Once an aircrew and/or passengers are on the ground, they are having to fight both the earth and other humans in order to survive. They should already have in their minds basic SERE skills that every member of the U.S. military should get intense training on and not just aviators and "special" feces personnel since the non-linear battlefield makes ALL Soldiers at risk of being isolated from friendly forces. This is far from being true today. Even infantrymen don't even get SERE training in our garrison BS military; they are too "busy" doing more "important" tasks like mowing lawns and trimming vegetation around needless buildings than learning how to make vegetation into shelters and signal fires to save their lives in war.

During the Korean War, even with the exalted helicopter's vertical landing and take-off capabilities, downed pilots were left to fend for themselves while being chased by communist enemies. One designated aircraft would have a survival kit fitted like a bomb under a wing ready to be dropped to the comrade below to give him needed survival items and even a carbine to defend himself with better than the pistol on his body. IMHO that 9mm pistol should be a Beretta 92R with a folding stock that can be clipped to it to enable full automatic firing or a 5.56mm pistol/carbine system with greater range to keep the bad guys at bay.

The enemy would often use downed pilots as "bait" to lure in rescue forces and ambush them. The perils of being captured by our often immoral and unethical enemies are well-documented and horrific.

Unfortunately most of our downed pilots once captured did not have a happy ending of escape and rescue and had to endure years of suffering needlessly had we used Iowa class battleships to bombard the enemy instead to preclude much of the shoot-downs in the first place. Hardened design aircraft would prevent downings of the aircraft missions that would remain to be flown. Another possibility would be improved escape means in our aircraft with an EVASION and even a self-RESCUE capability.

One of the things we've yet to exploit for CSAR are inflatable airplanes and powered parachutes/paragliders. Such an entire aircraft could be placed inside a kit dropped by a buddy aircraft to a comrade below and he could inflate it, start the engine and take-off back to friendly forces--if he has enough runway length.

Another option would be a powered parachute or paraglider which have a near vertical take-off capability. The downside of powered parachutes/gliders is they can't fly against winds in excess of 20 mph, though 100 mph inflatable airplanes can IF they can get enough runway roll to take-off.

AutoGyro Rotor or Pop-out wing Technology to Extend Ejection Seat Flight?

USAF F-16 pilots dies over Iraq, was it necessary?

1. Wrong plane

The tragedy here is the egomaniac USAF fighter jock brass are trying to make thin wing unarmored F-16s fly low altitude close air support missions instead of thick-wing, armored A-10s; if this pilot had been in an A-10 he'd still be flying and alive. The pilot may have been TARGET FIXATED and simply flew into the ground. Having a back-seat observer calling out altitude would remind pilots not to fly into the ground.

Reason?

The military narcissist ego can only have ONE THING GETTING ALL THE ATTENTION; in the USAF its the sexy fighter-bomber.

So the next time before you put military men on pedestals because they are doing your dirty work with slogans like "support our troops" consider that its immoral to put ANYBODY on a pedestal and that A LOT of our military's losses are self-created because there is a direct link between narcissism and military incompetence. The same arrogance you may detest in NeroBush that refuses to admit we caused the rebellion in Iraq by overstaying our welcome has its military versions.

2. Wrong Ejection Seat

Its high time we face the fact that parachuting directly over where you were shot down is no longer good enough. We have the technology to make the ejection seat "fly" a good distance so the pilot can contact rescue forces and get out of immediate danger for recovery.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/pilot-of-crashed-us-fighter-jet-missing/20061128062709990003?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Updated: 12:17 PM EST

Pilot of Crashed U.S. Fighter Jet Missing
AP Says Video May Show Serviceman's Remains

http://ar.atwola.com/link/93179288/377524249/aoladp?target=_blank&border=0

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Nov. 28) - U.S. forces investigating the crash of a single-seat Air Force jet in Iraq said that insurgents reached the site before American forces could and the pilot remains missing. Videotape pictures obtained by Associated Press Television News appear to show the wreckage of the F-16CG jet in the farm field where it crashed Monday and the remains of a U.S. serviceman with a tangled parachute nearby. Al-Jazeera satellite television showed similar pictures on Monday, but declined to include the scenes of the dead pilot, saying they were too graphic to air.

Meanwhile, Iraq's parliament voted on Tuesday to extend the country's state of emergency for 30 more days, and suspected Sunni-Arab insurgents set off bombs in three different areas of the country that killed eight Iraqis and wounded 40.

The state of emergency has been renewed every month since it was first authorized in November 2004. It allows for a nighttime curfew and gives the government extra powers to make arrests without warrants and launch police and military operations. The measures are implemented in all areas of the country apart from the autonomous Kurdish region in the north.

Attacks by suspected Sunni-Arab insurgents occurred in Baghdad and in northern Iraq on Tuesday. Two car bombs exploded near al-Yamouk hospital's morgue in the capital, killing three civilians and one policeman and wounding 19 civilians, a police officer said on condition of anonymity to protect his security in a country where insurgents kill many of the Iraqi security forces working with the U.S.-led coalition.

In Diyala province north of the capital, where heavy fighting between police and Sunni insurgents has raged for several days, a roadside bomb exploded in the town of Baladrooz, killing three civilians and wounding four, a police officer said. He also spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern for his security.

North of Diyala, an Iraqi governor survived an assassination attempt when a suicide bomber blew himself up near the official's convoy. The attacker - wearing a belt of explosives hidden beneath his clothing - approached the convoy at 9:35 a.m. as it was driving slowly through the center of Kirkuk near the city's main public hospital, said police Brig. Sarhat Qadir. The man tried to enter the governor's car, but when the door was locked he blew himself up, Qadir said.

Gov. Abdul Rahman Mustafa and his bodyguards were not harmed, but the powerful blast hit civilians standing nearby, killing one of them and wounding 17, the officer said.

Kirkuk's population is a mix of Kurds, Arabs and ethnic Turkmen. Hundreds have been killed in sectarian and ethnic fighting in the past three years. The city is 290 kilometers (180 miles) north of Baghdad.

The U.S. Air Force [jet] crashed about 20 miles (30 kilometers) northwest of Baghdad at about 1:35 p.m. Monday while supporting extensive ground combat by coalition forces in Anbar province, the area of Iraq where many of the country's Sunni-Arab insurgent groups operate, the Air Combat Command said in a statement Tuesday.

Fighter jets flying overhead when the crash occurred "confirmed that insurgents were in the vicinity of the crash site immediately following the crash," the command said. When U.S. soldiers reached the area, "The pilot was not found at the crash site and his status cannot be confirmed at this time."

DNA samples were taken from the scene and were being tested, it said.

The F-16 was deployed to the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing at Balad Air Base in Iraq.

Capt. Nathan Broshear, an Air Force spokesman, said the cause of the crash is being investigated.

But Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, a U.S. military spokesman, told a news conference in Baghdad on Tuesday that there is no indication the plane was shot down.

11/28/2006 10:24:34 EST

During the Vietnam war, we were losing hundreds of pilots over North Vietnam against their integrated air defense system (IADS). After ejection, if captured these men were placed in prisons and tortured.

If we fight against a nation-state with a capable IADS, we might relive this debacle all over again. At the time, Kaman who specialize in counter-rotating rotor helicopters proposed after ejection, rotors unfold pushed by a small turbine engine to get at least 50 miles away from the target area for a seat detaching and parachute descent if not staying in the seat and an auto-rotative landing. Its still a good idea; getting some distance from where you were shot down to a recovery spot; if not rotors then a ram-air parachute or inflatable wings, if not a small turbine engine, then a small rocket motor for thrust. A computer can determine the situation if there's enough altitude to stay in the seat to fly it or to kick out the pilot and have him descend under a parachute.

