Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

cdxbow

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
SpazSinbad said:
....The USN Flight Safety Magazine APPROACH has a lot of stories, including recent history, about PEs in the Hornet family & other jet aircraft. These issues have been around for a long time but the publicity - quite rightly - has demanded solutions and it seems these are forthcoming. A video from TAILHOOK 2017 with putative Admirable Joyner says a lot about the USN effort. The T-45C instructors going on strike was another big KICK for solutions.

Click to expand...
An admirable video indeed, except she doesn't really spell out what it isn't. It is clearly not usually due to obvious equipment failure leading to hypoxia, contamination, depressurization etc. It's been real difficult beasty to track down:

Capt. Cliff Blumenberg, head of the Navy’s aerospace medicine branch, told reporters during a September teleconference. “Even the same person in the same aircraft on different days or different flights might experience a physiologic episode at one time and maybe not the next flight. It depends on what you’re doing, how hydrated you are, how well rested you are, what else is going on in your life. Do you have a mild cold that you didn’t recognize?”

From - https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...ry-tackles-vexing-issue-physiological-episode which tells a bit more detail.

People respond pretty similarly to simple hypoxia or hypercarbia (=high CO2 which puts you to sleep. ) but the response to pressure illness is incredibly variable between individuals, Mountain sickness displays this, and offering a personal example, one person can be near dead from cerebral edema (me) and another perfectly well (wife). So I suspect part of the answer will be related to effects of pressure changes within the brain of some pilots flying high speed jets with pressurized cabins. Could be some interesting science come out of this.
 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
'pressure illness'? Aircrew monitor their cabin pressure levels (usually the rule of thumb is half aircraft altitude + 4,000 feet IIRC - 20k is 10 + 4 = 14K cabin alt). Aircrew should not fly if they have symptoms of colds and other Respiratory Illness. Bad stuff may happen so there are emergency procedures to deal with most - except if the aircrew are incapacitated somehow. MilJet flying is dangerous - while efforts to make it 'more safe' are ongoing - the safety record improvement for western air forces is not bad historically. For the moment the OBOGS & cabin pressure via ECS Environmental Control Systems has grabbed media attention, forcing the combined actions of those air arms named (with some monitoring activity). For context one may recall the frenzy over the F-35 ejection seat 'not safe for lightweight pilots' until it was made so. It is still the best seat in the house nonetheless - naysayers are everywhere.

However EJECTING from an airyplane is FRAUGHT with Risk to escape CERTAIN DEATH most likely. Who'da thunk.
 
cdxbow

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
SpazSinbad said:
'pressure illness'? Aircrew monitor their cabin pressure levels (usually the rule of thumb is half aircraft altitude + 4,000 feet IIRC - 20k is 10 + 4 = 14K cabin alt). Aircrew should not fly if they have symptoms of colds and other Respiratory Illness. Bad stuff may happen so there are emergency procedures to deal with most - except if the aircrew are incapacitated somehow. MilJet flying is dangerous - while efforts to make it 'more safe' are ongoing - the safety record improvement for western air forces is not bad historically. For the moment the OBOGS & cabin pressure via ECS Environmental Control Systems has grabbed media attention, forcing the combined actions of those air arms named (with some monitoring activity). For context one may recall the frenzy over the F-35 ejection seat 'not safe for lightweight pilots' until it was made so. It is still the best seat in the house nonetheless - naysayers are everywhere.

However EJECTING from an airyplane is FRAUGHT with Risk to escape CERTAIN DEATH most likely. Who'da thunk.
Click to expand...
I think you miss the point. The answer is not in the engineering, it is what happen to the wet ware when exposed to fast jets with pressurized cabins.

