Navy F-35C DT-III Testing

USAF talkin' BARRIERS... QUOTES about USAF F-35s in Europe in another thread.

Q&A: US Air Force Gen. Tod Wolters
28 Sep 2016 Valerie Insinna

"...We’ve been able—through cooperation—to ensure the airfield itself is compatible. Taxiways, barriers on both ends, appropriate air traffic-control facilities...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/q-a ... od-wolters

On previous page is a diagram showing the JPALS 3ftX3ft box target for hook point to fly through to arrest successfully. Article at URL has a diagram for ordinary manual aircraft ops: https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p-1A_s94c6g/ ... ometry.jpg

How Hard is It to Land on an Aircraft Carrier?
29 Sep 2016 Tommy H. Thomason

"...How big is the opening [for successful arrest]? About 20 feet by 20 feet. The target height for the end of the tail hook at the target angle of descent is about 14 feet above the ramp. Being only four feet or so higher means missing the last wire and having to take off again, a bolter.

The width of the opening is constrained by the imperative to keep either wingtip safely distant from the "foul line" that other airplanes and equipment are kept behind. In other words, the naval aviator can touch down as much as 10 feet on either side of the center line as long as the sideward drift, if any, is toward the center line and not away from it.

However, simple passing through the imaginary opening about 20 feet high and 20 feet wide is not sufficient. At that instant the airplane must also be traveling at the target airspeed and with the target rate of descent so as to put the tailhook on the deck between the second and third wires. Being too fast or at too shallow a rate of descent means touching down beyond the last of the four wires and boltering; too high a rate of descent, while insuring that the hook touches the deck before the last wire, risks exceeding the strength of the landing gear....

...It helps that the target rate of descent, while high—about eight knots or nine miles per hour—is not much more than one third of the demonstrated capability of the landing gear. Landing gear strength is one of several differentiators between airplanes designed for carrier operations versus those that fly from airfields. The stronger landing gear means that the naval aviator does not have to, in fact should not, flare to decrease the rate of descent as part of the landing because not flaring increases touchdown accuracy.

It doesn't help that a lot of time is not allowed to get lined up with the opening and stabilized at the target airspeed and rate of descent. There is often a compelling reason to get all the airplanes aboard in as short a time as possible (for one thing, the carrier has to be headed into the wind for landings and that may very well not be the direction that the battle group needs to go). As a result, the time allotted for the final approach is on 15 to 18 seconds in daytime....

...the [opening] that the naval aviator must pass through is moving. Even the biggest carriers are affected by stormy or ocean-swell conditions: depending on the sea state, a carrier can move in six different ways—pitch, roll, yaw, heave, sway, and surge—in various combinations. Although the ship movement isn’t quite random, it is not really predictable either. The current big-deck carriers, at least, don’t move quite as much as the smaller ones did.

The rate of change of a big-deck carrier from one extreme to another is also usually relatively slow. Nevertheless, under certain sea conditions, the ramp can move about 20 feet, the height of the imaginary opening, or more in only 10 seconds.

There is also the added degree of difficulty of having to fly "under the bridge" at night [an analogy explained in the article so go there or be square] from time to time, with only a few lights as guidance as to the location of the opening. As a result, the final approach is then lengthened to about 25 seconds....

...Although the naval aviator is alone in the cockpit, he or she is assisted by the advice and counsel of a Landing Signal Officer (LSO) standing on the deck who monitors the approach and can often detect an unacceptable trend developing with it or with carrier motion before the aviator does. The LSO's command to abandon the attempt, a wave off, must be complied with...."

Source: http://thanlont.blogspot.com.au/2016/09 ... craft.html

3 page PDF of article attached below...

Back to the Boat
Oct 2016 James Deboer, Combat Aircraft Magazine

"The US Navy’s F-35C Lightning II began its third and final developmental test (DT) carrier embark, known as DT-III, on August 14 aboard USS George Washington (CVN-73) of the coast of Virginia. Combat Aircraft was afforded a look at the testing on the second day of the three-week phase....

