Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety

[chappie]

unfortunately laser it is all about that. i have also had the misfortune about of hearing that the poor sods that are out on patrol are in the lightweight version of the land rovers as amoured vehicles offend the locals.

memo to des browne....i'm afraid sir that there is disgruntlement amongst the public of great britain as the killing of soliders due to incorrect or lack of equipment is also rather upsetting to say the least!!!GET IT SORTED!!! i am aware though that the general feeling is this....:ugh: !

what does it take to get the man to listen, instead of hiding his head in the sand hoping that i'll go away. des, i'll still be here when you are ready....i'm going nowhere. i WILL get the legacy in place for those men who died. you can continue to hide behind your answers about the breaching of security that you've got off pat, but ultimately you know we are not breaching security or compromising those already out there. it's a wide known fact that the plane was brought down so no amount of talking about it after the event is going to hide the fact!

i had it pointed out to me that 25 men have died as a result of having the misfortune of being in a snatch land rover, couple that with the 10 that died on the hercules and the poor sos that was on foot patrol when the IED went off that gives you a total of 36 men...roughly 36% ish of those who died in iraq because the government failed to provide the proper equipment for it's soliders. i saw a news article a while back with a canadian (i think) soliders in their amoured vehicles. an explosion went off, the cars were shunted into one another and the loud bang that was caught on camera was actually a suicide bomber driving into the patrol. the soliders were saved and the explosion was deflected killing people in the market. yet again, i ask this simplistic question. why can't we provide our soliders with the same and lead by example instead of following? i know what i'd prefer.

[South Bound]

I genuinely do not know what type of LR the troops that died last night were driving, or if having an armoured vehicle would DEFINITELY have improved their chances of surviving the RPG attack and follow-up, but I know what I would prefer to be in at the moment.

My thoughts are with the families and the boys on the ground that will go out on patrol regardless...

[chappie]

here here. having contact with the mothers of those men who have already lost thier sons because of this i've seen first hand at the suffering it brings, alongside the the pain i have in losing my brother when he could have survived. in fact most of our soliders i'm sure would have survived had they been properly supplied. our friendships are starting to blossom and we're coming together as military families do and we're fighting hard to stop this from happening to other families. what makes it worse is the apparent waste of money that blair takes part in....for christs sake the man has ordered two bloody jets to ferry him and his family around in . as a taxpayer i'd prefer my money went on saving the lives of our soliders...not him!

[lasernigel]

Sorry to cut and paste again but a relevant question to this thread was put up by James Gray yesterday and the answer from Des Browne.....

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): I know that the Secretary of State will agree that central to a successful deployment in Afghanistan will be the heavy-lift capability provided by the Hercules aircraft from RAF Lyneham, which is in my constituency. In that context, he will know that one of the contributory factors to the tragic crash of a Hercules in Iraq last year might have been the absence of foam flame retardant in the wing tanks. Will he tell us how quickly the retardant will be fitted in the Hercules fleet and
26 Jun 2006 : Column 12
how many planes will be fitted with it? Will he confirm that all the planes that are deployed in Afghanistan will have that safeguard fitted to them?

Des Browne: I am happy to accept the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to pay tribute to the contribution that the Hercules—and, more importantly, those who fly the Hercules—have made to military operations in not only Afghanistan and Iraq at present, but elsewhere. He knows, as I am sure that the House does, that we intend to fit the flame-retardant foam into Hercules and to ensure that those that are deployed to the theatre are fitted with that. I have said in public, so I have no reason to say anything different from the Dispatch Box, that we hope to be able to do that by August for the first of them. We will ensure that sufficient numbers of Hercules are fitted with the appropriate retardant foam so that operations can be conducted.

So now it's August for the first one at the moment,how long to get the fleet done I wonder????

[chappie]

i heard today that it takes eighteen months to fit the planes with the foam. if that is the case then it won't be august that the plane will be ready. on the other hand it won't take eighteen months if the plane is to be ready in august. shame that des browne couldn't extend his acknowledgments to the crew that lost their lives in the crash...or would it be a case that if he did that he'd be underlining the fact that because of the lack of foam they're dead! thankyou for that info lasernigel.:)

i've also seen des being interviewed on the steps of MoD saying that money has been spent over the last three years on protection for our troops! what he failed to do though was follow up with examples about where the money was spent. there was no protection for those troops that have perished at the hands of our government and their inability to protect their best asset....our british armed forces.

what i'd also say is this. why are the government so worried about not offending the people of iraq? why doesn't the british public matter? have the government not realised about the offence in hearing that statement causes the families left behind? it really deepens the sense of hurt and loss that we endure every day. why do we not count/ why are we treated like a dirty sleazy secret that they are ashamed of? especially when we have done nothing wrong. why treat our troops, peoples loved ones as nothing more than collateral damage in a game of hearts and minds. i think that they should concentrate in winning the hearts and minds of the british nation first.

[Almost_done]

..its the Express but this article (http://www.express.co.uk/news_detail.html?sku=136)may be dated or possible re-digging gone over ground but with today's news :ugh:

[chappie]

dear fellow ppruners, my following reply will seem a little odd but please bear with me as it's something that i have to do. it would appear that the thread has been watched from afar for personal reasons trying to identify a misuse of bob. this both saddens and hurts me deeply, but here is what i'd say to you.

morning col! i found out today that you have been watching the thread trying to catch me out. i have stated before when there were attempts to make it personal for me to be PM'd so any concerns can be discussed. this thread is about a campaign to save lives nothing more nothing less. please feel free to add your thoughts regards the campaign to get fuel suppresant technology fitted.if you feel you have personal issue with what i'm doing i will stress again for you to send me a private message so this page does not spiral into anything more than a personal attack on me and detract from the outstanding work being done by others and myself to achieve safety for all.

[South Bound]

Chappie

absolutely - this thread is not about Bob, or Steady or any of the others that died. While it was inspired by the tragedy that involved them, it is actually about the boys and girls that remain behind still flying the same aircraft.

[flipster]

Well said that man!

Chappie
You are an inspiration but there will always be 'knockers' (ie people who wish to snipe at you!)

Ignore them and their pettiness. Those that are still flying Albert are our prime concern but of course, the emotional 'drive' comes your loss.

By the way, although there are other threats out there and defences required for them, I haven't yet found a single person who would refuse having foam fitted to their ac!

Keep it up dear girl.

[chappie]

thankyou guys. i really appreciate the support. i was loathe to have to do that but i really felt that it was needed. just to say, please do not feel as though you have been abandoned. there is alot going on in the background. letters have been sent to blair, david cameron and des browne.not sure if to pursue the early day motion as all the MP's are on their jollies. tomorrow, i'm doing more media tomorrow about the campaign and attending a large conference where more signatures will be got! keep the faith!:)

[pop and fresh]

I do not normally get involved with the shenanigans of these forums. But as a close friend and colleague of bob’s and being fully aware of his domestic situation I was so horrified when shown some of the childish incantations and self congratulatory ramblings that have been posted that I must attempt to put the record straight.

Whilst all safety campaigns have merit I am abhorred that anyone particularly a family member could use the private message of a dead hero to further their own ends, especially when she was expressly aware that his fiancée was neither consulted or warned of the radio broadcast of the 2nd of May. How much emotional torture do you think that caused?? This was even more unnecessary considering her stated aims had already been achieved, and Chappie if you are so concerned about, we assume all servicemen’s safety, where were you before 179 went down? Chappie, if you were as close to your brother as you would have us believe, you would have known that he, like many of his colleagues, did not consider ESF to be the “wonder-cure-all” that some people seem to.

Bob flew 50 plus sorties into enemy territory in the knowledge that his aircraft, although slow and lumbering was protected to the best that very limited resources could achieve. I further find some of your posts inconceivable, as being his sister you would obviously know just what an unpretentious and private person Bob was. He would be devastated to think that anyone, especially a member of his family, would use him in such a public manner.

You may dismiss this with your usual contempt, but Bob’s only wish in life was to ensure that his fiancée was safe and was looked after. A few people seem to be eager to destroy his memory and reputation and to do their utmost to ride rough-shod over his wishes. Whatever they take they cannot have the memories of a man who died happy in the knowledge that he had what most of us will never have – a job he loved and the love and support of the woman he chose to spend his life with.

Chappie, considering your total silence before 179 went down, your total disregard for his fiancée and his “step sons” and apparent desire for payment (see quote below) I must question your motives.


once this exclusivity period is over i'll be on the phone to lots of papers. it was pointless entering the contract as there was not the coverage she promised me. it didn't even go overseas, which is why i signed. oh well, we all make mistakes i did'nt even get paid. just hassle! sorry for the rant. i needed to vent.

[propulike]

p+f

Nice attempt at thread creep. However if you were a close friend and colleague of Bob's, or any of the crew, you would have known that he, like many of his colleagues, do consider ESF to be an effective defence against small arms and also believe that the only reason it isn't fitted to our aircraft is that the person making the decision as to whether or not to procure it decided it was cheaper to risk the aircraft and personnel on board (especially as they wouldn't actually BE one of the personnel on board).

As to chappie being silent before 179 went down - my family was not aware of the shortcomings in the defensive fit to the aircraft (ie there weren't any) but should something have happened to me and they then discovered a surprising truth I would expect them to kick up a fuss too.

If you are so concerned about your friend and his colleagues then I would expect you to support any program aimed at keeping them safer. If, as I suspect, you're actually sitting behind a desk in MoD trying to destroy the progress of chappie and Nige's campaign then may I suggest you question your own motives, not chappies.

[chappie]

well well, the attempt at thread creep rears it's head again,despite requests that the attepts to make this a personal attack are kept away from the page and left to private messages, you try try again. i do not want to keep this away from the page as i'm ashamed of what i've done...far from it. in fact i'm very proud of what i've acheived. if you want to get caught into a war of words then find someone else, as this family does not air it's dirty laundry in public. i,as have my parents remained tight lipped about the personal and tragic pain endured on a private level to ensure that the memory of bob is treated with the dignity and respect he deserves. this will continue to be the case. i have done nothing to be ashamed of despite your frequent attempts to make it look like i have.

i do not have to justify myself to you, any friend of bob would not ask that of a grieving sister...surely. there seems to be a growing number of posts from one time users who never post again all purporting to be bob's friend. the posts underline the concerns for bob's family yet sadly never mention them. there is no concern for his parents or sister shown and usualy followed up by a blatant misinterpretation of his thoughts and beliefs. you may be some sad desk jockey in the MoD following the orders to discredit the grieving sister of sgt bob o'connor. what's up have i got under your skin? do you have to resort to such underhand tatics that this is what you do? i feel i know the true identity of the perpetrator who is isistent in moving the thread. it saddens me there is stil the need to continue to cause pain to his family. it's time to move on, instead of trying to attack me. i will say only this:

writing your post in large bold writing does not exaggerate your point or draw attention in the correct way i think you had hoped. i see nothing more than a desperate attempt that would be the equivalent to shouting pointlessly loudly at someone in aroom.

i was, like the other family members of the crew, living my life uninformed as to the true risks undertaken by the aircrew of the hercules and the shortages faced by them.

i was nearly over come with laughter at the attempt to show the emotional distress felt by the fiancee bit. how comedic, considering all the pain caused by said person to the family of bob.

the payment issue, yep glad that one reared it's head. it shows desperate clutching at straws as what makes you think the payment is for me? there is a very worthwhile organisation in need of cash and who's to say i have not set about donating it? please do not judge others by the actions in which you enagage.

now, go away, leave us alone and live your life that safe in the knowledge the servicemen of britain and the world wil be protected in the hercules by the end of this campaign.:)

[nigegilb]

P+F.
As you are probably aware I kicked this thread off in the beginning and had actually decided to sign off recently. I don't know the ins and outs of your disagreement but it really does not help anyone to have a flaming row in public. It certainly does not help the campaign. Please may I ask that you continue your dispute in private. Everyone has their own view on foam. I am not going to open up that argument again. I am worried at the moment because the first aircraft is not due to get foam until September. We are in a bad position in Afg with the possibility of reinforcements being sent in. This might increase the demand for more Hercs and further slow down the fitting of foam. P+F you clearly have an issue, please do not turn this thread into a public slanging match. There is still a lot of work to do for the crews.

Thank you

Nige G

[Winco]

chappie,

I understand your reasons, but please try to ignore the likes of P + F, and don't rise to his bait. You can rest assured that those of us reading this forum (and I have absolutely NO truckie background whatsoever) are 110% with you and your friends on this matter.

You are indeed an inspiration to many of us, and I applaud you.

Keep up all the good work, and just try to ignore the likes of P + F.

The Winco

[flipster]

Hear Hear

:D :D

[microlight AV8R]

Hear Hear

:D :D

Ditto :ok:

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

I post reluctantly, but it is my firm suspicion that pop and fresh is posting in defence of Bob O'Connors Next of Kin.

Any thread creep or baiting started a long time ago.

[The Gorilla]

That may be the case, but now is the time to end it and get back to re-doubling the efforts to protect the Herc force. The are going to need all the help they can get as the Afg Op ramps up over the coming months. I will not accept Afg as an excuse to postpone the rolling foam prog.:mad:

[chappie]

:= i second, third and fourth that motion. it is with a heavy heart that i posted a reply as it does appear that i am then engaging in a public slanging match. THIS FORUM IS FOR DISCUSSION ABOUT A CAMPAIGN TO SAVE LIVES OF AIRCREW AND PASSENGERS WHO FLY IN BRITISH HERCULES....NOTHING ELSE!

i have offered the oppurtunity to discuss any issues away from here. i can give you my absolute promise that i intend not to enter into any more personal discussion. i'm sorry if any of you have felt concerned or let down by my actions.

now, onto matters that do concern us all. i attended a meeting to get support for the petition and now have a number of sheets signed. i endured a verbal lashing from a gentleman form iraq, but each to their own. i soon educated him to my plight and allieviated his concerns. i have managed to arrange some more oppurtunities to talk, therefore getting more signatures. tomorrow, i will be doing more tv and i continue with other media as i was on the radio only the other morning! i have written said letters to blair, browne. i will also be contacting MP's via a round robin asking them to take this fight back into parliament.

thankyou for your support. i hope to be given the chance to move on.

[flipster]

SPHLC

P+F is 'batting' for the fiancee, I suspect. Whatever the 'family history', it is none of our business and I think we would agree that this thread is most definitely not the place for it to be given an airing.

P+F

You are quite entitled to your opinion but personal attacks are best avoided. Thanks

Chappie

Well done - will PM soon.

[nigegilb]

Quick update from me. HTV West are broadcasting from RIAT a week on Friday. Well worth a watch for anyone in coverage. Slippage is appearing on the foam program. It is important not to let the profile of Hercules safety drop. Things are happening in the background.

Cheers for now,

NG

[500days2do]

Sadly, I think we all knew that the foam program would slip...recent experience of that wonderful company in cambridge tell us that. I wouldn't expect any sort of long term servicibilty afterwards to be honest....the old girls are willing but sadly time has caught up with them. I'm sure when we look back we will realise that a 'mod' of this magnitude shouldn't be a 'mod'...it should be initial fit.

Enjoying the view from the ground..

5d2d

[nigegilb]

5d2d

If they are not fit for purpose do not send them to war. Aussies fitted J foam retrospectively. I suspect this has more to do with the level of tasking and shortage of frames. MoD never planned to fit foam fleetwide. They are now being caught out by overtasking. Sadly predictable. Afghanistan could well be a lesson in fighting war with an under-resourced and over-stretched military.

[November4]

I have long had a suspicion that there are more to the attacks made on Chappie by the likes of P+F (one post - attack Chappie, never post again). It is so like the tactics of nu improved labour, if you can't win the argument then attack the person.

Chappie, nige , et al - Keep up the good work and hopefully the aircrew and passengers on ALL aircraft will be better protected soon

[tucumseh]

N4

I think you are correct. In this, and other threads, you can spot the MoD/Government lackeys a mile away. It displays nervousness that one is getting too close to the truth for comfort and is symptomatic of the MoD's bullying culture.

[HelloDolly]

Hello to all,

As you can tell, this is my first posting....i been keeping up to date with the proceedings on this thread as much as I can.
I just wanted to say your doing a good job in trying to get something done for our guys and girls out there.

Keep it up

P.S Anything I can do?

[pazmanga]

I post reluctantly, but it is my firm suspicion that pop and fresh is posting in defence of Bob O'Connors Next of Kin.

Any thread creep or baiting started a long time ago.

thank you SirPeter someone who see's sense.

i find it very sad that almost everyone who has posted since P+F has accused him/her of personally attacking chappie, have any of you stopped to think that P+F is actually trying to inform you all about what has been going on.

you all seem to be very paranoid, as you all seem to jump to the conclusion that P+F is a desk jockey in the MoD, can any of you actually contemplate the fact that P+F might just be a concerned reader?

you are all extremely quick to jump to chappies defence without knowing all the facts of the situation.

to all of you i say this, you are all quite happy to jump to chappies defence without knowing the facts, in future perhaps you would actually consider finding out the facts.

i am not writing this response to argue with anyone, no doubt people will complain about what i have said, but to be honest i dont really care, as i am not bothered by the childish tantrums thrown by grown adults.

I am writing this to express my opinion, after all these forums are supposed to be about freedom of speech.

No, they aren't. This is a private website and freedom of speech is not a right here.

Scroggs

[chappie]

:mad: :mad:

i'm mad now..........

i've just tried put a post on that was both a direct appeal to the MoD and also about the speaking out of families against the government...but suprise suprise, they were taken off! pathetic attempts from those who read the thread from afar, but are too gutless to join in the debate. you cannot continue to take the gamble with service peoples lives. it is not enough you engage in media sounbites. you need more substance behind the words you say.

i was out on monday at the meeting trying to get support for the campaign. i missed the news, but when i got home i was told that des browne had been on channel four news. he was his usual bumbling self. fluffing his words. apparently he saiid that whatever the troops needed they could have. did anyone see the piece on the news? can you possibly clarify it for me. i also heard that mr blair said in parliament today whatever the troops wanted/needed they could have. if that's the case..please mr blair, can we have foam for our hercules please? the money is there. you just need to start spending it properly. first foam for the hercules. then howabout a full defensive aids system.

the lack of resources needs to be corrected. sadly, another solider has died today in afg. we cannot afford to be there. i received an email today from a father who unfortunately lost his son a few months ago. the speaking out of families is unprecedented. never before has this been done where relatives speak out at the deaths of troops at war. we need to be acknowledged. not treated like a dirty secret to be ashamed of. the more you mistear us, the more we shout.

can i just ask nige is the plane with the foam in september completed and fitted out or is it going to start it's modification programme? i know it's extremely technical and time consuming. i would ask this. if the plane is completed in september when was it started? do not think that doing the programme slowly is a good tactic to get us to give up and go away. we will not.:)

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

thank you SirPeter someone who see's sense.

I do reluctantly agree with the above.

The work is scheduled to get done, although it won't happen in an instant. I don't see any further need for derailing this thread.

Congrats to Chappie and Nige for their efforts thus far. I do however think it is time to stop bumping this thread.

[flipster]

Paz

Neither you nor P+F have told us anything new connected to the gist of this thread but it is obvious that there is a difference of opinion between Chappie and Bob's fiancee and/or her friends; this is understandable. However, many of us believe that this thread is not the time nor the place for such differences to be aired and Chappie has suggested an off-line solution. I suggest that this is seriously considered by both parties, so preventing any inappropriate thread creep/unbecoming slanging matches and allowing the real issues to be discussed - the needless risks faced by our crews in aircraft that should be better protected.

Chappie's actions in this respect speak volumes; her commitment and courage remains immense and an example to us all. I suspect that, whatever her motivation and in spite of any past differences between the two of them, Bob could only be proud of her unflagging desire to improve the protection afforded to his former comrades.

I think most us should now consider the 'family issue' a closed book and would reccommend it is not mentioned again on this thread. PM Chappie if you so wish.

Fair enuff?



On the bunk

To a degree you are correct. However, the problem is that only a few ac will get ESF (and no Js) - but the ac can't be in 2 places at once and the delays in fitment of ESF are getting longer and longer.

Additionally, the pressure to increase the number of frames in AFG will only build as the fiasco in Helmand unravels and, guess what? We will be back with 'slicks' and inexperienced crews a la 2002/3!!

That is why the pressure on MoD should be maintained so they don't think that everything is 'sweetness and light' just because they have agreed to fit a paltry few ac with ESF sometime in the future.... rather than with the utmost urgency.

Furthermore, ESF is not the panacea for all ills; there are other things that should be fitted which are extremely important to improve the self-protection of both Ks and Js. ESF is only the tip of the iceberg and, what is more, this issue can be read across to many other fleets.

So let's all help keep the pressure up and not fault-find with eachother? Constructive advice, on the other hand, would be gratefully accepted!

[nigegilb]

Well said Flip.
Safety of Herc crews vis a vis foam was not taken into account when the plan was drawn up for the Afg deployment. Even though it was well known that a lack of foam was a major factor in the deaths of 10 men. The MoD seems to think that a skittish statement about agreeing to fit foam to some frames at some time in the future will placate us.

NO CHANCE.

We will have to apply pressure again. We want assurances as to how many frames and the time scale. We want to know what is causing slippage. We could see that this deployment was poorly planned from the very beginning. Now there will be pressure to overstretch from the very people who endorsed the plan.

[Safeware]

How about this:

UK plc has to reduce risk ALARP, but can't get ac mod'd quick enough. Therefore, if US ac have ESF, how about an 'exchange programme' where we borrow some of their ac to do our 'stuff', and we lend them the same number to do 'stuff' out of harms way? Whether this need involve exchanging crews as well, I don't know.

sw

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

and how about this:-

Marshall of Cambridge are (already?) contracted to do one at a time, maybe it is logistically impossible to do them any quicker. Therefore the MOD program would take several years.

Investigate the companies that carried out the ESF MOD on the US and Aussie Hercs and sub contract them to carry out the MOD in parrallel.

My bags are packed!

[Confucius]

and how about this:-

Marshall of Cambridge are (already?) contracted to do one at a time, maybe it is logistically impossible to do them any quicker. Therefore the MOD program would take several years.

Investigate the companies that carried out the ESF MOD on the US and Aussie Hercs and sub contract them to carry out the MOD in parrallel.

My bags are packed!

And when said aircraft get back to the UK no doubt Marshall will charge an exorbitant fee to remove the US/AUS foam, and re-install it themselves.

[rudekid]

Guys

Are we seriously thinking that the MoD is getting into our server and deleting/blocking posts and that ministry types are planning a conspiracy.

Honestly, I think we're damaging the credibility of the thread and some of the work. It's been very fruitful, lets not spoil it!

RK

[500days2do]

The 'Cambridge' problem is just the tip of the iceberg....I can imagine the RAF topbrass must be threaders with the attention C130's are attracting ! The constant demands about funding must be seriously damaging the 'launch' of the new fast shinny jet thing that they have spent all the cash on. As I posted previously,the CAS was forthright with his comments that 'Typhoon wasn't a waste of cash' and we should be proud that ' british jobs were being safeguarded for the future'. Shame he doesn't have the same feelings toward the present crew and PAX travelling in Ascot airlines.

5d2d

[chappie]

:} hi one and all! how the devil are you? i know it is highly unlikely that the MoD/government people are actually interjecting the thread. we of course know that we have got them all a little hot under the collar! i really would be suprised if they were to stop monitoring the page from afar and actually joined in and then proceeded to stir things up! i'm feeling a little inspired...what about i apply to go onto question time? i certainly have alot to say though i know that you are restricted to one question but i'd make sure it was a humdinger! whad'ya reckon?

on monday when i was at the meeting i spoke alongside rose gentle. i don't know if any of you know who she is? she is a mum who's son died out in iraq two years ago. i think he was one f the first or the youngest at the time to die. anyway, a while back rose stood for election and stood up against adam ingram. that man would not acknowledge her, he was rude to say the least. he addressed her as saddams little helper amongst other insults! remember this is a woman who has lost her son in iraq..what a fine example to set for his constituents. he had a hard time for it and when the time came to do the read out of votes he got a hard time from the floor. in fact he could hardly be heard! due to the pressure and outrage he offered his hand but unsuprisingly she did not accept. this man has tried to hide behind legislation in order to avoid answering questions around the hercules questions. i was so angry that a man of such a postion could say that to a grieving mum even if she was his political opponent. i guess i'm being a bit namby pamby.:(

i'm to assume the cambridge pproblem you refer to is marshalls. is it the RaF who decided how many planes could be done or is it marshalls? even if a number of planes gwet done at a time it will still take a long time. i'm not foolish and niaeve ( sorry i don't know how to spell it) to think that the foam will be sorted out without problems but the important thing is that it gets done.:)

[nigegilb]

Adam Ingram assured my father in 2002 that every Hercules crossing the border to Afghanistan had a Defensive Aids Suite. We did not, we had IRCM only. He is one of the reasons I have worked so hard to improve the chances of Hercules crews following in my footsteps. There is a lot more I can say but I wont, for reasons that hopefully will become obvious.

