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

SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Where did you see 'the line'? Every military function has a limit if that is how it works. NOT knowing 'the line' as it is I would suggest it says more but hey I don't know 'the line'. So you say the HMDS? (or do you refer to another helmet altogether?) [you can see how this is confusing already because you did not quote 'the line' or whence it came....] is certified means testing has made it so - given probably other parameters such that the pilot height and weight must be within the limits also. Anyway a simple answer is: IF the pilot has to eject above 600 knots airspeed to save his life then he should do it. Usually NOT ejecting means CERTAIN DEATH so giving the ejection seat a chance - even when the ejection is out of certified limits - is a better option with no guaranteed outcome (being out of tested limits). NO EJECTION is guaranteed 100% safe - instrumented dummies are used in testing sequences. Real life ejections may 'test' the system however the parameters of the ejection are probably always vague except if it is a ZERO ZERO ejection.

[ USAF Acknowledges Expanded Risk of Neck Damage to F-35 Pilots ]

At very high airspeeds the potential for damage to the pilot increases A LOT with not only neck/head injuries but flail injury to arms/legs or damage to the seat causing malfunction perhaps. Many variables can work against a successful ejection so there are limits which should only be broken when there is no alternative. Screenshot from near end of video above....
600KCASmbEjectionTestLine.jpg
 
Last edited:
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
SpazSinbad I was quoting from your post September the 3rd that showed a diagram of the helmet , certainly you would eject if there was no other option I was curious was there the amount of protection for this helmet for a pilot in those circumstances because of the sophistication of the helmet than much earlier helmets in other words were earlier helmets more robust ?
 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
To save me typing a lot of text (some of which I may get RONG at this late hour [for me]) you best read the material so proffered earlier. It is NOT about the robustness of the helmet but the HMDS (which was overweight but now OK in the HMDS III LITE iteration) interaction with the neck strength of the pilot under certain conditions (in the material). HMDS is made from layers of carbon fibre which make it light and ROBUST. Earlier material describes the makings of a helmet (perhaps). After I get some sleep I can gather relevant material if interested.
 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Probably the most succinct explanation of the HMDS shell may be found here. However there are some other ERRORs in this article so beware. The quote is IT for graphic.

MORE carbs for your fibre may be found here: F-35 Lightning II Pilots Get a Futuristic Carbon Fiber Helmet
"The helmet shell combines Kevlar, the material used in bulletproof vests, and carbon-fiber cloth, formed by applying resin under high heat to a synthetic fiber. The checkerboard pattern comes from a plain weave of the carbon fiber interlaced at 90-degree angles to form a product that is ultralight—4.8 pounds—and 50 times stronger than carbon steel. The helmet’s polycarbonate visor protrudes like a light bulb, but the shell is otherwise more streamlined than previous helmets and integrates features such as night-vision goggles, which once required fixing separate hardware to an external attachment point. The helmet’s foam inner shell requires at least four hours of custom fitting to each pilot before it’s cut by laser; the precision ensures that its eye tracking and visor display stay aligned even during high-G maneuvers." Super Helmet | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine
Click to expand...
https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/9yQn...52770307airf35helmetmounteddisplay58_live.jpgHMDSIIIsideView.jpg
 
Last edited:
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Thanks SpazSinbad
A question I would ask was could there ever have been consideration that safe high speed ejection should of been considered in the design of the f35 previously the f111 crew could eject in a capsule at supersonic speeds and the early mig 21s the pilot ejected with the canopy supposedly affixed providing protection the ejection of U.S.A.F Captain Brian Udell in 1989 at 900 mph and subsequent injuries showed a need
 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
In some F-111s there was no capsule ejection system OR it could be bypassed for 'ordinary' separate seat ejection AFAIK. Why this was so I forget now. Weight penalty for a capsule ejection system is probably prohibitive for a single seat fighter aircraft. They seldom are going around at even near top speed. One F-15E pilot says as much. Usually it is easy enough to reduce airspeed quickly using speedbrakes, engine(s) at idle and pulling up vertically (also good for extra height before ejecting). Flying a miljet is always fraught. The fraughtness is reduced by various systems designed and tested to work as advertised. Pilot pays attention to these facts accordingly.

Russian ejection systems have been innovative for a reason. :) Their auto ejection system for their very dangerous VTO/VL aircraft is emulated in the F-35B. During F-35B STOVL flight mode the system becomes automatic (out of pilot control) so that when the system senses engine failure, for example, within 0.5 second ejection is initiated with the pilot along for the ride - probably nonplussed.

F-35A Lt.Col MAU Range & Speed Quotes 'Views from the Cockpit'

 
weegee

weegee

Active Member
Good morning gents,
Nothing special to say only that i drove past the RAAF base into Wagga the other day and I was VERY impressed with the gate keepers there! Looks like they had just been painted they looked beautiful. Mirage, F111, Sabre i think and a Canberra.

