Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety

[nigegilb]

The following questions have been asked in Parliament this week concerning the circumstances of the shooting down of XV179 and the deployment of Hercules ac to Afghanistan.

26
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence, what representations he has received in the last five years on
fitting reticulated foam to all Mk1 Hercules aircraft.
(57108)
27
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence, what his plans are for combat search and rescue cover for
downed RAF aircrews in (a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan; and if he will make
a statement.
(57109)
28
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence, what plans he has to fit the new K model Hercules aircraft with
(a) the latest generation defensive aids suite and (b) foam in the wing
tanks; and if he will make a statement.
(57110)
29
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence, which J model Hercules aircraft have been fitted with (a) the
latest generation defensive aids suite and (b) foam in the wing tanks;
and what plans he has to equip the remaining aircraft.
(57111)
30
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence, what recent research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated
on the value of (i) the latest generation defensive aids suite and (ii)
foam in the wing tanks of Hercules aircraft; and what assessment he has
made of the research on these issues.
(57154)
31
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence, when each of the Mk 3 Hercules were fitted with associated
defensive aids systems.
(57158)
32
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence, if he will make it his policy not to use Hercules aircraft
which have not been fitted with (a) latest generation Defensive Aids
Suite and (b) foam in the wing tanks in (i) Iraq and (ii) Afghanistan;
and if he will make a statement.
(57160

For those who do not know, I am a former Hercules pilot and friend of some of those who were killed last year. Without the restrictions imposed by the Military, I am now in a position to demand answers from the Establishment as to why this crew may have died unnecessarily. I have been working for several weeks through contacts in the media and the House of Commons to improve the safety and security of Hercules aircrew. The above questions have been asked as a result of evidence I submitted to the Defence Committee. The Government has been hiding for too long behind a veil of secrecy and must be brought to account both morally and financially.

[maximo ping]

If Q28 means we are getting some new K models then top work Nige!
;)

[SlipperySlappery]

Mr SlipperySlappery (Lashville North): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he can provide an assurance that future heavy aircraft platforms such as A400 and FSTA will be procurred sufficient defensive aids.

What do you think the answer to that would be? Blah blah yes of course we give a damn about our people blah blah blah.

SS

PS Nige, what you doing these days?

[DME MILOS]

Thank you for all your hard work with this Nige. You have the full support of everyone who knew the guys.

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

33
SirPeterHardingsLovechild (Danger W@nking at the Stbd Para Door) : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to confirm that the best form of defence is to have God on our side.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Given that Saint Tony is invoking God,

time we all declared for another, or none.

Sven

[ExALM]

Stunning work Nige. Hope all goes well and not just pushed aside, as always!

See you at the next reunion bud.

[flipster]

Nige

It is right to highlight the problems faced by Hercs (old and new) - not to mention ALL RAF AT - flying in-theatre. The boys and girls who fly these ac and the trusting passengers that they carry deserve so much better protection than has been afforded them in the past.
Good luck - you have my total support.

Flipster

I too, am also astounded about the lack of forethought that seems to have gone into the procurement of A400M - pitiful!

[nigegilb]

Just want to say thanks for the messages of support both private and public. Sadly, there is no new “K” Model on the cards - that was an honest mistake by Mike Hancock...Unlike other MPs who are seeemingly happy to accept Government platitudes on the subject, Mike is very concerned about safety issues facing British military personnel and fortunately he is on the Defence Committee. I have put him straight on question 28/29! Pressure is building on the MoD. When Adam Ingram was challenged about the cancellation of the “J” DAS programme at the Defence Committee public hearing this week, he tried to duck the issue. In an unusual move the Chairman asked for a more considered answer and as a result the Committee was forced into private session. Now Mr Ingram and Mr Reid have got to answer some very awkward questions. Expect further developments on Hercules Foam/DAS/Ballistic Matting issues. I will post any answers on this forum just as soon as I get them. I am aware of the sensitivity of this issue but pressure has got to be maintained if the money is going to get to the front line and RAF AT crews are to get the protection they deserve. I think it is fair to say that as a result of the media interest generated so far there is no way that the slick Hercules fiasco of 31/2 years ago is going to be repeated this time round. The Chiefs of Staff will simply not get away with it.

[flipster]

Nige,

Slick-Hercules fiasco????

I was told it was a well-supported operation that had the in-depth knowledge and intelligence (sic) back-up at the highest level of MOD - rumour has it that the DefSec and ForSec (and their aids) thought they were in fully protected aircraft - ho ho ho!

Or did we all just close our eyes and cross our fingers and sit on coils of chain while the 'emperors fiddled'?

Best of British

Flipster

[nigegilb]

Flip,
I heard a little story that Geoff Hoon's face, allegedly, was a picture when he was told that he was sitting on the aircraft's defensive aids suite (a flak jacket). tee hee.

[nigegilb]

I understand your concerns. With regard to the generalisations used in terminology this was entirely deliberate on my part. The MPs have been given more specific guidance as to what system is required. I have asked in my evidence to the Defence Committee that the Hercules fleet be brought to the same standard of protection. This would include ESF, DAS Flight Deck Armour. The Australian Air Force policy is not to put its AT Fleet into harms way without all of the above. I am walking a tightrope here if I had gone into specifics in public I would have been accused of endangering crews on operations. On the other hand we have all sat on chains whilst Chiefs of Staff have turned a blind eye and Ministers have told the Country that Hercules crews have full protection. Having now lost some mates I am doing my best to not lose any more. Remember that the threat in Afghanistan is already there. With regard to the questions asked by Mike Hancock I had no input. The questions are specific for very good reasons. I have made certain allegations in my evidence and they may have prompted some of the more specific questions. There are other reasons that I cannot go into at the moment. The natural instinct of the MoD is to avoid the issue. I am not sure what to expect from the PQs, but the added scrutiny is a bonus. Hope this helps, any feedback from crews doing the job on the frontline is very useful to me. I am concerned that within the fleets at Lyneham a lottery of protection is developing, this needs fixing quickly.

[flipster]

Nige

I hear that GH was not half as much surprised as his 1* 'mil adviser' - who went a strange colour of purple. The 1* was a good guy (even if he was a bona-mate) and was genuinely shocked to hear the news - funny nonetheless!

Still, we were all hooting and roaring when we were told that 'Albert' eventually 'bit' GH before he got off the lower bunk!

[nigegilb]

Flip,
In all seriousness this makes it all the more surprising to read the comments of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in a letter to a constituent written on 07 Aug 2002.

"On the C130 Hercules aircraft engaged in Afghanistan area of operations firstly I can assure you that all C130 aircraft operating in Afghanistan are provided with a suite of defensive aids.........We are confident that for all military flights into Afghanistan appropriate self-protection measures are in place."

Maybe this is why the MoD does not comment on such matters any more....

[flipster]

It depends on how you define 'suite' - I guess flak jackets (some without kevlar plates), coils of chain, hand-held NVGs, a sense of duty and 'the force' would probably count for MOD!

But also, I seem to remember that, for DR Congo in 2003/4, HQSTC insisted that the ac sent over there had to have 'the full monty' (barring RWR). I would like to think that AFG would be the same - I certainly hope so!

:O

[nigegilb]

Flip,
Might have something to do with the fact that on 21 Dec 2002, TB and GH were put on notice for corporate manslaughter in the event that any British military personnel were killed in action due to a lack of protective equipment. With reference to the Ingram statement that slick Hercules were equipped with a DAS in 2002, I have a funny feeling that a very senior officer at 2GP may have contributed to this deception. By the way, there is no time limit/theatre restriction to the notice of corporate manslaughter.

[nigegilb]

It is becoming obvious by the PMs and Postings that there is a lot of concern out there about the level of protection of the RAF AT fleet. The Government and Chiefs of Staff know exactly what brought down XV179 last year and how to prevent it happening again. Armed with this knowledge work should have started last year on providing the Hercules fleet with Explosive Suppressant Foam. No action was taken and by agreeing to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and publishing BOI on the web, every “bad guy” in the World with an internet connection can find out how to shoot a Hercules down.

If the programme to equip the “J” with a “modern” DAS had not been cancelled in 2004, 15 additional aircraft would now have been available for deployment with a “modern” DAS. There is also an urgent need to afford passengers the protection of simple to use lightweight ballistic matting, aka our coalition partners. The failure of the Defence Chiefs and Government Ministers to provide this basic level of protection to Hercules crews and passengers deployed in hostile environments is a scandal. Their dereliction of "duty of care" leaves them open to a charge of gross negligence.

[flipster]

FF

Bashing your head against a wall?

I think the way grope did it in 2002/3 was to pick and choose which bit of the threat matrices they wanted to believe, change the bits they didn't like and ignore the rest. At the same time, they also ignored advice from specialist personnel within the HQ - and those who were being regularly shot at - Nige for example.

However, like I've said before, the RAF didn't have the cash to update the ac, nor could they have done anything very quickly - even if the Brown-of-the-Tight-Fist had given us a blank cheque. But sadly, only those low-level specialist staff officers took the warnings seriously and, for sure, they felt like they were bashing their head against a brick wall.

So, it is suspected that people like SASO and AOC 2 Gp (and right up the chain) 'risk-managed' the whole op with our lives, while we did the best we could with what little we had. (BTW 'Risk Management' is another word for 'gambling for the sake of promotion'.)

Ok, so we took the Queen's shilling but I don't think Her Majesty would have been too impressed with the apparently cavalier way in which 2 Gp treated her AT crews (and their passengers).

Nonetheless, I could almost forgive their Lordships for 2002/3/4 but, by now, they have had some money, the knowledge and the time to have rectified the parlous state of our AT fleet (including the widebodies). If they haven't done so and then they send these ac to AFG/Iraq/Iran- then, yes, IMHO they will be negligent. One lives in hope that our hierarchy are smarter than that.
Perhaps those PQs will reveal the extent of the preparedness of our ac?


sad: :sad:

[flipster]

FF

HQ 2 Gp? Tactics? Common-sense? - Now there are some words that don't often get put together in the same sentence! Ask the AWC what they think of 2 Gp!

Seriously, though, you are right - even with ALL the right kit, nothing is 'for certain' and you can't get 'invisible shields' from stores.

Having the kit, however, makes our crews' (and their passengers') chances of survival soooo much higher.

Furthermore, DIRCM or LAIRCM are very damn good compared to the old kit on some aircraft, with some limitations admittedly. Add some 'other bits and pieces' though and DIRCM is very,very good - but it wouldn't have saved 179. On the other hand, having foam or a fire suppression system would have given 179 a much better chance. But next time (Lord forbid), it may be different again.

Not getting a bit of kit for all our ac, based purely on cost, is unforgiveable. If the ac is 'not fit for purpose', it shouldn't be there!

[nigegilb]

If anyone has any doubt about the effectiveness of foam please read the following statement. This is from a friend of mine who under the circumstances I am sure will not mind me repeating it here. This aircraft landed with fuel pouring from its wings. The crew were hit 19 times with everything up to 57mm. The ac was loaded with SF Troops and they all survived......

Our technical manuals still carry performance numbers for aircraft with and without foam, but there isn't a Herk in the USAF inventory that doesn't carry reticulated foam in the tanks. They have been in since at least the 60's, and we still replace and service this foam before any aircraft going through heavy/depot/Marshall's maintenance gets returned to the fleet. There were problems with the foam breaking up and clogging the fuel filters, but there haven't been any operational problems with it. The MC-130H that was forced down in Turkey on the first night of OIF (the crew got the PK Carlton award) took several hits in the wings with no damage other than fuel leaking out of the holes. They were engaged by everything up to 57mm at the same altitude Steady was flying. It is a miracle that only one crew has been lost taking on the risks that the USAF and DOD have avoided and eliminated through kit, training and leadership changes since 1987.

I have edited these comments.

[nigegilb]

Save you the trouble.


The 2004 winner of the Gen. P.K. Carlton Award for Valor is the crew of “Harley 37,” cited for its role in safely landing a battle-damaged MC-130H loaded with special operations forces during a mission in the opening days of Operation Iraqi Freedom. During the mission, the plane took 19 hits from anti-aircraft artillery fire, ranging from 7.62 mm to 57 mm, with one shell shattering the pilot’s windscreen, and others striking the main wing spar. The plane landed with only three working engines and all 58 people on board were safely evacuated.



I have edited this post iaw the request below. The point about this posting is that the USAF aircraft suffered a much more serious attack than the one encountered by Steady and his crew. The USAF aircraft had the protection of foam in the wing tanks.

[brickhistory]

nigegilb,
Please remove or edit your post with the MC-130's crew names. Regardless of you finding it elsewhere, you still potentially put these folks at risk by publishing their names and the base where then serving.
Mods, if he won't, will you?

nigegilb,
Thanks

(edited to acknowledge the courtesy shown)

[flipster]

BH and Mods

Really no need to delete post - just one click on Google and there are the names!

Despite the 'darkness' normally surrounding Spec Ops stuff, the USAF have seen fit to publish the crew's names in full. They like to honour their heroes publicly but I also suspect these guys are no longer where the USAF said they are.

You think ALQ and others hadn't already got this information?

Anyway, really good work Harley 37!

[flipster]

A tad unfair you think?

Maybe. Of course, the guys on the front-line Sqns try very hard to use tactics and common-sense. Its just that the higher echelons at HQ that sometimes let the workers-bees down - eg insisting on flying Hercs and Tri*s in daylight to Kabul - not even the Americans were doing that! This was NOT the best decision I heard from Grope and - I can recall how those at BZN and LYE were mightly unimpressed!

[airborne_artist]

Brickhistory

I respect your concern for the crew of the MC-130 - but you should be aware that the first page on Google is http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009001 - the USAF's own page. I'm not sure than copying that info on Pprune could compromise personal/Op sec?

[nigegilb]

I reckon there will be a few red faces at Group today. Here is another one. I understand that there are files on 47 Sqn with post op/exercise reports requesting the immediate installment of foam. I understand that these go back to the year 2000 or thereabouts. The reports point out the vulnerability of the Hercules to certain types of ground fire. How do I know this? Well, the person who wrote them has confirmed it to me. He has two wishes.

1. The relatives should now receive compensation.
2. All Hercules crews going operational should be protected by foam.

I would concur with these laudable aims.

I should also add that this officer is no longer serving.

[brickhistory]

Brickhistory
I respect your concern for the crew of the MC-130 - ....I'm not sure than copying that info on Pprune could compromise personal/Op sec?

But it doesn't add to it either.
Additionally, what about the generally accepted Prune rule of no real names?

It's is a minor point compared to the purpose of this thread and shouldn't detract from that point, but in most cases, serving line crew are not ID'd by name here. I am a big fan of that convention.

[nigegilb]

I agree with Brickhistory and I am sorry if I inadvertently broke a convention. When I first saw the long list of surviving crew of "Harley 37", I was struck by how many names there were. In total there were 58 people on board. I have taken 70+ into Afghanistan in the past. It is worth remembering that the shooting down of XV179 caused the largest loss of life for British Forces, but it could have been even worse....

[kfwalm]

Just like to add my thanks to nige. As a current operator any help is better than none. Thanks mate keep it up!! I say better protection for all AT it is the only way, the way the world is going there is no safe haven, we will be in harms way nearly every where we go and no sight of any change...

[nigegilb]

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. Coalition partners have been mentioned a couple of times, thought I would show you what the Australians have been doing. All downloads from Aus DoD website.

"The first C-130J-30s were rotated into the Middle East later in 2004 equipped with ballistic protection (BP) and electronic warfare self-protection (EWSP). A further enhancement to the survivability of the C-130 is being provided under a separate project (Explosion Suppressive Foam - ESF Project). This will provide explosion suppression for RAAF C-130 fuel tanks, with initial deliveries already made in early 2005. Aircraft now and in future deployments will have BP, EWSP and ESF as standard 'Survivability Equipment'......

.....THE first explosive suppressant foam has been fitted in the fuel tanks of C-130 aircraft to protect both the platform and the people who operate them.

The first installation took place at RAAF Base Richmond on December 10 (2004) when the foam was fitted to a C-130J“We would be putting foam in both Hercules types but the immediacy is for the C-130J,” GPCAPT Bennett said......

....funds had been allocated to conduct a study on the feasibility of ballistic matting.

“We are anticipating Government approval for the project later this year and to fit the first aircraft early in 2005,” GPCAPT Bennett said.
The ballistic matting is intended as a protection against small arms rounds that might penetrate the aircraft, as occurred in an incident earlier this year when a US civilian died in a Hercules hit by small arms fire. The matting acts as a form of armour, similar to the underfloor and seat armour fitted to helicopters in Vietnam.

GPCAPT Bennett said the upgrades were largely a result of lessons in the Middle east Area of Operations (MEAO). “Iraq has taught us a lot about operations in a combat environment,” he said.

Says it all really, the only thing to emphasise is that contrary to considered opinion the first AAF Herc to roll off the line with foam was December 2004 predating the tragedy of last year.

[BEagle]

Can't help thinking that if a similar level of effort as is shown towards such pointless bolleaux as silly yellow road digger's vests and similar enviro-fundamentalist tree-hugging health and safety tosh was instead directed towards things that actually matter - such as protection for large aircraft in hostile zones - then people might have a little more confidence in the support they receive from on high......

[nigegilb]

Thinking about it again, Dr Reid assured us at the time of the BOI report that a full risk assessment had been done in 2002 and that the conclusion was that no foam was deemed necessary for RAF Hercules aircraft. Thing is the Australians were operating in exactly the same theatre of operations and yet their conclusion was the opposite. Indeed, they rushed through mods with impressive urgency. Anyone shed any light on this contrasting approach to safety?

[FJJP]

Nigegilb, 3 factors:

Money. You win some, you lose some - who cares who dies.

Underwhelming regard for the British Military displayed by our political masters. Talk is cheap.

Senior Officers at MOD/STC/Gp level who don't have the guts to embarass said political masters by telling the truth publically.

[16 blades]

Thank you for your commendable efforts, Nige. Keep plugging away.

I fear, however, that they will end up retiring the K fleet early before they shell out to fit ESF. Maybe they could cancel the next few rounds of glossy pension brochures to pay for it - heaven forbid!!

It's nice, though, that the MoD can afford to put big Plasma screen TVs in every Whitehall civil serpent's office, that's the main thing.

....and £1000-a-pop chairs, because that too, after all, is of paramount importance.

16B

[nigegilb]

FJJP,I do agree, but the fact that we have it in black and white that foam was requested years ago must be causing problems at Group. In fact, I have been told unofficially that 47 Sqn first requested foam in 1982. If there are any "mature" Herc operators out there, I would appreciate confirmation of this. Thing is, if the MoD had just put its hands up and said "sorry we screwed up, foam for all we are taking protection seriously," I probably would not be here now. I am fairly sure that we are about to get an announcement that foam is coming for a few smart frames at Lyneham. This is not going to be enough. There will be no urgency and probably nothing for the J. Just reading about the pride the Australian senior officers have in giving enhanced protection for their crews made me reflect on our own "Top Brass," and their lamentable performance in all this. They have every right to be embarrassed, but I also feel they should apologise along with our Defence Ministers. We need a fundamental rethink in the approach to safety and self-protection.

[nigegilb]

I understand that RAF C17s have an inerting system in the fuel tanks called OBIGGS, based on nitrogen. This seems remarkable considering as recently as 2002 it was not deemed necessary to fit ESF to RAF Hercules. Could it be that it has something to do with the leasing contract? I remember watching the very first C17 land in Afghanistan. A fantastic job those guys/girls did as well. Can't help but feel uneasy about the lottery of protection between aircraft types though.


Edited iaw concern expressed below

[indie cent]

"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)."


Should we be asking who is responsible for this decision? Is this based on the same consultation and consideration given to UK C130 protection???

[Kitbag]

Surely if all other launch customers have the equipment fitted at launch it becomes 'standard' by definition or is the spinning £ symbol blurring the real truth?
Who is going to be the first to say it wasn't in the original specs? and is that any good reason for it not to be installed? :bored:

[Jerseyman]

Nige, Cx PMs!

[nigegilb]

Got the first answer back from the Minister regarding CSAR cover for downed crews in Afghanistan. Predictably the Minister has declined to comment;

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his plans are for combat search and rescue cover for downed RAF aircrews in (a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [57109]

Mr. Ingram: For reasons of operational security, and to protect our troops in such a circumstance, I cannot reveal the detail of such rescue plans.

This is the Minister who lied about MK3 Hercules having DAS in 2002. I assume from his reply that there is a CSAR plan, which is encouraging.