Wings could pop-out like a car crash air bag instantly to provide lift as the rocket motor or small turbine pushes the seat for forward thrust. The Goodyear GA-466 and 468 "inflatoplanes" proved this concept. You might say this is too "extreme", well wake up...flying a fighter jet is extreme...and in war is even "extremer". There have also been some tragic ejections where the pilot and back seater in their round parachutes were unable to avoid landing their own aircraft's burning wreckage and not burn to death. An ejection seat that can "fly" a distance away can solve this.

Lighter than air technology not fully exploited yet: FULTON ATAR?

In fact, we are all aware of air bag technology in our povs. A collision inflates a shock-absorbing bag to protect us from trauma. Why not a helium air canister or bottle of heat that inflates a bag within the parachute after ejection to keep the pilot aloft---and out of enemy light small arms fire and the ground----to help a MARS aircraft to rendezvous to recover him in the air? Or simply a small balloon on top of the parachute to interface with the Fulton STAR system?

If you go to the Pioneer Aerospace web site you will see parachutes with live humans have been successfully snatched and reeled in mid-air, or a Mid-Air Recovery System (MARS).

We recover balloons now from the ground using Robert Fulton's Surface-To-AiR (STAR) system, which has sucessfully extracted agents from the polar ice cap and a wounded Delta Force trooper during the SCUD SSM hunt during Desert Storm. With ATAR if the pilot feels this isn't going to happen he can cut-away from the balloon and descend by parachute--hopefully after a rescue force for ground pick-up has been acquired--a GRIER pod equipped STOVL AV-8B Harrier II, F-35 STOVL JSF, U.S. Army attack helicopter with GRIER rocket/rescue pod or V/TOL helicopters and tilt-rotors.

The beauty of EXTENDed FLIght Escape Systems (EXTENDFLIES) or a Fulton Air-to-Air Recovery system (ATAR) would be that it saves lives in peacetime over dangerous terrains and water. Aircrew held aloft by EXTENDFLIES could stay away from freezing waters, drowning, while emitting a search signal that would be heard for miles from their elevated position. Searchers would get an immediate fix and fly to their rescue by MARS or watch them descend on signal by parachute to the ground for immediate pick up.

FIXED-WING AIRCRAFT PEOPLE ESCAPE/EVASION PODS?

At the end of WW2, the Germans faced with their 500+ mph Me-262 jet fighter speeds that were simply to fast for a man to crawl out of the cockpit and bail out. They created the EJECTION SEAT with a ribbon parachute with a dangerous 40+ feet per second descent rate, but they had the right idea: you have to shoot the pilot from outside the cockpit to clear the tail. The ejection seat is the minimalist way to get instant aircraft escape from zero altitude, zero airspeed (zero-zero) all the way to high subsonic speeds. To protect the face, a blast screen can be pulled down over the helmet front. However for faster supersonic speeds PODS were considered by U.S. aircraft designers, a MAXIMALIST way for crew escape.

Escape pods that were in essence enclosed ejection seats were used in the B-58 Hustler and the B-70 Mach 3 bomber prototypes. Ejection seat pods were considered for the F-105 Thunderchief, and in light of what we know today of how many would be shot down over North Vietnam, maybe not fielding them was a mistake.

Vought, the makers of the F-8 Crusader Mach 2 naval fighter perfected a detaching nose escape pod for it, but the Navy by that time were done buying more F-8s and this feature never got fielded.

In light of the thousands of aircraft shot down over both South and North Vietnam, its tragic that the escape pod did not catch on into full-scale military use since thousands of men were killed by bad ejections, rough parachute landings to the body into often thick jungle tree canopy and subsequent failed rescues and prisoner of war torture. Escape pods would not only protect aircrew from the harsh air flow, they would cushion their bodies during landings under parachute canopies. There is a very good chance the aircrewman would be healthy and without either broken backs or lower extremities on the ground to better escape & recover (we used to call this "escape & evade"). It gets better. In the escape pod, the classic survival and escape gear kit would already be there and not have to be dropped. This could even mean FIGHTING means like a compact M16/M4 5.56mm rifle or a 9mm sub-machine gun WITH A LOT OF BULLETS to ward off the enemy who might want to use the downed men as "bait" to ambush rescue forces. As radical as this is, that the airdale becomes a defacto ground combatant infantryman, the escape pod could also contain inside SELF-RECOVERY MEANS. A folding mountain bike, a Fulton STAR kit or even a powered parachute or inflatable plane could be inside for the downed men to save themselves. In fact, the escape pod itself could be a SECONDARY "flying machine" by its parachute being a ram-air type and some thrust applied to extend its glide to such a degree that it might even fly all the way back to base and certainly could move to a safer spot for pick-up by CSAR forces than right over where the shoot-down took place.

Escape Pods that were actually a part of the aircraft fuselage were actually fielded in the F-111 Aardvark still in use by the Royal Australian Air Force.

However, ever since then we've defaulted to ejection seats or worse every man/woman going-down-with-the-plane without even bail-out parachutes.

Pods will indeed become necessary when we become serious about men in aerospace craft having a fighting chance of survival when they blow up or burn up as the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle tragedies show.

MILITARY TRANSPORT PLANE ESCAPE PODS: SHOW GREEDY COPORATE AIRLINES THE WAY

www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4699336&id=n7U3AAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#PPP1,M1

Airplane safety body passenger compartment

Peter Diamond

Citations

5031860

Integrated capsulized cabin for passenger aircraft

Jul 16, 1991

5297761

Multi-axis g-compensating escape cockpit capsule

Mar 29, 1994

5356097

Segmented safety aircraft

Oct 18, 1994

5921504

Aircraft passenger extraction system

Jul 13, 1999

6382563

Aircraft with severable body and independent passenger cabins

May 7, 2002

6494404

Passenger airplane container system

Dec 17, 2002

6595466

Boarding device for aircraft and flying wings equipped with such a device

Jul 22, 2003

6682017

Aircraft with a detachable passenger escape cabin and an aircraft with airbags

Jan 27, 2004

6695257

Ejection escape system for a passenger airplane

Feb 24, 2004

6761334

Aircraft passenger safety module

Jul 13, 2004

SMOKE HOODS?

The combination airbag to prevent bodily injury from impact belt offered by Goodyear Aerospace is a great idea. We need to also have an integral smoke hood so military/civilian passengers can breath long enough to escape through toxic smoke, too. They would don the belt and hood just prior to crash landing. The air bag would be deployed prior to the crash or upon impact.

The next-generation of civilian airliners/military transports should be made with SAFETY as top priority--not corporate profits...Crash-worthy Burnelli type aircraft have been available for decades----but corporate GREED and politics have continued to send thousands of people to their deaths!

Full solution is Burnell-type airplanes with fuselage as lifting body so structure is stronger and contributes lift for lower wing loading and slower take-off and landing speeds....

However until we can get Burnelli airliners flying sit as far to the rear of the plane as possible! The following is proof that in a conventional tubular fuselage and wing aircraft the safest place is as close to the TAIL as possible!

Russian Plane Crash Kills 14

ATTACK HELICOPTER EJECTION SEATS? TOO HARD? THE RUSSIANS CAN DO IT. HOW ABOUT ESCAPE PODS THEN?

In war, planes get shot at, hit and as they crumble the crew must be able to escape if they are to survive. If too many Americans die in a war, you can hang it up, America will cut her losses and run. So we had better stop living in denial, find ways to fight wars and bring our men back alive while we defeat the enemy.

The Russian KA-50 Black Shark (NATO code name: Hokum A -single seat, Hokum B -2 seat) already has helicopter ejection seats. We were the first to create them with the Sikorsky S-72 experimental helicopter, but like typical Americans we were lazy and contined with the status quo and a steady stream of dead aviators. We have no excuse.

