F-35B catches fire

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 22 Dec 2016, 03:34

maus92 wrote:Navy and Marine pilots run into each other... There's a good argument to install auto-GCAS and a similar system for in-flight collision avoidance. It will probably happen.

Yet there's no Navy budgeting for Auto-GCAS or Auto-ICAS. Guess the Navy's waiting for it to happen on the F-35.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 22 Dec 2016, 04:05

However the Navy has auto landing systems whilst USAF does not - I'll figure it out one day. :doh:

JPALS - anyone?

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 22 Dec 2016, 22:32

spazsinbad wrote::devil: However the Navy has auto landing systems whilst USAF does not - I'll figure it out one day. JPALS - anyone?

Recall, the 'J' in JPALS stands for Joint as in Joint FAA, Army, Air Force and Navy.
The Army and Air Force dropped out after the FAA dropped out since they fly extensively in FAA airspace.
The Block 3F drop that supports JPALS works on all variants so the Air Force can elect
in the future to acquire the JPALS ground equipment.

In a similar vein, Auto-GCAS is an Air Force requirement for the F-35 and they are the service funding it
but all users will benefit from if they elect to enable it.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 23 Dec 2016, 00:13

Your answer does not address 'auto landing' for USAF. I'm talking about zero zero W - does the FAA Federal Aviation Administration (not Fleet Air Arm or Fuerza Aérea Argentina) in USofA provide auto landings for USAF?

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 23 Dec 2016, 01:15

spazsinbad wrote:Your answer does not address 'auto landing' for USAF. I'm talking about zero zero W - does the FAA Federal Aviation Administration (not Fleet Air Arm or Fuerza Aérea Argentina) in USofA provide auto landings for USAF?

Air traffic control at a good number of US Air Force and Army bases is under FAA management.
When the FAA elected not to pursue JPALS it wrecked it for the Air Force and Army.

The Navy persevered because JPALS-supported autoland is really the only way to get unmanned aircraft onboard ship.

In a similar vein, the main use of autoland for the USAF is for the QF-16.

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 23 Dec 2016, 01:21

spazsinbad wrote:Your answer does not address 'auto landing' for USAF. I'm talking about zero zero W - does the FAA Federal Aviation Administration (not Fleet Air Arm or Fuerza Aérea Argentina) in USofA provide auto landings for USAF?

Not sure the FAA has jurisdiction over approving autoland for the USAF aircraft, unless the jet has a civilian type certificate (e.g 737-700/C-40), as the basis of a military type certificate.

Also, no tactical aircraft in the regular USAF fleet can do a coupled ILS(ACLS) landing. In the future, Its possible the F-35 will be allowed to fly coupled ILS/JPALS approach down to decision height (e.g 200ft) with Enhanced Vision System capability, aka FLIR being used for the touchdown. It would be pretty extreme conditions if F-35 FLIR (EODAS) couldn't provide runway visibility from 200ft.

The Navy does allow near zero viz landings on the carrier, with a ACLS 'decision height' of 200 ft and 1/4 mile, subject to the LSOs judgement to allow the jet to land with the pilot "clara ship" until touchdown. I thought JPALS will be cleared to similar limits, again subject to LSO judgment.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 23 Dec 2016, 02:01

Initially JPALS for USN flat decks will be cleared to that criteria however many posts on the JPALS thread make it clear the eventual goal is zero/zero for manned aircraft - and why not if the X-47B robot can do it so well now. Time will tell.

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 23 Dec 2016, 02:33

spazsinbad wrote:Initially JPALS for USN flat decks will be cleared to that criteria however many posts on the JPALS thread make it clear the eventual goal is zero/zero for manned aircraft - and why not if the X-47B robot can do it so well now. Time will tell.

JPALS has a long (the AoA was completed in 1997!) and tortured history. The RAND report from 2015 on it
is probably the best history on it that i know.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 23 Dec 2016, 03:11

Thanks for this 215 page document dated Nov 2015. I won't be reading it all any time soon but as soon as... meanwhile....

Dec 2016 SEAPOWER has: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14115&p=358043&hilit=SEAPOWER#p358043 on EMALS - JPALS thread

JPALS to Guide F-35, MQ-25 To Shipboard Landings
Dec 2016 SEAPOWER Magazine

"...The original concept was for JPALS to take the aircraft down to 200 feet in altitude before the pilot resumed control. Under the current program, Raytheon will develop the capability for the aircraft — piloted or unmanned — to be guided all the way to the deck...."

Source: http://www.seapower-digital.com/seapowe ... pg=48#pg48

Two months earlier from a similar and perhaps easier to read source there was this: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=14115&p=354644&hilit=anyhoo#p354644

JPALS to Guide F-35, MQ-25 to Shipboard Landings
19 Oct 2016 RICHARD R. BURGESS

"...JPALS has been tested in a Navy F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter, including taking the aircraft to carrier landings, said Bob Delorge, vice president of Transportation and Support Services at Raytheon’s Intelligence, Information and Services business, told Seapower. The F/A-18 made 38 landings on a carrier with JPALS. Raytheon has tested JPALS for 40,000 hours over the development program so far.

The original concept was for JPALS to take the aircraft down to 200 feet in altitude before the pilot resumed control. Under the current program, Raytheon will develop the capability for the aircraft — piloted or unmanned — to be guided all the way to the deck.

“The goal here is that the pilots [are] going to have a huge increase in confidence knowing that they’re going to return from a mission regardless of conditions that they’re coming back into,” Delorge said.

Under the concept, a signal is broadcast to the aircraft from the ship when the aircraft is 200 nautical miles away. The aircraft logs into the JPALS system at the 60-nautical-mile mark and starts two-way communication with the ship, Maselli said. The ship is receiving GPS data and accounting for pitch and roll of the ship in the sea. The aircraft also is receiving GPS data and sending it to the ship, which calculates relative position. At the 10-nautical mile mark the data transmission speed becomes multiple updates per second, with more data as well.

The hardened JPALS has anti-jamming and anti-spoofing security features, Maselli said.

The original vision for JPALS including retrofitting the Navy’s carrier aircraft fleet, but the current program is limited to moving forward with the F-35 and the MQ-25 and any subsequent aircraft types, Maselli said...."

Source: http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20161019-jpals.html

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 24 Dec 2016, 21:07

This 'news' snippet is now 20 years old but hey don't apologise. :mrgreen:

Joint Strike Fighter PERSPECTIVES
July 1996 Mike Skaff, Pilot-Vehicle Interface [PVI]; Code One Magazine Vol. 11 No. 3

“...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