Thanks for the info about the A400. I am about to start compiling another list of questions. I think it is already becoming clear that this Government is not interested in paying for safety. The stock answer seems to be "military operations are dangerous." That is what Dr Reid told grieving relatives the other day. The proactive Australian Government fitted enhanced self-protection before a tragedy occurred. Standard survival equipment includes latest anti-missile system, flight deck armour and explosive suppressant foam. This is the minimum protection for all Aus Herc crews. (I am trying to confirm if ballistic matting is now standard). Last time I checked UK PLC was the fourth biggest economy in the World. The only thing that is preventing adequate protection for RAF Crews is political will and absence of leadership.

[airborne_artist]

Last time I checked UK PLC was the fourth biggest economy in the World.

UK plc is now #5, having been overtaken in GDP by the Chinese, perhaps the only nation to care less about the safety of its employees.

[nigegilb]

I have received information that dispels the myth that XV179 was brought down by a lucky shot. Back in 2004 another RAF Hercules was hit by small arms fire. The aircraft was taking off from a coalition base and luckily had just been fully re-fuelled with cold fuel. This prevented a significant vapour build up and probably saved the lives of the crew. This incident was a gigantic heads up about what might happen if a round penetrated a half empty fuel tank with a fuel/air vapour mix. Why was foam not fitted as an immediate result of this extremely serious incident? Why are we waiting 14 months after the tragedy to find out what the Chiefs of Staff are going to do to head off another tragedy? Please note that no change of tactics would have saved this crew. It was not operating low level at the time. The Hercules fleet (J,K), has to have foam. It must be done as a matter of urgency.

Please note I have no reason to believe that any aspect of this information is untrue.

[Blodwyn Pig]

without wishing to go into to much detail, i understand that a trial fitting of foam to a 'K' will be happening fairly soon.
sorry to be so vague, but i don't know if the info is out there in the public realm at the minute.

[nigegilb]

With reference to the above posting I would like to add the following. I have reason to believe that before all the publicity this issue was at risk of going the same way as many UORs before it. Then I heard that a handful of frames were going to get foam. This number increased to more than a handful and is "endorsed" but at the expense, yet again, of the J. Finally, I have the news that I have wanted to hear for some time. I think the J has a seat at the table. The "Heat" is on and must be maintained but I think we are finally getting somewhere. I would like to thank everyone for their support once more.

[indie cent]

Three C's



New CDF says: ‘We need to treat our people with consideration, with compassion and with care.’



By David Sibley





http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4712/images/01-cdf_th.jpg (http://www.defence.gov.au/news/raafnews/editions/4712/images/01-cdf.jpg)CDF ACM Angus Houston talks to Air Force newspaper.


Photo by LACW Kim Eager

AIR Chief Marshal Angus Houston has made looking after “our people” his top priority on becoming Chief of the Defence Force (CDF).






“One of the things that has uplifted me in my time as a senior commander in the ADF is the sheer quality of our people,” he said.


“I go out and see people on operations from all three Services – the most recent example being the tsunami relief operations.

“What I saw were sailors, soldiers and airmen and women doing an absolutely magnificent job for Australia.

“I was really taken by their professionalism, their dedication and their compassion in very challenging circumstances.”

He said to maintain that level of performance Defence had to continue to look after all “our people”.

“I think we need to treat our people with consideration, with compassion and with care,” he said.









:- This is taken from the RAAF News. It was the Top Story in Jul 14 2005.

[nigegilb]

I mentioned in one of my postings (I am sorry there have been so many) that I was struck by the pride of the Aus Military from the top down. They actually appear to be working together in partnership with their politicians/senior officers. When they experience a sad incident, like the US Pax who was shot in the back of a Herc they bang their heads together and try and prevent it happening again. The urgent trial of ballistic matting happened at impressive speed. I was trying to find info about Aus C130 foam and hey presto in a couple of clicks a photo of a smiling engineer with a big sheet of foam in his hands appears with another proud headline. It appears to be a much more open and honest partnership. As a result the nation appears to be behind its military. I think we still have a lot to learn. All Dr Reid could say to grieving relatives this week was "military operations are dangerous." Chiefs of Staff look around you, your people are all you have....If you cannot look after them maybe a military federation is an inevitability.

[rudekid]

Indie Cent
You could take that quote out of the pages of RAF news on a fortnightly basis. Platitudes are all very well....
Quite frankly, foam or no foam, I'd rather have HEVS or the J Model version (not yet sighted by me) to make us a lot safer.
Why, except in extremis, are we flying during the day! Who's signing that off?
Can't help thinking we're missing some of the point.

[flipster]

I have to agree with rudekid - what is the necessity of day flying? Why can't most things be done at night - Certainly, I thought that was the AT fleet's intention. Although night flying has some complications - gogs and trg etc, it is, generally, very much safer viz-a-viz SAFIRE - as we learnt last time?

Just this Once - thanks, check your PMs.

I may not have made it totally clear - it is the higher echelons at Gp (and above) who do not listen to the advice from the 'specialists' and who usually find 'reasons' to insist that the Op is 'paramount' and/or that 'there is no money'...budgets-dontcha-know, old boy!
'They' have done this as they sold us down the swanny by telling the politicos that the MOD and Gp are 'content to manage the risk'...... but with our lives and those of our friends and comrades - op necessity, my @rse!
I hope you would agree that this is totally unacceptable, while other countries fully 'support' and fund their ac and crews. I have only total sympathy with those who are trying to organise the latest 'Persian Excursion'!

[nigegilb]

Up until 48 hours ago the J did not even have a seat at the table, now things might be possible. At the start of all this I was given one piece of advice "throw one ball." I believe it may be working.

[flipster]

Great news for all Hercs - I do hope that people are, at last, learning from past oversights and if the pressure you have generated has helped 'raise awareness' then 'jobzagoodun' - good on ya!
Do we know where all the rest of RAFAT going into theatre stand?

[nigegilb]

"The greatest disappointment I felt flying in the RAF was that I was flying with lions on aircraft that were procured by donkeys"....

My ex colleague goes on to say.... "You talk about foam being ID'd back in the early '90's, but a whole host of kit that was pretty much standard on aircraft that fought and lost the war in Vietnam should have been on the frames that you and I were flying - FLIR, secure comms, DAS are all givens in today's AORs."

I think this is in essence what you are getting at rudekid. Bar the odd daylight suicide run into Bagram/Kabul all of my flying in Afghanistan was NVG. I still got targetted by MANPAD, so close that the observer heard the missile explode from the bubble. I was targetted several times by small arms fire on approaches to coalition bases. I have to disagree with your point about HEVS. The baseline in all this is DIRCM, foam, BW protection and NVG ops. On one occasion my crew was tasked to take in a Herc loaded with marines. We did not have an NVG frame so we turned off the ac lighting and taped green light sticks all over the instrument panel. I was told that from on high I should not do this but the Commandos were so keen for publicity that every man and his dog must have known we were going to Bagram that night. I was tempted to invite one of the film crews onto the flight deck and show them what it is like to fly on operations in the RAF in 21st century. Sadly, the J is NVG compatible but is used to fly daylight ops in Iraq. Rest assured, the Defence Committee have been advised of this fact. In many ways the J fleet is taking the biggest risks at the moment. It is one reason why I have been vociferously arguing the case for enhanced protection for the J as well as the K.

[nigegilb]

Here is a link to CREST makers of reticulated foam. I am told they do a sales video of a round hitting a fuel tank with and without ESF fitted.

http://www.crestfoam.com/

[nigegilb]

FF if this is the reason why the J is flying daylight missions it really is very worrying. I would have thought that the circumstances surrounding XV179 would have brought more caution to the Operation. Is this a case of the tail wagging the dog? If so we have been here before. I understand that PJHQ may have changed the Global Threat Matrix to suit the task in Afghanistan. I always thought that AWC were the only people who issued the threat matrix and could change the Matrix. If this is true then INTOs may have been told to do something against their wishes. As a result of that decision, slick Hercs flying the milk run into Bagram were placed in a great deal of danger. In fact it is a miracle that no crews were lost.

[nigegilb]

I would like to explain the above posting because it is extremely important. In Dec 01 it was "darkside only" into Afghanistan because of Threat Matrix. Then something happened. A decision was taken to put slick Hercs in. I am not sure of the exact chrono order, but the Threat Matrix was changed. A "stop order" came out of OEU because of kit concerns days before the slicks were to go in. This was overruled by Defence Chiefs on the grounds of "military risk." This is their entitlement however I believe that PJHQ may have changed the Matrix. This they are not entitled to do. This was not the only occasion that the Threat Matrix was changed overnight to suit the task. Daylight ops into Kabul is another example. The question has to be asked, however uncomfortable, because the MoD has a "Duty of Care" to its personnel. At what point is this "Duty of Care" being thrown away when things as fundamental as MELs/tactics are being changed to suit a task? It goes to the heart of what is wrong with our Armed Forces at the moment. Senior officers are not very good at telling politicians what we can and can't do. Unusually, when looking at British Military History the role of Defence Chiefs with this particular Government needs to be more of a restraining influence. I suspect there are a fair few officers struggling with their consciences.

[nigegilb]

Judging by the PMs winging their way in I think I have touched on a raw nerve in the last 2 postings. I would like to add the following.

Defence Chiefs/Commanders actively sought exemptions from minimum equipment requirements stated in SPINS. In Dec01 it was not possible to send a slick Herc into Afg because of the requirement to comply with SPINS. The RAF threat assessment was then changed and RAF exemptions from SPINS sought. Coalition Hercules (I will not list them here) all had DAS etc. As far as I know ours was the only country that sent its Herc crews in on a wing and a prayer. I believe at this point we threw away any pretence of "Duty of Care."

[BEagle]

I thought the 'INs' in SPINs stood for 'Instructions'?

If the theatre commander has issued such instructions, how can they be disobeyed?

[nigegilb]

I understand that the US reluctantly gave permission for slick RAF Hercs to go into AFG. There was a case of a US Herc accidentally firing off its flares on the way into Afg airspace. The crew turned back and did not complete its mission such was the seriousness with which DAS was perceived to be needed. I can testify that it was not just a perceived threat, but there were other MANPAD incidents. One crew were fired on and clearly saw the explosion. They were later reassured that it was most likely a meteorite. This took the copilot particularly by surprise as he had not long completed a physics degree. He had never come across meteorites that could fly upwards before!

[The Gorilla]

Nige

As an ex LXX man I appreciate everything that you are doing for those still serving and I wish you every success.

But there has NEVER been a duty of care shown towards any of our Forces by the MOD, it is a concept that simply does not exist and I doubt if it ever will.

I have also seen a cavalier attitude to SPINS on many occasions. A lot of theatre commanders think that they are merely advisory and can be amended as required to get the job done. When you are dealing with the type of people at that level, they will do anything to achieve the task and I can well believe that the threat matrix was amended downwards. But this is something that isn't just Herc specific though and I have witnessed an number of blunders and cover ups to achieve the task. Sometimes people get very blinkered on ops to the exclusion of all else.

Keep nibbling away at it Nige you are doing a grand job.
TG

[flipster]

I, too, can confirm that in early 2002 the RAF were blatantly ignoring the SPINs requirements for DAS and other stuff in AFG. When I queried it, I was told that
a) It had been ok'd for the darkside and we were to do the same - it was being taken 'on risk' by higher authority - PJHQ and MOD
and
b) We would soon to be doing an ISAF task with 'slick' aircraft - so we were not 'officially' part of the US Op any more - so we could ignore SPINs and the ATO etc. We decided that was bollox, however, and we continued to be fragged as part of OEF ATO and complied with as many parts of SPINs as possible -this was one of very few ways to be sure that KAB/BAG and AWACS knew we were coming. And after all, we were flying to Kabul and Bagram at the same times of night as the rest of the Op and were just as easily shot at ....and often were!

Duty of care didn't come into it. We were told to do a job for the guys on the ground - and so we had to do it. The troops needed the essential water, food and ammo we brought in (not so sure about the 9mm blanks, bog-roll, chairs and beer for a regimental dinner, tho') .
While doing this was not comfortable, we could see most was necessary and I was proud to serve with such 'lions'. Nonetheless, we shouldn't have been put there by the fragmented Chain of Command and this was certainly highlighted in the Oracle 'Lessons Identified (Ignored) after the Op

- as was DAS, flt deck armour, secure comms and fire supressant foam!

[flipster]

No on second thoughts, the bog-roll REALLY was important - my mistake...sorry!:D :D

Nige - we were not totally alone with 'zilch DAS' - IIRC the Greeks (or was it the Romainians) in KHI had B models with no DAS but i think they 'went u/s' once they were informed of the threat but their commanders backed them up.
However, you'll have to ask someone who spent more than an hour on the ground at KHI. Incidently, even 1 hr was too long in my book!

[maximo ping]

Romanians I reckon, as I'm sure you remember from all the time spent there Nige!

[flipster]

Ah yes, the Romanians - we were as well protected as the Romanians!

Whatever the shennanigans about the Global Threat Matrix, everyone agreed with our assessment that night ops were the only way ahead.

Although night ops were not without their problems - white-light approaches to BAG/KAB were quite exciting if you didn't have gogs! Nonetheless, these approaches prevented 'the locals' from targeting us too easily but the 'ground-launched meteorites' came far too close on a number of occasions for some people to question what we were doing.

As far as we were concerned, daylight ops would have been suicide BUT a number of detcos had to fight off the hierarchical orders to fly in daylight - just ask them.

[nigegilb]

"We asked 1* Mil Adviser how he felt about flying Hoon in on a non flare equipped aircraft. He assured us that all Hercules aircraft had defensive systems. I showed him the tie down chain under my seat and assured him that he was mistaken. 1* Mil Adviser assured us that threat assessments were being done, but as Hoon got on the flight deck 1* was visibly shaken as he headed to the back. 1* came back up on the flight deck later and was much more composed. With Hoon sleeping on the bunk, 1* said again about how the intel assessments were constantly reviewed, and that we would never be sent in if the threat was too high. I quoted him the number of MANPAD shots that had been assessed in theatre from the intel brief we had received and asked him how many you had to have before it was unsafe to send in slicks. He got pi$$ed off and said something about being in the service and to accept some risk. Hoon woke up in time for the descent so we didn't have much of a chance to talk, but when we got on the ground I asked for our flak jackets back. The look on he and his party's faces was priceless."


Remember that Ingram stated that all Hercs had a DAS later that year. I am quite distressed at the mo. I have been told that an RAF IntO was ordered to downgrade the Threat assessment in theatre. Not good. For the record the first part of Afg War was under Op "Darkside," by the time the Rumanians/Greek/ still better DAS than us ac was at KHI the Op was called something else.

[flipster]

Ah yes, the Ops had different names but aswe were all mostly going to the same places (KAB/BAG) at the same time, I doubt the locals knew we had different Op tags!
Irecall the story too and I don't know what the 1* is doing right now- but he may be able to corroborate the story - clearly he was being fed B-Sh1t by someone and he was probably not best pleased.

[nigegilb]

It kind of matters to me because I think I am owed a gong. Just takes the shine off it that you have to apply for it.

I should add that Ingram was being advised by a very senior chap at Group. I hope the Chiefs are reading this tomorrow.

[flipster]

This was probably the same sort of person (or persons) who apparently ignore the pleas from their own staff.

I can't believe you and your crew didn't qualify for the Afghan GSM thingy and clasp - suggest you revisit that one.

Hmmm, I recall someone mentioning a briefing document to the politicians 'from the military' that 'sold us down the river'. Whether this was from grope or MOD, I'm not sure - but it will be on file somewhere - probably a copy in Stn Ops?

[nigegilb]

Definitely person in this case.....

[flipster]

However, he's probably retired now and got a cushy consultancy job with Airbus or BWofS, sadly.:mad:

[nigegilb]

errrrr, perhaps not.

[nigegilb]

Aaah, that will be the same C17 with the fuel tank inerting system then.

A constituent received this reply from his MP Mr David Kidney regarding a question to Adam Ingram about the nature of protection of Herc crews in Aghanistan in 2002. The reply is dated 30 Jan 2006.


"I spoke to Adam Ingram personally after the story in the Mail on Sunday. I am satisfied with his explanation of the process for deciding which defences to retro-fit and in which order. I am also satisfied with his explanation for his reply to me in 2002. You are my constituent and I will do as you request and seek assurances about the defences of our aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan today."

If I may remind you, Ingram's reply in 2002........

"On the C130 Hercules aircraft engaged in Afghanistan area of operations firstly I can assure you that all C130 aircraft operating in Afghanistan are provided with a suite of defensive aids.........We are confident that for all military flights into Afghanistan appropriate self-protection measures are in place."

The recent reply came after the now legendary coiling of chains and sitting on flak jackets became public knowledge. I did hear a twist on this, one crew emptied the contents of the ac library and spread them around the flight deck floor. I knew those books would come in useful one day! Does all this strike you as odd? Am I missing something here? Can someone define DAS and flight deck armour for me?

Rest assured I have asked the Defence Committee to establish when the MK3 was transformed into the MK3A.

Gorilla thanks for the kind words, I am still trying to work out who you are.
"Duty of Care" is an interesting subject, more later.

[nigegilb]

Glad I am not going mad then. Found this answer in Hansard from a year ago. So now we are into appropriate defensive countermeasures. I guess the ac library does not count then.....




James Gray (North Wiltshire, Con) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Hercules C130J and C130K aircraft have a full defensive aids suite.
Geoff Hoon (Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence) Hansard source
All of the Hercules C130K fleet and about half of the 25 Hercules C130J fleet are equipped with infra-red defensive countermeasures. Additionally, some of these aircraft have an enhanced defensive capability. Only Hercules with appropriate defensive countermeasures are deployed to operational theatres. Other Hercules are used on routine air transport tasks elsewhere.

[The Gorilla]

Nige

Is there anything we can do to assist? Would writing to my MP help or not? If so what specific points of pressure should we apply?

I will PM you with my ID..

TG

[flipster]

Ah
But we all had (well mostly, anyway) that ancient old 60-70s system that was 'trashed' by Trial Bishop or whatever it was. Either way, that bit of kit was rendered useless by the Int in theatre about 'the threat'. I think I heard someone call our 'DAS' the 'ALQ-Choclate Fireguard'!

So, of course, we all had DAS.........NOT!:uhoh: :uhoh:

[maximo ping]

You are quite right about the quality of the DAS Flip, but the fact is that the quoted statements did not mention Flt Deck Armour, and were technically correct. I'm not making excuses for the policy, but it's important to realise that we are dealing with some v wriggly slimy people here and it's essential to get your facts straight.

[flipster]

Yep - you are quite right in that respect - the old kit was quoted by the politicos as 'Defensive Aids' but that doesn't make things right.

All the expert advice was that what little kit we had wasn't good enough and SPINs gave clear guidance as to what was 'appropriate'. Sadly, our own 'top brass' and, thereby, the politicians ignored the advice from below and what was 'best practice' - so selling us down the river. It would have been nice if they had bothered to tell us the 'whys and wherefores' of the sacrifice we could be making....but alas!!!!??

As I have said before, war is nasty and we took The Queen's money but I am sure Her Majesty would have been mortified to learn of the risks that were taken with the lives of Her loyal subjects - crews and pax - just to save face in MOD! However, I can guarantee that their Lordships and the Ministers they serve, will not see it like that and will squirm and swerve their way out of it somehow - as they always do!:{ :{

[nigegilb]

I think we are in the crux of it now. I am not a lawyer but I make the following observations. There is no way IRCM, that is M for measure, note the use of the singular, can count as a "suite of defensive aids".. It was optimized, we all know what for. There were other missiles in theatre (We are not going to discuss current int here). We had absolutely no protection against the other missiles. We had absolutely no protection against ground fire. We had no MWS, no RWR, no flares, no flight deck armour and of course no foam. The use of IRCM alone for the defence of the ac, taking in to account the results of the OEU trial days before the "slicks" went in, was entirely INAPPROPRIATE. Methinks there may be another explanation for the Ministers statement. I let you guess. I do now believe that the Minister in question, the Minister of State for Armed Forces should consider his position. For the record the first of the MK3A Hercules with DAS etc rolled out in 2003, months after Mr Ingram made his statement about Hercules being appropriately protected in summer 2002.

[500days2do]

Mmmm....it seems to me nige that your own political desires sometimes get the better of you..!!! We will not help in anyway,shape or form the crews and pax of the AT fleet by the falling on the sword of any minister. I'm fully behind your stand on this issue but, an its a big but, the problem as I see it is one of the higher echelons of the RAF/MOD who don't really care about the AT fleet,its passengers whilst airbourne or crews. All colours of political party would have done the same thing....its the lack of moral(e) leadership up high that blights us.

