RAF planes 'at risk' as MoD cancels anti-missile system

[JessTheDog]

Is this another penny pinching cutback that will put lives at risk?

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/

The Scotsman today:

RAF planes 'at risk' as MoD cancels anti-missile system

JAMES KIRKUP
POLITICAL EDITOR
DEFENCE ministers are facing questions about the safety of British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan amid claims that a key defensive system on RAF transport planes was scrapped to save money.

Military sources have told The Scotsman that plans to install a "state of the art" countermeasures system on Hercules aircraft were dropped after the Ministry of Defence decided it would cost too much.

The revelation comes amid a continuing row about an RAF Hercules shot down in Iraq last year with the loss of ten lives.

Several of the aircraft that have been denied the cancelled defensive system are thought to be in regular use in Iraq. Others are said to be scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan.

Despite the decision to scrap the new system - thought to be an electronic jamming device intended to confuse the targeting systems of surface-to-air missiles - defence ministers insist that all British Hercules planes are fully protected from attack.

The MoD last night said: "Only Hercules with appropriate defensive countermeasures are deployed to operational theatres." A spokesman said the planes carry systems to warn pilots of radar sensors and approaching missiles, and to dispense countermeasures to deflect missiles.

But in the case of at least 15 J-model Hercules, the countermeasures system currently in place is said to be inferior to the one that had been scheduled for installation.

While the MoD refuses to disclose where its C-130J aircraft are deployed, it is believed that some are operating in southern Iraq and others are set to go to Helmand province in southern Afghanistan to support the new 4,000-strong British deployment there.

The decision to cancel the new system on the aircraft has worried RAF insiders. "There is a real operational problem with what they've done," said an RAF source. "The boys are more vulnerable because of this."

The countermeasures project was only dropped after the MoD had already spent £1.8 million on it. That expenditure appears in the ministry's annual financial report for 2004-5 which refers only to the "cancellation of a classified programme on C130J".

The ministry is likely to face parliamentary questions from MPs about the safety of Hercules planes when parliament returns next week. Those questions will not be confined to anti-missile systems.

The Hercules shot down in Iraq last January was a "K" model from 47 Squadron, the RAF special forces unit specially trained to work with the SAS. It crashed 20 miles north-west of Baghdad. An MoD investigation found it was brought down not by a missile but by gunfire.

The plane was not fitted with insulating foam around its fuel tanks, a system installed as standard on US Hercules planes. Foam can prevent the tanks exploding, sometimes allowing a damaged plane to land safely.

Despite recommendations that Hercules sent to Afghanistan should have foam installed, it is thought that the modifications will also not take place in time for the deployment.

[truckiebloke]

the trouble that has been caused is due to the money going to the older 'k' rather than the new 'j'. I'm sure this was due to contract issues with Lockheed and the sheer cost of fitting it to the 'j' because of it.

The trouble is that the 'k' is falling apart and is hardly being deployed operationally anywhere( a couple of frames aside) The 'j' is picking up most of the tasking and several crews are on standby for when the 'k' cant get deployed to the lastest theatre.

There is so much money being thrown at the 'k' to keep just a few frames airborne, and the only ones that really fly are training OCU trips, and TAC trips. But there has to come a point where the question is asked '' what are these guys actually training for, if virtually not deployable''

[kfwalm]

Quote "the K model is falling apart". I must be missing it then have been operating it for ten years and havent noticed. Must get eyes tested, another bitter J bloke who thinks his electric plane is best. Never mind ..!!!

[phutbang]

Originally posted by kfwalm...
Quote "the K model is falling apart". I must be missing it then have been operating it for ten years and haven’t noticed. Must get eyes tested, another bitter J bloke who thinks his electric plane is best. Never mind..!!!

