The F-35’s Martin-Baker Ejection Seat

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 14 Mar 2016, 21:03

The first page and then second page of this thread have NACES info. Search thread using NACES for:

viewtopic.php?f=60&t=27447&p=304339&hilit=NACES#p304339
&
viewtopic.php?f=60&t=27447&p=304356&hilit=NACES#p304356 (& continue reading down for more)
&
viewtopic.php?f=60&t=27447&p=306339&hilit=NACES#p306339
&
etc... and on this same thread again...

...A report by the Pentagon’s Inspector General in March shows a similar limitation already exists for the UTC Aero-space Systems Advanced Concept Ejection Seat II (ACES II), which is on 12 platforms including the Lockheed F-16 and Boeing F-15 – both support NVGs and the relatively bulky Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS).

The US Navy’s Navy Aircrew Common Ejection Seat (NACES) SJU-17 is rated for pilots weighing between 61.7kg and 96.6kg, the report notes. That ejection seat is installed in the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler, and both platforms support NVGs and JHMCS.

The US16E is common across the F-35 fleet to include the carrier and short-takeoff-vertical-landing variants, except there are differences in the way the F-35B ejects because of its ability to hover.

According to the air force, there is an “elevated level of risk” for pilots between 61.7kg and 74.8, but the probability of ejection in that slow flight regime is “one in 100,000 flight hours”...."
viewtopic.php?f=60&t=27447&p=306407&hilit=visor#p306407

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 17 Mar 2016, 15:04

AvWeak catchup article - nothing new. HMDS fix bit here: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=16223&p=318327&hilit=Warwick#p318327

F-35 Ejection Seat Fix May Be Ready By Year’s End
16 Mar 2016 Graham Warwick

"Safety issues with the F-35’s ejection seat should begin to be overcome by the end of this year, Lockheed Martin’s program manager says.

Lightweight pilots have been barred from flying the F-35 since ground testing in August 2015 revealed a risk of fatal ejection injury.

Unacceptable risk of neck injury to pilots weighing less than 136 lb. when ejecting at lower airspeeds emerged during sled testing by seat supplier Martin-Baker.

“We have a good idea of what caused the issue and the path forward,” says Jeff Babione, executive vice president and general manager.

There are three primary solutions, he says. The first is to add a “heavy/light” switch to the seat that will delay deployment of the main parachute for lightweight pilots. “We plan to begin modifying seats by the end of the year,” Babione says.

The second fix is to reduce the weight of the Gen 3 helmet-mounted display, developed by Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems. The third is to add a fabric mesh between the parachute risers to capture the pilot’s head during ejection....

...Ejection testing is underway, and the three fixes should be ready by the end of this year or early 2017, he says. The US16E ejection seat in the F-35 is designed to accommodate pilots weighing from 103 lb. to 245 lb."

Source: http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-ej ... year-s-end

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 15 Apr 2016, 06:42

Just having fun with woids methinks 'revolving around the helmut' video clip to follow.... LONG version first - shortie later. OR... start from 2min 14secs: https://youtu.be/1MdG2ppU3iU?t=134 OR https://youtu.be/bz_Pc03Y5zI?t=222 OR https://youtu.be/DbQuaG4NfN8?t=371

Work: 'Confident' F-35 Ejection Issue Will Be Resolved
14 Apr 2016 Aaron Mehta

"MARINE CORPS AIR STATION BEAUFORT – Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work is “confident” concerns about the safety of ejections for lightweight pilots from the F-35 joint strike fighter will be resolved, he said Thursday.

The issue, first reported by Defense News in October, revolves around concerns that lightweight pilots could be severely injured or killed during a low-speed ejection from the F-35, leading to a restriction on pilots under 136 pounds from flying the fifth-generation jet.

The Pentagon has pledged to have a solution, revolving around a lighter helmet, with officials saying they hope to have the issue resolved by November...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /83041160/

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 21 Apr 2016, 22:08

LM F-35 GM Weekly Update
18 Apr 2016 Jeff Babione

"...Ejection Seat
...On March 31 at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, we conducted the first test combining all three new designs to reduce the risk of neck injury to F-35 pilots during ejection. A sled test, conducted with a 103-pound mannequin, was performed and was a success. This is the latest sign the program is on its way to allowing the military services to lift restrictions on lightweight pilots flying the F-35.

Since March 31, we’ve conducted at least seven other tests with the new seat, which is equipped with two modifications designed to reduce risk to pilots. The fixes to the ejection seat itself include a switch for lightweight pilots delaying deployment of the main parachute, a “head support panel,” and a fabric panel sewn between the parachute risers protecting the pilot’s head from moving backward during the parachute opening.