Rose Gentle is a brave woman for whom I have a great deal of respect.

NG

[HelloDolly]

[quote=tucumseh]N4
I think you are correct. In this, and other threads, you can spot the MoD/Government lackeys a mile away.




I think maybe you are a little paranoid,....or perhaps feeling a little too self-important to think that 'MoD lackeys' are reading in on this.

I posted earlier about wanting to help out,...but looking back over the thread after reading your comment tucumseh, it's become a little apparent that some people here are fighting personal battles rather than a larger cause.

I know I know, your all going to say things like 'Oh, another one time poster, who'll probable never write again'.....or.....'you have no idea what your talking about'.....or many other seemingly pointless comebacks.

I have read pages of replies to comments made by the likes of P+F, Pazmanga, and other...and eventhough some people have made relatively sound replies, it seems to me a lot of time has been wasted doing so in the first place.

I mean, as an example,...chappie, even though I see you have a personal connection to this worthy cause, I really think fingering out 'Col' like that, was out of order,..you keep saying, lets keep it professional. Then do so.

[tucumseh]

Hello Dolly

There is is no doubt that MoD officials read these threads. They’ve told me so. To be fair, the only time I’ve been formally contacted was to seek help on the background to an old project, as it was obvious from a post I made that I knew something that had been lost to them. I helped them out.

Perhaps “apologists” would have been a better description of the minority who seem blind to what is going on, or have their own agenda. My own opinion is that the Freedom of Information Act has placed an astonishing body of very embarrassing evidence in the public domain. It is the MoD who is paranoid about what they now say or do. When supplying under FOI they seem more intent on blanking out the names of officials and their file references than filtering the actual content. In my case, it is because the originators did the sanitising without understanding the narrative content, or its significance. It is clear they are very nervous about what currently serving officials have done in the past, thinking it would never get out.

As for personal battles, I think each has his own area of, often considerable, experience and expertise. I am not, and never have been, aircrew. My background is one of having had to witness financial waste on an industrial scale in PE, DPA and DLO. Under FOI, I sought and obtained clear written evidence that the MoD, at the most senior levels, continue to practice and condone this. (And, as I have this under FOI, and it complements other open source information, I feel entitled to post on the subject). I sympathise enormously with our Servicemen and women who are continually fobbed off with insufficient and unsuitable kit. This thread is one of the classic examples as it contains elements of everything that is wrong with the MoD (and there is much that is right). There is funding to fit DAS/ESF. The point of many of my posts is that, far from the MoD’s pleas that they don’t get enough funding from the Treasury, it is a 10 minute job to identify hundreds of millions of waste just within my boundary of experience. And if the MoD has been told this, acknowledged it, yet refused to do anything; then they have abrogated their responsibility, avoided a legal obligation and failed in their duty of care to our troops. They’ve dug their own hole my friend.

My continued good wishes to Nigel, Chappie et al.

[nigegilb]

Hello Dolly,
When I met AOC2 in May, he actually quoted something I had written on this thread, furthermore he was clutching several pages of the thread that had been printed off. Proof enough? When I have needed help and assistance someone has invariably come forward. My local MP, James Gray does not think there is enough money available to fit foam to all Hercules. TUC will tell you the opposite. Who would you believe?

[herkman]

With heavy heart, we down here read of the loss of 179.

At the time many of here, thought there but for the grace of God go I.

The investigations revealed that it was not fate putting out his ugly hand, but a lack understanding by those who should understand, in how easy it is to snuff out the lives of capable mean.

Well understanding that military flying, can and is dangerious, I must say that in my time with the RAAF, safety issues were taken seriously, irrespective of from where in the structure they came from.

It is by no accident that the RAAF has over 47 years of accident C130 flying, it is the dedication of the maintainers and the aircrew that this has happened. This coupled to the dedication of the top structure, to keep the risk factor to the lowest level.

We too had a stake in the loss, as one of our best navigators we gave you, and he was sadly lost.

The arguements put up by the government, fail to understand that yes there are risks in military flying, but that is not an excuse for pushing factors aside, that can and do reduce this risk.

On the back window of my car, is shown the following.

"C130 Hercules aircrew, simply the best"

We are the best, because we get the job done, irrespective of the risks involved, and the fact that or equipment may be old and tired, and often lacking.

TO LOVELY LADY Sarah, we down here are rooting for you, your courage and resolvement is second to none. We cannot understand how much it takes from you, but we do know it is very much. Your contribution to this effort we are sure, will have a big impact onto the end result.

So lucky we all were, that the latest fire occured on the ground, and we give thanks that no one was lost. Presuming that the VIP on board, may again push this program quicker.

To all who have helped push this barrow, a great effort you should be greatly proud, and give tribute to those who are no longer with us.

God bless you all

Regards

Col Tigwell

[HelloDolly]

hello again,

Thanks for your reply Tuc, that answered quite a few questions. Being new to posting on the thread, that information has most likely been mentioned before, and i probably missed it....ha.

Nige, I understand that you may be annoyed with me, jumping to a conclusion that 'people are paranoid', that was silly on my part, and I retract it.

However, to formerflake I must say that personal battles do have a role to play here,...otherwise some posters wouldn't be here in the first place.
Don't get me wrong now,..I am not saying having a personal reason is wrong, but what i am trying to say is I have seen instances where some people have let their snakes tounge make an appearence here.

I really don't think this is the place to do so. I mean, hell, I could be provoking people now by writing this.

On the brighter side,...this thread has communicated many improtant facts and information to others, which has helped a great deal to get the big wheel moving.
I don;t want to make enemies, I want to ensure that the right moves are being made.

[nigegilb]

HD,
No offence taken. It is an unusual thread. It is not just military, Many families and friends connected to the crash read it and some contribute. Some of the postings are emotional but I am sure you understand that in the circumstances it is not that surprising. Every person deals with grief differently. What is extraordinary about the whole thing is that we have effected change. We have forced the MoD to agree to fit foam across the fleet and now they are on the back foot. On the whole it is a force for the good. I do understand some of the disagreements in the background but I don't think it is possible to get this far and keep everyone happy. The Hercules world is small. The guys on the Herc IPT and everyone at DEC are working flat out to improve safety. I know that I, amongst others, am adding to their workload but someone has to do the politics and I have no faith in our military leaders banging the table hard enough. So there you go, I am sure you will find some people who are not happy with our campaign- just shows it is working!

We have to keep at it because the moment you back off something happens. For instance today I discovered that MoD press spokesmen are saying that the first ac will get foam some time this Autumn. You see what i mean?

[chappie]

guys, i can feel a letter coming on! who do i write to about the timetable for the modernisation of the hercules? please not des browne as he does like to ignore me! i think the MoD are seriously underestimating us. are they deliberately attempting to put us off, try our patience and think we are likely to give in? someone ought to tell them i have the patience of a saint, so i'm going nowhere....example i was at work today when a chap who had a nasty fall was waking from his sedation and was rather p***** off! the guys departed and i was left with this rather large chap to placate him. he had no memory and so was unable to cope. i had to go through things time after time after time despite the fact that like the MoD etc he too was hoping i would go away. admittedly the fact that i got pinched, was punched twice, kicked and narrowly missed a full blown headbutt in the space of 1-2minutes my job to stay soothing was made all the more difficult! the moral is though that despite heavy handed tatics, i stayed the course and achieved my goal. i'm hoping that the MoD will not resort to such tactics and leave it at a war of words! there is no way that i'm letting the delay go unanswered. it is not enough that we are told that there is a delay and that's it. do not keep putting the date back each time.

will it be ready in september nige or is it just being started then?

anyway, i'm going to take my sore sorry self off to bed and think what to do. take care.:)

[herkman]

I have been looking at the photos of the demise of XV206, not a preety picture, and very little information.

The concess is that the airplane was hit by small arms fire, in the wing area of no 2 engine. In the photo that i am looking at, the engine is already shut down, and the prop feathered. At that moment all engines have been shut down, but not by using the fire handles. Nor has anyone started to exit the aircraft.

Going by the other photos, the fire must have spread quickly, and we were very lucky there were no injuries.

The story given out at the time the photos came to light, was that one of the L/H main wheels had exploded on landing, and the debri had punctured the fuel tanks, and number 2 engine had started the fire.

I doubt this is really the situation, and it is more likely that small arms fire started the fuel leak and fire, and could have puctured one of the main wheels. If that is the case then it is unlikely that a flat tyre would have been the cause of the fire. I have had two situations myself, where we landed with a flat tyre, and other than a lot of noise, then no other problems were encountered, and the tyre and wheel stayed complete.

However this does appear, that foam would have maybe saved this airplane, being that it might have been feeling a bit sorry for itself.

There is another issue, which does not appear to have been discussed, and I have read all the posting.

My understanding is that RAF uses AVTUR fuel, where as in many locations the fuel does not come from a RAF source. In this case the fuel could be JP4 or JP8. Again my understanding, and I stand to be corrected, but we were always taught that the flash point of the JP fuels was different to AVTUR, and so needed to be treated with respect.

If this is in fact correct, would this not be another reason for foam today.

With ever best wish for your program.

Regards

Col Tigwell
Australia

[k3k3]

www.worldenergy.net/pdfs/DetroitDieselinternalfuelspec.pdf

See the table on page 3.

[herkman]

So the previous post's chart, clearly shows that JP4 is a mixture of Jet fuel and gasoline.

As the RAF cannot always pick up the desired fuel, this now becomes another factor in the fuel risk.

Regards

Col Tigwell

[herkman]

I put the feelers out in the USA and Australia.

Putting foam into the aircraft, is no big deal. Any where a C130 can have a tank inspection, the job can be done. I do not know whether the RAF does its own tank inspections, but the RAAF does.

It required all covers and bracing off the tanks, just as you would when doing a normal tank inspection.

The foam normally comes precut, but there is no reason why it could not be cut at unit level. Provided the light situation is controlled. Some triming is neccesary with the precut sections, and this is done with a glorified bread knife.

All internals are done, as are the externals.

Some fuel capacity is lost, I beieve that it is 15%, but I could be corrected on that.

The fuel filters need to inspected after install.

The time required to do the task, including the externals, with a team who are up to speed, 160 man hours. The task lends itself to all tanks being done at the same time.

The foam if not exposed to sunlight, appears to have a very long life, I have been quoted that at eight year inspection, the foam was so good, it could be reused.

The RAAF normally did this task when the tanks were open, but did do some outside that time frame.

Now understanding that the RAF is strapped for staff, perhaps it cannot all be done at unit level. I would have thought that retired RAF technicans could be brought back to do the task. Depending on how many shifts were worked, the aircraft could be turned around in short time.

This not really in airframe tasks, a big job, nor material wise an expensive task, but it remains to be seen how much priority the job gets from a tasking point of view.

Regards

Col Tigwell

[ExHerkmate]

"Some fuel capacity is lost, I believe that it is 15%, but I could be corrected on that."

Yes, you lose some fuel capacity - 3% (yes, three percent).

Standard Mod/polspeak is in action again concerning the timeline of fitment of ESF to the fleet.

How long are the comfort merchants at MoD and Labour lite going to get away with saying they're doing something about a problem that is quite easy to track. The scoreboard shows aircraft (confirmed) downed by hostile fire-one, aircraft fitted with ESF-nil.

You don't avoid relegation in this game by trying to go for extra time.

ExHerkmate

[herkman]

Thank you for setting the record straight, 3% could be lost at the moment depending on the temperature of the fuel.

I recal when we fueled at Cocos Island, we could always put in at least another 2000 lbs because the fuel was stored underground.

At the end of the 3% could be wasted on the ground through take off hold ups.

Appreciate your help

Regards

Col Tigwell
"Some fuel capacity is lost, I believe that it is 15%, but I could be corrected on that."

Yes, you lose some fuel capacity - 3% (yes, three percent).

Standard Mod/polspeak is in action again concerning the timeline of fitment of ESF to the fleet.

How long are the comfort merchants at MoD and Labour lite going to get away with saying they're doing something about a problem that is quite easy to track. The scoreboard shows aircraft (confirmed) downed by hostile fire-one, aircraft fitted with ESF-nil.

You don't avoid relegation in this game by trying to go for extra time.

ExHerkmate

[nigegilb]

I am so concerned about the delays, now September or even October for the first aircraft, that I have written again to the Defence Committee. MoD and Chiefs of Staff are playing fast and loose with peoples lives. It appears that the RAF is no longer able to prioritise safety in the same way that other Air Forces do. Simply not good enough.

[herkman]

If the problem is cost, by pass Lockheed as a supplier, and go straight to the supplier Crest Foam.

The USAF and RAAF buy their foam direct, bet you it drops the budget down greatly. Perhaps then the RAF could hire Labour to do the task, and could do aircraft much quicker. Bet you have a batch of retired NCO's who would jump at the chance.

The USAF have their own foam shop at Warner Robyns AFB, and they cut the kits there for their own use.

Regards

Col Tigwell

[SirPeterHardingsLovechild]

Hercules IPT take note:-


The USAF have their own foam shop at Warner Robyns AFB, and they cut the kits there for their own use.



Like I said, my bags are packed.

http://dustin.net/albums/thanksgiving04/ray_charles.jpg

Col, our hired labour of ex NCO's are the Marshall Aerospace Field Sudoku Team. What we need are Tank Rats.

Sub-contracting Crest Foam and the team at Robbins AFB is the answer.

or maybe Tank Devils down in Bournemouth

TANK DEVILS LTD
An independent company specialising in fuel systems and tank repair despatching teams
around the world to fix fuel leaks on a wide variety of aircraft types.

[herkman]

Was it not 6 weeks (that is what we in the RAAF were quoted) To design and install the first in flight refueling on your C1's. Granted a lot of the hardware came off aircraft coming out of service, but it clearly demonstrates that the system can move quickly when it has the PM kicking butts. I believe the "Iron Lady" was behind the program.

Why cannot we put a stretched C130 into the states tomorrow, and start the program Monday. Maybe too radical, but do the aces on high, think that the war from the ground will stop because we are not ready.Oh yes you need a couple of 40ft containers, to store the foam in till it is used.

Success comes to those who are bold, dicking around will only cost more lives, and more expense, and yes we still then have to do the job.

How anyone can look into the faces, of those left behind, and still dilly dally around is beyond me.

The RAAF was lucky with its bare metal airplanes in Vietnam, we still copped some rounds, but luckily nothing greater than small arms fire, and the were also lousy shots, and did not hit our wings.

The only advantage of getting old, is that you can see these things coming, and do not live in the hope that it will not happen. These buggers are here for the long haul, and we need to understand that terrorists will be around for a long time. Your life, my life and their life count for nothing, and they will do anything to succeed.

The latest loss of a RAF Hercules, clearly shows how quickly a situation can go from being normal, to a situation way out of control, we were lucky, very lucky, but we should not put people in harms way, trusting that luck will suffice, because it never does.

Regards

Col Tigwell

[herkman]

Tony Blair picks up the phone and talks to George Bush.

"George old buddy I have a problem, that could mean my arse."

More chatter.

"OK George we will have the first airplane on your ramp next Monday, really appreciate that help, and you say all will done by early next year."

Too much to expect, too far fetched to happen, I wonder, do not think it would be impossable. I mean after all George owes Tony big time.

Sometimes thinking outside the circle works better.

Regards
Col Tigwell

[flipster]

Its been sooo long since most guys at Lyneham have been to the States, I'm not sure they'd get there as quick as that!

Still, Staneval or the OCU could do it!!!!! That'd be popular!

Is TCAS working now and if it isn't, how much of a show-stopper is the lack of it?

[500days2do]

You have to have a show starter to have a show stopper..!!! The experience of SIFF/TCAS would tell us something. Maybe its because the people at the top of the Marshalls tree were at the top of the airforce tree some years ago...get my drift.

5d2d

[chappie]

well chaps, this is highly unacceptable.

i have got off my bum and have written to AOC 2gp asking him to explain himself and this inertia that passes for acceptable behaviour. i'll keep you posted. now for the cheif of air staff then chief of defence.

nige, when will HTV show the filming we did last week. i've not heard back since i asked the journalists.

[flipster]

5d2d

I thought TCAS was working - at least a bit.
I take it that it has not yet been 'fully' accepted then?

To coin a phrase "I just don't believe it!"

:ugh:

[500days2do]

Flipster,

My information may be a little old,2 months or so,but the manual reset was the only option available then...with little information on the horizon !!!!

5d2d

[nigegilb]

Thanks to Ex herkmate and Herkman for the info on foam fitting. The issue of slippage in the Herc foam program was raised in Parliament yesterday. The Minister was pressed on the subject and blamed the delays on Marshalls. I have to say I was surprised by this rather convenient answer. If the delays are this bad should the RAF be looking elsewhere? The decision to deploy another Herc to Helmand can only make things worse. We are now in fingers firmly crossed territory. I saw CDS being interviewed yesterday. He stated that the Forces were stretched but he would not describe it as overstretch. He did, however, warn of pain to come. The master of understatement. Harmony guidelines breached all over the shop at the start of a 3 year deployment. There are some eye watering figures on retention at Sqn Ldr level doing the rounds. Retention will be an issue that CDS will get to know intimately in the future.

[chappie]

righty ho, time to sort something out and find out once and for all who is telling the truth. i was thinking of writing to CDS but was advised that it would be a pointless exercise. i do know someone who works on the hercules at marshalls and so i've got his details and i've fired off an email to try and find out what is happening. i'll keep you posted....

i know that we're hitting a brick wall but it's frankly unacceptable why we are getting nowhere. i'm thinking f writing to the CO of lyneham to find out why there is the problem with getting the hercs to marshalls. if it's a case that they're all in operation then i feel i have no choice but to do something. they cannot send the alberts out without protection, and wait for their fitting because they're out in theatre in risks i don't want to contemplate. it clearly has not hit home yet that this programme needs sorting out as in yesterday...are they waiting until more aircrew lose their lives.

blood on their hands...that's what will happen.

SORT IT OUT NOW!:{

[nigegilb]

Chappie, I don't know exactly how long it takes to fit foam, but I have heard that a month is about right. If September or October is the earliest for the first foam ac then something is seriously wrong. Either that or the "Task Driven" RAF refuses to prioritise safety. The answer is there somewhere.

[herkman]

I do not care if my comments are quoted in full to MOD or elsewhere.

I thought that I had seen some dicking around in my time, but this one really takes the cake.

The RAF needs to start thinking outside the circle, even at the rate of one airplane per month, it will take over four years. The MOD only saving face is that more aircraft could be lost, but on some of the comments made, that may suit them less money to spend.

Marshalls may be on the gravey train, to make their shareholders happy, but this is a war emergency, and the airplanes should go to where ever they can be done QUICKLY.

If Marshalls really wanted they could turn them out at the rate of one a week. But do they really need to go to Marshalls anyway.

I doubt if the USAF could help in loaning airplanes, I think they are strapped too. But they should be able to organise them to be done quickly, whether it be in house or at contracters. Perhaps this could give the RAF and Marshalls more time space to fit the other equipment.

Does Lockheed still have their service centre in Spain.

I have watched this get bogged down over the last four years, just thinking of things that will speed it up.

Perhaps the idea that it was some boffin at MOD who thought up a way to speed it up might work, I suspect all we want is a result.

Regards

Col Tigwell

[flipster]

Col

Agreed. But don't forget it is the MoD we are talking about here, where lives and talk are cheap but commitment to the troops requires career-threatening action.

So, I am not hopeful that we will see any action on this.

[chappie]

i have been checkiong up to try and get des browne's contact details as i must be sending the letters i write to the wrong place. i am trying not to be cynical about the lack of corresepondence from our honourable friend! please can someone send it to me via PM or however it is preferable.

now, i've been trying to get on with the ironing...the dizzy heights of my life,eh?! i am however like a dog with a bone between my teeth and i'm unable to let go of this. i have stumbled across this.i'm not sure if it's old news but here goes...just proves what liars we are dealing with.


" des browne states in parliament in reply to questions by james gray asking how many hercules will be fitted ,how quickly they will be fitted and for des to confirm that all hercules deployed in afg will have foam fitted to them that: i am happy to pay tribute to the contribution hercules and all those who fly in iraq and afg. he knows,as i am sure that the house does that we intend to fit the foam into hercules and to ensure that those that are deployed to the theatre are fitted with that. i have said in public, so i have no reason to say anything different in dispatch box that we hope to do that by august for the first plane. we will ensure that sufficient no's of hercules are fitted with the appropriate retardent foam so that operations can be conducted!"

well then who is the spanner in the works? he's saying that the planes are to be fitted with foam before afg but then waves goodbye as they fly off into the kandahar sunset minus foam!

[nigegilb]

Chappie, might I suggest you write to CAS Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy? This is what he said to HCDC on 07 Mar.

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.



.....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".....

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 2004-05 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.....


*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.

[chappie]

consider it done. i think the way that the MoD manage the way they do is to consistently move the goal posts.it is starting to get n my nerves the need to keep using the words appropriate and sufficient. i thought that we are the best in the world? how can that be expected to continue when they are not equipping the force with the best. terms like limited resources should have no place in the language of defence.i do not see how it ca be reasoned unless any distant readers from whitehall would like to put their two penneth worth in?

i had thought about writing to sir jock stirrup. i was advised that i would be wasting my time in corresponding with the airships as they will not go against the establishment. i know there is sense in that, but if i ever did as i was told then i wouldn't be here right now helping us get to the point where we are now (although it's easy to lose heart at this moment in time) and we would not have a petition that has been seen right rouund the world with over 2500 signatures on it! i have met with sir jock and his wife at the repatriation. it's fair to say that she will never be the queen of small talk...quote..you must be feeling very sad! it's fair to say love it's pretty obvious i was dying to say that no i'm fine what do you mean? i wanted to play but i knew i'd not be allowed! boo hoo. so what do you think nige? just keep it to glen or include jock as well? you know me anything to help. i've found the defence press office so i can sort out handing over of the petition.

[nigegilb]

Des Browne has ultimate responsibility. CAS needs to justify his words and guarantees to HCDC. The decision to go to Afg was probably taken by Tony Blair. Take your pick! I would Love to know what Sir Jock would describe as overstretch though.......

[chappie]

have written my letter to the airships in question. i need from someone though addresses to send them to. please can someone direct me with the appropriate addresses. do i send to MoD or RAF or parliament?

i tried earlier to post on that i had left a query for my friend whom i've not seen for a while but he works in marshalls on the hercules. i was wondering if he could be of any help. the three times i tried a kept getting redirected and so gave up...albeit temporarily..as i'd never give up on you guys. i'm now in the local library ha ha you cannot keep a good man down,or woman.

please can someone give me the contact details asap.

last but not least as i'm not in western region i am unable to see the news broadcast from HTV that is imminent this week. there was rumour that our local (anglia) were going to run it but at the mo i think that is unlikely. i'd love to know when it's on and how it went. i have mislaid the details of journos involved but can you see if there is anyway they can get in contact nige or ask on my behalf as i'd like a copy of the report as i put it to my memory box that i'm builiding of bob for my little girl. bob was/is my hero and i want her to know how brave and special he is.

keep the faith!:}

[k3k3]

Chappie, you have a PM.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

So do you k3k3

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[chappie]

thankyou for the help with the adresses and advice. i received an email from a member of a squadron at lyneham. rank,name and squadron will remain anonymous as there will no doubt be some sad git who will start trying to find out who they were and go and tell their CO so there will no doubt be hassle for them....to put it politely! my little five year old girl knows not to tell tales it's a shame that those that read this far away are unable to remember that. the main subject of the matter is that albert crews are behind me at lyneham i do hope so. i do not want to cause trouble for those who fly in the hercs day in and day out. maybe one day i can come back to lyneham and see all that my brother did. at the mo i don't think i'd be invited to lyneham,especially by the CO which saddens me but it's something to work towards. i'll look forward to it, as it'd be an honour!

letters done but i 'll let you know who's got incoming!!! they'll need a DAS against me soon! hope it's a fully functioning one...not appropriate or sufficient.i'm sick of hearing that! Chief of Defence Staff.....Chief of Air Staff....Commander in Chief and as mentioned before AOC 2 Gp! lets wait for the reply.:}

[chappie]

hi guys, well...i've seen myself on the telly box so i anticipate that there will be nige's piece on the local tv tonight.

i have found out that they are in the process of fitting the foam at marshalls and it is being done by an outside contractor tiger tanks or is tank tigers? so at least the ball is rolling....