"The Ka-50 is the world's first operational helicopter with a rescue ejection system, which allows pilot to escape at all altitudes and speeds. The K-37-800 Rocket Assisted Ejection System is manufactured by the Zvezda Research and Production Enterprise Joint Stock Company in the Moscow Region. The seat operates by pulling the pilot from the helicopter cabin using a solid-propellant rocket motor. The system comprises the seat, a control unit and a pullout rocket motor. The seat is fitted with a survival pack containing an NAZ-7M survival kit, a life raft and a PS-37A parachute system. The seat provides safe forced emergency escape from helicopters in the speed range 0 to 350 km/hour and at altitude 0 to 6,000 metres. The seat also provides safe ejection during inverted flight (at speeds 0 to 330 km/h with zero vertical velocity) at a minimum altitude of 90 metres."

Buy these seats from them and fit into our AH-64D Apaches, OH-58D Kiowa Warriors and RAH-66 Comanches.

ITS NOT TOO LATE FOR THE U.S Army! Curse of the Helicopter Shoot-Down: durability, survivability, and viability of helicopters now in question

"I am a dual-rated (fixed and rotary-wing aviator with a combat tour). I lost one of my flight school buddies over Laos when he was flying his H-53 Jolly Green Giant. He was air-to-air refueling at 8,000 feet when his main rotor blades contacted the refueling boom off the HC-130 and he lost his blades at 8 grand. That a long way to fall and a long time to think about it. Put yourself in his shoes. I think I'd prefer the option of having a chute on top, just in case."

--Former U.S. Army combat pilot

As long as M1 Abrams heavy tanks and Apache helicopter fighter-bombers did not get destroyed their durability was not questioned. However, even if they are destroyed, as long as their crewmen are unharmed, their survivability is still intact. So far this has what has happened in Iraq until last week. For over a year, M1s and AH-64s have been shot up and the latter even shot down but all of their crewmen have walked away unharmed except in one instance where a large landmine killed a couple tankers. However, an AH-64 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile 3 miles west of Baghdad International Airport, killing both crewmen and bursting the Apache's invincibility "bubble". Now the DoD Luddite doomsayers will pile on saying we shouldn't have either tanks or helicopters because they are not 100% invincible; and absurdly we would be better off walking despite today, months later 1, 700+ dead and 20,000 wounded human bodies ruined mostly when inside far worse Humvee/Stryker truck platforms or on foot. The viability of helicopters on the modern, non-linear battlefield (NLB) is again in question.

It's our own fault: no crew escape is a set-up for failure

However, the reason the combat helicopter fighter-bomber (but not fixed-wing jets) is in jeopardy in the minds of many defense analysts is the fault of both Army/marine attack helicopter communities for failing to provide crew escape capabilities to eliminate the human tragedy of being shot down. Our own hubris to thumb our nose at fate is the cause. Aircraft crash EVEN WHEN NO ONE IS SHOOTING AT THEM, and thus need escape means. Without crew escape, when a helicopter gets shot down, the crew's survival hinges on living through an uncontrolled, often tumbling crash landing into the ground at 100+ mph. But its more than that, by not offering crew escape, we are making every helicopter shoot down a huge psychological media loss/defeat when getting shot down shouldn't be a big deal for attack aircraft providing Close Air Support (CAS ) if you can bail out. Consider that Hans Rudel got shot down a dozen times in his armored JU87 Stuka attack aircraft in WWII; he walked away and continued to fight again and again. Attack aircraft should be like a horse, if its shot out from under you, you get another one and get back on it again. But if we provide no crew escape, this detachment from romantic idolization of a platform being knocked down and the resultant disillusionment doesn't occur. To avoid shoot-downs in Afghanistan, the Russians flew at higher altitudes, kept moving with diving attacks and had their men wear parachutes in order to bail out. Jet fixed-wing fighter-bombers have ejection seats; if they can no longer continue flying, the crew punches out and everyone shrugs their shoulders and everything continues like normal routine. Why not for helicopter fighter-bombers?

OPTION 1: ejection seats

I bet Dr. Severin could design an AH-64 helicopter ejection seat...he already has done it for the Hokum helicopter!

Ejection Seats

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:_yQ3ojtMmzUJ:www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/eject.htm+drogue+parachute+tail+spin+recovery&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Within the last 10 years, dramatic escapes from Russian fighter aircraft have captured the attention of military pilots and aviation enthusiasts around the world. The low-altitude ejection from a MiG-29 just prior to ground impact at the 1989 Paris Air Show and a pair of miraculous escapes from two exploding MiG-29s that had collided over Fairford, England, in 1993, vividly demonstrated the potential downside of flying high-performance, military aircraft. (see videos at the top of this web page) The pilots ejected successfully thanks to the K-36D ejection seat designed and built by the Zvezda Research, Development and Production Enterprise in Russia.

The K-36D ejection seat and its associated life support equipment are designed, tested, and produced under the direction of Professor Guy Severin. Professor Severin, a member of the prestigious Russian Academy of Science, has devoted his life to developing and perfecting life-support and life-saving equipment for air and space systems. His achievements include the design of the cosmonaut seats, pressure suits, and the first extravehicular maneuvering unit for the Russian space program; aeronautical fire suppression equipment; and escape systems for fighters, bombers, VTOL aircraft, acrobatic aircraft, and the Russian Buran space shuttle.

The K-36D ejection seat provides directional stability and crew protection features that significantly reduce the risk of injury during ejection, especially at the higher speeds associated with fighter aircraft operations in wartime. Successful K-36D operational ejections have occurred at speeds of 729 KEAS and Mach 2.6.

The aerodynamic forces encountered at high speeds can cause severe neck, spine, and limb injuries. Our experience with Western ejection seats, which are aerodynamically unstable and have little or no limb restraint, indicates that the risk of major injury rises exponentially from about 350 KEAS to a high probability of fatal injury near the seat's structural limit, usually about 600 KEAS. The fact that the aerodynamic forces increase as the square of the velocity has made even incremental improvement of the performance envelope very difficult. Consequently, having an opportunity to test and evaluate an ejection seat with an envelope that Professor Severin claimed provides safe escape up to 755 KEAS, was one we couldn't pass up.

Engineers and scientists from the Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL) Human Effectiveness Directorate and the U.S. Navy's Air and Surface Warfare Centers first evaluated the K-36D ejection seat in 1993 as part of a foreign equipment comparative testing program sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Tests were conducted using Russian test facilities including a windblast facility, a vertical ejection tower, a rocket-propelled sled, and a MiG-25 aircraft. The K-36D seat was ejected from the rocket sled at speeds as high as 730 KEAS and from the MiG-25 at speeds up to Mach 2.5 and altitudes up to 56,000 ft. Additional tests were then conducted at the Holloman AFB NM sled track to demonstrate performance at low speed and adverse attitudes. This program, which included 17 successive, successful tests, demonstrated that the performance of the K-36D seat at these test conditions was superior to ejection seats used in U.S. aircraft.[1]

A number of features are responsible for the superior performance of the Russian seat. During ejection, telescoping booms are deployed from the seat to stabilize the attitude of the seat from the time it leaves the aircraft until the seat and its occupant decelerate to the speed where the recovery parachute is deployed and the occupant is separated from the seat. The K-36D seat also deploys a windblast deflector during ejections at airspeeds in excess of 430 KEAS. The windblast deflector improves the airflow around the seat and contributes to windblast protection. Leg lifting devices and arm and leg restraints are provided to prevent limb flail injuries due to windblast forces. The limb restraints do not require the crew to hook up as they enter the aircraft and do not restrict limb movement during normal flight operations.

