US F-35 Showing Its Insane Capability During Rolling Landing on HMS Prince of Wales 

"the USMC love it,"(sic) The Marine Corps doesn't utilize SRVL aboard LHAs/LHDs.

Maybe the Americans would like to buy her, seeing the British government can't afford to fully kit her out, we don't have enough aircraft to man her, that's why she's in the US for trials,

@@joginns778 Not true at all, the UK has over 30 F-35s at the moment, that is more than both carriers had during the Falklands war, and more are on order. HMS Prince of Wales is in the US because they are performing flight trials and are using F-35Bs from the ITF (Integrated Test Force) which are equipped with extra sensors to collect data during these trials.

@@Benjd0 just looked at latest data ,we have 27 , f 35 s out of a 138 what a bloody joke, we should have kept the jaguars and tornadoes till we got the full order of f 35 lighting,,

@@Benjd0 Ignore him... some people refuse to let facts get in the way of a good winge 🙄

There probably was some training when the US originally started using the harrier or maybe some Red Flag exercises but a quick internet search has come up with nothing and I can’t remember anything about that from anything I’ve read . Closest thing I can think of is exchange programs between the USMC and Royal Navy where individual pilots were sent .

I know that a USMC squadron was embarked on at least one deployment aboard HMS Illustrious - some time in the mid 2000s if I recall correctly

Ke rumah RT. Alamat limpas Anjatan. Kec patrol. Aman dan lancar.

Yes

Sure I saw the FAA and RAF using this technique down South?

@@pdunderhill The first time SRVL was used in the Falklands War. Dave Morgan, a Sea Harrier pilot (an RAF pilot on exchange) landed his Sea Harrier rolling on the deck as he had received battle damage to the tail and was concerned that the reaction jets at the rear had been damaged. Turns out he had received a 20mm hit from AAA in the tail, but the aircraft was still fine. It was either land like that or eject as a VL was seen as too risky. That was the only time it was done and it was very much a pilot having a good idea and using it in desperation, essentially using the short landing technique used in RAF Germany on occasion and transferring it to a ship. The next time it was done was 25 years later with the experimental QinetiQ VAAC Harrier landing on the French aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle in 2007. This was to prove the concept and develop control laws that would ultimately be used in F-35. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-aU0P0pQQ6vI.html

Dave Morgan. What a pilot!

Yes, UK carriers have a basic "meatball" style glide slope indicator to help with carrier landings. It is called the Deck Approach Projector Sight (DAPS). The DAPS is a large, projector-based system that projects a vertical column of lights onto the carrier deck. The pilot uses the DAPS to ensure they are on the correct glide slope as they approach the carrier. The DAPS works by projecting a light beam onto a series of mirrors. The mirrors reflect the light back onto the carrier deck, creating a vertical column of lights. The pilot can see the DAPS lights from a distance of several miles. The DAPS lights are color-coded to indicate whether the pilot is on the correct glide slope. A green light indicates that the pilot is on the proper glide slope. A red light indicates that the pilot is too low. A white light indicates that the pilot is too high. The pilot uses the DAPS lights to adjust their altitude and airspeed as they approach the carrier. The goal is to maintain a steady green light all the way down to the deck. In addition to the DAPS, UK carriers also have several other visual landing aids, such as the Glide Slope Indicator System (GLIS) and the Arresting Gear Engagement Indicator (AGEDI). The GLIS provides the pilot with a long-range line-up indication. The AGEDI indicates to the pilot when they are approaching the arresting gear. However, the pilot is ultimately responsible for making a safe landing on the carrier. The DAPS and other visual landing aids are there to help the pilot. Is the approach entirely down to the pilot? No, the approach is not entirely down to the pilot. The pilot is assisted by some other factors, including: The Landing Signal Officer (LSO). The LSO is a senior pilot responsible for overseeing all carrier landings. The LSO uses various visual and audio signals to help the pilot make a safe landing. The carrier's flight control system. The carrier's flight control system helps to guide the pilot onto the carrier deck. The carrier's arresting gear. The carrier's arresting gear is a system of cables that helps to stop the aircraft when it lands. However, the pilot is ultimately responsible for making a safe landing on the carrier. The pilot must use their skills and experience to make the final decision on when to land and how to land.