[flipster]

FF

'RAF = civvies in uniform'

How we laughed when we arrived in Oman in 2001/2 and found a 'Deployed Admin Group', complete with Camp Warrant Officer (left over from Exercise UNSAFE SAREER), who inisisted on tent inspections and enough paperwork for the whole russian army. What a total joke!

No wonder we get a bad press from the teeth arms!

[herkman]

Good morning lovely lady, I would not worry about your reception at Lynham. Some of the top brass have to display the official party line, but unless the situation is different to down here, they really want you to succeed, and are proberly having a quite chuckle about the discomfort on high.

I remember my old CO, would get us in for a debriefing on some problem, and after listening to all the "facts", would quitely dismiss the "drivers" and would then turn round and say "now tell me what really is the situation".

You have displayed considerable courage, and are also multi tasking capable. I mean who else could

Run a house
Hold down a responsible job

and in your spare time (GRIN)

Send rockets.

We love your style

Regards

Col

[nigegilb]

I believe HTV West are broadcasting from RIAT this evening, with a piece about Herc foam. Apologies in advance for the thread creep, but I have lifted a piece from Liam Fox's speech a few days ago regarding overstretch. According to Sir Jock there is no such thing, however RAF recruiting has dropped by 2/3rds. Liam Fox appears to be very switched on...

The current level of defence expenditure is supposed to provide for, at most, no more than one small-scale operation and two medium-scale operations at any one time. Yet the NAO military readiness report in June 2005 highlighted the fact that the armed forces operated consistently over the planned level of activity during 2002, 2003 and 2004. The NAO highlighted concerns about its impact on the armed forces, saying:

"'The high operational tempo conducted by the Department generates a number of personnel and equipment related risks. These risks include: reduced opportunities for, and levels of, training—leading to skill fade in processes and techniques not exercised in current or recent operations; potentially negative impacts on recruitment and retention rates... a reduced pool of reserve forces to augment regular personnel and units; the need for additional equipment; and added demands on both equipment and logistic support. The recurring high tempo of operations also places a premium on the Department's ability to identify such risks quickly and to take early mitigation action".

With regards to the Army, the recommended harmony guideline for intervals between tours is 24 months. That is what the balance, to which the Secretary of State referred, was supposed to be. Yet the Ministry of Defence's annual report for 2004-05 states that the average tour interval for infantry units is 21 months and the average tour interval for Royal Artillery units is 19 months. The report stated that there were specialist troops experiencing significantly worse tour intervals and that certain elements of the Army have tour intervals of less than one year. For example, the Queen's Royal Lancers had only12 months between a tour of duty in Kosovo and a tour of duty in Iraq. I spoke to soldiers in Iraq last week, who expected a gap of only eight months between their deployment there and subsequent deployment to Afghanistan. That is not acceptable. It is not a reasonable balance and it puts far too much pressure on our armed forces and their families.

The divorce rate in the armed forces is increasing and concerns are being expressed about the quality of service children's education. I look forward to reading the Defence Committee's report on that issue, to be published at the end of this month, with very great interest.

[chappie]

morning chaps. the letters to the airships have been sent registerd post or is it recorded? one of the two anyway where the recipient cannot claim to have not received the letter in question! untrusting madam aren't i eh?! it's only because i have had letters been ignored before that i'm not taking chances. so as i write this they are probably reading the letters as we speak! i have had an interim reply from downing street yesterday. it states they are im reciept of the letter and it is receiving attention and they will reply shortly. i look forward to the reply that is getting so much attention....!

there is the oppurtunity to speak to more reporters as military families have forwarded on a contact from radio four that are doing a programme on the shortages faced by those in iraq and afghanistan. methinks a little mention about the foam issue will be required! i'm also trying to set about getting onto question time...just to let the establishment know that although i have to intercept my life with the joys of ironing, trying not to kill patients, be a woman of dreams, doing tv interviews i'm not going anywhere.

i found a defence number for sorting out the handing in of the petition so i may sort that out soon. what do peoples think? things have slowed down on the signature front.:}

[flipster]

For such a 'specialist' subject, the seriousness of which the general public and a majority of the media can't begin to grasp, I think that 2500+ is very impressive and it may be worth 'pulling the plug' sooner rather than later.

Nonetheless, perhaps we should all go for one last 'trawl' and write or phone today!?

flipster

[chappie]

that's what i think. i have emailed flight magasine to see if they will do a link to it. therefore i think the need to start taking steps towards handing it in is very much needed. i have asked mr blair if i can hand it in. mr browne has been offered the same opportunity! i should think another week or so and that will be it.it has slowed down but as i said there are over 2500 and creeping up towards the 2600 mark. :}

[herkman]

Sarah I need you to contact me, on my email

[email protected]

\Thanks

Col

[microlight AV8R]

I would hope that Air Forces Monthly magazine would be sympathetic. their reporting seems to be pro aircrew.

Send them an outline of the campaign thus far and hopefully they will give some publicity.

They have done some reports that do expose the problems such as the crisis in the support helicopter forces.

www.airforcesmonthly.com (http://www.airforcesmonthly.com)

Good luck

[chappie]

SLC!!!

good point sir. i have also iniatied a letter to the CO of lyneham. i am contacting anyone i can think of to try and find out why these planes are not equipped and protected...and why the hell there are planes going out to afghanistan in this state. either there is someone who quite frankly is deluded to think that the planes are sufficently equipped for the threat environmentt they are going to or there is a massive cover up going on and someone is not being honest. take your pick with your chosen theory.

like i've stated before. i do not want to put the heeby-jeebies up people. i do not want to cause offence, if possible. i do want answers though. there is nothing wrong with that...or is there. it is not enough to tell me some half baked set of events then not action the steps to ensure that a loss of that magnitude is never repeated and for the same reasons. the men on that plane were not collateral damage in a war, they were the unwilling pawns unlucky to be the result of a risk the powers that be chose to risk. i will put that right.

[nigegilb]

Today is the tenth anniversary of the TWA 800 disaster, a 747 that exploded off Long Island. The aircraft was brought down by a fuel tank explosion and over 200 people died. 10 years later Boeing has agreed to fit all of its new aircraft with a fuel tank inerting system. There is continuing debate in the US about the possibility of retrofitting existing commercial aircraft with a similar system. It goes without saying that US military aircraft are protected. Contrast this with the MoD. The MoD never planned to fit foam to the Hercules fleet even though an RAF C130 was lost to a fuel tank explosion. It behoves averyone who cares to maintain the pressure on the MoD and the Govt. Many RAF crews are risking their lives in unprotected aircraft, this amounts to nothing short of a national scandal. Please keep at it we are winning the argument.

[flipster]

Absolutely, Nige. I believe that the reason for not fitting such inerting systems to airliners is because the calculated risk of occurence after TWA 800 was deemed very low. However, of course, they got the calculation wrong and now airlines and gov'ts, each side of the Atlantic, are playing the 'cost of litigation v cost of retrofittting v risk' game ....with our lives. Sh!tty but often a sad fact of reality! YES, IT IS A NATIONAL SCANDAL!

BY THE WAY - A HUGE APOLOGY TO ALL THOSE WHO GOT HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS, OF HERC FOAM EMAILS FROM MY HOME EMAIL ADDRESS RECENTLY.

APPARENTLY, I WAS INFECTED WITH A 'WORM' THAT TAKES AN EMAIL AND CLONES IT SELF THOUSANDS OF TIMES USING EVERY EMAIL ADDRESS IN ONES OUTLOOK ADDRESS-BOOK! SADLY, IT DOES NOT SHOW UP IN A VIRUS SCAN, HOWEVER IT IS A LITTLE-KNOWN FAULT WITH SERVERS AND MICROSOFT OFFICE BUSINESS APPLICATIONS. BE WARNED!

IF ANYONE IS STILL GETTING EMAILS FROM MY HOME ADDRESS, PLEASE TREAT THEM AS SPAM, TAKE ME OFF YOUR 'APPROVED' LIST AND I WILL SEND YOU A NEW AND SAFE ADDRESS IN DUE COURSE.

ALTHOUGH I COULD BE ACCUSED OF BEING PARANOID, ITS FUNNY THAT THIS HAPPENED WITH A HERC FOAM PETITION EMAIL JUST AFTER I SAID I WAS DOING A LAST TRAWL. AS SOMEONE SAID, PERHAPS IT WAS INTENDED BY 'THE DARKSIDE'. WHO KNOWS?

HOWEVER, IT HAS BACKFIRED AND IS QUITE FUNNY BECAUSE IT HAS ACTUALLY HELPED ME GET IN CONTACT WITH LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE WERE 'INCOGNITO'.

IT ALSO MEANS THAT SOME 'UNHELPFUL' PEOPLE WILL HAVE GOT A FEW THOUSAND EMAILS TOO!

ONCE AGAIN, SORRY TO ALL THOSE WHO WERE INCONVENIENCED (BUT THINK YOURSELF LUCKY - AS MY BROTHER IN LAW GOT OVER 20,000 EMAILS).


IF ONLY WE COULD TURN THESE INTO PETITION SIGNATURES!!!!!?????

[Where R We?]

Absolutely, Nige. I believe that the reason for not fitting such inerting systems to airliners is because the calculated risk of occurence after TWA 800 was deemed very low. However, of course, they got the calculation wrong and now airlines and gov'ts, each side of the Atlantic, are playing the 'cost of litigation v cost of retrofittting v risk' game ....with our lives. Sh!tty but often a sad fact of reality! YES, IT IS A NATIONAL SCANDAL!
BY THE WAY - A HUGE APOLOGY TO ALL THOSE WHO GOT HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS, OF HERC FOAM EMAILS FROM MY HOME EMAIL ADDRESS RECENTLY.
APPARENTLY, I WAS INFECTED WITH A 'WORM' THAT TAKES AN EMAIL AND CLONES IT SELF THOUSANDS OF TIMES USING EVERY EMAIL ADDRESS IN ONES OUTLOOK ADDRESS-BOOK! SADLY, IT DOES NOT SHOW UP IN A VIRUS SCAN, HOWEVER IT IS A LITTLE-KNOWN FAULT WITH SERVERS AND MICROSOFT OFFICE BUSINESS APPLICATIONS. BE WARNED!
IF ANYONE IS STILL GETTING EMAILS FROM MY HOME ADDRESS, PLEASE TREAT THEM AS SPAM, TAKE ME OFF YOUR 'APPROVED' LIST AND I WILL SEND YOU A NEW AND SAFE ADDRESS IN DUE COURSE.
ALTHOUGH I COULD BE ACCUSED OF BEING PARANOID, ITS FUNNY THAT THIS HAPPENED WITH A HERC FOAM PETITION EMAIL JUST AFTER I SAID I WAS DOING A LAST TRAWL. AS SOMEONE SAID, PERHAPS IT WAS INTENDED BY 'THE DARKSIDE'. WHO KNOWS?
HOWEVER, IT HAS BACKFIRED AND IS QUITE FUNNY BECAUSE IT HAS ACTUALLY HELPED ME GET IN CONTACT WITH LOTS OF PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE WERE 'INCOGNITO'.
IT ALSO MEANS THAT SOME 'UNHELPFUL' PEOPLE WILL HAVE GOT A FEW THOUSAND EMAILS TOO!
ONCE AGAIN, SORRY TO ALL THOSE WHO WERE INCONVENIENCED (BUT THINK YOURSELF LUCKY - AS MY BROTHER IN LAW GOT OVER 20,000 EMAILS).
IF ONLY WE COULD TURN THESE INTO PETITION SIGNATURES!!!!!?????
No worries Flip. I got over 4000! You and Nikki are in the sin/spam bin at the moment until I get a new addy from you. Well done for highlighting the cause...just like you to take a non-orthodox method to raise the issue, I believe some emails in the past rasied your proflie too ;)

[chappie]

wow, we were lucky! we got over 2,500 emails and it took 3x2hr sessions to recieve them all. we are without the computer know all so it took a fair few hours to delete them all. the good news is that we've broken the 2,600 mark. that i think is down to the tv work and the coverage at RIAT! i'm also confident your outstanding last stand flip has helped. i'm struck down with shingles and so things are on the go slow at the mo. i'm waiting to hear back from the letters and then take the next step, although tomorrow i'm in ocntact with radio four so watch out you've still got alot to answer for and the heat is not off you yet ministers/penny pinchers! i am not a storm of which you can weather and ride out. poorly or not i'm still going to keep campaigning. this way it means that i don't have the disruption of work to get in the way. watch this space.:}

[Da Smak]

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????

Yes, and his opinion was the same as mine. Fiting the foam would not stop the airsraft from crashing following the loss of a wing from a wire guided missile.

[nigegilb]

Care to tell us why you think a wire guided missile was fired at XV179?

I notice this is your first posting. We are getting quite used to this. Feel free to explain why your conclusion is different to that of the chief air accident investigator.

[vecvechookattack]

Care to tell us why you think a wire guided missile was fired at XV179?

I notice this is your first posting. We are getting quite used to this. Feel free to explain why your conclusion is different to that of the chief air accident investigator.

He didn't say that. He said

Fiting the foam would not stop the airsraft from crashing following the loss of a wing from a wire guided missile.

[nigegilb]

I think he can answer for himself. If he believes a wire guided missile brought down XV179 he should explain why. If he does not believe a wire guided missile brought down XV179 and is saying something to get a reaction he is beyond contempt.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Nige I think you have missed the point here, the poster did'nt say a wire guide missile caused 179 to crash.

He simply stated that the captain in question, and if it's who I think it was he is correct as I was on the flight deck as operating ALM, told Dr Weed that tank foam will not save any aircraft that is hit by a wire guided missile, or any other munition for that matter which blows the wing off.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[nigegilb]

No munition or missile blew the wing off. The fuel tank explosion was responsible for a 23 ft section of the wing being blown off. That is the point. From the BoI:

The large, relatively intact but separate sections of outboard wing blew apart due to an internal overpressure...must have occurred in no4 fuel tank.....this explosive event was caused by an ignition of the fuel/air mix in the space above the fuel, known as the ullage.

This was a classic fuel tank explosion. I have a very good idea exactly what caused the heat/spark but I am not stating it in a public forum for obvious reasons. You can prevent ignition of fuel/air mix in fuel tanks by fitting ESF. Enough said?

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

No Nige the point is the Captain in question was making absolutely no referance to 179, he was simply replying to a question posed by John Reid as to his thoughts on tank foam.

The Captain, again if it's who I think it is also stated he thought the money could be better spent on improved/advanced defensive aids but at no time was trying to draw a comparison with the loss of 179, which I think if you read the post again you will see is quite clear.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[nigegilb]

I am sorry ABIW, but I am not letting this point go. No DAS modern or otherwise would have prevented this ac from being shot down. Only foam or some other fuel tank protection would have been able to protect the ac. Unfortunately the RAF has decided not to release what caused the heat/spark so my hands are tied. XV206 had a very modern DAS, it was of no use. It is possible that foam would have helped this ac though.

Rest assured I am lobbying the Govt to improve the quality of the DAS systems on the Hercules fleet as well. I do not however believe that it would have made the slightest difference to the attack on XV179.

Regards,

NG

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

As with another poster on another thread I have tried my best to state the bleedin obvious, you have chosen to ignore, I will now desist.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[chappie]

well let's see how i get shot down for daring to have an oposing opininion to the da smak.:ugh:

of course dr reid is going to think that the money that is needed for foam is going to be better used elsewhere i.e a defensive aids system. if he was to agree with both the need and value of fuel suppressant foam would be seen by some as admitting that not having foam was a rather huge mistake on the governmnets behalf. so of course he is going to try and deflect from the fact that we don't offer that kind of protection for troops. i would ask this....where is the proper defensive aids system he thinks would be the worthy investment? if i recall wasn't the programme for a DAS for the 'J' cancelled?

let us also get this clear that at the time mr reid was more than aware of the attention that had been made by the lack of such a protective system , which frankly should not be seen as an added luxury. there is a need for fuel suppressant foam. that is fact. if the government stopped mis-spending the funds awarded for defence the programme to fit the fleet with ESF is a worthwhile and do-able task. the lack of foam is what killed my brother and those fine men on board. foam will not protect you from every enemy attack but there is nothing out there that can do that,unless i'm mis-informed. :}

[nigegilb]

I think it is also useful to talk money. The DAS program for the J that was cancelled by MR Reid's Govt would have fitted out 15 Hercules ac at a cost of approx £150 million. Now, the cost to fit foam to the Hercules is around £600,000 per ac. A massive difference I am sure you would agree. We have lost 2 ac at a replacement cost of £100 million. I hope I am not the only person who sees the absurdity in this situation. Mr Reid should have asked a more relevant question of the captain.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Am I missing something here.

Dr Reid asked the crew for their thoughts on tank foam.

The Captain, making no referance to 179 said tank foam would not help if your wing was shot off.

The Captain also thought better DeF Aids would be more beneficial.

Some of us here need to remove our blinkers and read posts before chewing peoples arses off for not toeing the party line.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[South Bound]

Guys, please take a chill-pill, there is no argument here.

The way I read it they are talking about something very different. They are talking about a not-very-smart weapon (visually guided?) that can't be defeated by DAS with the capability to destroy the aircraft. They are not questionning the cause of the incident involving 179.

No-one has said that 179 was shot down in this way or that foam isn't needed. I read it as a thinly veiled dig at Reid that they are in a dangerous place and that there is no guarantee of safety no matter how much is spent on DAS/Foam etc, and that he should remember that when committing troops anywhere...

[highcirrus]

Da Smak

You mention in your maiden post that:

Yes, and his opinion was the same as mine. Fiting the foam would not stop the airsraft from crashing following the loss of a wing from a wire guided missile.

Perhaps your colleague should have continued along the lines of “but it would certainly give the aircraft a very much improved chance of survival if it sustained concentrated ground-to-air small arms fire”.

On another matter, you may care to note that evidence of attention to detail lends so much more credibility to an individual post than an apparent inability to use a spell check before clicking the "submit reply" button.

I know I’m a dinosaur but I’m unable to take you seriously when you spell “fitting” as “fiting” and “aircraft” as “airsraft”.

[vecvechookattack]

Please, lets not get into a slangin match over a couple of typing errors...Im sure we are all guilty of them at some point.

The point is that no matter how hard we try or what ever technology throws at us, we will never be able to fly in an Aircraft of any form completely safe from a ground/Sea or airborne threat. What we can do is minimise that threat as much as possible by installing the best threat reduction measure available to us. The excuse that "cost is a rider" is not acceptable.

[nigegilb]

I think it would help if the maiden poster explained what he meant by his post.

There appears to be a misunderstanding about the efficacy of foam versus DAS when used to protect against small arms/HMG/AAA/RPG/landmine.
Many ac have survived a SAM attack many others have been shot down. I would want to go to war in an ac that afforded as much protection as possible against all of the above threats. Strangely enough there are nations out there that actually give their people that very protection. Ours is not one of them.

Sadly, the reality is that cost is a rider. The DAS program in 2004/05 was cancelled because of cost. I was pointing out that foam is cost effective protection. You could fit out the whole fleet for less than the cost of one replacement a Hercules. I have read recently that the cost of UORs agreed in this financial year will be borne by next year's defence budget. I wonder if Dr Reid mentioned that.

[FormerFlake]

I think it would help if the maiden poster explained what he meant by his post.

There appears to be a misunderstanding about the efficacy of foam versus DAS when used to protect against small arms/HMG/AAA/RPG/landmine.
Many ac have survived a SAM attack many others have been shot down. I would want to go to war in an ac that afforded as much protection as possible against all of the above threats. Strangely enough there are nations out there that actually give their people that very protection. Ours is not one of them.

Agreed, Some people are blinded by all the hitec gadgets. ESF is too simple to work, surely? It is far more impressive to fire the "Lazer".

[nigegilb]

Maybe this will help.

Preventing catastrophic fuel vapor explosions

SafeCrest open pore reticulated polyurethane foam for explosion suppression applications contains a network of skeletal strands with 98% void space at any pore size The material functions essentially as a three dimensional firescreen similar to a safety fire screen over a lighted Bunsen burner.

In a fuel tank, the empty space above the fuel level (known as the ullage) may readily contain an explosive mixture of fuel vapor and air. It is in this ullage area where an explosion can occur, should it be ignited by any source.Since the liquid fuel itself does not explode, a completely filled tank is far less likely to explode than one that is not full.Obviously, the lower the fuel level in the tank, the greater amount of explosive vapor present.

When an ignition source is present (perhaps from a spark), the vapor adjacent to the spark ignites rapidly. This ignition, in turn, ignites the vapor around it, creating a "chain reaction" as the ignition, or "flame front" gets larger and moves faster as it propagates through the vapor. The rapid ignition and propagation of the flame results in an ever growing compression wave in front of it, compressing the unignited vapor, thus adding even greater force to an explosion. This sequence occurs in milliseconds.

SafeCrest prevents this chain reaction from occurring; instead, vapor ignition is confined to the area immediately around the ignition source. Flame and wave propagation are mitigated by the foam to below propagation levels, thus preventing a catastrophic explosion.



Please note that far from confirming the robustness of the Hercules, the ground to air attack that occurred a few months before the tragedy of XV179 that resulted in a fuel tank leak, merely confirmed the characteristics of a fuel tank filled with relatively cool fuel.

[John Blakeley]

A few "facts" to back up Nigel's 923 post from a USG Fact Sheet issued in Sep 2005. I have removed the boys own paper guide to what MANPADS are as I think that all contributors to this site are very familiar with them and their performance - the bit about US control on who they have supplied them to must have been written with tongue firmly in cheek I suggest:

[I]MANPADS:

Shoulder-Fired Anti-Aircraft Missiles Threaten Aviation. Weapons have downed 25 civilian aircraft, killing 600 since 1970s The State Department has drawn attention to the danger posed to aviation around the world by man-portable air defense systems, also known as MANPADS, in a fact sheet issued September 20.

MANPADS are shoulder-fired missiles that easily are transported and concealed from law enforcement authorities.

Following is the [partial] text of the fact sheet:

Fact Sheet
U.S. Department of State
Bureau of Political-Military Affairs
Washington, D.C.
September 20, 2005

The MANPADS Menace: Combating the Threat to Global Aviation from Man-Portable Air Defense Systems

Man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) in the hands of criminals, terrorists, and other non-state actors pose a serious potential threat to passenger air travel, the commercial aviation industry, and military aircraft around the world. The United States and other concerned countries have recognized and taken steps to counter the emerging MANPADS threat to the international community. After the November 2002 attempted shoot-down by terrorists of a civilian airliner in Mombasa, Kenya, the United States redoubled its efforts to keep MANPADS from falling into the wrong hands, and is working closely with numerous countries and international organizations to keep the skies safe for all. This cooperation has led to the destruction of over 17,000 excess or illicitly held MANPADS so far.

This fact sheet provides a brief description of MANPADS, their origins, examples of MANPADS attacks on civilian aircraft, and highlights some of the United States' efforts to work with other countries to counter the threat.

Who Makes MANPADS?

Approximately 20 countries have produced or have licenses to produce MANPADS or their components. These include Bulgaria, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands, North Korea, Pakistan, Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Sweden, Turkey, the United States, and the United Kingdom.

It is estimated that over 1 million MANPADS missiles have been manufactured worldwide to date. The United States believes that most of these systems are in national inventories or that they have been destroyed, but in many cases, these systems have not been accounted for.

Who Possesses Them?

MANPADS are found in the stockpiles of most countries around the world, including those of manufacturing nations. But several thousand may be outside of the control of governments. The number of MANPADS remaining in the global inventory is difficult to estimate with more precision because the destruction of MANPADS systems is not always publicized, and a system's shelf life depends heavily on how it is stored and maintained.

The United States has strict controls over its MANPADS and exercises diligence when selling them to legitimate governments, in order to ensure that they are properly secured and not sold or transferred to others without legal consent.

