Of all the threats U.S. combat aviation has faced throughout history, none has been more prevalent or persistent than fire. Though often not the initial insult inflicted on an air system, how often have we seen that insult quickly lead to a catastrophic fireball that causes severe system damage, disablement, and/or demise. And it’s no wonder. With just three simple ingredients needed for a fire to exist—fuel, air, and heat—combat aircraft are inherently fire-susceptible. Today’s fixed- and rotary-wing systems are essentially large flying tanks of highly flammable fuels, fluids, and other combustibles located near hot engines, spinning rotors, and other fast-moving metal parts—not to mention highly explosive ordnance and munitions—and all surrounded by a web of electrical circuits, wires, and other potential spark-producers. Furthermore, when one adds in the extreme and violent nature of a combat environment, as well as the wide assortment of increasingly lethal threats fielded by adversaries today, the chance of in-flight fires only grows stronger and stronger.
Accordingly, in this fall 2025 issue of the Aircraft Survivability journal, we take a moment to highlight a few of the current efforts in the community to better understand, predict, and mitigate the ever-present fire threat to U.S. combat aviation. First, Dr. Adam Goss and Mr. Timothy Staley discuss some of the Air Force’s latest dry bay fire research, provide a look at the history and development of the Next Generation Fire Model over the last decade, and highlight some of the ongoing challenges in trying to better characterize dry bay fire behavior and better predict dry bay fire ignition.
In addition, Mr. James Tucker from the SURVICE Engineering Company discusses the close cousin to dry bay fires—ullage explosions (the reactions that can occur in the vapor headspace above the liquid fuel in a fuel tank). Jim also details some of the recent Joint Live Fire testing to provide engineers and analysts with data to better determine the threat of ullage-explosion-related overpressures and structural failures for particular tanks and platforms.
Mr. Nicholas Wojtysiak from the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command (DEVCOM) Analysis Center likewise discusses fire studies related to polyalphaolefin (PAO) oil, a fluid commonly found in the hydraulic and coolant systems of many U.S. air systems. As Nick explains, hydraulic and coolant systems are responsible for a significant portion of the vulnerable area in current ballistic vulnerability analyses of aircraft. Furthermore, though PAO has relatively low volatility, if it is ejected as a mist (e.g., from a ruptured fluid line), the resulting fire can be catastrophic. Thus, a multi-phase JASP effort has been undertaken to characterize the probability of PAO ignition and develop an advanced mist-control polymer that can reduce this probability when a fluid line is compromised.
Switching to the area of cyber survivability, Dr. William (“Data”) Bryant from Modern Technology Solutions, Inc. (MTSI) discusses the challenge of achieving consistency, compatibility, and comprehensiveness in the way we discuss, assess, and fund cyber survivability efforts for different DoD systems. To help meet this challenge, Data proposes the adoption of four standardized domains—cyber compliance, cyber design, cyber testing, and cyber operational posture—which can be used as virtual control knobs in a so-called conceptual dashboard to help program managers, analysts, developers, testers, and others best visualize, assess, and test system-level cyber survivability.
Finally, be sure to check out our News Notes, JCAT Corner, and Calendar of Events sections to keep up with the latest JASP and other news and events, as well as to see what’s planned for future issues.
Thanks again for reading.
Sincerely,