...August’s DT-III takes it all a step further, with more than 600 test points being conducted and the bulk of the flights focusing on launch and recovery with external stores such as GBU-12 laser-guided bombs and AIM-9X Sidewinders. This will include approach handling qualities with symmetric and asymmetric external stores, so-called delta flight path testing, joint precision approach and landing system trials, crosswind and maximum-weight launches, and military-/maximum power launches.

Leading DT-III is LCDR Daniel ‘Tonto’ Kitts, who is part of the Integrated Test Force (ITF) with VX-23 ‘Salty Dogs’ at NAS Patuxent River, Maryland. Kitts told Combat Aircraft: ‘This third trip to the boat is about creating a complete set of launch and recovery bulletins for fleet use, so that when the [F-35C achieves] IOC [initial operating capability] the fleet has everything that they need to launch the aircraft in all its IOC configurations on the ship. We are getting up to the heaviest gross weights with external stores and will also clear out the full crosswind envelope for launching and recovering. We can launch with up to a 15kt crosswind and we can recover with up to a 10kt crosswind.

‘The objective test points are ones that we have to get done. They number about 315, and the other threshold test points we will look to do as long as we have the time and the asset support. This trip is about verifying the testing we have already done shore-based.’"

Source: Combat Aircraft Magazine October 2016 Volume 17 Number 10

FWIW, CVN 76/77/78 3 wire boat hook to ramp clearance is (IIRC) more like 10 feet. It is different enough that our brand new CAG paddles on cruise (who were both 4 wire boat guys) spent some time learning the "new" sight picture. For a month or two, they were calling low all the way for what were on-on passes. Then the airwing paddles collectively got into the debate of whether or not an "OK 1 wire" was a thing. Technically speaking, it is, based on the reduced hook to ramp clearance, but it took several months to convince CAG paddles of this. Old habits and sight pictures die hard I suppose…...

Thanks '35_aoa' good to know. FWIW the A-4 NATOPS hook to ramp clearance minimum was 6.5 feet. The hook to ramp aboard HMAS Melbourne was 6 feet for the A4G. The link to the .ppt? file (made into a PDF & kept by me) has been lost. Info from it is in the text/graphics below:

4 wire CVN Hook Touch Down Point [for target wire]
• IFLOLS – 230’ Nominal [distance forward from ramp]

3 wire Hook Touch Down Point [for target wire]
• IFLOLS – 212’ Nominal [distance forward from ramp]

The reduced HTDP distance on a 3 wire CVN would account for the lower hook to ramp clearance I gather. There is a diagram that shows the deck distances between wires on the different CVNs - I'll get another example not to scale....

Then there are many variables between three/four wire CVNs such as exactly where IFLOLS sited in 3 dimensional space on CVN. Hook to ramp clearance is different for each aircraft variant also. ONLY THE SHADOW [LSO] KNOWS....

6 page PDF about DT-III attached.... Usual stuff already reported perhaps in a slightly different way - you know the drill.

Bright Future?
Oct 2016 David C Isby; Air International

"David C Isby spoke with Commander Naval Air Forces, Vice Admiral Mike Shoemaker about the current and future status of US naval aviation...

..."...Technology developed for the F-35C will make the Super Hornet more effective, Shoemaker cited the BAE Systems developed Delta Flight Path system that provides glide slope inputs directly to the F-35’s all-digital flight control and avionics systems on final approach. When used in conjunction with a carrier’s Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) during recent testing, Delta Flight Path enabled 80% of all F-35C landings to hook the number three arresting wire, the indicator of a precise touchdown. According to the air boss when used at Choctaw Field near Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida, the system made simulated carrier landings so precise that the F-35Cs, “were landing in the same spot on the runway every time, tearing it up where the hook touches down.”

The system also reduced the number of missed approaches, bolters (failure to engage an arresting wire) and fouled decks (when the need to get a landed aircraft out of the way delays aircraft waiting to land) to close to zero.

