Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

SpudmanWP wrote:

Every F-35 will have one (and as much as some would like to deny it, the F-35 is flying).

The F-18 MAY get one but may not always carry it.

Never said the F-35 wasn't flying. I said the system for the F-35 isn't flying on it.

F-16.net Sponsor

Quote:

Maybe next, people will feel ejection seats are too heavy and expensive to install...

That Empathetic Guy:

Two things. As far as I can tell, no Viper sisters have been lost to GLOC, and the system is not programmed to go into the Eagle. I guess they figure the fuselage will break before the pilot GLOC’s.

Nor is it programmed for the A-10, which actually spends a lot of time near the G in GCAS. The Hog & Eagle brothers and sisters will just have to get by on skill for the time being.

Maybe next, you’ll be wanting airbags just in case they hit something during taxi.

OL

@OL,
I was of the impression that there were a lot of G LOC crashes for F-16s, but most in the past when the Viper was new and pilots weren't used to the forces. Meanwhile they are better trained and there should be less crashes caused by G LOC.

outlaw162 wrote:

Quote:

Maybe next, people will feel ejection seats are too heavy and expensive to install...

That Empathetic Guy:

Two things. As far as I can tell, no Viper sisters have been lost to GLOC,

This is inaccurate. There have been a number of F-16s that crashed for this very reason. I'm still not sure why there's even a discussion about this system.
It's not like it's costing tens of millions of dollars per airframe. Why not have everything you can to help the pilot in any way possible. You sound like the Quiznos guy afraid to be the first person to try a fork, instead of eating with your hands.

I repeat. No Viper sisters (females) have been lost to GLOC. At least none that I can find in the excellent F-16.net “F-16 Mishap Database”. RTFQ.

The recommendation for upgrade to A-GCAS is only for F-16’s (Block 40 & later), F-22’s, & F-35’s because they have DEFC (Digital Electronic Flight Controls).

F/A-18’s have DEFC and have had an imbedded manual TAWS system since the late nineties. DOD recognizes the USN success with this system as far as their recommendations. The Digital Terrain Database incorporated in this system is required for A-GCAS and the Hornets could be upgraded.

To provide A-GCAS for the F-15 & A-10 requires a DIC (Digital Interface Card), actually two for redundancy, in addition to the rest of the upgrade (maybe more for the Hog). Cards are relatively cheap. Why not do them also? Nice people flying them too.

I don't think I'm a bad guy. I'll feel very good when I see the first life saved by GCAS and will wish them well in their new job.

Here’s another quote from the 2009 DOD Aviation Safety Technologies analysis:

“The migration to single-engine F/A aircraft as a cost-effective solution is the single reason that airframe losses due to engine failure now exceed all other categories combined. As F/A aircraft continue to grow in cost, this decision needs to be considered because airframe technologies are now starting to dwarf engine costs, and the airframes are no longer disposable due to engine loss.”

Flying is risky. Once again it seems like what the pilot can control is less problematical than what they can't.

Now let’s talk A-ACAS (Auto Airborne Collision Avoidance System), another recommendation for manned fighters. They’re actually serious.

I don’t really care what they do, I don’t fly fighters anymore anyway, but don’t tell me they have the luxury of caring about the people or your “few dollars more” logic would apply to the Eagles & Hogs also.

GLOC is a small part of CFIT. It is caused by the pilot’s right hand, not the aircraft. I flew 5800 hours in fighters and another 2800 hours in T-37’s (without a G-suit) and was never unconscious in an aircraft. I know what it takes to avoid GLOC. Whether current pilots can do this seems to be in doubt. I occasionally eat with my hands just like I flew with my hands. You're correct, GCAS is the fork.

Uhmmm...Uhmmm...tasty.

OL

Quote:

I don't think I'm a bad guy. I'll feel very good when I see the first life saved by GCAS and will wish them well in their new job.

But until then it's a frill? What exactly is your position?

OL, just because you are lucky or good enough to never need the system doesn't mean the guys who aren't as blessed as you deserve to die for their mistakes. "Well they should just fly more good" is not a very compelling argument from any angle.

Quote:

Flying is risky. Once again it seems like what the pilot can control is less problematical than what they can't.

