July 5, 2018 | International, Aerospace

Tightening Chest and Tingling Fingers: Why Are the Military’s Fighter Pilots Getting Sick?

On June 28, a young U.S. Navy officer flying in a two-seater electronic warfare jet in the skies over Washington State suddenly felt a tightness in his chest and tingling in his extremities. He instantly recognized his symptoms as signs of hypoxia, or oxygen deprivation.

The jet, an EA-18G Growler from a training squadron out of Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, diverted to a local airport, and made an “uneventful” landing, according to Navy spokesman Cmdr. Scot Cregan. The crew member, an electronic warfare officer in training, was transported to a hospital for medical treatment.

Both the pilot and the trainee officer survived, but the incident, the latest in an alarming string of similar episodes, could have been deadly.

Across the U.S. military fleets, pilots and aircrew are experiencing a dramatic surge in so-called physiological episodes, which leave aviators disoriented and shaken. At worst, these unexplained incidents can be fatal — the Navy has linked four F/A-18 fighter pilot deaths over a span of 10 years to the events.

The continuing mystery over the pilots' sickness is part of a deeper concern about the military's aviation readiness, as the rate of fatal aircraft crashes recently reached a six-year high. It also raises larger questions over the ability of the world's largest and best-funded military to resolve a basic problem that appears primarily limited to the United States.

The Navy considers the physiological episode problem its “number one aviation safety priority.” From 2009 to 2016, the rate of such events increased almost eightfold in the F/A-18 and EA-18G — a version of the two-seater F/A-18 — fleets, from 16 to 125 incidents. In the Navy's T-45 training fleet, the spike is even more significant: In 2009, the Navy reported just one such incident, but in 2016, the number was 38.

Most recently, two aviators endured a harrowing landing after the temperature inside their Growler cockpit suddenly plunged to as low as -30 degrees. A mist formed in the cockpit, covering the instruments and windows with ice and rendering the pilots almost completely blind. The aircrew had to turn on the emergency oxygen supply.

The crew and ground-based controllers managed to work to land the aircraft safely. But both the pilot and the electronic warfare officer suffered “severe blistering and burns on hands” due to frostbite. The Navy believes the incident was caused by a failure of the environmental control system, a series of pipes and valves that regulates airflow to the air conditioning and oxygen systems.

The Air Force has a similar oxygen problem. In 2010, Capt. Jeff Haney died when an engine bleed-air malfunction caused the control system on his F-22 stealth fighter to shut off oxygen flow to his mask. Since then, the episodes have continued in almost every aircraft type, including the A-10 attack jet, the T-6 trainer, and the new F-35 fighter.

The most recent incidents have not yet been directly linked to fatalities. But in a sign that the military recognizes the severity of the problem, in the past year both the Navy and Air Force have grounded fleets in response to these events: the Navy's T-45s in April 2017, the Air Force F-35s at Luke Air Force Base in June 2017, part of the Air Force's A-10 fleet in November 2017, and the T-6s in November 2017 and again this February.

Neither service has identified a single point of failure or a solution to these episodes despite years of investment — a fact that has not gone unnoticed by prominent lawmakers.

“What's occurring in the Navy is absolutely unacceptable,” said Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, in 2017. “This is absolutely critical for our pilots.”

“I have no doubt the Navy is taking that issue seriously,” said Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, during an event in Washington in 2017. But, “I don't understand why we can't figure out what's causing the oxygen problem.”

In May, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), introduced legislation to create an independent National Commission on Military Aviation Safety in response to the surge in deadly crashes over the last year. Some, but not all, of these incidents were related to hypoxia.

Meanwhile, NASA has waded into the fray. After completing a congressionally mandated review of the Navy's investigation into the F/A-18 and EA-18G incidents, which faulted both the Navy and manufacturer Boeing, the agency is embarking on a new study of how pilots breathe while flying high-performance aircraft.

The services continue making incremental changes to the aircraft design, flight gear, and maintenance procedures in an effort to mitigate the risk to aircrew. In the T-45, at least, these modifications have reduced the number of incidents, according to Rear Adm. Sara Joyner, who until recently led the Navy's physiological episode investigation. Rear Adm.-select Fredrick Luchtman currently leads the effort.

But other Navy and Air Force fleets continue to see physiological episodes at alarming rates.

