using the NEEDLES to carrier land (he thought it was the GOUGE). The rampstrike that ensued DID NOT CARE but he survived to tell the tale - thank goodness.

I'll guess that you still not have cottoned on to MOVING T/D AIM POINT indicated by Bedford Array to ensure SAFETY?!

VV / crotch mention: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=241162&hilit=needles#p241162

More crotchiness mit graphic ilLustStration: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=234249&hilit=needles#p234249

GRAMpaw NEEDLESS: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20505&p=233738&hilit=needles#p233738 The OMNITECH url here noworkee so I'll have to post the PDF 'bout it.... NOW attached below. An HUGE amount of info/stories about Naval Aviation (NavAv) are contained in PDFs (or 1 HUMUNGOUS PDF): https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2019, 23:13
by spazsinbad
:drool: :devil: One for 'stevieTheWondering' to ponder. Is this an SRVL max weight on LHA 'MERICA going RONG? :mrgreen: :doh: from:

F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER April 2019 p 43-4 Action Needed to Improve Reliability and Prepare for Modernization Efforts
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698748.pdf (2.2Mb)

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 00:36
by quicksilver
They got figure 9 wrong; that is a takeoff on a wet flight deck.

I think that pic is from 2016 testing. But, here’s a video link w sto on wet deck during the combat sorties flown in recent months. Watch the segment from 2:20-2:40 to see what happens under the jet during a launch on a wet flight deck.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... Dd0b6sl-b4

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 01:09
by spazsinbad
:devil: I am pleased to know WHY the F-35B tyres are wearing out - HeavyWeightSRVLs TESTin' on LHAs IS MADNESS! :doh:

How usual is the STERN Approach to VL? Is it because darkness afoot? OR just part of the mixture (rather than translate).

USS Wasp 31 Jan 2019: https://www.dvidshub.net/video/657464/f ... nal-pylons

F-35B Ops WASP Stern Approach to Vertical Landing 31 Jan 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncp9yqMkRCY


Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 01:47
by quicksilver
The former PEO remarked something to the effect that “tires weren’t rocket science...”. Turns out they are a lot more difficult to get right than he thought. When you add up the competing requirements for a 35-40k# STOVL jet (heat tolerance with all that engine and roll post exhaust nearby, weight (of the tire), durability for relatively high ROD rolling landings and, of course, cost) things are apparently a bit challenging.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 02:04
by quicksilver
“How usual is the STERN Approach to VL? Is it because darkness afoot? OR just part of the mixture...”

Over-the-stern for night Case I unaided is SOP. Not sure what the current pattern is for F-35B Case I aided. For Harrier, night Case I aided is very much like the day pattern/approach. Night unaided over-the-stern approaches in Harrier were the hardest thing I ever did in the jet, bar none — and they never got easier. Good that nvgs came along, but some nights they weren’t much help. Hard, hard stuff — for everybody. Glide slope, line-up...and closure. Pilot mech of STOVL stuff in the “B” monumentally better.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 02:38
by spazsinbad
Until HMDS 'green glow' fixed for individual HMDS then apparently night stuff done without it but in any individual case I guess no one knows except if the whole embarked F-35B pilots carry out the same SOP. Perhaps all those now have modified 'greenglowless' HMDS? Interesting about Harrier night ops etc. Few people know how BLACK it is out there.

We may have old articles about F-35B 'tyres' on this thread - certainly elsewhere. However GAO info seems OUTdated?
2015 BOGDAN: ...…"Another hiccup in the F-35B have been the tires. An aircraft that takes off from short runways and lands vertically requires tires with enough bounce but also must be sufficiently rugged to maintain their form in 170 mph takeoffs. “We have been working hard to find the right balance between float and durability for vertical takeoff,” Bogdan said. “Our fourth tire is now in test. It appears to be working better than any of the others.” Tire manufacturer Dunlop has had difficulties producing the correct specs, he added, “But we’re moving in the right direction.”..." viewtopic.php?f=61&t=26629&p=288071&hilit=tire+Bogdan#p288071

Of course things are complicated with tyres (tires) and the F-35B:
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=27345&p=291912&hilit=tire+wear#p291912

Good searcharoonie: search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keywords=tire+wear&fid%5B%5D=65&ch=-1

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 02:54
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:Until HMDS 'green glow' fixed for individual HMDS then apparently night stuff done without it but in any individual case I guess no one knows except if the whole embarked F-35B pilots carry out the same SOP. Perhaps all those now have modified 'greenglowless' HMDS? Interesting about Harrier night ops etc. Few people know how BLACK it is out there.

