Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
zululima
Topic Author
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:21 am

USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Fri May 15, 2020 11:13 pm

Article at FlightGlobal:

http://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/us-navy-begins-search-for-next-jet-trainer-to-replace-t-45-goshawk/138400.article

Another jet trainer competition about to kick off, this time the US Navy is looking for a two-seater to handle intensive land-based training and carrier touch-and-go's. Interestingly enough, this means no carrier landings and cats, although I assume the jet would have to have the capability for both due to its usage in "field carrier" training, and for emergencies. The number of hard landings they are expecting this thing to take is amazing, and I assume any non-navalized trainer will have to have significant structural strengthening and more robust landing gear, etc.

The service wants an assessment of how certain aircraft would handle the forces of high sink rate landings, the hallmark of training for landing on the short deck of an aircraft carrier.

The next generation trainer is expected to fly 400h a year. The USN wants to conduct field carrier landing practices at a rate of 1,200 per aircraft per year. It wants each aircraft to perform carrier touch-and-go landings 45 times per year.

The aircraft is to have a flight life of at least 14,400h and be able to sustain 43,200 landings.


Some expected contenders include the "Mini F-18":

Likely competitors in the USN’s next generation trainer program would be the Boeing-Saab T-7A jet, recent winner of the US Air Force’s T-X trainer competition; Lockheed Martin’s T-50A, based on the FA-50, a light attack and trainer aircraft developed with Korea Aerospace Industries; and Leonardo’s T-100, based on the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master, a light attack and trainer aircraft.

The T-45 is a variant of the 1970s British Aerospace Hawk, developed jointly for the USN by McDonnell Douglas and British Aerospace. Boeing acquired the programme in 1997 when it merged with McDonnell Douglas.
I didn't get a 'Harumph' outta that guy!
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1453
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Fri May 15, 2020 11:33 pm

The T-7 probably has a good chance here too. While it would require some modification for carrier ops, increased production and commonality will benefit both services with reduced costs.
Boeing could probably just scale down some parts from the Hornet too.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10126
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sat May 16, 2020 1:34 am

Well, unless the politicians get involved I do not see the Navy using the Air Force trainer, inter-service rivalry and all that.
If the Mini F-18 is the two seat original Hornet with updates, it should be cheaper and quicker than a all new design, the original Hornet is a good deal smaller and should be less expensive than a Super Hornet.
 
Ozair
Posts: 4947
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sat May 16, 2020 9:26 am

par13del wrote:
Well, unless the politicians get involved I do not see the Navy using the Air Force trainer, inter-service rivalry and all that.
If the Mini F-18 is the two seat original Hornet with updates, it should be cheaper and quicker than a all new design, the original Hornet is a good deal smaller and should be less expensive than a Super Hornet.

I think when Zululima used the term mini F-18 he was talking about the T-7, not an actual F-18. It is beyond unlikely that Boeing would offer a classic Hornet reborn for this competition.

I don't think inter-service rivalry will play a part here either, a decent number of USAF pilots do portions of their flight training with the Navy and a portion of Navy aircrew do their training with the USAF.

zululima wrote:
The number of hard landings they are expecting this thing to take is amazing, and I assume any non-navalized trainer will have to have significant structural strengthening and more robust landing gear, etc.

Those are some very impressive numbers they are seeking. The Hawk was able to become the T-45 so I expect all the contenders are capable after some modification.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6216
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sat May 16, 2020 2:16 pm

Ozair wrote:
I don't think inter-service rivalry will play a part here either, a decent number of USAF pilots do portions of their flight training with the Navy and a portion of Navy aircrew do their training with the USAF.


It is not so much a rivalry as different goals.

In the past USAF has seen the weight and structural components necessary to sustain FCLP and carrier operations as 'wasted' on an Air Force aircraft.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sun May 17, 2020 3:41 pm

I’m really surprised this would be a priority over the next 10 years for the USN. The newest T-45 is only around 10 years old. Certainly, it’s unfair to expect “T-38” longevity out of a carrier based trainer, but I’ve read nothing indicating sustainability problems for the Goshawks over the past 10 years, and trainers typically last a long time (as did the TA-4’s before them).