Upgrading Super Hornets by retrofitting Magic Carpet, a Super Hornet-compatible version of the Delta Flight Path system, is a priority. Shoemaker has pressed for an interim version to enter service with operational squadrons starting in autumn 2016, with IOC being achieved in 2019: “I think it is going to give us the ability to look at the way we work up and expand the number of sorties. I think it will change the way we operate around the ship.”

Hooray – Stingray!
Today, the risk of landing delays requires an F/A-18 with a pod-mounted refuelling drogue and extra fuel tanks, the so-called buddy tanker, to be airborne when other aircraft assigned to the air wing are landing aboard the carrier. Shoemaker said under current doctrine a carrier air wing configures six to eight tankers aboard the ship. Tanker missions consume a substantial percentage of F/A-18 flight hours, but the air boss believes that once Magic Carpet is operational the buddy tanker requirement will no longer be required: “That will give us flexibility in our strike fighter numbers, increase the number of Growler, which I know we’re going to do, and probably the number of E-2D Advanced Hawkeyes, as well.”

The change envisaged will also affect the US Navy’s future MQ-25 Stingray carrier-based unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Until an MQ-25 lands on a carrier flight deck, the only UAV to have done so is the stealthy Northrop Grumman X-47 demonstrator. Air refuelling is the primary role planned for the MQ-25 Stingray to meet a current doctrine for air refuelling aircraft at locations distant from the carrier, but outside the range of enemy weapons. Competing Stingray designs – from Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman – will have to meet the challenge of reconciling the tanker mission with the secondary continuous intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and communications relay mission. Neither air refuelling nor the ISR roles require a stealthy design.

Vice Admiral Shoemaker said: “If you send the MQ-25 out by itself, you need to know where you’re sending it so that it doesn’t get shot down. Industry is defining where the sweet spot lies to enable the air vehicle to do both missions.” A contract for MQ-25 development is planned to be issued in 2018....""
&
Dogs & Reapers Share the Deck

"...Validation
DT III focused on validation of the aircraft’s flying capabilities with full inert internal and external stores, handling tests with asymmetrical loads, testing for maximum weight launches at minimum power and evaluating all tests in a variety of wind and sea conditions. Additionally, some night flying took place to verify the performance of the Generation III helmet...." [GO HERE FOR THAT: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=353741&hilit=Green#p353741 ]

Source: October 2016 Air International Magazine Vol.91 No.4

2nd verse same as the first - almost - 6 page PDF attached of youse know wot?

Grim Reapers Back on Deck
Nov 2016 Gert Kromhout, Combat Aircraft

"...Taking a complex new fighter to sea is fraught with potential pitfalls. Even some of the rudimentary elements of the operation can throw up problems. Changing the F-35’s F135 engine at sea was one such issue, mainly because the engine in its carriage container does not fit inside the C-2 Greyhound carrier on-board delivery (COD) aircraft. This was part of the assessment that went into selection of the CMV-22 Osprey as the future COD platform.

A fifth F-35C arrived on the carrier on August 15 for an embarked engine change with a spare unit that was loaded before the carrier sailed from Norfolk. ‘There was nothing wrong with the engine, but we wanted to evaluate how a fleet squadron changes an engine’, says CAPT Christie. ‘We remove one engine and put another in, and then we launch it from the ship. It would give us a better understanding of how we have to do that on board. It is not really a test but more an evaluation of how it works’. In all, the ‘Grim Reapers’ brought along 70 maintenance personnel, some of them civilians from contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney.

Moving ahead
Looking ahead, VFA-101 has established a detachment at NAS Lemoore in California and VFA-125 ‘Rough Raiders’ will be formed here as an FRS in January 2017. VFA-147 ‘Argonauts’, currently equipped with the F/A-18E Super Hornet, will become the first operational squadron in 2018. The VX-9 ‘Vampires’ detachment at Edwards AFB, California, has started to receive jets and in the near future the US Navy will assign F-35Cs to the Naval Aviation Warfighting Development Center (NAWDC) at NAS Fallon, Nevada, to develop tactics and bring the F-35C into the TOPGUN program...."