Also even though i had seen them do lots of flight demo's etc I had never seen a F111 on the ground before. WOW they're a big bird very impressive indeed.
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
weegee said:
Good morning gents,
Nothing special to say only that i drove past the RAAF base into Wagga the other day and I was VERY impressed with the gate keepers there! Looks like they had just been painted they looked beautiful. Mirage, F111, Sabre i think and a Canberra.

Also even though i had seen them do lots of flight demo's etc I had never seen a F111 on the ground before. WOW they're a big bird very impressive indeed.
Click to expand...
Don’t wax too glowingly about the F111 or you’ll have the entire goon mob agitating for their mass return to service fitted with all new toys.
 
weegee

weegee

Active Member
ASSAIL said:
Don’t wax too glowingly about the F111 or you’ll have the entire goon mob agitating for their mass return to service fitted with all new toys.
Click to expand...
From what I saw they would need to buy some hefty excavators to see those birds ever again haha
 
R

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
weegee said:
Good morning gents,
Nothing special to say only that i drove past the RAAF base into Wagga the other day and I was VERY impressed with the gate keepers there! Looks like they had just been painted they looked beautiful. Mirage, F111, Sabre i think and a Canberra.
Click to expand...
Might have to make room for a Hornets Nest in the next few years(if we don't sell all of them to the Cannucks).
 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
I'll get to the F-111 question later. Meanwhile F-35 HMDS III fitting "helmet liner will stay with pilot" quote (or similar):

F-35 Helmet Fitting HMDS III Helmet Liner Specific to Pilot

 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Apologies. My "AFAIK" is real. Long ago must have misread/misinterpreted what I read. I claim no expertise in the F-111 family NOR INTEREST except in the aborted F-111B USN version which made it to CARRIER TRIALS aboard USS Coral Sea long ago now. Oh briefly I was interested in the videos of the Oz F-111 dragging the hook through the dirt before hitting OR just missing the concrete threshold runway lip to then drag along the R/W to arrest after a main wheel had fallen off during take off. The young lad dun good but I was aghast at the maltreatment of the HOOK. Sure it was probably only going to be that one time whilst advisors must have been sure the HOOK was robust enough to take the treatment. And so it was.....

F-111 Arrest 18 Jun 2006 RAAF Amberley No Wheels

 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
Then to show how I had the 'idea' that some F-111s had separate ejection seats I had read this from: [PART 2]
"...Grumman never succeeded in dropping sufficient weight from the F-111B design. Three 'heavy' prototypes were built, followed by two 'light' versions with reduced air frame weight. Unfortunately, as mentioned last week, the 'heavy' prototypes had flown with ejection seats, not the crew escape capsule or pod that was being designed for all versions of the F-111...." 04 Dec 2010 Bayou Renaissance Man: Weekend Wings #38: The F-111 Aardvark, Part 2 [/b]
Click to expand...

PART 1
"...CREW ESCAPE SYSTEM… 27 Nov 2010
...The capsule proved difficult and time-consuming to develop. The first F-111's flew with conventional ejection seats, as the capsule could not be finished in time. However, the eleventh and subsequent F-111's received the capsule on the assembly line, and earlier aircraft were retrofitted with it.

Despite its complexity, the escape capsule proved highly successful in operation, saving the lives of many aircrew over the service life of the aircraft. The only problem encountered was that impact forces on landing were very high, sometimes measured at over 30 g's, which caused injuries to some survivors. However, considering the alternative, one suspects they put up with the injuries relatively cheerfully!..." Bayou Renaissance Man: Weekend Wings #37: The F-111 Aardvark, Part 1
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Can anyone give a quick summary of the condition of the RAAF FA18 Fleet?
If Canada purchases, as now seems certain, 25 planes I presume they will be the oldest and most utilised airframes or are those too clapped out to consider for sale?
And how many airworthy fighters does that leave us ready for full operational service?
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
ASSAIL said:
Can anyone give a quick summary of the condition of the RAAF FA18 Fleet?
If Canada purchases, as now seems certain, 25 planes I presume they will be the oldest and most utilised airframes or are those too clapped out to consider for sale?
And how many airworthy fighters does that leave us ready for full operational service?
Click to expand...
Don't know but probably more than the RCAF by the time the deal finalizes. Of the 138 or so Hornets Canada bought only about 70 plus remain and only a little over half that had the centre barrel replacement upgrade. Perhaps the Australian numbers are similar, about 40 reasonably fit classics. Fortunately for the RAAF, you have SHs/Growlers with F-35s in the pipeline. The RCAF has sweet FA to supplement our classic Hornets. Might as well sell Canada the junkers, junior won't care, he will never commit them to any overseas deployment and the average Canadian taxpayer is busy whining to notice.
 