We may have old articles about F-35B 'tyres' on this thread - certainly elsewhere. However GAO info seems OUTdated?


I don’t believe green glow is a B issue because ball precision (and thus one’s ability to see it with a higher degree of clarity) isn’t as critical in concluding an approach successfully.

Over-the-stern approaches (as opposed to up the side once in-close) are more difficult in a STOVL jet because you don’t ‘see’ closure until much later in the approach. Not unlike running rendezvous on an aircraft with no aspect...

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 02:57
by spazsinbad
IIRC one F-35B test pilot said night landings aboard QE were done without the aid of HMDS recently? STOP then LAND eh.

Some comments about 'lights' & HMDS (acceptable): viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=410018&hilit=night#p410018

Wot I wuz finkin' of: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=403420&hilit=night#p403420 however it is in the nature of testing to conduct 'with & without' but read on....
"..."Britain’s biggest warship is currently conducting flight testing off the east coast of the United States and part of that is practicing landing in darkness. These tests were carried out with and without the aid of night-vision technology, with the pilots and aircraft handlers successfully guiding the fast fighter jets onto the flight deck. Pilots initially flew in using only ambient light and the lights on the carrier’s deck before later conducting landings using the night-vision capability in their helmets.… it’s crucial that we understand how suitable they are for the F-35s to operate at night from the carrier. First indications are that they are in good order for both the aided and unaided perspectives.”...

...Using the night-vision technology doesn’t always make landings easy as even the smallest light becomes ultra-bright when it is viewed through the specialist equipment. The lights on a carrier’s deck can look fine to the naked eye but suddenly become very bright when night-vision is switched on. However, HMS Queen Elizabeth has been installed with specially-designed LED lightning on her flight deck, which solves the issue. Even still, it is important for pilots to test their ability to land with and without night-vision assistance.

Andrew Maack, the Chief Test Engineer for the Integrated Test Force – the organisation responsible for analysing the flight trials – added: “In daytime there are cues that tell the pilot’s brain what the relative motion is between the airplane and the ship. “At night, especially very dark night, all those cues go away and you become dependent on exactly what the lights are and what the sight of those lights looks like. It’s something you can’t translate in your mind ahead of time – you don’t know it until you see it.”..." https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-je ... -elizabeth

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 03:13
by quicksilver
spazsinbad wrote:IIRC one F-35B test pilot said night landings aboard QE were done without the aid of HMDS recently? STOP then LAND eh.

Some comments about 'lights' & HMDS (acceptable): viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=410018&hilit=night#p410018

Wot I wuz finkin' of: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=403420&hilit=night#p403420 however it is in the nature of testing to conduct 'with & without' but read on....
"..."Britain’s biggest warship is currently conducting flight testing off the east coast of the United States and part of that is practicing landing in darkness. These tests were carried out with and without the aid of night-vision technology, with the pilots and aircraft handlers successfully guiding the fast fighter jets onto the flight deck. Pilots initially flew in using only ambient light and the lights on the carrier’s deck before later conducting landings using the night-vision capability in their helmets.… it’s crucial that we understand how suitable they are for the F-35s to operate at night from the carrier. First indications are that they are in good order for both the aided and unaided perspectives.”...

...Using the night-vision technology doesn’t always make landings easy as even the smallest light becomes ultra-bright when it is viewed through the specialist equipment. The lights on a carrier’s deck can look fine to the naked eye but suddenly become very bright when night-vision is switched on. However, HMS Queen Elizabeth has been installed with specially-designed LED lightning on her flight deck, which solves the issue. Even still, it is important for pilots to test their ability to land with and without night-vision assistance.

Andrew Maack, the Chief Test Engineer for the Integrated Test Force – the organisation responsible for analysing the flight trials – added: “In daytime there are cues that tell the pilot’s brain what the relative motion is between the airplane and the ship. “At night, especially very dark night, all those cues go away and you become dependent on exactly what the lights are and what the sight of those lights looks like. It’s something you can’t translate in your mind ahead of time – you don’t know it until you see it.”..." https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35-je ... -elizabeth


They’re not talking about not using the HMDS. Rather, they were talking about not using the night vision camera in the HMDS. BIG difference. In common parlance, they are flying those approaches ‘ unaided.’ ‘Aided’ (which they also did) is with the use of night vision devices, in the case of F-35B, the night vision camera.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 30 Apr 2019, 06:10
by spazsinbad
OK I take that as a 'given' that they still look through the HMDS but not at that 'night vision' stuff. Bear with us plebs not able to 'visualise' what it is like in an F-35 at night. I can only go with the words of pilots published - rite or rong.