Then I suggest you pop up to Eng plans and talk to them about the kites in long term rect's both on and off base!!! (And then say never mind)

[Mad_Mark]

Ahhh good, just what we want - ANOTHER J v K thread!!!! :eek:


MadMark!!! :mad:

[truckiebloke]

i didn't reply to this post to start a j v k argument. If you read what i said, then it is the fault of the contract with Lockheed that prevented us getting the better DAS. It was cheaper to put it on the 'K'.

The k has done a wonderful job for so many years, but KFWALM you are living in dream land if you think the k isnt falling apart. It simply is nowhere near the deployment levels of the 'j' and are falling off the program all of the time.

[SubdiFuge]

Why isn't the J being sent to AFG in the near future then if the K is in such a bad state?

[theboywide]

It already is and will be more so when the 1 or 2 K models go unservicable or can't be provided. You are dreaming if you think the K can do it on its own.

[SubdiFuge]

Yes, I know its already been there, but I hear that the 4 deploying will not be Js. I completely agree that the J should go, shame it won't be.

Not saying that the J can't do the job, just saying that its not going - unless 70 Sqn are going to be re-equipped in the next couple of months?

[juliet]

we dont really need to be talking about this stuff guys. types and capabilities are not the issues that should be talked about on an open forum

[Jackonicko]

This is all widely known and has been widely published. There was a piece in Air International that discussed the SoF fit on the Ks in detail, and the way in which contractual issues have prevented installation of a decent DAS on the J has been widely discussed and described.

No-one need get too twitchy just yet, methinks.

[BEagle]

I disagree. Disclosure of capabilities which may be of use to an enemy should not appear on PPRuNe. Much as that might disappoint journos...

In fact I've already suggested that this thread is deleted...

[mindbender]

No-one need get too twitchy just yet, methinks.

Take it you don't fly them into these places then Jacko??

You may have a different opinion if you did.

[cornishpixie]

Shouldnt both K and J frames be protected or does one side assume that they are more important than the other. To me this is another realisation that the Government doesnt really care about any member of the armed forces and protected the crews, troops or sailors should be on top of any shopping list irrespective of how old or new the kit is. Come on fellas we are all in one big company after all (Cheese i know) but lets focus on the real issues here. CP:uhoh:

[flipster]

C-Pixie,

You may think it cheesey - but you are right!

Strange to think, that looking at the K v J threads, that these are people on the same base, flying in the same ac type, in the same role (for the same megalomaniac PM). I sometimes despair - but I can also sympathise!

However, banter aside, while all fleets should be fighting with the same back-up from HQ 2 Gp (Herc, VC10. Tri*, C17 etc), the sad fact is that:

a. There is only so much money to go round
b. The 'darkside' want it all
so,
c. some goes to the J but the majority goes to the old (and tiring) K work-horse - rightly or wrongly - its a matter of proven clearances and capabilities - that are not for discussion in the open.

In the meantime, however, crews on normal "low-risk" ops get to fly the 'dumb' frames where they normally shouldn't. As time goes by, the hired help at 'Grope' have, ever so slowly, realised that there is no such thing as 'safe' trucking anymore, so they are trying, wherever possible, to put the troops on ac that are best protected for the op (not very easy as there are so many ac in the sheds at LYN and at Marshalls). One hopes that Grope have learnt lessons from the last time in AFG/PAK and that there are enough ac and crews to do the job?

Sadly, however, there is not enough cash to make sure ALL AT ac are protected ALL the time - so its a risk management business - but guess who is taking the risk - not Grope for sure but it is you guys and your pax. So stay safe, think like the enemy but be one step ahead!

Happy Landings

Flip

[Jackonicko]

If anyone was talking about the performance of the systems, then there'd be reason for caution, but when what is being written goes less far than what is already in the public domain, then such caution is stupid, and merely helps ensure that improvements don't happen.

What capabilities are being disclosed here, Beags? Let alone capabilities that might be useful to an enemy. If only you kept yourself more up to date with what is and isn't in the public domain already......

Like it or not, for the J to get a better DASS someone needs to die, or there needs to be pressure. A bit of publicity, leading to pressure, is, in my view, infinitely better than losing another Herc and another crew.

