I don't even think Hillier understands basic airworthiness concepts. The Tactical Analysis Team (TAT) reports of 2002 and 2003 were effectively vulnerability analysis reports required because aircraft were being deployed into a new theatre. A threat assessment needed to be carried out because each theatre poses different threats. The two reports quite rightly recognised the threat from small arms to Hercules wing fuel tanks because the ROLE of the Hercules exposed them to such a threat. The RAF sat on the reports and did not disseminate them to the Sqns where tactics could have been changed whilst a foam program was put in place. The reports outlined the stark risk and the consequences of fuel tank explosion.
I am utterly at a loss as to how Hillier can still suggest AFTER the conclusion of the Inquest and the public knowledge of the existence of these reports that the RAF somehow didn't think the role of the Hercules necessitated foam.
It was an explicit and urgent recommendation. Is Hillier his own man, or is he only prepared to read a script waived under his nose by a
PR "adviser"?