Aircrew Escape/Rescue CApaBility: bail out like a Bond. James Bond.

[DDE]

So your fighter jet just got shot down.

The locals are very excited to meet you in person.

You don't share their enthusiasm.

What do?
 

AERCAB was a US Vietnam-era program to provide an ejecting pilot with the ability to fly for at least another 80 km.

Three companies responded to the bid.

Bell Aerospace reached for the usual Rogallo parawing, complemented by jet engines. The design did not progress far enough to merit a name.

Fairchild Model 616 was decidedly conventional.

Designed without a bespoke engine, it reached full scale wind tunnel tests at NASA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeXCEo62Mso

And now we come to the crown jewel, the Kaman KSA-100 Stowable Aircrew Vehicle Escape Rotoseat (SAVER).

Yes, this one actually flew before the funding dried up, albeit with the additional frame, avionics and wheels. The engine was notably overpowered (heresy!) for an autogyro of that type - the first jet-powered autogyro.

Weeeee!

Edited March 11, 2020 by DDE
Minor formatting

[Scotius]

Now, that is both awesome and funny.

"In case of bail-out we've packed a handy mini-copter for you!"

I wonder what builders of the main plane thought about the idea of squeezing another aircraft inside the cockpit?

And i wonder what pilots thought about the perspective of flying into combat, while sitting on top of the fuel tank of their rescue vehicle?

[DDE]

23 minutes ago, Scotius said:

And i wonder what pilots thought about the perspective of flying into combat, while sitting on top of the fuel tank of their rescue vehicle?

Only a few years from that USAF wanted a throttleable 'smart' ejection seat called ACES-X. The rocketeers from Northrop Grumman obliged... with carbon-doped MMH and nitric acid.

I think those guys work for SpaceX now.

[Wjolcz]

A plane within a plane!

[kerbiloid]

They should try better.

Spoiler

A dorsal-mounted propeller working on cherry jam.

 

[Hannu2]

8 hours ago, Scotius said:

And i wonder what pilots thought about the perspective of flying into combat, while sitting on top of the fuel tank of their rescue vehicle?

I think the risk is acceptable if another option is to land on enemy territory with parachute.

[DDE]

2 hours ago, Hannu2 said:

I think the risk is acceptable if another option is to land on enemy territory with parachute.

The chance of which is low compared to all the times you lug it around as potentially explosive dead weight.

[magnemoe]

12 minutes ago, DDE said:

The chance of which is low compared to all the times you lug it around as potentially explosive dead weight.

At this time most planes used 20-25 mm cannons or missiles. In short any shell detonating inside the cockpit would be bad anyway. 
However I feel that these  complex systems would make an fail in the ejection system more likely and adding dead weight and space. 

Would rater improve the parachute to let you glide longer. 
And yes modern ejection seats has gimbal engine who is nice if you eject upside down or going straight down, they also work on the ground. 

[StrandedonEarth]

On 3/11/2020 at 1:55 AM, DDE said:

Something like this is probably the best option. Fold-out fabric wings with modern mini-jet-turbines. Basically a wingsuit for the whole seat, which would contain fuel (jet fuel isn't that explosive anyways) and avionics to help the (possibly injured) pilot fly it home .

[Starman4308]

As always with this sort of system: one constant tradeoff is that added mass means less range/speed/maneuverability, so heavy abort systems mean you're more likely to get shot down in the first place. Another factor is "how easy is this to operate for a possibly wounded and likely disoriented pilot?" There's also the (small) possibility of being mistaken for a still operational aircraft and being shot down again... this time with a lot less aircraft between you and enemy fire. And now that I think about it, while an enemy pilot might not intend to shoot you down, a heatseeker that can't tell the difference between the Sun and an enemy aircraft may not be able to tell the difference between one of these concepts and a jet exhaust...

How worthwhile this is depends strongly on what sort of treatment a captured pilot can expect. Overall, I would expect these sorts of systems to lead to more overall deaths*, but that may be worthwhile against a foe with particularly poor treatment of prisoners.

*Predicated on the assumption that parachutes are pretty good at getting you down to the ground alive, many of these concepts require the final stage to be a parachute anyways (thus not even eliminating parachute-related risks), higher likelihood of being shot down in the first place, and possible (accidental or intentional) double-shootdown. Many of these autogyros look a lot more like an aircraft than a guy in a parachute, after all.

[wumpus]

On 3/11/2020 at 6:23 AM, DDE said:

Only a few years from that USAF wanted a throttleable 'smart' ejection seat called ACES-X. The rocketeers from Northrop Grumman obliged... with carbon-doped MMH and nitric acid.

I think those guys work for SpaceX now.

Was the plan to not fill them in peacetime?  Or more realistically, outside of an active warzone or otherwise likely to come down on enemy territory?  Or was it more of a pain to have non-permenantly sealed hypergolics that the techs would have to drain and refuel?

[DDE]

21 minutes ago, wumpus said:

Or was it more of a pain to have non-permenantly sealed hypergolics that the techs would have to drain and refuel?

All hypergolic motors after maybe 1970, probably earlier for the US, were factory-filled with a shelf life of well over a decade. So why the fuss?

[mikegarrison]

21 hours ago, Starman4308 said:

There's also the (small) possibility of being mistaken for a still operational aircraft and being shot down again... this time with a lot less aircraft between you and enemy fire. And now that I think about it, while an enemy pilot might not intend to shoot you down, a heatseeker that can't tell the difference between the Sun and an enemy aircraft may not be able to tell the difference between one of these concepts and a jet exhaust...

The whole idea that someone who flies over your country and drops bombs on you is an ineligible target if he is flying back to his own lines (even without his bomber) is ridiculous. Why should you let a pilot fly away in something like this only to return again with more bombs in a new plane?

Edited March 14, 2020 by mikegarrison

[Starman4308]

2 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

The whole idea that someone who flies over your country and drops bombs on you is an ineligible target if he is flying back to his own lines (even without his bomber) is ridiculous. Why should you let a pilot fly away in something like this only to return again with more bombs in a new plane?

I'm given to understand it's generally been the expectation that pilots be allowed to parachute down safely, even if it's over their own territory where they will undoubtedly be back in action the next day. It's been a while since I read about it, so I'm fuzzy on it, but I'm given to understand at least one WW 2 ace pilot was vilified for shooting pilots under their parachutes if they were over their own territory (though he did refrain from shooting pilots down over his territory under the assumption they would be captured). It does not hurt matters that there are frequently more pilots than aircraft available: the loss of just the aircraft is still a substantial blow to the enemy's capacity to wage war in the air.

Now, as to whether this is morally consistent with how soldiers of other services are treated, I'm less certain, but so long as both sides agree to fight by the same rules, that's OK by me. These escape systems are probably bending the rules, and I could see countries saying "nope, you're not going to do this with us", but these systems would basically amount to a roughly ~100 mile extension of "we still won't shoot you under your parachute if you're over your own territory."

Edited March 14, 2020 by Starman4308

[mikegarrison]

Generally the basic rules for treatment of POWs comes from the idea that if you won't kill ours, we won't kill yours. The same for aircrew coming down by parachute. But somebody flying away in powered, controlled flight? I'm pretty sure they would be considered a legitimate target.

[kerbiloid]

Still can't see a difference between the crew escaping from a hit tank (a normal, good, legal target, always to be shot) and the pilots bailing out from a hit plane (shooting them is barbaric).

"But the tankists still are a danger as they will fight, while the pilot will be escaping without fighting".
But the pilot probably must fight as well, he has a weapon, while actually all of them will be escaping to get a new machine.

Probabl, it's:
1) a corporative feeling, "just ground crawlers" vs "a pilot like me, it could happen with everybody"
2) attempts of plebeians after becoming officers to feel noblemen, as just several decades ago they were different

[magnemoe]

On 3/14/2020 at 8:38 PM, Starman4308 said:

I'm given to understand it's generally been the expectation that pilots be allowed to parachute down safely, even if it's over their own territory where they will undoubtedly be back in action the next day. It's been a while since I read about it, so I'm fuzzy on it, but I'm given to understand at least one WW 2 ace pilot was vilified for shooting pilots under their parachutes if they were over their own territory (though he did refrain from shooting pilots down over his territory under the assumption they would be captured). It does not hurt matters that there are frequently more pilots than aircraft available: the loss of just the aircraft is still a substantial blow to the enemy's capacity to wage war in the air.

Now, as to whether this is morally consistent with how soldiers of other services are treated, I'm less certain, but so long as both sides agree to fight by the same rules, that's OK by me. These escape systems are probably bending the rules, and I could see countries saying "nope, you're not going to do this with us", but these systems would basically amount to a roughly ~100 mile extension of "we still won't shoot you under your parachute if you're over your own territory."

On the western front it was very bad form going after an pilot in an parachute, even over their own territory. And yes this was an major weakness for Germany during the battle of Brittany as all their bailed out pilots become POW and out of the war while the British could just go into another plane. On the other hand if it become common to go after baled out pilots they would wait with opening their parachute until low who was pretty common in the Pacific as the Japanese tended to go after bailed out pilots, heard one pilot collapsing his parachute to fall fast until he got low.

And it was usually more planes than pilots, and way more planes than good pilots who are the critical ones. Japan ran out of good pilots 

You also have the practical aspect. Think most air battles down during WW2 was group versus group and you would obviously focus on the enemy planes. 

As for this system its more like it will one looks like an light plane who was pretty common for brigade level recon and artillery spotting and as they was jet powered will probably lock on an heat seeking missile.