Senior RAF positions are still fed by fast jet pilots who by historical virtue are deemed the best commanders...lol. Any truckie boss worth his pay scale would have put this right years ago.

alot less than 5d2d

[nigegilb]

I would be delighted if you could tell me what political party I belong to.

Please go ahead.

[nigegilb]

Whist I am waiting for the answer, I would like to add that Ingram made his first statement in 2002. I was incensed at the time because my crew were flying into Afghanistan night after night with no protection. I kept quiet then, because it would have been too damaging to publicise a hazardous situation. When I approached my own Stn Cdr I was told that, unless an ac was shot down no money would be available for adequate protection. For5d2d to be supporting his Armed Forces Minister after the deception and inconsistencies contained in his statements is frankly, delusional. Why do you keep referring to my political ambitions, when the only ambition that I have in this matter is to secure the safety for Hercules crews, free from the lies of politicians.

[500days2do]

My point seems to have been misunderstood, at this moment in time a change of government would not change the outcome!!!Unless those who we directly serve take it upon themselves to have our interests at heart we are all doomed to take chances and depend wholly on our luck.

Oh and if it helps my guess would be blue dear boy...:rolleyes:

5d2d

[nigegilb]

5D2D

You see, that's the problem with assumptions they are invariably wrong and in this case concerning the assumptions about me they are completely wrong. You obviously need a gentle reminder about the progress we have made in the last few days. The K is sorted, the J is in the balance. I respectfully suggest that we all remain focussed. I will not bother to address your comments again and kindly refrain from making any other assumptions about my politics, ambitions or motivations.

[nigegilb]

I should add that Ingram's statement in 2002 was made after he had been informed of all of the deficiences in the protection of crews. He decided it was still appropriate for crews to go over the border. Following the MoS article Dr Liam Fox (Shadow Minister) asked several pointed questions of Govt handling of the Afghan campaign. In the light of all this as recently as January this year Mr Ingram stands by his remarks made in 2002. This does not bode well for Herc crews waiting to go to Afghanistan in 2006. If anyone is wondering why we are spending so much time and energy talking about something that happened 4 years ago then it is this. Ministers made the decision to fight on 2 fronts because they were told that frames were available and personnel were available. Dr Reid is on record as saying that Hercules sent to Afghanistan this time will have every defensive aid mechanism possible. Well the numbers do not stack up. At least by highlighting the problems slick crews faced last time Chiefs of Staff will not be able to send them again. I have higher hopes of Dr Reid than his predecessor, however he will be well advised to be more incisive with his questioning of Chiefs of Staff. As for Mr Ingram, it seems clear to me that his position is untenable.

[FormerFlake]

I have just found out that OBIGS was fitted to the SR71 development and production aircraft. It is hardly new technology, and also developed by Lockheed. Can there be an excuse for the C130 not having it as standard?

[indie cent]

It seems clear that time is now a factor for the in-theatre C130 crews. If, as Dr Reid has promised, all Hercs will have every defensive mechanism available, then the foam-fitting program must go as the highest priority. We've committed over 3000 troops...

Having done some research, I have also found the following info:

1. The US have a Joint Aircraft Survivability Program. It publishes a journal 3 times a year which reports on the huge amounts of testing they carry out. C130s included. Even the Predator UAV has been tested against ballistics damage! I find it hard to believe that there was not a huge awareness (at command level) of the dangers faced by the crews. More than that indicated by the stock "Military Risk" responses.

2. In 1993 the 32 UK Chinooks were upgraded to HC2 standard. This included the IRCMs, MAWS and Chaff/Flares. I think this was the entire fleet. I cannot find if the Chinny has an fuel-tank inerting system. Perhaps an operator could clarify. (My guess is that it does). However, this appears to set a precedent in my mind.

3. In the short-term, while researching I found that there are fuel additives that will act as explosive suppressant. I am no expert on this area but it strikes me as a possible interim solution until all frames can be adapted. If the government agrees that it is necessary to modify the frames of course. Perhaps appropriate additive could be incorporated and also carried where necessary. I hope this has been (or will be) considered.

Maybe there are people more highly qualified/informed who can elaborate on these areas.

Indie.

(edited for clumsy wording - thanks Kitbag)

[Kitbag]

Not to deny the urgency of the case for improving protection for airframe/crew, the issue of putting additional additives (sic) in the fuel system would need a degree of testing for operating clearances, effects on internal seals etc. It may be that this work has already been carried out, either here or in the US as they are the equipment provider. AFIK even US sourced ac tend to have UK sourced items like seals, so, unless the specs are identical we would run an additional, perhaps predictable risk. It would be a bummer to lose a frame 'cos a seal failed through a simple read across that it works for them so it must work for us. The use of reticulated foam though seems to carry less risk and has to be seen as an urgent requirement. I just hope that the view that nigegilb has on this thread that something is going to happen is confirmed by actuality, and as soon as possible. :ok:

[nigegilb]

The date for the first K Herc to roll out with foam is out and it is happening quickly. ( not sure how sensitive the date is). I think it is a result. The response from the MoD after the first MoS article was that foam was expensive, slow to fit and unlikely to be needed. I have no idea how much we have moved the argument along and I greatly appreciate the contributions. I think it is fair to say that foam is a no brainer. Dr Reid is now in a difficult situation. He promised that Hercules going to Afghanistan would have every possible defensive aids mechanism, excluding foam. In my view this excludes the J because of the cancellation of the "modern" J DAS program in 2004/05. I understand that it is now likely that the J will get foam. This was definitely not going to happen a couple of weeks ago. As soon as we get confirmation of the J foam program all efforts go to getting the J DAS upgraded and the passengers protected by ballistic matting.
Please help me to keep this thread going.
Another word about an inconsistency about our Defence Ministers. Dr Reid is saying Hercs in AFG must have every poss defensive aids mechanism but Ingram is said that IRCM only was appropriate for the airspace. Should slick Herc crews be worried? Or is Ingram afraid to admit that he was wrong about Afghanistan 4 yrs ago? I feel another letter coming on......

[Kengineer-130]

As a serving C-130 techie, I would just like to add my thoughts. As ever, the guys doing the job ( aircrews, engineers etc) all seem to be ignored by the "big-wigs", and get told to get on with it, stop moaning etc etc, and as usual do a stirling job of getting results with ever decreasing resources and funding. If you cut all the political spin and lies out of the equasion, all it boils down to are a simple few points :mad:
1) Money is far far more important than troops lives- FACT
2) Its not going to change while the beancounters are in control
3) A nice shiny DAS suite will NOT stop a fuel tank exploding when a round goes through it :mad:

Why are our crews not being offered every avaliable defence and safty measure possible? We KNOW the threats, we KNOW the solutions :mad: , sadly, we would rarther loose our guys than spend a bit extra on protecting them :( Nige, my hat goes off to you, keep up the good work, someone somewhere will have to listen eventualy :ok: I think your next question should be presented in paxman style. " IS money more important than troops lifes?"

[The Swinging Monkey]

Nige,
I am ex Nimrods and E-3s, so I have very little AT experience, (other than when you nice chaps have given me a lift home occasionally!!) but I have followed this thread with immense interest, as I'm sure all aircrew are.
When we lost the Nimrod in the trees at the end of KS runway many years ago now, it burned badly and the post accident report harped on and on about having non combustable sound proofing etc inside the jet.
Outcome = F**K all ever got done!

When Art' ditched the jet into the Moray Firth, at least one seat became detached, and again the post accident report harped on about loading and weight restrictions blah
Outcome = F**K all again but.................................

I now understand that someone has challenged that decision in the courts, and weight restrcitions are in place for Nimrod rear crew, so please stick with your campaign, its vital you do.

Of course you will never beat Bliar, Bufoon, and that squirming little &*%$ Reid or any politicians come to that, but I genuingly hope and feel that you are winning the battle with them. Sadly, until we have Airships that have the courage to say NO or stand up to these numpties, then it will be left to the likes of yourself and your truckie mates to do the work. Airships, despite all their comments in their earlier years, won't upset their Lords and Masters. How else are they ever going to get on the board of BWOS and others??

Kind regards
TSM

[BEagle]

You live in a 'fast jet centric' air force. How many of the folk at the top have any large a/c background at all? Precious few, if any, I would venture to suggest....

When Ba$tard Bill retired, we all had to troop along to the OM to hear him quack on about how marvellous he was. When he referred to the AT/AAR squadrons as "Second line support units" to his beloved FJ chums, he lost our attention. Only the brownest of brown nosers bothered to meet him in the bar afterwards.

The AT/AAR force creaks along underfunded, overstretched and with little obvious regard for its value from on high, it seems. Time for Reid to demand that Greedy Gordon puts his fat hands into his sporran and bungs the MoD sufficient funds to replace ageing equipment and to provide adequate protection for all in-theatre AT/AAR assets - particularly the tactical AT. But most of all, time for those at the top to realise that today, the C130J&K are of far more actual operational value than the EuropHoon or J-TLA...and that AT/AAR and Recce assets have been far greater providers of UK military air support in recent conflicts than have a handful of fast jets.

How goes the Fictional Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme, for example?

[The Swinging Monkey]

Yep, Can't argue with you there BEags' me old trout!
But I cannot undretsand why so many Airships change their views when they get to such dizzy heights - is the lack of Oxygen do you think? after all, therre are only so many places in a board room surely?

Stick with Nige, we're all on your side
TSM

[nigegilb]

There is a palpable feeling that the argument is being won. I know I am being listened to. At the Defence Committee meeting in which Ingram was challenged about the cancellation of the J DAS program all the journalists were thrown out. The MPs then had a gentlemen's agreement not to divulge the ensuing discussion. All I know is that my 2 letters of evidence were handed to the Minister in question. These letters are now being checked out for the voracity of their claims. I share the belief that the RAF is still dominated by fast jet thinking. An example would be the staggering cost of one hours use of EW ranges in the US by Typhoon. It would pay for foam on Hercules ac. However, the Chiefs of Staff are not stupid. Back in 2002 I was advised by an RAF legal expert to put my concerns in writing. I tried the Chain of Command and that failed. I then set out a clear paper trail highlighting the lack of protection on the Hercules fleet. If this campaign fails and crews are not given adequate protection, the Chiefs of Staff and Defence Ministers will not have a leg to stand on.

Point about Ballistic Matting. It is lightweight and easy to use. Talk to the Aussies!

[nigegilb]

The first line of defence will be "combat immunity" in this case. Not exactly a moral form of defence, but extremely convenient for the MoD. Interestingly, tactics were changed immediately following the crash in Jan 2005. Presumably the MoD had a very good idea about the cause of the crash from an early stage. As a result daylight "darkside" ops are now tightly restricted. Begs the question, why are J crews flying daylight ops? And why does the MoD not want to fit foam to J Hercs?

Having been part of the "can do" culture I recognise that it is one of the greatest strengths of British Military. Unfortunately, it is also an achilles heel.

A very difficult question to ask now is, are we making a huge mistake committing our overstretched Armed Forces to an open ended and obscure mission to Afghanistan? The Hercules fleet is going to need major work to bring it up to an adequate level of protection. This mission to Afghanistan could not have come at a worse moment.

[propulike]

Reading all this with interest. All the issues that we normally don't talk about in public for 'security' now being aired and proving that it can be good to talk.

Every operator knows that an effective DAS is NOT an optional extra. Thanks Nige. I hope you're able to keep it up!

[flipster]

A lot depends on how well the Airships and Ministers actually LISTEN!:*

[nigegilb]

I have the cost breakdown of the foam. The figures are based on those obtained from the ac manufacturer. All prices in pounds.

Basic set up cost = 275,000
Cost per airframe = 50,000

Not exactly breaking the bank to do it..

[nigegilb]

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the classified programme on C130J referred to in Chapter 18 of the Ministry of Defence's annual report and accounts was cancelled; what assessment has been made of the operational implications; and if he will make a statement. [52270]

*
16 Mar 2006 : Column 2434W
*


Mr. Ingram: This programme was cancelled in light of emerging costs and competing priorities. The impact on operations was assessed and steps were taken to provide the capability where appropriate.


Good to know the impact on operations was assessed.........

[Grimweasel]

I heard from a mate, that John Reid asked the Herc Captain on a recent visit to Iraq, what his thoughts were on the foam etc. He was flying in albert at the time (a J). It shows that he must be listening. Anyone know what the Captain said????

[nigegilb]

C-130 Hercules

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the defensive aids fitted to each (a) C130K and (b) C130J. [43369]

John Reid [holding answer 19 January 2006]: The following defensive aids are currently employed on the Hercules C130K and C130J fleet:

Directional Infra Red Counter Measures

Missile Approach Warning Systems

Radar Warning Receiver

Countermeasures Dispensing System

Lamp Infra Red Counter Measure

Flight Deck Armour

Only Hercules with appropriate defensive countermeasures are deployed to operational theatres.

Information relating to the defensive aids employed on each C130K and C130J airframe is being withheld because it would be likely to prejudice the security of the UK's armed forces.

25 Jan 2006 : Column 2124W

How convenient.... This statement was taken from an article in the Scotsman a while later.
""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.""

[fat albert]

I'm assuming that's a shopping list is it?

:hmm:

[flipster]

FF

If (and that's a big IF) the ac deployed are actually fitted with a dispensing system (and, yes, NORMALLY,the system is filled). If this is so, then the stuff contained therein is very good. But however good the missile counter measures, this only nullifies some of the threats - which is where darkness (with goggs), armour and foam come in. Even then, alas, nothing is guaranteed but as Nige says, perhaps the full (and available) protection is a lot cheaper than we were led to believe.


"Information......J/K...... is being witheld....predudice...security....etc"

Does this mean that some of our ac are NOT appropriately protected (despite assurances to the contrary)? If so, this is scandalous, after the last few years of lessons ignored!

Nige, keep at it, as ALL ac must be 'appropriately protected' wrt the ACTUAL threat - and I think we all know what that means!

Our crews and their pax are owed a much better level of support from those at the top whom, incidently, we now hold accountable.

[flipster]

Its not that 2 Grope and STC are unaware; there are and have been many 'low and middle-order' staff who have pointed out the folly of the hierarchy's course of action.

It is just that high-level decisions are made by 'the hiearchy' without consulting the expert advice below them. If, indeed, their airships ever listen to this advice, it all too late, as assurances are often already given to STC/PJHQ/AFB and ministers

"We are cuntent to manage the risk".:yuk: :yuk:

What a pants a way to do things!

All this acheives is to show a total lack of inclusive leadership and to waste our valuable ac, along with the lives of our irreplaceable friends!

I am sure, however, that the hierarchy are not devoid of feelings and they do not rest easy at night. Nor should they. It is, however, too late for remorse and they should have thought about that first. Furthermore, they should have the honour and decency to say so. Recompense to the families would also be a start.

God forbid we lose any more.:mad: :mad:

[nigegilb]

I suppose that when/if the 'K' foam conversion is completed, foam will be another defensive aid added to the 'J' shopping list. The use of the word 'appropriate' should be consigned to the same bin marked "pretty straight sort of guy." Prior to 30 Jan 05 it was not considered 'appropiate' by the MoD to have foam in the wing tanks. The fuel tank exploded on XV179 and yet it is still not 'appropriate' to have foam in the wing tanks. Due to the frame shortage at Lyneham 'K' and 'J' crews are flying in the same theatres of war. They fly with different levels of protection. Dr Reid's statement may have fooled some of his fellow MPs but it does not fool anyone who understands the Hercules fleet. Equally, it will not fool a lawyer in a courtroom.

Maybe it is time we were given an 'appropriate' defence minister who is willing to take 'appropriate' responsibility for his/her actions.

[chappie]

dear guys, do not fret we are here to help your fight. it's lovely bob o'connors sis here again. i've got my mum and dad here and i've brought them up to date with the situation and the b@&*s@#t that is coming from on high . while we read, my mum is breaking her heart with sadness and anger. so as far as we're concerned the fight has only started. we've been made aware if any action is taken there may be consequences with our pensions, but we do not frighten easily! nige you have a family prepared to take this all the way. you will all get your protection and the government will be brought to task. i have paperwork that shows the question of defensive aids was put to ingram back as far as 2001, so that will hopefully help! :p :ok: i was concerned yet relieved to see that there is talk, all be it tentatively, of K 's finally getting foam. i hope that this is not lip service, as we have had a gutsful of that.it's a help to know that you will start to have protection, but we don't want to see that just a handful of you will get it. you already have to endure a daily lottery with your lives and we want protection for all. that point is to be stressed. we do not want to cause offence within the armed forces we simply want to help. they owe us! we couldn't help bob:{ , but we hope to be able to help you. we do not want the focus on us, it's to be about the serving aircrew and their passengers, who must be protected 100%.i'm sorry for not getting in contact with you, time seems to runaway. we must meet. :D

[nigegilb]

Thanks Chappie, thank you for being so brave, you have a lot of support out there. It has been said earlier that we would like to see the relatives receive compensation, I sincerely hope this will happen. If I can help in any way I would be delighted to do so.



With regard to the answers provided by both Dr Reid and Ingram concerning the cancellation of the J DAS program and the refusal to list the actual defensive aids on the J/K on the grounds that it may affect the security of service personnel, I offer the following. Do not place Hercules crews in harms way if they do not have adequate protection. Adopt a common standard of protection for the Hercules fleet. Ensure passengers are provided with protection. Instead the Government has admitted that it cancelled J upgrade on grounds of cost and it is afraid once again to admit to the inadequate protection of Hercules crews and their passengers. The only glimmer of hope is the fact that the Government is taking so long to answer the PQs that kicked this thread off. I believe we may have affected a change of course for the better.

[chappie]

thanks nige. i've given this alot of thought and there is no way that i can make sense of the positions that you're being placed in as aircrew on the alberts! whilst ac that are placed in theatre should not be there until FULL defence aids and foam are installed, the aircraft who do the cargo drops/freight runs should also be of the same standard. i've already said this once today but i think this is true...the ministers wouldnt get into a car knowing that the brakes aren't there to protect them, so why expect the men and women of the armed forces to get into a hercules without the full defensive aids suite AND foam. don't put aircrew into a plane that like the car with no brakes is unable to offer them full protection. while the risk in theatre is greater it must be remembered that all it took to down my brothers plane was a bullet....and a lethal tank half full of fuel. with guerilla warfare in the countries where you go, there is always the risk of being shot at. when at the inquiry being told of the involvement of the fuel tank and how foam is one of the recommendations we had our attention brought to two officers who at different times while flying their hercules were shot at! we listened, stunned, while we were told of how ones fuel tank drained when shot and the other had to be told he'd been shot at once landed! how very thoughtful of them to underline how else it could have been...but did'nt. the point to the anecdote...bugger knows! i guess to highlight the fact they all keep their heads in the sand, fingers crossed and hope to god it does'nt happen again. XV179 was an accident waiting to happen, but it has'nt changed anything so even losing lives won't wake them from the dreamland they inhabit. good luck guys...you'll need it!

[chappie]

me again!!! if that does#'nt make much sense sorry! am v. tired but have turned into an insomniac these days....i wonder if i can blame the government for that as well! take care!:sad:

[nigegilb]

Chappie, your analysis is spot on and your timing is immaculate. It is curious that no official announcement has been made about the fitting of foam to the smart K fleet. If your reaction is anything to go by, I doubt very much if the MoD will be able to silence its critics about the lack of protection on the Hercules fleet. I suspect there really is a rethink going on. Failing to protect the J fleet is lunacy but it does provide a glimpse of the sort of thinking that goes on at the top of the MoD. Dr Reid argued that it was a lucky shot and yet 2 other ac from the same small section were hit in the previous few months. You should not have to rely on luck if you are sent to war, we all know at some stage your luck runs out. Some of my former colleagues believe that this tragedy could easily happen again. I have also spoken with some of the widows and they are desperate for this not to happen to anyone else. Until we hear the decision the pressure is maintained.

Thought I would show you what the airlines are doing about it.


FAA Proposes Rule to Reduce Fuel Tank Explosion Risk



WASHINGTON, D.C. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) today proposed a rule that would make aviation significantly safer by requiring more than 3,200 existing and certain new large passenger jets to reduce flammability levels of fuel tank vapors.

"Safer fuel tanks on aircraft will help prevent the possibility of future explosions and the tragic loss of lives," U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta said.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) would require aircraft operators to reduce the flammability levels of fuel tank vapors on the ground and in the air to remove the likelihood of a potential explosion from an ignition source. The proposed rule is designed to reduce the likelihood of a repeat of the four fuel tank explosions over the past 16 years, including the 1996 TWA 800 accident, that together have resulted in 346 fatalities.