Re: F-35B UK SRVL info - Updated when new/old info available

Unread postPosted: 12 Jun 2019, 12:17
by spazsinbad
There is a fix for the issue which is important for USMC/others on NON-SRVL capable flat decks so DON'T BE ALARMED!
The Marine Corps’ ‘No. 1 priority’ for the F-35 involves a rough landing in hot environments
12 Jun 2019 Aaron Mehta

"WASHINGTON — It was a hot day aboard the amphibious assault ship Essex when a pilot brought his F-35B in for what is known as a “mode four” flight operation, where the jet enters hover mode near a landing spot, slides over to the target area and then vertically lands onto the ship....

...The pilot got the plane down, but was shaken enough by the situation to write up an incident report that would eventually be marked as “high” concern by the F-35 program office. “May result in unanticipated and uncontrolled sink, leading to hard landing or potential ejection/loss of aircraft, particularly in the presence of HGI [hot gas ingestion],” reads a summary of the issue, which was obtained by Defense News as part of a cache of “for official use only” documents that detail major concerns with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The issue could impact future F-35B operations in the Middle East, where temperatures are climbing as summer approaches. This could also be bad news for industry, as F-35 program head Vice Adm. Mat Winter indicated his belief that the fix, which he called the Marine Corps’ “No. 1 priority” for the F-35 program, should be paid for, at least in part, by the big contractors who designed the aircraft.

Still, Winter expressed confidence that the landing issue, which has so far proven to be a one-off incident, will be addressed by a series of fixes that should be in place by April 2020…. Winter said engineers have identified an issue in the design of the control software that the pilot uses to generate demand for thrust from the propulsion system.

“There’s no redesign of the engine [necessary]. The engine is doing what the engine is supposed to do,” Winter emphasized, before acknowledging that in addition to the software fix, the program office has worked with Honeywell to change how the company calibrates the throttle valve on the engine.

“We’ve identified the software fix for the control system, the calibration fix to the throttle valve and some near-term fleet actions that could be taken for very hot days to ensure that the pilot gets the performance he or she needs on those hot days,” he said.

That software fix will be a rolling target, as the first increment of the software release is due in June, followed by another at the end of this year or early next year. “We’ve given them tighter tolerances to tune them more precisely, so that when it goes on the engine it’s no longer not giving the command the way it’s supposed to be,” Winter explained. “It wasn’t tuned correctly for this high-demand phase of flight. Now, we fixed that. That’s fixed. The software is going in to make sure that the pilot can command that thrust and understand the heat and the loading.”

Those fixes won’t be cheap, and when asked who would pay for them, Winter was blunt, saying it is his office’s belief the thrust issue is a “design deficiency” that merits “consideration” from industry. “In this case it doesn’t matter that the design was done back in 2002, it’s still pragmatistic, so you owe consideration because we’re fixing it right now,” Winter said of industry.

Temporary solutions
The real test is going to be how the fixes perform in the field, given the F-35B’s 2018 deployment into the Middle East shows the jet will be used in a region known for lacking cool summer days. When asked if the issue could impact operations in the region, Winter acknowledged it could during “very hot days.”

“I will not go on the record to say that there hasn’t been [an effect on operations]. There has been operational impact — that’s how we found this, and now we are implementing the fix to eliminate that operational impact, and the war fighter right now is mitigating that operational impact through the mechanisms and techniques we’ve provided them,” he [Winter] said.

And until the fix is fully in place, pilots operating the F-35B can do a few things to mitigate the risk of a hard landing. First, make sure to wash the blades on the engine more frequently to avoid the buildup of salt or dirt that can make the system less efficient. Second, the squadron commander will need to think about load management, making sure aircraft aren’t returning too heavy with fuel and weapons.

“It’s wind over the deck. It’s aircraft stores loading. It’s those types of operational activities that a war fighter already takes into account,” Winter explained. Richard Aboulafia, an aviation expert with the Teal Group, agreed weight matters, :doh: saying that high-hot issues can often “be dealt with easily, but often at the expense of weight, which can impact range and payload.”

Grant also noted that Marine pilots will be able to adjust how they land, now that the issue is a known problem, adding that in comparison to the old Harrier Jump Jets, “the F-35B actually does way better than the Harrier in controlling its heat downwash.”"

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06 ... ironments/