“More work remains to be done, and this will remain our top safety priority until we fully understand, and have mitigated, all possible PE [physiological episode] causal factors,” said Rear Adm. Roy Kelley, commander of Naval Air Force Atlantic, in congressional testimony June 21.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/07/03/tightening-chest-and-tingling-fingers-why-are-the-militarys-fighter-pilots-getting-sick/

On the same subject

August 3, 2020 | International, Naval

US Navy prepares major surge of littoral combat ship deployments
By: David B. Larter WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is taking major steps in an attempt to shake off years of false starts and setbacks with the Littoral Combat Ship program, an effort Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday said he'd oversee on his watch. In an exclusive interview with Defense News on July 16, Gilday listed LCS as a major priority, saying he will turn up the heat on efforts to get the ship to become a major contributor to fleet operations. “There are things in the near term that I have to deliver, that I'm putting heat on now, and one of them is LCS,” Gilday said. “One part is sustainability and reliability. We know enough about that platform and the problems that we have that plague us with regard to reliability and sustainability, and I need them resolved.” “That requires a campaign plan to get after it and have it reviewed by me frequently enough so that I can be sighted on it. Those platforms have been around since 2008 — we need to get on with it. We've done five deployments since I've been on the job, we're going to ramp that up two-and-a-half times over the next couple of years, but we have got to get after it,” he added. “LCS for me is something, on my watch, I've got to get right.” Gilday's renewed focus on LCS comes after years of fits and starts as the Navy struggled with almost every aspect of the complicated program: from manning and maintaining the hulls, to keeping the gear running or even fielding the sensor suites needed to perform the missions for which they were built. The ship has become a perennial whipping boy for a Congress frustrated by the service's struggle to field new technologies, such as those built into the LCS or the Ford-class aircraft carrier, conceived in the early 2000s. Two of the technologies the Navy has yet to field are the mine-hunting mission module, intended to replace the service's aging minesweepers, and the anti-submarine warfare mission module. Both are years overdue, though they have made significant progress. Getting those fielded is among Gilday's top priorities. “I have to deliver ... both the mine and ASW modules,” Gilday said. “These ships are probably going to [start going] away in the mid-2030s if the [future frigate] FFG(X) build goes as planned. But I need to wring as much as I can out of those ships as quickly as I can.” The LCS program comprises two hulls: a monohull version built in Marinette, Wisconsin, by Lockheed Martin and Fincantieri; and a trimaran version built by Austal USA in Mobile, Alabama. Congress funded 35 of the ships and has commissioned 20 of them, but deploying the ship has been a challenge because of reliability problems with the complicated propulsion systems designed to meet the Navy's 40-knot speed requirement. In 2016, the Navy fundamentally reorganized the program, jettisoning the signature modularity of the program where a single LCS would have a small, permanent crew and switch out anti-surface, anti-submarine or mine-warfare mission packages on the pier depending on the mission. Each mission package would then come with a group of specialists to operate the equipment. After a series of accidents, the Navy sought to simplify the concept; semi-permanently assign mission packages to each hull; and change a complicated three-crews-for-two-LCS-hulls model to a blue-and-gold crewing model used in ballistic missile submarines as a way of boosting operational tempo. The reorg was in response to concerns that the rotational crewing model reduced crew ownership of the vessel, potentially contributing to some of the accidents that plagued the program. One of the major accidents wrecked the then-forward-deployed Fort Worth's combining gear (roughly the same as the clutch on a car) when the crew started up the system without lube oil running. Prior to the Fort Worth accident, the combining gear onboard the Milwaukee encountered problems on the ship's transit from the shipyard to its home base in Florida and had to be towed into Norfolk, Virginia. Mission packages Gilday's goal of fielding the mission modules is well along already, according to two sources familiar with the progress, who spoke to Defense News on condition of anonymity. The mine-warfare mission module is on track for a final test and evaluation by the end of this year, a source with knowledge of the program told Defense News, and the individual components have already passed testing and are in initial low-rate production. End-to-end testing of the mine-warfare mission module is set to begin in fiscal 2021 and is on track to have its initial operating capability declared in 2022, another source said. The status of the ASW mission module, which has been a regular target of