@@Nighthawkvets Thanks for the comprehensive answer which explains a lot. 👍 I wasn't aware that they still have the cables to assist with stopping the aircraft if they overrun. I guess the cables were slightly out of shot to the right in these landings in the video. 👍

In addition to the Carrier recovery aids, the pilots F35 helmet also has specific modes and guide indicators for this type of recovery.

​@@NighthawkvetsNo arresting gear on the carrier or the F35B.

Remember it was the Royal Navy that developed the original 'meatball' with mirror landing aids in the '50s. However on this ship they are testing a new approach system called 'Bedford Array' that enhances the SRVL landing technique. It is a light / laser based system that gives the pilot the touchdown point on the deck regardless of pitch and roll of the ship. The F-35 can be programmed to utilise the system as well. SRVL was first trialled on a QE Class carrier in 2018 although both SRVL and the Bedford Array were first developed some years before by QinetiQ using a two seat Harrier.

Only the British boats will utilize it.

Possibly I'd guess. The US has plenty of small carriers known as amphibious assault ships.

Well when you are doing testing and data collection you need some base lines to work from. However during Westlant 18 the ship was put on the edge of a hurricane and launched multiple sorties with the test aircraft. The advantage of the ramp being it will always launch above the water even at the lowest bow dip. Harriers were operating off our carriers in weather that CATOBAR carriers couldn't.

As a conventionally powered ship, they had to have two exhaust funnels for the engines, so they turned this into an opportunity to radically redesign the layout of an aircraft carrier. The forward island is for ship control, the second island is for aircraft control (that’s why it has those massive windows - good view of the landings, etc. Each island though is able to handle the other islands job, if necessary, as a backup in case of damage. Good idea.

What is new is they are testing the Bedford Array landing system embedded in the flight deck which gives a HUD in the pilot's helmet. SRVL was developed in the late 2000s when QinetiQ converted a two seat Harrier (XW175) to test flight control software and other developments like SRVL. They developed the flight control software in that VAAC Harrier that was sold to LM and is fitted to all F-35s.

@@1chish "which gives a HUD in the pilot's helmet."(SIC) The HUD has been in the F-35 helmet since day one. "SRVL was developed in the late 2000s"(sic) Software implemented SRVL was developed then. Videos on youtube show VMA-542 flying SRVLs aboard the Guam with AV-8As in 1975 and VMA-231 flew SRVLs with AV-8As aboard the FDR during a Med cruise back in 76-77. QinetiQ utilized the Bedford Array which was not in use during earlier SRVLs. "They developed the flight control software in that VAAC Harrier that was sold to LM"(sic) Incorrect. The software that will be used in the UK F-35Bs is quite different than that which was used for the VAAC trials. "and is fitted to all F-35s."(sic) Incorrect. Hopefully someday you're going to grow up and realize that you don't know everything that you think you know, kid.

This was developed back in the early 80s by the RAF/RN then adapted to suit the F35

We won't and SOP recovery ashore is already RVL.

@@AA-xo9uw Understandable, at least when flying from even an America Class LHA. Ashore, I'd assume the length of runway available is the deciding factor.

The point in having them is mainly for defence. Russia, at the moment, isn't directly threatening the UK. So, we aren't using them against them. "Simples" 😉

Because we are not at war with Russia

BAE Systems and Rolls Royce would like words ...

Northrop Grumman does some of the work, not most of the work.

Without Rolls Royce and BAE systems this plane would not fly.

@neilsbs8273 You know that the United States has other organizations like Honeywell, GE, Pratt and Whitney that make far more advanced engines than Rolls-Royce, as well as groups like L3, Northrop, Raytheon, general dynamics etc that have their own very advanced electronics suites ... It's good to have our cousins on board, but let it not fool you, America can make stuff on its own... Aerojet Rocketdyne.. etc, etc...

