Collins wins USAF Ejector seat contest

[ORAC]

Not saying nothing.......

http://aviationweek.com/defense/week-defense-oct-10-16-2019

Collins Aerospace Wins U.S. Air Force Ejection Seat Contest

Collins Aerospace has been selected to deliver up to 3,018 ACES 5 ejection seats over the next decade to replace the escape systems in five different combat aircraft fleets, the U.S. Air Force announced Oct. 2. The selection for the Next-Generation Ejection Seat (NGES) program eliminates UK-based ejection seat specialist Martin-Baker for a potential competitive bid to the ACES 5 and consolidates Collins as the Air Force’s ejection seat supplier for the A-10, F-15 (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=1098&pgName=Boeing+F-15), F-16, F-22 (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=612&pgName=Lockheed+Martin+F-22) and B-1, which all use the ACES 2 ejection seat.

Boeing also separately selected the ACES 5 for the Air Force’s new T-7A trainer. Martin-Baker will continue supplying US16 ejection seats for the Air Force’s F-35A (http://awin.aviationweek.com/ProgramProfileDetails.aspx?pgId=613&pgName=Lockheed+Martin+F-35+JSF) fleet.

The Air Force decided to nix a possible competition after determining it would take Martin-Baker another 26 months to develop and qualify an ejection seat that meets a set of newly adopted standards codified under MIL-HDBK-516C airworthiness guidelines, the Air Force says in a 12-page justification and approval document for the sole-source procurement decision.......

Collins got a head start on the new Air Force guidelines with the Safety and Sustainability Improvement Program (SSIP), which upgraded the B-2A ACES 2 ejection seats with new components. That experience meant that Collins would be required to perform only eight sled tests to qualify the ACES 5 ejection seat, the Air Force document says. The Martin-Baker alternative would require 14 additional sled tests staged over a 14-month period, along with a 12-month period for development work, the Air Force says.

The Air Force requirements also focused on minimizing sustainment costs. An ejection seat includes a cartridge- or propellant-actuated device, which requires significant infrastructure to maintain. Judging that it would cost an extra $1.5 billion over the 40-year life of an ejection seat to sustain a different device, the Air Force required the NGES supplier to use the same cartridge- or propellant-based systems used by the existing ACES 2 seat. That specification offered a clear advantage to Collins.

[Easy Street]

Americans often criticise Europeans for the financial subsidies available to Airbus. Whereas there’s no subsidy for US industry through procurement, no sir-ee. Nothing to see here.

[KelvinD]

It is interesting to note (or perhaps infer) from the Air Force notes that they probably have a better handle on ejector seat design and production than the company that invented them!
I once had some experience with Rockwell Collins (today's Collins Aerospace) when working with BA/Lockheed Aircraft in the 1970s. We were testing a new 10KW HF radio transmitter system Collins had designed and were building for installation in Saudi Arabia. I and one of the Collins field support staff were puzzled by certain failures and eventually found that a circuit board in one of the black boxes (they literally were black boxes!) had a signal output to another black box left the first box on Plug A, pin 1 and the receiving black box was expecting the input signal on Socket B, pin 2! When we called the design team's attention to this, they were obviously embarrassed and tried to pass it off with an excuse of "Aah. Well Team A worked on that box and Team B worked on the other box but it seems there was no Team working on testing them together". Let's see if that mentality has been fixed in the intervening 41 years!

[tucumseh]

It is interesting to note (or perhaps infer) from the Air Force notes that they probably have a better handle on ejector seat design and production than the company that invented them!

I'm not sure that's what it's saying. I read it as Collins being the preferred bidder (protectionism), so were made privy to the detailed requirement long before anyone else. MoD does this frequently, often as a result of lobbying by a local MP who happens to be a defence minister. But it has also been known to do the dirty on UK companies, on one notorious occasion making made sure a French company had a 3 year jump when bidding for a new radio design. It is quite common to issue an Invitation to Tender, and supply the answer to the favoured company. Another tactic is to say the testing can only be done one seat/radio/whatever at a time, and the favoured bidder is first in line. Then, when they are done, award the contract on the grounds that only their kit is mature enough. It is seldom a level playing field and Martin-Baker aren't the first to be shafted. The chances are their product is more advanced than Collins'. But I agree with your assessment of them. After all, only a sadist could design the ****** RF Translator in the 618T HF.

[etudiant]

Americans often criticise Europeans for the financial subsidies available to Airbus. Whereas there’s no subsidy for US industry through procurement, no sir-ee. Nothing to see here.
Another example, the current US Army competition for the Bradley AFV replacement, where the European competitor was just disqualified because it was not present on time in the US.
The reason for this was government paperwork, leaving GD as the sole competitor.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/10/04/lynx-41-disqualified-from-bradley-replacement-competition/

[Martin the Martian]

Well, I guess it saves all the bother of selecting a European contractor, then either making them jump through hoops to redesign their perfectly adequate product or letting there be so much political hoo-ha until they are deselected and a US contractor is chosen in a rerun.

[OK465]

I flew 5800 hours in fighters on 'rocket' seats (plus another 2800 in the Tweet, with cartridge ejection seat) and only used one of the damn things once....an apparently second rate American made product that worked just well enough so I could go on to have the privilege of flying on a MB seat....which I never used.

So I can't really comment on which is better.