[BEagle]

Sorry, Jacko, but that's typical journo fishing.

Don't make the enemy's task any easier just to flog a few magazines.

[flipster]

JN

Please keep up the pressure to ensure that ALL AT ac that go 'sausage-side' are 'up to speed'. But let's keep the bad guys guessing shall we, and not be too specific?
Please try to imagine your friends or your children being on board RAF AT going into theatre, either as aircrew or pax - it might change your need to highlight specific failings of the 'hierarchy'.

But we must also ensure that we hold their Lordships accountable.
Whatever the support from above, I am sure that all crews are doing their absolute level-best to ensure they get back for 'tea and stickies', while also highlighting any sensitive gaps in their defences - so lets not undermine them?

[Jackonicko]

It's not journo fishing, and I resent the implication.

The crack that I would "make the enemy's task any easier just to flog a few magazines" is a disgrace, and you should apologise for and/or withdraw it, if you have a shred of integrity and decency left.

All that has been said is that the J doesn't have as good a DAS as the K. Well hold the front page. Colour me astonished.

There has been the suggestion that this is down to cost, and in particular down to the cost of a DA Mod, and there has been an inference that integration on the K is cheaper and easier. No-one has gone further than that. No-one has talked about what may or may not be included in either DAS, nor about what particular elements in the DAS can and cannot do, though if the enemy wanted to know they could go to the obvious Jane's yearbooks and get 'chapter and verse'.

The fact that some aircraft may be less than perfectly protected is a point that needs to be made, in order to ensure that the deficiency can be rectified. I'd also say that the continuing lack of foam (or an inerting system) in the tanks should be highlighted, if we want that put right.

[The Gorilla]

I agree with you jacko I honestly don't know what's up with Beagle these days!
If he doesn't like a particular thread he brands it as racist, sexist or a security risk etc!

I see nothing here that represents a security hazard and you are out of order Beagle!

"In fact I've already suggested that this thread is deleted..."

What arrogance!!

:mad:

[BEagle]

I am not alone in this - flipster and mindbender have also posted subtle warnings to avoid disclosure.

I am not going to say which particular aspects gave me cause for concern. There is a world of difference between the technical details concerning the specific ac fleet fit and disclosing whether ac deployed in theatre would be thus equipped.

Sometimes it's the small asides in posts which are the most useful to the nefarious rather than the equipment details culled from the alleged public domain - and comment from those serving can be considered to add credence to otherwise speculative media statements.

[SubdiFuge]

Beags - there is nothing in this thread which should require it to be deleted; go back to flying your Twotahawk or whatever you do these days between putting your dentures in Steradent.

[BEagle]

Thank you for such a well thought out and valuable post.

You can throw all the insults you like, but don't post things which help the bad guys. Ever heard of 'Need to Know'?

Perhaps us old farts of the Cold War and other old farts of the NI troubles are more circumspect with the things we write on open fora.

[juliet]

lets start to be a bit more sensible on here shall we? if you guys are military then you should know that we dont talk about what types are deployed and in what fit. these threads start out seemingly innocent enough but end up giving away a surprising amount of info, and to be honest it seems to be by people who just want to be the know-it-all who can be a bit more "knowledgable" than the others. there is just no need to be discussing this stuff!

Jacko - i believe ive said all this stuff to you before and at the time you were kind enough to amend your comments on these forums. however, you seem to have a bit of a knack for pi55ing me off when it comes to these kind of topics. the issue i have is that you seem to be able to decide what is already out in the public domain and therefore what is common knowledge. well how about we say that you dont. what ends up in Air International is not necessarily the gospel, even when coming from official sources. most of the stuff that i see in publications like that (that i have a personal knowledge of) is ill informed or completely made up. because of that fact i hate reasoning of 'well its already been published so we may as well discuss it'. all this normally results in is the real facts making it out when they shouldnt. i dont blame you for this - the guys who should be keeping their big mouths shut are obviously the issue there - but i do ask you, again, to stop being so pushy on military matters that end up having real world consequences - especially when it may be me that is effected by it! you dont know whats going on as much as you may like but you have to remember that this isnt a game where whoever finds out the most wins.

most people on here probably dont know what they are talking about. to those who do try and be a bit more sensible about what you give away.

