F-22 Stealth Fighter Cover-up?

[Selivan]

Typical American Gentleman ...
Even arguing is not necessary ... Of course, American aircraft are better than Russian ...

=====================================
Is American alcohol better than Russian?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Typical American Gentleman ...
Even arguing is not necessary ... Of course, American aircraft are better than Russian ...

=====================================
Is American alcohol better than Russian?

Carrier Birds, SU-33 verus F-18.
Land Based Mig-29 versus F-16
Land Based SU-27/30 versus F-15
Ground Attack SU-25/24 versus A-10
Fighter Bomber SU-34 versus F-15E

I only listed those because those have the numbers to be counted. And I separated the Carrier based fighters from the land based as the carrier based are generally heavier than the land based. And the only ones that have really faced each other in combat have been the Mig-29 and the SU-25/24 against the F-15 and the SU-27 where the latter have cleaned house. To date, the F-15 and the SU-27 have yet to face each other in combat so we just don't know. this is not something that needs to be argued.

But, we can argue about Booze. I prefer English Gin myself. Some things neither the Russians nor the Americans can really get right.

 

[Selivan]

Do you like cabbage and lamb?

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Is American alcohol better than Russian?

Which types? You folks probably have better vodka than we do. I dont know if i have ever tasted Russian beer? Do you folks make wine?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Do you like cabbage and lamb?

If that is all that is available. Hunger does that. But I am Western Born which means Steak and Potatoes.

 

[Inmar]

Is American alcohol better than Russian?

Which types? You folks probably have better vodka than we do. I dont know if i have ever tasted Russian beer? Do you folks make wine?

Russian beer is shit. All production belongs to foreign monopolies. The best beer is Czech. Wine in Russia is also bad. When there was the USSR, the best wine was Moldavian.
Soviet production standards for Vodka were stolen and sold to America in 1991. Now the vodka is different.
By the way, now vodka in Russia is very cheap. It costs less than 1 percent of the monthly salary. In the Soviet Union, vodka cost 5 percent of the monthly salary, but there were also more alcoholic drinks. Now.. It is very rare to meet a drunk.

 

[Inmar]

Typical American Gentleman ...
Even arguing is not necessary ... Of course, American aircraft are better than Russian ...

=====================================
Is American alcohol better than Russian?

As I understand, this is a joke. But Americans do not understand such jokes. They need to draw, for example, a curved nose, throw a cake in the face or when a person falls. They do not understand the subtle Russian humor.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Is American alcohol better than Russian?

Which types? You folks probably have better vodka than we do. I dont know if i have ever tasted Russian beer? Do you folks make wine?

Russian beer is shit. All production belongs to foreign monopolies. The best beer is Czech. Wine in Russia is also bad. When there was the USSR, the best wine was Moldavian.

I have had Czech Budweiser...much better than our Budweiser...yich!

 

[Inmar]

Is American alcohol better than Russian?

Which types? You folks probably have better vodka than we do. I dont know if i have ever tasted Russian beer? Do you folks make wine?

Russian beer is shit. All production belongs to foreign monopolies. The best beer is Czech. Wine in Russia is also bad. When there was the USSR, the best wine was Moldavian.

I have had Czech Budweiser...much better than our Budweiser...yich!

Unfortunately, Budweiser is the most primitive and cheap grade of Czech beer. In America, it is sold by its substitute Bud. If you have money, then go to the Czech Republic for the New Year in Prague. You will see a wonderful city and ... the Czechs will feed you and give you a drink so that you will never forget

 

[Inmar]

Do you like cabbage and lamb?

Это чушь

 

[waltky]

F-35 program comes under scrutiny...

Upgrades, Development to F-35 Jet Will Cost $1 Billion Per Year
8 Mar 2018 - Lawmakers are apprehensive about the strategy known as continuous capability development and delivery.

Will it cost $1 billion or more just to update the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter every year? That's the estimate from the F-35's Joint Program Office. During a House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee hearing Wednesday, lawmakers were apprehensive about the strategy known as continuous capability development and delivery, or C2D2. This strategy aims to do smaller, incremental updates instead of taking F-35s off the flightline to get months' worth of larger, packaged software and modernization upgrades needed to "keep up with the latest threats." Citing a recent report delivered to Congress regarding C2D2, Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., said costs "may be as high as $11 billion in development and $5.4 billion in procurement" between fiscal 2018 and fiscal 2024 to achieve all the requirements. "This potential cost of $16 billion is an astonishingly high amount and, as far as I am aware, greatly exceeds any cost figures previously provided to Congress," she said. "It is important to remember this is a software-intensive effort, and the last 17 years of F-35 software development have seen dramatic cost increases and significant delays," Tsongas continued. "If Congress agrees to support this effort at this cost and under the proposed management regime, it should only do so fully aware of the significant risks involved."

