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

[steve2267]

If Kelly wants to push gas to F-35B's, the simplest, most straightforward, cheapest option is to just start dropping wheelbarrow's full of ££ off at Boing's headquarters in Chicago. Or maybe BAE can partner with Boing (but that will just add cost.)

An optionally manned, or just fully-unmanned RV-22 would seem to come closest to meeting all this bloke's pipe dreams. But I don't think "affordable" appears anywhere in that solution. And although Brit engineers are at least as resourceful and innovative as their American cousins... I don't see them developing a 3-in-1 UAV with the size and power required to push gas to an F-35B... any cheaper than, say, adapting the V-22 to the role. And even a V-22 may be marginal at carrying enough meaningful gas for the Killer Bee. Not without spending BILLIONS of £ on development. Which is not a requisite part of "affordable."

[quicksilver]

I didn’t see anything ‘loony’ in the Colonel’s quoted comments. They revolve around many of the same questions the US naval services have been, and continue to wrestle with every day.

[steve2267]

I didn’t see anything ‘loony’ in the Colonel’s quoted comments. They revolve around many of the same questions the US naval services have been, and continue to wrestle with every day.

The parts I "take exception to" include the bits about "affordable" with regard to "apparent new development" and wanting a three-in-one mold line, especially in light of recent reported news stories about the Brits already considering mothballing one carrier, or leasing her to some other navy. If they don't have the money to maintain and deploy two carriers, where are they going to find the scratch to create a new, vunder UAV?

Of course, were they to develop such a capability, one would think they could make money by selling it to the rest of the world. But gummints typically do not think in such entrepreneurial ways.

The other part I find a bit "looney" is his willing into existence, apparently with a magic wand, some sort of "arresting barrier" by imploring industry to be creative or innovative... when Britain categorically rejected CATOBAR for the QE-class.

[quicksilver]

“...many of the same questions the US naval services have been, and continue to wrestle with every day.“

[quicksilver]

Here’s a ‘for example’ — https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.c ... edesigned/

You might also recall that there was a period of time when big-deck Navy wasn’t sure what roles they wanted the UAS aboard the CVN to perform either, to wit — https://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/goo ... 17-budget/

[timmymagic]

The parts I "take exception to" include the bits about "affordable" with regard to "apparent new development" and wanting a three-in-one mold line, especially in light of recent reported news stories about the Brits already considering mothballing one carrier, or leasing her to some other navy. If they don't have the money to maintain and deploy two carriers, where are they going to find the scratch to create a new, vunder UAV?

It should be noted that the reports were immediately rubbished by the Defence Minister. Some people close to these things have mentioned that they are the usual pre-election best and worst case scenarios being wargamed by the Ministry. The leasing/selling one carrier was on the absolute worst case list, no doubt there was something equally ridiculous on the best case list...

It's now looking very likely that the Conservatives are going to win, and win well. That means no defence cut backs and the banishment of the loony left for another generation. The Conservatives have promised small increases to defence spending, but its worth mentioning that defence has got barely a mention in the election and any small increase is unlikely to significantly close the gap in what is needed.

[spazsinbad]

Back to SRVL info or at least tangential reference to same.... I was always puzzled by WHIZZER comment in the SRVL sim video about 'back drive'. Here is an explanation of sorts.

F-35 Flight Control Law Design, Development and Verification
25-29 Jun 2018 Jeffrey J Harris & James Richard Stanford LM

"...F. Active Stick and Throttles
All three F-35 versions have unique mission requirements. Satisfying these missions with common hardware is an obvious benefit from a system architecture perspective, and also reduces maintenance and supply chain demands. In the cockpit, one key enabler to achieve this commonality was the use of active inceptors for the stick and throttle. The active inceptor system (AIS), shown in Fig. 13, allows the control law designer to program various features of the stick and throttle (e.g., setting force versus deflection, damping, soft stops, gates, and even ramps) as a function of flight phase in order to satisfy the unique missions of each version. The throttle motor is also used to back-drive the throttle to a commanded position when automatic command modes are engaged.