"This proposed rule is the next step to close the book on fuel tank explosions," said FAA Administrator Marion C. Blakey. "We're proposing to increase the level of aircraft safety by reducing the potentially explosive ingredient of flammable fuel vapors."

These aircraft are not even being shot at!

[chappie]

thanks for that. i think that part of the difference why crew and passengers are valued more by civillian airlines is the risk of lawsuits is increased tenfold as the public are at threat. the aircrew of the armed forces are doing their job and go into dangerous situation under the pretext of war, so who is going to start a lawsuit if the protection is'nt there!?! i bet you pond to a penny that one of the reasons. the government think that they're untouchable. however, the higher up you go the further you fall. i don't lnow if it's of anty use but i know somone who works on the hercules in marshalls. will this be useful?

[flipster]

How many times must we ask for protection?
If ac protection is not available - and if totally robust proper procedures on the ground are not in place - day or night - (many don't believe this is possible), then the ac shouldn't be there - end!

Keep asking the questions, Nige

Flipster

[nigegilb]

I understand that the claims made in both of my letters to the Defence Committee are being investigated by the Military. I also understand that this is contributing to the delay in the PQs being answered. In the mean time I have asked sympathetic MPs to question the Government on the following;

1. Why are we the only customer of the A400 not ordering fuel tank inerting equipment?

2. Would the US Government be happy to allow its troops in Afghanistan to be passengered on RAF Hercules ac without foam protection in the wing tanks?

I believe Mr Ingram might be trying to get his ducks in a row before the next meeting of Defence Committee.

[flipster]

Nige,

Would the British Gov't, or even the British Army, be very happy to be passengers, knowing what we know?

[nigegilb]

I am not sure we really want to answer that question. Ingram was informed personally of the actual situation in Afghanistan in 2002, all he did was provide hollow reassurance.

This is what an MP mailed to me today;

"I am very anxious that if politicians put the lives of others in harms
way the very least that can be done is to ensure that every effort is
made to make sure lives are not needlessly endangered by cutting corners."

This whole issue of safety is very damaging to the Government, would you trust them with the lives of your own children? Unless it is sorted and sorted quickly the recruitment difficulty faced by the Armed Forces in general will rapidly turn into a crisis.

[flipster]

I concur totally but the highest concern, I'm sure you'd agree, is that the lives of our crews and their pax are apparently being put at risk-levels that the US, AUS (and other forces) are not prepared to accept - either by improving their ac - or by not going 'sausage-side'.

This is despite many close calls and sad losses (going back to the Falklands) that have underlined the fact that some of our AT ac may have weaknesses. By right, ALL of our ac should have been 'sorted out' by now.....but, criminally, they have not.

Furthermore, in my opinion, 'Military Risk' is no longer a sufficient defence behind which 'our leaders' can hide, if indeed, it ever was?

Good hunting

[South Bound]

It all just makes me a little bit angry. Heard a rumour that the A400M bods spent an absolute fortune (UK contribution £50M +) redesigning the engine so that it has an 'operationally essential' brake to stop the twirlly bits spinning on the ground. How many sets of DAS/sets of ballistic matting/sets of tank foam would that have bought? So instead, as Flight International reported, we will have only 9 of 25 ac fitted with DAS.

Hope it swaps easily between aircraft as those 9 sets are sure going to be in demand....

[flipster]

Indeed a fine question!

Along the same lines, I can remember someone-or-other Boulton/Poulton (not sure - ex-staish at Brize, I think) doing a sales pitch for the A400 at a sqn trg day. Someone asked if the clever electronic heart/brain of the ac was to have protection - like a kevlar box (oo-er) around the FMGSs/FMCs/equivalents?

His answer was something along the lines of
'its an option but the RAF haven't bothered to order it'.

Well, it will be great if our ac eventually get wing foam/DAS but they could still fall out of the sky after being rendered ac uncontrolable when a stray AK47 round could take out the fly-by-wire at LL! Beagle may help here but I gather there will no proper mechanical back-up?

[BEagle]

Regarding the 21st century's most advanced military airlifter:

The A400M flight control system obtains information from the sidesticks and rudder pedals which is processed by 4 flight control computers which signal the input to hydraulic control surface actuators. Even in the event of the failure of all 4 FCCs, an independent electrical back up system controls additional electro-hydrostatic actuators for all 3 axes. Flaps, spoilers and stab trim are powered by both hydraulic systems.

Segregation between flight control system power sources, distributed routing of electrical cables and distributed avionic racking is a standard feature to maximise battle damage resistance.

An on-board fuel tank inerting system is offered as an option, providing the capability of extracting the air dissolved in the fuel and replacing it with nitrogen-enriched air, as well as filling the ullage space in each tank with nitrogen-enriched air. This reduces the risk of a fire hazard in a battle environment.

I cannot confirm or deny whether the MoD's caring defence procurement folk have specified this option for the UK's A400M - perhaps your local MP might be able to find out?

[flipster]

Thank you Beagle

As I said, no mechanical back-up but, at least, the electro-hydrostatic for all surfaces is a lot better than nowt and more than commercial aircraft get - all we get is rudder and manual pitch trim but we do get about 7 FC computers instead!

I am sure the wiring for the A400M IS all separated, thank the lord := , but is there no protection for the 4 FCCs at all? The Airbus chap gave the distinct impression that there was an option - or is the fact that they all in different, well-separated locations deemed sufficient??

Unfortunately, we all know the rumours surrounding the fuel fire suppressant!:{ :{

[flipster]

Former Flake

A nice thought - been there, tried that - didn't work!

[nigegilb]

A400M; several points have been raised with Defence Committee member, no answers yet, but the more we highlight now the greater the chance of influencing its procurement. Latest answer from Ingram concerns the issuing of the SA80 to crews at Lyneham.

SA80 Rifle

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will issue the SA80 assault rifle to C130 crews for self-defence purposes; and if he will make a statement. [61142]

Mr. Ingram: Royal Air Force Air Transport and Air Refuelling Squadrons have the flexibility to decide which weapons their crews should carry. RAF C130 aircrew operating in the most hostile environments have been carrying the SA80 weapon for many years.

I hate to assume anything with our friend Mr Ingram but does this mean that there is no shortage of SA80 at Lyneham and that crews will be issued with something other than a pistol?

[flipster]

Not so much gave up - more like effectively 'sacked' - for daring to ask questions - but that is history and is not important.

What IS important is that our sqns and crews get what they ask for - and have been asking for - for yonks!

Unfortunately, the crews and Sqns are between a rock and a hard place. The politicians have said something in AFG WILL happen and have told our very seniors officers 'to make it so'.

These VSOs, in turn, have issued orders and expect 2 Gp crews to do exactly what they have been 'legally ordered' to do - that is what we do in the military. Almost everyone in between goes with that but it does not stop them querying the orders. If their bosses listen and in turn pass on the misgivings - ok! But what happens when you just get the 'do as you are told' line?

In real life, people have careers and families to care for, so most of us just get on with things. How far do things have go before before one's conscience says 'stop'? - I dunno!

All I know is that, in the past, people have asked questions of 2 Gp only to get the the 'd-a-y-a-t' treatment - SPINS or not - and with the very real threat of disciplinary action! How many would still 'fight on' given the weight of such a threat - as i said these orders are still 'legal'??

Nonetheless, I am sure the sqns are still asking the questions and that higher levels of Grope (and above) are a bit more wary of hiding behind rank and orders but sadly, the politicians are obviously unchanged. Discussions such as these and the PQs highlights the problems and one hopes, prevents the ministers from trying to pass the buck.

Flipster

Ref the crews' knowledge of SPINS, GTM and 2Gp DAS policy - after early 2002 it was, and presumably is still, ingrained into Herc crews to be fully briefed on this before they leave UK, with updates on the way. To suggest otherwise is not giving the guys enough credit - one hopes that Brize and N'holt do the same? Mind you, to get the support to do this was sometimes hard work.

[flipster]

exsnowdrop

Quote - "At the end of the day as the aircraft Capt YOU are breaking the rules not 2 Gp."

So you want us to tell 2 Gp they are in the wrong - ho ho ho ho ho!?

Or does this mean you think all 2 gp orders are illegal and we should just 'down tools'?

I think you are not tuned into reality, although I have to agree with you sentiments!

Chuckling still

flipster

[nigegilb]

I understamd that a press statement from the MoD is due shortly. We await the news with interest. Meanwhile I have been looking at the A400M. It appears the Lords are on the ball.


"As the A400M has an in-service date of 2010, there will be sufficient time to adapt its capability to the evolving threat.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, how long will it take to transfer defensive aids suites from one aircraft to another? More importantly, how much will that cost? The operation could be quite expensive.

Lord Bach: My Lords, there is no intention to move defensive aids suites from one aeroplane to another. One must realise that defensive aids suites are a package that can contain various units—they do not all contain the same ones. The average cost of a defensive aids suite is roughly £15 million per plane.

Lord Jones: My Lords, when will the first aircraft fly? Does my noble friend believe that the Germans will buy it? Lord Bach: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord and the House that assurance. The attack in Kenya highlights what is an evolving threat to aircraft in general. We keep that threat under constant review, as the noble Lord would expect us to do. Such incidents are taken into consideration when assessing the need for future DAS capabilities. The decision taken in 2001 was based on planning assumptions valid at the time. We are now looking into that as a matter of priority.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the Minister said that there was "time to adapt" the other aircraft. Does that expression apply to all 16 remaining aircraft?

Lord Bach: My Lords, our order is for 25 aircraft. We will adapt them with defensive aids suites if we feel that it is necessary for the safety of their crew—that is our primary responsibility—or if the role of the A400M changes so that it is used in a much more tactical role than at present.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, was the point of the supplementary question by my noble friend Lord Astor not to illustrate the fact that the Al'Qaeda attack on the Israeli plane in Mombasa failed because it was fitted with heat deflectors? Does that not suggest that not only should all Royal Air Force aircraft have that equipment, but there is probably a case for fitting many civilian airliners with heat deflectors against such missiles, given the present threat from Al'Qaeda and similar terrorist group?


So, we have 9 units out of 25 with DAS none with fuel tank inerting protection and we are not planning to switch the DAS between frames. Should be good for some nice trips to the States......

[flipster]

FF

I am sure that people ARE asking questions - and we'll see what comes of them or whether they get the 'DO-AS-YOU-ARE-TOLD' (D-A-Y-A-T) treatment!

Now, don't get me wrong, in the military, sometimes, we DO have to say 'Yessir, nossir, threebagsfullsir' - but normally there has to be a VERY good reason and, ideally, their Lordships should tell the troops WHY it is so important they risk their necks before lauching into D-A-Y-A-T - you know, that basic leadership/SMEAC-thing!?

For example, during the movement of Hajj Prilgrims from Kabul to Jeddah in 2002. Everyone thought it was bonkers and far too dangerous, being as we were going to be carrying the very same people who had just mobbed and murdered their Aviation minister on the apron at Kabul (in front of the armed UK det)!

We asked for clarification, pointing out some very sensitive int that perhaps their airships at PJHQ had overlooked. Apparently, the questions went up very high but as ministerial assurances had already been given, it was fait-a-complis.

As it happens, the situation on the ground at Kabul was so unstable, that the commander of ISAF believed that if WE didn't start moving these pilgrims, they could lose control of the ground situation - endangering 1000s of brit soldiers. Now if their lordships had had the courage to tell us the danger our countrymen were in, our crews would have had no qualms about carrying these 'pilgrims' (all Northern Alliance families - perhaps? - dunno?). (I only learnt this after the event.)

Instead, we got the D-A-Y-A-T treatment with no reasons, along with the definite threat of disciplinary action - and a whole load of platitudes and assurances - as if we were school-children.

It was the most difficult thing I've ever had to do - ordering people to do something they knew was possible suicide. But if we had just downed tools or I had 'fallen on my sword' - someone more senior would have just come along and ordered the crews to go anyway, over my dead body, so to speak. I figured that I was more use asking questions and supporting those brave guys and girls who were going to be flying into danger. As it was, everything turned shambolic when most of the assurances that we had been given failed to materialise.

BTW we were most grateful for the help of some ATSy snowflakes who helped keep order.

The only place that a D-A-Y-A-T attitude has a place, is actually on the battlefield (land, air or sea) - I have never seen a reason to act like that when planning/briefing the battle, or after, in the recovery phase. Officers who hide behind this are doing a dis-service to themselves and those they command.

[nigegilb]

I understand that this thread is being read at the very highest levels of the MoD and Government. I also understand that there is some concern at the level of detail being discussed. We must continue to tread a fine line. Nobody is enjoying this. If Senior Officers/Defence Ministers accepted their responsibility to look after those on operations there would be no need to have this discourse in public. I have reason to believe that the campaign has achieved amazing success. Any feeling of elation is muted by the thought that we lost one of the finest crews in the process. I never want to have to do this again, but I say we continue until we get adequate protection for the guys/girls doing the stuff on the front line.

[flipster]

You're right Nige, its all gone quiet!!

However, you are also right to keep asking questions on behalf of the crews and sqns - as they are somewhat constrained. But I don't believe that anything on Pprune is so sensitive to be 'giving things away to the other side' - this stuff is available in open domain - its just the slant which we are putting on it is making some people squirm - and not because of operational reasons!

Any muzzling of the sqns may just be a smokescreen to keep serving people from contributing - which would be a shame but not unexpected.

[chappie]

hi guys, i've just spent half an hour placing a view to share with the senior officials that may read this thread only for it to be magically wiped off prior to submitting it. seems like someone does'nt want to upset them or they're controlling this thread as well.:mad:

[chappie]

i'll try again. the long and short of what i was trying to say was that on this thread at an earlier point or on another thread follwing the scotsmans article there was reference to an article from flight magasine outlining what was to be or not to be included in the A400M's. i don't know if this is of any use.

my other point is this. if the higher powers that be are reading this then read on.the gamble made with the crew of XV179 did not pay off. it was only a matter of time before this would happen. while all you could see or value was the pound signs in your eyes an outstanding set of men died an horrific death. what saving possibly could be made when you've had to spend out on [LIST]
cost of investigation
cost of inquiry
cost of manpower of those now killed and those who were taken from their roles to help families
cost of the recovery operation
cost of repatriation
burial costs
memorial costs
pension payouts
accomodation and travel expenses for families
cost of the inquest
just a thought to bear in mind, not to mention the cost of losing one of your planes. did you not stop to think of this? or do you have a fund for covering up your prize cock ups?! if so you then have a cost to put on the lives of these men. if you have this money to save your arses then you had the money to protect the lives of those men. i'd be so interested to see what it is. i've lost my brother and as a result my whole family. i need him to get me through this but here's not here and i'm trying my best to help everyone. i might get it wrong sometimes. sorry for that.
i await with interest the MOD press release i wonder why they are waiting to release it. why not ages ago. how sincere is it?

[nigegilb]

I am inclined to agree with all of the above. The MoD, Government, Chiefs of Staff have been caught well and truly with their pants down. In January 2006, Mr Ingram was still claiming that ALQ 157 was a suite of defensive aids! This is turning in to a political hot potato. There was no plan to put foam on to the J. We should find out soon if we have forced a u turn on that decision. I do not blame the relatives for being angry at the lack of protection and I do not blame them for demanding accountability. Question is, what is the best way to achieve it? And whose head should roll for failing in their "Duty of Care." Where is the apology and where is the compensation?

[flipster]

One might like to ask Geoff Hoon MP and Jack Straw MP what sort of DAS suite they thought they had on the Hercs that took them into Afghanistan in 2002?

[kilwhang]

First of all, apologies for being a bit late on this thread.
Nige, you asked if there were any 'senior' ex-members of the Herc fleet who had any information about earlier foam or personal protection incidents.
I was an F/E on the fleet for almost all of the 70's and 80's; spending most of my time on 47Sqn (both the big bit and the small bit) and as an instructor at the Support Training Sqn.
Around 1978 one of our a/c, on a training trip to Berlin was hit by ground fire while flying along the corridor. For those not in the know, corrider flying rules were that you had to transit at a reasonably low altitude (if I remember correctly) around 2 -4000ft. On landing at Gatow the crew discovered that fuel was 'persisting' out of a hole in one of the wing tanks. Investigation showed that they had been hit by small arms fire but, because the round had lost most of it's power by the time it hit the a/c, it penetrated the skin but did no more damage. As you can imagine, this caused a lot of consternation in the fleet and I remember one of the Sqn Execs writing a paper recommending the fitment of foam suppression. I read the draft and know that it was passed up the line.
Fast forward a couple of years to the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe Independence Ops. To minimise the risk of ground fire (nearly all flying was done in daylight) we flew at a max height of 100ft. The Lox pack was emptied and we did have protective plates which we placed below our seat cushions. There was some ground fire damage, the worst of which was an RPG hit to the nose of one of the a/c - directly onto an empty Lox pack.
After the Op, there were papers written on lessons learned - again asking for foam suppression and also highlighting the need for adequate crew protection.
I have no idea if this will be of any use but I wish you all the best in what you're trying to do.
If I've been a boring old f**t, I apologise........I only knew one of the crew of XV179.....he was one of my students.

[Facilitator]

Nige. Well done for keeping the pressure up on this despicable bunch who claim to care about our armed forces. Anyway to the point.

In January 2006, Mr Ingram was still claiming that the ALQ 157 IRCM was a suite of defensive aids!

In January 2002 Trial BISHOP (it has been mentioned in earlier posts before I'm accused of treachery) was hastily conducted to assess the vulnerabity of both the K and J to the perceived IR threats in the Afghan theatre. By the end of day 1 on what was to become a 3 day trial it was quite obvious that both types were highly susceptible to all the threats. The J had at that time no DAS so it was a fairly obvious conclusion. The 'slick' K had the ALQ 157 and the trial concluded that it was about as much use as a chocolate fireguard! At the end of the trial the results and AWC recommendations were passed up the chain of command at supersonic speed - despite those recommendations subsequent operations were then conducted under the guise of 'military risk' and/or changing the threat matrix on a daily if not mission by mission basis. To have called the ALQ 157 IRCM a defensive aids suite is a complete misnomer since a 'suite' - to me - implies more than one component, ie. a detection/indication system coupled to a jamming/decoy system, whereas in fact it is only a 'dumb' 1st generation IR jammer giving the crew no indication of a missile launch and subsequent 'jam' (assuming it worked!). There are a lot of people involved with this whole debacle who had their part to play and didn't, either for their careers sake or to meet our great leader's demands to be seen to be doing our bit - they all deserve to rot in hell.

[nigegilb]

Thanks guys. I think I have flown with someone who was on the Gatow trip but I had not previously connected up the two incidents. I remember Reid saying that in the threat assessment undertaken in 2002 it was not deemed necessary to equip the Herc with foam. This claim can clearly be seen to be ridiculous. Now we can establish that the first request goes back an awful long way. It is most useful in demolishing Government claims. As for "IRCM only" being appropriate for Afghan airspace, I still do not understand why I am here to tell the story. I always understood IRCM to be a stand alone jammer and yes my crew did go into theatre on one occasion when we suspected it was not working, such was the faith we had in its ability to keep us safe.

I am tempted to say we now need an enquiry, but we have all seen the results of enquiries, you select a friendly face to ask the questions and hey presto "it was nothing to do with me guv." No wonder this is getting people worried. It is nothing to do with protecting lives more a rearguard action to protect precious careers.

I have decided to write to the Defence Committee Chairman again......

By the way, if anyone was involved in the Falklands War or First Gulf War and you feel like contributing, it sure would be nice to hear from you!!!!!!

[chappie]

i ask this while we gain our info on the above is it worth bearing in mind if other countries know that they're sending their troops as passengers in planes with a force who through no fault of their own are able to protect them. i have tried three times to post this reply but i keep getting into trouble. i have the desire and the incllination to write to the military and government leaders to inform them that there is no safety net for their troops, as it were. surely, knowing the cost of manpower and financial implications we may get some backing to insist the foam is installed throughout. i'm probably being niave i guess. it's worth a try.

we await the MoD press release re: foam insertion that we were informed of earlier this week. it's something to bear in mind, but is this a half hearted attempt to quell the concerns and demands that we have? it's all well releasing it, but actioning it is the more important element otherwise empty words i'm afraid.

i'm backed by two mothers from the crew of XV179 and i will not rest until all planes are protected. it was stated earlier that higher powers are aware of this thread with interest. if you are reading this from your upper eschalons be assured that although you may not like the fact that i'm involved in trying to help protect your troops ( a job you should be doing) think about the fact that you should'nt have put me in this position in the first place. where have our apologies been for the almighty huge cock up you made in gambling with my brothers life? not even after you admitted that you underlined the role that foam,if present, could've played did you proffer one. it was left to the airmen and women and officers who looked us in the eye to say sorry. how proud you must be! when will you realise that prevention is better than cure?!