The USN has plenty of time to watch the USAF work out kinks in the T-7 program it seems prior to deciding if they want to move down that road.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 3993
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sun May 17, 2020 4:19 pm

Slug71 wrote:
The T-7 probably has a good chance here too. While it would require some modification for carrier ops, increased production and commonality will benefit both services with reduced costs.
Boeing could probably just scale down some parts from the Hornet too.


Doesn't the T-7s tail sit a bit low and far out to the rear?

What other types would be up for consideration? A Hawk T2/T-45 based offering from BAe perhaps? M-346?
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1453
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sun May 17, 2020 6:55 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
I don't think inter-service rivalry will play a part here either, a decent number of USAF pilots do portions of their flight training with the Navy and a portion of Navy aircrew do their training with the USAF.


It is not so much a rivalry as different goals.

In the past USAF has seen the weight and structural components necessary to sustain FCLP and carrier operations as 'wasted' on an Air Force aircraft.


I doubt (and dont think anyone was suggesting) USN mods would be ported over to the AF frames.


VSMUT wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
The T-7 probably has a good chance here too. While it would require some modification for carrier ops, increased production and commonality will benefit both services with reduced costs.
Boeing could probably just scale down some parts from the Hornet too.


Doesn't the T-7s tail sit a bit low and far out to the rear?

What other types would be up for consideration? A Hawk T2/T-45 based offering from BAe perhaps? M-346?


Doesn't appear to be,

Image

Image
 
SuperiorPilotMe
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Mon May 18, 2020 12:06 am

Slug71 wrote:
The T-7 probably has a good chance here too. While it would require some modification for carrier ops, increased production and commonality will benefit both services with reduced costs.
Boeing could probably just scale down some parts from the Hornet too.


I agree - except for the modifications for carrier landings. I think a standard T-7A will fit the bill with no carrier trap equipment because, well, I'll put it on here right now that I'll be willing to entertain a number of embarrassing bets from you guys if I turn out to be wrong.

My point being, that's how confident I am the new Navy's trainer will have exactly zilch trap equip. It's just not necessary for a trainer. I don't even think the Navy uses the T-45s carrier ops to anywhere near originally envisioned tempo. They don't even have a dedicated training carrier anymore.

par13del wrote:
Well, unless the politicians get involved I do not see the Navy using the Air Force trainer, inter-service rivalry and all that.


Well then I'm not sure how to break the news to you that the Navy uses T-6A Texan IIs then....
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
 
User avatar
Slug71
Posts: 1453
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 am

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Mon May 18, 2020 4:08 am

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
The T-7 probably has a good chance here too. While it would require some modification for carrier ops, increased production and commonality will benefit both services with reduced costs.
Boeing could probably just scale down some parts from the Hornet too.


I agree - except for the modifications for carrier landings. I think a standard T-7A will fit the bill with no carrier trap equipment because, well, I'll put it on here right now that I'll be willing to entertain a number of embarrassing bets from you guys if I turn out to be wrong.

My point being, that's how confident I am the new Navy's trainer will have exactly zilch trap equip. It's just not necessary for a trainer. I don't even think the Navy uses the T-45s carrier ops to anywhere near originally envisioned tempo. They don't even have a dedicated training carrier anymore.


Very interesting. That would certainly make the T-7A that much more attractive. The main landing gear of the T-7A even looks beefier than what the T-45 has.
So maybe just a nose gear change/mod?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3389
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Mon May 18, 2020 4:46 am

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
The T-7 probably has a good chance here too. While it would require some modification for carrier ops, increased production and commonality will benefit both services with reduced costs.
Boeing could probably just scale down some parts from the Hornet too.


I agree - except for the modifications for carrier landings. I think a standard T-7A will fit the bill with no carrier trap equipment because, well, I'll put it on here right now that I'll be willing to entertain a number of embarrassing bets from you guys if I turn out to be wrong.

My point being, that's how confident I am the new Navy's trainer will have exactly zilch trap equip. It's just not necessary for a trainer. I don't even think the Navy uses the T-45s carrier ops to anywhere near originally envisioned tempo. They don't even have a dedicated training carrier anymore.

par13del wrote:
Well, unless the politicians get involved I do not see the Navy using the Air Force trainer, inter-service rivalry and all that.