@@mbukukanyau yeah I get that but as it stands we build 15% and are tier one partners in it as you obviously know. boths sides have some seriously advanced kit that we could both discuss till the ends of the earth but for now we are stronger together.

"they just need ski-jumps on their ships ."(sic) Nope. The Marine Corps can achieve takeoff aboard LHDs/LHAs at MTOW unlike ski jump equipped boats and the jump also causes airframe stress that isn't experienced with a flat deck not to mention that deck landing spots are lost with the addition of a jump.

@@AA-xo9uw "The Marine Corps can achieve takeoff aboard LHDs/LHAs at MTOW unlike ski jump equipped boats" This makes it sound like Ski-Jumps reduce performance, which would make little sense considering it would be easier to just operate a flat deck like the USMC. The F-35B can take off with its maximum payload via a flat deck or Ski-Jump, but the Ski-Jump allows it to take off in a shorter space with the same weight. For the QE class this means they can launch fully loaded fighters and have plenty of space in the rear of the ship to be landing fighters and helicopters at the same time. That being said, USMC LHD/LHAs aren't as focused on fixed wing flight ops since the US Navy operate CATOBAR carriers, so the extra space to operate different types of aircraft makes more sense.

@@Benjd0 "The F-35B can take off with its maximum payload via a flat deck or Ski-Jump,"(sic) Incorrect. MTOW for a ski jump launch is lower than MTOW on a flat deck. "but the Ski-Jump allows it to take off in a shorter space with the same weight."(sic) Incorrect. If your assertion was true then beast mode takeoffs aboard the PoW during the latest trials wouldn't have commenced from the stern of the boat. which they all did. "For the QE class this means they can launch fully loaded fighters and have plenty of space in the rear of the ship to be landing fighters and helicopters at the same time."(sic) Incorrect. Simultaneous launches and recoveries of beast mode F-35Bs are not possible.

Nah, Tempest will be a purely air force jet.

@@B-A-L I wouldn't put money on that. Remember the timing: 2035 is when Tempest is due in Operational service. 2030 (ish) is the scheduled date for QE's mid life refit in which she could be converted to CATOBAR as she was passively engineered for it. There is no cost to engineering a carrier version of Tempest in the design at this early stage and physical changes (apart from airframe itself) would be to the undercarriage.

@@1chish Tempest has become GCAP and is now a UK/Japanese/Italian project due to the fact that the UK can't afford to develop it on its own. Try and keep up, madame.

To have had*

​@@1chish2035 means 2045 if past history is repeated.

It's not "based on the harrier" lmao, VTOL jets have been around well before the Harrier. The Soviets deployed the Yak38 on their carriers long before we did.

tHE HARRIER FIRST BUILT IN NUMBERS IN 1967 AND AMERICA BOUGHT THEM AND A LICENCE FOR THE NOZZLES THE YAK WAS A FEW YEARS AFTER HARRIER AND A BLATENT COPY

@@Tomatrix22 No the Harrier was the first operational in 1969 & developed from the Hawker P.1127 & Kestrel FGA. The Yak38 entered service later in 1976 & was a blatant copy of the Harrier design likely gained from spies except the Soviets didn't have a single engine powerful enough to provide both hover & thrust so instead the Yak38 used a main engine & two smaller additional engine's. Doing so severally limited it's performance basically it was poor mans Harrier. The Soviets then later tried to make a supersonic version the Yak141 however again this used the 3 engine design & they didn't have much success only a few prototypes were made & most crashed. The F35b uses Rolls Royce's evolution of the Harrier single engine design it's called the Rolls Royce Lift system & is not connected to the Yak141design in any way despite claims by some on the internet.

@@Tomatrix22 "The Soviets deployed the Yak38 on their carriers long before we did."(sic) Incorrect.

If your have the planes, we have the deck space... 😁👍

These are from a joint UK/US unit called the Integrated Test Force... The 3 UK test aircraft are based at Edwards AFB in the west of the US....as the carrier is off the east coast of the US we use the US aircraft that are based out of Patuxent....meanwhile the UK aircraft can be doing tests for US test points....thats how the system works....its efficient and sensible...