[nigegilb]

Whichever way you look at it, it is clear that the RAF has now learnt the hard way. It takes a crash and inevitable loss of lives for people who should know better to wake up and smell the coffee. We all deserve to know what the MoD has planned in the way of enhanced self-protection. I fear that the statement will be non-specific in nature. We have all had enough of spin, let us hope that the MoD is straight with the facts. Surely the relatives deserve this much at least.

[nigegilb]

Kam, if it helps I would have wanted my wife to do the same as you, in fact I would have been proud of her for having the fortitude to do it.

[chappie]

it's not an easy path we're about to travel. but one thing is certain it will be done united. i plan to help and support all where i can. i to am a mother to a small child who was robbed of her uncle as they died on her birthday. it's a daunting task that we're facing up to but no ones untouchable and my view is that they've placed themselves in this position. kam, they put us in this position. as you quite rightly pointed out look around to see the support that we have. i will not fail my brother, you will not fail your husband. that's already been done. i hope you don't think that i'm spouting rubbish but i see a number of purposes behind these steps that we're making. there are people doing their job as we speak that face the same dilemma that our loved ones did. they have the same fears as do their loved ones. we can use our voice but when in the forces there is the constraints placed upon them which does not allow them to go as far as they need. i look at my daughter and worry about what this has cost her and what this is costing her as i prepare to do battle as it were. i'm sure that i'm doing the right thing. so i know some of the where you're coming from.
i to am arranging to speak to a lawyer. this will go ahead. where was our official apology...when did they say sorry? sometimes i wonder even if they are. if they say sorry now, i'd question if they even really mean it or is it empty words because of their failings and they've been caught out.

[Squirrel 41]

Kam; Chappie;

The very best of luck - and big tick for both of you to have the fortitude to see this through under such difficult circumstances.

Nige et al:

I've been standing back from this one, having had nothing to add. But one thing still really confuses me: why wasn't the DAS and the foam wasn't fitted in 2002? The implication from the posts above was that there wasn't any money to pay for it, but IMHO this ignores the salient points that the Treasury coughs up for UORs and the net additional cost of military operations (NACMO).
Having seen the UOR system work very rapidly (and let's face it, the clue is in the title: "URGENT OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT"), I can't understand why the AT fleet didn't put this up the chain as soon as the trials showed that the aircraft was vulnerable against the threat, and get the Treasury to stump up the cash as a UOR?

(Other than inter- / intra-service politics and pressonitis of those not actually flying, of course.... :* )

S41

[nigegilb]

I guess that question may be up to lawyers to answer now. There appears to have been several occasions when foam was requested from the frontline. Dr Reid says there was an element of "per chance" in the shooting down of XV179. Reading the heartbreaking postings from widows/relatives gives you an idea of the human tragedy that follows when luck is relied upon in war.

[nigegilb]

This is an account of Ingram and Def Com before the journos were asked to leave

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
1.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.

Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.


Q183 Robert Key: Are all the Hercules deployed in Afghanistan fitted with full defensive aid suites?

Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy: They are.

Q184 Robert Key: Can you define what you mean by "full"?

Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy: They have adequate defensive aids to match the threat that we are going to face in Afghanistan, without going into the detail of the defensive aids.

Q185 Robert Key: This is quite important because yesterday in the House of Lords Lord Drayson said in column 524 that we use aircraft only when they have the appropriate defensive aid suites. Later on, in answer to Lord Luke, he said that the aircraft go into those areas having in all cases the defensive aid suites that they require. Can you confirm that in 2004/5 the programme to equip the 15J Hercules with the latest generation defensive aid suites was cancelled?

Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy: I cannot confirm that.

Mr Ingram: We will write to you on that. I do not have the detail. I used the word "vulnerability" earlier. We are up against a very clever, intelligent enemy. The more we want to examine in minutiae everything that we are doing, the more we are telling those who are going to pose a threat. I am not saying they are not legitimate or fair questions. I am telling you why there is a reluctance to expose too much knowledge. The knowledge may be interesting to you but it is much more interesting to those who pose a threat.

Q186 Robert Key: It is not just of interest to this Committee; it is of interest to all the military personnel involved and their families as well as the taxpayer. I suggest that there is a case for moving into closed session to explore some of these in detail because of the evidence that has been reaching the Defence Committee.

Mr Ingram: If it is evidence reaching the Defence Committee, on the basis of cooperation and willingness to give best information, we need the evidence. Let us make sure it is evidence and not tittle tattle.

Robert Key: I do not think that is a sensible thing for the Minister to have said.

Mr Hancock: Can I ask the Air Marshal to clarify his answer to Mr Key? Mr Key asked a specific question. He said, "Were the C130 Hercules deployed to Afghanistan fitted with full defensive aid suites?" You said, "Yes." You went on to say that there was a qualitative nature. They were adequate for what they were expected to do. I want to know if full is the same as adequate.

Q187 Robert Key: It is not, is it?

Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy: There is a range of defensive aids that you can put on any aircraft. There are radar warning receivers, missile warning receivers and other defensive aids and I would not want to go into the details of those. We will never put an aircraft into Afghanistan which does not have a defensive aid suite that we think is capable of taking on the threat which they may be faced with.

Q188 Chairman: It has been suggested that we should move into closed session which we will consider doing towards the end of this at about ten to twelve.

Mr Ingram: I am not sure that we have the answers you are seeking.

Chairman: You may not have the answers but in the questions which we will be able to put in closed session you will be able to go away and think about those answers.

Q198 Chairman: We have suggested going into private session. If the Committee is agreed we will do that.

Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy: Could I clarify on defensive aid suites? Maybe I did not make myself completely clear. Defensive aid suites mean exactly what they say. There is a range of capabilities which are brigaded under that. Some are for warning and some are for countering the threats which are then picked up by those systems. All of our aircraft will have an appropriate suite of those capabilities to match the threat that our intelligence indicates is going to be faced in Afghanistan.

Chairman: I think we still have some questions we would like to ask.

[nigegilb]

I was very interested by the carefully chosen words when explaining what a defensive aids suite is. Anyone still think ALQ 157 is a DAS? I remember the int threat from Afghan 4 yrs ago, I smell a rat. God help the guys/girls on the frontline. Whilst politicians and Senior officers argue over the meaning of words RAF crews are being sent to war in ac that can be brought down by a single round.

[nigegilb]

more answers
Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, Liberal Democrat) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the circumstances were of each incident of C130 aircraft being hit by hostile fire in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.
Adam Ingram (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence) Hansard source
There were no incidents of RAF C130 aircraft being hit by hostile fire in 2003.
In 2004 there were three incidents of RAF C130 aircraft being hit by hostile fire.
On 11 April 2004, a C130K aircraft travelled en route from Baghdad International airport to Balad. On inspection of the aircraft at Balad, it was found that a projectile had hit the upper fuselage. The aircraft was deemed serviceable and was able to continue its mission.
On 1 May 2004, an inspection of a C130K aircraft at Baghdad International airport revealed evidence of a small single ballistic impact on the aircraft's front quarter. The damage was repaired and the aircraft was able to continue its mission.
On 6 August 2004, a C130 was en route to Baghdad International airport, when a fuel leak was discovered in one of the wing fuel tanks. The aircraft was able to continue to its destination. On arrival, it was found that the wing fuel tank had been ruptured by a small calibre round.
In January 2005, C130 Hercules XV179 was hit by hostile fire, which resulted in the tragic loss of the aircraft, its crew and passengers. This incident was investigated by a RAF Board of Inquiry and the Air Accident Investigation Branch, as outlined in my right hon. Friend's statement of 8 December 2005, Official Report, column 1009.
There have been no reported incidents in which C130 Hercules aircraft have been hit by hostile fire since the loss of XV179.
So there we have it, the Minister confirms that almost 6 months before XV179 was shot down an RAF C130 was hit in the fuel tank with a small calibre round. Remember this ac had just been fully refuelled with relatively cool fuel hence very little fuel vapour build up.....But it was not deemed necessary to fit foam until we lost one.
LEADERSHIP???????

[flipster]

Nige,

You and I know that the 'Slick' Mk3s did not have a DAS - all it had was a stand-alone jammer which was old, it had serious limitations aginst the threats against which it could work (it would not be prudent to discuss here). Furthermore, it was as much use as a chocolate teapot against some of the stuff in AFG/PAK/IRQ in 2002/3. People have already mentioned the trial in 2001 which pointed all this out.

However, no-one I know of (at Gp,AWC and STC) ever called the jammer 'a suite' - that was left to the minifleet and then DIRCM with its integrated bits and pieces - which, is what I hope, all ac are wearing in-theatre - they were even mandated for DR Congo in 2003, so I would hope its 'de-rigeur' in IRQ/AFG this time.

Flip

[nigegilb]

Do not hold your breath Flip. Why was the J DAS program cancelled? Answer - cost with the proviso that operations can be dangerous and guess what, you volunteered to take the Queen's Shilling. Does anyone seriously believe that the threat in Afghanistan this time round is less? I am sick of politcos hiding behind words and secrecy.

Are you impressed with these answers?

Have we learned anything?

[chappie]

it makes my heart go cold reading the answers that lay before us. it really does seem as if there's the slightest amount of secrecy in the matters discussed, the politicans and the powers that be, use that to avoid being truthful and try to create a smokescreen to hide behind. bob's death does not come down to technicalities in the english language. it comes down to the most short sighted officials who are unable to see the warnings in front of them. XV179 was failed. it was a timebomb, waiting to happen.

today is the first year anniversary of my brothers funeral. there are no words to describe how i feel. why are the lies still being told. they've been caught well and truly with their pants down.

i've been watching and waiting for the MoD press release re: foam. still nothing has come of it. what is their purpose in waiting? we've waited long enough for the foam...so long that we lost ten outstanding crew. time has come for action, not empty words. the waiting game does not go any way towards reassuring myself that there is any sincerity in resolving this and preventing more tragedy. is this press release a sincere action or a well timed response ?

i wonder also. does anyone know when the contract for the A400M's was signed? i'm wondering if it was after the crash. if so what the hell were they doing requesting removal of foam and defensive measures to save money after our tragic loss? i also wonder why it's taken soo long to get the questions answered. it does'nt bode well!

[nigegilb]

I too am running out of patience Chappie. I understood that some kind of decision on foam had been agreed and signed last week. The press statement should already be out. Last time it went quiet the reason was a good one. The Govt backtracked on foam for the J. We can only hope that something else positive has happened. I very much doubt if we are now waiting for bad news. There is no moral argument to exclude the J from additional protection. Whilst senior officers and politicians can hide behind their dictionaries the sight of grieving relatives in public is something they are desperate to avoid. You are doing an amazing job. I find it unbelievable that the lives of Hercules crews may be dependent upon some relatives/widows and concerned ex colleagues. All we can do is keep the pressure on and make them squirm.

[nigegilb]

Hey guys just heard that the news about foam is breaking. Start looking for it, no exact news about the J maybe some one can find out.

Also there is major dwang occurring. I cannot disclose due confidentiality, but check out all news outlets in the next 24 hours. I do believe our beloved Defence Ministers and RAF Lordships are under a spot of pressure .

[tucumseh]

Nige


"I was very interested by the carefully chosen words when explaining what a defensive aids suite is. Anyone still think ALQ 157 is a DAS?"


Having managed ALQ 157 (ARI 23469) in the early 90s, when it was a designated (partial) fit to Sea King HC Mk4, Chinook and Hercules, I can assure you it is NOT a Defensive Aids Suite. It is a (rather simplistic) Infra Red Jammer manufactured (or at least supplied by) by Loral Electro Optical Systems in Pasadena. The Maintenance Policy was 1A, 2B (Lyneham), 4CD. That is, we suffered the usual nonsense of having to return u/s kit to California and, because we were a minority user, the Pipeline Times were very lengthy; with Customs exacerbating things at every turn. Perhaps things are better now?

I've managed quite a few DAS systems, and can assure you that one could only term it a "suite" if they were fully integrated. That is, a comprehensive fit of RWR, ESM, MAW, Chaff/Flare, DIRCM etc is not a "suite" unless they are intelligently integrated; with themselves and with other aircraft systems such as comms. And that is where the MoD fall down because kit like this which is only partial or role fit is often fitted by Service Engineered Modification, and so highly unlikely to work to its full potential. I know of many long standing cases whereby we have sought to do this integration properly only to have funding denied on cost grounds. (It's admittedly very expensive to properly trial EW kit, but what this means is that, lacking performance/integration trials results, it is difficult to make a case for MAR, so the default position becomes, in many cases, a hastily cobbled together SEM. It is well known that Westland once assessed such an EW SEM and said "It works, but it's unsafe". It entered service (!!), whereupon Westland were immediately proved right. Funding to make it safe was denied).


Finally, you will find that such systems (partial/role fit) are often procured under UOR or are cash-capped. That means the Service buy as many full systems as they can, and few spares. I've seen UORs approved to procure more systems, when all the existing ones are stacked up at the company because we lack funding to pay for relatively cheap, simple spares. You can get millions for a UOR, but not thousands for the spares which would negate the UOR! I used to think this daft, but then I was told to wind my neck in as complaining about such waste is, of course, a disciplinary offence in the Civil Service. (Confirmed under FOI).

[flipster]

Chappie/Kilwhang

My thoughts are with you and the other families. You are absolutely right to keep asking the questions to help prevent another sad loss and I do hope you would not be surprised to find that you have enormous and heartfelt support for your distress and understanding of your actions - we are behind you (even if some of us are 'encouraged' to remain silent).

Flipster

Tucumseh - You obviously know what you are talking about and your knowledge will, undoubtedly, help dispel the farcical implication by MOD that IRCM is 'a defensive aids suite'. That in itself will increase the pressure on MOD to face facts.

The Hercs (and others) have needed long-term war-going protection/support for years but have been failed by a number of faceless top budget holders.
This is despite the fleet asking for better protection for ages and ages. The top people who, over the years, have refused our crews proper protection surely have blood on their hands; they can't want more?

If their Airships and Lordships read this site (as it is rumoured), please would they waste no more time and do the honourable, moral and decent thing - find the money to protect ALL out ac before it is too late.

[FJJP]

I believe the time is right to make this thread a sticky.

How about it MODs... please?

[chappie]

i've yet to hear anything....all has gone eerily quiet. there is, understandably, a level of secrecy has to be maintained hence the abbreviations. i don't pretend to understand many of them and i understand their role but there is something i don't "get" and would like to if anyone can help. why is there a difference in the K and J Hercs and the ability and high level of reticence to equip it with a defensive aids suite. why is it i get the feeling that we are going to get treated to foam in some K's and that's it?! that won't be accepted as any part reasonable as a conclusion to the recommendations as a result of the inquiry. why is the J seen as the poor cousin?:ugh: why do i get the feeling that i'm seen by the higher powers as a silly relative meddling in things that i don't understand and i'm not helping the situation and won't progress it any further. all that's been achieved has been done so by nigegilb. he's the most outstanding of all, who has done so much and should be congratulated. i want foam and the best protection for all not adequate protection. adequate is not a word that should be used by a country that is a leading world power for forces in the most dangerous places in the world. the sooner they understand that will not be accepted by families the sooner we can progress. they should be helping us and seeing what they can do for us not make us feel like we should go cap in hand with the adage of please sir can we have some........more........defensive aids suites of the highest standarda nd life saving foam please. it smacks too much of the fact that they seem to have completely forgotten about the tradegy they caused and while they think that they're untouchable in their ivory tower they'd be wise to see that they can't discipline me. i'm waiting for them to honour those boys...your colleagues dead and alive.

[nigegilb]

MP's VOICE CONCERN OVER AFGHAN MISSION

I have taken out chunks of the article because the subject is covered on another thread....
.........The MPs also said they were "deeply concerned" that the 3,300-strong taskforce lacked sufficient close air support or transport helicopters.
And they demanded the Ministry of Defence produce evidence that the RAF's Hercules transport aircraft were fitted with adequate "defensive aids suites" to protect them from ground attack............
The MPs also urged the MoD to rethink it decision to withdraw the squadron of RAF Harrier GR7s based at Kandahar just as the taskforce was beginning its mission.
.....The committee also disclosed that they had received a letter from a former Hercules pilot expressing concerns that "resources had been a constraint" on the fitting of defensive aids suites to the aircraft.
It followed the shooting down of a Hercules C130K in Iraq in January.
Despite an assurance from the commander of joint operations, Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, that all aircraft deployed to Afghanistan would be fitted with a defensive aids suite "appropriate" to the threat, the MPs were not satisfied.
"The suggestion that aircraft are not being properly protected for resource reasons is a serious one and we call on the MoD to provide evidence that this is not the case," they said.

I have also obtained elements of the Def Com report published yesterday

Defensivee Aid Suite

65. On 30 January 2005, a C130K Hercules was shot down in Iraq.
Inevitably discussion arose about the extent and effectiveness of the Defensive Aid Suite (DAS) fitted to aircraft deployed to Afghanistan. One former C130 Hercules pilot wrote to us expressing his concerns suggesting, amongst other things, that resources had been a constraint on decisions taken about the fitting of the DAS.

66. Air Marshal Torpy told the Committee that "All our aircraft will have an appropriate suite of those capabilities to match the threat that our intelligence
indicates is going to be faced in Afghanistan". Following the evidence session, we asked MoD to respond to the concerns that had been put to us in more detail. We had not received a substantive responsive from MoD by the end of the inquiry.

67. We note that concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of
the defensive aid suite fitted to C130 Hercules used in Afghanistan. We also note MoD's assurances that the Hercules DAS is appropriate to conditions in Afghanistan.

68. We accept that the scope for investment in equipment is infinite, but the suggestion that aircraft are not being properly protected for resource reasons is
a serious one and we call on MoD to provide evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case.

Nice to see the Def Comm flexing its muscles. Now the MoD has to prove that the J DAS program was not cancelled because of cost and that the current DAS is up to the threat in theatre. And I do believe another letter will be winging in soon. Heads up for this weekend, Mail on Sunday and Sunday Telegraph may be worth a look. Cannot disclose now due confidentiality.

Just want to make a point about spares for DAS and suchlike. When Sarajevo was at its peak and IRCM was required we started running out of bulbs and had to hand across spares to the Chinook fleet. I believe stocks ran low resulting in IRCM becoming desirable instead of mandatory. Tucumseh the definition of DAS is hugely helpful to what I am trying to do. If you can PM me I would greatly appreciate it. Ingram's argument for sending in the slick MK3 rests on the "facts" that MK3 ac were equipped with DAS, and this DAS (IRCM) was appropriate for the task. I believe he may regret confirming the statemente he made in 2002.

[chappie]

i tried this morning to put out about the press release that i'd seen via sky news but suddenly experienced problems....not for the first time i might add.

formerflake, to the best of my knowledge i'm not 100% sure but i don't think that the boys were wearing any body armour. i will do my best to look in the report to see what it stated. it does make harrowing reading but is sooo necessary to us and this fight at the moment. i don't think any level of body armour would have saved any of them. i'll await the inquest to make up my mind.

i so hope that there are a few stained pants in the necessary government departments now that the net is closing in. if my memory serves me correctly i'm sure that resources/funding was a huge factor stated in the cancellation of foam and the like being inserted on the planes pror to the cash. i've heard vague terms used about other priorities taking place which contributed to the cancelation also.

it's hard to trust, to know who will help us higher up. i pray to god we get this sorted.please.

[nigegilb]

Sorry to keep banging on about IRCM but I believe Dr Reid stated that Hercs going to Afghanistan this time would have a full DAS\DAS appropriate for the task. It may become critically important to establish formally that IRCM is not a DAS and is not appropriate for Afghanistan. The shortage of frames at Lyneham will inevitably result in every option being looked at. We have not come this far only to see the task override common sense.