Well then I'm not sure how to break the news to you that the Navy uses T-6A Texan IIs then....

The USN does use whatever carrier is working up as their training carrier; right now, it is USS Ford that's serving as the training carrier right now.
 
angad84
Posts: 2072
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Mon May 18, 2020 5:59 pm

Re: the T-7A, it looks like the MLG would foul with the doors if it slammed down too hard (i.e. FCLP, trap)
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2509
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Fri May 22, 2020 7:05 pm

I don't understand the Navy's thinking in regard to non-carrier capable aircraft. To me this makes no sense. to me. It will be cheaper to practice carrier landings in trainer aircraft than would be in a strike fighter. I don't think your first carrier landing or cat shot should be in a strike fighter. I really don't get this philosophy. The Air Force wants to move more training to their trainer while the Navy wants to do the opposite.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3389
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sat May 23, 2020 1:38 am

INFINITI329 wrote:
I don't understand the Navy's thinking in regard to non-carrier capable aircraft. To me this makes no sense. to me. It will be cheaper to practice carrier landings in trainer aircraft than would be in a strike fighter. I don't think your first carrier landing or cat shot should be in a strike fighter. I really don't get this philosophy. The Air Force wants to move more training to their trainer while the Navy wants to do the opposite.

The Navy is testing and implementing the Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies (Magic Carpet) across their entire strike fleet, which should make carrier landings as routine and easy as landing on shore-based runway. Basically, it's an autopilot based approach and landing system, similar to commercial aviation's ILS system.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8119
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sat May 23, 2020 4:53 am

Slug71 wrote:
rfields5421 wrote:
Ozair wrote:
I don't think inter-service rivalry will play a part here either, a decent number of USAF pilots do portions of their flight training with the Navy and a portion of Navy aircrew do their training with the USAF.


It is not so much a rivalry as different goals.

In the past USAF has seen the weight and structural components necessary to sustain FCLP and carrier operations as 'wasted' on an Air Force aircraft.


I doubt (and dont think anyone was suggesting) USN mods would be ported over to the AF frames.


VSMUT wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
The T-7 probably has a good chance here too. While it would require some modification for carrier ops, increased production and commonality will benefit both services with reduced costs.
Boeing could probably just scale down some parts from the Hornet too.


Doesn't the T-7s tail sit a bit low and far out to the rear?

What other types would be up for consideration? A Hawk T2/T-45 based offering from BAe perhaps? M-346?


Doesn't appear to be,

Image

Image



Interesting picture


Anyone know what those two large exposed compartments under the cockpit(s) are for ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
SuperiorPilotMe
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sat May 23, 2020 7:16 pm

INFINITI329 wrote:
I don't understand the Navy's thinking in regard to non-carrier capable aircraft. To me this makes no sense. to me. It will be cheaper to practice carrier landings in trainer aircraft than would be in a strike fighter.


But it's even cheaper to practice landings in trainer aircraft on shore-based bases only and forego carrier landing training completely.

ThePointBlank already covered the technology that makes this possible but it had been something the Navy had been contemplating for decades as carrier landings are expensive, regardless what aircraft used. I believe prior to MAGIC CARPET it was an attitude of "hope that shore-based training is enough and for the best" but needless to say MAGIC CARPET will be a big help.

I imagine this will be my last post for a long while at least due to actions in other threads that, yes, I am very proud of.
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
 
aumaverick
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Tue May 26, 2020 12:45 pm

Max Q wrote:
Slug71 wrote:
rfields5421 wrote:

It is not so much a rivalry as different goals.

In the past USAF has seen the weight and structural components necessary to sustain FCLP and carrier operations as 'wasted' on an Air Force aircraft.


I doubt (and dont think anyone was suggesting) USN mods would be ported over to the AF frames.


VSMUT wrote:

Doesn't the T-7s tail sit a bit low and far out to the rear?

What other types would be up for consideration? A Hawk T2/T-45 based offering from BAe perhaps? M-346?


Doesn't appear to be,

Image

Image



Interesting picture


Anyone know what those two large exposed compartments under the cockpit(s) are for ?