These features are used extensively on the F-35B for STOVL mode landing. Translational rate command (TRC) is an augmented STOVL command mode that uses the throttle inputs out of a center detent to command a change in forward velocity. With the throttle in the detent position, the control system is holding a reference velocity. This mode, along with vertical/lateral TRC modes on the stick, allows the pilot to easily fly STOVL approaches to a ship or shore-based landing pad. When the axial TRC mode is engaged, the throttle is programmed to back-drive to a center location, and ramps are programmed on each side. During approaches to a ship, the pilot enters the ship’s speed as the reference velocity for the center detent position. If the pilot pushes the throttle out of the detent and onto the forward ramp, an incremental increase in forward velocity is commanded. Pulling back on the throttle decreases the velocity. When the pilot gets to the desired position alongside the ship, simply letting go of the throttle will hold that position co-speed with the ship. The roll stick similarly holds lateral position when released and commands a change in lateral velocity when deflected. Fore-aft deflections of the pitch stick commands changes in height rate. When the pitch stick is released, the control laws hold the current height. When touchdown occurs, the throttle automatically back-drives to the idle position where the control laws command the engine to ground-idle thrust. The programmable features of the throttle for STOVL landing operations are shown in Fig. 14.

While the programmable features of the stick and throttle allow the control law designer a significant amount of flexibility to tailor the characteristics for various flight phases and modes, it also increases the complexity of the reconfiguration logic within the control laws to accommodate system failures. The F-35 control laws were designed to accommodate the stick or throttle going into passive mode, where all the programmable features are lost and the inceptors operate at a basic default spring rate. The control laws also have to accommodate instances in which the stick or throttle may become jammed and the pilot must be able to control the aircraft simply by applying force...."

Source: download/file.php?id=27751

F-35B SRVL Warton Shipborne Rolling Vertical Land Sim ZOOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8M7RcWuZMs

[quicksilver]

So, do you now you now understand it or would you like some simple pilot-speak for all that?

[steve2267]

So, do you now you now understand it or would you like some simple pilot-speak for all that?

"So... when you're coming up to the boat, touch the screen here and input how fast they're rowing. Now, in Mode 4, the throttle is self-centering. Push the throttle forward to gain on the boat. Pull the throttle back to go backwards relative the boat. Move the stick left / right to move left / right. Push the stick down to go down. Got it? Go get 'em killer..."

Is that about it?

[spazsinbad]

I find it difficult as a NON-STOVLie to 'push the F-35B stick forward' to go down. One thing about description: should not WOD Wind Over the Deck be substituted for 'ship speed'? This 'SPEED' will be told by the LSO for the pilot to input. RITE?

I guess that is NOT ship relative though because the F-35B flies in whatever wind'z blowin' at time. My Head Hurts.

[quicksilver]

So, do you now you now understand it or would you like some simple pilot-speak for all that?

"So... when you're coming up to the boat, touch the screen here and input how fast they're rowing. Now, in Mode 4, the throttle is self-centering. Push the throttle forward to gain on the boat. Pull the throttle back to go backwards relative the boat. Move the stick left / right to move left / right. Push the stick down to go down. Got it? Go get 'em killer..."

Is that about it?

Pretty close...an award for someone (like me) just sitting on the sidelines.

One of the things that occurs when one initiates the Mode 4 conversion is that the throttle drives itself automatically to the STOVL detent. (Yes, there is a ‘motor’ in the throttle quadrant that does that). From that reference airspeed, movement forward or aft of the detent commands airspeed above or below the reference. If one were to pull the throttle fully aft, the jet will decelerate past zero airspeed to its limiting rearward airspeed. There is an easier and more precise means of doing that via a HOTAS function on the throttle under one’s left ring finger (to the tune of one-knot precision). You can press and hold that button and it will command the jet to an automatic deceleration to a hover — hands off.

[quicksilver]

I find it difficult as a NON-STOVLie to 'push the F-35B stick forward' to go down. One thing about description: should not WOD Wind Over the Deck be substituted for 'ship speed'? This 'SPEED' will be told by the LSO for the pilot to input. RITE?

I guess that is NOT ship relative though because the F-35B flies in whatever wind'z blowin' at time. My Head Hurts.

If you think of it like flying formation, it is very easy. If you are flying parade on your lead and you need to move up or down relative to the target jet, you do what with your right hand? Same when you approach the ship; think of the ship as your flight lead.

WRT to WOD, the jet takes care that w ground speed. How do it know? INS/GPS/ADC.

LSO >> ship speed? Yes.

[spazsinbad]

OK thanks for clearing that up. I'm not used to all those geegaws. With 'QS' explanation I'm hoping people can realise just how easy STOVL flying is in the F-35B. Also when in MODE 4 the CLAW will not allow the pilot to do STUPID THINGS!