Vice Adm. Mat Winter, director of the F-35 Joint Program Office, said the current cost estimate stands at roughly $10.8 billion for development, of which $3.7 billion will be shared by U.S. allies operating the F-35. The Pentagon would thus be responsible for only $7.2 billion over seven years. Tsongas also queried Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy officials on whether the proposal is reasonable for the fifth-generation stealth jet. "None of the services have a true comfort level until we have a ... cost of how this is going to happen scoped out," said Lt. Gen. Steven R. Rudder, the Marine Corps' deputy commandant for aviation. "But year by year, we're going to put money into C2D2 at the levels that Admiral Winter is requesting currently." Rudder testified alongside Winter; Air Force Lt. Gen Jerry D. Harris, deputy chief of staff for Plans, Programs and Requirements; and Rear Adm. Scott D. Conn, air warfare director for the office of the chief of Naval Operations. Conn agreed with Rudder, and Harris added there are "funds laid in [the Air Force's] plan," as well as plans to reduce sustainment costs long term. He did not specify budget numbers. C2D2 replaces what was once called Block 4 follow-on modernization, or the succeeding, repetitive mods to Block 4, the latest software modernization to upgrade the F-35's avionics and weapons delivery. Block 4 itself is slated for implementation sometime before the end of 2018. "We just want to be sure this is rooted in reality," Tsongas said. In a follow-up discussion with reporters, Winter laid out worst- and best-case cost scenarios.

Going through all of the pre-planning and execution -- when developers and engineers are needed, at what point a certain batch of F-35 Lightning IIs can receive the work, among other factors -- Winter said once those calculations formally come together, $10.8 billion for development is roughly correct. "That estimate will most likely come down, but I don't guarantee anything," Winter said. "But we've also looked at, if all of that is correct, what are the modifications to the fleet aircraft, so the procurement elements of this, the software's going to be minuscule," he said, referring to the $5.4 billion figure Tsongas cited. "If I had all the hardware updates on the first year, it would be a less [of] a procurement cost because all of my new aircraft would already have it in there," Winter said. In his written prepared testimony for the hearing, Winter cited the Pentagon's lessons learned from upgrading the F-22 Raptor, but did not specify what modifications to the stealth jet have cost. At the Defense Department's order, Lockheed Martin Corp. stopped producing the F-22 in 2011. "Based on experience from the F-22, an eight-to-10-year span between technology refresh events will maintain viable warfighting capability throughout each cycle," he said in his testimony. The F-35's total cost has been projected at more than $1 trillion over a 50-year lifetime.

Upgrades, Development to F-35 Jet Will Cost $1 Billion Per Year

See also:

Lawmakers to Military: Don't Buy Another 'Money Pit' Like F-35
7 Mar 2018 - Lawmakers put military officials on the spot to explain how to prevent programs from becoming "too big to fail."

Members of the House Armed Services Committee met with acquisition chiefs from the Army, Navy and Air Force to assess how the services are using new congressional authorities to streamline the bureaucratic policies and procedures that often prevent combat systems from being fielded efficiently. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., asked what acquisition reform efforts are doing to prevent the services from becoming wedded to sacred-cow programs that are designed to do too much. "If we could go back to 1997, we would not build the F-35 the way we are currently building it. It is, at the moment, too big to fail," Smith said. "It's the only attack jet fighter we have; we've got to build it. We've got to make it work. "What would we do differently in the way we constructed that program, so that it didn't become the money pit that it has become?" he asked.

William Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, said the service focused on starting with a capable base model and improving on it, rather than trying to create the perfect platform. There is a lot of discipline to spiral development, Roper said, "as opposed to just kicking off a large program where there are multiple difficult things to do, hoping that they will somehow all work out and in the end you'll get the system that you want." James F. "Hondo" Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, said the Navy has taken this approach with its submarine programs over the past two decades. "We have come up with a good submarine, and now we have got a very disciplined, rapid way to quickly get new technology onto those submarines," he said. That's a way that we have tried to approach it, so you have a good base platform with a lot of resiliency and margins, so you can quickly iterate to wherever the direction goes, because we won't know what we need on those platforms 10 years from now," Geurts said.

Two U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning IIs, assigned to the 4th Fighter Squadron from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, conduct flight training operations over the Utah Test and Training Range on Feb 14, 2018.​

The Army's new acquisition reform effort involves the creation of "cross-functional teams" that will focus on rapid development of new platforms in the service's six new modernization priorities -- long-range precision fires; next-generation combat vehicle; future vertical lift; a mobile and expeditionary network; air and missile defense capabilities; and soldier lethality. The concept is designed to embrace rapid prototyping and involve warfighters at the beginning and keep them engaged throughout the process. HASC Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, questioned whether these CFTs will become part of the problem in the future. "Why aren't these cross-functional teams that the Army has set up just another layer of bureaucracy?" he asked Bruce Jette, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology.

To Jette, the main problem with Army acquisition is there is no "tight linkage with the people that generate the requirement; the technology people who can bring the capabilities to the table that you want to think about as you are looking to the future; and the acquisition people who actually have to get into the field." "The idea of the cross-functional teams is to bring that entity together in one place for specific areas of critical importance," Jette said. "The biggest issue to me is, I see the value, and I want to see whether there is decay in the value over a long period of time," he said. "I don't think there is any intention with the senior leadership to allow that to happen." Lawmakers also wanted to know how the services, and Congress, will be able to measure if the acquisitions process improves over time. "It seems to me that a lot of what we talk about is process changes, and what we ought to be looking at is what is the output," Thornberry said. "Because it doesn't really matter if we write lots of laws and you all ... change the regulations -- if we don't have the best our country can produce getting to the warfighter faster, then all of this is for naught."