Golf clubs, :lol: :duck:
I'm just here so I won't get fined. - Marshawn Lynch
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Wed May 27, 2020 1:28 pm

Probably an avionics bay to be used for mission systems. After all, the plane will be promoted as an attack aircraft. Locating the bay there will make maintenance easier than behind the cockpit. The same phylosophy is being used with their loyal wingman drone.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23512
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Wed May 27, 2020 9:17 pm

bikerthai wrote:
Probably an avionics bay to be used for mission systems. After all, the plane will be promoted as an attack aircraft. Locating the bay there will make maintenance easier than behind the cockpit. The same phylosophy is being used with their loyal wingman drone.

Was reading Dick Bong's bio recently. Seems if you flew a P-38 from Guadalcanal back to Australia you were expected to return with however much beer you could find storage for. Maybe the USAF has learned from its elders?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
SuperiorPilotMe
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Wed May 27, 2020 10:46 pm

You're going to end up with what amounts to dead space anyway. Why not design it to act as storage or as space for future upgrades?

I once read that the F-22 was intentionally designed with enough dead space to physically cram the hardware of a CRAY supercomputer into, but of course I defer to people actually capable (and authorized) to confirm that.
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3257
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Thu May 28, 2020 1:16 pm

When pilots flies fighters to another base for training, where do they put their gear? I mean if you put your duffle in a bay not designed for a duffle, how do you strap it down?

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
aumaverick
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:40 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Thu May 28, 2020 1:34 pm

bikerthai wrote:
When pilots flies fighters to another base for training, where do they put their gear? I mean if you put your duffle in a bay not designed for a duffle, how do you strap it down?

bt


Baggage pods.
https://www.cobhammissionsystems.com/au ... t/docview/
I'm just here so I won't get fined. - Marshawn Lynch
 
RetiredWeasel
Posts: 776
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Thu May 28, 2020 3:53 pm

aumaverick wrote:
bikerthai wrote:
When pilots flies fighters to another base for training, where do they put their gear? I mean if you put your duffle in a bay not designed for a duffle, how do you strap it down?

bt


Baggage pods.
https://www.cobhammissionsystems.com/au ... t/docview/


It depends on what type of training you're talking about. If it's an extended TDY, they frequently take the airlines and ship their personal effects and PE gear. If it's flying to an exercise then they could use possible travel pods, but the support folks usually travel on a military transport and ship everybody's personal effects on the aircraft. If it's just a short TDY (like a couple of days), then wherever there is some free space in the fighter.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4744
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sat May 30, 2020 4:47 am

SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:
I don't understand the Navy's thinking in regard to non-carrier capable aircraft. To me this makes no sense. to me. It will be cheaper to practice carrier landings in trainer aircraft than would be in a strike fighter.


But it's even cheaper to practice landings in trainer aircraft on shore-based bases only and forego carrier landing training completely.

ThePointBlank already covered the technology that makes this possible but it had been something the Navy had been contemplating for decades as carrier landings are expensive, regardless what aircraft used. I believe prior to MAGIC CARPET it was an attitude of "hope that shore-based training is enough and for the best" but needless to say MAGIC CARPET will be a big help.

I imagine this will be my last post for a long while at least due to actions in other threads that, yes, I am very proud of.

really? what standard runway is going to duplicate traps on a rolling deck in a seagoing condition? All of this Automatic approach equipment they want to develop? Isn't worth a hill of beans if a Pilot can't hitvthe deck at night or in Bad weather. Landing ON a Carrier is what sets Navy pilots apart from the Air Force. Avionics might help but NOTHING can make it Easy.
 
SuperiorPilotMe
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 4:55 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sat May 30, 2020 11:32 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
really? what standard runway is going to duplicate traps on a rolling deck in a seagoing condition? All of this Automatic approach equipment they want to develop? Isn't worth a hill of beans if a Pilot can't hitvthe deck at night or in Bad weather. Landing ON a Carrier is what sets Navy pilots apart from the Air Force. Avionics might help but NOTHING can make it Easy.


All of this is true but the real problem is if the USN even cares anymore or not. And they're trying hard to convince themselves that they don't need to care, in order to save money.