The successful results of the comparative-testing program led to a decision to adapt this technology in the development of an ejection seat suitable for use in American aircraft. AFRL contracted with Boeing North American (BNA) and their subcontractor Zvezda to engage in an advanced development effort to demonstrate a seat design that will meet U.S. performance requirements. These requirements include: reducing the seat weight by more than 50 lb, accommodating a larger range of occupant weights and sizes, improving the performance of the seat under adverse attitudes with high descent rates, integrating U.S. life support equipment, reducing life-cycle costs, and improving seat producibility and maintainability. The seat that has been developed to demonstrate the feasibility of meeting these requirements uses many of the operationally proven components of the K-36D seat including the stabilization booms, windblast flow deflector, and arm and leg restraints. The seat structure has been redesigned to reduce weight, increase the vertical adjustment range, and provide fore-aft tilt of the seat back. The headrest/parachute container is smaller to improve the occupant's ability to "check six." The ejection catapult and rocket have been redesigned to control the seat acceleration for a wider range of occupant weights and sizes. Zvezda is meeting the challenge of providing improved performance for ejections from adverse attitudes with high descent rates by incorporating an electronic control system and a set of small, roll attitude control rockets. The control system uses data received from the aircraft to establish the best seat operating parameters for safe crew recovery.

Zvezda was very proactive in their efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of the new seat design. They have developed a rocket-propelled sled with an aircraft forebody that can rapidly roll during the ejection. This facility is similar to the sled and forebody that will be used to test the seat at Holloman AFB later this year. Zvezda has also developed a flying testbed to evaluate the performance of the seat at adverse roll attitudes. The testbed consists of a cockpit mounted on the tail of an An-12 transport. The cockpit can be rotated to specific roll angles prior to the ejection. At the time that this article was written, Zvezda had completed 21 successful tests using these facilities as well as the MiG-25 test aircraft used in the earlier comparative-testing program.

Combining Russia's uniquely capable K-36D ejection seat and escape system design expertise with advanced U.S. pyrotechnics, improved life support equipment, and electronic controls technologies offers the opportunity to provide US aircrews an affordable seat with unparalleled safe escape capability.

So all we need here is a little HUMILITY and hire Zvezda to design ejection seats for the AH-64.

OPTION 2: crew escape modules

The first Pierce Brosnan 007 movie, Goldeneye stunk because without James Bond music it doesn't feel like a James Bond movie. However, it has one redeeming feature; a scene where they eject from an Eurotiger attack helicopter using a crew escape pod after jettisoning their main rotors.

We propose we do not have to jettison the main rotors but instead eject the crew capsule FORWARD by rockets at a much higher speed than the helicopter's 150 mph to clear the main rotors and then deploy a parachute to descend the crew to the ground safely. The entire front crew compartment of the AH-64 should be on rails and would blast down them when eject sequence is triggered. We could design a rocket/rescue pod for attack helicopters that can jettison its tubes, leaving just the outer shell which could be designed to carry a single downed aircrewman. McDonnell-Douglas before it was digested by Boeing was designing a GRIER (GRound Insertion Extraction Resupply) pod for the AV-8B Harrier II to use its V/TOL capabilities to insert/extract SOF members, as described before. Or we could do it right and design personnel recovery space into the aircraft like the Russians do.

OPTION 3: Recovery Parachutes

Right now light airplanes are being saved from crashing thanks to BRS's recovery parachutes (RPs). Why not helicopters?

A RP would work on the top of a helicopter rotor mast if it was rocket propelled vertically and deployed away from the main rotors or in the tail to deploy aft of tail rotors (NOTAR would be ideal). A small inflation of helium into the parachute top to insure that the parachute stays above any main rotors below. If we use a tail-rotor RP, we should deploy an air bag on the nose so when it land it pushes over the tail so it rests upright for faster crew egress. If the helo is on fire, the RP can suspend the fuselage long enough for the crew to bail out if there is enough altitude.

1st TSG (A) EXCLUSIVE!

Chopper pilots hold on, we know about auto-rotation as essentially a rotary-wing parachute. However, what if the rotors and/or controls are ruined so you cannot autorotate?

We are putting the entire viability of attack helicopters in question by not offering crew escape. By insisting helicopter crews "go down with their ship" we are narrowly condemning the entire viability of helicopters to go down with it.

However, U.S. Army Aviation is so screwed up it will not even paint its helicopters in the proper sky gray or light tan to blend in with the skies over desert Iraq or simply stop hovering so damn much presenting a stationary target for enemy gunners! You don't see sky-blue USMC AH-1W SuperCobra and UH-1N Huey helicopters circling over Fallujah getting shot down, and they are not even armored. If Army aviators do not even have this much of survival instinct, its questionable that the hubris-filled Army Aviation branch bureaucracy will stop wasting millions of technotoy electronic mental gadgets and put the dollars in needed to field physical things like a crew escape system and the Piasecki ring-tail compound configuration to fly faster at 200+ mph and farther so we lessen the risks of getting shot down in the first place. Army senior officers are not dying and getting maimed in Iraq, nor are their sons and daughters. However, if they do not wake up and start keeping faith with the brave men/women who ARE in physical danger and start improving their physical protection means, they run the risk of losing their entire "empire" as troops vote with their feet (do not re-enlist or youth even join in the first place). They will end up playting golf in retirement with their general officer buddies reminiscing about the "good 'ole days" when we actually had aircraft in the Army before we became a bunch of pussies driving around in wheeled trucks connected by computers asking the current generation of tactically-inept egomaniacs, "mother may I" and providing a constant stream of feel-good, lying situation reports to make middle-aged men think they are "trigger pullers" when they are not. If they want to be viewed as Rommels and Pattons they can get off their asses and start leading from the front by finding out from the men themselves what's going on away from their lying yes-man staffs and stop wasting MILLIONS on electronic command posts far to the rear where the action is. If helicopters are marginalized as preventable losses mount, all it will take will be rising maintenance costs coupled with replacement platform failures (V-22) and death spiral costs to kill helicopter aviation completely. We will simply be unable to afford to "do" combat helicopters, once the current generation of helicopters are life extended for the last time and no replacement models are in production to reconstitute the force. The 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Division is already slated by HQDA bean counters to lose a huge chunk of its lift assets and will no longer be able to do brigade-at-a-time 3D maneuvers.

Its time we add a crew escape capability to our helicopters starting with RPs on our small OH-58D and LHX successor scout observation/attack helicopters. R & D for a larger RP or crew escape modules should be done for larger UH-60 and AH-64 helicopters. Everyone that boards a CH-47 Chinook should have a bail out parachute.

BRS

John Gilmore
BRS Inc.
300 Airport Road
So. St. Paul MN 55075
(651) 457-7491

Flight School XXI: Narcissistic U.S. Army playing mental video games out of touch with physical realities as its helicopters get shot down in combat

The appeal of being a pilot in the U.S. military is primarily the ego and the cultural narcissism of "proving your manhood"--this cannot be denied. It should be the adventure of flying not "I-am-better-than-you". The "flight suit mentality" is so strong that in the 101st Air Assault Division when aircrews were ordered to wear Nomex BDUs there was almost a fashion revolt. You can say this is a minor issue and "let the boys have their toys if it makes them happy" etc. they are risking their lives, they deserve it etc. However, this unchecked mentality has disastrous consequences when it results in a disconnect from physical reality.

When military aviation is used as a constant prop for a weak ego, reality is distorted into an "its all on you" mentality. When aircraft crash its always "pilot error". The pilot(s) usually dead are not there to defend themselves and their actions. Whenever anything goes wrong its YOUR FAULT, you are feces, you were not good enough etc. ad nauseum. This is simply a childish and dangerous lie. Pilot error even in this "blame-the-dead-man-first-see?-I-am-alive-I-am-better-than-him" environment constitutes only 46% of the cause of all accidents.

