Background: There is a need for evaluation oi new G protection equipme
nt. Hypothesis: There is no difference between the two anti-C ensemble
s on affecting subjects' ability to tolerate multiple simulated aerial
combat sorties. Methods: There were 15 subjects wearing the standard
CSU-13B/P anti-C ensemble (STD) or COMBAT EDGE/ATAGS (CE/ ATAGS) ensem
ble who were exposed to 3 centrifuge-based simulated air combat sortie
s during a 2-h period. Each sortie consisted of four different C-profi
les: 1) a gradual onset profile; 2) simulated air combat maneuver cons
isting of +4.5 to +7 Gz plateaus (4.5-7 SACM); 3) simulated air combat
maneuver derived from actual fighter maneuvers with peaks up to +9 Gz
(TACM); 4) simulated air combat maneuver consisting of 5.0 to +9.0 Gz
plateaus (5-9 SACM). Each sortie was separated by a 20-min rest perio
d. We measured heart rate, peripheral light loss (PLL), subjective eff
ort level, subjective fatigue level, and reported recovery time. Resul
ts: There were no incidents of unintended G-induced loss of consciousn
ess (G-LOC) with CE/ATAGS. There were four incidents of unintended G-L
OC with STD. At the end of the third sortie, with CE/ ATACS, mean hear
t rate was lower during the 4.5-7 SACM (p < 0.001) and the TACM (p < 0
.001); PLL was less during ail three rapid onset profiles (p < 0.01);
subjects reported less effort during the 4.5-7 SACM (p < 0.001), the T
ACM and the 5-9 SACM (p < 0.01); reported fatigue was significantly lo
wer (p < 0.001); and reported recovery times were nearly halved (p < 0
.01). Conclusion: CE/ATAGS provided significantly greater C-protection
than the standard anti-C ensemble. There was no G-LOC with CE/ATAGS.
This greater protection should be of significant operational value in
enhancing sortie generation capability by increasing fighter aircrew C
-tolerance and decreasing aircrew fatigue.