Given the unique threat posed by MANPADS to aviation due to their potential lethality, relatively small size and portability, U.S. policy supports a ban against the transfer of MANPADS to non-state end users.

When Have MANPADS Been Used Against Civil Aviation?

In 2003, the U.S. Department of State estimated that since the 1970s, over 40 civilian aircraft have been hit by MANPADS, causing about 25 crashes and over 600 deaths around the world. The following is a partial list of reported incidents involving civilian aircraft. This list includes one additional example of an incident subsequent to the 2003 Department of State estimate, in which a civilian aircraft was shot at by non-state actors using MANPADS. All of the incidents listed below, except the Mombasa incident, took place in zones of conflict.

● September 3, 1978
An Air Rhodesia Viscount passenger airliner crash landed after being hit by a MANPADS fired by Zimbabwe Peoples Revolution Army rebels. Four crew members and 32 of the 54 passengers were killed in the crash. 10 survivors were shot to death afterwards.

● December 19, 1988
Two Douglas DC-7 spray aircraft, chartered by the U.S. Agency for International Development to eradicate locusts, en route from Senegal to Morocco, were struck by MANPADS fired by POLISARIO rebels in the Western Sahara. One DC-7 crashed killing all 5 crew members. The other DC-7 landed safely in Morocco.

● April 6, 1994
A Dassault Mystere-Falcon 50 executive jet carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi and its French flight crew was shot down over Kigali, killing all aboard and sparking massive ethnic violence and regional conflict.

● October 10, 1998
A Boeing 727 airliner was downed over the Democratic Republic of the Congo by Tutsi rebels, killing 40.

● December 26, 1998
A United Nations-chartered Lockheed C-130 Hercules transport was shot down over Angola by UNITA rebels, killing 14.

● January 2, 1999
A United Nations Lockheed C-130 Hercules transport was shot down over Angola by UNITA rebels, killing 9.

● November 28, 2002
Terrorists fired two MANPADS at an Arkia Airlines Boeing 757-300 with 271 passengers and crew as it took off from Mombasa, Kenya. Both missiles missed.

● November 22, 2003
A DHL Airbus A-300 cargo jet transporting mail in Iraq was struck and damaged by a MANPADS. Though hit in the left fuel tank, the plane was able to return to Baghdad airport and land safely.[I]

If you can get hold of a copy read "SAM 7" by Richard Cox - published 30 years ago, but probably even more relevant today!

JB

[South Bound]

Oh come on guys this is getting silly now. The vast majority of us reading this are firm supporters of the 'foam' campaign - there is no need to lecture us all again about it just because someone didn't mention it in a conversation about Hercules and safety on ops. Foam is not a panacea, but it is something we believe in and our crews need. Please stop lecturing and get back to telling us how it is all going.

You are doing a great job, for which many of us are very grateful (:D ), but please don't take offence at the smallest thing.

[nigegilb]

Thanks JB. The real question that needs to be asked is this.

What is the likelihood of surviving a wing fire in a Hercules ac?

If the foam had done its job, a fuel tank explosion would have been prevented. However, the foam might not have prevented a fuel fed fire. Hence the conclusion in the BoI that the boys might still have had to contend with a wing fire. Now, all you Herc operators, have a look in your FRCs. A wing fire is a recognised emergency. I recall that the FRCs state that you should land as soon as possible. The chief investigator could not state 100% that the crew would have survived the attack if foam had been fitted. Damage caused by wing fires is very difficult to predict. However, I believe that because of a combination of the ability of the crew and the proximity of an airfield (6 minutes away), in all probability they would have survived the attack if the damaging fuel tank explosion had been prevented. I do not believe that the chief investigator has been pinned down on this point.

SB I do not mean to lecture. However, there is at least one senior figure at Lyneham who does not believe that fitting foam should be given such a high priority. If you look at the history of the thread there have also been several one post wreckers. Maybe I am just hot and bothered, but I am not in the mood for disinformation intentional or otherwise and I am astonished that some people cannot grasp the need for foam to be the base building block for protection.

SB, you asked how it is going. I did a bit of digging and I am satisfied it is being given a high priority. The problem does appear to be a Marshalls backlog not helped by the decision to ignore normal service schedules for the Herc. The program is delayed and there is little in the way of info about the J. I do not understand why Mr Ingram was told July for the first ac, it does now look like Sept or October (based on parliamentary answers). I do not know what the position is regarding wriggle room on contracts, maybe someone can help on that. The problems have been exacerbated by prioritising tasking over safety, but hey what is new?

Cheers,

NG

[flipster]

I think we are all agreed, then

If the wing falls off - you are poorly placed!!

If you are hit by a missile (guided or unguided) you could lose a wing. Please note however, that because they go so fast, most MANPADSs are likely to go straight through the engine/wing and the explosion is limited).

If you get an explosion caused by stray 'wiggly-amps' or unguided missile/bullets/shrapnel in the fuel tanks, you might also lose a wing.

If you fit a modern and effective DAS you are less likely to be hit the guided missile.

But if you fit foam, the wing is less likely to be blown off by a fuel explosion. however caused.

DAS can be very expensive and will probably be limited to reduced number of frames.

Foam is relatively cheap and could be fitted to all aircraft!

Because of costings/budgets/blah, our Gov't/MOD is doing little to placate most people's fears that MOST RAF ac are poorly protected - in all cases.

We should continue to keep up the pressure - Nige and Chappie - bravo!

Have I missed something?

ps

Hope the emails have stopped. Anyone desparate to contact me - please PM.

Where R we - 4000? - not bad! But the record is still 20,000!!!

I HAVE YET TO MEET A HERC CREW-MEMBER WHO WOULD REFUSE THE FITMENT OF ESF!!!!!!

[Lara crofts pants]

20,000 eh? Is that the number of names on the petition or the number of emails you have sent people old chap?;)
take it easy

LCP

[nigegilb]

Flip,
I also received 4000, but I got 40 today. Dated 19 Jul. I am too scared to email you direct. You still pushing worms out?

[chappie]

LCP please do not fret, flipster did not send out 20,000 emails. his computer did that all by itself. to date the petition has 2616 signatures of which i am very grateful. flight magasine have chosen not to get in contact about the petition, whichis a disappointment but i will not give up.

the reason that i will not give up is this.....taday is a bad day. today i miss my brother and it hurts so much it's like you wish the pain was a cancer as you could cut that cancer away then live your life. the pain left by grief stays and rots and hurts more each time it jumps up and reminds you who's the boss. i have watched the sterling work that the navy has been doing with evacuating the british. sometimes, just sometimes i think i see him, in his combats, then i realise how stupid i am but by that point i'm crying. i look on in awe at what you guys do and i want to say how proud i am of the british armed forces. it is not enough that we are eighteen months on from the crash and seven months on from the BoI. where are we? we've finally got the fitting underway. we don't have a written number.....still. we don't have a financial comittment. that is wrong and will not be accepted.the way i feel today is the reason why we still have to push. no one not even my worse enmey should go through this. if i was to say the stress of all this has caught up with me and now i've shingles i would feel defeated and though they had won. that won't happen. i've lost already....bob.

just for the record those of us fighting the good fight are not blinkered, but incredibly focussed and passionate about our cause. we have to be. if we weren't there would be no foam fitting ongoing. remember this is not a luxury...this is a standard we are fighting for. i did not mention XXXV179 but mr reid mentioned DAS which he really didn't want to do as his governemnt is unable to stump up the cash for that either! why discuss why he was wondering what the views were about money being to spent it was an empty gesture guys. he is not worth the space.

[herkman]

I have read all the posts on this forum, including the ones which are negative about foam.

However this discusion as I understand it, is not really about whether foam should be fitted, but when it will be fitted.

I am sure that I would speak for the majority of flight crew, who would like to see foam fitted.

From an accounting point of view alone, the cost of fitting foam is very small, and is even smaller when fitted at aircraft build time.

I think from a aircrew/passenger point of view, one of the most serious problems you can encounter, both on the ground and air, IS FIRE.

If the logic of not fitting foam is true, because it cannot cover every situation, we might as well throw the fire detection and fighting equipment off the schedule, as they are seldom used, and also too are not always affective.

Those who travel in military aircraft at least, need to have the cards stacked in their favour. Yes it can be true that nothing is fully affective, but even a small percentage of protection, particularly under the current situation, and is certainly much better than nothing.

The latest loss shows clearly that this airplane may have been saved, or at least those in it, would have had a better chance in getting out OK. If there been more people on board, their chances of survival could have been reduced.

Unfortunately, the people who do not agree with foam, their comments can be often taken by those who do not want to do this task, as a reason not to proceed.

Foam has proven in the past to work, it may not always be the answer, but the facts are that it does increase the chance of surviving.

Self sealing tanks, which I understand were developed by the British company, Fireproof tanks in WW2, saved countless people, when perhaps at low level the risks were not as high today.

Foam is a cheap affective start to a problem, for which there is no total solution.

LET NOT THESE MEN TO HAVE DIED IN VAIN.

Regards

Col Tigwell

[nigegilb]

Thanks Col. I do not know a Herc crew member who does not want to see foam fitted. Losing 23 feet of wing is clearly the result of not having it fitted. If it was easy to have foam fitted it would have been done 25 years ago when Herc crews first requested it. This is a hard slog, the first RAF Herc is still to be fitted and yet chiefs of staff have knowingly sent Herc crews into another theatre of war. If the foam campaigners had not stepped forward who knows where we would be now.

Remember, USAF Hercs survived much worse attacks than the one that downed XV179. All USAF Hercs have foam. That is a fact worth taking on board, literally.

[500days2do]

Nige et all,

Keep up the good work....

My wings are clipped now but for the sake of those who follow, press on.

5d2d

[chappie]

thankyou 5d2d. i am struggling to understand how this is going to be possible when the great men who are supposed to be your leaders ae unable to even acknowledge that i have written to them. this is either as a campaigner looking for answers or as i am...a grieving sister of one of their airmen. in letters recieved the offer is made that the channels of communication are opened if any concerns arise. what it doesn't say is that there is no way that you will recieve a reply. i ask this of you your airships.....why? what is it that makes it so hard to write to me? the less contact there is the more i get concerned that there is something to hide. so think on. surely you should be leading by example...you expect your men to cope in the face of adversity yet you cannot even find it within you to write to me. not the example the upper ranks would want to make....surely?

i saw a herc flying from marshalls about half hour ago. it was a beautiful sight and sound to see. it's a bittersweet view because sometimes just sometimes i think of being inside the herc where the boys were, what they'd be doing, how things should be and for those few minutes they are alive....like they should be , if there had been foam. it's like i can see them, but all to quickly reality reminds me that they have gone. yet despite the pain that can cause any one individual and the fact that you can do something about it, even read this thread from afar, yet never able to step up to the mark and justify why you won't take the action needed to ensure that the lives of your aircrew are protected you just hide. how do you expect your soliders to be the men you want them to be when you won't show the way? you cannot expect them to give and you take with nothing in return. that is not your right. in fact it sickens me.:ooh:

despite the pain that i'min right now and how amazingly crappy i feel i will write to you all again and if i have to i will write every week until you decide that you can be bothered to write back.....remember, i'm going nowhere. the more you try and ignore the more i think you have to hide. I/WE ARE NOT FIGHTING FOR A LUXURY, BUT A STANDARD. IT IS ESSENTIAL IT IS WANTED AND NEEDED , A LEGACY TO 10 FINE MEN...david stead,paul pardoel, bob o'connor, richie brown, paddy marshall, mark gibson. stephen jones, david williams, andrew smith, gary nicholson....AND THE HEROES STILL FLYING ON A DAILY BASIS WITHOUT THE PROTECTION THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO.

[nigegilb]

Chappie,
If you are not getting any answers to your questions write to the Defence Committee and they will ask the questions for you. RAF officers do not like the extra work load but if they are important questions and the chiefs do not reply then do what you must.

[tucumseh]

In the news recently....

I thought people would be interested in the level of investment in Duty of Care by our partners, and the apparent unit cost (approx £170k each) of a CMWS. To put this cost in context, many of our aircraft carry a V/UHF radio which, in 1980s, cost £110k each. The figure quoted for C130 DAS seems very high.




BAE SYSTEMS TO PROTECT ARMY AIRCRAFT WITH ADVANCED SYSTEM
Type of document: News
Source: BAE systems

UK - NORTH AMERICA - The U.S. Army has awarded BAE Systems a sole-source award for its Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) to protect Army fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft from heat-seeking missiles.

BAE Systems in Nashua, N.H., received a five-year indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) award with a maximum ceiling of $1.4 billion on May 19. The Army ordered 80 CMWS systems for $23.2 million under the IDIQ. An IDIQ affords the Army the flexibility to order at various times any number of systems up to the maximum quantity specified in the contract.

CMWS was deployed to support the global war on terrorism ahead of schedule and is currently flying on multiple Army and allied helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. CMWS is credited with saving multiple aircraft and crews from man-portable air defense missiles.

BAE Systems has been delivering ATIRCM/CMWS systems to the Army under a previous IDIQ awarded in September 2004. The company was awarded a low-rate initial production contract in 2002 for up to 484 LRIP systems.

CMWS, BAE Systems' ATIRCM system, and the advanced infrared countermeasures munitions flares comprise the primary components of the Army's suite of integrated infrared countermeasures.

[nigegilb]

Tuc, I have no reason to doubt the figures.
Are you aware of the requirement to pay for UORs from next years defence budget?

[tucumseh]

Nigel

The very nature of UORs means they should not normally be in the EP. Remember, EP07 (April 07 - March 08) assumptions were known some months ago. If they are, then the capability shortfall for a very precise requirement/theatre has been identified well in advance (!). That is, they do not meet the UOR criteria. What you describe may be a devious way of cutting the budget. Perhaps someone has at last forced IPTs to stop wasting money, gathered together the savings, and placed it in a UOR bucket (which, if not committed, would effectively cut the budget). Or perhaps forced DEC to do their job properly and, for example, check that we don't already have the kit they want under a UOR. (It happens, especially when it has been previously procured under UOR; like DAS).

The real problem I suppose is that the frequency of short-notice commitments is increasing, so EVERYTHING is becoming urgent. A result of the Governments scatter-gun approach to defence in general, and their effective shredding of our published military doctrine.

[Where R We?]

Yes, but as I understand it, you can procure something under a UOR but you do not get lifetime support for said item. Officially the item should be removed following the Op under which UOR was raised. This causes problems further down the chain as normally the item is required long-term but how do they fund it.

I am not disagreeing things shouldn't be procured under a UOR, but UORs are not the panacea. The money for the long-term support has to come from somewhere and that is where the issue is. Big boys get paid lots of money to make big decisions, which is precisely what they are not doing at the moment.

[tucumseh]

WRW

Yes, you are correct. Funding for a UOR usually runs out after one year. If it is to be retained after that, it must be brought into the EP. (Is this what you meant Nigel?). In practice, that means something else has got to give, as pressure is exerted to support it from existing funds. (This amounts to abrogation by DEC). This is further exacerbated if the kit is fitted to a platform. A UOR will typically be embodied under an SEM. While the rules mandate the SEM is verified for safety/airworthiness by the relevant platform and equipment design authorities, the rule is largely ignored; partly on cost grounds and partly because so few understand the implications. When they are assessed by the DA, you often find they are declared "safe, but they don't work"; or vice-versa. ISD pressure means they are fitted anyway. They are seldom brought under configuration control or included in drawings or aircraft technical pubs. In short, the airworthiness chain is broken. Fine you may say, until something goes wrong.

[nigegilb]

Tuc, I was under the impression that UORs were paid for as a one off from the Treasury, I read a few days ago that the cost of the UORs will come from the next defence budget which means something will have to give. The Treasury is playing hard ball. The concept of servicemen's earnings being paid tax free on operations has been agreed by the Treasury, but the money has to come from the defence budget! So much for Blair's promise that the forces should get anything they ask for. I am not holding my breath on an imminent Herc DAS reinstatement. The program for J foam is a closely guarded secret. No wonder.

[chappie]

do you know what....we can talk around and around a subject and summise the outcome but that is not going to change anything. it would appear that the funds if there is going to be any available is going to be given with a long list of conditions and the ministers will be laughing thinking that this campaign will be caught by the short and curlies.....well, i don't have short and curlies and i know that things are not as they should be and something is being hidden. it should/does not need to be this hard, so why do you not all ask yourself why this is the case. please continue to write, continue to publicse this travesty that airmen are doing with out. they should not have to suffer defence cuts just to have their wages paid. we are the ones who can do something about this.

there is alot of hercules activity going on from marshalls, even i am managing to see hercs regularly from my house. this may be a sign that there will be an announcement, it may mean diddly. nonetheless, the sight of those beautiful planes is spurring me on not to sit back, but to continue to pester.

your airships, ministers and anyone else who is part of the gang who is clearly unable to write a proper letter. i say this, and this is because i am mad now. you have another week. if the letters are not winging their way to me in reply to the ones i sent, then i will assume i am correct in my theory you are hiding something. do not think that you can wipe your hands of aircrew and their families just because they died. the BoI process is a farce. we are eighteen months on from the crash and i will not wait any longer. if i have to, and i am loathe to do this, as i feel i am being disrespectful to your rank and the force i will go public at your apparent inability to stand by your words and most importantly your fine outstanding aircrew...your assets. this is not a rant. this is a true warning. i want action. you are making the death of those men into a joke. you do not intend to learn from their deaths. it does not take eighteen months to sort this out.:}

sorry for lack of grammar, i will rectify later but i have to go and pick up my daughter and i am just to mad right now.

[BEagle]

chappie, if the feeble Airships had even 1% of your drive and tenacity, the RAF would be a far better place!

I saw that waste of DNA, Des 'Strangely' Brownie on TV today. What a total tangowhiskyalfatango. Clearly a Noo Labor stooge with no real interest in the UK's overstretched, undermanned and underfunded Armed Forces. At least Doc Reid had some charisma; perhaps that's why that useless little $hit Bliar moved him?

Keep up the pressure, chappie - you've got a huge number of supporters who really admire and support your efforts to get things moving positively forward!

[chappie]

as the title suggests that countdown continues...you have a week to get the letters out.

i've retried the flight international editorial to see if they can help. i have contacted airforce monthly to just to see if we can have a last ditch attempt at publicising the petition.

nige, i have tried to send you a PM but you are full. please empty your postbox. i need the address for HCDC, please and names. i have also heard that enquiries are being put forward as to the possible date for the inquest. do peoples want to know when that will be?

so, i'll wait to hear from you all your airships and ministers. i would really appreciate your thoughts on the matter discussed. i know that you are all busy but this issue is a hot potato right now, both politically and within the force.

[flipster]

chappie

try

[email protected]

flipster

[Permanent Sand]

Guys & girls,

I get the feeling this thread is repeating itself too much. Everyone is putting a massive amount of effort into what they believe in. You know what..... Very little is being handed back in return. You want to know why? It is because the general public are not aware of the dyer state the British armed forces are putting up with.

This puts me in a very difficult situation as I'm not one to winge.

I feel it is time to go public and let the tax payer know what we have to put up with. The list is never ending, but the main points can be put forward to the national press.

I suggest an article in the daily Sun will open the eyes of the general public and give a short sharp shock to the penny pincher ministers in power.

On a personal note, I don't mind doing the job I do, but I'm getting sick of borrowing kit off the yanks to do simple ops. I don't need to continue, you all know the situation.

Is this the start of the end? I understand if this sounds like it should be on another, but it does relate to the herc esf system. I'm just back from over there, and everyone is scratching their heads as to where the future is panning out.

PS.

[nigegilb]

PS, the Sun is a bit part player in all this. It has already covered the Herc crash with a full page article. I suggest you start with the Defence Committee. If you have information of shortages the HCDC has a duty to act. I believe the committee is sympathetic to the very real difficulties faced by UK armed forces at the moment.

The Govt is sensitive to mounting casualties, witness the imminent "rebalancing" of "stretched" troops in Afg and the recent announcement of 100 armoured vehicles bound for Iraq.

I recommend you try HCDC first. The committee has a wide ranging remit and can question defence ministers at length. Might be more effective in the long run.

[chappie]

the thread has gone quiet but i might as well put down where abouts we are...or not!

today's or possibly tomorrows paper should have a story in about XV179, so watch this space. our dearest friends at the MoD can according to our lawyer provide funding towards the inquest process. we apply and suprise suprise we find out yesterday that we are not going to recieve funding. i am awaiting to find out the reasons but that will not make it any better. all we want is legal representation at the inquest to ensure it is not an open and shut process done in a day thus leaving the families without answers. we only want to find the truth about our lost loved ones. it would appear that the quest for the truth is something that the MoD seem very uncomfortable and think that they have scuppered our attempts. do they not realise that this goes against them and makes them look even more worried about all that we're doing....more suspicious. honestly guys, should the worse ever happen to any of you do not think that your families will be taken care of. no, we're treated like a dirty secret something to be ashamed of. anyway, the lawyer has written to blair and browne, mod and we've done the press release...so watch this space.

[nigegilb]

Chappie,
If you have a copy of the press release may I suggest you put it on this forum. Always send your letters recorded delivery. The other thing you might want to try is getting the BBC to fax them for you. That should get a reaction.

Good luck to all of the families, try not to get upset by the MoD, they know no other way.

[On_The_Top_Bunk]

Chappie,

Please check PMs

[kam]

With this campaign, where the loss has been so great, emotions run high. Singling out individuals is not always useful, there are always two sides to every story. However, I think a relevant point has been made by chappie in regards to the broader issues relating to the military justice system. Remembering, that the MOD have the responsibility of overseeing and progressing this system and 'perhaps' keeping up with other countries. Next of kin, family, the tri services, BOI's and courts are all faced by restrictions and limitations placed on them during their encounters and roles with the military justice system, some more legitimate than others. Next of kin and family usually feel the frustrations personally and more deeply and are the least empowered within these agents.
If anyone is interested have a look at the following site http://www.defence.gov.au scroll down and you come across the BOI into the Sea King crash. It shows dates and advice to those concerned to seek counsel etc, contrasting the MOD's site information into the hercules crash. There is also an article 'Government to Strengthen Military Justice System', this is part of an ongoing review process which has resulted in many changes. It is of course not perfect but progressive and includes next of kin in a greater participatory capactiy.

[nigegilb]

KAM, sadly this is the UK, we lack a maturity of Government that constantly seeks to hide behind secrecy. I have total admiration for any relatives that decide to take on the Govt and the MoD. If they did not, nothing would change. Well done for challenging the system, I am sorry you have to do it, but I am sure you will succeed in the end.

The Australians actually provide legal representation for the relatives. Today we learn that The MoD have denied something similar to the relatives of those who perished on XV179.

[sprucemoose]

Chappie, please check your PMs for a letter response.
Best of luck,
Spruce

[500days2do]

Radio 2 ( I know ) this very afternoon ran a piece about the up and coming 'Federation' which is about to flap its fledgling wings. It was interesting to hear that anonymous 'Senior Officers' had expressed backing toward this enterprise. Shame they didnt stand up and were counted now !!! It is very easy to comment in your memoirs about a 'tragic' situation but would have shown great honour and understanding to have raised the issues there and then. Some would call it spineless.

5d2d

[chappie]

well, what a day! i want to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has initiated a reply to my correspondence. it's such a shame that our government are unable to lead by example, they simply have to follow the example set by their asset. our armed forces.i am more than aware of time constraints placed upon individuals, that is something i know all too well about! excessive demands on individuals attention is not exclusive to those of us in large organisations...i should know. i am far from superwoman but i am a mum, wife, campaigner for foam, involved in the truth process for inquest, military families press officer (inadvertantly!), nurse, daughter, daughter in law and friend! i may bang my fists, even throw my toys out of the pram, this is not aimed at individuals, but at a process and government that needs to dramatically alter it's way.

thank you for advice given today. i had already sent letters as a recorded delivery (most of them, not all!). this has not been enough though. nonetheless, i sometimes get too emotive and potentially cause offence to those involved in the process unwittingly. this is something i do not intend to do, i guess my pain and frustration spill over, especially when actions by the organisation i niavely thought would care for the interests of my family and my brother show that there is only an interest to protect themselves, not us. it feels that as our loved ones ceased to be, so did we in the eyes of the MoD. i get hot headed, which is fruitless, but human. moreover, i realise that the hurt and loss i feel is not exclusive to myself, but is far reaching and is felt by the wonderful RaF community left behind. i don't know if it's the nurse in me , but i want to just make this better. i do not want anyone to feel the pain that i feel, i do not want anyone to feel the fear that bob felt. there are those of us that just want answers to questions, we don't stop wanting to know just becuase the BoI has concluded. let's just get this out in the open, why does this all have to be done behind closed doors...... today i heard that us, the families of those who have lost their lives in iraq (british) have won the right to force the government to have the inquiry in public!