Thank you for that info. I just wish the UK had money for more! @@dogsnads5634

@@gilburton It is categorically not training the USMC on SRVL. They are not going to use it...

They could probably lend you some brain cells.

Almost certainly civvie contractors on this deployment too

All ~40 UK F-35s are under RAF control (1 Group). The jets used for this trial are from a US test and evaluation flight, equipped with a bunch of sensors that normal production models don't have.

We do have our own. But the only reason we don't have enough of them. Is because there's a backlog in the production process of F35s. Every country that operates F35s, or is looking to, are all waiting for more of them. That includes the US.

@@Orbital_Inclination "All ~40 UK F-35s are under RAF control (1 Group)."(sic) 37 which are assigned to four different squadrons: RAF 17, 207, 617 and RN 809.

@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUM "But the only reason we don't have enough of them. Is because there's a backlog in the production process of F35s."(sic) Incorrect. If the UK had the money it would have already received all 48 of the original aircraft ordered. As the CEO of Lockheed Martin UK announced back in December of 2022, the UK is refusing to exercise its options and accept delivery of current production lot F-35Bs due to lack of money.

@@AA-xo9uw: Look, I've just laid out word for word the 'facts' of the situation by the guy who was responsible for the acquisition of UK F35s. You can't get anymore factual than that. FFS, even the US is waiting for them. The USAF planned to have 1763 F-35As, but only a few more than three hundred have been delivered. The USMC is STILL waiting for their full assortment of F-35Bs, while the USN received maybe a tenth of the expected F-35Cs. All of this doesn't even include all the other nations in NATO that are also STILL waiting on their orders to be fully completed & many of them poor bastards have already paid for them outright, so they're completely held over the proverbial barrel. The UK government saw the writing on the wall (so to speak) & held back the buying process until Lockheed Martin pull their fukn fingers out. Lockheed Martin are only 'bitching' because the UK refused to be 'completely' suckered in like most other countries that's paid outright, so they're trying to 'shame' us into parting with our cash. Now, if you can't/won't accept these facts. That's a YOU problem, nobody else's. Good day to you, sir.

Not the first time apparently. I’ve read that It was the British who taught US pilots how to land the F4U corsair on an aircraft carrier in WWII. The British pioneered the curving approach path that allowed the pilot to see the carrier on their left for the entire approach to final. A good pilot is always learning!

​@@FlyingArchitectBritain invented most of the major aircraft carrier innovations and it was also a British pilot who was the first to land a jet on a carrier.

It was also the British who developed the real game changer to sortie rate…the angled flight deck. However as a (very) ex RN FAA pilot who has been o exercise with our American colleagues many times, no one manages carrier group and flight operations better than the Americans. Watching a Nimitz class carrier group under exercise is a wonder to behold!

All the pilots who flew these SRVL trials aboard the PoW are Marine Corps pilots flying Marine Corps F-35Bs augmented to VX-23. The Marine Corps was flying SRVLs back in the 70s with their AV-8As.

@gilburton "This is the first time the USMC have done it hence the title."(sic) Incorrect. Marine Corps pilots participated in the SRVL trials aboard the QE back in 2018 and all of the aircraft that were used in those trials were Marine Corps F-35Bs augmented to VX-23. All SRVL flights aboard the PoW were flown exclusively by Marine Corps pilots with Marine Corps F-35Bs.

Yeah

Because the raf only use the f35b

More expensive and you’ll have to switch to F-35C’s and Super Hornets 🐝 🐝

Because a) the QE Class are electric ships, b) EMALS does not work reliably, c) it is horrendously expensive and d) why would we when we have two fully operational carriers flying 5th gen aircraft? Ever wondered why the USS Gerald R Ford cost $18 Bn and the 2 x QEs cost $10 Bn?