[Blodwyn Pig]

i didn't reply to this post to start a j v k argument. If you read what i said, then it is the fault of the contract with Lockheed that prevented us getting the better DAS. It was cheaper to put it on the 'K'.

The k has done a wonderful job for so many years, but KFWALM you are living in dream land if you think the k isnt falling apart. It simply is nowhere near the deployment levels of the 'j' and are falling off the program all of the time.


give it a few years and the 'J' will start falling apart in the same places as its the same as the 'K' where it matters.

[SubdiFuge]

Thanks Beags - I've served during the CW, in NI and most off them since the wall came down, and I still disagree.

Juliet - This thread says nowt. As for what types are deployed; take a look at the MOD or RAF websites - its all on there.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/OperationsInIraqDetailsOfBritishAndCoalitionForces.htm

[juliet]

thanks for that subdifuge. can you tell me though where it says where we will be deploying to in the future and with what DAS and how many types specifically.

[SubdiFuge]

No, but the numbers and types will be announced and will include a press call at Slimeham, where the journos will film the aircraft, making the footage available for the whole world to see.
As for the DAS, I cannot see the exact nature of the DAS fit stated anywhere on this thread.
I'm bored of this now.

[Jackonicko]

Juliet,
All of those details (numbers, and variant and destination) have been published together. The details of the defensive fit of the J and the K has been published elsewhere. The only detail that I haven't personally seen in print or online in some part of the MoD website is the numerical designation of the first squadron being deployed.

Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting that those details should be repeated here (if anyone cares to go back and blur the detail in their posts before Beagle has an aneurism, that would be fine and dandy), and I am not posting details about fit, deployments, etc. myself. I'm saying merely that a discussion about the J's capability and survivability being constrained by penny-pinching and a poor contract may be one way of helping to ensure that something is done about this, while suppressing the voicing of concern plays straight into the hands of the Treasury.

Flipster,
Though I'm now so old that most of my chums from UAS days are now sitting behind desks or are enjoying second careers, I do still have friends who will be intimately involved with this deployment, and who will be in harm's way. Were anything here more likely to increase the danger to them, rather than to solve the problems, I'd be the first to complain. Though I hope that, unlike BEagle, I'd do it without imbecilic generalisations and stereotypes based on people's profession, and without questioning their patriotism and honour.

[JessTheDog]

When I started this thread, it was not with the intention of a J vs K contest or generating a list of capabilities beyond what is available in public.

It was simply to do with the safety of the warm bodies contained within the flying assemblage of parts, and the possibility that HMG is once again seeking to cut corners with the lives of those in uniform.

Some public pressure is required to ensure that their duty of care is discharged, particularly with regard to Bliar's addiction to playing soldiers with Dubya.

[Blodwyn Pig]

in that case the scotsmans' article is typical of the tabloid press, shout about the MOD cancelling an anti missile system, mention the "continuing row" over the loss of a c-130.
the fact is that an anti missile system wouldn't have saved that aircraft, it was shot down with a bullet, so its not relevant at all.

[southside]

This thread has lost its way a little. Starting off with an article in a Scottish newspaper whcih reported that the government couldn't afford to fit a comprehensive DAS suite to an aircraft, the thread then soon degenerated into a J v's K slanging match before poor old Beagle was shunned and now the thread is losing its way when the main topic of discussion is the need to know. But getting back to the main article. If the Government can't afford a better DAS suite then so be it. I Cant afford a Ferrari and so I don't have one. Just thank yourselves lucky you have any form od DAS suite at all.

[ZH875]

Just thank yourselves lucky you have any form od DAS suite at all.I was going to reply, but I think I shall just add :mad: :mad: southside to my blocked list:ok: , much better idea methinks.