[flipster]

Chappie,

As people have said before, your drive, tenacity, passion and, most importantly, your humanity set an example that our leaders, both political and military, would do well to emulate.


Flipster

[highcirrus]

Just so everyone knows how things work with the “government” that nige, chappie and others are campaigning against, and while “Yo…Bliar!” has trotted off to Washington for more instructions from his master’s voice, this from the latest Private Eye

At his recent appearance before the Commons liaison committee, Tony Blair admitted that he had never bothered to hold a vote in cabinet on any issue. It now seems the lack of dissent among his senior ministers may be even worse than we feared.

A story reaches us that Des Browne, who is currently Defence Secretary, was bold enough in his first cabinet meeting to voice disagreement with the prime minister on some matter. His remarks were heard in stony silence.

Then, while the meeting was still going on, Browne found little messages being passed to him discreetly by colleagues. They asked him what on earth he was playing at. Questioning Tony’s judgment, apparently, simply was not acceptable behaviour for a Rt Hon Member of Cabinet.

[microlight AV8R]

So much for democracy !! It just further emphasises what I have felt for a good many years: We live in an elected dictatorship, not a democracy. Just as the eastern bloc was not communist, just grossly inefficient state capitalism.

Never mind, as long as sufficient chav programmes are produced for TV Tony knows he can continue ad nauseum.

[chappie]

lockheed martin profits up by 26% caused mainly by US defence spending...! need i say more? that just says it all. shame it's not because of british spending!


i'd also like to take this opportunity to let you know that the campaign has a very distinguished supporter. air marshal sir baird and lady baird have signed the petition that i sent to them. i hope this will inspire those of you that doubt if you should lend your name. please realise that together our voice becomes one and becomes strong. to that end there is no choice and our cause has to be heard. i value and treasure every individual signature that i have been priviledged to have on the petition. thankyou.

[herkman]

It is so sad, that justice in this world depends on who you are, and how much money one has to fight.

I think we would have seen a very different attitude, if some one high up had a son on the flight.

I have had association with the RAAF since 1957, and have watched the slow but steady progress in these sort of matters. Whilst our system is far from perfect, it is getting better, and would hope that these concepts, would continue to improve.

We have long ditched the WW2 ideas, and I hope that we will continue to progress, because when you are talking about peoples lifes, futures, welfare and a desire to see the right thing done, then no effort is too much.

The problem as I see it, is that the people making the decisions, do not know crap from clay, about what is needed to get the job done, with the maximum safety and efficency.

I really hope that these events, will lead to a wholesale change of attitudes and thoughts.

I have become very good friends with a RAF Wing Commander, who retired early, because as he said, change for even the better, so hard to make happen.

So we have yet another problem, the guys who want to go forward, are being held back in their endeavours.

So what happens they walk.

The only thing that will make change, is constant pressure from the field.

DUTY HONOUR COUNTRY I wonder where they have gone in this situation.

Regards

Col

[highcirrus]

microlight AV8R

You posted:

Just as the eastern bloc was not communist, just grossly inefficient state capitalism.

I think that you might be closer to the actualité than most of us would realise. This from the Spectator, 22 July 2006 - Fraser Nelson on “If Blair doesn’t go soon, he’ll be remembered for incompetence as well as sleaze and spin”.

It is becoming increasingly apparent this week that the Blair years have been a period of jaw-dropping government incompetence, on a par with the most notorious corporate accounting scandals. When John Reid describes the Immigration and Nationality Directorate as “inadequate in terms of its scope, information technology, leadership, management systems and processes” he was conducting, with disgust, an audit of the Home Office. But his analysis holds good for much of the rest of Whitehall. Only now is the depth of the problem becoming clear……

…… Similar horror stories can be picked up in the bars of Whitehall from an increasingly bewildered and demoralised Civil Service. The Ministry of Defence is apparently running on autopilot, with minimal leadership from Des Browne, its nominal Secretary of State. His aides have been struck by the extent to which he reads every single word written for him in speeches, complete with grammatical mistakes….

…….. The sheer amount of money earned by the public and squandered by the government promises to make a compelling theme for the Conservatives: that incompetence, rather than sleaze or spin, was the true hallmark of the Blair years. On the other hand, the same narrative will help Mr Brown to declare “year-zero” when he arrives – it was all Blair’s fault – presenting himself as the agent of change.

A maelstrom of blame is slowly sucking in mandarins across Whitehall. Jobs are being lost, executives sacked, new disasters exposed. The Home Office permanent secretary and the chief executive of the NHS have walked the plank, and more will follow. But for the last nine years all departments have had two leaders in common: the Prime Minister and a Chancellor who liked to be seen as the true author of domestic policy. These days, of course, Mr Brown and his henchmen are claiming no such authorship. Just as new Soviet leaders liked to denounce their predecessors – even if they had worked cheek-by-jowl with them – so we can expect Mr Brown to present himself as a champion of reform, a Whitehall radical liberated at last to sort out the government.

Happy days! I can’t wait for Gordon’s new soviet, starting at “year-zero”.

[chappie]

well i was right, today i learnt who reads pprune from afar. thankyou for the letter. i will be replying in the very near future. i am not placated by your letter. as nice as it is, it still is full of nothing more than hot air and platitudes. predictable really, but sad.

[flipster]

You'd be surprised who reads these pages! Of course, they'd deny it and say they never read this 'tosh' as we are a load of whining has-beens, long out of the saddle. I can remember some senior officers saying as such and then referring, almost verbatim, to some posts/threads!!

Nonetheless, it is a good way for 'them' to assess the undercurrent within and without the services - unless, of course, they forbid serving personnel from posting under the auspices of 'possible security implications' (eg Lyneham recently). This is patent bolleaux as 99% of posters are acutely aware of the security sit. I wonder what the real reasons were...hmm???

In the meantime, "Bravo" Chappie - who knows where this campaign will lead us next? One thing for sure is that this Gov't is very sensitive to media pressure and we do have some good friends out there. They must be very aware of embarassment we could cause and this Gov't could really do without any more scandals - just hope they don't think you are going to go away quietly?

[chappie]

i wonder why it's so hard to tell the truth?

please rest assured that this campaign has not gone away. things are lulling away the support continues and grows. i have not given in and i have not left you.

[chappie]

chaps and chapettes are you still there? i checked the petition today. 2740 on line signatures! wow! i am taking steps to hand it in. i will of course ensure that it is high profile,as it is important that the message is out in the public domain so it freshens their minds. i do hope that someone, who can help, will read this and allay my fears.

today there is some media attention regards the apalling shortages faced by the armed forces. i have learnt that there has been mention of the foam campaign. i last heard that it was being fitted. operational in august. well, it's here, where is the plane? the hercules has been mentioned in the sun and the express. i was wondering how true this quote was."The MP's were also alarmed that the MoD might not be fitting protective systems to hercules transport planes.ten servicemen died last year when their plane was shot down in iraq. despite years of warnings, a life saving suppressant foam used by the US was not fitted. defence secretary des browne said the forces were stretched but not over stretched!" is there any truth in this? i hope that now the pressure has relinquished the pledge to fit planes has fallen by the way side and is now null and void. the MP's in question were the cross party defence select commitee.

i really hope that this has not been the case. i understand that there is no way that the government will admit to the truth, which is that the armed forces are clearly overstretched. all because some well placed senior officers deny the fact does not make it true. that's like saying i am incredibly clever, i can say it all i like it does not make it true. in my limited correspondence with the senior personnel i was told.." we do everything possible to ensure that our armed forces have the best protection to enable them to carry out the many vital tasks that they undertake. we take the safety of the armed forces very seriously and most certainly do not see them as expendable assets. if the operational environment requires additional protection, then it can be-- and is--provided." if the mod programme is cancelled this means more empty words.

i know that this may seem all the same to some people out there, but this is a genuine question not an attempt to restart the merry go round. the campaign continues and i am busy but just don't wish to annonce all that i am doing. please help. take care, stay safe:)

[FJJP]

Keep the pot boiling Chappie!

Has anyone in the know got an update on the progress of the foam mod?

FJJP

[nigegilb]

I think you are referring to the HCDC report. This is a snippet re Herc foam,

20.We note that the safety of C-130 Hercules remains an issue of concern to aircrew in theatre. While we welcome the decision to fit Explosion Suppressant Foam to some Hercules, we believe that it should be fitted to all Hercules in operational theatres. We are alarmed by the suggestion that the MoD might not be fitting protective systems because of the impact on other priorities. The protection of our Armed Forces should be given the highest priority. (Paragraph 74)

21.We seek reassurance from the MoD that lessons will be learned and safety features will be integrated in the plans for the A400M. (Paragraph 75)

I am on the case. Last time I spoke with the office of AOC 2 was 18 days ago and I was assured everything was ok. Will do some checking up. The Chairman of HCDC is in no mood to take bull from the MoD. It could be a case of overstretch and overtasking, we will see.

[nigegilb]

I have made some enquiries and I have to say I can find no reason to disbelieve the reassurance provided by the office of AOC 2 regarding the foam equipment program. The program appears to be going ahead and if anything is more extensive than I first thought. I will contact HCDC direct and ask for some kind of an explanation for their comments. The only criticism I have is the length of time it is taking to fit the foam. I still have no idea why Ingram said the first ac would be fitted by July, but I am convinced that the RAF is firmly committed to providing fuel tank protection for the Hercules fleet.

Hope this helps.

NG

[John Blakeley]

Nigel,

Without in any way wishing to belittle the role of AOC 2 Group in this affair he will be being briefed on industrial progress and contracting arrangments by the Hercules IPT - part of the DLO at RAF Wyton. They will have let the contract for the foam fit, and I assume given the high profile they are very carefully monitoring it - it might be worth asking them what is going on as I would assume they are one of the HCDC sources. According to the public domain DLO organisation chart the IPT Team Leader is Gp Capt Mark Hobbs on 01480 52451 ext 4305.

JB

[nigegilb]

Thanks JB. I wondered if there was confusion with some of the Ks earmarked for the scrap heap in recent days. I hesitate to say it but I almost feel our job is done. It would be reckless in the extreme for the MoD to withdraw long term airframes from the foam program. The reassurance received recently has been independently confirmed. If I am right then attention will now shift to the inquest, bearing in mind a week is a long time in politics!

[chappie]

nige, i am saddened by your comment that you feel that "our job" has nearly come to an end!

i wholeheartedly feel that for myself that is not the case, until it has been confirmed in writing that all the hercules will be fitted with explosive suppressant foam. i understand that the retrofit will take a considerable length of time to complete. what has not been made clear, however, is the number of planes that have definitely been earmarked for foam and the potential timescale that we are looking at. with a transport fleet dangerously overstretched the planning for the modernisation must be extremely watertight to allow the work to go ahead. thus, the information must be in existence....or does my niaevity let me down again?

i am aware there is only so much desk thumping that can be done over the matter, nonetheless, it is not acceptable, nor should it be tolerated, that there is only fitting to part of the fleet. i do not see how the aircrew and pax safety can be ensured unless there is a specific role/schedule for each aircraft for it's entire working life. this would have to occur to guarantee that only the protected planes go to the high threat area.

lastly,i would like to add a comment by a high placed source which reads " if the operational environment requires additional protection, then it can be- and is-provided."
it is my view that unless, the entire fleet is subject to a retrofit then that comment is sadly null and void in my view.

[nigegilb]

Chappie, I am no fan of the politico speak used by the Chiefs of Staff, however I am satisfied that the foam program is extensive and that it will eventually provide protection for the crews who need it. Once the foam program is complete it would simply be an act of outright negligence to send Herc crews into theatre without it. I no longer think this will happen. Too many people are looking at Herc safety.

I still disagree with the original decision to send crews to Afg and I do not support the guarantees provided by CAS, but I do think we have helped change things for the
better.

[Chugalug2]

I have just completed reading this entire thread. May I say how much I admire the tenacity and sincerity of all who have supported the campaign to fit ESF to the RAF Hercules Fleet, in particular Chappie and Nigegilb. The former because she has shown such courage and dedication to a highly technical cause in a highly complex organisation, but then as she copes with the vicissitudes of the NHS on a daily basis we can see where she gets it from. Well done Ma’am, and as has been said previously, your brother must be so proud of you! And Nigel, like me an ex Herc driver, but unlike me , one who has grasped this nettle and fought the good fight until at last there is light at the end of the tunnel! Congratulations to you both, you have achieved a remarkable victory and enhanced the survivability and hence effectiveness of the MRT force (old speak). That is why you have encountered such resistance, because those whose professional duty it was to do so did not, and resent you for revealing that! There is always money available; the trick is to spend it in the right way.
When we ordered the original K model, the RAF asked Lockheed to hang Rolls Royce Tynes on them. They declined. So instead the hulls were stuffed with British electronics whether or not they were appropriate (i.e. Decca Nav Mk 1, which told you where you were, after you told it where it was, providing you were within chain coverage!).We had to hand fly the aircraft, even on 14 hour legs, for about a year, as the British Auto Pilot was incompatible with the impedance of the wiring looms and was collared out. Yet more money was splashed out on downward looking periscopes for supply dropping, and enlarged flight deck escape apertures to accommodate an Astrodome for the Force commander to view his formation. Neither had been deemed necessary by the USAF who had been operating Hercs for over 15 years by then. The reason for all this largess became clear when “the Pound in your pocket” Wilson stood up in Parliament and announced that over half the cost of the fleet would be in Pounds Sterling!
What Lockheed did advise was the use of FIIS fuel additive. They were poopooed. The result was fuel seeping out of the wings and a multi million pound contract to Messrs Marshalls to replank the entire fleet’s wings, within a very few years, as has been previously mentioned . Donkeys all!
Small arms fire has always been a common risk to MRT Ops. In Borneo, during Confrontation, Hastings and Beverleys supply dropped to the army along the borders, etc. At least two of our Hastings came back with additional ventilation, one of which had some 3or 4 rounds recovered, all of varying calibres! As we fuelled with 100/115 Avgas, they considered themselves lucky. Self sealing tanks were the state of the art answer in those days, and I feel silly that I knew of no other technology when I left the RAF in 1973, having spent some 4years on Hercs.
You guys are so much better informed than we were. Of course the W.W.W. and the likes of Pprune have revolutionised information dissemination since then. If that helps to spend the taxpayers’ money for our Nation’s defence more effectively and cut down on the needless waste, as above, we should embrace it. Don’t stop now, we must have ESF, or similar, fitted to all aircraft liable to Take Off, Land or fly Low Level in hostile Airspace. Let Right be done!

[nigegilb]

Thanks Chugalug, it is nice to get some context to the situation. You alluded to fuel tank protection back in the 70s. You will have read the posts from other Herc operators in 78 and 82 requesting foam for the wing tanks. One of the things that has saddened and angered me over the last few months is the absolute denial by the Chiefs of Staff that the RAF was aware of any risk to the fuel tanks of the Hercules and that Herc crews had requested foam protection in the past. I do not believe this to be true, I knew about foam back in 99. I am sure these facts will be substantiated in the future but I agree with you, in that we have landed a blow for what is right. I do not know if fuel tank protection is official for A400M. Frankly I do not care, my own sources tell me it is going to happen and I know that thanks to the success of the campaign it is inconceivable that A400M will not get the protection now.
Regards,
NG

[Chugalug2]

[. One of the things that has saddened and angered me over the last few months is the absolute denial by the Chiefs of Staff that the RAF was aware of any risk to the fuel tanks of the Hercules and that Herc crews had requested foam protection in the past. NG[/quote]

NG, I didn't know about foam in 1973 (when I left the RAF), and as a line Pilot still feel bad about that. If I knew then what I know now, I it would have been possible to plead for the same protection that the USAF had as standard from before our "Ks" were delivered. As it was in the Cold War, and unlike now our leaders declined invitations from the White house to join in Hot ones, I suspect very little Small Arms fire was directed at the fleet in those days. All that has changed completely and your generation and the present one have been in the thick of it. We let you down and that is bad. At least in the most part it was ignorance of the facts. That extenuating cop out cannot extend to the Air Staff. Either they knew and did nothing, or they didn't know and were derelict in their duty. Either way they are guilty as charged, and know it!

[kam]

Ummmm, ignorance, thats the stance. Where does innocent ignorance end and culpable ignorance begin. Maybe with the death of my husband.

[RaPs]

We have followed this subject for some time re ESF since the death of our son, and have also been working unceasingly behind the scenes since the BoI report. It's nice to know that there are people out there (nigegilb etc) who have had the guts to stand up and be counted and helped us through the technical minefield of jargon covering this subject. We have all come a long way since 30/01/05 but not as far as we would like to believe, perhaps the inquest will endorse Kam's sentiments of innocent/culpable ignorance! We have stood shoulder to shoulder with Chappie and Kam and liaised closely with them and applaud their tenacity. Bob and Pards would be so very proud of them. Finally, thanks to anyone and everyone out there who has contributed/ supplied information or helped in any way, you all have our gratitude.

[nigegilb]

RAF officers and MoD claiming ignorance is pure spin. The plea of ignorance is based on the initial claim that foam had not been requested in writing. Self sealing tanks were requested in 2000. This piece of MoD spin fell apart when it was revealed that 47 Sqn pilots requested the foam in 2002. MoD spin suggested that the RAF was focussed on countering missile threats to the Hercules ac. Well, it was then revealed that the MoD cancelled a program to equip the J with a modern DAS in 2004/05.

In my view it was negligent not to have equipped the Hercules with foam when it was requested 25 years ago. I have agreed with nothing that CAS has written and said on this subject. I find it unbelievable that RAF experts did not think the Hercules was vulnerable to a fuel tank explosion. It is clear from all the evidence about a poorly equipped military that all of this is driven by cost and a failure of leaders to lead.

[chappie]

thankyou to everyone who has passed on kind words, support and reassurances. i feel so strongly about my belief that ALL aircrew and passengers on hercules should be protected.

there is NO way that ignorance can stand as an acceptable reason for the negliegence shown and blatant disregard for the lives of every airman/woman. in my line of work i claimed ignorance as a reason for the loss of life i would be booted out of my profession quicker than you can say suppositries!

when i wrote to the hierarchy i got nothing back except hot air, platitudes and the party line. i know there are those of us who believe that the lack of foam was intrinsic in the loss of the lives of those ten men on XV179, also understand that there is no way in the world that CAS or anyone else within that structure will ever indicate that was the case. that would be like signing their own discharge papers. remember this though, all because you say that the findings are the way that they are it does'nt make it true. i have so many questions that need to be answered. i am in the process of writing back to those who chose to ignore me again, and those responsible for the letter of nothingness. my questions? look at all that hgas been aforementioned. why did the DAS get cancelled? why does the RAF have to insist that they were unaware of the risks of the plane, when that is simply not true? why was the foam not fitted when the requests date back as far as the eighties? why is there more secrecy around how many planes that will be fitted with foam than is necessary? it's not as if the planes are going to be flying around the sky with a banner saying i've got foam or painted a different colour so that any terrorist can figure out which plane is vunerable. no...this is not done yet. i have so many questions.

i also have the oppurtunity to meet with AOC 2 Gp, which i will sort on my return from holiday. i am away for a week as of tomorrow. on my return i will continue to fight the good fight!

[Chugalug2]

In my view it was negligent not to have equipped the Hercules with foam when it was requested 25 years ago..

Agreed, NG, but why stop there? I understand from this thread that ESF was standard for USAF Hercs when the Ks were built. Is this established, or do I have it wrong? If it is the case then it would have been known then that our aircraft were deficient in that respect, and makes the Pound Sterling "stuffing" I have described all the more reprehensible. I have tried to establish when foam was first fitted to (anyone's) Hercs, via Messrs Crest Foam, but to no avail. Anyone have a date? It was, it seems, known of in the 80's, but as I have said before it was not (at Squadron level, and to my recollection) in the early 70s. Were we ignorant, or was it before our time?

[nigegilb]

The United States Air Force has successfully used Foamex Polyurethane Safety Foam to suppress fuel tank explosions in combat and special mission aircraft since 1965. USAF retrofitted foam for the first few years. From the early to mid 1970s I understand that foam was fitted on the production line across the whole fleet. For another example of MoD speak read the following. I am still amazed to read that before this incident Hercs would not have been exposed to this type of attack, according to the world of the MoD.

Thursday, 18 May 2006.

Armed Forces: Explosive-Suppressant Foam

Lord Luke asked Her Majesty's Government:

When the Ministry of Defence first considered fitting explosive-suppressant foam devices to Royal Air Force Hercules aircraft; and [HL5589]

What is the estimated cost of fitting explosive-suppressant foam devices to a Hercules aircraft; and [HL5590]

Why explosive-suppressant foam devices have not already been fitted to all Royal Air Force Hercules aircraft; and [HL5591]

How many Royal Air Force aircraft are to be left without explosive-suppressant foam devices; and why; and [HL5593]

What assessment the Ministry of Defence has made of the United States' use of explosive-suppressant foam devices in aircraft. [HL5594]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): In the past, our Hercules aircraft would not have been exposed to the type and level of threat that now prevails in today's operational environments. Hercules defensive systems have, however, been enhanced and modified considerably in recent years, with the emphasis on countering the greatest perceived threats, while also evolving tactics and improving force protection on the ground.

Although the Ministry of Defence was aware that explosive-suppressant foam (ESF) was available as a possible upgrade for the Hercules, until the loss of Hercules XV 179 the Hercules aircraft was not judged vulnerable to the form of attack that caused XV 179 to crash, albeit that there had been some working-level correspondence on the subject within the RAF. The board of inquiry into the loss of Hercules XV 179 recommended that the MoD should consider the fitting of a fuel tank inerting system, and this was taken forward as a matter of urgency. As a result, we have recently decided to fit ESF to some of our Hercules aircraft, concentrating on those aircraft which operate at the highest threat. Subject to final contract negotiations, we expect to have the first aircraft fitted with ESF available for operations in the next few months. The initial programme will cost £600,000 per aircraft.

We are aware of the approach that the United States has taken, but we do not comment on the capability of other nations.


And another cracker.

Lord Luke (Conservative)
My Lords, I declare an interest, as my son-in-law will soon take his regiment to Iraq. Will the Minister confirm that transport aircraft flying into Afghanistan and Iraq—the chartered ones as well as those belonging to the RAF—will be equipped with effective defensive measures?

Lord Drayson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Defence Procurement), Ministry of Defence)
Yes, my Lords, I am happy to assure the House that all aircraft flying into operations will have the appropriate defensive measures. We do not use charter aircraft going into operations in areas that we regard as operationally challenging. Aircraft that go into those areas have, in all cases, the defensive aid suites that they require.

[rudekid]

Unless of course the ACC sticks his finger in the wind and says "Don't worry about your DAS old son, just go and do it."

That's why certain upgrades to 2Gp aircraft DAS capabilities haven't been funded under UOR.

Drayson's last quote is absolute rubbish, in fact I believe it to be a blatant lie.

Mind you, it wouldn't do to make the 3* late for an "otherwise enjoyable dinner" would it. Nice to see that the unservicability, described as "inflexibility", of the DAS and a sensible decision to divert into a low threat area was commented on in such a understanding way! Not that we'd be risking our lives for this sort of thing...

[Chugalug2]

[quote=nigegilb]The United States Air Force has successfully used Foamex Polyurethane Safety Foam to suppress fuel tank explosions in combat and special mission aircraft since 1965. USAF retrofitted foam for the first few years. From the early to mid 1970s I understand that foam was fitted on the production line across the whole fleet.

"Although the Ministry of Defence was aware that explosive-suppressant foam (ESF) was available as a possible upgrade for the Hercules, until the loss of Hercules XV 179 the Hercules aircraft was not judged vulnerable to the form of attack that caused XV 179 to crash, albeit that there had been some working-level correspondence on the subject within the RAF.

We are aware of the approach that the United States has taken, but we do not comment on the capability of other nations."]