[chappie]

:eek: while it's good the bods up top are listening to us, i'm a worried bunny about the language being used. am i being daft? it keeps getting said that the hercs have adequate protection and that's sufficient. we are fighting for complete protection for all environments. like i keep saying, it was a bullet meeting the lethal fuel mixture that they had on board that brought bob down. our troops need protecting from being shot at anywhere around the world and from the tanks of fuel they carry. terms like adequate and appropiate should not be allowed. this is the 21st century. for god sake bring us up to date. you can't continue to have a" can't have "situation in a "can do "culture. the sooner they change this to what should already be in situ then you can maintain the "can do "ethic successfully.:ok:

[fat albert]

At the risk of repeating tucumseh above and of arguing semantics, IRCM is not DAS. DAS, by implication, refers to a "suite" of defensive aids to counter a wide range of threats be they IR, ballistic or radar guided. IRCM is designed to counter one particular threat. Perhaps. It is not a "suite".

MAWS and RWR are, as you quite rightly state, not much use on their own which is why they are installed in concert with a suitable dispensing system. :hmm:

[FormerFlake]

Just found this:
Defensive Air Suite

Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many C2 aircraft in the Defensive Air Suite were (a) operational and (b) unserviceable on 31 January. [49117]
Mr. Ingram: On 31 January 2006 two RAF Tristar C2 passenger aircraft were available for operations. A third aircraft was undergoing scheduled maintenance. All three aircraft are fitted with a defensive aid suite and flight deck armour.

[propulike]

Nice reply Mr Ingram. Now we know how many aircraft were 'available', how about you answer the question and say how many were 'operational' and how many were 'unserviceable' ? Or perhaps you hope that Mr Lancaster doesn't know that 'available' doesn't mean 'serviceable'?

Damned management speak. Makes my blood boil when people BS like that. (A consistent theme throughout the reporting highlighted by this thread.)

[nigegilb]

Understand there are a few people who might be happy to buy me a beer at Lyneham today.......

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

Understand there are a few people who might be happy to buy me a beer at Lyneham today.......

Some more information if not too sensitive would be nice.

[nigegilb]

Shall we say we won the argument on foam. Do not want to say too much more just yet, suffice to say K is done and dusted. Still a bit grey about the J, just a question of numbers. I want to make sure it is not tokenism before I open my bottle of good value Australian sparkling wine.....

[flipster]

I'm always happy to buy you a beer, mate!

[chappie]

bloody hell well done. you deserve a crate of beer and then some. this may sound completely mad but whilst i'm overjoyed and relieved, i feel sad in a way. this is a little strange i know. i'm glad that no more lives are under threat from their own ac. i guess that now it hits home that my brother could have been saved if only they listened before. i know it's weird that i'm crying at the mo:( but why did this not get sorted before. i feel so much anger knowing that losing one of your best crews could've been avoided but the powers that be did'nt think bobs life was worth saving. while i was trying to help nige i guess i felt that i was able to help him in some way as we were getting ready to do battle. something purposeful after bobs death. as a sister you get forgotten about and i felt like i was able to do something for him by helping his mates. i know all that i could be was the token relative to add clout but it really helped me. thanks for all the offer of help and support and for the chance to be included. you really are a hero nige. i knew that it would all be sorted at the eleventh hour and that the interviews wouldn't get used. i count myself as being blessed to have been able to potentially be part of it. who knows i may have managed something useful!! i hope that as the papers are signed agreeing to foam there is a thought for those we lost.....the one i miss and for the waste.
nige desrves a medal for going up against the holders of the pursestrings. i hope you get recognition for the wonders you have achieved. i'll be looking forward to telling people.
well , i guess it's time for goodbye as my role is done. remember you all do a fantastic job.take care and stay safe!:ok:

[nigegilb]

Chappie we don't want you to go just yet! There are lots of things happening at the moment. I understand that there are no figures for the J. There could be good reasons for this. I have written to the Defence Committee this week about another matter which you and I cannot discuss here. This battle is only partially won. The MoD have not accepted that foam would have saved the boys. ANYONE WHO KNEW THAT CREW KNOWS THEY COULD HAVE COPED WITH JUST ABOUT ANYTHING. However, they could do nothing about a fuel tank explosion.
What we can be reassured about today is the fact that Bob and the rest of the crew did not die in vain. If we had not intervened I am sure the J would not have got foam and the K might have waited a long time. Now we need to demand the reinstatement of the J DAS upgrade and we need protection for passengers.

When I started out I wanted foam for the Hercules fleet and an apology and compensation for the relatives\widows. We have made a good start but there is a long way to go yet. Hang in there Chappie.

[Vage Rot]

Flip,
I heard a little story that Geoff Hoon's face, allegedly, was a picture when he was told that he was sitting on the aircraft's defensive aids suite (a flak jacket). tee hee.

Seems that may be the way forward - fly all the VIPs in non equipped aircraft. Scare the pants off them and then the govt might cough up the dosh!!

[500days2do]

Good result..!!!
Now for the timescale...!
Just wish
(a) we had this already
(b) it was an instant fix
(c) the events that have brought this to a head had never happened


reality..
well,we shall see..
fingers crossed...
5d2d

[flipster]

days2do

Valid points mate!

So, for those who are already out there, or about to go - we salute you.
Fly smart, think like the enemy and be unpredictable - but whatever you do, stay safe.

Flipster

[maximo ping]

Cheers mate... sure you're not just a little bit sorry that you're not still out there on the edge?!!
It's a long way away from scampers with luigi and 888 isn't it:E

[nigegilb]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gifhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gifFrom the sunday telegraph today...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gifhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/i/t.gif

MoD to cut war widows' pensions if they sue over husbands' deaths
By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 09/04/2006)
The Ministry of Defence will cut war widows' pensions if they successfully sue the Government over the death of their husbands on the battlefield.
Widows of servicemen killed in Iraq have received written warnings from the MoD that their pensions
e reduced if they received compensation in relation to the death of their husband.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/04/09/nwidows09.jpgTroops carry the coffin of a soldier killed in IraqThe policy could mean that widows and relatives of dead servicemen could lose tens of thousands of pounds in pension payments if they force the MoD to pay compensation for negligence.
The revelation has sparked outrage from MPs and relatives of dead servicemen who have called for the warnings to be withdrawn immediately.
The warning appears in the form of a clause contained within the pension documentation and is entitled "Reduction in Attributable Forces Family Pension".
The clause states: "If you have been awarded an Attributable Family Pension, this may be subject to a reduction if at any time you receive compensation from a third party as a consequence of the death of your spouse."
MoD lawyers have already agreed to pay compensation to one widow whose husband was killed on the first day of the war in Iraq and the Sunday Telegraph understands that relatives of several other servicemen are also considering legal action to get similar compensation.
In a rare admission of liability, the MoD has agreed to pay compensation to Samantha Roberts, whose husband, Steven, was shot dead in March 2003, after he was ordered to hand his body armour to another soldier.
Mrs Roberts, 32, who receives less than £10,000 a year from her war widow's pension, described the policy as "disgusting and immoral".
She has been told not to expect any pay-out until the three-year investigation into her husband's death has been concluded but she is aware her widow's pension will be reduced.
She said: "This policy is disgusting, it's immoral. My husband made the ultimate sacrifice and now the MoD is quibbling over a small amount of money. Servicemen who go off to war are led to believe that if they die their families will get looked after, but that is not really the case."
In January last year, an RAF Hercules transport aircraft crashed close to Baghdad after it was hit by a missile fired by Iraqi insurgents. All 10 passengers and crew on board died in what remains the single biggest loss of British life in the Iraq war.
In the months that followed, relatives of the dead servicemen discovered that the MoD had ignored warnings from senior RAF officers, who had written reports suggesting an aircraft would be lost to hostile fire unless modifications were made to the engines.
It had been recommended that a "foam inertion system", which extinguishes engine fires, should be installed in transport aircraft flying into dangerous areas. The modifications cost about £50,000 per plane and are already standard on US and Australian Hercules models.
Relatives of the dead are considering legal action against the MoD because they believe that the accident was avoidable, but they have had to reconsider their position after they were made aware of the clause in the pension policy.
Kellie Merritt, 29, the widow of Flt Lt Paul Pardoel, an Australian who joined the RAF in 2002 after previously serving in the Royal Australian Air Force, spoke of her disappointment on learning her pension might be reduced.
Speaking from her home in Canberra, Australia, Ms Merritt, who has three children, said: "The pension my children and I receive is Paul's right of entitlement. His pension should be separate to any concern the next of kin have surrounding the deaths of the 10 servicemen."
Patrick Mercer, the shadow minister for homeland security, said: "Our heroes risk their lives and if they lose them they must have the confidence that there will be no corner cutting of their spouses' pension."
In a statement the MoD confirmed that pension payments were subject to a reduction if a widow received compensation.

[flipster]

What an appalling way to treat the bereaved - it makes me ashamed to be British!

[flipster]

Maximo

Are YOU sure you wouldn't be teaching S+L1 on camp in SMG this summer?

Silly me the fun detectors have stopped that game too - so I guess its back to the sandbox for you and your crew?

Give us a ring sometime and I'll buy you a beer!:D :D

Flipster

[maximo ping]

Not much S+L going on these days old boy! ;)

[FJJP]

This latest development will result in a letter to my MP. Jonathan Djanogly is a Sqn Ldr under the Parliamentary Liaison scheme and is very supportive of our Services [inc the Chinook affair].

I will ask him to join the campaign to have this provision removed from the War Widows pension award.

I have watched this thread with fury building by the day. Chappie, I share your loss - stay with us, for as Nigegilb says, there is still much to be done and your input is invaluable.

Apart from helping you [and I know what you mean] you are an inspiration to keep the pot boiling.

regards,

FJJP

[TOPBUNKER]

By the way; stand be to be obliged to accept red lines for leaking K model fuel tanks once the foam is installed. PRC repairs in those knackered old wings will be very entertaining post mod!

[chappie]

hi i'm back. terribly sorry about emotional wobbly, feeling very sorry for myself!!

thanks for kind words and support. contacting your MP re: pensions clause would be very helpful.

i still refuse to be intimidated and i've started the ball rolling to action the next step. it would be very much appreciated to have your support.
a small but fantastic victory re:foam and like i've stated before nige deserves reconition.........or at least someone who can spell! as a family we still call for foam for all, not just some. it looks a little half hearted that only a few are being done. or am i living in cloud cuckoo land?:confused:

please go to website www.mfaw.org.uk and sign the petition to demand tony blair meets with bereaved families. on the 26th april i will go with other military families and meet with MP's and then take the petition to downing street. we will stop at the cenotaph to lay flowers for our loved ones. please feel free to contact your MP's to support us in our quest. i also have a letter on the webpage outlining my feelings.

keep an eye out in the independent as a story is going out about the pensions fiasco tomorrow.

[nigegilb]

Adam Ingram has just issued the following written answer to a
parliamentary question from Mike Hancock:

"We have decided, subject to final contract negotiations, to fit some
of our C-130s with Explosion Suppressant Foam, and expect the first
aircraft to be ready for operational tasking within the next few
months."


So there is the confirmation. Still no news about numbers for the J which makes me slightly suspicious I will attempt to firm this up.

Another question for Mr Ingram


Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what discussions he has had with his counterparts in other countries on the merits of fitting a fuel tank inerting system to the A400M aircraft.

[mary_hinge]

From the Cambridge News Paper dated 13th April 2006:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2006/04/13/ccf54848-d6ee-40b5-8d37-9005b3c89c08.lpf

[nigegilb]

From Wilts Gazette and Herald 13 Apr

http://www.gazetteandherald.co.uk/news/chippenhamheadlines/display.var.732163.0.widows_told_speak_out_and_put_pensions_ at_risk.php

In the same newspaper the opinion column rounds on the MoD calling it villain of the week!

It appears the argument is raging. I have been leafing through a copy of the HCDC report of the UK deployment to Afghanistan. I have been left speechless by some of the comments by Adam Ingram. When referring to the possibility of fitting defensive aids to the Hercules he says,

"Is there an answer to it? Possibly. Can we deliver it? Possibly. When are we going to do it? We have to decide if it is worthwhile doing in terms of age of the aircraft, whether it is technically possible and what it means in terms of the fleet. If the view is that there is a risk associated with this and someone's life may be lost, that is the nature of the conflict. It weighs heavy on all of the minds who make the decisions. There are risks in everything we do."

I wonder what he would say if we lost a Hercules with 70 troops on board. Is it just me, or does this smack of First World War thinking? Bearing in mind that our coalition partners have far superior defensive protection our troops are just expected to give up their lives for the greater good. And this self-same Govt has just agreed to give 8 Billion pounds to African Education.

[Safeware]

nigegilb,
While I admire what you have done, and I think that some of the 'risk' decisions deserve such scrutiny to ensure that risks are really being managed and reduced ALARP, what Adam Ingram says in We have to decide if it is worthwhile doing in terms of age of the aircraft, whether it is technically possible and what it means in terms of the fleet. is actually correct and iaw case law and H&S guidance. If the cost of fixing something is grossly disproportionate to the benefit, then there is an argument for living with the risk. ie if it would cost £100 million to institute a modification that could only be seen to save one life for a risk that was assessed as low, then not doing the mod would be ok. If you had an argument that said for £100 million a mod could be introduced that would save 100 lives by preventing loss of life, you would be on dodgy ground taking the risk of not introducing the mod.
One of the main issues is 'are the grown ups accepting the risk correctly, or on the basis of praying that it will never happen'? One in a million seems an awful small risk until it happens to you or yours.

But as I said, congrats on what you have achieved.

sw

[nigegilb]

SW I agree with you in a sense that all this boils down to is money. It seems the Australians and the Americans are happy to spend it on protecting their military personnel but we are not happy to spend it on our own. So now all we are talking about is politics and if the politicians were honest and said this is the threat, we can counter it but we think it is too expensive then at least they would be making an honest statement. Instead we get misleading statements. For example, the Hercules was not believed to be under threat from small arms in 2002. Or, every Hercules going in to Afghanistan in 2002 had a DAS. Or, we would never put a Hercules into Afghanistan if it could not counter the threat believed to be there. I can tell you from my own experiences that these statements are false. Unless these points are made in public with implied accountability nothing will change. I am not squeamish when it comes to spending money, I think spending it on self- protection is a laudable aim. All I really want is some honesty here.

[Safeware]

nigegilb, I agree that an open and honest approach is needed. Unfortunately, politics and safety are 2 areas where there are no absolutes and 'societal' influences are greatest. Your foam being a microcosm of this - it would have been 'safe' to have implemented this mod some time ago, however politics (ie ac operational in theatre) trumped this. However, societal pressure after the accident has forced a change in policy.

As they say, if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.

sw

[nigegilb]

SW your analysis is spot on, this Govt is particularly sensitive to public opinion. I often think that New Labour represents a continuous process of reaction to focus group consensus. However, I am still surprised by the speed of the success of the foam campaign. I also hope that by being up front and shining a light in a dark place I am helping to show politicians that serving and ex- military personnel have an opinion, are not politically naive and cannot be taken for granted. I saw Ben Griffin on Newsnight last night commenting on the case of Kendall Smith. Could it be that the old order of military sacrifice and stiff upper lip is changing. Is now the right time to consider some kind of military federation? The Lords are already talking about it. For too long politicians have taken the military for granted. If I have helped in some small way to change this way of thinking I will have achieved another success.

[nigegilb]

FF, I have been reading the printed version of the private session between Ingram and the HCDC. The Committee are still asking for answers and assurances about protection of RAF AT assets, I think it is fair to say that they are sceptical of the flimsy way their initial questions have been answered. Watch this space, this issue is not going away. Several things are going on in the background. Foam is not a sop, it is a first step. We have all learned about how politicians and their advisers answer questions. Or rather do not answer questions. the MoD is not getting off the hook that easily.

[Vage Rot]

Even a DAS is only as good as the latest int and software to program it. From what i hear, even a DAS or Foam wouldn't have saved the poor souls in the Herc.

At the end of the day we take good money to risk our lives - not nice to think this way but we can't complain when we are asked to take a risk! The politicians balance cost against risk to decide what is acceptable and at the end of the day, a few of our pink bodies may be an acceptable risk - live with it.

Ask the crews from the cold war all about it!! (Or WW2 for that matter)

Grow up or leave and get a paper round

[nigegilb]

I wonder who you are listening to.

[Vage Rot]

I wonder who you are listening to.

I am flying in theatre at the moment - that's how i feel. Would be nice to have the kit but we get paid good money to take a risk. If you want no risk then go stack shelves in Tesco.

Without compromising too much - foam in the engine isn't too good without a wing! and a Dass will only counter a SAM!!! Perhaps we should invest heavily in forcefield technology!!

[Safeware]

Vage,Would be nice to have the kit but we get paid good money to take a risk
You get paid to take an acceptable level of risk. You should be in a position to either understand that risk (like getting in your car to drive to work) or at least have the expectation that somebody with some responsibility has given due consideration to the risk. You don't get paid to take an unacceptable level of risk. Well, you get paid, but you shouldn't be doing it. That's what nigegilb is chiselling away at.
sw

[Vage Rot]

Safeware

True and true again - but if you don't understand the threat or the risk then speak to your INTo!

we are in the Military - not a democracy!

[Safeware]

Vage, So, the Into knows the probability and consequences of the failure modes of ballistic penetration of vapour filled fuel tanks? I would expect he knows the threats, not the mechanics.

And I thought we had a military serving a democracy.

sw

[Vage Rot]

Vage, So, the Into knows the probability and consequences of the failure modes of ballistic penetration of vapour filled fuel tanks? I would expect he knows the threats, not the mechanics.

sw

maybe true but not rocket science - excuse pun!

and when that democracy decides we do something we do it - that's our job, we elected the govenment. if we don't like it then un elect them instead of whingeing!

[Safeware]

Vageand when that democracy decides we do something we do it - that's our job agreed, but it should be under the reasonable expectation of 'duty of care'.

sw

[fat albert]

VR
foam in the engine isn't too good without a wing

Well you've clearly got a handle on the technology involved here then :hmm:

To be honest, I too believe we're paid a good a wage and there are certain times we should man the f**k up and get on with it. The tents are crap, the dets come round too often yada yada - yes, get over it. Similarly I know that there are limitations with some of the kit on my aircraft but I and everybody else at the secret wiltshire airbase gets on with it. I've personally done 6 dets in Iraq and 2 in AFG without blubbing once. Check me out.

What I don't have any time for is lying politicians and wriggling senior neddies making false claims about either the threat or our equipment. We're not talking about sharks with lasers on their heads or multi billion pound deflector shields, we're talking about a very cheap mod (foam) that instantly reduces the risk to our aircraft, and more importantly our pax, by a very large percent.

No other fixed wing aircraft in the RAF inventory regularly flies within the same threat band as the C130. Suggest you go away and find out what we actually do.

[Vage Rot]

Vage agreed, but it should be under the reasonable expectation of 'duty of care'.
sw

That is where we do agree. Debate is essential.

Personally i am happy with the risk. i can't counter every threat with technology but i understand and accept the risk - It's part of my job. I might not agree with what i am doing, but it is my job. Sometimes, the objective might justify the risk, or the expense. i hope not, but that is my job.

[nigegilb]

Not quite sure what you are flying vagerot but foam has got nothing to do with engines. Maybe you have been reading the press or perhaps you would like to enlighten us on why foam at 50000 pounds per aircraft would not have saved the crew. Also please bear in mind this crew had only just dropped off 50 or so of our highest trained troops. Do you know how many we have at Hereford? I do not mind how much risk you take I just want Chiefs of Staff and politicians to recognise it. Good luck with your flying.

[Vage Rot]

. Suggest you go away and find out what we actually do.

Hmmm,

Think i might know that!!! You guys ferry me around lots.

[Vage Rot]

Not quite sure what you are flying vagerot but foam has got nothing to do with engines. Maybe you have been reading the press or perhaps you would like to enlighten us on why foam at 50000 pounds per aircraft would not have saved the crew. Also please bear in mind this crew had only just dropped off 50 or so of our highest trained troops. Do you know how many we have at Hereford? I do not mind how much risk you take I just want Chiefs of Staff and politicians to recognise it. Good luck with your flying.

No arguement with that old chap - just the constant moan on here about everything being somebody else's fault. As i said before, not wishing to compromise anything but i really don't think foam would have helped in this instance.

[nigegilb]

PM me with your address and i will send you a copy of the crest video of a round hitting a fuel tank with/without foam. I think you will find it interesting viewing. I would also like to add that many of the relatives and widows of the dead crew are reading this thread. I do not mind you contributing but your pseudonym is offensive and in view of your audience you may wish to consider removing your comments.

[RileyDove]

It's possible to argue for hours that foam supressant might not have helped but in reality few if offered the option would turn it down. The Tornado has a nitrogen inerting sytem for the fin tank and I have never heard anyone saying it's a waste of money.
Much as people like to say they are paid good money and there are risks - as a taxpayer it's a good investment to spend 50K in the hope that a Hercules might survive a war zone rather than have to buy a new one and pay widows pensions and train new crews.