In the past, program managers have been given credit for following acquisition processes to the "nth degree," Jette said. "We are going to be product-oriented," he said. "Accountability is not whether you follow the process in detail, but whether or not you generate a product." In most cases, the accountability and balance sheets are based on costs within the programs, Roper said. "What I predict we are going to see greater need for and demand for is to have time-based metrics -- tracking things like time to contract, time to complete development, time to field," he said. "Time to fail would be a great one, "Roper added, "if we want to quit having these large programs where the failure occurs 10 years after the start."

Lawmakers to Military: Don't Buy Another 'Money Pit' Like F-35

 

[Daryl Hunt]

F-35 program comes under scrutiny...

Upgrades, Development to F-35 Jet Will Cost $1 Billion Per Year
8 Mar 2018 - Lawmakers are apprehensive about the strategy known as continuous capability development and delivery.

Will it cost $1 billion or more just to update the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter every year? That's the estimate from the F-35's Joint Program Office. During a House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee hearing Wednesday, lawmakers were apprehensive about the strategy known as continuous capability development and delivery, or C2D2. This strategy aims to do smaller, incremental updates instead of taking F-35s off the flightline to get months' worth of larger, packaged software and modernization upgrades needed to "keep up with the latest threats." Citing a recent report delivered to Congress regarding C2D2, Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-Mass., said costs "may be as high as $11 billion in development and $5.4 billion in procurement" between fiscal 2018 and fiscal 2024 to achieve all the requirements. "This potential cost of $16 billion is an astonishingly high amount and, as far as I am aware, greatly exceeds any cost figures previously provided to Congress," she said. "It is important to remember this is a software-intensive effort, and the last 17 years of F-35 software development have seen dramatic cost increases and significant delays," Tsongas continued. "If Congress agrees to support this effort at this cost and under the proposed management regime, it should only do so fully aware of the significant risks involved."

Vice Adm. Mat Winter, director of the F-35 Joint Program Office, said the current cost estimate stands at roughly $10.8 billion for development, of which $3.7 billion will be shared by U.S. allies operating the F-35. The Pentagon would thus be responsible for only $7.2 billion over seven years. Tsongas also queried Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy officials on whether the proposal is reasonable for the fifth-generation stealth jet. "None of the services have a true comfort level until we have a ... cost of how this is going to happen scoped out," said Lt. Gen. Steven R. Rudder, the Marine Corps' deputy commandant for aviation. "But year by year, we're going to put money into C2D2 at the levels that Admiral Winter is requesting currently." Rudder testified alongside Winter; Air Force Lt. Gen Jerry D. Harris, deputy chief of staff for Plans, Programs and Requirements; and Rear Adm. Scott D. Conn, air warfare director for the office of the chief of Naval Operations. Conn agreed with Rudder, and Harris added there are "funds laid in [the Air Force's] plan," as well as plans to reduce sustainment costs long term. He did not specify budget numbers. C2D2 replaces what was once called Block 4 follow-on modernization, or the succeeding, repetitive mods to Block 4, the latest software modernization to upgrade the F-35's avionics and weapons delivery. Block 4 itself is slated for implementation sometime before the end of 2018. "We just want to be sure this is rooted in reality," Tsongas said. In a follow-up discussion with reporters, Winter laid out worst- and best-case cost scenarios.

Going through all of the pre-planning and execution -- when developers and engineers are needed, at what point a certain batch of F-35 Lightning IIs can receive the work, among other factors -- Winter said once those calculations formally come together, $10.8 billion for development is roughly correct. "That estimate will most likely come down, but I don't guarantee anything," Winter said. "But we've also looked at, if all of that is correct, what are the modifications to the fleet aircraft, so the procurement elements of this, the software's going to be minuscule," he said, referring to the $5.4 billion figure Tsongas cited. "If I had all the hardware updates on the first year, it would be a less [of] a procurement cost because all of my new aircraft would already have it in there," Winter said. In his written prepared testimony for the hearing, Winter cited the Pentagon's lessons learned from upgrading the F-22 Raptor, but did not specify what modifications to the stealth jet have cost. At the Defense Department's order, Lockheed Martin Corp. stopped producing the F-22 in 2011. "Based on experience from the F-22, an eight-to-10-year span between technology refresh events will maintain viable warfighting capability throughout each cycle," he said in his testimony. The F-35's total cost has been projected at more than $1 trillion over a 50-year lifetime.

Upgrades, Development to F-35 Jet Will Cost $1 Billion Per Year

See also:

Lawmakers to Military: Don't Buy Another 'Money Pit' Like F-35
7 Mar 2018 - Lawmakers put military officials on the spot to explain how to prevent programs from becoming "too big to fail."