Exposure to sufficiently low atmospheric pressure +/- hypoxia leads to cerebral edema, as happens with mountaineering. As I pointed out this previously, this is incredibly variable between human beings & cannot be predicted in any way. There are a parallels with PE, both are occurring at altitude with low pressures +/- some cold & a degree of hypoxia, both occur in fit people and both occur unpredictably. This makes me wonder if the pilots may be developing a mild degree of regional vasogenic cerebral edema in the fast jet environment. There may be other factors such as G forces that could contribute in the fast jet environment.
 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
I think you miss the point. Aircrew reporting PEs are medically examined, reporting their symptoms - aircrew need to be fit to fly. Perhaps this is not reported in news stories; and I can only guess that it happens in every case. Given the media publicity and ongoing investigations in detail this medical exam would be one of the requirements for the ongoing investigations. As other reports have said, in the USN for example PE reports were fragmented as far as the detail / medical exam reporting or whatever. Now it is standardized.

For sure all or any 'human engineering factors' are in play. Aeromedical specialists have a good handle on all the medicine. I think you equate your experiences with miljet aircrew experience/training and physical fitness as somehow similar. So far you have failed to give details about your own experience, age, medical conditions and on and on. Your story does not equate to this ongoing PE situation. Yes there are many factors whilst aircrew are selected and monitored (whether they like it or not) especially when reporting medical symptoms to military aeromedical specialists - perhaps you did not know this. I could relate my own aeromedical experiences however they are not relevant in now obsolete aircraft from long ago.

I'm wondering why you think mountaineering equates to fast jet aircrew environments and that 'somehow' medical conditions are overlooked by aeromedical specialists.
 
cdxbow

cdxbow

Well-Known Member
SpazSinbad said:
I think you miss the point. Aircrew reporting PEs are medically examined, reporting their symptoms - aircrew need to be fit to fly. Perhaps this is not reported in news stories; and I can only guess that it happens in every case. Given the media publicity and ongoing investigations in detail this medical exam would be one of the requirements for the ongoing investigations. As other reports have said, in the USN for example PE reports were fragmented as far as the detail / medical exam reporting or whatever. Now it is standardized.

For sure all or any 'human engineering factors' are in play. Aeromedical specialists have a good handle on all the medicine. I think you equate your experiences with miljet aircrew experience/training and physical fitness as somehow similar. So far you have failed to give details about your own experience, age, medical conditions and on and on. Your story does not equate to this ongoing PE situation. Yes there are many factors whilst aircrew are selected and monitored (whether they like it or not) especially when reporting medical symptoms to military aeromedical specialists - perhaps you did not know this. I could relate my own aeromedical experiences however they are not relevant in now obsolete aircraft from long ago.

I'm wondering why you think mountaineering equates to fast jet aircrew environments and that 'somehow' medical conditions are overlooked by aeromedical specialists.
Click to expand...
SpazSinbad, I will take the last point first. I am by training a medic, and have done work in the dive chamber, as well as about 10 years of emergency aeromedical retrieval in the 1990s on unpressurized planes & helos covering Victoria, southern NSW and Tassy. As a researcher, my main papers have been in toxicology and toxinology, so I am not an expert in aeromedical issues, but have some experience in the area and I have tried to keep up with progress in PE, which has been alarmingly slow. The reason why it is slow because it is complex and difficult problem that involves the interaction of brain and the effects of a very abnormal environment, which is still poorly understood. I have had a little to do with military doctors and aeromedical doctors and I can't say I have ever found them the sharpest tools in the shed.

High altitude flight seems to damage the brain as this MRI study 'Mental-decline brain lesions' found in high-flying military pilots of U2 pilots highlights many clinical & MRI signs of neurological damage, and the authors point out many of these look similar to diving injuries. So I don't think it is an unrealistic hypothesis that PE may be related to the development of some regional cereberal edema related to the effects on the brain of the fast jet environment.