[etudiant]

I flew 5800 hours in fighters on 'rocket' seats (plus another 2800 in the Tweet, with cartridge ejection seat) and only used one of the damn things once....an apparently second rate American made product that worked just well enough so I could go on to have the privilege of flying on a MB seat....which I never used.

So I can't really comment on which is better.

If memory serves, the Russian ejection seat has proven itself to be outstanding, performing impeccably in front of a global aviation audience. Perhaps it was not considered for non technical reasons.

[OK465]

The Russian seats evidently are outstanding....but I'm not sure the amount of usage on the global aviation stage is necessarily a sought after endorsement. :}

[etudiant]

The Russian seats evidently are outstanding....but I'm not sure the amount of usage on the global aviation stage is necessarily a sought after endorsement. :}

Depends on where you sit, I guess.

[OK465]

Depends on where you sit, I guess.

Very true.

And in fact the MB seat was not the least comfortable of the ones I sat on, just the most annoying strap-in if the leg restraints were not left in an orderly fashion by the previous driver (sometimes yourself) or set so by the crew chief....comfort and convenience obviously not being the functional priority.

Escapac in the A-7 was narrow and confining and generally the most uncomfortable and unfortunately was in the aircraft with best internal endurance. However, ACES in the F-16 was easily the most comfortable as one would expect. Who knows what USAF/Collins will come up with as functional improvements. Nice to have an established reputation like MB, but time marches on.

Of course having to carry one's chute to/from and up/down the ladder of the older machines, T-33 (truly annoying seat pack), F-100, F-105, etc. lended itself to one's keeping in shape. :)

[TBM-Legend]

Well I guess second prize for the Poms was the M-B selection of their seat for the thousands of F-35's vs 700+ for the T-7...

Suggesting that M-B was screwed on this is like saying that the new P-8's and E-7's should have RR donks!

[ORAC]

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=t-7a+election+seat&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari

Production of Air Force’s next-gen training jet delayed to 2024

Design and testing hiccups on the Air Force’s new T-7A Red Hawk training jet, in development at Boeing, have pushed aircraft production into 2024, Air Force Times has learned.

Setbacks have dulled the shine of a program hailed as a major step forward in the adoption of faster, digital-first aircraft design. It also pressures the Air Force to maintain its aging T-38 Talon fleet longer than expected until a replacement is ready.….

At issue are the emergency egress systems, including ejection seats, and flight control software, Boeing and Air Force officials said.

It’s not your standard ejection system: In 2020, the Air Force mandated that companies must design future aircraft to fit a wider range of recruitable Americans, rather than past standards based on a 1967 survey of male pilots that considered their standing and sitting heights and reach.

That led the Air Force to bar more than 40% of women — particularly women of color — from becoming pilots without a waiver.

But creating a new jet escape system that works for the vast majority of all potential recruits has proven tricky. The program had conducted 14 qualifying tests on the egress system as of October 2021, when they were paused to address problematic results.

The assessments showed high risk for concussions, unsafe acceleration when a parachute opens, and the possibility that a pilot’s helmet visor could fly off at high speeds, Air Force spokesperson Maj. Alli Stormer said.

“Design improvements are ongoing and escape system testing is planned to resume in [the] first quarter of 2023,” Stormer said…..

[tartare]

In another life MB got very sh!tty when our BBC program on the election seat was going to include Zvezda.
Refused to play ball at all if we did so.
A long time before current hostilities...

[SpazSinbad]

LINK to 'ORAC' story above: Production of Air Force’s next-gen training jet delayed to 2024 (airforcetimes.com) (https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2022/12/08/production-of-air-forces-next-gen-training-jet-delayed-to-2024/)

[Stitchbitch]

If the US can’t sort out their seat then other seats might be back in the T7?

IIRC MB already have seats in T45, T38, T6 II trainers, F16, etc, so only a matter of time?

[Mogwi]

they probably have a better handle on ejector seat design and production than the company that invented them!!

Very drôle!

Mog

[gums]

Salute!

Gotta go with Okie about the ACES seat in the Viper. And it worked, and worked and......back in the day, and up to now. Best view is of the T-Bird dude at Mountain Home that didn't use correct altitude for the maneuver and ejected a few milliseconds before impact....plenty of videos and one super still shot from the tower.

I had better luck/opinion about the Sluf seat than Okie, and maybe he was just "wider", heh heh. Flew very long missions, especially in Thailand tours and ferrying the things across the big pond (think 13 hours for one of the legs) and one thing that helped me was a lumbar pad, otherwise beat the hell outta lugging a chute up that skimpy ladder.

That M-B seat for the Harriers and now for the F-35 must be pretty good and has great track record. Mogs could add to that opinion.

Gums chimes in....

[oldmansquipper]

Some might say the alleged ‘misinformation’ and ‘fake news items’ about MB products that fed directly into Forbes mag a few years back has finally paid off.

Collins/BFGoodrich or whatever they call themselves this year, are probably still smarting over F-35 and T- 38 contracts. The USN still prefers MB and this has pi**ed off the Air Force for years. So this is perhaps a USG balancing act to sweeten the Air Force star chambers? I mean, it’s not ‘corrupt’, like slipping your mate a couple of mil to produce useless medical garments, is it? Best for the job? - Probably doesn’t come into it. :{

All the above is caveated with ‘allegedly’ and views only reflect my personal opinions.