Members of the House Armed Services Committee met with acquisition chiefs from the Army, Navy and Air Force to assess how the services are using new congressional authorities to streamline the bureaucratic policies and procedures that often prevent combat systems from being fielded efficiently. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., asked what acquisition reform efforts are doing to prevent the services from becoming wedded to sacred-cow programs that are designed to do too much. "If we could go back to 1997, we would not build the F-35 the way we are currently building it. It is, at the moment, too big to fail," Smith said. "It's the only attack jet fighter we have; we've got to build it. We've got to make it work. "What would we do differently in the way we constructed that program, so that it didn't become the money pit that it has become?" he asked.

William Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, said the service focused on starting with a capable base model and improving on it, rather than trying to create the perfect platform. There is a lot of discipline to spiral development, Roper said, "as opposed to just kicking off a large program where there are multiple difficult things to do, hoping that they will somehow all work out and in the end you'll get the system that you want." James F. "Hondo" Geurts, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, said the Navy has taken this approach with its submarine programs over the past two decades. "We have come up with a good submarine, and now we have got a very disciplined, rapid way to quickly get new technology onto those submarines," he said. That's a way that we have tried to approach it, so you have a good base platform with a lot of resiliency and margins, so you can quickly iterate to wherever the direction goes, because we won't know what we need on those platforms 10 years from now," Geurts said.

Two U.S. Air Force F-35A Lightning IIs, assigned to the 4th Fighter Squadron from Hill Air Force Base, Utah, conduct flight training operations over the Utah Test and Training Range on Feb 14, 2018.​

The Army's new acquisition reform effort involves the creation of "cross-functional teams" that will focus on rapid development of new platforms in the service's six new modernization priorities -- long-range precision fires; next-generation combat vehicle; future vertical lift; a mobile and expeditionary network; air and missile defense capabilities; and soldier lethality. The concept is designed to embrace rapid prototyping and involve warfighters at the beginning and keep them engaged throughout the process. HASC Chairman Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, questioned whether these CFTs will become part of the problem in the future. "Why aren't these cross-functional teams that the Army has set up just another layer of bureaucracy?" he asked Bruce Jette, assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology.

To Jette, the main problem with Army acquisition is there is no "tight linkage with the people that generate the requirement; the technology people who can bring the capabilities to the table that you want to think about as you are looking to the future; and the acquisition people who actually have to get into the field." "The idea of the cross-functional teams is to bring that entity together in one place for specific areas of critical importance," Jette said. "The biggest issue to me is, I see the value, and I want to see whether there is decay in the value over a long period of time," he said. "I don't think there is any intention with the senior leadership to allow that to happen." Lawmakers also wanted to know how the services, and Congress, will be able to measure if the acquisitions process improves over time. "It seems to me that a lot of what we talk about is process changes, and what we ought to be looking at is what is the output," Thornberry said. "Because it doesn't really matter if we write lots of laws and you all ... change the regulations -- if we don't have the best our country can produce getting to the warfighter faster, then all of this is for naught."

In the past, program managers have been given credit for following acquisition processes to the "nth degree," Jette said. "We are going to be product-oriented," he said. "Accountability is not whether you follow the process in detail, but whether or not you generate a product." In most cases, the accountability and balance sheets are based on costs within the programs, Roper said. "What I predict we are going to see greater need for and demand for is to have time-based metrics -- tracking things like time to contract, time to complete development, time to field," he said. "Time to fail would be a great one, "Roper added, "if we want to quit having these large programs where the failure occurs 10 years after the start."

Lawmakers to Military: Don't Buy Another 'Money Pit' Like F-35

Never has one type of Aircraft been asked to do all of the things that the F-35 has been tasked to do. And it's done them. About the time we think they are done with it's requirements, here comes new ones. In a squadron operation, it's more deadly than even the F-22. It's the best Assault Fighter there is. It's a flying Command Post, and more. It's capable of picking up Naval Missiles and giving those missiles ranges that the Naval Ships can't. The list keeps getting longer. And in 2021, it goes operational with Tactical Lasers. Meanwhile, all it's systems are being improved on and incorporated into the 6th gen fighter and the B-21 keeping those head and shoulders above anything else for decades to come when they come out in 2025. The F-35 IS too big to fail but the alternative is failure. I choose success.

 

[waltky]

Pilots 'Not Making Things Up,' Air Force Says of 'Hypoxia' Incidents...

Pilots 'Not Making Things Up,' Air Force Says of 'Hypoxia' Incident
12 Jul 2018 - The Air Force has ruled out pilots' mistaking symptoms in hypoxia incidents

The Air Force has yet to find the cause for a surge of hypoxia-like incidents in a wide variety of aircraft but has ruled out the possibility that pilots could be mistaking symptoms in some cases. "We know for a fact what our pilots are experiencing in the airplanes -- our pilots are not making things up" when they report incidents, Air Force Lt. Gen. Mark C. Nowland, deputy chief of staff for operations, told Military.com after an aviation safety hearing last month before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness. In an interview last week, Col. William Mueller, director of the Air Force-Pilot Physicians Program, backed up Nowland on the veracity of pilot reports of hypoxia-like symptoms, including shortness of breath, confusion and wheezing while in aircraft ranging from trainers to the most advanced fighters. "It's real stuff; people are not making this up," said Mueller, a pilot with a medical degree who also serves as career manager for Air Force medical officers who are qualified as pilots and flight surgeons.