[SubdiFuge]

You don't have a DAS Southside as life if so good in the Navy according to you, that the smiles of happiness from the crew are bright enough to confuse any seeker head.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Someone made mention of hercs falling to bits. I seem to remember someone telling me the J wing was different to the H/K wing. Yes?

More Defensive systems the better I say. :) So long as it's just not a system so crap that it is just telling me "You're about to die" .. :}

As an aside.. anyone got the map coverage function to work as advertised..

[Blodwyn Pig]

main wing structure is the same on a J as on a H model, so expect similar problems in a few years time.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I seem to remember being told by an engineer that that was not the case. :confused:

[JessTheDog]

If the Government can't afford a better DAS suite then so be it. I Cant afford a Ferrari and so I don't have one. Just thank yourselves lucky you have any form od DAS suite at all.

Perhaps the cash is going on the Dear Leader's Blair Force One and the ministerial Jags....

[mindbender]

then such caution is stupid, and merely helps ensure that improvements don't happen.


No Jacko, exactly the opposite; caution is not stupid and if you think that our Lords and Masters are going to listen to a small-time journo and some ill-informed anonymous idiots then you are very wrong. Take it from me, I don't want such information discussed here. End of story; please go and ply your trade elsewhere.

[Cerberus]

Its not new. I'll always remember my first intelligence brief on Operation Granby. Just got off a Herc with a bezillion missiles after a 2 sector flight to Dhahran, jets trailing down earlier that day. The man starts the brief: '18 F3s, 32 F15s, 1 Million Iraqis and attack expected in the next 3 hours'......Gulp!

They then asked for individual intelligence briefs, the yank went first 'Radar, Missiles, Secure this and that, NCTR, RWR, Chaff, Flares etc etc etc.' Cue our QWIL Uncle Ted he stands up and says:

'Yes we have a radar and 8 rockets. We have a good RWR but don't carry jammers or chaff and flares because we believe in dying like men!'

Brought the house down and eventually Phimat and Flares!

Cerberus

[Mad_Mark]

Southside - I have thought it for a long time, now I will say it...

YOU ARE A GRADE A TW@

MadMark!!! :mad:

[truckiebloke]

Mad Mark - spot on mate...

I'm sure the reason Southside cant actually afford a ferrari is because he is infact a twelve year old boy... if he isn't he certainly has the mental age of one.

[Facilitator]

