Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Last edited by outlaw162 on Aug 12, 2010 - 08:31 PM; edited 1 time in total

The F-22 more than likely operates routinely at altitudes where it's difficult to even see the ground (the G in GCAS), and if it's flown properly probably will very rarely "happen to be pulling" a lot of "G's" (the G in angular acceleration).

Knowing pilots, I also doubt that you will be able to find a single F-22 pilot who doesn't already possess supreme confidence to do anything as it is.

GCAS is a frill. Prior to blacking out a pilot reduces the "G' if necessary. If he doesn't, any utility of the GCAS would be directed at saving the machine. A pilot has the capability to do the same thing.

OL

(BTW, during that period of time the GCAS is doing its thing, the F-22 is probably a fairly inviting target.)

F-16.net Sponsor

outlaw162 wrote:

The F-22 more than likely operates routinely at altitudes where it's difficult to even see the ground (the G in GCAS), and if it's flown properly probably will very rarely "happen to be pulling" a lot of "G's" (the G in angular acceleration).

Knowing pilots, I also doubt that you will be able to find a single F-22 pilot who doesn't already possess supreme confidence to do anything as it is.

GCAS is a frill. Prior to blacking out a pilot reduces the "G' if necessary. If he doesn't, any utility of the GCAS would be directed at saving the machine. A pilot has the capability to do the same thing.

OL

I just don't see any downside to having the feature. If a pilot doesn't get hit with a SAM/AAA/AAM, then he doesn't need an ejection seat either. Safety features aren't there for routine situations. They're there for when the sh#% hits the fan. It's just like the flight control software, that allows the plane to fly carefree, without the pilot having to worry about it departing. This will allow the pilot to fly aggressively with the knowledge that even if he blacks out, which is easy to do in an aircraft with the F-22's agility, that the plane won't crash.

There is no downside. Frills are nice.

However, the GCAS will not be the reason the aircraft is flown aggressively and a pilot does not just suddenly blackout if the aircraft is flown properly. Blacking out is not necessarily an "easy" thing to do, it takes specific pilot inputs to make this occur.

Let 'em install the damn thing.

OL

(Pilot controllable sh#% should never hit the fan, that used to be called pilot error, now I guess it's called pilot factor)

outlaw162 wrote:

There is no downside. Frills are nice.

However, the GCAS will not be the reason the aircraft is flown aggressively and a pilot does not just suddenly blackout if the aircraft is flown properly. Blacking out is not necessarily an "easy" thing to do, it takes specific pilot inputs to make this occur.

Let 'em install the damn thing.

OL

(Pilot controllable sh#% should never hit the fan, that used to be called pilot error, now I guess it's called pilot factor)

A F-22 flown aggressively can quickly cause a pilot to lose consciousness. Gs come on very quickly, and can be sustained. That's the point of this feature. My point isn't that F-22s aren't currently flown aggressively, but that this feature will give pilots extra peace of mind when doing so.

Good discussion.

You know, when I read the Av Week article that Prinz Eugen provided, I was struck by the following:

Over half of the demos to the reporter were to show how the system wouldn’t activate during the most common types of tactical flying near the ground. This would also be true for an aircraft without the system.

Two demos were patterned directly after accidents. One was the T-Bird at Mountain Home and the other was the night spatial D accident at Hill. These were what used to be called pilot screw-ups.

The PARS portion of the system carries with it that inescapable implication that the pilot can recognize in a timely fashion that there is something going on that he doesn't recognize.

The demo that involved a simulated GLOC showed that the autopilot could fly the aircraft to a given set of flight conditions, I would hope so. However…G’s don’t just suddenly materialize or “come on very quickly”. In the real world, the pilot commands the G onset and determines to what extent to sustain the condition.

Yes, in that regard this system could be useful for some pilots…

…But you don’t get any extra peace of mind until after your last flight...which they would.

Very Happy

OL

An F-16 can also be flown very aggressively without the pilot losing consciousness. That’s called “aircraft control”. I was almost 50 when I flew two BFM rides on a very hot summer day, and though remaining conscious in flight…I admit I nearly fell asleep on the bar after two beers.

"But the Raptor fleet would still lack a number of features common to most modern fighters, including an infrared search and track sensor for passive targeting..."

Uhhhh...which of OUR fighters has an IRST? None that I can think of...

F-35 has one and the Super Hornet is getting one. The Navy really missed it when they retired the Tomcats.

F-35's isn't flying and the Super Hornet does not currently have one...got it.

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.

That's Semantics Spudman. I'm certain Checksixx meant operationally flying or in other words not in service.

F-18s already have ATFLIRS. It's true that they don't have an internal IRST though. F-15Cs will be getting IRSTs as they're upgraded to Golden Eagles too.

But there is no indication that ATFLIR offers anything else with regards to AA than single target track and identification and the F-15's IRST will be another podded system, basically the same as projected for the Super Hornet which will be integrated into an 330 G tank.

outlaw162 wrote:

To me the GCAS is a frill.

The pilot points the aircraft at the ground. He/she should be responsible for, and capable of un-pointing it.

OL

Joking right? Take a look at CFIT rates in the past 30 years; you'll change your mind.

Horhay

George:

No. Not joking.

The Navy uses a manual TAWS system in the F/A-18 and their last CFIT accident was in 2004 (according to the 2009 DOD Aviation Safety Technologies Report), but even so the DOD report is recommending auto-GCAS for USAF fighters based primarily on historical F-16 CFIT data. For USN that’s a zero CFIT rate for 5 years without auto-GCAS.

The figure they quote is 27% of all F-16 airframe losses would possibly have been prevented by Auto-GCAS. But concerning potential future CFIT incidents they state that 4.5 to 6.8 percent of all fighter-attack aircraft produced could be saved by a manual system (TAWS/EGPWS), whereas 6 to 9 percent of all fighter-attack aircraft produced could be saved by an Auto-GCAS. There’s an overlap there. The manual system could actually come out ahead. And 9% is not close to 27%.

Additionally, they recommend adding auto-thrust control to the GCAS. They also do admit, however, that a manual TAWS system would be the most cost effective. This statement is also made:

“The Air Force experience has been that manual terrain awareness systems are ineffective in F/A aircraft.”

Maybe the Air Force & Navy should talk.

There is some USAF CFIT data accessible from 1980 to 1993 during which time the actual number of CFIT incidents actually declined, as did the “rate” the last two of those years. There were some high-powered prob & stat calculations that “trended” a future rate (after 1994) of about 0.6. Please, provide the current data if you’ve got it. Did 0.6 prove to be correct? Higher? Lower?

How many USAF CFIT’s last year?

I’m not an accountant. Show me the CFIT rates for the last 30 years.

Do you think you need Auto-GCAS?

Help me change my mind. Make me believe.

OL

I think it's a good idea, we've lost to many brothers and sisters to GLOC...

There are far too many of us in the Viper community that knew directly, indirectly, or are in a squadron or wing that have lost aircraft/people to GLOC. If there is a little black box, full of ones and zeros that can save future lives in the Eagles, Vipers, Raptors and Lightening IIs; buy them.

If you're going to spend that much money on an aircraft, and that much money on a seat, and even more money training pilots, why not spend a few more dollars to protect our 'combined' investment in national security.

Maybe next, people will feel ejection seats are too heavy and expensive to install (or upgrage) after all the mishap rates are way down.... they're not required on heavies... think of the fuel savings eliminating a few hundred pounds from each jet... Doh

TEG

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

USAF debates major upgrade for F-22 Raptors