That's the real issue at stake here. It always boils down to money.
Stop the stupids!- Claus Kellerman
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3389
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sun May 31, 2020 4:07 am

strfyr51 wrote:
SuperiorPilotMe wrote:
INFINITI329 wrote:
I don't understand the Navy's thinking in regard to non-carrier capable aircraft. To me this makes no sense. to me. It will be cheaper to practice carrier landings in trainer aircraft than would be in a strike fighter.


But it's even cheaper to practice landings in trainer aircraft on shore-based bases only and forego carrier landing training completely.

ThePointBlank already covered the technology that makes this possible but it had been something the Navy had been contemplating for decades as carrier landings are expensive, regardless what aircraft used. I believe prior to MAGIC CARPET it was an attitude of "hope that shore-based training is enough and for the best" but needless to say MAGIC CARPET will be a big help.

I imagine this will be my last post for a long while at least due to actions in other threads that, yes, I am very proud of.

really? what standard runway is going to duplicate traps on a rolling deck in a seagoing condition? All of this Automatic approach equipment they want to develop? Isn't worth a hill of beans if a Pilot can't hitvthe deck at night or in Bad weather. Landing ON a Carrier is what sets Navy pilots apart from the Air Force. Avionics might help but NOTHING can make it Easy.

MAGIC CARPET is currently in it's initial fielding right now, and this is the best description I've found on how it works:

https://news.usni.org/2016/06/30/navys- ... lding-fall

MAGIC CARPET accomplishes three things through a software-only change to the airplane, with no changes whatsoever needed to the carrier receiving the fighters.

Capt. David Kindley, F/A-18 and EA-18G Program Manager in the Program Executive Office for Tactical Aircraft, explained that pilots approaching the carrier focus on three things: watching their lineup, with the goal being to catch the third of four wires in the aircraft arresting gear; angle of attack, needed to ensure the tailhook on the back of the plane catches a wire; and speed. Even if a pilot begins his approach to the ship perfectly, every little adjustment to maintain that path to the ship requires counter-adjustments in other areas – “just dozens of corrections, tiny corrections, that I’m making” for the final 18 seconds, called “flying on the ball.”

The Super Hornets and Growlers were built with digital flight controls, and some automation was built into the system from the start.

“We call it a living wing, you see the wing doing this (adjusting itself) all the time because I told it not to roll, and so any disturbance in the air mass that would make me roll, the airplane will compensate automatically,” Kindley explained, demonstrating the dynamic wing movement with his hands.
“So what we’ve basically done is taken that idea and applied it to landing, because I know most of the time I’m going to fly a 3-degree glideslope.”

When MAGIC CARPET is engaged and put into “delta path mode,” the plane will fly on a 3-degree glideslope downwards regardless of wind and other conditions outside. Even when the plane flies through the burble, or disturbed air behind the aircraft carrier’s island, the plane reacts and continues on its planned glideslope.

Then, MAGIC CARPET allows for more intuitive and much less cumbersome adjustments to that flight path by decoupling roll from yaw from pitch, and instead creating a single input that affects the ultimate goal – the airplane’s flight path. The pilot can make a little correction to the flight path using the stick and then simply let go of the stick to stay on that new path.

“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” Kindley said. If a pilot is coming in high, “you just push the stick forward and then let go, and it stops itself on glideslope. Same thing when I’m below glideslope, you just pull the stick back and then let go. So instead of making multiple corrections with the throttle and stick to affect glideslope, I’ve made one and then let go.”

The same is true for side-to-side corrections – the pilot adjusts and then lets go of the stick to maintain the new direction, with the plane always keeping that same 3-degree glideslope for a smooth landing on the carrier flight deck.

Finally, MAGIC CARPET calculates the movement of the carrier as it sails through the water and precisely understands where the landing area will be by the time the fighter gets to it. Today, pilots have to constantly guess the velocity vector, Kindley said, and find themselves “spotting the deck” – which often times puts them too low and may cause the Landing Signal Officer (LSO) on the flight deck to wave them off.

With this new tool, “we can look at how fast the ship is moving, it’s not a hard math problem – if I know how fast the ship is moving here then I can figure out how fast the runway is moving to the right, and so I can just, I go into delta path mode and we have a different symbol, velocity vector goes away and it actually looks like a little landing area. So no kidding, all you do is you put the landing area on the landing area, and then you let go. It’s really that simple.”