@@cjjk9142 Sorry nothing to do with the RAF alone as its a joint force that operates the B variant. But actually because a) the carriers were designed for it and b) the B variant gives total flexibility of operation.

@@1chish​​⁠the Ford is nuclear and 50% bigger. So yeah, I have wondered why it’s much more expensive.

I wouldn't say thats entirely true, BAE Systems actually write a lot of the software for the F-35. This is a quote from their website on the implementation of some British weapons: "The final development software which will ultimately deliver full capability for F-35 Lightning II. The delivery of the software will also enable ASRAAM and Paveway IV weapons to be used on the UK’s aircraft" The Tempest isn't a 5th generation aircraft designed to replace the F-35. It's a 6th generation fighter designed to replace the Typhoon in an air superiority role. It will work alongside the F-35 much like the Typhoon worked along side the Tornado before it was retired.

These can most certainly be upgraded, look at Israel, they have completely different radars. These aren't old school mechanical aircraft these are advanced pieces of technology. Think of it like smart phones. Just because you own a Samsung or iPhone doesn't mean you get rights to their operating system and software. We'll work with you and provide system updates to meet future needs/capabilities and we'll make upgrades on our end and offer them as pay-to-play updates/upgrades just like apps on a smartphone

@@devinjonathan5681 I like the pay as you go comparison referance lol mate the software belongs to Lockheed any issues with fixers updates upgrades come from them Lockheed Martin arnt sharing software blueprints to its partners, which means that if any aircraft get grounded the they are waiting for the US to send upgrades ,, the entire program is a failure it can't go supersonic because it causes issues with steath technoggy coating , apprantley according to a report by the US navy chiefs along with other fixers still to addressed early issues still need sorting fixers that are not working the US Pentagon have admitted the F35 is not performing as it should they have even admitted future problems ahead they have not released any information what this is likly to be , the British are tightlipped on the whole program they are just reading the script for the media , issues with the software are still ongoing , it's been a massive error on the the British part with the whole saga the RAF arnt. Throwing in more orders for more of theses aircraft that's for sure

@@soultraveller5027 I agree it is definitely not perfect which should never really be an expectation. The F-16 was known as The Lawn Dart for its initial failures and now it's one of the most popular, reliable, and formidable older fighters. The F-35 program is certainly a long term return on investment. Everybody keeps talking about it being a failure but countries are still buying them up because. I hear everything you are saying but just trust the process.

@@devinjonathan5681 Trust in what ? I'm not talking about my opinions that's. Irrelevant I'm talking about what's out there already about the F35 program and the investment by the UK we should have bailed out years ago, it's only because of this "" special relationship"" that the UK felt obliged to sign up, which is fictional nonsense most of the British understand the US/UK relationship it's business and there's no ""special ""in it it's pure political convince for Americans to have someone in case a war kicks off and Britain will hold americans hand " but the point is we are your friends for sure this. Word special is what american politicians throw around to massage UKs importance in the world the Brits have long accepted we hah the biggest empire in the world now it's gone we had our shot,, sorry I degrees the F 16 that was a single engined fighter the designer purposely designed to be simple uncomplicated cheap and easy to maintain and affordable it is a poor comparison to the F 35 if you had said a F14 or thr F111 I might have took more seriously maybe in terms investment and technical I think you just blew your argument mate the British have two aircraft carriers HMS Queen Elizabeth HMS Prince of Wales there is no way the defence ministry is purchasing further F35 to fill the decks of theses ships spending billions of British Stirling facts mate if you think that your living on cloud Cuckoo land it's a failure theses aircraft costing millions in servicing RAF never wanted theses aircraft it was intended for the Navy arm you need to be more realistic and stop reading the propaganda

We're not supplying it to the US 😂 It's conducting flight trials with some US test airframes that have a bunch of sensors in them that normal production aircraft don't have.

@@Orbital_Inclination llol ,so ourcraft carriers being used by the USA marines , where they want isnt us supplying and paying for the carrier ???? its facts that count ! use the internet its easy !!