Mueller is working with a team of Air Force investigators, in coordination with the Navy and NASA, that is attempting to pinpoint causes for what the Air Force calls Unexplained Physiological Events (UPEs) experienced by pilots. Air Force officials, in studies and in congressional hearings, have outlined three possibilities: failures in the oxygen delivery system, contaminants in the system, and unusual levels of carbon dioxide. At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in April, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein said, "We don't have the smoking gun yet" in the search for a root cause of the incidents, "and we're not going to stop until we find it." Although the cause remains a mystery, Goldfein said the service has gained valuable knowledge since a series of incidents in 2010 involving F-22 Raptors, the most advanced U.S. fighters.

U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Darrian Caskey performs a seal check on the mask of 1st Lt. Alex Medina in the altitude hypobaric chamber for USAFSAM hypoxia demo training at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, April 26, 2017​

In November 2010, Air Force Capt. Jeff Haney was killed in the crash of his F-22 on a training mission in Alaska. The controversial Air Force investigation found that Haney suffered "severe restricted breathing" during the flight but still ruled that pilot error was the main cause of the crash. There were 11 other hypoxia-type incidents involving F-22s between 2008 and 2011, according to the Air Force, and much of the concern at the time was with the On-Board Oxygen Generation Systems, or OBOGS. It was developed in the 1980s as a source of limitless oxygen for pilots and a replacement for the canisters of compressed liquid or gaseous oxygen that had been used previously. The OBOGS was designed to draw air from the plane's engine compressor before combustion and run it through a series of scrubbers to remove nitrogen.

Although the focus was on the OBOGS in the F-22 investigation, the Air Force later concluded the problem was with a valve controlling the pilot's pressure vest, which could allow the vest to inflate and restrict the pilot's ability to breathe. Since then, the service has worked with engineers, physiologists, contractors and operators of various types of aircraft to get a broader understanding of the problem, Goldfein said at the April hearing. In examining the F-22 incidents, the Air Force concluded the problem likely was not hypoxia, an oxygen deficiency, but rather hypocapnia, a condition of too little carbon dioxide in the blood that can be caused by hyperventilation, he said. In addition to hypoxia and hypocapnia, the Air Force also had to be concerned with hypercapnia, an excessive amount of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream, Mueller said in the interview with Military.com. "There are a lot of possible medical explanations," but none has been pinned down, he said.

MORE

 

[waltky]

Navy, Air Force Team Up to Get to Bottom of Oxygen Deprivation Among Pilots...

Navy, Air Force Team Up to Get to Bottom of Oxygen Deprivation Among Pilots
14 Sep 2018 -- The Navy and the Air Force are teaming up to get to the root cause of oxygen deprivation among its pilots, which officials have said is their biggest safety concern in aviation.

Pilots flying the Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornets and the Air Force's F-22 Raptors have reported in recent years experiencing hypoxia-like symptoms while flying, and solving it has proved difficult for both branches. Hampton Roads is home to both aircraft, with Super Hornets based at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach and Raptors at Langley Air Force Base in Hampton.

Hypoxia symptoms include nausea, tingling, fatigue and disorientation. Pilots also have been experiencing decompression sickness, which causes double vision, headaches, dizziness and other issues. Broadly, the episodes typically are related to unscheduled pressure changes or pilots breathing gas. "We want to gather and share as much information as possible to bring viable solutions to the table," said Rear Adm. Fredrick R. Luchtman in a statement. "This joint effort will help us to minimize risk faster and smarter. We owe it to our aviators. This partnership will help us tackle the complexities of physiological episodes on a broader scale by eliminating redundant efforts and maximizing the application of resources. It's a win-win across the board."

A U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor departs the runway May 9, 2017, while a U.S. Navy F-18 Super Hornet and another F-22 crawl up the ramp in preparation for takeoff.​

The Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, is already building several aircraft-specific life support system simulators to reproduce the breathing environments of the T-45 and F/A-18 aircraft. The facility's new respiratory physiology laboratory will study the effects of variable breathing gas mixtures, in-line breathing resistance, breathing gas pressure and flow disruptions, as well as flight equipment fit on aircrew physiology and cognitive function, according to the Navy. The Air Force announced the new partnership, called the Joint Physiological Episodes Action Team, at the Pentagon on Tuesday. "Adopting a common team name, creating the Joint PEAT and better leveraging our joint data, research and resources will improve safety and combat readiness," said Brig. Gen. Edward Vaughan, AF-PEAT leader.

The services broadly refer to the incidents as physiological episodes and the Navy already has a website dedicated to it at Navy News Feature. The Air Force said that site will soon be co-branded and include Air Force physiological episode information as well as new joint findings.

Navy, Air Force Team Up to Get to Bottom of Oxygen Deprivation Among Pilots

See also:

Air Force Announces Fix to Hypoxia Problems in T-6 Aircraft
14 Sep 2018 - Air Force officials say they have identified a fix to problems in the T-6 Texan II trainer aircraft that were making pilots short of breath and resulted in a month-long fleet grounding in February.