Thankyou for the info NG, and congratulations on the thorough int job you have done on this saga! So here perhaps is the irony of this situation. If the Ks had been ordered and built just a few years later, Lockheed could have offered the Foam fit as part of the build package. As it was we just missed that window and were left with the (more expensive) retro fit solution resisted until now, when some of those very same aircraft are being retired. The form of attack "they" felt the Hercules was not judged vulnerable to was presumably ground fire; the USAF Herc at Khe Sahn was seen to be very vulnerable! These are military aircraft for goodness sake, that may be expected to go to war, as now. It is merely the fact that we have had to wait until now for Mr Bliar to engage us in two wars at the same time that the recklessness of that complacent assertion can be seen so clearly!

[nigegilb]

"Reckless complacency," I could not have put it better myself. Too late for the K yes, but we took delivery of the J Herc in 2000, without foam of course and without a DAS fit. MoD answers have changed as facts about the history of foam transpired. Initially total ignorance was claimed now an awareness is stated but the MoD is trying to claim that SF ac had not been engaged in risky operations until this ac was shot down. Worse an RAF Herc survived an attack in similar circumstances 6 months before XV 179. The engineers worked out why the fuel tanks did not go bang but still nothing was done. The official line is that the BoI could not say that the crew would definitely have survived with foam in the fuel tanks. Well, who could say that? It most definitely does not mean they would not have survived if foam had been in the tanks. The scramble to retrofit foam now suggests that the MoD in private realise this is a screw up.

Just a few weeks after Lord Drayson made his comments another Herc was lost on a strip in Afg, most probably to a land mine. This ac did not have foam fitted to the fuel tanks. I do not support Govt guarantees about ac safety in Afg, which is why I have been fighting so hard.

I don't know the facts behind Rude Kid's comments but having been there before I think I understand the pressure on RAF crews to go sausage side without having the right equipment. I wonder how much has really changed .

[28L]

Drayson's last quote is absolute rubbish, in fact I believe it to be a blatant lie...

FWIW It has been reported in the press that Lord Drayson bought his peerage and his substantial contributions to the Labour Party coffers ensured his position in the Government.
Could there be a connection? :ugh:

[HrkDrvr]

So here perhaps is the irony of this situation. If the Ks had been ordered and built just a few years later, Lockheed could have offered the Foam fit as part of the build package. As it was we just missed that window and were left with the (more expensive) retro fit solution resisted until now, when some of those very same aircraft are being retired.

Too late for the K yes, but we took delivery of the J Herc in 2000, without foam of course and without a DAS fit.

Remember, the wings were replaced in the '70s-80s & on SF, 179 had her wings replaced in '02-03. Foam fitment during wing replacement is the proper time & would have been quite convenient. :ugh:

I'm still gobsmacked at the £600million per aircraft cost the government is fleecing us for! Raw materials are in the neighborhood of £15-£20thousand per aircraft. Installation, training, upkeep, refurb, et al cannot possibly be £600million per aircraft over the expected service life of the K fleet...same old rubbish! :ugh:

[herkman]

We have unfortunately seen the cost of not having foam, and the total impact of this oversite.

Now we are seeing costs on retrofitting foam to aircraft, which appear to be somewhat high. Or are the figures being guessed at, and this fact is no more accurate than many other MOD statements.

I would hate to see the program slowed or reduced Because of the alleged costs involved.

I have today confrimed that the hours required to fit foam to a J model is between 120 and 160 hours, I suspect the time span depends on the condition of the fuel tank sealant. As the J and K models tanks are basically the same, and the cost of the foam is around 20,000 pounds sterling, then maybe extra work is being hidden in the costs, or your trades people are very well paid.

Except for training aircraft, I cannot see how any air force can put aircraft into the sky in harms way without this sort of protection.

The cost of inspecting the foam on duty cycles is very low, because the foam has a much higher life than the tank sealant, and provided it is stored in the dark whilst out of the tank, appears to have a very long life.

What I also find strange, that Britain who led the way in WW2 in self sealing tanks, and saw the need for them then, appeared to stop the requirement after 1946.

My father who worked at Fireproof tanks during WW2, had often told me of what they found in tanks that had come out of aircraft, that had been hit during combat.

I am sorry but I cannot understand the thinking of the MOD, in regard to this matter.

Regards

Col Tigwell

[tucumseh]

Herkman

Agreed.

As far as I can see, the only statement as to cost is Lord Drayson’s (see post #982) “The initial programme will cost £600,000 per aircraft”. A typically misleading and disingenuous statement.

Without going into all the detail, the cost of embodying ANY modification is stated in the Mod Form 715 in terms of non-recurring (one-off) and recurring costs. It will say how many hours to embody and MUST have been verified, typically by a Trial Installation. This is said to be 160. (Is this one man for 4 weeks , or ten men for 2 days?). Even at £100 per hour, plus profit, this doesn’t exceed £18k. The cost of the mod set will be stated also, but this would have to be validated as it will be very dated. And it depends on quantity ordered. This is said to be approx £20k. With the best will in the world the recurring costs cannot be much more than £50k per a/c.

The MoD would probably include the cost of delivery and return to/from Marshalls (or wherever) in the cost. (Make them training flights). Marshalls overheads would be hefty, but these are all agreed in the QMAC and would be reduced significantly if the a/c were embodied by working party at Lyneham.

The slight complication here is that the original mod will have been schemed and trialled by the US in, probably, a different variant of C130. The MoD must pay for Design Incorporation in our variants, which is probably where the bulk of the £600k “initial” figure comes from. But that is a non-recurring cost. This would perhaps include a degree of training for Marshalls staff.

To the most junior staff in any aircraft IPT, all the above is routine. The only minor issue in contractual terms is to negotiate the emergent work conditions. That is, how to deal with “snags” which are discovered during the embodiment that must be rectified, or other work packages which are included to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the level of strip required to fit foam. A contract like this is usually an opportunity to consolidate configuration control and perhaps formalise some SEMs. Even so, every IPT has a standard emergent work clause already agreed with their contractors. Commercial’s job is made simple by the 715 data. Finance is a 5 minute job. Marshalls would be up and running on Day 1 via a simple PDS task. In short, the critical path is the production lead time for the mod sets. What is required is political will. And Nigel’s size 11 boot now and again.

[nigegilb]

Tuc, when Liam Fox wrote to Lockheed earlier in the year he talked about a one-off cost of £275,000 and then £50,000 per ac. Would this £275,000 be the Design Inc?


Have to say I was shocked to hear that XV179 was rewinged in 2002/3. This rewinging would have occurred after 47Sqn pilots requested foam for the Herc. Not a comforting thought.

[tucumseh]

Nigel

What you say roughly aligns with my brain dump. The £250k sounds like the NRCs I talk of. Perhaps Min(DP) got his words muddled and this means the initial contract is for seven aircraft? 250 + (7x50) = 600.

"Design Incorporation” is always fraught with difficulty, mainly because so many in the MoD regard it as a “waste of money”, so very often it is ignored. There is no doubt it is an expensive business and, as the a/c fleets reduce in size, so it takes up a higher proportion of funding. (As maintaining the build standard is not volume related – it costs the same if you have one a/c or 100. Very few realise this, so blithely accept proportional cuts in support funding when, in fact, it is jeopardising airworthiness and safety in general). The compromise is often that a high cost programme will be asked to consolidate the build standard (or more likely discover they have no choice). The inherent risk is that if something happens in the interim, the airworthiness audit trail is fragmented. It is a vicious circle and the longer you wait, the more corporate memory both industry and MoD lose, and the more it costs to catch up.

The problem is well known, and a good example can be read at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmpubacc/300/30005.htm Read “conclusions”, from para 22. What MoD told the committee is, in places, absolute rubbish, and we cringed with embarrassment when the report was published. As ever, the committee almost got it right, but didn’t truly understand the issues so MoD was able to fob them off. Equally, some of CDP’s answers put the MoD in a bad light when the truth would have made both he and MoD look good!

[HrkDrvr]

The slight complication here is that the original mod will have been schemed and trialled by the US in, probably, a different variant of C130.

There is, and has only been for quite some time, one Hercules wing design - consequently, whilst it may not have been fit or trialled on a K in the US, it will have been on E, H, & J (and US Navy R & T) models. All of which have used the same wing design since roughly 1975...the same wing fitted to most K (all SF mini-fleet for sure & probably all remaining K - K with older wings were probably sent back as buy-back birds) & all J models.

£600M as an initial fleet-wide fit seems much more reasonable than a per aircraft number...

[Blodwyn Pig]

There is, and has only been for quite some time, one Hercules wing design - consequently, whilst it may not have been fit or trialled on a K in the US, it will have been on E, H, & J (and US Navy R & T) models. All of which have used the same wing design since roughly 1975...the same wing fitted to most K (all SF mini-fleet for sure & probably all remaining K - K with older wings were probably sent back as buy-back birds) & all J models.

£600M as an initial fleet-wide fit seems much more reasonable than a per aircraft number...


All the K fleet apart from 2 aircraft have the older E model wings. 2 SF aircraft have the later H model wings , as have all the J's.
Internal plumbing on the H wings have quite a few differences to the E wings, which will complicate the fitting of ESF.

[HrkDrvr]

All the K fleet apart from 2 aircraft have the older E model wings. 2 SF aircraft have the later H model wings , as have all the J's.
Internal plumbing on the H wings have quite a few differences to the E wings, which will complicate the fitting of ESF.

I doubt this - they may have an early H wing, but the E wings haven't been produced by Lockheed since 1972 & I'm fairly confident (although could be misinformed) that the Ks all were re-winged in the late-70s, early-80s.

However, much of this information is second-hand (re: timing of K re-winging), so I'm happy to be corrected.

The SF mini-fleet is on their second set of H wings AFAIK...

Most of this info came to light immediately following the loss of 179 & the rampant speculation RE: fatigue & the subsequent highly coincidental grounding/restricting of US Hercules w/in a matter of weeks...

[Antique Driver]

All the speculation about J/K (E/H) wing design is frankly irrelevant chaps - all we want is ESF for everyone and we want it now!!!

The only problem I can see is that with all these rumours of re-winging certain airframes it may well come too late.........

ESF fitted to airframes 2006 - wings replaced 2007?? Will the foam be transferred or will we have to pay again for the same mod on new(re-furbished) wings??

Hopefully the politicians/MOD/Marshalls have though about this and planned the ESF installation to tie-in with possible wing restoration/replacement.

No, I thought not.:ugh:

[flipster]

Given the information that we now know about ESF, following the BOI for XV179 (and while awaiting that of XV206), it would, in my view, be criminally negligent for the MoD to permit any further delays to the fitting of ESF to all of our current Herc fleet (J and K).

The same could be said for any future re-winged older frames and/or their replacements.

Flipster

ps Nige any chance you could empty yr PM inbox?

[Blodwyn Pig]

I doubt this - they may have an early H wing, but the E wings haven't been produced by Lockheed since 1972 & I'm fairly confident (although could be misinformed) that the Ks all were re-winged in the late-70s, early-80s.

However, much of this information is second-hand (re: timing of K re-winging), so I'm happy to be corrected.

The SF mini-fleet is on their second set of H wings AFAIK...

Most of this info came to light immediately following the loss of 179 & the rampant speculation RE: fatigue & the subsequent highly coincidental grounding/restricting of US Hercules w/in a matter of weeks...


having worked on all the wings in question, i assure i'm correct (hope i don't sound to pompous!).
when the fleet were re-winged, only the planks were changed, and the wings re-fitted.
there are only 2 K's flying with H model wings (easily identifyable by the extenal drain pipes between nacelle and wing plank.), these wings are the same as the J wings, and have a different fuel pick up system inside.

[HrkDrvr]

having worked on all the wings in question, i assure i'm correct (hope i don't sound to pompous!).
when the fleet were re-winged, only the planks were changed, and the wings re-fitted.
there are only 2 K's flying with H model wings (easily identifyable by the extenal drain pipes between nacelle and wing plank.), these wings are the same as the J wings, and have a different fuel pick up system inside.

Fair enough :ouch: - you've first hand info & mine is only second hand - clouded by memory & wishful thinking! ;)

[chappie]

well a few days away has made interesting reading. this may be too late or not even of any use. i am afraid that i cannot contribute usefully to the discussion and leave only my thoughts instead of facts but i hope this helps possibly answer queries. in my hand i have a letter recieved in may this year which states

"since the cost of £600,000 per aircraft (this is the total cost of the work,not just the cost of procuring the ESF) is significant, and much more than the figure that has been widely reported, the funding has had to come from an urgent operational requirementprocess that only supports modifying aircraft that we use in specific operational theatres.procuring the ESF and letting the contract for fitting it has been completed, and the first modified aircraft will be ready for operational deployment in july."

i know from sources that the trial fit was due to start not long after march, but then that could compute into the july date which then became august now we're looking at september to see the first plane. it would appear the goal posts keep moving for reasons i don't understand. i don't understand the reason behind the secrecy as to how many planes are going to be fitted with ESF?

the one thing i totally do not understand is this LACK OF AWARENESS, MIS COMMUNICATION, RECKLESS COMPLANCENCY ARE TERMS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE DIATRIBE FROM UP ON HIGH WHICH WE ARE EXPECTED TO TOLERATE YET YOU WOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS FROM ANY AIRMAN/WOMAN AS AN EXCUSE IN RELATION TO ANY ACTIONS DONE BY THEM. SURELY THE TERM DO UNTO OTHERS THAT YOU WISH TO BE DONE TO YOU IS APPROPRIATE.

to hear that the wings were replaced in 02/03 after requests for ESF had been made yet not initiated surely amounts to an act of incomprehensible ignorance bordering on negligence. i hope that it is not found out out that any of the men who died on XV179 requested foam. as has been pointed out the excuses that are trotted out as reasons as to why foam was not fitted change according to each fact that has been revealed. this does not appease those of us left behind. to me it states a very worried organisation.

[Chugalug2]

"the one thing I totally do not understand is this LACK OF AWARENESS, MIS COMMUNICATION, RECKLESS COMPLANCENCY ARE TERMS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE DIATRIBE FROM UP ON HIGH WHICH WE ARE EXPECTED TO TOLERATE YET YOU WOULD NOT ACCEPT THIS FROM ANY AIRMAN/WOMAN AS AN EXCUSE IN RELATION TO ANY ACTIONS DONE BY THEM. SURELY THE TERM DO UNTO OTHERS THAT YOU WISH TO BE DONE TO YOU IS APPROPRIATE.

to hear that the wings were replaced in 02/03 after requests for ESF had been made yet not initiated surely amounts to an act of incomprehensible ignorance bordering on negligence. i hope that it is not found out out that any of the men who died on XV179 requested foam. as has been pointed out the excuses that are trotted out as reasons as to why foam was not fitted change according to each fact that has been revealed. this does not appease those of us left behind. to me it states a very worried organisation."


Chappie, welcome back! Re “Reckless complacency”, that didn’t come from up on high but stems from something I said a few messages ago and rephrased by NG. If it was upsetting I apologise, there are strong feelings being aired here but an important sequence is beginning to emerge which if laid bare might just help not only to get ESF fitted to the Hercules fleet, as we all want, but to point up the errors made by a “worried organisation” as you so aptly call it, to prevent it happening again. That is the very essence of Flight Safety, to learn from an accident and to prevent it happening again.
Far from being from up on high, I am an ex Herc driver, who left the fleet, and the RAF, in 1973. I have already stated that I (and my colleagues) was unaware of ESF in 1973. From what NG tells us this makes sense, as the USAF was only retro-fitting Hercs on special duties, probably in a classified programme. Shortly after that, the USAF Hercs were fitted with ESF when built, and COINCIDENTALLY the RAF wing replanking (replacing the bottom of the wings) got under way. I suspect that Senior (Headquarters) Staff would have known that ESF was now standard on USAF Hercs and called for it to be fitted on ours at this time. It wasn’t and the opportunity was lost. How far it went up the line, why it was stopped, and by whom, I have no idea, maybe others with staff experience may know, or have their suspicions. Why specific requests from the sharp end were subsequently ignored, why brand new J models still did not get fitted at build I don’t know. But someone does, and we must find out TO PREVENT IT HAPPENING AGAIN!
There is a parallel thread to this concerning another fatal accident, ie the Chinook in 1994 on the Mull of Kintyre. Like this one it involved serious equipment shortcomings, and like this one many believe those shortcomings at the very least contributed to the tragic results. The “worried organisation” that produced these flawed decisions and compromised aircraft can and must be reformed TO PREVENT IT HAPPENING AGAIN! Flight Safety isn’t some HSE thing to wet-nurse milksops (?) it is about Force Maintenance, and should be top of the bill for the Air Staff.
Be strong Chappie, this is so important, for you, for the other families, for the BOFs like me, for the present crews (now muzzled and that we must speak up for), for the future crews, for the future passengers and for the civilian population who have still to wake up to this scandal.

[nigegilb]

Chappie,
After every operation there is a report drawn up. It used to be called lessons learnt and now it is called lessons identified. Think about that for a second, lessons learnt vs lessons identified..........The document concerning Main Sqn in Afg, stated a requirement to continue to actively pursue fire suppressants in the Hercules fuel tanks and was drawn up by 47 Sqn following the operation in Afghanistan in 2001/02. I was not aware of the rewinging of XV179 until it was posted on this thread. I have not double checked the accuracy of the statement but it does appear to be another missed opportunity to fit foam conveniently and cheaply. What has not yet been established is whether this document, or any attached covering letter went further up the chain. Govt Ministers have denied that the MoD ever said no to foam and are therefore denying having seen the request. We really need to find out what happened to this document. The other odd thing is that foam was definitely requested and denied for the Falkland's war, and yet there does not appear to be any paperwork around to support this. Has it been destroyed? Ingram also refers to a request for self sealing tanks in 2000 from 47 SF. Nobody has explained why this request was also denied. It is clear that Hercules aircrew have been concerned about a potentially fatal weakness in the fuel tanks of the aircraft for many years. I think we need to find out why the answer was always no and why the requests may not have fallen on the right desks or even reached the MoD.

I am working on another avenue to unearth information about protective equipment requested for the Hercules pre/post Falkland's conflict.

[flipster]

I am shocked to hear that HQ 2 Gp and HQSTC cannot find their records. Apparently, this stems from a morbid fear of the Freedom of Information Act - and all 'out of use' files are destroyed as quickly as possible.
(Surely, keeping files and records allows present 'staff' officers to be guided and helped by work done previously and prevents them having to do the work all over again? But now we seem run the military from a legal perspective .....what a shambles!)

However, I am certain that the 47 Sqn LI went unadulterated to the Stn Cdr and almost certainly on to HQ 2 Group - because both OC 47 and the Stn Cdr were known to just change signature blocks of documents, after only minor tweaking! Such is the power of Microsoft Word!!!

HQ 2 Gp is where I would look next!

Now guess who is in charge of destroying/keeping operational files?... the old Stn Cdr! Perhaps he could help - maybe ask the AOC next time you talk!
(I would be surprised if any assistance was offered, mind you!).

Predictably, the MOD manadarins are trying to shift the blame lower down the chain (a great example of responsible leadership..not).

However, MoD (DEC), CinC STC and AWC were more than aware of the situation - of that I can assure you. How else did they approve the upgrade to CMk3a in 2003? I bet they have kept those files!
Therefore, I believe that the buck must stop with the MoD itself and the SoS Def - not the Sqns, not 2 Group nor even HQ Strike.

Perhaps the united stance by the Service would persuade the MoD to come clean? Is there someone senior 'man enough' to scale the moral high ground?

Of course, all this would be solved if the MoD agreed to fit ESF to all Hercs asap!

Flipster

[chappie]

well you can trust me to ask the questions.... i am not so sure that the answers would be readily available. i am going to investigate into how far the freedom of information act can help me...unless any ppruner is aware and can help me! i need to find out if i can demand to see files or does it have to be a legal requisition. if that is what is needed, then that is what i will do. i am aware the RAF are working very hard to rectify the situation of the lack of ESF, and i am worried that there is a very high risk that some gutless wonder in the MoD or government will try and make the RaF the fall guy for the lack of foam. remember, the more obstructive they are in my quest for the truth and protection for ALL troops, the more suspicious it looks! i am not looking at the world through rose tinted spectacles...i know how ugly life can be, sadly, but i did expect more from the MoD. :mad: the one thing i have learnt is that nothing is going to be done unless it absolutely has to and there is no way of covering up the moving of goal posts.

chugalug2 please do not for a second think that you upset me. i am aware of the source of the comment and i agree wholeheartedly.

i read something today. i don't know how true this is but there are 61 air forces that have hercules in service. i would love to know how many of those take the protection of their troops seriously. the point that you made between lessons learnt and those identified gave me food for thought. is it not the case that lessons identified can be shaped according to wether there is any intention to rectify the problems. i am not done yet. when parliament resumes i will to. the spirit and dedication in me has not diminished. if i hit a brick wall then i will not give up. let's put it this way, there is more than one way to skin a cat!

last question, if, as stated that the funds for the ESF was procured under UOR conditions, does that mean that the funds are released on a short term basis which as a result there is no way that the funds will cover the whole fleet being protected?

[John Blakeley]

Can you please free some space for a PM - thanks.

JB

[nigegilb]

JB and Flip, apologies space now available. We have been summarising events to date so I thought it appropriate to post the following article in full, concerning one familiy's journey since the crash.

Grieving family in search of the truth
As more service families face up to the loss this week of loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, Legal Correspondent Olwen Dudgeon meets the parents of one Yorkshire airman battling to find out the truth about his death while also hoping to improve safety in future for his colleagues.

Flight Lieutenant David Stead.
EVERY time another British serviceman or woman is killed in conflict, the hearts of Pauline and Richard Stead go out to their family.
They know only too well the pain that engulfs you when the news so dreaded is confirmed.
On January 30, 2005 their elder son, David, was killed when his Hercules C130K was brought down by a missile north-west of Baghdad.
Flight Lieutenant Stead, 35, brought up in Burley-in-Wharfedale, was the captain that day, and the nine others on board, including Master Engineer Gary Nicholson, from Hull, Flight Lieutenant Andrew Smith, born in Doncaster, and York-born Flight Sergeant Mark Gibson, also lost their lives.
In his parents' case, the first awful indication something was wrong was a brief news item on Teletext that Sunday afternoon about a Hercules crash in the area where their son was flying "and we just knew it was his before it was confirmed later that evening".
But the catastrophic event was only the start of what has turned for his parents, and other relatives, into a search for the truth about whether the deaths could have been prevented if suppressant foam devices had been fitted to the fuel tanks of the Hercules and, importantly, a campaign to have them fitted to improve the safety of airmen in the future.
That is why they are currently fighting the Ministry of Defence's refusal to pay for their legal representation at the forthcoming inquest in Wiltshire into the biggest single loss of British forces in Iraq since the invasion began. "There are important questions we want asked, such as whether saving costs was viewed as more important than putting our air crews at extra risk," said Mr Stead, 59, who spent more than 20 years with West Yorkshire ambulance service. Son David always wanted to fly from being a small boy. He joined the air cadets when he was 13 – "It was all he wanted to do," said his mother.
"He knew he would have to work hard to get the grades he needed and that's what he did."
After leaving junior school in Burley like his brother Andrew, David attended Ilkley Grammar School and after a short time as a trainee surveyor was able to fulfil his ambition and join the RAF.
"It was everything he hoped for and he just loved it in the RAF." After college at Cranwell he was posted to various stations including serving in Hong Kong, and RAF Finningley, before going to Lyneham where he started to fly Hercules. He was still stationed there when he met his wife Michelle at the wedding of a colleague and they went on to have two daughters, Amelia and Holly, the youngest only a few months old at the time of his death.
It was his young wife, staying at the time with her family in the York area, who as official next of kin received confirmation of his death. "As his parents we do not have to be contacted but we went over to be with her and were there when our worst fears were confirmed."
The family then waited for the repatriation of David's body several days later and an even longer wait for him to be released for burial, with the funeral finally being held in April. In the months that followed there was a memorial service and his widow received a posthumous Air Force Cross from the Queen on David's behalf awarded for a flight in Afghanistan evacuating casualties including many children in terrible weather conditions.
"There was a lot of speculation about what had happened and eventually it was confirmed that it had been hit by a ground to air missile."
"We were allowed to attend the Board of Inquiry last December and ask questions which we believe is the first time that has happened. And we thought that we were being given all the information and documents we could be where security was not an issue."
"Two things came out, one to do with the communication system, which they said had since been sorted, and the other about the suppressant foam. It was stated that although American, Australian and some European planes had this system fitted, it had not been identified as a priority problem by British air crews," said Mr Stead.
"It was only after the Board had spoken to us that we began to hear different. We started to read in newspapers that it had been raised that air crew, including foreign servicemen on detachment to the RAF, had raised it but that the system had not been fitted for cost reasons.
"We started to think what else is going to come out. Nothing can bring our son and the other boys on board back but every day these planes are flying not just in areas of high insurgency, like Iraq and Afghanistan, but in Britain. If this is something that would make the Hercules safer, then it should be fitted in every one not just those operating in the highest threat environment, as they are promising."
The all-party Defence Committee today agreed, demanding the MoD fit explosive suppressant foam to all Hercules transport planes in a hard-hitting report expressing concerns about under-equipment and overstretching of British forces.
"David loved photography, music, books and most of all his family; he was made up when his daughters arrived. He also enjoyed being in the RAF and had even flown Tony Blair in Iraq. People will no doubt say he joined the RAF, he knew the dangers, but that does not mean the RAF does not owe a duty of care to all their air crews. Those serving are often not in a position to speak out in public and so the families are having to."
It was because they and other relatives want to raise such questions at the full inquest, the date for which is yet to be fixed, that several of them contacted human rights lawyer Simon McKay of McKay Law in Leeds.
His subsequent request for the Ministry of Defence to pay the reasonable costs of the families' representation at the hearing was rejected last month but he has now asked Defence Secretary Des Browne to reconsider the decision.
"There are important questions the families are entitled to ask during the inquest about the fitness of the aircraft for battle," he said. "In a serious and complex case, the costs could be prohibitive and it is difficult to see why those who have lost loved ones should have to pay for legal representation in the circumstances."
Pauline and Richard Stead agree. "We just want to know the truth. Why were the planes not fitted with this safety system a long time ago? Who took the decision not to do it? For the sake of the others still flying, that is why we have to push this."
They also find it ironic that the widow of an Australian serviceman, Flight Lieutenant Paul Pardoel, one of those on board killed with their son, has automatically been given legal representation by the Australian Air Force.
"We cannot get on with our lives as long as we have these questions unanswered and it will be very difficult to get to the truth without proper representation."