I would love to have more data on it, but there doesn't seem much in the public domain, if any one has some, please post the link.
 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
I don't think you will have me agreeing on usefulness of aeromedical doctors. I may have mentioned earlier that the RAN FAA began to have aero specialist trained as pilots (only to fly - not for other uses such as dropping weapons) in early 1970s. We got to know our first jet trained doctor well enough, however despite his pleadings he probably did not get enough regular flying time after finishing the early part of the A4G OFS - he got hours in Macchis though. Speed reading through an aero medical PDF linked earlier (about ROBD training in Romania) I saw lots of odd references - perhaps you can squizz at that. U2 pilots are another case altogether. I'll get a link - later - to a space flight flying clothing screed from NASA which may be useful (once again only spedred). Gotta go.
 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Even the USAF T-6 Texan Trainer had UPEs (unexplained PEs) that grounded the fleet temporarily but they are back in the air soon with 'fixes' not detailed much so far: Some generalisations is the second link below.

T-6 Cleared to Fly 28 Feb 2018
"...The final root cause has not yet been determined, but 19th Air Force Commander Maj. Gen. Patrick Doherty said in a press release that several “component failures or degradations” were identified that were “affecting the topline performance” of the On-Board Oxygen Generating System [OBOGS] “oxygen pressure, flow, and content, resulting in various disruptions that negatively impacted the human-machine interface.”..."
Click to expand...
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/02/air-force-t-6s-return-to-flight-obogs-monitoring-cited/
 
Last edited:
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Dear old Jim Moran really should stick to talking about helicopters. Why is it when former military officers become parliamentarians they tend to become expert in everything that ever wore a uniform no matter what colour.
His latest effort to bag the F 35 is really quite a farce, maybe he's been speaking to Cop and co.

Nocookies
 
t68

t68

Well-Known Member
ASSAIL said:
Dear old Jim Moran really should stick to talking about helicopters. Why is it when former military officers become parliamentarians they tend to become expert in everything that ever wore a uniform no matter what colour.
His latest effort to bag the F 35 is really quite a farce, maybe he's been speaking to Cop and co.

Nocookies
Click to expand...

Behind a paywall, in what way is he bagging or is it more to do with being late and still trying to get over the line for everyone to be happy camper's?
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
t68 said:
Behind a paywall, in what way is he bagging or is it more to do with being late and still trying to get over the line for everyone to be happy camper's?
Click to expand...
Sorry about that, if someone who has a subscription can you please post.
Jim was saying that its altitude and speed limitations make it an easy target for Russian fighters. He must be a member of the Goon club.
 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Yep I reckon he got F-35/Ruskie info from APA but only my guess. Molan has civilian aircraft/helo qualifications - not military - agree he should shut his gob and listen to RAAF/CDF & CAF. The text is on another forum - can it be posted here? I guess a transcript of Wednesday 28 Feb 2018 session of Senate Estimates will be available soon.
 
H

hairyman

Active Member
Is the F35 meant to be replacing the F111 in the RAAF fleet? If so it is too small, too slow, and cant carry enough weapons. Apart from the F15 and F22, there is nothing in the American inventory that can like for like replace the F111.
 
M

Milne Bay

Active Member
No, no, no....
hairyman said:
Is the F35 meant to be replacing the F111 in the RAAF fleet? If so it is too small, too slow, and cant carry enough weapons. Apart from the F15 and F22, there is nothing in the American inventory that can like for like replace the F111.
Click to expand...
No, No, no .......not this again please.
There have been volumes written on this website and others about the changing face of warfare, and the place of the F-35 within that.
The simple question - "what is this replacing" is misleading and for many reasons irrelevant.
MB
 
V

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
New Liberal senator Jim Molan, a former high ranking army officer has queried the ability of Australia’s new strike fighter the F-35 to fight Russian built fighters at supersonic speed, and high altitudes north of Australia.

Senator Molan who was also a military pilot posed a hypothetical case of Russian built Su-57 and Su-35S fighter jets confronting Australia’s likely fleet of aircraft including the F-35 aircraft about 800 nautical miles north of the mainland.

In Senate Estimates yesterday, Senator Molan produced a diagram to support the scenario but did not reveal its author. It suggested the Russian-built jets were superior to the F-35s in altitude performance and in having the ability to undertake “super cruise” or sustained supersonic flight without using afterburners.

