Air Force Push For Better Pilot Protection Upsets Competitive Landscape
In Ejection Seats
Earlier this month, the Air Force buying
command responsible for developing a next-generation ejection seat to be
installed on combat aircraft issued a curious request for information. It
solicited industry inputs concerning whether the safety standards the service
has established are too hard to meet.
The November 6 request from the
Human Systems Program Office of the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center said
information was needed "to help us identify and potentially mitigate areas of
significant technical challenges and cost/schedule risks." It went on to state
that the government "would like to understand if industry has potential
problems" in meeting performance criteria for a next-generation ejection seat
set forth in an attachment, and sought an assessment of what steps offerors
might be required to take to comply with the criteria.
What's curious
about the document is that one of the two likely offerors, United Technologies
Aerospace Systems, had already demonstrated it could satisfy the Air Force's
specifications. It did that most recently on October 25, when it successfully
ejected research dummies in a rocket-sled test simulating unusually small and
unusually heavy pilots.
The Air Force wants to be able to protect a wider
array of cockpit occupants when they must eject in future emergencies, because
the people piloting its combat aircraft are increasingly diverse. Some are
smaller women, some are heavy-set men. All will likely be wearing head gear and
other equipment that exposes their bodies to potentially severe injury when they
eject, unless the performance of ejection seats is improved.
United
Technologies Aerospace Systems, a modest contributor to my think tank, has
repeatedly expressed confidence that it can achieve Air Force safety goals with
a new version of its ejection seat called ACES 5. As the seat explosively exits
an aircraft, it protects occupant heads from twisting, and it restrains arms and
legs from flailing. It also reduces the velocity at which ejected personnel hit
the ground. These stresses have led to severe injury and even death in the
past.
The
headgear worn by combat pilots has become increasingly heavy and complicated.
Helmet-mounted displays such as this one used on the F-35 fighter can increase
the head and neck stresses associated with cockpit ejections, requiring enhanced
safety features.WIKIPEDIA
Heavier head gear and a more diverse pilot
population will make injuries more likely in the future -- unless safety
standards are raised. In fact, one former pilot told me that if pilots were to
eject today wearing a heavy helmet-mounted display, they might die due to the
unusual stresses imposed on their head and neck. The Air Force recognized the
danger years ago, and formulated new requirements that would better enable
ejection seats to protect their occupants - not just from crashes, but from the
consequences of ejecting at high speed.
So why issue a request for inputs
from industry if the new safety standards are essential to pilot safety? The
reason, apparently, is that the other prospective offeror may not be able to
meet the standards, and is seeking relief from their requirements. That company
is Martin-Baker, a family-owned British company that has been active in the
ejection-seat market since before World War Two.
Martin-Baker claims on
its web-site that 7,591 lives have been saved worldwide using its ejection
seats. However, not every survivor walks away from an ejection experience. Many
pilots sustain injuries to their spinal column and extremities, some of which
are permanently disabling. Being explosively ejected from an aircraft traveling
at 600 nautical miles per hour is intrinsically dangerous. What worries the Air
Force is that it is becoming more dangerous due to both demographic and
technological trends, and ejection-seat design has not kept up.
The Air
Force request for information is an opportunity for Martin-Baker to explain why
more stringent safety standards may not be realistic. However, in the process,
the company could end up conceding it can't meet standards that its main
competitor says are achievable. If that were the case, it would decisively favor
the ACES 5 solution over any Martin-Baker alternative in the competition to
select a next-generation ejection seat.
The ACES 5 seat has been piling
up competitive wins recently - mostly on Air Force planes - so it seems to have
an edge. Some of those wins have not been publicly disclosed, but it is known to
be the Air Force's choice for upgrading safety on the stealthy B-2 bomber, and
United Technologies says ACES 5 is the only ejection seat that can meet
standards established by the Air Force for its new Boeing trainer. Boeing
designed the trainer to accommodate a wide range of cockpit occupants,
anticipating greater demographic diversity among combat pilots both at home and
abroad.
Enhanced safety features aren't the only selling point for ACES
5. United Technologies Aerospace Systems figures that once the new ejection seat
is installed in B-2 bombers, it will only take 12 man-hours over a two-day
period to conduct maintenance on the seat. The current requirement for the
legacy seat installed on the bombers is over a thousand man-hours requiring 65
days. The modular construction of the seat greatly enhances maintainability, and
the new seat is easily installed on aircraft such as the F-15 and F-16 fighters
that currently use earlier seats made by United Technologies.
Any
innovation that can save money on life-cycle support is likely to be in high
demand during the years ahead, given fiscal challenges that the military is
expected to face. For the Air Force, though, the more important concern is
delivering a higher standard of safety to pilots when they must eject from their
aircraft. It is committed to providing airmen with the best warfighting
technology in the world, and that includes safety features that enable them to
go in harms way secure in the knowledge that everything possible has been done
by their home service to protect life and limb.
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar
Merk: Bare medlemmer av denne bloggen kan legge inn en kommentar.