Considered the greatest pilot to ever live, Chuck Yeager was shot down in WW2.

Read and reread the true statement above a dozen times or as many times as necessary.

Not only that, Chuck Yeager ejected from an out-of-control NF-104 Starfighter jet.

Read and re-read that a dozen times.

When aircraft crash they DO NOT just crash due to pilot error. They crash due to either Pilot, Engine or Airframe (PEA) factors. These factors can be brought on by the earth itself or other humans (combat). Duhh.

You can say you agree with PEA covering all aspects of aviation but if you do not also reject the pilot existentialist narcissism you will get what we have today in the U.S. Army: "Flight School XXI"; where the majority of Army Aviation's budget is spent on "P" pilot training while "E" and "A" are neglected.

In feel-good pilot narcissism and RMA technohubris, Flight School XXI simulations boast that they will make pilots combat ready when they leave and start flying real helicopters. Problem is helicopters are constantly getting shot down in Iraq/Afghanistan because simulators to improve pilot skills are NOT a panacea to cure everything when it only assists in one small part of the problem. However, if you are self and egocentric you will not see this.

Is it wise to spend $2 BILLION on flight simulators and ZERO on:

a. Aircraft camouflage so they cannot be seen/hit by enemy fire (why are we still flying dark green helicopters over desert brown Iraq/Afghanistan in the blue sky? Is it a wonder we are so easy to shoot down? The other services have their aircraft painted in sky gray. What are we waiting for? Is paint that expensive?

b. Aircrew escape systems so if they are hit they can survive

c. Making helicopters fly faster/farther/higher so they are less likely to get shot down

d. Rapidly creating landing areas free of sand/dirt/dust brown out risks

Now back to Yeager, he was shot down in WW2 by anti-aircraft fire that his great flying skill could not avoid; you flood an airspace with fragments and cannot fly around it its a matter of chance before you are hit. The weakness of his essentially unarmored and fragile liquid-cooled engine P-51 Mustang is what resulted in him having to bail out. Engine and Airframe.

Notice he bailed out. At least he could, in an U.S. Army helicopter right now you cannot. Years later, when his NF-104 was in an unrecoverable spin, he pulled an ejection handle and was saved from a fiery death crash. The PEA equation to create human flight needs a humility component that translates the kinetic energy of an adverse flying situation into a life-saving escape or recovery option (R). PEA needs to be replaced with PEA-R. Autorotation would be a part of PEA and often cannot be done. R must be a recovery option independent of PEA. This is stupid. However, right now in Army Aviation, there is no "R" in event of PEA failure, you CRASH. Its ridiculous. Its egomania at its worse. You could say, "the egotistical helicopter pilots get what they deserve" (cause---->effect). "They want to spend their money on themselves doing video games instead of facing real world PHYSICAL problems, they dug their grave, now lie in it."

We disagree, we say that this atrocious misuse of Army funds stems from anxiety-riddled senior Army officers who want to further their careers and have spent years of their life inwardly focused on minor procedural BS and pleasing the boss than admitting to outward physical realities head-on, telling the boss things are fu*ked up and then offering answers that will entail risk, courage, imagination, breaking new ground. So yes, rather than develop helicopter recovery parachutes or ejection seats Army aviation brass will spend all their money on exotic video games to feed the culture of individual human ego (P) while the rest of aviation reality, E, A and R are ignored.

I'm not against what Flight School XXI can do to improve pilot skills. I am against Flight School XXI taking up 99% of Army Aviation's budget and being seen as some kind of panacea and little funds being allocated to E and A and ZERO energies being spent on R.

One of the best places for an escape pod of the aircraft nose separating from the rest of the fuselage would be in HELICOPTERS where getting away from the main rotors would be facilitated. The Navy funded tests in the 1960s proving helicopter escape pods yet decades later we don't have them and our men are dying needlessly in crashes and shoot-downs.

RESCUE

MID-AIR RECOVERY OF PILOTS UNDER CANOPY? OR ROTORS?

Bosnia. 20,000 feet. A SAM forces CPT Scott O'Grady to eject from his burning F-16 Fighting Falcon. He describes his descent:

"I came down from a pretty high altitude....We've roughly estimated that it took about twenty-five minutes from the time I ejected for me to hit solid ground. It was a long, long ride. It lasted forever. Forever. I was thinking, 'Geez, lets get this done', because it was really windy. I knew that sooner or later I had to hit the ground and start that episode of being in a hostile territory, trying to survive and evade, and hopefully get rescued."

--from Good to Go by Mary Pat Kelly, page 4

Most are unaware that the Desert Storm air campaign was fought at MEDIUM altitudes to evade small arms, light auto-cannon and shoulder fired SAM ADA systems. An aircraft hit at medium altitude (above 5,000 feet) that results in the pilot ejecting will have him descending under canopy at 15 feet per second for 5 minutes or more---plenty of time for the enemy to see him and marshal ground search teams to capture him--or for us to fly in and "snatch" him.

Reading USAF Colonel Jack Broughton's book, Thud Ridge about flying F-105 Thunderchiefs "Downtown" during the Vietnam war, you cannot help but to see his point that many died needlessly after being shot down and all we could do was helplessly watch their parachutes descend to the ground and enemy capture, murder or years of torture in their pow camps. While many were saved by extremely courageous ground pick-ups by USAF helicopters and A-1 Skyraider pilots, many died "So that others may live". The large, daylight rescue of Cpt. Scott O'Grady in war-torn Bosnia was one missile away from disaster, as the single-ship infiltration at night is realistically the only way we can recover men on the ground on the sensor and weapons swept battlefields of the 21st Century. We were very blessed that the Bosnian Serbs couldn't locate O'Grady thanks to his long drift time under canopy and his SERE school-learned evasiveness to use him as "bait" to lure in and ambush rescue forces as the Vietnamese often did.

One of the insights of Col. Broughton's book was that there should be some way to "snatch" these pilots while they are descending under parachutes before they reach the ground in the first place.

For years, before spy satellite photos were sent by digital link to the ground, actual film capsules were ejected from space and as they floated under a parachute a C-130 Hercules transport flew along and "snatched" the film capsule. We even recently snagged a returning satellite data capsule using a helicopter.

We also launched FireBee drones (UAVs) from DC-130s and recovered them from mid-air by helicopter

The question is why not have a very agile AFSOC "MC-22" 0r "AV-22" Pave Low IV tilt-rotor aircraft accompany AF strike missions for the sole purpose of swooping in and "snatching" the downed pilot's parachute and reeling him in BEFORE he reaches the ground?

In the late 1970s/80s BioTechnology in Virginia researched such techniques and found them feasible. Pioneer Aerospace actually conducted tests. We should perfect a mid-air recovery system today before there is another "O'Grady" or Desert Storm Air Campaign.

The ideal aircraft for MARS would be one that can slow to a hover to match up with a descending parachute or once snatched can land slowly by a hover with the aircrewman if for some reason he couldn't be reeled in. This aircraft would have a Pararescueman (PJ) with medical skills onboard to "reel him in" like on the MC-130 Combat Talon Is with Fulton STAR systems. Lastly, this aircraft should be a jet capable of high subsonic speed to fly as part of a jet strike package to be there if an attack jet pilot gets shot down for MARS retrieval.