[fat albert]

Therein lies the snag VR - we spend about 5% of our time taking you lot out of theatre :hmm:

Like I said, go find out what we do for the rest of the time :rolleyes:

(apologies for dragging this off topic :O )

[SubdiFuge]

Look guys - if we get the foam, it will just mean that somebody else will do without something just as important. It ain't a perfect world and 179's crew knew the risks and the capabilities of their aircraft. The types I have flown on ops were not equipped as I would have liked them, but that just life.


The military flying game is all about risk; sometimes we are lucky...

[Safeware]

Sub, The military flying game is all about risk; sometimes we are lucky... So what you are really saying is that military flying is about luck? Hmm.

sw

[nigegilb]

Sub, 47 Sqn has been the most highly decorated RAF Sqn for the last 10 years. I do not know how much you know about the C130 world but rest assured, Lyneham is not short of risk takers - I am just trying to improve their odds. There is a lot of defence money out there and a lot of it is being spent on Typhoon. For the last 10 years Hercs, Helos etc have been on the front line all over the World in poorly equipped aircraft. The last time an RAF fighter pilot shot someone down was an awful long time ago. The money is there, but it is not being spent where we need it right now.

Do you want to tell a widow that the best the RAF could offer her husband was luck?

[chappie]

who are you john reid or what??? :confused:

lucky shots, luck with flying....to be frank it's a bloody joke. maybe they were aware of the risks. that said, it does'nt mean that they have to accept them. that doesn't mean that they have to leave if they don't. it just highlights the true professionals that they were.

if the foam gets given that means that" someone will go without something they need." that headache can belong to the higher powers who get paid the real money. let them take the risks, not our soliders. it's time the ministers earnt their wage. like you say...it ain't a perfect world! that line of thought will not stop the campaign for protection for all troops. the fact that the insertion of foam will help protect all crew/ troops and passengers on these planes highlights the fact that it's important enough and essential. if the planes are in theatre or on a cargo run elsewhere, with the amount of lives on board at any one time there is a need. look how we found out. what else needs to happen to underline the fact? is the loss of ten colleagues not enough? is the taxpayer paying £130,000 for the blairs to go on four trips on the queens flight on family jollies a wiser spend of our money than looking after our troops? i can tell you what the majority think. we live in the 21st century. not the third world. while we are entitled to our views, and it's good to hear, them we cannot make comparisons with the end of the cold or second world war. different centuries, generations, different times. you don't have to accept second best.

it's time the cobwebs are brushed off from our ministers, they earn their money. get with the programme. take part in the duty of care culture that they installed and the government have a shake up. remember ten men were lost. yes, they were doing the job they loved and accepted......but then they were stopped from doing their job. there had been warnings that this would happen. it can't be ignored any more..........and most importantly their lives are not to be written off. this must be learnt from.:ok:

[SubdiFuge]

And what if a rocket propelled grenade is fired into a cockpit of one of the aircraft in Iraq or Afghanistan- what do you suggest we fit then - 10 inch armour over all of the cockpit windows - it isn't a perfect world as I have said and yes there can be lucky shots.

There is not enough money and this will never change as the military is not as sexy to voters as the NHS or education.

Nige/Chappie -perhaps you should give more time to considering why exactly the crew were at low-level and stop blaming the lack of foam as the key contributor to the accident.

[fat albert]

Sub, I'm not entirely sure what your problem is but I suspect you're a bit of a retired, it-was-good-enough-in-my-day, run-stark-naked-at-jerry type of fool.

No, you can't protect against an RPG round through the cockpit, you're right. So by that thinking we shouldn't bother doing anything I guess? What a facile argument. You protect yourself against those threats you can but accept that there are those that can't be defeated. By your logic, we shouldn't give troops flak jackets because they won't protect against a big VBIED so why bother. Genius :hmm:

There is enough money to do these simple fixes but sadly the RAF is wrapped up in gibberish like Typhoon and various disastrous admin IT systems. As stated before, this is a cheap system. £50k to inert one of the RAF's largest, slowest flying, explosive targets versus the loss of a multi-million pound airframe, several aircrew, a few vehicles, a load of pax and god knows what else. It's not rocket science. The money is there - just witness how much is being allocated to move a few offices round at Lyneham to create a "Force HQ".

:ugh:

[nigegilb]

Sub,
Inadvertently you have touched on another weakness in the Hercules. The RPG attack has already been done, talk to any Harrier mate. Force protection is going to be a real issue in the next few weeks, I tried raising it with HCDC but got nowhere with the politicians. The RAF could start by fitting lightweight easy to use kevlar matting to protect its passengers, just like the Australians have done. Guess what they do not want to spend the money. It appears that our guys are simply more expendable and it does not help much if you spout forth with your bile.

For the record, no criticism was made of the crew for flying low level, but the board recommended looking into fitting of foam. Would you like me to try and overturn the conclusion of a BoI? I find your logic difficult to follow.

[chappie]

sub, what if, what if, what if!!!!! no way to conduct an argument really is it? no way to put forward your frankly outdated ideas my friend. certainly not in a convincing manner. methinks that you are scrabbling around for anything that will try and make the cold, hard facts look like we've gone all touchy feely lovely..........that is most definitely wrong. i could not be more cold or hard, even if i tried.:*

i tell you what sub, seeing as you clearly have a problem with the foam being fitted we'll make sure that all alberts you get to fly on can offer you no more protection than that of a glorified tin can! these are fantastic planes and are vunerable to attack. the implications of which are too expensive to cast aside. the loss of a frame, the loss of equipment on board, the loss of manpower due to the varied no. of troops that might be on board. if other parts of the forces are suffering due to the lack of/ poor state of equipment then fight for it to be changed! don't attack that some people have the where with all to change their own situation. how many more lives need to be finished off? how many more crew are expendable in your eyes?:sad:

as for the low level flying...the clue is in the title of their flight. you know full well that they were SF. flying in low is done for all types of reasons and has been seen to be necessary. at least that is what i've been told whilst around all the official bods! they don't deserve to die because they were in low.:\

[ExALM]

Dr Reid must be so proud to see that some of his new drones are taking up his cause to save as much money as poss by accepting what ever rubbish is passed down the chain of command.
If this really is the mind set of some of the RAF today, then this only confirms the reasons why I left. You “ doubting Thomas’s” here can not seriously believe that just because you have accepted the Queens shilling that you have given up any form of free thought. You sound like you belong in the trenches, with a rifle you’re not sure is going to fire and a helmet made from cardboard, but still happy to go over the top!
I thought that the idea of slim lining the military was to make it a more intelligent and effective fighting force. Maybe I was wrong.
To even insinuate that the lads on XV179 were not fully aware of the risks and dangers involved in such Ops and willing to accept them, to the detriment of their family and social lives for NO extra pay or benefits, just goes to show that you have never served, volunteered, for such a unit. Before you ask, yes I did.
It is also a sad fact that it is the “yes” men like you who get promoted to the top ranks in this modern day force. This is the reason we are in such a state now. Men who get into a position of responsibility and as the ones before hide all the probs to the Lords above for fear of rocking the boat and a lesser pension! The guys who stay on the front line or do get promoted because they are actually exceptional at the job and not the Mess committee member, are the real backbone of the success of the RAF today.
I can not commend enough the work that Nige and the families have done to bring this to the forefront of the papers and news reports. They may have saved a life in the future, might even be your sorry @rse!

[rudekid]

Nige

Lots of time for your good work on the foam issue, however, subdifuge is not that wide of the mark IMHO. Governmental level cost controls and equipment budgets are only one of many very serious issues raised by this sad event.

Foam will be a distinct advantage, and may well stop a similar event in the future. However it would not necessarily, in isolation, have stopped the loss of XV 179 as we are all well aware. I fully concur that it's imminent arrival can only be a good thing for us all.

The BoI has mostly avoided the difficult questions raised by the low flying issue, as have many contributors both on this thread and in the wider military community. The responsibility for this doesn't lie with ten excellent blokes authorising themselves out in theatre. It lies further up the command chain. I was very pleased with the outcome of the BoI and specifically that no criticism was levelled at the crew. However, I would not be surprised that people further up the chain were pleased with the result for less noble reasons. Principally, that little or no criticism was aimed at the higher formations and supervision. Apart from a minor sideswipe at the A2 fraternity, which is difficult to reconcile, the BoI is rightly concerned with avoiding criticism (and therefore implied blame) of the crew.

Please don't read this incorrectly; I am not implying that the crew were to blame, but by doing their utmost to absolve the crew of any criticism the BoI has avoided an issue which I believe to be critical. There should be people at HQ STC, the AWC and 2 Gp who are worried about being sued by families and or investigated by the HCDC, but sadly that won't happen as the BoI let them off the hook.

The two big issues (in my opinion)and therefore the two issues I would be raising with the HCDC are;

1. Who authorises the ac to low fly? (Granted Skipper was self auth, but further up the chain giving direction to theatre)

2. Who authorised the ac to fly during the day? (still happening in theatre)

Ultimately, we don't do ourselves any favours by ducking this issue and being unnecessarily defensive/offensive to anyone who wishes to represent their opinion. This is precisely what has been done by elements who we wish to bring to task over these and many other issues.

RK

[SubdiFuge]

I have never said that I didn't think foam would be a good idea, but we are being naive if we think that we will get all the kit we want on our aircraft to prevent a similar loss. This is purely down to the fact that the Government does place a cost on human lives and unfortunately whatever Nige, Chappie and others do, the panacea will never be reached. Flog your guts out if you want, but you will exhaust yourselves trying. I'm not saying that you shouldn't keep pressurising HMG, but you must understand that as I have already said, the NHS and schools are far more important to the Government than any number of body bags - fact.

ExALM - OK, I'll say it loud and clear. I think the crew were being utterly complacent in flying at low-level that awful day. The BOI may not have commented, but would you, with all of your 'special' experience have flown the same profile in that theatre with the greatest threats being AAA and RPG?

[monkeybumhead]

It seems that the government don't really give a hoot about the Armed Forces, schools or the NHS if they are ready to throw £8 Billion of taxpayers money at african schools. Once the corrupt governments syphon off large chunks what will be left? How about they spend the money looking after those that are fighting their war, those that are looking after the injured when they come back from their war and educating those that will be fighting their future wars for them. Is it just too much to ask?

[nigegilb]

Hey SubdiFuge, appropriate name by the way, do you know what the opening hours are at Kandahar? Do you know what the force protection issues are there? Do you know what runs round the airfield? Would you prefer to go in there with foam protecting your tanks? Guess what, if I had listened to you 10 weeks ago the J would not be getting foam now. You had a look at the Chinook thread recently? Do you know how difficult it is to change a BoI result? If I wanted to flog my guts out for the next 10 years I would take your advice. Hope you don't mind if I ignore it. You know what? My PM box has been full for weeks. People are helping me all the time. People from all trades, foreign military, politicians, lawyers. Ever tried helping anyone? It is a humbling experience. Think I am naive? Do you understand why our Prime Minister is giving up his job? It is nothing to do with the NHS or Schools. It is because of the unpopularity of the Iraq War. He lost his huge majority because of it and he had to do a deal with Gordon to stay in power. You appear to have little idea how damaging this war can be. We barely have enough assets for Iraq and now we are going to Afghanistan and week in week out military issues are all over the media.

I will take my own chances with what I am trying to achieve. I certainly did not start this thread to criticise my former colleagues. If you want to start having a go at the crew, please take your bile elsewhere.

[SubdiFuge]

Nige - Yes to all of your Qs - been out there yourself recently, or have your ex flight mates been giving you access to material that you should no longer have access to - I'm sure that there is something in the OSA regarding this sort of thing!

The SoS made the decison to fit the foam after the pres of the BOI had briefed him on the likely cause of the crash. At that time, JR the SoS decided that all C130s in op theatres should get it and was recently very pissed off that no progress had been made following his quite clear direction.

Get your facts straight.

[maximo ping]

SubdiFuge, actually agree with you on the foam issue; briefings at the time of release of the BOI certainly implied that the decision to fit it had already been made. However, your accusation of complacency against the crew is unwelcome and untrue. As has been reported already on this thread this was not the first round to be taken by a UK C-130 in theatre, and clearly there had not been the same calamitous outcome. That the ac was fairly resilient to small arms fire was not an unreasonable conclusion to draw, and the presence of some very capable manpads in theatre a matter of fact. Obviously with the aid of your retrospectometer you would have made a different decision from the crew on tactics that day, but that was not a luxury available to them. They made the best decision they could with the information available, and to suggest otherwise does a great disservice to them and to yourself. Might I politely ask you to reconsider your statement and retract it?

[nigegilb]

Hey Subby,
I am not interested in getting into a contest with you. I was having problems getting hold of the J numbers but now we have it from you. Every Hercules crossing the border is going to get foam. Nice one. Oh found one of your quotes earlier. Thought you said before that the Herc boys will never get any decent equipment and should quit trying to get it. hmm.

I'd rather dig in or pitch a tent than be laughed outta town by the Matelots, Booties or Pongoes for failing to provide even a half-decent service because the 30 year old aircraft can't fly on ops because they do not have a DAS or are u/s. A disgrace, that's what the current AT fleet is....

[chappie]

sub, seems to me you know a little too much about the goings on in government so either you have the misfortune to work for them or you must be very lonely in the forces that you serve. there is no place for someone so outdated or obnoxious as you. all has gone very quiet on the supportive front for you! no more spleen venting from the misfortunately mis-titled vage rot eh! should be called mind rot methinks as something has to be responsible for the outdated and crass opinions that are held. there are ways of putting forth a difference in opinion but it has to be said that you have not given any thought to the offensive way in which you have gone about it. the people on this thread are the ex colleagues of the crew of XV179 yet i struggle to see any respect shown for this fact. :mad:

regards the sexiness of the NHS i'm afraid to say guys you are wrong. having had the pleasure of working in it for over ten years the state that we are in now is frightening me. it is plain to see the government have lost their grip on reality. working in a neuro intensive care it used to be seen as a priority area. if you needed something then you had it. now i've had situations that i work in that would frankly make your hair curl. so monkey bum head (loving the name!) i agree wholeheartedly with you. as a result i think that ol' tony has interest in only how much arse licking he has to to keep the other countries happy. we all do such a good job of not complaining and keeping things going that he thinks that we'll carry on. it can't and won't he has to invest in his own people or it will be his downfall.....second best will not do.

nige and all those who have helped him are the real men in this. they don't kowtow to the authorities and join the rest of the yes men who basically have their heads in the sand. they identify a need and do something about it, no matter how insurmountable it appears. if we all accept the make do culture then there will be alot more bodies to bury.

so i suggest go away and think about the way to formulate your arguement properly and respectfully or don't enter into the lions den.

[nigegilb]

Elegantly put Chappie. I am appalled that another military type can speak so aggressively to a bereaved relative and I apologise on his behalf. At least you are getting another view of the modern military. If only people would begin to realise that we are more powerful if we stick together and stand up for each other. Hang in there Chappie, I hope the ride is going to be worth it.

[ExALM]

[ExALM - OK, I'll say it loud and clear. I think the crew were being utterly complacent in flying at low-level that awful day. The BOI may not have commented, but would you, with all of your 'special' experience have flown the same profile in that theatre with the greatest threats being AAA and RPG?[/QUOTE]

SDF. Yes I would have and did, within places and times that were required. Strange that you pick and choose the times and situations where bravery is required, yet still not supprising!!!!!! Good luck on your poromotion push!

[dessert_flyer]

Having read this thread from the start i applaud nige and chappie for their work and courage, and agree totaly with all that has been said and what is being done. For too long have the front line been forgotten when it comes to spending money on what is really important. One Army sergeant lost his life for the want of a piece of body armour, ten military personel lost their lives for the want of a piece of aircraft armour, what if it had been a full aircraft. How much effort would of gone into protecting our aircraft if nige hadn't of started this thread?
In the days of waisting money on JPA and BOCS, and we are not talking of small change, we are not able to provide protection as is required for some of our greater assets, (i include every soldier, sailor and Airman in theatre as our assests).
Sub, I do not see how your argument can stand, when vast amounts of cash are waisted on projects that will never enhance our ability to perform our primary role. We need to continue the campaign to obtain as much protection as possible for those in theatre, and its people like nige and chappie who are the couragous ones to take this forward.
As for the NHS chappie, couldnt agree with you more, its in as bad a state as the rest of the public services.

[rudekid]

Nige

Still only throwing one stone...

Keep your head down for the boulders then!

If you wanted to keep yourself out of a potential public slanging match, we maybe shouldn't be airing our views so frequently on a public forum. You aren't the only one with very strong opinions about this! Criticism of this thread, your opinion, my opinion is an inevitable consequence of indulging our vanities in a public forum.

I have already expressed my approval of your campaign to obtain foam for the C130 fleet. You appear to ignore, or denigrate, anyone who expresses a view outside of this or raises a further issue.

As you state in your earlier posts ' I will take my own chances with what I am trying to achieve'

Exactly what is your end state? You have a laudable aim in obtaining an additional safety system for our aircraft. Does this stop here, or are the wider and potentially more damning questions not part of your personal mandate? I would encourage you to take a wider view.

Chappie

Your Brother was a fine man, please don't take my opinions as a slight on him or any of the crew. Nige is doing a good job, it's just that we have different views on where the blame lies.

Please PM me if required.

Regards.

RK

[nigegilb]

RK
You are welcome to place as many postings here as you like. I have no problem with people having a different point of view so long as it is placed with consideration for all reading this thread. But this is no ordinary thread. I am taking the Govt head on and I am especially interested in people who can help me do it. Furthermore I knew some of the dead crew very well and as a result I have been working closely with some of the families. I introduced some of them to pprune. Pprune has been incredibly powerful in all of this. I know that this thread is being read all the way up to the highest levels and I would ask that people are mindful of this. We are all working within the bounds of the BoI result. Frankly it is a waste of everyone's time to do anything else. You obviously feel that the crew were badly supervised. I would argue the opposite. SF crews work in a slightly different way. All I want is for the guys to get the right kit to do the job. I do not want to see the AOC lose his job. I have very good reason to believe that he is on side in all this. I have been open from the start as to my aims. Enhanced protection for every Herc that needs it including protection for passengers. I want to put us on an even footing. US SF Hercs have had foam for 40 years it is, in my view negligent that we did not have it. For that the relatives deserve an apology and compensation.

What I am not going to do is allow people to come on here and have a go at the crew. In fact I will pull the thread rather than see it happen.

[k1rb5]

Nige http://www.smilies-world.de/smilies/smilies_Picture/finger/51.gif

[chappie]

RK,DF,NG,EX thankyou for your support in this and your kind words.

i understand that i'm trespassing on this thread as this is not my territory and see myself as a guest. i am mindful of the work you guys do and i have the utmost respect for you.

i understand that different views will be held. thats understandable but there are ways of putting those points forward. the person who thinks that "a few pink bodies" are acceptable should find themselves somewhere else to spout their poison, as that is all that it is. when you have to sink to that level and cause distress of the highest kind i think you should realise it's time to slink off back under the rock from where you came. there are mothers, wives, other relatives and ex colleagues reading this and referring to someones son/brother or mate as a pink body only highlights the fact that you don't belong here. you clearly are unable to add to your arguement in an adult way. this thread is for grown ups, who wish to discuss all sides of the debate.

i am reading the other view points with interest and do try to take them on board. i do not immediately dismiss them.

[rudekid]

Nige et al

Just to clarify a few points, before I withdraw from the public debate. I am very well aware of how flight crews work and the level of supervision they receive. I know you well!

I am not per se criticising the supervision, nor, as you suggest, do I think they were badly supervised. Supervision and direction are two different areas. Whilst I appreciate that hindsight enables clarity, the crew were poorly directed by their higher command elements. Information, assessment and alternatives were all available but not implemented. This is not Steady's responsibility out in theatre to resolve. Nor do I believe it to be a Sqn responsibility. I'm afraid I don't buy the line about operational imperatives for daytime flight. Nor do many others. Balance of risk is a difficult issue, but someone must take responsibility for balancing that risk. I can clearly see when an operational imperative for daytime OLF might exist, however I simply don't believe it to be the case here.

Your laudable aim of trying to stop this happening again by implementation of foam may prevent a recurrence. So might cessation of day flying. Something we are still doing routinely, some 15 months after the event. I am fully conversant with operating isues in theatres, having flown over 200 sorties in theatres in the last 12 months alone. However, a simple directive from above would be able to stop daytime flying in an instant. Everything else would just have to be worked around. All it needs is the will to carry it out.