By Zoë Mills
FORMER RAF pilot Nigel Gilbert who was a close friend of a number of
the Lyneham crew who died in Iraq believes their aircraft could have
survived the enemy fire that brought it down.
He has hit out at Government claims the Hercules crash in which ten men
died, was not survivable and says he has evidence to prove it.
He says the main reason servicemen perished in the tragedy was because
the aircraft didn't have an anti explosion protection system, known as
foam retardant.
After Mr Gilbert went to a national newspaper with his claims, North
Wiltshire MP James Gray asked the Government if anything more could
have been done to prevent the crash.
He said Defence Secretary John Reid assured him the plane had
everything except foam retardant, but would now be looking into whether
it could be fitted.
Mr Gray said not only the bereaved families, but others in Lyneham with
relatives serving overseas, deserved to know that their loved ones were
not being exposed to unnecessary dangers.
A spokesman for the MoD said it was investigating whether fuel tank
inerting systems could be installed on the planes as a matter of
urgency.
"We have lost an aircraft and a brave crew but they need not have
died," said Mr Gilbert, who was a flight lieutenant based at RAF
Lyneham for eight years.
"The US Air Force first had foam in 1965 and the Australians have had
it since 2003."
He says an American plane fired at more than 19 times during the
opening days of the Iraq war managed to land safely with 58 people on
board.
Mr Gilbert, who lives near Calne, said: "That was a bigger calibre
attack, but everyone survived because the aircraft had foam.
"In the Lyneham crash, the round went into the fuel tank and caused an
explosion which ripped an outboard section of the wing off making the
aircraft uncontrollable.
"If it had had foam there would have been no explosion. The worst
scenario would have been a wing fire, which means they would have had
20 minutes to land. They were only six minutes away from a coalition
air base, and they could have put the plane down in the desert."
Mr Gilbert, 40, who is now a commercial airline pilot, trained with the
pilot of the downed aircraft, Flight Lieutenant David Stead, and was
also friends with crew members Mark Gibson, Gary Nicholson and Bob
O'Connor.
He said he is now making it his mission to ensure other servicemen
don't suffer the same fate as his pals.
"I've been in touch with Stead's parents and they don't want anyone to
go through what they've been through," he said. "Every Herc that goes
to war needs this stuff. I'm doing this for the wives of the guys that
are out there today and tomorrow. I won't stop fighting until this
lifesaving equipment is fitted on every plane."
Mr Gilbert said foam retardant was first requested by RAF crews in 1982
at the time of the Falklands War.
He realised the importance of foam himself when he was serving in
Afghanistan four years ago and his aircraft was regularly shot at.
"John Reid said the Herc crew last year was unlucky but you can't rely
on luck when you go to war," he said.
Mr Gilbert said the excuses given by the MoD for not fitting the foam
retardant were money and time.
He said: "It is an act of negligence that the Hercules did not have
foam retardant on board. In fact, no RAF Hercules has foam in the fuel
tanks even though it has been requested on many occasions.
"The only safe method to protect the crews is to do what other air
forces have done and provide the best kit and best training. Our
service people have become expendable assets under this Government."
"If we do not learn the lessons of this crash then I am afraid that
this tragedy will happen again.
North Wiltshire MP James Gray supports the campaign.
He said: "We want the Hercs to have as many defence aids as they can.
The Secretary of State is now in urgent discussion with Marshalls of
Cambridge over the matter."

[500days2do]

:yuk:
Oh dear, oh dear...
Mr giblet...doing it for the boys eh..????
More likely scoring a few brownies for his next career in politics.
Shame the incumbants on 'the sqn' arent as forthcoming with their ideas...

5d2d
:yuk:

[Lyneham Lad]

I have some understanding and experience of budgetary pressures, but having read the text below (ref Flight Magazine), I wonder how the people who make these decisions sleep at night:-
Flight International can, meanwhile, reveal that the UK is the only launch nation involved in the Airbus Military A400M programme not to have funded the installation of the safety equipment as part of its production order. “The [A400M] common standard aircraft does not come fitted with a fuel tank inerting system,” says the MoD. “Fuel tank inerting was not selected by the UK prior to, or after, contract signature.”
Airbus Military sources confirm that all other programme launch customers – Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey – have selected the equipment for their 155 aircraft. The UK also previously removed defensive countermeasures equipment from all but nine of its 25 A400Ms, reducing procurement costs by around £240 million ($417 million).
Full article (http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/02/28/Navigation/190/205123/UK+to+weigh+up+Hercules+threat.html)

[pr00ne]

Lyneham Lad,

I have over the years frequently gone into bat to protect this Govt's Defence expenditure record and attempt to deflect some of the justified criticism toward the uniformed top brass.

HOWEVER,

Lyneham Lads little quoted piece above is the last straw. I don't care if this decision was made by a Two Star, the CAS or a senior Civil Servant, the Minister of Defence is ultimately responsible for this and to allow a situation where the UK is the ONLY customer for the A400M NOT to have specified a fuel tank inerting system, to cancel DAS fit on 16 of a 25 frame order and STILL not to have fitted foam anti fire systems in existing C-130K wing fuel tanks is quite simply negligence of the highest order!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some one get a grip.

If it's good enough for the likes of Luxembourg then it should be on RAF a/c.

[The Gorilla]

The difference is that other nations values the lives of their own men and women in the forces. The UK however puts a cost on the lives of its men and women.