So? The risk is less, so let's just not bother?

Likewise, just because they aren't fitting out the A-10's or F-15's with it yet doesn't mean that the intentions aren't good. This is the real world, we can't wrap everything in bubble wrap and kisses, we have to take what we can get.

>6% of crashes prevented is still pretty good, especially considering CFIT is by definition a generally fatal venture, unlike engine failure.

Quote:

Now let’s talk A-ACAS (Auto Airborne Collision Avoidance System), another recommendation for manned aircraft. They’re actually serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Japan ... r_incident

Let's just keep rolling the dice then, eh? You gotta break records somehow.

Scharnhorst:

My position...is semi-prone at the moment with a beer.

Your wiki reference has no connection to the proposed A-ACAS system for fighter aircraft & UAV’s. The A-ACAS is, however, a good idea for UAV’s. The benefit will be to the folks who don’t have A-ACAS and will never even know that a UAV maneuvered out of their way.

The upside for the fighter guys would be no requirement for pilot estimated 500-foot bubbles would be necessary. You could “dial a bubble”.

It’s very possible that I’m the only pilot in the world that feels the A-GCAS system is not a necessity.

I have, however, learned to deal with inevitability.

OL

(Never been very lucky)

outlaw162 wrote:

Your wiki reference has no connection to the proposed A-ACAS system for fighter aircraft & UAV’s. The A-ACAS is, however, a good idea for UAV’s. The benefit will be to the folks who don’t have A-ACAS and will never even know that a UAV maneuvered out of their way.

Alright. How about a youtube link?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG84tzhFvqQ

Quote:

It’s very possible that I’m the only pilot in the world that feels the A-GCAS system is not a necessity.

Necessity is dependent on what you deem necessary. 30 years ago what were car airbags or seat belts?

Safety features like GCAS are there for when humans fail (as they sometimes do). We can complain all day how it's all those terrible drivers' fault that it's illegal to not wear that darn seatbelt, and how if only they weren't so prone to crashing we could be living free and easy going 85mph down the highway on the way to work.

But the truth is you can't change human nature; I mean, we've been trying since we've had a nature, and look what kind of people we still have.

I say, keep the "Silver Bullet" force as sharp as possible. Since the USAF did not get near as many Raptors as they wanted, they might as well set aside funding now and into the future to keep them as much as a deterrent as possible.

How can this thread be arguing about GCAS? For a little more resources we can potentially save a pilot's life and a very expensive air plane. I wonder what 9+ Gs feels like in a Raptor?

Helluva good points, jetblast... bringin' it since 2004!

I'll further have to agree with Prinz on that one.

With respect to the 63 block 30 F-22s in question, I'd go further and promote funding for LO pylons for the 4x underwing stations. Previously, my (opinined) position was to support funding for a full blown LO external tank, but my current (opined) support would be for a common LO pylon which could carry the standard 600gal drop tank or other stores such as a specially derived external, under-wing Shadow pod IRST system to be carried by both F-22 (and F-35)? Further, LO pylons should be capable imho of launching newly integrated ASRAAM and a strategic AIM variant of SM-6 ERAM (complete with a dual IIR seeker of the SM-2 IIIB type). A jamming pod and other stores could be justified on such an economic-based common LO pylon too, imo. Possibly, this hypothetical LO pylon could even include a specially configured internal ECM jammer within!!

Just another armchair general's 2 cents.

Talking about improvements...

http://www.dailytech.com/F22+Raptor+will+Continue+to+Improve+According+to+Program+VP/article19640.htm

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/aeronautics/afa/f22-raptor-in-focus.html

I agree with OL. The systems really there to save the jet, not the pilot. The EJECTION SEAT is there to save the pilot. Do I think it's worth it to save the 100 million dollar plane? Absolutely. Should the trained pilot be able to keep the most advanced air superiority jet in the world from hitting the ground? Hellyeah. If he can't, that's his fault and he's accountable. He knows how to fly and knows his limits; if he wants to risk the airframe and his life for maneuverability, that's his call. The F-22 however already limits what the pilot can actually do- the planes capable of much [Link pending approval]

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

USAF debates major upgrade for F-22 Raptors