In a JPO media statement, Joe DellaVedova said, "This initial test had promising results, and the F-35 enterprise is on a path to qualify the helmet by the end of this summer. The lighter helmet expected to be fielded by the end of the year is in line with the seat timeframe as well.” This is great news and my thanks to all involved for the hard work!..."

Source: https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/docu ... _21_16.pdf (0.7Mb)

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 24 Jun 2016, 20:45

I guess I was waiting for LARA SELIGMAN to cotton on to 'seat replacement' aspect - she is now with AvWeak - oh well....

Exclusive: USAF Weighing Replacement F-35 Ejection Seat [LONG POST BEST READ AT SOURCE]
24 Jun 2016 Aaron Mehta

"WASHINGTON — The US Air Force is looking into the possibility of replacing the Martin-Baker ejection seat on the F-35 joint strike fighter with the United Technologies ACES 5 model, Defense News has learned.

While still in the earliest stages, such a move could have have massive repercussions for the F-35 supply chain, impacting the workshare strategy that forms the backbone for the international fleet of the Lockheed Martin-designed fighter.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the service's top uniformed acquisition official, confirmed the service's interest in the ACES 5 design in response to an inquiry from Defense News, but stressed that the Air Force had only just sent a letter to the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) in order to gather information on potential costs and challenges for switching the seat.

"We believe it is prudent to look at what it would take to qualify the ACES 5 seat as a potential risk mitigation step if additional things happen as we go through the testing of the Martin-Baker seat," Bunch said Friday. "We believe it's prudent to determine what it would cost, how much [impact on] the schedule, what the timeline would be, if something else happened and we wanted to go a different way."...

..."Our reason for going forward is safety and having a risk mitigation. That's our big driver. We have to have a seat that covers the whole envelope, all the demographics, from lightweight pilots to people who are [heavier], to be able to cover and allow them to be able to get out of the aircraft that we’re going to ask them to operate."

Bunch signed off on a letter Thursday that was sent to the JPO to begin the process of gathering information. However, four sources say the process of looking into the ACES 5 design and gathering information has been underway internally for over a week.

"We've not given [the JPO] direction to qualify. We've not asked them to go qualify, we've not asked for any change in the configuration in the airplane," Bunch stressed. "What I have tried to do is get the information in so we would know what it would cost, how much it would take, all it would entail, so we have that available were something else to occur."...

...The ACES 5 seat deals features a stabilization system the company calls “STAPAC,” which helps correct for pitch during an ejection. The ACES 5 design also features a headrest which pushes the pilots head down during ejection, stabilizing it during the process, which could help alleviate the risks there. Martin-Baker is working on adding a similar feature to its next seat version, which would add a fabric panel that will protect the pilot’s head from moving backward during the parachute opening.

According to Bunch, the Air Force found no other seat that would potentially replace the Martin-Baker design than the ACES 5, and his information request is only about that specific design....

...Bunch acknowledged that "We could have done it earlier. I won't disagree with that," but did not offer a specific reason for why the move is happening just now.

"It's just after looking at everything and watching everything and having our dialogues," Bunch said. "I just signed the memo out yesterday. Its something we could have done earlier, but we still believe it’s a prudent step to take at this time to have a potential risk mitigation [option] if something else were to occur."

He added that there should be no impact on the Air Force decision to declare the plane operational, expected before the end of the year....

...Bunch acknowledged that the industrial participation aspect of the program adds complexity, which is one of the aspects he asked the JPO to look into.

"I'm sure whatever answer I get, there will be words in there that will give me the idea of what that will do," Bunch said. "But until I get that information it would be presumptive of me to make much of a statement."

He also said he had not personally reached out to either UTC nor Martin-Baker, and has not begun the process of discussing the ACES 5 seat with the Marines, Navy or international partners.

"Once we get the information back we may have those dialogues. We understand at this point that if we're the only ones that would want it, the JPO would tell us we had to pay for it," Bunch said.

Obviously, if the Air Force does make this change, it would be a boon for UTC, and could lead to inclusion on future programs...."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /86257576/

bring_it_on · by **bring_it_on** » 24 Jun 2016, 23:06

Lara's the new Amy. Anyhow, this is likely to be an extensively studied matter given the proliferation of MMI enhancing HMD's as they get more and more capable and perhaps even heavy

https://www.scribd.com/doc/316657299/Neck-Injury-HMD

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 24 Jun 2016, 23:38

"Once we get the information back we may have those dialogues. We understand at this point that if we're the only ones that would want it, the JPO would tell us we had to pay for it," Bunch said.

Obviously, if the Air Force does make this change, it would be a boon for UTC, and could lead to inclusion on future programs...."