Following a six-month investigation, Air Education and Training Command announced Thursday that a team of experts including Navy, Air Force and NASA personnel had pinpointed the issue as a fluctuation in oxygen concentrations in the cockpit while the trainer aircraft was in flight. To fix the problem, officials said, a series of corrective measures has been identified, including redesigning the aircraft's oxygen system and adjusting oxygen control levels in flight. AETC also plans to ramp up maintenance on the aircraft's onboard oxygen generation system, or OBOGS. "So far, technical efforts to date and analysis of data collected have determined that pilots have been exposed to significantly changing levels of oxygen concentration," Lt. Gen. Steve Kwast, commander of AETC, said in a released statement. "The varying levels of oxygen concentration, even though in excess of what the body typically needs, [have] caused physiological stress that most pilots on most days actually adapt to without noticing."

Following a series of what the Air Force calls unexplained physiological episodes, or UPEs, the commander of the 19th Air Force, Maj. Gen. Patrick Doherty, announced in February 2018 that the entire T-6 fleet would undergo an operational pause. During the pause, which lasted until Feb. 27, the service organized an independent team of experts to determine the causes of the episodes. Some of the findings came back quickly. According to an AETC release Thursday, the team found that OBOGS filter and drain valves failed at higher rates than expected, a discovery that led to repairs and increased inspections. But despite these efforts, the pilot episodes continued. Air Force Times reported in April that there had been a dozen T-6 UPEs in the two months following the T-6 fleet grounding.

The T-6A Texan II is a single-engine, two-seat primary trainer designed to train Joint Primary Pilot Training, or JPPT, students in basic flying skills common to U.S. Air Force and Navy pilots.​

Now, AETC, working with Air Force Materiel Command, is engaged in a longer-term process that involves redesigning the T-6 OBOGS apparatus to build in more consistency in the oxygen levels delivered to pilots. The two commands are also working with Beechcraft, the manufacturer, to alter the software algorithm to stabilize oxygen concentrations in the cockpit, according to officials. "While this should reduce physiological events, the Air Force will pursue a broader redesign," AETC officials said in the release. It's possible the fixes to the T-6, which are expected to take two to four years to implement, will be applicable to other aircraft that have had reported physiological episodes. Air Force planes with reported incidents include A-10 Thunderbolt IIs, F-22 Raptors and F-35A Joint Strike Fighters, while affected Navy aircraft include F/A-18 Hornets, EA-18G Growlers and T-45 Goshawk trainers.

Brig. Gen. Edward Vaughan, the officer in charge of solving the physiological episodes problem for the Air Force, will work with other services to decide if the OBOGS fix for the T-6 will work for other aircraft, according to the release. Current T-6 pilots will also receive additional training materials to help them identify problematic symptoms and correct issues that arise, officials said. "Since our T-6 operational pause, we have made every effort to communicate with every instructor and every student exactly what we've found," Doherty said in a statement. "Transparency remains of utmost importance to us as we all work together to ensure that our pilots are safe and know the way ahead."

Air Force Announces Fix to Hypoxia Problems in T-6 Aircraft

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Navy, Air Force Team Up to Get to Bottom of Oxygen Deprivation Among Pilots...

Navy, Air Force Team Up to Get to Bottom of Oxygen Deprivation Among Pilots
14 Sep 2018 -- The Navy and the Air Force are teaming up to get to the root cause of oxygen deprivation among its pilots, which officials have said is their biggest safety concern in aviation.

Pilots flying the Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornets and the Air Force's F-22 Raptors have reported in recent years experiencing hypoxia-like symptoms while flying, and solving it has proved difficult for both branches. Hampton Roads is home to both aircraft, with Super Hornets based at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach and Raptors at Langley Air Force Base in Hampton.

Hypoxia symptoms include nausea, tingling, fatigue and disorientation. Pilots also have been experiencing decompression sickness, which causes double vision, headaches, dizziness and other issues. Broadly, the episodes typically are related to unscheduled pressure changes or pilots breathing gas. "We want to gather and share as much information as possible to bring viable solutions to the table," said Rear Adm. Fredrick R. Luchtman in a statement. "This joint effort will help us to minimize risk faster and smarter. We owe it to our aviators. This partnership will help us tackle the complexities of physiological episodes on a broader scale by eliminating redundant efforts and maximizing the application of resources. It's a win-win across the board."

A U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor departs the runway May 9, 2017, while a U.S. Navy F-18 Super Hornet and another F-22 crawl up the ramp in preparation for takeoff.​

The Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, is already building several aircraft-specific life support system simulators to reproduce the breathing environments of the T-45 and F/A-18 aircraft. The facility's new respiratory physiology laboratory will study the effects of variable breathing gas mixtures, in-line breathing resistance, breathing gas pressure and flow disruptions, as well as flight equipment fit on aircrew physiology and cognitive function, according to the Navy. The Air Force announced the new partnership, called the Joint Physiological Episodes Action Team, at the Pentagon on Tuesday. "Adopting a common team name, creating the Joint PEAT and better leveraging our joint data, research and resources will improve safety and combat readiness," said Brig. Gen. Edward Vaughan, AF-PEAT leader.

The services broadly refer to the incidents as physiological episodes and the Navy already has a website dedicated to it at Navy News Feature. The Air Force said that site will soon be co-branded and include Air Force physiological episode information as well as new joint findings.