Nobody within HMG, MOD or the Defence Council cares a jot about a single death, not one and I don't say that lightly. The circa 1955 view that each and every one of you has taken the shilling and is therefore expendable is still bread and butter today.

Just the way it is I am sorry to say and I suspect it's going to get much worse..

:{

[southside]

I think the Gorilla has hit the nail on the head there. I think it is shocking that we send our men and women into harms way without the adequate protection. I operate within a fleet which oerates 68/69 aircraft and we have 8 DAS kits....8 !!!!

On the other hand though we have to balance things up with the cost. My DAS kit cost £100G each and so is bloomin expensive. On top of that, all of our servicemen are crying out for better kit. The Typhoon, Typhoon 2 (with or without engines), JSF, T45, CVS, new radios, new boots, more Nav bags, flak Jackets for the troops on the floor, bigger guns, better guns etc etc etc....and there is a limit to what the people can afford. Ask Joe Public what he wants his money spent on and it will be more Hospitals, more Police and more Schools....not a DAS kit for an aircraft he's never heard of.

Notwithstanding that, some people have criticised CAS and Admiral JB etc for this problem. Im sure that all our Sea/land/air lords would love to send our boys into battle with the bestest, most reliable kit but it simply doesn't happen. However, following the tragic loss of life on the Herc last year, our Politicians should be ashamed of themselves if they ever send another Serviceman/woman into harms way without adequate protection.

[BEagle]

Originally I suggested caution on disclosing the capabilities of our ac due to be deployed soon, if not so already. I still think that it would be wise to keep schtum about what is actually out there or going there, but that's all...

Jackonicko, I apologise to you for casting aspersions on your professional integrity and am sure that, whilst you would never write anything on the lines of "Brit Troops Face Death Due To Ministry Bungling", an article combining that astonishing story about the A400M DASS and the continuing state of the C130 DASS programmes would not be a bad thing. I'll certainly buy that edition of AFM or whatever!

I am utterly appalled that no fleet wide DASS or foam supression system has been ordered for the C130 and A400M. Even though I have crossed swords with Pr00ne and southside in the past, it seems that all military forum PPRuNers are united on this.

We have already lost one Herc and its crew to hostile fire. How many more will it take before Reid and those toads Bliar and Grasping Gordon pay for what is clearly needed. Even if it means cancelling or delaying other programs......

[JessTheDog]

Notwithstanding that, some people have criticised CAS and Admiral JB etc for this problem. Im sure that all our Sea/land/air lords would love to send our boys into battle with the bestest, most reliable kit but it simply doesn't happen. However, following the tragic loss of life on the Herc last year, our Politicians should be ashamed of themselves if they ever send another Serviceman/woman into harms way without adequate protection.

Going to war is an expensive business...if we can't afford it, we shouldn't go...

[Safety_Helmut]

On the other hand though we have to balance things up with the cost. My DAS kit cost £100G each and so is bloomin expensive. On top of that, all of our servicemen are crying out for better kit. The Typhoon, Typhoon 2 (with or without engines), JSF, T45, CVS, new radios, new boots, more Nav bags, flak Jackets for the troops on the floor, bigger guns, better guns etc etc etc....and there is a limit to what the people can afford. Ask Joe Public what he wants his money spent on and it will be more Hospitals, more Police and more Schools....not a DAS kit for an aircraft he's never heard of.
southside you're right, f@ck that was painful !

Going to war is an expensive business...if we can't afford it, we shouldn't go...
Exactly, either give us the right kit, or don't send us !

S_H

[Aeronut]

There was a piece in Air International that discussed the SoF fit on the Ks in detail, and the way in which contractual issues have prevented installation of a decent DAS on the J has been widely discussed and described.
No-one need get too twitchy just yet, methinks.



Oh that's gospel then!!! I read it in Air International!!!!!!