Congress-imposed budget cuts, is a little less clear. The next major milestones for the ASW mission package will likely slip to next year due to budget cuts, a source with knowledge of the program said. The mission module has been integrated into the LCS Fort Worth and testing began last fall. It's unclear if the testing will be delayed or interrupted if the Navy is able to carry through its plan to decommission the first four littoral combat ships. For the Independence variant — the trimaran hull — testing for the ASW mission module is slated to be installed on the LCS Kansas City, but there is no fixed date yet, according to a Navy official. Missions Aside from the issues with a buggy propulsion train and the delayed mission modules, Gilday said he was happy with where LCS is with regard to manning, and said the blue-gold crewing was giving him a lot of availability to play with. “I do think we have it about right with manning,” Gilday said. “We were honest with ourselves that the original design wasn't going to do it. I really like the blue-and-gold construct because I get way more [operational availability] than I would with just the single crew. “So I can get these ships out there in numbers doing the low-end stuff in, let's say, 4th Fleet where I wouldn't need a DDG.” The Navy deployed the LCS Detroit to South America — the 4th Fleet area of operations — last year on a counternarcotics mission, and it returned earlier this month. Those are the kinds of missions for which the LCS is perfectly suited, Gilday said. “I can deploy these things with a [law enforcement detachment] and a signals intelligence capability, and I can do that on LCS with carry-on gear,” Gilday said. “It's the right kind of platform for that. Also in 5th Fleet, those maritime security missions that we were heavily sighted on in the late 1990s and early 2000s: They still exist, I'd just prefer to do them with an LCS instead of a DDG if I can.” But without getting more reliability out of the propulsion system, even the low-end missions the Navy wants of the LCS will be a challenge. The heart of the issue seems to lie with long ocean transits, such as the one from San Diego, California, to Singapore, where the ships are supposed to be forward based. Cutting back on that transit, and the wear it puts on the ship, should be core to the Navy's strategy to getting more from LCS, said Bryan Clark, a retired submarine officer and senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. “The propulsion architecture's unreliability means you are going to have to come up with a different way to deploy the ship that doesn't require every deployment to be transoceanic,” Clark said. “By the time the ship gets to Singapore, it needs a lot of work done to it and your deployment time is cut down by the fact that you have to repair the ship once it arrives. Then it has to return to the U.S. So both those trips are so fraught that the Navy ends up devoting a lot of time and resources to it.” One alternative would be to forward-station the ships for a longer period of time than the 16-24 months the Navy envisioned, and place them in Sasebo, Japan, rather than Singapore, Clark said. Sasebo has always been in the cards for LCS as a home for the mine-warfare LCS hulls. When it comes to the delays on the mission modules, Clark said, the Navy should consider fielding those capabilities in the mine-warfare mission module that are already workable, or consider an alternate structure based on the model used by the Explosive Ordnance Disposal technicians. “The other thing they need to do is come up with a way for the mine-warfare capabilities to the degree they are available. And come up with the concept of operations for that, meaning the warfare folks in San Diego would need to come up with concepts for the equipment they do have rather than what they want to have,” he said. As for the ASW mission module, that might be something the Navy will want to revisit, he added. “They need to decide if the ASW mission package is going to be part of LCS,” Clark explained. “The ASW module is the module with the most proven capability in it and is the one that would offer the best improvement in LCS contribution to the fleet. “But it's also the most expensive. And if LCS is not deploying, then why spend the money on it? And with the frigate coming along, it's going to be doing the same missions with the same kind of systems, so why invest in the LCS version?” What is clear is that leadership from the upper echelons of the Navy should help move things along, Clark said. “It's good to hear Gilday is taking it on,” he noted. “But I think part of that is going to be accepting that we're never going to get where we wanted to be on LCS, and accepting second best is probably the best way to get the most from LCS. “You'll have to say: ‘We accept the fact that we're not going to have a full mine-warfare mission module. We accept that we'll have to deploy them forward and eliminate these long transits and ASW is probably out the window.' So it is about making hard choices like that and taking the heat.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/31/the-us-navy-is-preparing-a-major-surge-of-lcs-deployments/
August 20, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR

The Army is working to see across thousands of miles
Mark Pomerleau WASHINGTON — The Army's Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Task Force is helping the service modernize its ability to see across huge ranges through a layered approach that includes ground, air and space. As geographic boundaries will be blurred in future conflict with sophisticated adversaries, the Army is interrogating how it traditionally does everything from imagery collection, signals intelligence and electronic warfare, hoping to transcend current methods and create a battlefield picture that extends across these geographic divisions. “If you look at how the [National Defense Strategy] describes what we're supposed to do in competition and conflict, we really needed to have the ability to see deep, to look deep to be able to shape the environment for commanders, [and] the ability to sense the environment,” Lt. Gen. Scott Berrier, the Army's director for ISR/G-2, told C4ISRNET in an Aug. 18 interview, adding that after the counterterrorism fight, he did not feel as though the Army's sensors and platforms were in a great place for great power competition. Berrier is departing his post in a few weeks to head the Defense Intelligence Agency, with Maj. Gen. Laura Potter set to pin on a third star and take over as the next G-2 and ISR task force. Under Berrier, the task force has focused on enhancing other Army missions, namely the service's number one modernization priority: long range precision fires. “We really see ourselves as enabling capability ... when you talk about long range precision fires and the sensor to shooter, if you're going to shoot a target at 1,000 miles, you certainly have to see it,” he said. The task force works to corral all the ongoing modernization efforts conducted by Army Futures Command and its various cross functional teams, along with the acquisition community, to ensure they are all coordinated for an integrated, modernized ISR footprint. This means helping to advise on and shape requirements for future systems, while contributing in exercises that test new capabilities and concepts with forces across the world. Other contributors include the Future Vertical Lift and Assured Position, Navigation and Timing teams. The Task Force is also examining to what extent cyber capabilities can play a role in deep sensing, though details are scarce on this front. The Army's Program Executive Office Intelligence, Electronic Warfare and Sensors is contributing through offensive cyber, which officials in the past have said cyber is a collection mechanism. A layered approach The Army's ISR modernization approach begins with the terrestrial or ground layer, Berrier said. The Intelligence Center of Excellence at Fort Huachuca is taking the lead in this arena. The main capability is the forthcoming Terrestrial Layer System-Large, the Army's first brigade-focused, integrated signals intelligence, electronic warfare and cyber platform. Berrier explained that the Army is trying to regain capability it lost after the Cold War. “What we need to have is a sensing platform that can really, really see in the electromagnetic spectrum very complicated signals; to be able to understand [and] perceive the environment; and then — if we want to make an effect inside that environment — [create an effect] with our electronic warfare operators but also ... put an effect into cyberspace,” he said. “We think TLS, with our [brigade combat teams] and those formations, will have what I would call close access, perhaps, to adversary networks. And they'd be able to influence those networks in a number of different ways, as you can imagine.” The Army awarded two prototypes for TLS — to Boeing subsidiary Digital Receiver Technology, Inc. and Lockheed Martin — for a roughly year long experiment with units, after which it will choose one vendor to move forward. There are significant changes for the Army in the aerial layer, namely a new, first-of-its-kind jet the Army is experimenting with. Intelligence and Security Command is heading the aerial layer for the Army currently and just deployed a commercial jet called the Airborne Reconnaissance and Targeting Multi-mission Intelligence System (ARTEMIS), made by Leidos and first reported by Aviation Week, to the Pacific. ARTEMIS is the first step in something the Army is calling the Multidomain Sensing System, which will operate at higher altitudes than the Army has traditionally operated. “Our sensors are flying between 22,000 and 24,000 feet today. We think they need to be much higher ... think in the 40,000 range,” Berrier said. He added there is an unmanned component that could potentially include gliders or balloons. However, he acknowledged the technology might not be ready yet. Ultimately, the Army believes it will need signals intelligence, electronic intelligence, electronic warfare and cyber capabilities in the final Multidomain Sensing System, whatever that ends up being. Berrier described a year long “campaign of learning” for the Multidomain Sensing System, which begins with ARTEMIS in the Pacific. “That will take about a year before I think we're ready to even make a decision. Do we stay sort of in this realm of assets that are around 20,000 feet or 22,000 feet? Or do we, should we go higher to be in that competition ISR fight?” he said, adding the Army will partner with other services on big wing ISR. Finally, the third layer is the space layer, which manifests itself in the Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node (TITAN). TITAN is a ground station the Army is building to replace several existing ground stations. Since the Army isn't in the business of building and launching its own satellites, it wants to take advantage of the bevy of satellites already in existence by agencies such as the National Reconnaissance Office. And it believes TITAN will allow it to access these constellations better. Berrier said there will be some processing and artificial intelligence that goes into the system, enabling it to identify targets sooner. The Army is experimenting with TITAN “surrogates” in Europe, through the 66th Military Intelligence Brigade, and in the Pacific through the 500th Military Intelligence Brigade. The Army is also using exercises such as Defender Europe and Defender Pacific along with newer units to include the Multidomain Task Force and its Intelligence, Information, Cyber, Electronic Warfare and Space battalion to help prove out these intelligence concepts and capabilities. It is also working to modernize data standards and dissemination systems such as the Distributed Common Ground System, which is transitioning to the Command Post Computing Environment. Ultimately, Berrier said these ISR modernization efforts are about helping the Army deter conflict. But if that fails, the service needs to be ready for the multidomain battlefield it expects to fight on in the future against near-peer powers. “If you do competition effectively and if you do competition ISR in the right way, you'll never get to conflict because you'll always have a decision or an information advantage over our adversaries,” he said. “If we do transition to conflict, it is about reducing the sensor-to-shooter loop that's going to be so key for multidomain operations. If you want to do MDO ... the ISR Task Force is about bringing multidomain intelligence to competition and conflict.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/2020/08/19/the-army-is-working-to-see-across-thousands-of-miles/
December 10, 2019 | International, Naval

BREAKING: Marine Corps Planning Major Program Cuts
By Jon Harper SIMI VALLEY, Calif. — The Marine Corps intends to divest itself of legacy systems as it transforms into a more mobile and expeditionary force, the service's commandant said Dec. 7. In recent decades Marines have been busy fighting land wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But now they must prepare for a potential conflict in a naval environment against advanced adversaries such as China, Gen. David Berger told reporters at the Reagan National Defense Forum in Simi Valley, California. “We cannot wait any longer before we start adjusting our service to what we've got to be six, seven, eight years out,” he said. “We have lots of changes we have to make and ... we have to get rid of legacy things in the Marine Corps. We've got to go on a diet. We've got to get back on ship. We've got to become expeditionary again.” What types of legacy systems will be on the chopping block? “Big, heavy things,” Berger said. “Expensive things that we can't either afford to buy or afford to maintain over the life of it. Things that don't fit aboard ships. Things that can't fire hyper velocity projectiles. Things that don't have the range that we're going to need or the precision.” Mobility will be critical in future fights, he noted. Marines must be able to operate from ships or ashore, and move back and forth between domains. Other platforms that could see cuts include manned logistics vehicles and aircraft. “All those things we're going to trim down,” Berger said. The service is also looking to add new capabilities. The commandant did not identify specific systems that the Marines plan to buy, but he provided a flavor of the types of platforms that will be on the shopping list. “Think unmanned. Think expeditionary. Think very light. Think things that we can sustain forward without a huge logistical train,” Berger said. Unmanned logistics vehicles and aircraft are examples of new technologies that the service is interested in. Human beings will still be on the battlefield, Berger noted. “I just don't need them driving a truck delivering chow” if a self-driving platform could perform the task, he said. Drones could also deliver supplies. “Amazon does it. Why wouldn't we do it?” he asked. Unmanned combat aircraft are also on the wish list, he noted. The Marine Corps has been conducting wargames and simulations to help determine how the force should be redesigned for potential future combat scenarios that might occur 10 years out. “We're in the last stages of that,” Berger said. That effort will likely wrap up in late January or early February. Force composition changes will be made over 10 years, but some will begin next year, he said. Officials are examining “every part of our air-ground team,” Berger said. A wide range of capabilities are being looked at. “From individual equipment to crew served [weapons] to F-35s and everything in between.” The analysis will help determine which programs will be killed, trimmed or added, he said. The service needs new weapon systems that can find and kill enemy ships at range from ship or shore. “We have to become a naval force that's lethal in terms of putting at risk another naval force,” Berger said. In the future, large numbers of unmanned air and ground systems could function as motherships that launch other robotic vehicles and drones to conduct missions, he said. A major funding realignment is planned over the next five years. “You'll see a little bit of it” in the fiscal year 2021 budget blueprint, Berger said. “The big muscle movement — that will come in ‘22, ‘23, ‘24 in a big way.” https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/12/9/marine-corps-planning-major-program-cuts

All news