Navy, Air Force Team Up to Get to Bottom of Oxygen Deprivation Among Pilots

See also:

Air Force Announces Fix to Hypoxia Problems in T-6 Aircraft
14 Sep 2018 - Air Force officials say they have identified a fix to problems in the T-6 Texan II trainer aircraft that were making pilots short of breath and resulted in a month-long fleet grounding in February.

Following a six-month investigation, Air Education and Training Command announced Thursday that a team of experts including Navy, Air Force and NASA personnel had pinpointed the issue as a fluctuation in oxygen concentrations in the cockpit while the trainer aircraft was in flight. To fix the problem, officials said, a series of corrective measures has been identified, including redesigning the aircraft's oxygen system and adjusting oxygen control levels in flight. AETC also plans to ramp up maintenance on the aircraft's onboard oxygen generation system, or OBOGS. "So far, technical efforts to date and analysis of data collected have determined that pilots have been exposed to significantly changing levels of oxygen concentration," Lt. Gen. Steve Kwast, commander of AETC, said in a released statement. "The varying levels of oxygen concentration, even though in excess of what the body typically needs, [have] caused physiological stress that most pilots on most days actually adapt to without noticing."

Following a series of what the Air Force calls unexplained physiological episodes, or UPEs, the commander of the 19th Air Force, Maj. Gen. Patrick Doherty, announced in February 2018 that the entire T-6 fleet would undergo an operational pause. During the pause, which lasted until Feb. 27, the service organized an independent team of experts to determine the causes of the episodes. Some of the findings came back quickly. According to an AETC release Thursday, the team found that OBOGS filter and drain valves failed at higher rates than expected, a discovery that led to repairs and increased inspections. But despite these efforts, the pilot episodes continued. Air Force Times reported in April that there had been a dozen T-6 UPEs in the two months following the T-6 fleet grounding.

The T-6A Texan II is a single-engine, two-seat primary trainer designed to train Joint Primary Pilot Training, or JPPT, students in basic flying skills common to U.S. Air Force and Navy pilots.​

Now, AETC, working with Air Force Materiel Command, is engaged in a longer-term process that involves redesigning the T-6 OBOGS apparatus to build in more consistency in the oxygen levels delivered to pilots. The two commands are also working with Beechcraft, the manufacturer, to alter the software algorithm to stabilize oxygen concentrations in the cockpit, according to officials. "While this should reduce physiological events, the Air Force will pursue a broader redesign," AETC officials said in the release. It's possible the fixes to the T-6, which are expected to take two to four years to implement, will be applicable to other aircraft that have had reported physiological episodes. Air Force planes with reported incidents include A-10 Thunderbolt IIs, F-22 Raptors and F-35A Joint Strike Fighters, while affected Navy aircraft include F/A-18 Hornets, EA-18G Growlers and T-45 Goshawk trainers.

Brig. Gen. Edward Vaughan, the officer in charge of solving the physiological episodes problem for the Air Force, will work with other services to decide if the OBOGS fix for the T-6 will work for other aircraft, according to the release. Current T-6 pilots will also receive additional training materials to help them identify problematic symptoms and correct issues that arise, officials said. "Since our T-6 operational pause, we have made every effort to communicate with every instructor and every student exactly what we've found," Doherty said in a statement. "Transparency remains of utmost importance to us as we all work together to ensure that our pilots are safe and know the way ahead."

Air Force Announces Fix to Hypoxia Problems in T-6 Aircraft

Great article, but I worry that someone is talking out of their ass.

For example, the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Lab is in Pensacola, Florida, not Dayton, Ohio.
That would likely be the Chair Forces lab, since that s where Wright-Patterson AFB is located.

How much of the other material did they get wrong?.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Navy, Air Force Team Up to Get to Bottom of Oxygen Deprivation Among Pilots...

Navy, Air Force Team Up to Get to Bottom of Oxygen Deprivation Among Pilots
14 Sep 2018 -- The Navy and the Air Force are teaming up to get to the root cause of oxygen deprivation among its pilots, which officials have said is their biggest safety concern in aviation.

Pilots flying the Navy's F/A-18 Super Hornets and the Air Force's F-22 Raptors have reported in recent years experiencing hypoxia-like symptoms while flying, and solving it has proved difficult for both branches. Hampton Roads is home to both aircraft, with Super Hornets based at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach and Raptors at Langley Air Force Base in Hampton.

Hypoxia symptoms include nausea, tingling, fatigue and disorientation. Pilots also have been experiencing decompression sickness, which causes double vision, headaches, dizziness and other issues. Broadly, the episodes typically are related to unscheduled pressure changes or pilots breathing gas. "We want to gather and share as much information as possible to bring viable solutions to the table," said Rear Adm. Fredrick R. Luchtman in a statement. "This joint effort will help us to minimize risk faster and smarter. We owe it to our aviators. This partnership will help us tackle the complexities of physiological episodes on a broader scale by eliminating redundant efforts and maximizing the application of resources. It's a win-win across the board."