The problem is no current aircraft in the world fits this without modification. The MV-22 "Osprey" is hover-capable and has a rear ramp and cargo area for a PJ and recovery but is too slow to fly along with a jet strike package, though it could fly ahead and stay on station nearby. Another problem with the V-22 is that is unsafe to fly at all...if your burnt to a crisp in a fiery crash you ain't gonna be rescuing anyone. The MC-130 flies faster--especially if a "J" model propfan equipped version were procured, has the rear ramp and the technology used to recover spy satellite film capsule parachutes already exists, though they cannot hover, thus requiring greater pilot skill. The S-3 Viking that used to be flown from Navy carriers is a jet with high subsonic speeds that could be modified to do MARS by removing its sonobuoy tubes and building an open area and rear access opening for reeling the snatched aircrewman in. The AV-8B and the future STOVL F-35 JSF can fly attack jet profiles and hover---if GRIER pods perhaps holding a PJ or reel in by remote control--and with MARS were created, they could look like all the other jets in the strike package until a pilot retrieval was needed. In fact with a GRIER MARS system ANY U.S. fighter or helicopter that can accept a bomb rack could become MARS-capable. If the pilot couldn't be reeled in for whatever the reason he would be flown to safer airspace and released with a new parachute deploying to supercede the one caught in the MARS apparatus.

NEW!!!!

F-35 JSF JPODS and C/SAR-Special Operations

BUDDYHOOK^TM: Every Fighter Plane a Rescue Plane

Fulton Surface-To-Air (STAR) SkyHook: Still a Great Idea that the current Cowardly Generation has Given up on

www.youtube.com/watch?v=PErEsNhDmo8

This is a short clip. The entire video is 30 min. For more details go to

www.militaryvideo.com/store/cfm

This video documents the use of the Fulton Recovery System by C-130 Hercules aircraft at Edwards AFB in 1966 and at Phang Rang AB in 1968.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLoz0H-44e8

During WW2, OSS agents and downed crews were behind enemy lines and far away from an open grassy field for a STOL aircraft like the Lysander or a C-47 to pick them up.

A clever way was devised to beef-up the message pick-up system to pick-up a man by a low-flying fixed-wing aircraft using a hook.

www.combatreform2.com/man_pickup_manual.pdf

Genius inventor Robert Fulton created a kit that could be dropped to the ground containing a helium tank and balloon connecting to a line and 2 jumpsuits that 2 men could wear.

OPTION: Two-at-a-Time

OPTION: Two-at-a-Time

A specially equipped aircraft with an antenna like device on the nose would fly towards the balloon and snag the line, yanking up the two men below until they trailed the aircraft horizontally and were hooked and reeled in.

We know that Fulton STAR was used in actual combat operations during Desert STORM in 1991 to rescue a seriously wounded SFOD-Delta operator deep behind enemy lines too far for helicopters, saving his life.

We also know Fulton STAR was used to do a secret CIA mission "Operation COLD FEET" to the arctic as the pictures below detail.

CRASH-LANDING: Recovery Pontoons for ditching: Can we afford to throw away $56M each naval fighters into the drink?

VIDEO CLIP: www.combatreform2.com/harriercrashesfromhoverintothewater.mpg

Let's face the truth: one of the reasons navies cannot afford aircraft carriers is because landing and taking off from ships at sea results in them crashing into the water. The Australian Navy had to go out of the aircraft carrier business years ago because they lost too many A-4 SkyHawks. Ejection seats as the video clip above demonstrates can save the aircrew from death, but if you run out of airplanes, where is your naval aviation force?

This is the exact situation that is reaching critical mass in the U.S. Navy that is running out of airplanes to fill its 12 aircraft carriers.

Its time we face the fact that at higher altitudes, when the aircrew eject, the anti-spin landing brake parachute should deploy to reduce the resultant crash severity and perhaps get some parts for salvage. But for low-altitude crashes and ditchings in the water, we need EMERGENCY INFLATABLE AIR BAG FLOATS to deploy if the aircrew ejects when coming in to land on a ship. This will enable the aircraft to crash into the water and float so it can be recovered/repaired or at the very least salvage expensive parts. If they are shaped like skis they also would provide a forward-moving, water ditching capability if the pilot chooses not to or cannot eject. Helicopters that fly over the water have emergency floats and do not incur a significant weight/drag penalty. If helicopters can do this, certainly our $56M+ naval jet fighters, and our land fighters since they fly over oceans to deploy globally. If the aircraft are over enemy held areas and the aircraft floating would result in capture, the pilot could turn the inflatable floats to OFF.

One thing is certain, if we continue with the current rising "Death Spiral" costs of aircraft, U.S. Naval Aviation is going to go out of business just like the Aussies found out years ago.

Want to Live Forever? Satisfied for Just Not Dying Today? Examples of Military Personnel Refusing to Accept Death as Lemming Victims

1968. Vietnam.

A wounded marine is dying and must be evacuated to a hospital or he will die. The weather is closing in so a MEDEVAC helicopter cannot fly to get him. An AH-1G Huey "Cobra" helicopter gunship gets the call over the radio and lands, he is placed inside the seat of the gunner, who climbs onto the stub wings and sits on the rocket pod as the helicopter speeds to the hospital. A life saved by unselfish courage.

1978. Southern Lebanon.

This same thing happens again in Israel, an Israeli Scout 'copter pilot is shot down over Lebanon. The bad guys are closing in on him. An AH-1S Cobra gunship lands and opens its side nose armament access panel, which the downed pilot sits on, and he's flown to safety before killed or captured.

2007. Afghanistan

Below is a link about a recent attempted rescue by UK marines of a colleauge by strapping themselves to Apaches - a clear example of the need for a Ground Rescue Insertion Extraction Resupply pod or something similar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6285091.stm

VIDEO:

www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_6280000/newsid_6284400?redirect=6284429.stm&news=1&bbwm=1&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1

Footage has been released of a daring rescue mission in which four Royal marines tried to save a comrade in southern Afghanistan.

The men strapped themselves to an Apache helicopter's wings to find Lance Corporal Matthew Ford who went missing in an attack on a Taleban stronghold.

L/Cpl Ford, of 45 Commando Royal Marines, had died but the men retrieved his body during last week's incident.

A UK Task Force spokesman called the mission a "leap into the unknown".

And Geoffrey Perry, the father of Chris Fraser-Perry, one of the marines involved in the rescue, said he was very proud of his son.

'Volunteers' sought

"From what I can gather, obviously they got back to the base and realised that one of the lads was missing and then they were looking for volunteers to go back," he said.

"Obviously everybody volunteered and he for some reason got chosen to go. He was strapped to the side of the helicopter. Obviously had his gun with him, he carries it at all times, and they went back in."

He believed his son was one of two marines who landed and found L/Cpl Ford's body and took it back to the helicopter.

"From what I can gather it was quite a drag; it was about 80 metres or so," he said.

"It was quite an effort for them to actually get there and do what he'd done. I'm just so proud of him really. I just can't believe it."

L/Cpl Ford was part of a 200-strong force who attacked a major Taleban fort to the south of Garmsir in Helmand province. The MoD said the Apache helicopter can only carry a pilot and a gunner but there are attachments on the wings for personnel to harness themselves to in emergencies.

The fort had been a surveillance target for more than two months.

A third Apache helicopter and other units provided covering fire, as the rescue bid got under way, the MoD said.

The helicopters landed in the fort and located L/Cpl Ford's body, which they then strapped to the Apache.

UK Task Force spokesman Lt Col Rory Bruce said: "This is believed to be the first time UK forces have ever tried this type of rescue mission," he said.

"It was an extraordinary tale of heroism and bravery of our airmen, soldiers and marines who were all prepared to put themselves back into the line of fire to rescue a fallen comrade.

"And it was with great sadness they later found their brother-in-arms had been killed in action." L/Cpl Ford, who was the eldest of three brothers, was brought up in Immingham, North East Lincolnshire.