Source: November 2016 Combat Aircraft Magazine Vol.17 No.11

Cool, we should be seeing some -125 CVs soon.
VX-9 is expanding too. exciting

Oh NO! Not another PDF about DT-III & F-35C VFA-101 CarQuals. YessireeBob from NAN Naval Aviation News FALL 2016:

http://navalaviationnews.navylive.dodli ... _Issue.pdf (7Mb)

Spaz, this is off topic. (sorry), but has there been anything published yet on the STOVL DT3? I believe that was supposed to happen in October.... and its a ways through Oct aalready.

The thread here would be appropriate but no I search every day for news about F-35B DT-III without success:

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=52375&p=353644#p353644

On previous page discussion about last Hornet barricade in 1998 that date appears to be contradicted in another LSO newsletter: However I must add that over the years PDFs available there were many minor 'errors' in the text - so....?

The night Hornet barricade story by "OYSTER" is dramatic - an understatement....

http://tailhookdaily.typepad.com/tailho ... om-oy.html

READY TO WAVE A BARRICADE????
April 2012 Paddles Monthly Newsletter

"...This Month, CAPT “Flats” Jensen shares his experiences of actually waving a barricade as CVW-2 LSO in 1999 as well as almost barricading an aircraft last year aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln as the ship’s Air Boss. Every LSO should carefully take note of CAPT Jensen’s advice as you might be next.

Though we have IFLOLS and LRLS in place with EMALS, AAG, JPALS and unmanned carrier-based air vehicles just over the horizon, we remain responsible with the tools we have today. In a high threat environment that does not afford attrition (budgetary or operational), we cannot afford to ditch a multi-million dollar aircraft nor rely on multiple tankers for a 500+NM divert option: we have a proven capability in our barricade. It is our job to ensure this emergency recovery capability remains viable; we must continue to train. Bug Roach would likely have multiple thoughts on this subject -- I can only imagine the theme of his words.

To preserve our corporate knowledge in our inherently dangerous business, I offer a review of two barricade scenarios in 1999 (F/A-18C night event) on CONSTELLATION (CV 64) and 2011 (F/A-18E near-barricade) on ABRAHAM LINCOLN (CVN 72). 1999 was our profession’s last fully executed event. “Oyster” Osterle[/Carl Oesteri. Paddles] captured its success in his last radio call after rolling out in the straps: “VICTORY!”

I was CVW-2 Paddles (backup) on the ‘99 event and almost repeated as an Air Boss in 2011...."

Source: http://www.hrana.org/documents/PaddlesM ... il2012.pdf (1Mb NO LONGER AVAILABLE)

Thanks '35_aoa' good to know. FWIW the A-4 NATOPS hook to ramp clearance minimum was 6.5 feet. The hook to ramp aboard HMAS Melbourne was 6 feet for the A4G. The link to the .ppt? file (made into a PDF & kept by me) has been lost. Info from it is in the text/graphics below:

4 wire CVN Hook Touch Down Point [for target wire]
• IFLOLS – 230’ Nominal [distance forward from ramp]

3 wire Hook Touch Down Point [for target wire]
• IFLOLS – 212’ Nominal [distance forward from ramp]

The reduced HTDP distance on a 3 wire CVN would account for the lower hook to ramp clearance I gather. There is a diagram that shows the deck distances between wires on the different CVNs - I'll get another example not to scale....

Then there are many variables between three/four wire CVNs such as exactly where IFLOLS sited in 3 dimensional space on CVN. Hook to ramp clearance is different for each aircraft variant also. ONLY THE SHADOW [LSO] KNOWS....

Thanks for the graphic, did not realize how much real estate the 3 wire wire setup freed. The landing run is now about 22 feet ( 7 meters for metric speakers) longer.

Some unknown unknowns would be the placement of IFLOLS compared to 3 or 4 wire CVNs. I do not know if IFLOLS is in exact same spot or different. There was info about better calibration of IFLOLS that can make a difference also however, I have forgotten those details (not me chief, I'm no longer involved in NavAv/researching it except how it's applied today).