• The other five killed in the crash were Squadron Leader Patrick Marshall, Chief Technician Richard Brown, Sergeant Robert O'Connor, Corporal David Williams and soldier Acting Lance Corporal Steven Jones.

[kam]

[quote=kam;2803814][quote=kam;2803718]

Some really good points raised in article about how inclusive the BoI process are with families of deceased. However, I have not been given, nor ever asked for, representation from the RAAF. What I have said is that, Australian Boards of Inquiry are run differently to UK. Families are entitled to legal representation during the ADF BoI process, an Inquest is a separate and another process altogether.
I would hope that a precedent has been made with XV179 BoI and thank those involved who pushed to have it personally presented to us. However, it would seem that the general BoI process is in need of a bit of a shake up!
If anyone is interested, just off the top of my head, you can read more if you google, something like this; Australian senate review into the military justice system.
The cynic or social worker in me argues; the paternalistic 'deserving poor' concept should be long gone!

[BEagle]

Back to page 1!

[chappie]

thnaks nige for posting the article on the page. i have the article in my possession and it makes for some powerful reading. yes, it's true that the MoD seem to want only to put obstacles in our quest for the truth. my answer to that is whay are they so incessant in making it difficult? that raises questions, not put them to rest. one of the other thing that was flagged up by the BoI was not only the communication breakdown, the lack of ESF but also low level daylight flying. i remember being told that it no longer occured, or if was necessary it was a rarity. why, do i not believe them? it beggars belief that there is this impression that it was wished that we would give up and go away. does no one understand that it's not the case that you lose someone you love so so much you will just give up accept the info given and just go away? any one who loses a cherished love will always want the truth. this is no substitute for grief, no substitute for them in your life by keeping them alive, this is about the fact that questions willl always arise from info that you are told and you want answers. the fight begins when you don't get answers. i would ask this. why don't we get answers? in time, when the inquest is out there will be a sky interview that i have done. yes, that means that this will go out and be seen by the world. it's hard when you feel like a fool crying on camera, hopeful;ly they won't show it, but if they do then so be it. we are not going to accept the fact that there will be doors shut in our face. no matter what it takes the truth will out.

i have since found out i'm pregnant, but i will not let that stop me in the quest for protection of the troops. i will not turn my back on you. i promise i will do my best, still. downing street here i come! if i disappear for a bit then that will be circumstances beyond my control, but i will come back. i'm waiting to hear of the dates i can post the petition. will let you know. i will ensure that i have the media with me. we will keep this in the public mind. stay safe.:)

[kam]

Congratulations, Chappie!

[Chugalug2]

Chappie, heartfelt congratulations from me as well. How proud your child will be of a fantastic mother who fought to make the Hercules safer, and prevailed! Stay strong and take care of yourselves!

[chappie]

this is a message to ALL government and military leaders that read this page from afar. if the plane that has crashed in afghanistan today is a hercules then you had better get ready for battle. i always said it will happen again, yet you seeem not to care.

i know it's pathetic and just pain that is talking right now, along with pregnancy hormones, but this will not go passed untouched. you always think that you are untouchable, only as you have never had to feel the pain i feel right now. does anyone have any idea how raw, and how scared i feel right now? i'm sorry for my rant but i'm stuck at work and can't do anything about finding out and it might as well be the first time i found ut about bob's plane. i need to vent my feelings on a page i know people will understand,as opposed to letting it get the better of me while caring for my patients. this is not about me, please let my thoughts be with everyone touched by the loss of a colleague.

the petition is having ne last push this weekend at an airshow, then downing street here i come, bump in tow!

[herkman]

The airplane involved is a MR2 Nimrod, if my source is correct.

Very sad all on board are gone. Whilst I have no detials, the crash is attributed to technical reasons.

I guess the truth will come out in due course.

Our hearts go out to those who now have to mourn.

Col Tigwell

[herkman]

My understanding the airplane involved was a MR2 Nimrod.

Apparently all on board are lost.

Techical problems are listed as the cause.

Our hearts go out to all who are left to mourn.

Col Tigwell

[betty_boo_x]

hi kam et al,

I'm using the ID that I set up for the big fella in 2004 when he was posting his various naughty rants and wished to remain anonymous. Betty Boo is female, small and cute - a suitable opposite we thought! He still makes me smile.

I am very sadened to hear of another tragic loss and my heart goes out - again and again

boo x

[nigegilb]

So much bad news around at the moment, thought it was appropriate to post some good news.

First Herc has arrived at Lyneham complete with foam! OK there are a few technical probs which I am sure are frustrating for those concerned, but I am sure they will be overcome. Must be a learning process for everyone involved. Furthermore, I am satisfied that every single J Herc that needs foam will get it! This is fantastic news considering not a single J was slated for foam at the beginning of the year. Big thank you for everyone involved. Would also like to publically thank AOC 2 for agreeing to see me in May. I know we have caused a few headaches, but I am sure you agree, that as the fighting intensifies in Afg, it is absolutely right that our aircraft and people are given the highest levels of protection.

[flipster]

Nige,

If that is true, then 'hip, hip, hooray'.

However, the jury is still 'out' on this case. Certainly, I wouldn't trust the MoD too much - you know how budgetary constraints and the 'need to save a squllion £££s by tomorrow' often cut projects off at the knees. Nonetheless, perhaps as the potential for 'corporate manslaughter' charges still hang over the top politicians, maybe they will just get on with this mod pdq?? Of course, we still have to get the right ac out to theatre and any probs need to be ironed out asap. Thankfully, I can't see this being a major problem, as the USAF have been doing the foam-thing for years and RAAF for a fair while, too.

Fortunately, this time, the higher levels of 2 Gp and MoD (led by AOC 2 Gp, perhaps?) appear to have matched the comittment and integrity of their subordinates trying to provide crews with the correct equipment to go to war. The only sad part is that retired officers and families had to shame them into it. However, as they say, 'a Kill's a Kill'!

I have yet to hear 'owt' back from the Def Comm but, I sadly suspect, they may be quite busy with Nimrod-related problems at the moment. I will wait to see what they say before I start jumping for joy but certainly I am feeling a little better after the few things I have heard recently.

Well done M8

Flip

[nigegilb]

I understand your scepticism Flip. I have difficulty believing anything that the MoD spinners push out. I do, however, believe that this argument is won and that Ministers are worried. Unbelievably, I have been told that the Herc pitched up at Lyneham with fuel leaks. I don't know who is responsible for supervision at Marshalls but I understand that the situation has gone all the way up the chain to Ministerial level. I expect the next one to come off the line to be perfect. Every day wasted places a crew in jeopardy. As for the Ministers, well Mr Watson resigned yesterday over difficulty with the PMs timetable. He should be ashamed of himself, resigning at a time when so many troops are being killed and seriously injured in Iraq and Afg. I agree with you, AOC 2 and the guys/girls in the chain have worked hard and shown great integrity to make it happen. Pity we don't see that same quality in others.

[Chugalug2]

Nige, fantastic news that we have all been waiting for! One is tempted to quote WC's words about beginnings and ends, but it would be more realistic to watch out for the fat lady! This government and its politicised civil service has no moral compass at all, and will sweep this program quietly aside, given half a chance and another good day to bury bad news! In short this campaign must keep up its momentum until ALL the Herc fleet is fully protected with ESF or sold off. Honeyed words, solemn assurances, firm intentions are worthless, the only things that count are ESF protected airframes on the ramp. All that aside we wouldn't be here even, if it wasn't for the dedication and determination of all involved, and in particular yourself, so congratulations and well done!:D

[chappie]

well that is great news BUT and there is a BUT i don't feel this arguement is won UNTIL ALL HERCULES ARE PROTECTED. bump and me are off to downing street with this pettion and i will not rest until all hercules are protected. i mean who is going to explain it to the family of the crew unlucky enough to be on the unprotected plane that they were just unlucky.

[herkman]

I refer to my previos post, where I stated the hours to put in foam, could be increased if the tank sealant was found to be lacking.

I cannot believe that a QA schedule would allow this to happen, because it means removing the foam, wrapping it in black plastic, and the storing it in a dark area.

What are Marshalls thinking?

Regards

Col Tigwell

[chappie]

i take i that marshalls are sorting out the problem of the fuel leaks, thus causing a delay to the next plane to be fitted with the foam. at this rate the fitting of foam is going to take years and years. we must continue to ensure the mod programme continues as the protection of all troops is of paramount importance to me. i think of you all daily who fly in thetre without protection and hope that my prayers are enough to keep you safe. when this little blighter stops me from being so so sick i will pick up the gauntlet. i may be out of the frame but you are not forgotten.

[John Blakeley]

For what its worth the story I heard was that MOD went against Marshall's advice and insisted on removal of all the old sealant before fitting foam - I suggest that where you have a sealed tank that is not leaking this is not a good thing to do - getting the sealant to work again can be a long job - remember Lightnings! You may be blaming the wrong people.

JB

[chappie]

thanks for that john.i do hope, however, that you realise there is no way that i or alot of others would know that info so naturally you would look to question the workmanship. again, i am far from suprised that the MoD cannot just let the fitting go ahead without any interruption from themselves. is this a delaying tactic on their behalf i wonder. is it a case that they think if the plane takes a long time that people will forget and the heat will off and the need for funding the entire programme can be re directed. i do hope they have not been as niave as that, as there is no way that we will forget. the families will not forget, the colleagues and the hercules RAF community will not forget. this will not resolve overnight but this is going on too long. we are twenty months post XV179 yet there is not one plane operational with foam.

there is all sorts of hearsay going round. if anyone can help verify how many planes will be fitted it would be helpful to hear.
thankyou all for your support and guidance through this.

[nigegilb]

Chappie,
This is what the Defence Committee think about the situation. This report dated 10 Aug 06;

74. "We note that the safety of C-130 Hercules remains an issue of concern to aircrew in theatre. While we welcome the decision to fit Explosion Suppressant Foam to some Hercules, we believe that it should be fitted to all Hercules in operational theatres. We are alarmed by the suggestion that the MoD might not be fitting protective systems because of the impact on other priorities. The protection of our Armed Forces should be given the highest priority."

I understand that the Herc that pitched up recently is fixed. As ever Col Tigwell and JB were on the mark. In many ways the actual final total is not as important as the speed, or lack of, with which the Hercs are getting the foam. Situation in Afg is all out war. More reason for not sending in the boys without adequate protection, the favourite phrase of the Govt. Fingers crossed, yet again.

[500days2do]

Again the waiting game is being played !
I wonder if the delay is due to decisions pending which may deal the final blow to the C130K....

Any thoughts ???

5d2d

[chappie]

did anyone see the channel four news tonight? it would be great to hear your thoughts as to what you think the impact of the report would be. well done nige! hopefully this will put a rocket up the arse of those responsible for sorting out the planes. it is of such importance that the pressure is maintained. i don't think the MoD should continue to drag their feet over this important issue and should treat the aircrew with the respect they deserve so can they please have the balls to be interviewed and stop putting out old rehashed statements that have been trotted out time and time again....stop insulting the intelligence of the aircrew and the british public.let the fun begin!

[flipster]

See here

http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=3307

It was a very good report, with plenty of straight facts that the MoD will be hard pushed to deny. The Crest Foam demo was rather spectacular - I think we may have seen that before somewhere!?

Well done to all involved with the prog.

However, it really is a shame (if somewhat predictable) that the MoD couldn't be bothered to get someone to front-up (nay, man-up). However, this is indicative that they know they are on a very sticky wicket. All the MoD can do now is to maintain the same boring rhetoric and keep their fingers crossed that the sqns can muddle-on through the next few months - at least, until all long-term ac are fitted with ESF.

To anyone that says that crews do not want ESF, I say "b0llox"!!!! I have yet to hear ANY crew-member say that they would not want ESF fitted. Yes, there are other things that would be helpful but ESF is a base-line fit for the USAF and RAAF, what makes us so much smarter than their acculmulated experience?

The sad reality is that now, everyone from CAS downwards is stuck between a rock and a hard place. We have troops on the ground and they need the support, so pulling out the Hercs to fit them with ESF is not really a option (this fit should have been done long ago, of course).

In fact, this predicament has parallels with the 'dumb' Hercs AFG in 2001. Then as now, risks had to be taken to support the british tommy who is in a heck of a worse situation than our crews - BUT that does not absolve the MoD from supporting ALL the frontline forces.

I had rather hoped that the 'lessons' we 'identified' in 2001/2 had been 'learnt' rather than 'ignored'. Regrettably, I fear that is not the case and the sqns and crews are in exactly the same 'risk-assessment' cycle, 4 years on. The fact that our government has not heeded warnings of over-stretch is, I'm afraid, tanatmount to negligence and I suspect that the politicians who have potential corporate manslaughter charges against their names, should remain very much concerned. Incredible as it may seem, the Hercules force is being reduced still further; this this wise??

Furthermore, the eventual fitting of ESF gives credence to the view that, in many people's opinion, the crew of 179 was let down by the system and the MoD is duty-bound to give the families such finnancial support that is 'above and beyond' the normal pension/death in service benefits etc.

Nonetheless, I, for one, am glad that undertakings to fit ESF to all Hercs are now in place but the next problem is what to do about all the other threats that our Herc crews face. What about all our other ac? Certainly, there are a number of improvements to current DASs that would really help - now is the time to fund these. Perhaps the 'top kneddies' will now listen to the lower echelons of the Gps - to those Electronic Warfare specialists and 'subject matter experts' who have recent front-line experience and find the funding - kidnapping Gordon Brown would be a good start!!

[Chugalug2]

Well done Nige, Chappie and everyone involved with the Channel 4 report. Day after day the lid is being lifted in the national media on the can of worms that purports to be the Defence Policy of this government. There is a negligent disregard for the manning, equipment and support requirements necessitated by the reckless calls on our Armed Forces, dictated by the White House via number10 and the MOD. The strong suspicion is that all three institutions either don't care or don't understand the self inflicted harm done to our forces before they can even close with the enemy. The supine way in which senior officers have collaborated with these demands, while paring budgets to the bone is a scandal. If they can't stop the rot they should go, or forever be infected by it. Someone has to tell the Great Leader that he has overstretched his withered forces, and must start to reduce commitments and simultaneously markedly increase expenditure. That someone has to be a Senior Officer, backed up by his fellow senior officers, because no member of this government or its submissive Civil Service will do so. Any volunteers gentlemen?

[nigegilb]

One of the first line of arguments brought out by the MoD was that the RAF had been concentrating on missile defence and that the vulnerability of the Hercules to this kind of attack was not known about. Well, back in 2002 we certainly had little or no defence against missiles. However, the cancellation of the anti-missile program for the Hercules in 2004/05 just served to underline the fact that there is not enough money in the hands of the RAF to provide adequate protection against the perceived threat. As for not knowing about the need for foam, this foam presentation and concerns about lack of protection were made back in 2002, by the pilots themselves!

If the MoD end up with a huge bill for damages then they will have deserved it for the negligent way in which they have gone about aircraft protection. Maybe, just maybe, the Hercules foam fitting program will now be accelerated.

[tucumseh]

I’ve just watched BBC West. Generally very positive, but ended on a sour note; to the effect that money spent on Hercs is money not spent on Body Armour and better protected Troop Carriers.

As those who know the truth will be aware, this is absolute bollix. Finding the money for a full fleet fit is child’s play and beneath the pay grade of the most lowly project officer in both DLO and DPA. So WTFGO?

[flipster]

Tuc

Better CBA and improved armour for troop carriers is f@ck all use if the troops are killed whilst being transported to/in/from theatre. Though I suspect you knew that already!!

The beeb are just p-d off that Ch4 got the 'scoop' first.

That said, any publicity is good publicity and I would think a number of top MoD staff and politicos have been reminded that we are watching their painfully slow progress to give our crews (and their pax) the protection they deserve - and for which we have been asking for years!!!

I just hope that they can get the foam and other 'niceties' sorted PDQ as further delays would be unacceptable.

Flipster

[nigegilb]

Tuc,
If you had flicked over channels you would have seen the HTV version. They came up to film today. They finished the piece in a poignant fashion by stating that the crews are out there to protect us but who is protecting them. I think the AVM was making a fair point that we need new funding for this protection. I would hate to think that any money spent on the Herc is taken from soldiers needing equally important equipment. The latest on the foam program ( I think) is that a majority of Js will get foam but they are not all funded. I do however believe that all Hercules ac likely to be sent into theatre will "eventually" get foam.

NG

[chappie]

did anyone hear me on radio wiltshire? weds? did the usual but at the end the reporter tried to end it on the same as the news programme, clearly it is that the bbc are towing the party line. sad, eh! he said goodbye, then finished with if the money goes to the hercs then it can't go on protection for the soliders or armoured vehicles. i managed to deflect that and put him straight much to his suprise. i'm now out of loop as now in hospital thanks to thetroublesome bean! keep up the good work, thnks for your support.

[flipster]

Didn't hear your report - but well done, anyway.

Take is easy and don't overdo things - you have a precious bump to think about.

Flip

[GlosMikeP]

As those who know the truth will be aware, this is absolute bollix. Finding the money for a full fleet fit is child’s play and beneath the pay grade of the most lowly project officer in both DLO and DPA. So WTFGO?

I spent many happy days with the Hercs when I was a mere APO (no one could believe there was such a lowly rank!) as the HTES ops officer way back in '76 and it pains me to see how badly things have gone and the inept management of such an apparently simple to solve problem as foam in fuel tanks.

Isn't this all underpinned by the sort of issues discussed in the thread 'What is the true position on defence finances' (~p9) in which you and I aired our grave concerns for defence finances?

Absolute disgrace.

[tucumseh]

GlosMike

Correct. BTW, I didn’t mean to suggest that a choice has to be made between kitting out troops, Hercs or anyone else for that matter. The answer to the argument put forward by the media (and who knows who put them up to it as they clearly cannot think for themselves) that money spent on Hercs is money not spent on Body Armour and better protected Troop Carriers, is simply answered by reference to the numerous MoD and NAO/PAC reports over the past decades that state, quite categorically, that the MoD is wasting money. Not piddling amounts, but hundreds of millions every year. In fact, single projects waste this and nothing is done about it. If you keep telling them, and they keep doing it, then it goes far beyond incompetence. The waste is an absolute disgrace, but so is the failure to deal with those who condone it. Sack them.

[Bclass]

Tucumseh,

I sympathise with your frustration working within the organisation, but (much-maligned) suppliers equally feel it too. We go through months of contract negotiations where the customer emphasis is to slash the price (to the detriment of functionality), only for the DLO to suddenly discover a substantial underspend later on.

Rather than divert funds to causes that will immediately benefit the frontline, the (non-aircraft) IPT approaches us for ideas that are, in essence, money wasters that will add one or two new features to an equipment scheduled for replacement. However, the mindset is that it is better to proceed in this manner rather than admit poor fiscal forecasting and subsequently lose funding in the next FY.

I know that it is a common sport for PPruNers to bash industry, but they should understand that the ex-servicemen amongst us get equally annoyed with an organisation that is one day dangerously frugal and the next has money to burn on trivia.

Back to my Laphroaig….

[GlosMikeP]

BC

I don't know if you've read the thread I referenced but if not, have a quick gallop through. I think you'll find you, Tuc and me are violently agreeing. Others too. It all boils down to money, or rather the lack of it in my view.

Tuc has a good point about the waste - and he knows better than I the scale of it (not small!). The dreadful decision making and searching for money that isn't there that goes on -which is wasteful of cash in itself - is horrific.

However, my bottom line is that no system can be made perfect. You have to accept there will be some bad decisions, waste, etc - and scale for it with hard cash. Government won't like that and DPA isn't likely to go public and admit it either, but the headlines speak for themselves.

Without a serious boost in defence expenditure the ridiculous situations we witness daily in news reports and see with our own professional experiences, won't stop. Nothing will improve and people will continue to die needlessly.

It beggars belief that MOD had the temerity to try to argue priorities between body armour and fuel tank foam. It's just such a breathtakingly stupid position to hold on paper, let alone use as an argument in public.

Tuc's right in that there ought to be some internal 'career opportunities' for some on the inside at DPA - but far more of the folks there are battling valiantly and doing a good job in dreadful circumstances.

I wonder about the roles and responsibilities of their starships in this too. When did any of them come out and say 'up with this we will not put'. And as for politicians....so many in high office set such debased exaples of reason, trust and humanity it amazes me they wonder why we hold them in such low esteem and get turned off at the mention of politics.

[nigegilb]

This is an important article. It deals with the blanket combat immunity clause invoked by MoD lawyers. This immunity is now being challenged by test cases and could have a bearing on the shooting down of XV179.

Army widows battle MoD on 'immunity'

The days when the military could avoid legal action by bereaved relatives over reckless actions could be numbered, writes Jon Robins

Sunday September 24, 2006
The Guardian

'I feel as though a weight has been lifted from my shoulders,' says Samantha Roberts. Her husband, Steve, was the first soldier to die in action in the Iraq war, but it has taken three-and-a-half years of legal wrangling for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to admit liability. A confidential out-of-court settlement was agreed this month.
Steve Roberts was a 33-year-old sergeant with the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment when he was shot in the stomach and chest by 'friendly fire' in March 2003 while he was trying to quell a demonstration near Basra. His wife's campaign to discover the circumstances of his death caught the public imagination when it emerged that hours before he died he had been ordered to hand over his flak jacket to another soldier.

Mrs Roberts never wanted 'compensation'. 'I wanted an apology and an explanation, and this is where it has ended up,' she says. 'It's horrible to put a price on somebody's life, but sometimes money is the only language people listen to.'

Suing the MoD for negligence was a no-go area until 1987, when the statutory bar on legal action was lifted. Nonetheless, a doctrine known as 'combat immunity' continues to be invoked by the military when incidents arise out of fi ghting in a war zone, granting the military protection not available to other employers. Mrs Roberts's solicitor, Geraldine McCool, a partner at the law firm MPH, explains: 'Post-1987, there has been an almost knee-jerk line from the MoD that cases are covered by "combat immunity", even when they clearly aren't. The consequence is that military personnel don't get a penny, no matter how reckless the forces have been with their lives.'