Ultimately, Kindley said, MAGIC CARPET “makes it so the plane is working for you instead of against you” while landing.

Test Pilots’ Perspective

Navy pilots see landing on the aircraft carrier as an administrative task: “It’s like filling out paperwork, you have to do it in order to do what you really want to do,” Lt. Cmdr. Matthew Dominick, a test pilot in the carrier suitability flight test department in the VX-23 Air Test and Evaluation Squadron, told reporters after testing wrapped up.

For as uninteresting a task as pilots consider landing – it allows a brief respite for the pilot and a chance to refuel and rearm the plane before going back out to continue the mission – carrier landings are among the most dangerous things a pilot will do.

Using the “closest alligator to the canoe” as an analogy – of all the dangers, he’s most concerned about fending off the one nearest to him so he can survive a bit longer – Dominick said “when we are not at war, the closest alligator to the canoe, to me, to threatening what we’re going to do and the risk we take, is landing aboard the ship. It’s dangerous, it’s every day regardless of whether we’re at war or not at war. … After all of the stress of that combat mission, where people are yelling and things are going on and bombs are getting dropped, you still have to come back to this really really dangerous thing. So will this change carrier aviation? Yes. We can start focusing more time and training to focus on that other mission because this closer alligator to the canoe has been subdued.”

Dominick, who has 11 years of flight experience in the Navy, said that a pilot’s time flying on the ball is considered “sacrosanct.” No one will talk to the pilot over the radio during that time except for the LSO on the flight deck to keep the pilot safe – but otherwise, everyone knows the pilot needs total silence to focus on the task at hand.

During MAGIC CARPET testing, though – two three-hour periods a day from June 23 to 27 – “now with this system, when we’re flying the ball, we are talking the entire way down about exactly what we’re seeing. … We’re talking to the engineers real time all the way to touchdown.”

Kindley said the average pilot makes 200 to 300 corrections in the final 18 seconds before landing. With MAGIC CARPET, test data showed the first-timers making about 20 corrections while flying on the ball, with that figure dropping below 10 once the pilots got used to the system.

Test pilot Lt. Christopher Montague explained that decrease in rapid-fire movements in basic terms. When the testing first started, the pilots came in to the carrier with a “nominal approach,” following the basic parameters pilots are taught to aim for as they begin their approach. After seeing how MAGIC CARPET responded, the pilots then began off-nominal approaches – coming in too high or low, too fast or slow, overshooting or undershooting the runway – “stressing the system, so you force yourself in there to make some aggressive inputs” before successfully landing.

During one pass that Montague meant to overshoot but accidentally significantly overshot, “I probably would have been told to wave off before I even started my approach. As I was coming through, Paddles (the LSO) probably would have said, wave off wave off, maybe take it up the starboard side of the ship, which would have been very embarrassing for me. So, however, I didn’t, I stuck with it (using MAGIC CARPET) … and I landed with the center ball back on center line with about four or five seconds left to go. So it was pretty eye-opening to me, the power of the system. And that was loaded with about as much asymmetry on the aircraft as we could,” meaning one wing was fully loaded with ordnance or fuel and the other was empty, as a way of stressing the system as much as the testers could.

In that scenario, without MAGIC CARPET “the throttles would have been going anywhere between idle and full power and hopefully not into after burner. But I would have been, we sometimes call it sawing logs, I would have been doing that all over the place,” Montague said. With MAGIC CARPET, “I think it’s probably reasonable to say probably at least 50 percent less control inputs. And that was on way off-nominal,” he said, with more nominal approaches resulting in even fewer control inputs while on the ball.

“I am still uncomfortable with how few inputs I’m making,” Dominick said, noting it can feel a little counter to all the years of training and experience at first, but the system has earned his trust – particularly once he started the intentionally off-nominal passes.

Dominick said it was important to keep in mind that MAGIC CARPET is not an automated landing system – the pilots are still flying the plane, and human error and bad weather conditions will still make carrier landings risky. But, he said, “we just changed the way you control the airplane – we made it respond faster and better.”


With the system, carrier pilots were routinely hitting the target between the second and third wire within 18 feet about 66% of the time; in contrast, the previous benchmark was hitting the target between the second and third wire within 40 feet about 66% of the time.

