JTO,
Yep, I've just listened and tend to agree with you - typical, if not unexpected!
Dr Reid mentioned that we (the RAF) were more concerned with SAMs - this is debateable and if it were so it was only because we were flying at high-ish level and at night. As soon as the pressure to fly 24/7 and at LL increased, Small Arms became more of a threat - as we predicted - that is why the sqn (SF and Main, IIRC) requested foam to complement the flight deck armour in 2002.
To say that cost was the only reason foam was refused would be naive - sure, the loss of AT capability would have been significant but worth it. I can even empathise with the budget holders as the MOD's paltry war-fighting 'extra' pot from Mr Brown was gobbled up quickly by other Services. Perhaps the Chancellor is ultimately responsible? Who knows?
But as far as I'm concerned, MOD were made aware of the risks and good friends of ours were fighting our corner - but not being listened to.
So, the ultimate blame MUST fall at the feet of MOD and Ministers - that is how a hierarchy should work, n'est pas?
Nonetheless, as Dr Reid implied (on behalf of Charles Clarke's Home Office shambles, strangely enough) that "Yes, mistakes are made" and "have to be rectified".
If he follows his own advice, the def minister remains responsible for
1. Making sure mistakes don't happen again (or on different ac types)
2. Admitting his deptarment's mistakes
but also, I believe
3. Apologising to the victims for the errors
and
4.Making sure they (or the relatives) are recompensed.
It seems to me that the ministers are (reluctantly) getting better protection for some our ac and even admitting to gov't mistakes - now, Dr Reid, it is time to ensure protection for all ac and also for responsibilities 3 and 4.
flipster
Last edited by flipster; 3rd May 2006 at 11:49.