Hahahahahahahahaha

[Bof]

I am appalled as an old fart truckie, (the K was brand new in my day!) to see the complete lack of security restraint in some of the previous posts. Don't you guys know anything about 'need to know'. What are you trying to do? Show the world how smart you are with your possible classified chat. Even if it isn't really classified any more you don't go shouting the odds from the treetops. But it's all in Flight or the Beano or whatever! B****cks!
First principles gents. Some magazine prints an article on equipment X or procedure Y. Probably true, but unless it's been officially declassified, you don't go shouting your mouth off like a gaggle of school kids and prove to all and sundry that Air International's snippet of information is true. Keep your mouth shut and make the bad guy's job just that tintzy little bit harder. He'll find out in the end, why make life easier for him. Sorry guys, rant over , but I'm with BEagle. Retires to fireplace with copy of First Light!!

[southside]

You are wrong fella. There is nothing classified on this thread.

[Talk Wrench]

I am inclined to agree with many posts on this thread. Even Southside hit a note with his comment that nothing is classified on this thread.

Firstly, yes. The SPAMS have had fuel inerting for years.

Secondly, why do we not have it?

We have the technology for self sealing fuel tanks, it was developed many years ago (WW2) as well as fuel inerting (F I)

Fuel inerting will inevitably cost cash to an already underfunded defence budget. To retrofit will cost milions of pounds which simply isn't there because it is now spent on other national priorities. Such as, well, you know where I am coming from.

The bean counters have us all over a barrel again.

The cost of life involved with the omission of F I is calculated into the cost of defence budgetry. i.e DEAD MENS LIVES COST LESS IN COMPENSATORY PAYMENTS than to install FI.

SAD, as we all know and remember, but true.

However, hope is not lost.

FI can be achieved cheaply and effectively by taking lessons from the civil industry. Instead of using foam retardant (an expensive option) it is possible to inert fuel tanks by pressurising them with nitrogen and using self sealing protocols.. Simple, effective and cheap.

Sell that one to the accountants.

What costeth a mans life?


Talk Wrench

[southside]

Good call. I must confess to having little knowledge about using self sealing protocols but your comment What costeth a mans life?
couldn't be truer.

[Talk Wrench]

Southside,

You have confessed to having little knowledge many times by your posts, but again, I must agree, What costeth a life.

[chappie]

:uhoh: i feel compelled to post a reply. whilst i'm not a pilot (please don't be mad for me being on your territory.) i'm the sister of bob o'connor who died in iraq on 30th jan when the herc got shot down.:{ i'm trying to understand some of the terminology that was used the day i was at lyneham in the inquiry and being told about an inerting system and the purpose it could/would serve! that's how i've found myself here! on more than one ocassion by more than one top brass i was told an inerting system would be looked into. i was assured that pilots had'nt previously requested or stressed that there was a need for it. it may or may not have saved the crew, that i don't know. the lack of respect and honesty that i experienced is slowly being revealed. it pains my family and the other families to know that you don't have the appropiate protection when you go into theatre, that are afforded to other forces around the world. :( yet it is felt by the upper eschalons of power that you are protected). at risk of offending, which i don't mean to, tony blair and john reid remain unaffected by the loss of your colleagues, the grief i feel at losing bob and the fear that it could happen again. i don't know what more it will take to get you protected. the familes want to do something to get the fuel inertion system a reality, and i will tread on politicans *@!! to get it for you. the currency of dead men has been laid on the table. talkwrench asks what costeth a mans life?...not a fuel inerting system!we've yet to see a compensation payment so they're wriggling out of all of it.

[flipster]

500Days2Do

You obviously don't know Nige Gilbert very well - if you did, you would know how crass were your comments.

NG was a very close friend and colleague of those who so sadly perished on XV179. Along with many others, he is trying to use whatever connections he can to prevent a reoccurrence of such a tragedy involving RAFAT. To suggest otherwise is, frankly, deeply offensive to the memory of the fallen.

Although you are quite entitled to your own opinion and I am sure you didn't mean to offend but I would, however, politely suggest that you retract your comments, or at least delete them.

Flipster

Chappie, You have my most deeply heartfelt condolences.