@@alangunningham5667 the USMC has been conducting flying trials using test aircraft from ITF, who are used for any F-35 trials, to improve the capabilities of the carrier. We've been using them for our benefit.

@@Orbital_Inclination who for ? we wont have enough aircraft for 10's of year's ? so improving for who ?? we only have 16 maxium f35b's for aircraft duty now ......how many years have we had these carriers ????

@@alangunningham5667 where are you getting this outdated information from? The flight trials are for us, to expand the capabilities available to the crew of the carrier. We have around 40 F-35 that could be embarked whenever the need arose. Honestly, stop just spouting the same old incorrect nonsense 🙄 You're either a deliberate troll, refusing to educate yourself or mentally incapable of doing so. Let's draw this pointless discussion to a close here.

Did you watch the video, because it’s all USMC pilots, and you’ve never served, for if you had you would know that any kit our military have, or doesn’t have is down to government bean counters, not the British Military.

Why? The UK has plenty of their own, but these are specially equipped F-35 from the integrated test force, they've got extra sensors to collect data on this new landing technique. They aren't simply there to borrow some planes to train their pilots.

This is USMC pilots. Also the UK has f35's on order but they aren't producing them fast enough globally, so nothing to be embarrassed about.

@@Radictor44 Actually they are both USMC and RAF / RN pilots who operate out of Patuxent. The aircraft may be marked in US marking but its a joint development squadron. Same with the 3 x F-35s the RAF operate in California which have both US and RAF / RN pilots. But yes you are sadly right that having ordered 48 many years ago the US has only delivered 32. Other countries seem to be getting higher priorities.

@@mac2626 No they are both USMC and RAF pilots from a jointly operated R & D squadron. In fact SRVL is a British development and was first demonstrated with F-35s during Westlant18 on QE although a specially built Harrier was the first test aircraft. They are also testing the new British developed Bedford Array landing light system. Lastly the shortage of F-35s in the UK is down to the US Government not giving us sufficient slots in the LM LRIP planning. We have had 32 out of 48 delivered. Nothing to do with 'government bean counters' especially as the RAF now have the funds to order the next 30 aircraft.. Go bleat at Joe 'Irish' Biden.

It could technically do this, but it wasn't performed regularly as it was much more risky due to the complexity of this type of landing. The F-35 has far more automation, in combination with the new bedford array landing aid they've developed for this, it can be performed on a more regular basis.

@@Benjd0 I acknowledge and respect your knowledge, but I still think the F-35 is garbage and inferior to the Harrier mainly because the Harrier is battle proven. The Harrier is also British 🇬🇧 and I’m all for that !!! Merry Christmas 🎄

@@kennethrobey7893 Combat debut of the F-35 occurred back in 2018 and only a neophyte would think that the hot gas ingesting compressor stalls of the Pegasus powered Harrier/SHAR/Harrier II were/is superior to the F-35B. "The Harrier is also British 🇬🇧 and I’m all for that !!!"(sic) Without the US taxpayers the Harrier never would have existed. You warm beer swilling, bad teeth possessing ingrates need to lose the high and mighty attitude and start acknowledging that fact. “Without American support, it’s entirely possible there’d never even have been a Harrier; at least not one that existed beyond the confines of Ralph Hooper’s sketchbook. As early as 1959, NASA saw enough potential in the embryonic British jump jet design to provide encouraging technical reports. And while the Hawker board might have sanctioned building two P.1127 prototypes without any official backing, it was American money from an organization called the Mutual Weapons Development Program based in Paris - a sort of military start-up incubator - that largely financed the construction of the expensive BE.53 Pegasus engines on which flying prototypes were dependent. Indeed it was the same agency that had introduced Sir Stanley Hooker to Michel Wibault’s Gyroptere in the first place. Such was the lack of British government interest or support that one senior USAF General was sure that without intervention ‘an all British P.1127 would die a natural death - it would just wither away.’ And so the Pentagon proposed the creation of a multinational squadron to conduct a series of trials using a development of the P.1127 known as the Kestrel.” Harrier 809, Rowland White, pg. 75