UTC could possibly offer to help underwrite any integration expense to nudge things along.

bring_it_on · by **bring_it_on** » 25 Jun 2016, 00:06

Remember this : http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/ ... provements

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 25 Jun 2016, 01:13

Yes - from above old url: [& same article in another thread] viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15390&p=286394&hilit=Foul+Rival#p286394

"...MB [Martin Baker] claims that “the American taxpayer is being asked to foot the bill for the development of a product [new UTC seat] that already exists” (i.e. the Mk 16 seat)...."

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 25 Jun 2016, 01:29

UTC can do the bottom-line math... swallow integration costs and render MB objections moot. JSF would be a prized target...

cantaz · by **cantaz** » 25 Jun 2016, 03:29

I wonder if this is a closeted, roundabout effort to divorce the USAF from the head protection requirement from the STOVL portion of the envelope.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 25 Jun 2016, 05:44

Could be a way to keep MB on the ball with their fixes - as they seem to be - I would like Everyone to have the best seat - no question. Apparently the BEST SEAT WON but then the helmet became heavier - who is at fault? And MB has adjusted.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 05 Jul 2016, 23:39

Mouth to Mouth Resucitation for this Dead Horse Non Story Wot hasbin Flogged Unmercifully - oh dear - oh dearie me....

Martin-Baker, JPO Push Back at F-35 Ejection Seat Concerns
05 Jul 2016 Aaron Mehta

"...Martin-Baker has carried out 14 ejection tests of the new design, with eight tests remaining before the end of the year.

Notably, the statement from Martin-Baker includes a comment from Gen. Chris Bogdan, the F-35 program executive officer supporting the Martin-Baker design.

Sources have told Defense News that the JPO is cool to the idea of replacing the F-35 seat, in part because of the potential cost overruns it could cause on the already famously expensive program. Such a move would also have major impacts on the industrial base strategy that is the backbone of the F-35 program.

However, all involved agree that pilot safety is the priority with this issue, and Bogdan’s statement clearly indicates the JPO expects the redesign will do its job.

“We believe the current Martin-Baker US-16E ejection seat with proposed fixes will meet all F-35 requirements,” Bogdan was quoted as saying. “The seat will provide a safe escape envelope for pilots in excess of legacy aircraft.”..."

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /86721718/

smsgtmac · by **smsgtmac** » 06 Jul 2016, 04:28

spazsinbad wrote:Mouth to Mouth Resucitation for this Dead Horse Non Story Wot hasbin Flogged Unmercifully - oh dear - oh dearie me....

This is what's MOST wrong about Mehta's non-story 'story'.

Defense News first broke the news June 24 that the US Air Force is looking into certifying a competitor seat, the United Technologies ACES 5 design, as an alternative for its fleet of F-35A fighters.

No, while he wrote and still is writing that the AF was looking at replacing the MB seat, in reality the AF was/is asking contingency questions to get the answers they need to have in hand in case a Plan B became necessary and the incumbent seat doesn't get all the fixes worked in. Too many things would have to be wrong with the current seat to make any new effort economically feasible, ESPECIALLY under the 'pay to be different' costs the AF would need, so I believe the real story Mehta should be prying into is what kind of 'sponsorship' this AF initiative has behind it? What are the odds that some Congressman or other asked for it on behalf of or with encouragement by some constituency? How much of this is from AF safety weenies not liking the current shoot through the canopy concept necessary for the STOVL? Enquiring minds want to know.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 07 Jul 2016, 21:29

F-35 Ejection Seat Concerns Have Not Reached Lockheed Martin
07 Jul 2016 Valerie Insinna

"RAF FAIRFORD, England — While the Air Force may have developed a hint of second thoughts on the F-35A’s ejection seat, aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin has not been approached by the joint program office to weigh alternatives, a company official said Thursday.

Defense News broke the story last month that the service is considering the certification of United Technologies’ ACES 5 design as a fallback to the currently planned Martin-Baker US16E seat. Lt. Gen. Arnold Bunch, the Air Force’s top uniformed acquisition official, said then that the service was studying the cost and logistics of adopting a different seat as a risk-mitigation measure in case the Martin-Baker equipment failed to meet safety requirements....

...Martin-Baker and the F-35 JPO have released statements to Defense News contending that the modified seat will demonstrate improved pilot safety, and Babione [Lockheed’s executive vice president and general manager of the F-35 program] echoed that view.

“We have every confidence with the latest changes that the seat will be fully qualified for all weights, sizes and heights of pilots that the F-35 can be certified for,” he said. “And I think that will all be resolved by the end of this fall.”

Source: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /86795680/