SpazSinbad

SpazSinbad

Active Member
ASSAIL said:
Can anyone give a quick summary of the condition of the RAAF FA18 Fleet?
If Canada purchases, as now seems certain, 25 planes I presume they will be the oldest and most utilised airframes or are those too clapped out to consider for sale?
And how many airworthy fighters does that leave us ready for full operational service?
Click to expand...
Buying Vintage: Examining the RCAF’s Acquisition of F/A-18 A/B Fighters from Australia
14 Dec 2017 Christopher Cowan & Dr. Andrew Davies
https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2017-08/ASPI Cost of Defence 2017.pdf (8.85Mb)
"...The average RAAF legacy Hornet has flown around 4,200 hours (see page 114 in the PDF), allowing for approximately another 1,800 hours of flight time before it reaches the planned end of its service life in the early 2020s. That’s a fair amount of life left on the airframe—almost one-third of its nominal lifespan—but the RCAF may well end up with some of the RAAF’s older Hornets, which are being replaced by F-35s. Australia has done an excellent job managing its Hornet fleet; each aircraft has a through-life plan designed to minimize wear-and-tear on the airframe. It has been such a success that Australia’s legacy Hornets have seen a recent uptick in flight hours—including taking them into action over Iraq and Syria—at an age when most aircraft are being flown less often, not more. So while the Hornets the RCAF will receive will be ‘used’, they’ll likely still be in relatively good nick.

Despite being roughly the same age as the Australian Hornets, Canada’s fleet of CF-18s looks positively ancient in comparison. As of April 2016, the average CF-18 airframe had approximately 6,100 hours on it, with some airframes having over 7,000 hours on them. Structural upgrades have extended the lives of their airframes to 8,000 hours per aircraft—something that most RAAF Hornets lack. Keeping the CF-18 fleet going and relevant until replacement jets arrive in the mid-2020s will require a series of relatively minor, low-risk upgrades, but extending their lives past 2025 would likely require significant structural and avionics upgrades, so any further delay in the replacement program would be costly. And by the mid-2020s, the CF-18s will be significantly less capable than the aircraft operated by Canada’s main allies.

Getting the newly acquired RAAF Hornets up to speed once they arrive in RCAF hands will likely not be very difficult, given the cooperation between the two air forces on a number of sustainment and upgrade programs for their Hornet fleets over past few decades. There are minor differences between the two fleets—the Australian Hornets have a different avionics package for example—but the Australian Hornets should be a relatively easy fit into Canada’s air force...." https://cdainstitute.ca/buying-vint...sition-of-f-a-18-a-b-fighters-from-australia/
Click to expand...
"...The CF-18 fleet underwent a two phased Incremental Modernisation Program (IMP) starting in the late 1990s, which brought them up to an equivalent of the US Marine Corps F/A-18A/B+ and the RAAF’s F/A-18A/B HUG standards. About 50 CF-18s have been withdrawn from service through attrition and fleet consolidation, leaving about 80 in service currently. It is unclear whether the former RAAF jets would be acquired as operational aircraft or as a source of spares. The average airframe life of the RAAF’s Hornets are only about two years less than the CF-18s, and the best of these are likely to be the last retired." 06 Sep 2017 http://australianaviation.com.au/2017/09/canada-considering-raaf-classic-hornets/
Click to expand...
Canada Increases Planned Buy of Used Australian F-18s from 18 to 25
(Source: Forecast International; issued June 19, 2018)
"OTTAWA --- Canada has increased the number of used Australian F-18 Hornet jets it plans to buy from 18 to 25, the Ottawa Citizen reports. The additional seven jets will be used for spare parts, according to a Department of National Defence spokesman. It is unclear if the aircraft will be flown to Canada or shipped. Negotiations for the 25 aircraft are still underway, so the total cost of the procurement has not been finalized. However, Ottawa has allocated up to CAD500 million ($377 million) for the purchase.

The deal will require approval from the United States due to the transfer of American technology, which is not expected to be an issue. A DND official said he expects a deal in place by the end of the year, with deliveries beginning in summer 2019. The government originally planned for the aircraft to arrive in January 2019...."
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...ses-planned-buy-of-used-australian-f_18s.html
Click to expand...
2012-13 Oz Report on state of Hornets: https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/g/files/net5496/f/201213 Audit Report No 5.pdf (3.3Mb)
OR
https://www.anao.gov.au/work/perfor...at-capability-—-fa-18-hornet-and-super-hornet
 
Last edited:
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
If our current idiot pollies win in 2019, I see no possibility of new jets being considered until at least 2022 which pretty much means Hornets will have to work past 2025. If Liberals continue to be favoured in the polls leading up to the 2023 election I fully expect them to punt the decision past 2023. The hugely expensive CSC program may be an excuse to screw the RCAF in favour of the RCN, something that may work for Liberals as there are more Canadian jobs involved. Hell, I can see junior screwing up both programs beyond recovery simply by his mismanagement of Canada's economy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top