The F-35C has a very similar system in place called Integrated Direct Lift Control (IDLC). IDLC allows the F-35's avionics to assist the pilot in making glide slope adjustments during the carrier approach by adjusting the flaps to adjust the amount of lift to maintain the glide slope. Coupled to the auto throttle, this allows for a very precise carrier landing to be accomplished.

Together, these systems are also being combined with the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) which is a differential GPS-based precision landing system that guides aircraft to precision landings in all weather and surface conditions. Carriers and the LHA's and LHD's are all being outfitted with JPALS right now.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5983
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sun May 31, 2020 10:53 pm

Ozair wrote:
Those are some very impressive numbers they are seeking. The Hawk was able to become the T-45 so I expect all the contenders are capable after some modification.


Yes, with a whole lot of structural and aerodynamic modifications. Also, they had to put in a different engine as the original Ardour engine as it was inadequate for carrier ops.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5983
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sun May 31, 2020 11:06 pm

zululima wrote:
Article at FlightGlobal:

http://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/us-navy-begins-search-for-next-jet-trainer-to-replace-t-45-goshawk/138400.article

Another jet trainer competition about to kick off, this time the US Navy is looking for a two-seater to handle intensive land-based training and carrier touch-and-go's. Interestingly enough, this means no carrier landings and cats, although I assume the jet would have to have the capability for both due to its usage in "field carrier" training, and for emergencies. The number of hard landings they are expecting this thing to take is amazing, and I assume any non-navalized trainer will have to have significant structural strengthening and more robust landing gear, etc.

The service wants an assessment of how certain aircraft would handle the forces of high sink rate landings, the hallmark of training for landing on the short deck of an aircraft carrier.

The next generation trainer is expected to fly 400h a year. The USN wants to conduct field carrier landing practices at a rate of 1,200 per aircraft per year. It wants each aircraft to perform carrier touch-and-go landings 45 times per year.

The aircraft is to have a flight life of at least 14,400h and be able to sustain 43,200 landings.


Some expected contenders include the "Mini F-18":

Likely competitors in the USN’s next generation trainer program would be the Boeing-Saab T-7A jet, recent winner of the US Air Force’s T-X trainer competition; Lockheed Martin’s T-50A, based on the FA-50, a light attack and trainer aircraft developed with Korea Aerospace Industries; and Leonardo’s T-100, based on the Alenia Aermacchi M-346 Master, a light attack and trainer aircraft.

The T-45 is a variant of the 1970s British Aerospace Hawk, developed jointly for the USN by McDonnell Douglas and British Aerospace. Boeing acquired the programme in 1997 when it merged with McDonnell Douglas.



If the aircraft is to handle carrier landings they might as well put a tail hook and launch bar/holdback on it. I think it would be best for Nav Air to have pilots reporting to the RAG squadrons with some traps and cat shots under their belt.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5983
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Sun May 31, 2020 11:25 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
The Navy is testing and implementing the Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies (Magic Carpet) across their entire strike fleet, which should make carrier landings as routine and easy as landing on shore-based runway. Basically, it's an autopilot based approach and landing system, similar to commercial aviation's ILS system.


The Navy already has that, ACLS. The system on the S-3 was so accurate that the aircraft would touchdown on the exact same spot every time. Of course systems fail and that's why you hand fly it all the way down. Don't want a bunch of ACLS cripples flying around the boat.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3389
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: USN Begins Process to Select New Jet Trainer/T-45 Replacement

Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:05 am

LMP737 wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
The Navy is testing and implementing the Maritime Augmented Guidance with Integrated Controls for Carrier Approach and Recovery Precision Enabling Technologies (Magic Carpet) across their entire strike fleet, which should make carrier landings as routine and easy as landing on shore-based runway. Basically, it's an autopilot based approach and landing system, similar to commercial aviation's ILS system.


The Navy already has that, ACLS. The system on the S-3 was so accurate that the aircraft would touchdown on the exact same spot every time. Of course systems fail and that's why you hand fly it all the way down. Don't want a bunch of ACLS cripples flying around the boat.

By the time you have a situation where a carrier aircraft can't land automatically, the pilot probably has already been trained to do so as part of their type qualifications.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos