Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
Ire n e [-22 Committee on the Sway of Eve Fire Survivabitily Testing of the F-22 Aircraft Asking Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. ~ 995

OCR for page R1
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Harold Liebowitz is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal goverrunent and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Harold Liebowitz are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This is a report of work supported by Contract MDA972-92-C-0028 between the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and the National Academy of Sciences. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 95-70169 International Standard Book Number 0-309-05333-1 Additional copies are available for sale from: National Academy Press Box 285 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20055 800-624-6242 202-334-3313 (in the Washington Metropolitan Area) Copyright 1995 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Cover photo courtesy of F-22 System Program Office.

OCR for page R1
COMMI1lEE ON THE STUDY OF LIVE FIRE SURVIVABILITY TESTING OF THE F-22 AIRCRAFT JULIAN DAVIDSON, Chair, Booz.Allen & Hamilton, Huntsville, Alabama DALE B. ATKINSON, Consultant, Springfield, Virginia JOHN R. BODE, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico CHARLES C. CRAWFORD, Jr., Georgia Tech Research Institute, Atlanta ALAN H. EPSTEIN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge DELORES M. ETTER, University of Colorado, Boulder DONALD L. GlADROSICH, Consultant, Destin, Florida ROBERT M. HILLYER, Scientific Applications International Corporation, San Diego, California ROBERT G. LOEWY, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta MILTON A. MARGOLIS, Logistics Management Institute, McLean, Virginia HARRY L. REED, Ir., Consultant, Aberdeen, Maryland ALTON D. ROMIG, Ir., Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico CHARLES F. TIFFANY, Boeing Military Airplanes (retired), Tucson, Arizona LAWRENCE G. ULLYATT, Denver Research Institute, LittIeton, Colorado CYNTHIA A. VOLKERT, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray HtIT, New Jersey Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems Liaison ALTON D. SLAY, Slay Enterprises, Inc., Warrenton, Virginia Staff BRUCE A. BRAWN, Director, Division of Military Science and Technology MICHAEL A. CLARKE, Study Director JOHN A. HUGHES, Project Assistant NORMAN M. HAILER, Consultant . . .

OCR for page R1
COMMISSION ON ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SYSTEMS ALBERT R. C. WESTWOOD, Chair, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico H. KENT BOWEN, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts NAOMI F. COLLINS, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, Washington, D.C. NANCY R. CONNERY, Consultant, Woolw~ch, Maine RICHARD A. CONWAY, Union Carbide Corp., South Charleston, West Virginia SAMUEL C. FLORMAN, KriesTer Borg Flonnan Construction Co., Scarsdale, New York TREVOR O. JONES, Libbey-Owens-Ford Co., Cleveland, Ohio NANCY G. LEVESON, University of Washington, Seattle ALTON D. SLAY, Slay Enterprises, Inc., Warrenton, Virginia JAMES I. SOLBERG, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana BARRY M. TROST, Stanford University, Stanford, California GEORGE L. TURIN, Teknekron Corp., MenTo Park, California WILLIAM C. WEBSTER, University of CaTiforrna, Berkeley DEBORAH A. WHITEHURST, Arizona Community Foundation, Phoenix, Arizona ROBERT V. WHITMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge CHARLES E. WILLIAMS, Toll Road Investors Partnership If, Sterling, Virginia Staff ARCHIE L. WOOD, Executive Director DENNIS I. CHAMOT, Associate Executive Director ROBERT I. KATT, Associate Executive Director IV

OCR for page R1
Preface The Live Fire Test Law (10 U.S.C. 2366) mandates realistic survivability and lethality testing of certain systems or programs. The law defines realistic survivability testing as "testing for vulnerability of the system in combat by firing munitions likely to be encountered in combat . . . at the system configured for combat, with the primary emphasis on testing vulnerability with respect to potential user casualties and taking into equal consideration the susceptibility to attack and combat performance of the system." A provision of the law permits the Secretary of Defense to waive these tests if the Secrecy certifies to Congress, before a system enters engineering and manufacturing development, that live fire testing "would be unreasonably expensive and impractical." The Air Force did not request a waiver and the Secretary of Defense did not waive live fire tests for the F-22 combat aircraft before the program entered engineering and manufacturing development. Instead, the Department of Defense later requested that Congress enact new legislation to permit the Secretary of Defense to grant a retroactive waiver. Proposed legislation to this effect was submitted to Congress in October 1993. Rather them enacting such legislation Congress requested this study. O O , Specifically, language contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year ~ 995 charged the Secretary of Defense to ask the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences "to conduct a study regarding the desirability of exercising Me authority . . . to waive for the F-22 aircraft program the survivability tests required pursuant to [the law]...."i 2 The StUdY'S Statement of Task, below, was drawn verbatim from the legislation: _ _~ ~ National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1995, Conference Report to Accompany S.2182 (p. 43), August 12, 1994. The language requiring this study was enacted into law on October 5, 1994 (Public Law 103-337~. 2 The committee notes here that the 1993 National Research Council report Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft: A Review of the Department of Defense Live Fire Test and Evaluation Program, prepared by the Air Force Studies Board Committee on Weapons Effects on Airborne Systems, was cited by Senator Roth in support of the legislation requiring this study. That report, which discussed the general subject of aircraft vulnerability assessment and the effect of the Live Fire Test Law, provided valuable background that allowed the current committee to focus on the v

OCR for page R1
Vl ; Live Fire Testing of the F-22 The report shall contain the following matters: (~) Conclusions regarding the practicality offilll-scaTe, filll-up testing for the F-22 aircraft program.3 (2) A discussion of the implications regarding the affordability of the F-22 aircraft program of conducting and of not conducting the survivability tests, including an assessment of the potential life cycle benefits that could be derived from filll-scaTe, filll-up live fire testing in comparison to the costs of such testing. A discussion of what, if any, changes of circumstances affecting the F-22 aircraft program have occurred since completion of the milestone I] program review to cause the program manager to (3) ~ ~ ~7 request a waiver of the survivability tests for the F-22 aircraft program that was not requested at that time. (4) The sufficiency of the F-22 aircraft program testing plans to fulfill the same requirements and purposes as are provided in subsection (e)~3) of section 2366 of title 10, United States Code, for realistic survivability testing for purposes of subsection (a)~(A) of such section. (5) Any recommendations regarding survivability testing of the F-22 aircraft program that the Council considers appropriate on the basis of the study. In response to the legislation and a request from the Deponent of Defense, the Committee on the Study of Live Fire Survivability Testing of the F-22 Aircraft was formed under the auspices of the National Research Council's Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems and its Division of Military Science and Technology to carry out the study. The committee began to function in December 1994. The filll committee met five times over the course of the study. At the early meetings and on other occasions, the members were briefed by representatives of the Air Force, Navy, Office of the Secretary of Defense, arid other government and industry officials on matters relating to the F-22 program and live fire testing. (See Appendix A for a detailed listing of meetings and the persons and orgarli- zations who addressed the fill committee and its members.) Many relevant documents from various agencies were also received. specific case of the F-22. Excerpts from and references to the previous report appear extensively in this report. 3 Full-scale, full-up testing would subject an F-22 to live fire in its combat configuration, including on-board ordnance and filet.

OCR for page R1
Preface . . V11 During the study, discussions among many experts, both on the committee and from other orgaruzations, allowed full airing of the issues concerning live fire testing. As a result, the committee believes that its study provided ample opportunity for consideration of all sides of the case involving full-up, full-scale testing of the F-22. The committee began by reviewing the threat, mission, and operational requirements for the F-22 to understand the kinds of hostile environments that the aircraft might encounter in future conflicts. The requirements for live fire testing and the testing plans and assumptions germane to the proposed waiver were then reviewed. In making the judgments documented in this report, the committee depended to a large extent on information provided by the Department of Defense and on the previous National Research Council report Vulnerability Assessment of Aircraft. There was neither the time nor the resources to develop substantial amounts of new information. The committee scrutinized the information it was given, bringing to bear the considerable experience, knowledge, and expertise of its members. The committee then made its assessments and formulated its conclusions and recommendations. The committee expresses its sincere appreciation to the many individuals and groups who provided invaluable information and support during this study. JULIAN DAVIDSON Chairman

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Principal Findings, 2 Practicality and Cost-Benefit, 2 Sufficiency, 3 Vulnerability Assessment Tools, 4 Conclusions and Recommendations, 4 Desirability of Waiver for the F-22 Tests, 5 Changed Circumstances Since Milestone II, 5 Affordability and Cost-Benefit, 5 Sufficiency of Tests Planned for the F-22, 6 Other Recommendations, 9 1 INTRODUCTION Vulnerability in the Context of Overall Survivability, 1 1 Vulnerability Testing of Aircraft Versus Ground Vehicles, 13 Report Orgaruzation, 14 References, 15 ORIGIN OF TESTING REQUIREMENTS Framework, 16 F-22 Live Fire Testing Requirements, 17 The Live Fire Test Law Requirements arid Historical Interpretations, 17 Recent Live Fire Test Guidelines and Interpretations, 19 Recent Amendment to Waiver Provision of the Live Fire Test Law, 21 Request for a Retroactive F-22 Test Waiver, 21 Position on Vulnerability, 23 Position on Full-Up, Full-Scale Testing, 23 Confusion Over Interpretation of the Law Help From the Previous Committee, 24 A Lingering Question, 25 F-22 Design Requirements for Vulnerability, 25 IX 11 16 , 23

OCR for page R1
x 3 4 Live Fire Testing of the F-22 Disposition of Prior Committee's Recommendations, 27 Summary, 27 Requirements Background, 27 What Changed to Cause Request for Waiver, 28 F-22 Design Requirements for Vulnerability, 28 Disposition of Previous Recoxrunendations, 28 References, 29 PRACTICALITY, AFFORDABILITY, AND COST-BENEFIT Practicality, 31 Relative Importance of Vulnerability Reduction to F-22 Survivability, 31 Realism in Aircraft Testing, 33 Destructive Versus Nondestructive Testing, 36 Expert Opinion, 36 . . Affordability, 38 Affordability of Full-Up, Full-Scale Testing, 39 Investment Methodology for F-22 Vulnerability Tests, 40 Cost-Benefit Methodology, 40 Conclusions, 41 References, 43 SUFFICIENCY OF F-22 TESTING PLANS F-22 Threat Environment and Its Replication, 44 Overview of the Air Force Vulnerability Assessment Program, 47 Evaluation of the Vulnerability Assessment Program, 50 Structure and Integral Fuel Tanks, 5 ~ Fuel System and Associated Dry Bays, 59 Flight Control and Auxiliary Systems, 63 Weapons Bay and Ordnance, 65 Engines, 67 Flight Crew, 69 Fire Protection Systems, 71 Additional Observations, 76 Conclusions, 78 Adequacy of F-22 Threat Definition and Replication, 78 Overall Sufficiency, 78 Specific Actions, 79 Additional Action, 80 References, 81 ~ 1 . 44

OCR for page R1
Table of Contents 5 6 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TOOLS Role of Testing, Modeling and Data Bases in Vulnerability Assessment, 83 Documentation, 85 Data Bases, 86 Models, 86 Phenomenological Models, 87 Encounter Models, 89 Models Used by the F-22 System Program Office, 89 Large-Scale Effects, 90 Conclusions, 91 References, 92 RECOMMENDATIONS Desirability of Waiver for the F-22 Tests, 94 Cost-Benefit Methodology, 94 Sufficiency of Tests Planned for the F-22, 95 Other Recommendations, 97 Vulnerability Requirements, 97 Vulnerability Assessment Tools, 97 APPENDIX A: MEETINGS, SITE VISITS, AND DISCUSSIONS APPENDIX B: LIVE FIRE TEST LAW APPENDIX C: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE F-22 WAIVER REOIJEST ............. APPENDIX D: VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT PROCESS Xl . 83 . 94 99 105 108 117

OCR for page R1
List of Exhibits Table 4-l F-22 Threat Environment 45 Figure 4-1 Locations of the test areas 49 Figure 4-2 Structural configuration 52 Figure 4-3 Materials applications 53 Figure 4-4 Aft boom 54 Figure 4-5 Current wing configuration 56 Figure 4-6 Forward boom Al fuel tanks 57 Figure 4-7 Fuel system vulnerability testing 60 Figure 4-8 Vulnerability reduction features of the F-22 62 Figure 4-9 Areas of interest for Test 6 74 . . X11

OCR for page R1
List of Abbreviations ACC Air Combat Command AIM Air Intercept Missile AMAD Airframe Mounted Auxiliary Drive API Armor Piercing Incendiary APU Auxiliary Power Unit COVART Computation of Vulnerable Areas and Repair Times DoD Department of Defense EMD Engineering and Manufacturing Development ESAMS Enhanced Surface-to-Air Missile Simulation FASTC Foreign Aerospace Science and Technology Center FMECA Failure Modes Effects and Criticality Analysis HE} High-Explosive Incendiary TDAM Joint Direct Attack Munition ~TCG/AS Joint Technical Coordinating Group on Aircraft Survivability ITCG/ME Joint Technical Coordinating Group on Munitions Effectiveness EFT Live Fire Test EFT&E Live Fire Test and Evaluation NRC National Research Council OBIGGS On-Board Inert Gas Generating System ORD Operational Requirements Document OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense PAO Polyalphaolefin (a cooling fluid) SPO System Program Office STAR System Threat Assessment Report SURVIAC Survivability and Vulnerability Information Analysis Center TAP Tactical Air Force TEMP Test and Evaluation Master Plan . . . x'''

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Live Fire Testing If the F 22

OCR for page R1