Another application of pods is to enable aircraft without built-in volume to transport commandos or rescue people. Again the Germans came up with the idea first!

During WWII, the Germans were hard-pressed to stay moving to avoid air attacks from Soviet IL-2 Sturmoviks armored attack planes and the Red Army advancing on the ground with T-34 medium tanks.

Greg Goebbel writes:

www.vectorsite.net/avstuka.html+hs+123+armored&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Manufacturing had moved on to the "Ju-87D-3" in late 1942, with this variant featured improved armor protection to optimize for the schlacht role. It did retain the underwing dive brakes but had no bomb crutch and no sirens. Some Ju-87D-3s were converted to "Ju-87D-4" torpedo bombers, but they were not used operationally and were later converted back to Ju-87D-3 configuration. The Ju-87D-3 was used in experiments with personnel pods, with one such pod carried on the top of each wing outboard of the landing gear. Two people could ride in tandem in each pod, and in principle the pods could be released in a shallow dive, to deploy parachutes for a soft landing. The whole scheme was questionable and though the Stuka was evaluated with the pods, apparently they were never paradropped.

Emmanuel.Gustin adds:

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:XR1wv0umFksJ:users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/history/stuka.html+Ju-87D-3+people+pods&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Stuka units also often had to improvise the transport of their own supplies and ground crews. In Germany, enormous overwing pods were developed for this, which allowed the Ju 87 to carry four people. But they remained experimental, and a common solution was too load everything in a DFS 230 glider and tow it behind a Ju 87. For use during the winter, optional ski landing gear was developed, although it was not widely used because it reduced performance. The removal of wheel spats was also common.

In late 1930's a Russian biplane R-5 was modified to carry sixteen Paratroops in special compartments fitted onto the lower wing of the aircraft. Each compartment housed two combat-ready men with parachutes. R-5 was flown and performed quite well, achieving speeds of 130 km/h. Additional surfaces were fitted under the lower wing (to compensate for loss in wing's performance).

Similar modification with fewer pods were used on a R-5 that participated in rescue of the Cheluskin's crew, a steamer which got trapped in ice and sunk in 1930s. The crew of the ship (100+) got stuck on the ice in the Arctic. The R-5 was used extensively in the rescue mission and removed a major part of the expedition by air.

The British tinkered with it on their naval aircraft.

During the Korean War, small Bell 47 and Hiller Raven helicopters were able to carry wounded Soldiers to MASH hospital on covered Stokes litters--essentially "people pods"---why not a people pod that attaches to the stub wing hardpoints of an attack aircraft?

Pods on STOVL Aircraft

From Oliver/Ryan "Warplanes Of The Future"

The company formerly known as McDonnell-Douglas (swallowed by Boeing) was working on a Ground Rescue Insertion Extraction Resupply pod (GRIER) for its AV-8B Harrier II V/STOL attack jet that would carry two men inside, taking advantage of that aircraft's ability to land and take-off vertically. This pressurized pod on the outer wings like a fuel tank would allow a 4-man LRS or SF special recon team to insert under the cover as being part of an attack jet "strike package", and/or to dart in and rescue downed pilots faster and with better armament than doing a daylight "O'Grady" which was one missile from another mc Desert One-type flaming disaster.

AV-8B Harrier II with GRIER pod

This is a great idea and I hope it someday materializes perhaps on the STOVL F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).

We need to take the idea a step further and create a helicopter-capable GRIER rocket/rescue pod. This would be an un-pressurized pod that would have 2.75" Hydra-70 rocket tubes inside. Thus, a weapons station is not wasted just holding an empty pod for one-man recovery ("An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure"). If a fellow aircrew member gets shot down (he can eject now) the first comrade on the scene with a GRIER R/R pod ejects the rocket tube inserts and lands. Delay for aircrew recovery helps the enemy not the good guys. The downed aircrew (1-2) can enter one or both of the cleared pods and be flown to safety. The point of this all is that we need a Hydra-70 rocket pod that can eject its tubes and hold a man to rescue him or by design infil/exfil a LRS recon/SF guy. As said before, in the Korean War we transported casualties in pods on old Bell Model 47 helicopters--remember from the M*A*S*H TV show? What's the mental block here?

All we are doing is creating a dual-purpose pod that shoots rockets until its needed.

Such rescues have taken place in war--Major Bernard F. Fisher landed his single-seat A-1H Skyraider onto an enemy held runway in Vietnam to pick up a downed pilot and earned the Medal of Honor for it. Click here for a selection of video clips of the awesome Skyraider in action from the official Skyraider home page! German Stuka pilot Hans Rudel did the same kind of rescue in WWII. As wisdom has implied before----"A stitch in time saves nine"--an immediate recovery while the enemy is suppressed is better than waiting for the enemy to use the downed pilot as "bait" and ambush a full-blown rescue effort. The film, "Flight of the Intruder" depicts this common occurrence from the Vietnam War.

According to Tom Clancy in Armored Cav; page 275, that U.S. Army Aviators can hook up their flight vests to the skids of a OH-58D gunship (no extra seats) and be extracted out. Current U.S. Army Aviators wear the SRU-21P SARVIP vest which has a life support capable snap-link point that theoretically could be used to connect a Soldier to a helicopter for emergency pick-up. This is just like the British Soldiers who recently rode AH-64 attack helicopter stub wings to rescue a comrade in Afghanistan. Every Soldier should wear a life-support-capable "Rigger's belt" anyway. The question is: are there any points on the AH-64 Apache or the new RAH-66 for a snaplink to fit through and hold an aviator for a rescue? If not, or if the Soldier is injured, we need a GRIER rocket-rescue pod, put SARVIP vest connection lugs on the outside of the pod so the able bodied can be carried out using their vests. This way each pod could carry an injured Soldier and up to 2 others.

It seems entirely reasonable and desirable that at least one U.S. Army helicopter in every attack flight be equipped with a GRIER R/R pod. The gunner on that helicopter should have a pair of SKEDCO rolled up extraction litters and a M3 aid bag with IVs etc. in the space under the rocket tubes/pod, and have Combat LifeSaver (CLS) training. Upon landing, he could stabilize the wounded aircrew if needed, and if necessary drag them back to the helo pod using the SKEDCO. This is "down and dirty" and he has to be a real "stud", but there is also no reason why a SF 18D medic couldn't be onboard an armed Blackhawk AH-60L Direct Action Penetrator if it were a 160th SOAR mission or USAF Pararescueman (PJ) in a MH-60G Pave Hawk helicopter in a joint mission to give a hand rescuing wounded aircrews. For most cases, the GRIER R/R pod "snatch" would be for an able bodied aircrew calling in for a quick pick-up.

Another purpose for GRIER pods would be the delivery of small "All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) under the ESSS wings of the UH-60 Blackhawk so they do not have to be "sling-loaded. A sling load has to be flown gingerly to prevent oscillating. ATVs carried snug up against ESSS wings in roll-on/off pods would be more streamlined and allow the pilits to fly aggressive nap-of-the-earth flight profiles over enemy held territory. This would create an AIRmotorized "Dragoon" capability for U.S. Army Strike forces.

I'm not sure where our GRIER AV-8B 2-man pods R&D stands with Boeing gobbling up McD-D..the Brits are pursuing a 1 man pods concept...with parachute delivery, too. On a Harrier the noise intensity would have been a challenge. The Pegasus engine gives of 165-170dB close up. Above 140dB nausea can be overwhelming. Above 160dB human hair can combust!

www.flightglobal.com/articles/1998/09/23/43106/uk-test-fits-avpro-exint-pod-on-harrier.html

UK test fits Avpro Exint pod on Harrier

The UK Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has test fitted the Avpro Exint pod on a British Aerospace Sea Harrier F/A2 at the company's Boscombe Down facility. The system, designed for combat search and rescue and special forces insertion, will be flown later this year following interest from the UK Ministry of Defence.

www.flightglobal.com/articles/2000/01/25/61133/exint-cleared-for-ah-64-as-production-starts.html

Exint cleared for AH-64 as production starts

UK advanced design firm Avpro has cleared its Exint transport pod for use with the Boeing AH-64 Apache. Certification to carry personnel is required. The pylon-mounted Exint is designed for combat search and rescue and special forces insertion.