I don't partcularly wish anyone to lose their job, but I'm not sure how well the balance of risk is being assessed. Are you talking about the last or present AOC 2 Gp?

I am very glad that this thread is being read at high levels. Perhaps someone may be able to answer my next question. Risk balancing; try explaining this when having to sit in a families lounge and explain that their son/daughter won't be coming home...

Are you aware that during the last six months, 2 Gp RAF ac have been tasked into theatre without a serviceable DAS of any sort? Authorised a long way up the chain...Is the AOC aware that his ac have been authorised for this? I hate to bring things like this out in a public forum, but noone seems to listen. Anonymity can be a powerful tool!

I don't accept your point about having to stay within the findings of the BoI. I have already stated my reasons for believing the BoI to be a sop to authority. The HCDC has the power to look outside the BoI at wider issues involved in this case. You've done a good job on the foam, why stop there? You have the contacts and freedom of movement to pressure the politicians on these issues. Most of us don't. Only when the politicians start taking an interest will we get movement and a re-assessment of the risk balance.

Finally, for further clarification, I am not having, and have not had a go at any of the crew. I don't think anyone else has either.

Regards and continued best wishes for the foam campaign.

RK

[chappie]

i may be wrong and i will be checking my facts but one of the contributory factors of the crash that we were told may have been low level flying. as a result it was going to be implemented that low level was going to be avoided where possible. i am aware that the parameters for such manoeuvres can be moved but it does appear that there was a high level of lip service that was paid to us. i think that sticking to the recommendations could be done in an ideal world but i think that there is no intention of sticking to them 100% of the time and there is no way we, as families, will find out.

i hear what you say and agree about keeping the pressure on the government. i know i'm not that important in the scheme of things but if i can help wherever i can then i will. i know that there are risks to be taken and there is the cold, stark, ugly reality of life in the military but you still entrust your son/daughter to the organisation hoping that they will do their best to protect your child and have some sort of duty of care. when you get that call to tell you that they died there will be no way of reasoning that the risk that was taken with a son was assessed prior to that point and deemed not high enough. i will say this, however, THE GUYS ON THE FRONTLINE LIVE THE REALITY AND SHOULD BE LISTENED TOAND MAKE THE RISK ASSESSMENTS NOT THE GUYS FURTHER UP THE CHAIN WHO HIDE IN THEIR OFFICES. there is no way they can have one iota about the real needs of the everyday solider.

as i mentioned before, i work in the nhs...on the frontline as it were. i have worked for some of the largest trusts in the UK. i have endured working under the management of a chief executive who worked for iceland (freezer shop). he had no nursing/medical experience and as such was so out of touch about the real needs of his workforce and it showed as we became more like a business not a hospital. everything revolved around a budget and we went down hill and could not do our jobs properly. the same could be said about the military from what i'm hearing. these services are not businesses so stop running them like one!

[kfwalm]

RK
I have read several of your past thread replies and the is a common thread manly stirring and animosity to those asking sensible questions of others and of there so called peers and masters. So if you want to wind people go to the J thread and take the piss out of them it is very easy. Some threads on here are having the desired effect.

[nigegilb]

Hercules Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1)what plans he has to fit the new K model Hercules aircraft with (a) the latest generation defensive aids suite and (b) foam in the wing tanks; and if he will make a statement; [57110]

(2) which J model Hercules aircraft have been fitted with (a) the latest generation defensive aids suite and (b) foam in the wing tanks; and what plans he has to equip the remaining aircraft. [57111]



18 Apr 2006 : Column 7W

Mr. Ingram: Both C-130K and C-130J aircraft are fitted with varying combinations of the following defensive aids:

Countermeasures Dispensing System
Directional Infra Red Counter Measures
Flight Deck Armour
Lamp Infra Red Counter Measure
Missile Approach Warning Receiver
Radar Warning Receiver

We have decided, subject to final contract negotiations, to fit some of our C-130s with Explosion Suppressant Foam, and expect the first aircraft fitted to be ready for operational tasking within the next few months.

I am withholding information on the specific defensive aids and survivability measures employed on each C-130K and C-130J airframe because it would risk prejudicing the security of our armed forces.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effectiveness of (i) the latest generation defensive aids suite and (ii) foam in the wing tanks of Hercules aircraft; and what conclusions he has drawn. [57154]

Mr. Ingram: The Air Warfare Centre continually assesses the effectiveness of current defensive aid suites against current and emerging threats. Specific research looking at the threats to our aircraft, options for protection and air platform survivability measures, is also under way and will, among other issues, review the effectiveness of foam in aircraft fuel tanks. The details of these programmes cannot be released as this would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness and security of our armed forces.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when each of the Mk 3 Hercules was fitted with associated defensive aids systems. [57158]

Mr. Ingram: All Hercules C-130K Mk 3 aircraft are equipped with infra-red defensive counter-measures and have been since the early 1990s. In 2003 a number of Hercules C-130K Mk 3 aircraft were fitted with a range of additional defensive aid systems and flight deck armour. The actual number of aircraft so equipped is being withheld as information on the precise combination of defensive aids employed on individual airframes could prejudice the security of the UK armed forces.


Note that Mr Ingram admits that the MK3 was given additional defensive aid systems in 2003. I interpret this to be a DAS and I will be returning to that statement. I also intend to fully respond to RK. Just need a bit more time. Still no word on J numbers for foam. My intention is to increase the pressure on reinstating the J DAS upgrade program. Shopping lists help create a false sense of security for concerned MPs.

One other point, I was tasked to do a handful of daylight runs int Afg. As a crew we agreed to do them but on one occasion my authoriser point blank refused to give us the mission. He threw it back at mission planning and we were not tasked with daylight runs again. His career was not affected neither was his conscience troubled. If authorisers are sending crews into theatre without DAS they are making a big mistake. John Reid himself has said that "Only Hercules with appropriate defensive countermeasures are deployed to operational theatres." RK if you can send me some facts I will pursue it.

[nigegilb]

Another article in today's Times about the crash. Thought the MoD comment was interesting.

“Prior to this incident it was not thought that the aircraft was vulnerable to a fuel tank explosion,” the spokesman said.

I wonder why US Hercs (over 600 on the inventory) and Aus Hercs have ESF then. I have the file reference of a document requesting fuel tank protection in 2002. Also wonder what a former 47 Sqn Flt Cdr (rtd) might think of this statement. He wrote reports pointing out such vulnerabilities. I understand that many RAF Herc exchange pilots who served in US forces also asked for foam on their return to UK. I have been told that a video illustrating the consequences of a round hitting an unprotected fuel tank was shown to Herc operators in 2002. I have been contacted by 3 USAF Herc exchange pilots and they are too kind to say "I told you so" in public. They are shaking their heads in disbelief. I am not sure how far up the food chain the vulnerabilities were known. I guess we will find out in the fullness of time.

[Blodwyn Pig]

"In 2003 a number of Hercules C-130K Mk 3 aircraft were fitted with a range of additional defensive aid systems and flight deck armour."

this is an accurate statement.

[nigegilb]

I am delighted that Mr Ingram confirmed that the MK3 received DAS protection in 2003. You are quite right this is correct and this information is very useful as FF alludes to the policy of putting Herc crews into Afg without DAS in 2001/02. This is denied by HMG. More later.

[chappie]

well, well, well a little suprising the MOD reply to the article in the times today. i did'nt know the article was coming out in the times as i'd not done an interview with/for them so a little suprised. very suprised that they then went to the MOD considering all that's been said so far is we are planning to take action we haven't actually started it.

anyway here's one for you to mull over! i heard today.......strictly off the record from someone in the MOD via someone else that the MOD want to implement the foam and are keen to do so, it's the pilots that are making it difficult as they being obstructive!!! they complain that it will affect the manouvreability of the plane.so what do you think to that? is there any truth in that. it would be great to know.:8

[ExHerkmate]

The only effect foam has on the maneuverability of the airplane is that it takes up 3% of the fuel tanks' capacity. No added weight/CG effects. Haven't missed that displaced fuel in 15 years of flying USAF Alberts, especially not in a Herk with aerial refueling capability.
Haven't worried about missing 23 feet of wing either flying into places like Angola, Bosnia, and Iraq.
Keep up the good work.

ExHerkmate

[propulike]

Chappie,

No pilot that I have spoken to who is currently serving at Lyneham has expressed any reservations about the fitting of ESF to the fuel tanks. After the tragic events of Jan 2005 we want it and many are frankly disappointed and surprised it hasn't been fitted already.

Your 'friend of a friend's strictly off the record' comment is of that status because he/she is talking nonsense.

[nigegilb]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/47083.pdf

Have a look at this regarding missile threat in 2001/2 in Afghanistan. Page 43/44

670 US Hercs manage to fly with foam OK. I think MoD are desperately clutching at straws.

[SubdiFuge]

Chappie/Nige - this is a new one on me. Probably more likely that we might not be able to send 2 into the programme without catastrophically impacting on current ops.

[nigegilb]

Sub,
I believe we may be approaching a crisis point. And I have to say it was entirely predictable. I warned the Defence Com that this was likely to happen.

More Questions

79
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what his definition is of a defensive aids suite, with particular reference to the A400m.
(64792)

80
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how long it takes to switch a defensive aids suite between A400m airframes; and what the cost is.
(64827)

81
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what recent assessment he has made of the value of the IRCM ALQ 157 as a defensive aids suite; and if he will make a statement.
(64828

[chappie]

after a sleepless night wondering about these comments and the impact of the mod i've decided to still go ahead with what's happening. the mod are trying their best to scare me off. they would have me think that foam in the wings of hercs is not as desired as it has been made out. i need to hear from anyone who deals with the wonderful alberts what their views are. if you're a pilot or GE or anything please let me know your thoughts. i really appreciate all those comments that have been given already. i mean all those across the spectrum. it is important to have real honesty and there are always two sides to a coin as it where! i'm a lone voice in the public, i don't have the expertise that is required i need as much information as i can get. if we all join together we shall get heard. the media are getting a little carried away and i'm supposed to go onto a live news programme tonight but i felt like i was going to be used as live bait, literally! i'm a nurse not a pilot/engineer and i'm mindful of that. please help:)

while i'm in the begging mood. please help me with the next task. i know it's :mad: cheeky of me but this is for all those families that are left behind. yet again i understand and respect that there are some of you who disagree with this but if any of you do agree lend me your help. next week i will be going to house of commons and i will be meeting with other military families and MP's . we are calling for blair to meet with the bereaved families of those personnel that died in iraq. there is a petition on the website www.mfaw.org.uk please help and put your signatures down. we will be delivering the petition on the same day after we have gone to the cenotaph to lay flowers. we will be holding a silence the traffic will be at a standstill. if any of you wish to come or would like to drop a line to your MP to help us add pressure. if any of you know a military family who have been affected in this way and would like to come please PM me and i will get in contact. it's a terrible thing to have that knock on the door or to turn on the news to find out what's happenend to your loved ones. it's only made worse when you are left feeling like your own government wish you'd go away back to obscurity quietly as if you are something to be ashamed of. please help me to change that......thankyou.

[nigegilb]

FF, I started off throwing one ball but I am astounded by some of the things going on. It is clear that an urgent review of safety is required. I will push for it as hard as I can.

I am also mindful of the Mighty Hunter.

[Blodwyn Pig]

[quote=nigegilb],


Whoever told the AOC that we could comfortably deal with Afg/Iraq and a major mod program was either an eternal optimist or a fool on a rather large career push.

[quote]

my understanding is that the foam would be fitted to the aircraft as they go through the next minor servicing, as opposed to taking them out of service for a dedicated mod program.

[nigegilb]

Maybe I was a bit harsh in my assessment of the advice given to AOC. However, I do understand that it is a lengthy process to fit foam to the Hercules. I do not know in which order the aircraft are being fitted. Contrary to some of the opinions on this thread I understood that promises to fit foam would not necessarily materialise. I decided to do something about it. After the first article in Jan, the MoD party line was that foam was expensive, time consuming to fit and not really required. (lucky shot scenario). Soon after the second article it became clear that some of the K models were going to get foam. As the pressure increased so did the confirmed numbers of Ks. The contract to fit the J was only confirmed very recently and I still do not know the numbers. I am not sure all this was factored in when the AOC was told that Lyneham could cope with this new deployment. My argument is that the decision to fit foam to the Hercules should have been taken last year. I am sure that the planning process for the deployment to Afghanistan has taken many months. I am also sure that at no time was there a plan to send Herc crews to Afg with the protection of foam. I believe this is a mistake and I question the priority placed on safety. This is a narco-deployment to a country which has been virtually ignored for more than 3 years. (with the exception of Kabul). It may have been wiser for the Chiefs to have said no to the deployment, rested/trained the crews and fixed up the frames ready for a push to Afg at a later time. I understand that there is a shortage of frames and as a result I am concerned that safety will once again take a back seat due to the high levels of tasking. Every week that goes by is a week without foam. It is easy to say yes and much more difficult to say no. I just hope I am wrong about the decision to deploy Hercules into another theatre at this time.

If this narco-deployment is so important, could one of our NATO partners not have stepped forward to help out? Or is there another agenda here?

[nigegilb]

Had word today that the RAF is saying that it did not realise the Hercules was vulnerable to small arms fire, and did not understand the need for foam. I have also been told that a presentation was made to key RAF players, showing the effects of small arms fire on an unprotected fuel tank. This occurred before the Afg conflict. The presentation included a full costing. It appears nothing was staffed. It is still the responsibility of the RAF. It is not good enough to plead ignorance. Denial of responsibility is something that comes easily to politicians but I am surprised the RAF is now trying the same line.


I know that successive USAF pilots on exchange to the Hercules tried their best to convince the RAF to fit foam. I wonder how they feel now.

[chappie]

it's a case of not my job mate! it has to be someones responsibilty. the safety of your workforce falls to the employer surely or am i being too simplistic? pleading ignorance will not suffice as a defence so be warned i and others accept that! :mad:

i work with a wife of a jet/fighter pilot and i'll see if he knows the answer, or is prepared to answer.

[chappie]

another thing. if you are reading this from high above so to speak. why should the families pay back their pensions? the officers should be paying back their wages as they have not been doing their jobs properly. ignoring and compromising the safety of your staff/troops by putting their heads in the sand comes where exactly on the code of conduct for your roles. this would make interesting reading in the more public forum! change is not a scary thing it's a necessity to evolve, progress and be leaders....instead of staying still becoming stagnant and evolving into a laughing stock not the world leaders we once were.

[nigegilb]

I would also like to add that at no stage have I claimed that a program to fit foam was cancelled.

I have learned that Harley 37 was not the only Hercules to get hit in GW2. I understand that several Hercules were HAMMERED with all kinds of small arms/AAA. None of them were shot down despite suffering hits to the wing. They had the protection of foam in the fuel tanks. I believe that the balance of probability is that the crew of XV179 were more likely to have survived the attack if the aircraft had been fitted with foam. If this Govt is serious in its desire to afford protection to military personnel why did it cancel an anti-missile program for the J Hercules? And why did it send Hercules to Afg without foam?

The manner in which the widows and relatives have been treated over the pensions clause is a disgrace. It highlights the apparent desire of the MoD to limit compensation by reducing pensions to save money, even where the fault lies with the employer. I would very much like to hear from anyone who was involved with the Chinook crash. I understand the MoD may have used strong arm tactics with the bereaved, concerning pensions and compensation caps. Please PM me if you can help.

[DummyRun]

Dave the squipper, who died on XV179, was part of my team in Sierra Leone. At the time of Dave's funeral his No1 jacket had the ribbon on for the OSM (Sierra Leone) Our favorite HQ in Gloucs is now questioning his entitlement !! 'was he there for 30 days? did he fly on that aircraft on a certain day?' The Assisting Officer to the widow is a top bloke, J1 @ EGDL are just 'doing their job', however finding auth sheets, F540's etc for some jobs isn't easy. I guess my point is that surely there must be SOMEONE at Binnsworth with 3 stripes and a spine to say 'just do it' and thereby relieve another widow of some grief and hassle that she could probably do without.

NigeGilb,
Have you noticed every piece of bumf the MoD/RAF produces has the little Fred Perry logo on? Any legal beagles out there got any thoughts on what Investing in People accreditation means?

PS. giblet pse pm me ref JG,MA and JS I might be interested on climbing aboard !!!!!

[BEagle]

I'm sure that any worthwhile lawyer making a compensation claim on behalf of those affected will now include 100% of the exisiting widows' pension to the claim, in case MoD tries to stop paying it after settlement?

One of my suspicions concerning the Chinook Mull of Kintyre scandal is that, if the unjust 'gross negligence' verdict had NOT been made by Wratten and Day, then MoD could have been faced with much higher claims from the bereaved. Whether a case of corporate manslaughter could have been levied against the MoD for allowing an aircraft with known serviceability issues to be used for inessential passenger transport flying, I do not know.....

Good luck, nigegilb et al.; there must be some top level squirming going on up in Town.

[chappie]

have these people got nothing better to do? why not leave things as they are, let the dead rest in peace. it's not the done thing to question about this after steady's no longer here to speak up for himself. it makes me so bloody angry. as a grieving relative i can safely say i know how devastating this is to hear as a loved one left behind. who's place is it to question an entitlement? i'm sure there are many plebs who are not entitled to do their job as they can't fufil their role properly. they are happy to relinquish any duty of care to their troops by letting them go on a plane with inadequate/ non existent protection. so if you want to question entitlement then look a little nearer to home! leave us alone. all it seems to be is harassment. it's not necessary to question this at all. if anything i think a jobsworth has got a chip on their shoulder. if you knew what was going on in the steads life you'd think twice about your timing. what next? you'll come and question something to do with bob ?.:mad: :mad:

[nigegilb]

I am absolutely staggered about the questioning of the entitlement of OSM (Sierra Leone). I have been holding off even mentioning this subject because it is so emotive. I will say this. I was in Afghanistan during Op Anaconda, a US offensive that resulted in several fatalities. Within days of the completion of the Op, the US Defence Secretary himself was in the hangar at Bagram pinning medals on the chests of proud US servicemen. Contrast this with Innsworth. At the time of the death of the crew of XV179, over 3 years had passed since the commencement of Afg conflict. Members of that crew had performed heroic tasks in Afg. They were still waiting for their recognition from Innsworth. The MoD may be happy to risk manage the lives of the crews but they could at least offer timely recognition of bravery. Please forward the details of this person questioning the bravery of Dave via PM.

I have been invited to meet AOC 2GP on 04 May. I would very much like to advise him in person who is responsible for this heartbreaking deed.

[doris day]

Nige, Good luck on May 4th, very much appreciate the work you are doing. Have some very fond memories of you and Steady and rest of boys, Chile 2000.

[chappie]

i'd like to let you all know that i have been offered the chance to get information about our concerns/campaign out onto an international level. i plan to use it to the full. i think that it is essential that other countries know how our government treat both those who dedicate their lives for it and those of us that are left behind as a result. i will have my story as it where offered out on a national and international level. i hope then that the point out that any troops belonging to another country that are transferred in our alberts are not protected as they are on their own alberts. even if i get that information across on a personal ladies magasine level, the readers will be mothers/ sisters/wives and the like. they may be moved into action to help support thre call for protection of all troops worldwide. the public voice will be too strong to ignore. i'm thinking of getting a paper to run a campaign calling for public to voice their opinions as to the support of foam insertion on our planes. all hercules not pick and choose. the government might be able to ignore your voices in the military but they can't ignore the public. i know this is extreme but desperate times call for desperate measures.

i call also, again, for any help that people can give me. if i'm to take this further i need to show that there is proof that this foam has been wanted for a long time. please PM me of any help you can give me. please.

last but not least methinks i have made a spectacular cock up. my lack of understanding of the term squiffer has allowed me to think that the david in question was stead and not williams. deepest apologies. i am mortified but the principle is still the same. which ******** has the wherewithall to decide that messing around with the dead is worthy of airtime, manpower and investigation? clearly someone who is lacking in the bollocks...and brain dept. :mad: what is to be gained in taking back an award or are the forces so hard up they have to recycle them. suggestion... get rid of the idiot who ordered it and have his wages! i hope there are no problems due to the mistake i made.

[Vage Rot]

[QUOTE=FormerFlake]How can any aircraft be tasked into Irq/Afg without DAS, effective DAS , or with parts of it not working?QUOTE]

Hmmm!! There's most of us then!