SQ You make your point loud and clear. It is my belief that on one specific occasion in Afg in 2002 fatalities were actually pencilled in. I think crews would have understood the requirement to undertake such a mission if the effect to UK foreign policy had been explained at the time. It wasn't and it was very badly handled. Most people should remember the one-way missions in the cold war. It is a fact of life and I fully accepted I might have to pay the ultimate price. What I could not accept was a politician telling my father how well protected I was in my aircraft, when it was so obviously not the case. It is clear from the telegram sent from Strike at the end of Afg conflict that they expected to lose ac and crews. We were lucky, sadly that luck ran out on 30 Jan last year. I am genuinely trying to change the culture at MoD. I will investigate further the procurement of the J. Accountability is a relatively new thing for politicians and chiefs of staff to handle. They would be advised to get used to it.
You make an adroit point about the cost/effectivenessof foam. I was startled over the weekend to hear talk of preferring the option of more DAS fit frames to the fitting of foam to existing frames. Even after the crash there is a lack of understanding about its benefits. It really is the baseline protection for USAF Hercs. I glanced at some other US ac today, foam, fuel tank inerting, self sealing tanks, it is ever present. The USAF truly understand it, we are still to grasp it. But this is helping. I know I am right on this and you are helping lots of people to understand why.