A U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor departs the runway May 9, 2017, while a U.S. Navy F-18 Super Hornet and another F-22 crawl up the ramp in preparation for takeoff.​

The Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory in Dayton, Ohio, is already building several aircraft-specific life support system simulators to reproduce the breathing environments of the T-45 and F/A-18 aircraft. The facility's new respiratory physiology laboratory will study the effects of variable breathing gas mixtures, in-line breathing resistance, breathing gas pressure and flow disruptions, as well as flight equipment fit on aircrew physiology and cognitive function, according to the Navy. The Air Force announced the new partnership, called the Joint Physiological Episodes Action Team, at the Pentagon on Tuesday. "Adopting a common team name, creating the Joint PEAT and better leveraging our joint data, research and resources will improve safety and combat readiness," said Brig. Gen. Edward Vaughan, AF-PEAT leader.

The services broadly refer to the incidents as physiological episodes and the Navy already has a website dedicated to it at Navy News Feature. The Air Force said that site will soon be co-branded and include Air Force physiological episode information as well as new joint findings.

Navy, Air Force Team Up to Get to Bottom of Oxygen Deprivation Among Pilots

See also:

Air Force Announces Fix to Hypoxia Problems in T-6 Aircraft
14 Sep 2018 - Air Force officials say they have identified a fix to problems in the T-6 Texan II trainer aircraft that were making pilots short of breath and resulted in a month-long fleet grounding in February.

Following a six-month investigation, Air Education and Training Command announced Thursday that a team of experts including Navy, Air Force and NASA personnel had pinpointed the issue as a fluctuation in oxygen concentrations in the cockpit while the trainer aircraft was in flight. To fix the problem, officials said, a series of corrective measures has been identified, including redesigning the aircraft's oxygen system and adjusting oxygen control levels in flight. AETC also plans to ramp up maintenance on the aircraft's onboard oxygen generation system, or OBOGS. "So far, technical efforts to date and analysis of data collected have determined that pilots have been exposed to significantly changing levels of oxygen concentration," Lt. Gen. Steve Kwast, commander of AETC, said in a released statement. "The varying levels of oxygen concentration, even though in excess of what the body typically needs, [have] caused physiological stress that most pilots on most days actually adapt to without noticing."

Following a series of what the Air Force calls unexplained physiological episodes, or UPEs, the commander of the 19th Air Force, Maj. Gen. Patrick Doherty, announced in February 2018 that the entire T-6 fleet would undergo an operational pause. During the pause, which lasted until Feb. 27, the service organized an independent team of experts to determine the causes of the episodes. Some of the findings came back quickly. According to an AETC release Thursday, the team found that OBOGS filter and drain valves failed at higher rates than expected, a discovery that led to repairs and increased inspections. But despite these efforts, the pilot episodes continued. Air Force Times reported in April that there had been a dozen T-6 UPEs in the two months following the T-6 fleet grounding.

The T-6A Texan II is a single-engine, two-seat primary trainer designed to train Joint Primary Pilot Training, or JPPT, students in basic flying skills common to U.S. Air Force and Navy pilots.​

Now, AETC, working with Air Force Materiel Command, is engaged in a longer-term process that involves redesigning the T-6 OBOGS apparatus to build in more consistency in the oxygen levels delivered to pilots. The two commands are also working with Beechcraft, the manufacturer, to alter the software algorithm to stabilize oxygen concentrations in the cockpit, according to officials. "While this should reduce physiological events, the Air Force will pursue a broader redesign," AETC officials said in the release. It's possible the fixes to the T-6, which are expected to take two to four years to implement, will be applicable to other aircraft that have had reported physiological episodes. Air Force planes with reported incidents include A-10 Thunderbolt IIs, F-22 Raptors and F-35A Joint Strike Fighters, while affected Navy aircraft include F/A-18 Hornets, EA-18G Growlers and T-45 Goshawk trainers.

Brig. Gen. Edward Vaughan, the officer in charge of solving the physiological episodes problem for the Air Force, will work with other services to decide if the OBOGS fix for the T-6 will work for other aircraft, according to the release. Current T-6 pilots will also receive additional training materials to help them identify problematic symptoms and correct issues that arise, officials said. "Since our T-6 operational pause, we have made every effort to communicate with every instructor and every student exactly what we've found," Doherty said in a statement. "Transparency remains of utmost importance to us as we all work together to ensure that our pilots are safe and know the way ahead."

Air Force Announces Fix to Hypoxia Problems in T-6 Aircraft

Great article, but I worry that someone is talking out of their ass.

For example, the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Lab is in Pensacola, Florida, not Dayton, Ohio.
That would likely be the Chair Forces lab, since that s where Wright-Patterson AFB is located.

How much of the other material did they get wrong?.

Guess you need to be busted down to Seaman 3rd on this one. The article got the location correct. Are you in such a hurry to be correct that you don't bother to do any form of fact checking before you open that big mouth?

Naval Medical Research Unit Dayton
The Naval Medical Research Unit Dayton is a major DoD medical research command and the home of the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory and the Environmental Health Effects Laboratory. As a subordinate command to Naval Medical Research Center, NAMRU-D conducts aerospace medical and environmental health effects research to enhance warfighter health, safety, performance, and readiness. NAMRU-D conducts research to address identified Fleet needs, and results in products and solutions ranging from basic knowledge, to fielded technologies.