https://www.ar15.com/media/ mediaFiles/348/6394.JPG http://www.sludgehornet.com/downloads/NavalAviation_Pubs/LSO.pdf “Naval Air Traffic Management Systems Program Office (PMA213) is the Navy's Executive Agent that pro- vides program management and life cycle support for all naval Air Traffic management Systems. PMA213 is directly responsible and accountable to Program Executive Officer, Tactical Aircraft Programs (PEO(T)). PMA213's mission is to: -maintain our fielded ATC and CID systems for our Warfighters today, - deliver advanced Air Traffic Control and Landing capability both at sea and ashore, and - deliver improved IFF security via Mark XIIA, Mode 5 upgrade.” http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.PhotoGalleryDetail&key=8E68C563-917F-4F68-9200-05AF2EA29C72 “AUTOMATIC CARRIER LANDING SYSTEM TESTS 1963 USS Midway Museum Docent Reference Manual 2013 Edition After a regular overhaul extending until April 1963 Midway http://www.volunteers-midway.org/assets/files/15557.pdf continued its role as a research and development platform. In June 1963 an F-4A Phantom II and an F-8D Crusader made the first fully automatic carrier landings with production equipment on board Midway off the West Coast. The landings, made "hands off" with both flight controls and throttles operated automatically by signals from the ship, were the culmination of almost 16 years of research and development....” Naval Air Traffic Management Systems http:// http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home. www.navair.navy. mil/img/uploads/ PhotoGalleryDetail&key=8E68C563-917F-4F68-9200-05AF2EA29C72 PMA213_2.jpg As it happens, the hands-off carrier landing capability has been around for a long time, with the first aboard a U.S. NAVY AIRCRAFT+,6725< carrier being accomplished more than 50 years ago and used operationally since 1965. However, the X-47B system -XO\/RRN1R+DQGV %\7RPP\+7KRPDVRQ has to provide greater functionality—for example a hands-off bolter (a touch down with no arrestment)—and much greater reliability. since there is no pilot to take over when the electrons and ones/zeros begin to lose their way. :KDWZDVDFWXDOO\RQO\WKHODWHVWLQKDQGVIUHHFDUULHUODQGLQJVZDVDFFRPSOLVKHGRQ -XO\DERDUG(LVHQKRZHUE\DQ)$'+RUQHWPRGLILHGWRHPXODWHDQXQPDQQHG The impetus for a hands-off system in 1950 was the desire to minimize the shortcomings of jets with respect to DLUFUDIW all-weather operations and the amount of time that a carrier was unable to operate aircraft due to ship motion or ceiling/visibility. In those days, before inflight refueling, jets were unable to wait out poor weather due to their http://thanlont.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/ limited endurance. look-no-hands.html Bell Aerospace won a competition with Honeywell and began developing the system in the early 1950s. It was ship-based, with a computer using radar data to determine the airplane's location relative to the glide slope and then sending corrections to the airplane's autopilot to alter its flight path to fly to and on the glide slope at the proper approach speed. All the pilot had to do was fly the airplane through an imaginary gate four miles aft of the ship on final approach and verify that the airplane was being guided by the ALCS, All-weather ( or Automatic) Carrier Landing System. The first automatic landing of the Navy test airplane, a Douglas F3D Skyknight, took place in May 1954 at the Niagara Falls Airport, New York. 7KHXQPDQQHGDLUFUDIWEHLQJHPXODWHGLVWKH1RUWKURS*UXPPDQ;%ZKLFK LVFXUUHQWO\LQIOLJKWWHVWDQGVFKHGXOHGIRUDWVHDFDUULHUVXLWDELOLW\WHVWLQJLQ One addition required to the airplane in addition to an auto throttle was a corner reflector, seen above just in front of the nose landing gear doors, to insure the best possible radar data for the ship-based system. A production contract was finally awarded to Bell in March 1960 for the SPN-10 ALCS. NATC accomplished the first fully automated landings with the production system in June 1963 on Midway with an F-4 Phantom and an F-8 Crusader, modified for the capability. However, another round of development and improvements were required so the first operational use was delayed to late 1965, when operational evaluations were accomplished with F- 4Gs, ALCS-modified F-4Bs, aboard Kitty Hawk. The capability was subsequently retrofitted to F-4Bs and incorporated in new production F-4Js. After a Vietnam deployment aboard Kitty Hawk with VF-213, the 11 surviving F-4Gs (one was shot down) became F-4Bs again. (Either the Navy's F-4G's existence was forgotten/considered irrelevant or used to disguise the purpose of yet another F-4 variant, the Air Force F-4G Wild Weasel.) The radar reflector on the aircraft was substantially reduced in size and made retractable. On the F-4, it was attached to a door that opened just forward of the nose gear. Part of the interval between the successful demonstration at Bell and the first landing aboard