According to the MoD's annual report on claims, circulated publicly last week, payments for claims in 2005-06 totalled £67.7m, including 621 claims by personnel (£26.3m). By contrast, the armed forces' boarding school allowance rose from £67.5m in 2000 to £100.2m last year. 'It puts claims against the MoD into some sort of perspective,' says McCool, who is advising 60 families of servicemen who have been on tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Last week's claims report cites a 2004 case (Bici v MoD) in which the judge ruled that for immunity to apply any threat 'must be imminent and serious'. The MoD says: 'Following investigation and legal advice, the vast majority of cases have been accepted and some have now been settled.'

McCool hopes that the acknowledgement amounts to a change of policy. 'In most of our cases, combat immunity is cited, we fight it, and pretty much every time the Ministry concedes the point. But for a grieving widow, the intervening three years plus that the process takes is very long and painful,' she says.

A new armed forces compensation scheme came into effect in April, replacing the old war pensions scheme. McCool argues that calling the tariff-based system a 'compensation' scheme is misleading in so far as it supersedes old pension arrangements and that any claim made on it would not prevent service personnel from taking legal action in court: 'The disparity between compensation from the courts and compensation from the scheme can be considerable.' She cites one of her clients - a lance corporal who suffered a signifi cant spinal injury after a fall and settled out of court for £1.6m. Under the compensation scheme, he would have received £103,350, or an annual pension of £7,771.

'Every soldier signed up to the army knowing that it's highly likely they're going to be in a war situation,' says Mrs Roberts. 'But I always knew the army was at fault and that to try and hide behind "combat immunity" is a very ungracious response.'

She has helped to set up the Army Widows Association, providing information about pension rights and accommodation, as well as creating a support network.

· For more information, go to www.armywidows.org.uk.

'I received an eviction notice two days after he was shot'

In April 2003, 23-year-old Lance Corporal Darren George of the 1st Royal Anglian Regiment was killed by 'friendly fire' while on patrol in Kabul.

'I was living in married quarters and received an eviction notice two days afterwards, saying that I had six months to get out,' says his 24-year-old widow Sarah.

'I was just on autopilot. I have a little boy and couldn't break down. The army hasn't helped me with a thing. Luckily, the local authority housed me pretty quickly.'

Her husband was shot in the head by a colleague who suffered a dizzy spell as he loaded a machine gun. At first, the Ministry of Defence pleaded combat immunity, but in January Sarah settled her negligence action for £500,000. However, her army pension has since been cut from £560 a month to £411 a year. 'It's an insult,' she says. 'The money is supposed to be there to provide a house and security for myself and my son.'

'When I watch the men come back now from Iraq to RAF Brize Norton, they're met by family, friends and people from the regiment to give them a proper homecoming. My husband was brought back late at night, no one was allowed in, and I couldn't talk to the press. I think that's because he was shot by one of his own.'

The RAF 'acts like a closed shop'

Nigel Gunther was a warrant officer attached to the RAF and lost his leg below the knee following a landmine explosion while rescuing a Land Rover for spares in April 2003 in the Ramala oil fields in Iraq. 'I've been a serviceman all my life and I loved my job,' says 45-year-old Gunther, who joined up when he was 16.

There has been a report and an inquiry into events surrounding his injury, but he is still not happy: 'The question I wanted answered was, why was my life put at risk for the sake of a Land Rover in a minefield when the next day it was allowed to be stolen by the Iraqis? I've come to terms with what has happened, but not a day goes by when I don't think about it. I still haven't had an answer.'

In his view, the RAF 'acts like a closed shop' and he has been forced to try and uncover details leading to his injury using freedom of information laws.

His legal case against the MoD was settled for £900,000 after the Ministry attempted to argue combat immunity. He is also entitled to an invalidity pension of £16,500 a year. 'You hear about the dead, but you never hear about the injured,' he says. 'The Americans are very good at looking after their guys. The British attitude is "stiff upper lip, get on with it".'

[tucumseh]

Bclass

“I sympathise with your frustration working within the organisation, but (much-maligned) suppliers equally feel it too. We go through months of contract negotiations where the customer emphasis is to slash the price (to the detriment of functionality), only for the DLO to suddenly discover a substantial underspend later on”.


I couldn’t agree more. The administrative hoops that technical project managers have to jump through in MoD are mind-numbing. And most hate industry being told to do the same, usually unnecessarily. I must say though, that my experience of industry is mostly positive, with one or two major exceptions.

The most humbling experience I have ever had was to witness a young soldier returning to his unit half-recovered from injuries received on active duty, and nearly in tears because his CO had to tell him to go back home, he wasn’t fit yet. CO turned back to me to finish discussing when he was getting desperately needed kit – the trials had been successful and deployment was imminent. I was trying to explain the delay was down to the “approvals” process whereby about a third of the IPT had to “approve” my Business Case. (Not that any had the slightest clue about the subject, and few had even written a BC). All but one of them had finally signed, but I had to wait until this last chap returned from extended leave. His only comment? “You put a double full-stop at the end of that sentence”. Six week f****** delay. Frustrated? Incandescent with rage more like. Like I said, sack them.

[nigegilb]

More good news from this thread. It has come to my intention that Lockheed are planning to factory fit fuel tank protection to J Hercs. Block 8/9 onwards. Not foam, OBIGGS. Inert gas system. This will increase fuel capacity and hence range. I have heard talk that foam(2/3% reduction fuel cap) can cause probs on Lye Akr legs.

This is great news, a manufacturer has moved before Govts. It further shames Govt's like our own, which routinely sends aircraft of all types into war without fuel tank protection.

Looks like we keep this campaign going....

[flipster]

This is great news Nige.

Just a tech question, though - Other than foam taking up a small percentage of the tank capacity/reducing range, is there any tactical advantage of OBIGGS over foam (or vice versa)?

I would have thought that a possible disadvantage of OBIGGS-type systems is that, once the tank is ruptured by the first bullet/shrapnel, then out goes the nitrogen from the ullage and now you don't have any fire suppressant for the subsequent bullets etc! However, one could argue that if the tank is ruptured, you have less risk of an explosion anyway - not sure about that, though? On the other hand, if foam is installed, the suppressant is unaffected by multiple hits (and bullets dont often arrive on their own)!

Anyone from a position of knowledge care to comment?

Flipster

ps Are foam Js now going to have external tanks fitted? There was talk about that once if I recall - because of the reduced fuel load of the J along with the shorter crew-duty day making things difficult for the longer sectors. I would think that foam would exacerbate this? Nonetheless, I have not heard one J pilot/ALM saying that they would rather have a bit extra fuel instead of fire suppressant foam!

[nigegilb]

I asked this question about J range before. As I understand it the J will routinely be able to transit Lye Akr Lye, but there will be occasions, heavy load, winds etc when this is very tight. I have been told that external tanks were available at purchase for £1 mil approx per ac, but to retrofit would be more expensive. OBIGGS has its limitations. More modern system are continual gas generators, which solves the problem.

[herkman]

I have been told that all J models are already plumbed and have the hard points for external tanks.

Would have thought there would be a surplus of disgarded tanks around, from E models that have been broken up.

Though I cannot recall seeing in the Aussie and fuel guages for externals on the flight deck.

Regards

Col Tigwell

[flipster]

I thought OBIGGS did continually deliver N2 to the tanks using a bleed from the engine and clever reverse osmosis-type stuff - like the reverse of the OBOGS that produce O2 for modern fighter pilots?

[nigegilb]

Flip,
I believe the US are retrofitting OBIGGS 2 to C17s. Obiggs 2 produces a positive pressure. I am not sure what the J is getting. One would hope OBIGGS 2.........I also understand A400M will get a 2nd gen system. Though the Govt remains tight lipped on this program.

"In a recent contract from Boeing, Hamilton Sundstrand Aerospace Power Systems (HSAPS) was selected to design, develop and produce the boost compressor and valves, and also undertake system integration testing, for the next-generation onboard inerting-gas generation system (OBIGGS) for USAF C-17 Globemaster III heavy-lift transports. With a combined total of over $40 million, the development and production program covers 139 new and retrofit aircraft, with a potential for another 83 C-17s in the future. Inerting-gas systems are generally used on military aircraft to increase fuel-tank safety, due to the potential for high concentrations of volatile vapor in the fuel tanks as they are depleted. An inert gas such as nitrogen is then pumped into the fuel tank to replace the volatile mixture. HSAPS president David Hess said that next-generation OBIGGS operator benefits included eliminating bottle storage requirements. The company has already supplied many accessories and systems for the C-17, worth more than $1.5 million per aircraft."

[flipster]

Nige

Well, whatever they are getting is a whole sight better than at present and even this wouldn't have been fitted without the pressure exerted by your good self and chappie!

Now, what about the next generation of threats!!!?

Flip

[Chugalug2]

Sorry Nige, could you please spell this out in words of one syllable for those like me who are not up to speed on J model block 8/9 etc? Is this merely an invitation from Lockheed for retrofitting in service aircraft, or an extra for when ordering new aircraft? My concern, and the last I heard, is that the RAF has a grand total of one ESF fitted Hercules that leaks! Have we improved on that yet, and what is the planned rate of fitting out aircraft (that hopefully won't leak). If the Channel 4 news item is correct, it needs little more than a piece of flint thrown up into a fuel tank on a strip landing to result in a totally burned out airframe! As this is surely a scenario that any Hercules can find itself in from time to time, without ever going to the 'theatre', is it not an absolute necessity that ALL aircraft to be retained in the fleet are protected as soon as possible. Is the answer for the J model OBIGGS rather than ESF? But thanks for spelling out what that stands for, it would have kept me awake all night trying to decode it!

[nigegilb]

Chug with pleasure, keeps me away from my tax return.
Firstly the Defence Minister has made it clear that as far as the MoD is concerned there is no chance of the Herc foam program being accelerated due to the high intensity of operations. The frames cannot be spared. RAF Hercules are to be fitted with reticulated foam. It does not take the brains of a rocket scientist to work out that at the current snails pace this could take years. Now then, when US Military initially looked at the J they conducted a study of options for fuel safety.
Foam,
Nitrogen inerting,
Halon.

The study that I have seen concluded that for the J, foam was still the way ahead. The latest version lasts years in the fuel tank and once fitted, little can go wrong. Aside from fuel filters getting clogged.

The downside is that foam takes up some fuel tank capacity. According to info I received recently, and this is a rumour network, Lockheed are looking to increase the range of the J. Remember that the RAF chose not to have external tanks for the J, so fuel capacity and range is more of an issue on this model. It appears that Lockheed are going to factory fit OBIGGS on the production line. One thing that made me rage at the beginning of all this was the RAF saying that they didn't know about foam or understand the need for it when across the way at Brize Norton, the RAF was operating leased C17s complete with OBIGGS fuel tank inerting systems.

OBIGGS inerts the ullage by reducing the oxygen level to below 10% by using nitrogen. The early system generates gas by using bottles containing nitrogen. I am no expert so anyone reading this please correct where necessary. Downside with this system is the one shot nature and the potential for oxygen levels to increase with a fire still present. As a result, the US is now retrofitting C17s with OBIGGS 2, this continually generates nitrogen and provides positive pressure all the way down to landing. This keeps the Oxygen level to around 9% and is very safe. I hope the new build Js are getting this latest version because it is the safer of the 2 options. In answer to your question, I believe that RAF Js are getting the same foam as the K, so OBIGGS will not be retrofitted.

Finally, it all shames the MoD. The US are now into 2nd generation nitrogen fuel inerting systems and their 41st year of foam tank protection. So far we have managed 1 Hercules. Not very good is it? The US Military understand the high probability of losing ac to fuel tank explosions and have spent an awful lot of time and money coming up with effective light weight options. In fact they are so good, nitrogen systems are now appearing on the latest generation 777s. I hope our campaign has fundamentally changed thinking in the UK about fuel tank explosions. I am also amazed, that if this info is correct Lockheed are taking the kind of safety decisions that our safety lite, payless MoD should have taken years ago.

[chappie]

well i am back from my hospital stay, i was more ill than first thought so apologies for being out of the loop for so long. i hope to resume relative normal duties with the campaign. i will do all that i can in the capacity of my vomitting schedule! first things first letters to all those in the hierarchy with whom i have corresponded and the delivery of the petition. i have checked and we have 2806 0nline signatures, not counting the paper version and so we are nearing 3000!

great news about lockheed. it really does make me laugh that it takes everyone else other than the government to lead the way.the drive to succeed in this campaign is strong as always.

when i deliver the petition i will have every member of the media i have contact details with notified and it is fair to say it will not pass un noticed....shame that...not!

keep up the good work guys, we are gathering strength.

[Chugalug2]

Chappie, great to see you back on the thread, and as ever spoiling for the good fight! From what Nige tells us above we have a long road to travel still and need you to shame those Whitehall warriors, both suits and uniforms, into action rather than their endless useless assurances!
Nige, many thanks for your detailed and exhaustive state of play of Hercules Fuel Protection Systems, or lack of them. So the latest card being played is the "We'd like to move faster, but we're booked solid". They must attend the same business school as my plumber! If the program doesn't allow for faster modification, then change the program! Other than urgent Operational calls on the Fleet this should be their highest priority. When a Hastings crashed on Take Off at Abingdon in the mid 60s, the entire fleet was grounded for months until every airframe was the subject of an extensive mod of 100s of hours. But that was when the RAF was commanded by men with principles! I see the state of the Hercules Fleet now similarly compromised. We have lost two aircraft in Theatre, where ESF may have meant the survival of one or even both. OK, to ground the Fleet would be an over reaction, especially given the urgent calls upon it now. But its speedy protection with ESF is essential, and their Airships, the Servile Servants and the Scottish Mafia will be called to account, if God forbid, we lose another unprotected. I don't know what else the Fleet is doing out of theatre, but if it can't be done with other types, put it out to contract, or postpone or cancel it. Can't afford any of those options? You can't afford not to, believe me!
Now that the need for protection is conceded, anything other than the highest priority for this program is unacceptable! Please get back to your Tax return Nige, Mr Brown is going to need every penny!:)

[chappie]

chaps...i have booked the date for the petition to be handed in to downing street. i am not sure that it is safe to reveal it on here, i'll await instructions from you guys. i am only allowed 6 peoples in to go up to the door and i think that it is fair to say that should be the family members. i know a very passionate 11 yr old who lost her dad wants to be there. so yes...i am back and ready to resume the next stage of battle/campaign. be assured this will not pass unnoticed and my numerous media contacts will be notified imminently so that the moment that nearly 3000 peoples names that desire protection for the troops gets ignored by the government is recorded. i won't take any chances!

off to work now..lives to save, bums to wipe! stay safe!

nige, i am working on your suggestion.

[HrkDrvr]

Nought to go wrong with foam. OBIGGS I is limited by carrying onboard N2O = weight = can be empty = might not work. OBIGGS II is a "system" = can break = will it be a requirement to be operational prior to going sausage side? Or is fitting it sufficient? :ugh:

Again, nought to go wrong with foam. Must also believe the expense is not even comparable - foam should be loads cheaper.

Point taken though, Nige - even aircraft manufacturers recognise risks & actively pursue ever more effective prevention measures. MOD are still firmly 'head in sand' it would seem.

As for Lockheed extending the range of J - it is because higher TAS and fuel savings did not occur as promised. Why? Because all were based on flight in the upper FL300s & J is far too slow to mix it up with Civil AT. Rare they get above FL330 as they're in the heart of the mil cargo jet traffic above FL300. Consequently, they are held down where they are not as quick & not as fuel efficient, so it makes for some tight fuel legs LYE-AKT-LYE depending on cargo/wind/met. That extra 2% fuel (no externals) is handy to have on these type routes.

Yes, all J are equipped for external tanks from new - even RAF.

[nigegilb]

Thanks for that Hrk Drvr.
I wasn't trying to suggest that OBIGGS was better than foam by the way. Interestingly the US Herc study that I read still came down in favour of Foam for the J. And you are right to hint at the serviceability requirement or otherwise of RAF C17s going sausage. You know that with foam you are protected and some "military risk" goon from Gp is not going to ruin your day.

External tanks may well be hard wired but I understand that supplying them now will be at a much higher cost. Ouch...

[flipster]

Chappie,

Glad you are all ok - Bravissimo!
I think I speak for many, many people when I say, we will be watching and loudly cheering you on!

Nige,

Thanks for that confirmation - but where do we stand 'officially' with the A400M?

HrkDvr

I think you have just confirmed my doubts over the 'legs' of the J - I suspect that they don't do a LYE-LEU(or LEE or LSS)-AKR day but could easily if they had ext tanks! Consequently, foam is not ideal for them if they dont have ext tanks and I agree that OBIGGS II may have its limitations. So foam and ext tanks it is then!?

Flip

(ps if there any ex QFI, Tac AT, flt cdr types out there, BEagle wants you for a job with the A400M - wouldn't it be good to get this ac right 'from the off', rather than have a repeat of the J model accquistion/MAR faff? - PM either of us!)

[nigegilb]

Jees Flip, I am going to have to work my own tax out at this rate.

Official position is this

(Q44) HCDC Request: A note on MoD's current estimate of the in-service date of the Hercules replacement, the A400M, including details of whether the fleet will be fitted with explosive suppressant foam before they enter service.

The current estimate of the A400M In-Service Date is 2011. The A400M Common Standard Aircraft (CSA) will not be fitted with a Fuel Tank Inerting system as standard but an Inert Gas Generation and Distribution (to the fuel tanks) System is available as an option.

An ongoing study, on Large Aircraft Survivability is due to be published at the end of 2006 and will be used to help inform decisions on fitting Fuel Tank Inerting systems to RAF Air Transport aircraft. The study will compare Explosion Suppressant Foam (as currently being fitted to some C130 aircraft) against Inert Gas systems (as fitted to C-17 and an option for A400M). This study will inform any decision of the fitting of a Fuel Inerting System to the A400M.

So we should know soon. Unofficial position, or PPRUNE/Rumour position is that 2 days after R4 Today and C4 News feature in May this year it was agreed that A400M would get 25xDAS 25X Gen 2 inerting systems. Haven't got a price on that yet but I don't think my tax return will help much.

[flipster]

Thanx - v sorry about the tax return!

(I thought that you Virgin/BA boys all had personal accountants to do that for you!!?)

Flip

[Kengineer-130]

First of all, a big big well done to the guys constantly kicking our inept leaders up the arse repeadedly until they finally realize that they have a duty of care to thier troops :ok: :) :D Your efforts are appreciated by all on the herc fleet and no doubt anyone with any link to the airforce and flying in general :ok: - Keep it up guys, don't let the :mad: grind you down.

Just a little point about the OBIGGS being fitted to the hercs, I work on K's myself, and as I am sure a lot of people are aware, the fuel tanks are non pressurised, and have open-to-atmosphere vent systems, so surley the inert gas system would be working very hard and to not much effect if it has to constantly fill an emptying space? :bored: - ESF is by far the better solution in my eyes, and I can only assume not knowing the in's and outs of the J fuel sysyem that they also have unpressurised fuel tanks?

The other question is that if we don't have enough A/C / Time / Space in MAE etc to get ESF fitted quick sharp to our active frames, then why can we not lease some ESF equipped A/C off the Yanks or australians, surley they must have some "spare" frames kicking about? It might be expensive in the short term, but its got to be cheaper than the human cost should the worst happen again :(

[k1rb5]

then why can we not lease some ESF equipped A/C off the Yanks or australians, surley they must have some "spare" frames kicking about? It might be expensive in the short term, but its got to be cheaper than the human cost should the worst happen again :(
I agree with your theory but in reality there are too many stumling blocks. I've operated the Aussie hercs and they have some different kit on so I think there would be qualification issues before our guys could fly them. I don't think they're particularly flush for frames at the moment either. Not sure about the American ones. Would you lend us one of your aircraft? Even if it were just for training sorties back home. Have you seen some of our co's fly?:ok:;)

[flipster]

Kirbs is right -

a. Cost....again!
b. I suspect that the US would be reluctant.
c. There are too many differences on the flt deck, back-end and many bits of engineering for it to be short-term 'straight swap' - lbs v kgs, for starters!
c. OTOH, new wings for the long-term K fleet may be a lot simpler and solve a lot of probs in one fell-sweep?

Hopefully, the co pilots' training has got a lot better now that I have left?

If not, it can only be because they are not getting enough 'hands on'. One hopes you have enough frames to do MCT/CPT/TALT - or are all BTRs done at the end of a Tac trip/PTS/sim/16hr CDT route/? (None of which sound very good options!)

Flip

[kam]

Hi kirbs, when Paul died the Aust gov asked if there was anything they could do just ask.... so I have written to the Aust defence minister and opposition leader several times throughout the year, about the RAAF helping out the RAF, in any way, with the whole ESF fiasco, a little naive of me, but we are afterall mates in the 'coalition of the willing' etc! They haven't replied. I reckon both Howard and Blaire are so intoxicated and infatuated by the prestige of their friendship with the president of the world's only superpower to notice eachother... or me!
Sorry for the political jab but sometimes I just can't help myself

[nigegilb]

Came across this publication SURVIAC detailing the very latest technologies being developed for fuel tank protection. Lifted a couple of snippets to give a flavour. Chappie made the point that the MoD are being dragged kicking and screaming, just read the final paragraph here, OK its very American but these people are absolutely committed. Just how many aircraft have we lost due to a lack of fuel tank protection?

Historically, fuel fire and explosion has been a major cause of aircraft losses in combat. Data from Southeast Asia showed that over half of the aircraft combat losses involved fuel fire and explosions where the combustion overpressure generated exceeded the structural strength of the tank. To help address this problem, fuel tank protection systems are used on military aircraft to protect the ullage (the void space above the fuel level in a fuel tank). Ullage can have a potentially explosive fuel-air mixture. If initiated by a combat threat, an explosion can result.

The responsibility of the survivability community is to protect our defenders by providing them with survivable aircraft. In the past half century, many technologies have been developed and fielded to fulfill this responsibility. To all the Service men and women who defend us, thank you for giving us – the survivability community – the opportunity to help protect you. May we be ever diligent to make the weapon systems you use to defend us more survivable. We salute you. DD ef en d

Visit our web site ! http://iac.dtic.mil/surviac

[c130 alm]

Kirbs,

Your course cant be keeping you that busy if you find time to post on here! Crack on fella!

[Antique Driver]

Just heard a nasty rumour from a friend who works at a certain Cambridge-based company that the first C130K with ESF has been returned under warranty for investigation of numerous fuel tank leaks.

Bet the MOD don't release that in a press statement.

Another great rushed mod then!

[mbga9pgf]

Just heard a nasty rumour from a friend who works at a certain Cambridge-based company that the first C130K with ESF has been returned under warranty for investigation of numerous fuel tank leaks.

Bet the MOD don't release that in a press statement.

Another great rushed mod then!


Why the hell cant we get this job done by professionals in the US and australia? Oh, I will answer that question, hasnt got anything to do with jobs in the Cambridge constituency has it?!!?! This is a disgrace. Why are we relying on marshalls to d a botch job?

[Chelskiboy]

GlosMike

Correct. BTW, I didn’t mean to suggest that a choice has to be made between kitting out troops, Hercs or anyone else for that matter. The answer to the argument put forward by the media (and who knows who put them up to it as they clearly cannot think for themselves) that money spent on Hercs is money not spent on Body Armour and better protected Troop Carriers, is simply answered by reference to the numerous MoD and NAO/PAC reports over the past decades that state, quite categorically, that the MoD is wasting money. Not piddling amounts, but hundreds of millions every year. In fact, single projects waste this and nothing is done about it. If you keep telling them, and they keep doing it, then it goes far beyond incompetence. The waste is an absolute disgrace, but so is the failure to deal with those who condone it. Sack them.

Perhaps the question that should be asked is not that money spent on Hercules is less for body armour or better protected troop carriers-but why now it has taken the losses experienced for these improvements to be made apparent. After peace dividends, strategic defence reviews etc all of which were supposed to turn the military into a leaner better fighting force with top of the line equipment why are defincies in equipment still the problem.
For example would it not make sense that there is enough armour for each person. Why are the troop carriers not better protected already. Why when the military were to transform to an expeditionary force did no-one think that transport aircraft will have to go in harms way?
Until the Government gets away from a short term gain for long term loss mentality this will always be an issue. Both the present govt and previous govts have gone down this road.
A certain PM stated he was prepared to pay the price in blood and it appars he is keeping to that promise!!

[GlosMikeP]

Can't fault what you say. Both TC and I have said much the same in other threads, in different ways but with the same sentiments - about the dreadful state of defence finances. It simply isn't good enough to say the defence budget is adequate when people are dying needlessly.