Avpro director Mike Ryan says that 17 countries have expressed an interest in Exint - which has also been fit-checked on the British Aerospace Harrier - and that one is close to placing an order. The US marine corps and special forces are interested parties, says Ryan.

In the special forces insertion role, an AH-64 can carry four pods, which in turn can carry 226kg (500lb) each. Hunting will build the predominately composite structure and is embarking on a 50-unit initial production batch. The first pod is due for completion in April. Ryan predicts that the market could be worth £800 million ($1.3 billion).

Avpro is to issue shares in the Exint to fund remaining certification work. Ryan says the Exint is compatible with other attack helicopters such as Bell AH-1Cobras, Denel Rooivalks and Eurocopter Tigers.

Ryan declines to name the first customer, but it is believed to be Israel, which has a long history of using its attack helicopters to rescue downed pilots, usually lifting them out on the skids of its AH-1s. It requires a similar capability for its Apaches.

www.avpro.co.uk/Exint.html

Emotive pictures of captured aircrew during the Gulf War have generated a political as well as a military need to rescue downed aircrew.

Avpro, in conjunction with Hunting Engineering and the Defence Evaluation Research Agency (DERA), completed a feasibility study into a pod known as EXINT (extraction/insertion), which can recover aircrew in a rapid manner.

EXINT is a pod primarily designed to provide recovery of downed aircrew, but could also be used for other missions such as the insertion of special forces in out-of-area operations.

EXINT exploits the unique vertical take-off and landing capability of the Harrier, but will also be suitable for use on other aircraft and helicopters such as the UK WAH-64D Apache Longbow attack Helicopter, without any structural modifications to them. The feasibility addressed not only the pod design but also the Aero Medical operational and environmental aspects of recovery/insertion missions.

AVPRO Limited
PO BOX 9128 ACTON London W3 6GE UK
TEL 44 (0) 207 495 6565
FAX 44 (0) 207 394 5349

Email: mikeryan@avpro.co.uk

Farnborough Office

Avpro Limited
Farnborough Innovation Centre
Northgate Road
Farnborough, Hampshire, GU14 6TW

Tel: +44 (0)1252 550040
Fax: +44 (0)1252 550101

U.S. Office

AVPRO Aerospace Inc.
PO Box 15680
Long Beach
CA 90815 USA

Tel: +1 (562) 420-7488
Fax: +1 (562) 420-7644

Email: avproaerospace@mindspring.com

EXINT Pod Equipment

Parachute retarder system
Air Bag landing system
Global Positioning System
Radio
Air conditioning
NBC filtration system
Multi function display panel

EXINT is a one-man pod of some 4 metres in length and is fitted with internal equipment such as radio and air conditioning systems. An equipment bay also allows small arms and other personal equipment to be carried. A state-of-the art parachute and airbag system, developed from the Mars Lander Space Craft programme will allow the pod to make a soft landing should it be released from the aircraft in an emergency situation.

In today's uncertain world, there are few items of cost-effective equipment that can offer the world's armed forces, the multi-role versatility, and flexibility of EXINT.

http://ebird.dtic.mil/Oct1998/s19981028pods.htm

London Sunday Times
October 25, 1998

Attack Pods Drop In On The Enemy: High-tech capsules could parachute Soldiers into action on clandestine missions or be used to rescue downed pilots.

Report by Mark Prigg

Parachute pods that turn into stealth boats could soon be used to deliver troops to attack enemy warships.

Each pod contains one Soldier, his equipment and breathing system. The pods can be attached to the side of Harrier jump jets, Apache attack helicopters or other military craft.

Once released at a high altitude to avoid the aircraft being spotted, the Soldier in the pod will release a steerable parachute and float down.

Mike Ryan, a director of Avpro, the company developing the pods, says: "Because the pod has its own oxy-en, we can drop it from altitudes of more than 20,000ft. Opening the parachute at this height means descent can take up to five hours, giving the Soldiers time to survey the area."

The pods have a GPS system that allows them to be guided with great precision. All the Soldier has to do is put the map co-ordinates of his destination into the pod's computer and it will do the rest. The system is accurate to within a metre, and the Soldier can take control at any time to change course.

Once the pod nears water, a proximity sensor inflates six airbags, which help the pod land safely and quietly on the water where the airbags form a protective skirt, giving, the pod extra stability. It can than be moved up to 50 miles by a propeller driven by a tiny electric motor.

Ryan says: "The pod isn't very fist, but it is completely silent. If this is used at night, there is no way anyone will see or hear you."

Windows on either side of the unit allow the Soldier to see out, and the pod's computer allows the Soldier to stay in radio contact with his superiors. The screen in front of the Soldier can also be linked to an aircraft's navigation system, so the Soldier can see exactly where he is while still attached to the plane.

"There is a small camera that helps alleviate claustrophobia by showing images from outside. There are also a number of other cameras and sensors that can be attached on the outside of the pod for surveillance operations," says Ryan. He is also working on another version of the pod for picking up downed airmen. Attached to a Harrier jump jet, the pod would allow the craft to land quickly, the airman to climb into the pod, and the craft to take off almost instantly.

"We saw in the Gulf war how difficult it was to locate and rescue downed airmen, so we came up with the pod idea. After all, the last turns, you expect in a war zone is a supersonic plane to come in, stop dead and hover before touching down to pick someone up."

Ryan's work has been sponsored by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), which has helped to prove the concept.

"Thanks to DERA we have been able to prove that the system will work. We now have a prototype pod attached to a Harrier which we will use for flight tests later this year," he says. "The airbag and parachute system has already been extensively tested. It is the same design used on the Mars Pathfinder mission, so we know it holds up to extreme conditions well."

Dera has also carried out tests to make Sure humans can survive journeys in the pods.

"We were worried about the safety aspect - being in one of these pods is quite a ride. We've actually been approached by an amusement company to sell rides in these things when they are strapped to a jet fighter. However, I don't think we will be working with them just yet - I certainly won't be volunteering to be their first passenger," says Ryan.

Once in production, each pod should cost about 100,000. Ryan believes that for special-forces operations this is cheap.

"This isn't something that will be used every day, and when you consider that the cost of training a fighter pilot is about 3.7m, then paying, 100,000 for something to get him back intact isn't such a bad deal."

According to Ryan, the problem now is finding funding to complete development of the pod.

"If we had an unlimited supply of money, we could have this thing in operation within six months. However, that is unrealistic and because of the way the funding process works in Britain, we think it will take about two years before we go into production. There has been a lot of interest from abroad, particularly from Japan and America, so we may be able to get extra funding there."

The Japanese authorities have expressed an interest in adopting the system for both military and civilian uses.

"At things like a road-traffic accident the pods are very useful. Not only can we ferry the injured out, we can also take in supplies and doctors. We are even looking at the possibility of having a special pod that contains an entire operating theatre that could fold out," says Ryan.

10/28/98 7:39 AM

USSOCOM CSAR AIRCRAFT ON NAVY AMPHIB SHIPS?

Shot out of his F-16 by a Serbian missile, USAF Captain Scott O'Grady is blown by the winds for 25 minutes under his parachute and begins praying. Upon landing and evading searchers who walke