a carrier was dedicated to developing a ship-motion compensation capability. During the last 12 seconds before the touchdown, ship motion was included in the computations; a second or two from touchdown, the corrections to the autopilot ceased and it simply maintained pitch and bank. The first at-sea demonstration was on Antietam in 1957. At the time, the system was housed in large vans and not ready for deployment in the operating environment aboard an aircraft carrier. Redesign and environmental (shake, vibration, EMI, etc.) qualification testing was required now that proof of the concept had been demonstrated. OnO the F-111B, it was mounted on the upper link of the nose gear torque scissors so it deployed into position whenw the gear was down in flight. WhenW the system was working, the performance was brilliant, the airplane coming down the glide slope toward a three-wiret arrestment like it was on rails. As might be expected from the vacuum-tube-based technology of the time,t however, reliability proved to be a problem. A field change was made to improve SPN-10 reliability but at thet expense of its automatic touchdown capability: the pilot had to take over at weather minimums and make the finalf corrections before touchdown. IIn 1966, Bell received a contract to "digitize" the system with solid state electronics and computers and restore ffull functionality. The redesigned system was designated the SPN-42. A subsequent improvement, the SPN-42A, incorporatedi an X-Band radar for better system performance in heavy precipitation. It was operationally approved iin 1968. DDevelopment of the next ALCS generation, the SPN-46, was begun in 1980 to take advantage of advancements in ggyro, computer, and radar technology. It was declared operational in 1987 after an operational evaluation iinvolving Kennedy and F-14s. It is being continually improved but will eventually be replaced by a GPS-based ssystem being developed as a joint service program, JPALS (Joint Precision Approach and Landing System). http://thanlont.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/look-no-hands.html F/A-18 Carrier Landing System A fuzzy logic based aircraft carrier landing system Marc Steinberg; Lehigh University 1991 http://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=etd Side View Carrier Landing System Ship c.2005 Capability Description AN/SPN-46 ACLS CV/CVN - Mode I: Hands-off approach to touchdown. Ship - Mode IA: Hands-off approach to ¾ NMI, pilot takeover. Suitability - Mode II: SPN-46 radar provides azimuth and elevation guidance Testing – - Mode III: Ground-controlled approach utilizing the SPN-46 Preparing radar for skin track. for the - Mode I, IA, and II capabilities require aircraft to have a radar Future beacon and an on-aircraft data link. AN/SPN-41 ICLS CV/CVN - SPN-41 radar provides azimuth and elevation guidance - Stand-alone instrument landing system or independent monitor LHA, LHD for ACLS approaches. - Requires receiver in aircraft AN/SPN-35 PAR LHA, LHD - Ground-controlled approach using radar skin track - No on-aircraft systems required. ATC&LS testing is currently focused on certification of the PALS onboard LHD, LHA, and CV/CVN class Table 1: ships. PALS capabilities are further described in Table 1. The ATC&LS Branch also certifies shore-based installations of the ACLS and ICLS and tests Instrument Landing Systems on all Navy/Marine Corps aircraft. Upcoming work is focusing on service life improvements of the current systems and development of the Joint PALS Precision Approach Landing System (JPALS). JPALS will be used by all U.S. Services to provide shore- based and shipboard precision approach capability using relative GPS technology. The JPALS T&E program Capabilities will be a large challenging program that will, in the end, enable a change to the concept of operation for the Description carrier air traffic control system and be the major enabling technology for UCAS shipboard launch and recovery operations. This branch is also heavily involved in new aircraft development programs such as the F-35B/C JSF airplanes and in the development of modifications to current airplanes such as the new Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) for the EA-6B. http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-SCI-162///MP-SCI-162-07.pdf http:// www. Day neptun Case III uslex. com/20 Recovery 11/03/0 6/ whisper -still- life/ W H I S P E R — S T I L L - L I “Case III explanation (‘Whisper’). During instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), (and always at night) we F execute a Case III recovery, more specifically the CV-1 approach. It is basically an all inclusive holding, penetration, and instrument approach procedure that drops you off on a 3.5 degree glideslope behind the ship.” E http://www.neptunuslex.com/wp-con tent/uploads/2011/03/IMG_0117-1.jpg TYPE APPROACH MINIMUMS What? http: Me // JET NON- 600–1-1/4 info.