There is a video clip of an OLDE LSOie USNie telling: "It's [TA-4J] all manual". NOPE controls were ALL HYDRAULIC but I/we know what he means. No computer CLAWs to mess with ya in the TA-4J when Deck Landing. And HOW THE WORLD TURNs with the F-35C now giving the pilot only line up (in some modes) to muck up - dog willing. I flew two training jets ALL MANUAL with wires/pulleys only - the Vampire and Macchi326H - the Sea Venom had hydraulic ailerons with weird stick.

TA-4J All Manual LSO Comment Carrier Quals USS Lexington https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoQndYAqu0g

[steve2267]

Windblast and thermal effects aside (melting residential asphalt etc), it is probably simpler to fly an F-35B from youse house to the corner market in STOVL Mode4 than it is to driver yurs car. Just cinch the belts down tight. If da plane senses something rong, she'll poop you out on that white fluffy chute before you can say "What's that beeping?"

[spazsinbad]

SPEED Reading complex material not well understood at the time can be problematic - so sayeth I. Meanwhile back in the days: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15969&p=374283&hilit=Toledo#p374283 via the post below in this thread [ viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20304&p=374287&hilit=Robinson#p374287 ] (which did not state all the fings wot dooz with the SRVL methinks) I happened upon the article again to 're-excerpt' some more bits for youse. This excerpt explains things that likely apply to the SRVL approach along with comment on LSO camera glideslope guide and entering SHIP SPEED (via LSO).

UK F-35B - on final approach to QEC
18 Aug 2017 Tim Robinson

"......BAE says that the £2m facility, [BAE Systems F-35/QEC simulation facility at Warton, Lancashire] which includes a moving platform F-35 cockpit, dome visual system and a simulated QEC FLYCO (Flying Control), is its most sophisticated flight simulator yet. It uses 64 processors and 1TB RAM and allows test pilots to practice, train and rehearse safely before they even get to the ship. The inclusion of a FLYCO in the room next door also allows Royal Navy LSO (Landing Signal Officers) to experience, train and develop CONOPS in controlling F-35B launch and recovery operations. Cameras give a gyro-stabilised view of pilots’ approach with gradient and centreline guides marked. BAE is also trialling video gaming virtual reality headsets to allow LSOs to immerse themselves in a virtual FLYCO and see exactly what they would see onboard the real ship....

...So, what is the F-35B like to fly? Thanks to the pioneering work of UK's DERA (now DSTL/QinetiQ) VAAC Harrier testbeds and test pilots like Justin Paines and John Farley in developing advanced FBW software for VTOL aircraft – it is extremely simple. Whereas the Jedi-like skills are needed to control the Harrier in the hover requires movement of throttle, nozzle control and stick and has been likened to 'balancing on the top of a pencil while needing three hands', the F-35B’s fly-by-wire controls are just a sidestick and throttle HOTAS - with the flight computers doing all the hard work. (It is noteworthy that the UK is the only country after the US to have its own lines of code in the F-35 software).

To assist pilots coming into land, there are two velocity vectors - a traditional one, and a ship-shaped one - showing where the ship will be. The ship’s speed is also entered into the flight management computer via the touchscreen display.

Approaching the ship from behind at around 170kt and 500ft, once at 200ft the pilot hits the 'brake' deceleration button and the aircraft begins slowing and transitioning to a hover, with the LiftFan engaging and the rear nozzle swivelling down for vertical flight. Once slowed down, the pilot can swing to the left side of the ship. The aircraft's flight computers now cleverly match the ship's speed, with the pilot pushing forward on the control sidestick (or inceptor) to go down. At 100ft and about a wingspan across from the deck, the pilot is thus ready to transition sideways over the deck, with fine hovering control being provided by the moving rear nozzle, LiftFan and the STOVL roll jets at the tips of the wings. At this point, with the flight controls engaged and the aircraft happily matching speed with the ship, the pilot can even take his (or her) hands off the controls - a move that would most likely be suicidal in the Harrier for the average squadron pilot....

...Effectively with these flight controls you are flying an aeroplane that cannot stall and where intuitive pull back/go up and push forward/go down still work - even when hovering. Says BAE: "The control philosophy is such that the left-hand commands go-faster / go-slower whilst the right-hand commands the aircraft to go-up / go-down and go-left / go-right. Each hand commands a response in the same axis in both wing-borne and jet-borne flight." It is not quite the 'take me home and land the aircraft automatically coffee bar button' that legendary Harrier test pilot John Farley often joked about as something that a future VTOL fighter would need, but it is close...."

Source: https://www.aerosociety.com/news/uk-f-3 ... ch-to-qec/