Referring to the diagram, he said it “indicates there is an altitude deficiency between what we are buying, the F-35s, and what the person who constructed this diagram believes the Su-57s and 35s have”.

“It implies a speed element in that the super cruise of the opposing forces will lessen the ability of missiles and it implies judgment about the impact of missiles,’’ Senator Molan said. However, Chief of Defence Mark Binskin, while acknowledging that the Australia F-35s would not have super cruise, described the concept put forward by Senator Molan as simplistic.

“Is there a relevance in a deficiency between height capabilities (of the aircraft)?” Air Chief Marshal Binskin said. “Is there any truth in that? I mean, if you have an aircraft that can go up higher and faster, some would say it just runs into your missile quicker, but that is being overly simplistic.’’

Air Chief Marshal Binskin, a former fighter combat instructor, said Senator Molan’s diagram had wrongly classified the F-35 in several areas. “It indicates the F-35 would only fly to 35,000 feet and that’s wrong. Does the F-35 have super cruise? No it doesn’t. Does it have better radar cross-section? Yes it does ... it might not be up there at that height and speed, but it’s going to get earlier detections to be able to employ its weapon.”

He said: “In simplistic terms, where did (the enemy) come from — 800 miles away? Would we sit there and let them? There are so many what-ifs.”

China last year was reported to have taken delivery of four Su-35 aircraft from Russia. Russian media has been calling the fourth-generation SU-35 the “Russian UFO” due to its ability to turn 360 degrees in the horizontal plane without losing speed.
Click to expand...
The article from the Australian.

Basically he is relying on a diagram of which he wont name the author and the diagram actually has a number of easily disproved figures while also relying on the RAAF to do nothing while the opposition closes in.

Another former defence person playing politician and showing him self to be an idiot.
 
ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
hairyman said:
Is the F35 meant to be replacing the F111 in the RAAF fleet? If so it is too small, too slow, and cant carry enough weapons. Apart from the F15 and F22, there is nothing in the American inventory that can like for like replace the F111.
Click to expand...
This topic has been thrashed to death so I would suggest that you read back through the thread for the voluminous discussion upon it.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
hairyman said:
Is the F35 meant to be replacing the F111 in the RAAF fleet? If so it is too small, too slow, and cant carry enough weapons. Apart from the F15 and F22, there is nothing in the American inventory that can like for like replace the F111.
Click to expand...
In the interests of expediency and to quickly put a bullet into the head of a Lazarus thread...

Yes, the F-111C/G in RAAF service was the strike aircraft/bomb truck. However, despite what the on-paper specs were for range and bomb load, that was not the 'normal' strike mission profile, nor were those sorts of missions something the aircraft was reliably capable of.

In RAAF service, the F-111 required escort aircraft to penetrate contested airspace for strike missions, as the F-111 was too large an aircraft, especially with a large bomb load which was largely carried externally. So one result of this limitation was that while the F-111 had a long range, the missions were range-limited by how far the Classic Hornets could operate.

Also, due to the age of the aircraft (F-111's first came out in the mid-60's) aside from being expensive to operate, the avionics was not designed to operate with the latest generation PGM's in service, or about to enter service.

As a result, the Super Hornets were selected as an interim replacement for the F-111's in the strike role, since the SHornets can self-escort, and when carrying stand-off PGM's like SLAM-ER, JSOW, etc. can strike strategic targets relatively safely at ranges which approach the unescorted strike range of the F-111C.

The current belief is that in the future, the F-35A carrying some of the long-range stand-off PGM's like JASSM-ER will have a much lower signature than the F-111/F-18 strike package combo, while able to reach or exceed the strike distance of an F-111 on it's own.

As others have mentioned, this is a topic which keeps cropping up from time to time, and always seems to ignore both facts behind why choices were made, and the changing nature of warfare.

Something else for people to consider, is why the US has yet to develop a replacement aircraft which had some of the capabilities of the F-111?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top