Hercules ESF - technical, tactical and service issues. (Title edited)

[highcirrus]

I have seldom seen a more worthwhile (and easy to sign) aviation related petition than the one below that demands of the UK government (such as it currently is), the immediate installation of Explosive Suppression Foam (ESF) for the UK Hercules (C130) transport fleet of the Royal Air Force. Full details can be found on the Parliamentary Questions (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=215665) thread in the Military Aircrew section.

Petion - Sign Here (http://www.petitiononline.com/XV179/petition.html).

Whether you guys and gals are military (or ex), it doesn’t matter. Please support the safety and well-being of fellow aviators, doing a gallant and difficult job, currently flying into and out of Iraq and Afghanistan, in small arms-vulnerable, non-ESF equipped aircraft, to safeguard the legacy of our glorious leader, Tony Bliar and assure his place in the history books…. er, I mean build and safeguard democracy in these two traditionally supportive countries of UK!!

My own interest is that I am ex, from a thousand years ago but I’m still reduced, on occasions, to incoherent rage, by the callous ignorance, indifference and stupidity of the various Blunties who constitute Parliament and whose insouciant clandestine visits in ESF/DAS equipped aircraft to either of these countries (merely to boost their own political profiles) blinds them of the need to safeguard their own priceless military personnel, for the sake of a few extra bob spent on each aircraft.

If you really want to get up-close and personal, write to your MP here (http://www.parliament.uk/directories/directories.cfm) and vent your full feelings – after all, you probably voted for the clown! But even if you don’t write, signing is a matter of taking democratic action against an out-of-control and out-of-touch “leader”.

[Baskitt Kase]

Although there are a fair number of ex-Herc mates signed on at the moment (G-Lock, Cranners, Bob Hooper etc), there aren't many current personnel there (I counted just 5 out of 800). It looks like the fear of unstated reprisals is holding a number of people back...

[Out Of Trim]

-- petition signed! :D

[mary_hinge]

Mike.

Check PMs

Thanks

[Lima Juliet]

I would sooner have a fleet wide fit of DIRCM than ESF. By the way are you 100% sure that ESF would have saved those poor chaps? I'm not - I think they were hit by everything but the kitchen sink...ESF won't save you from that!

Regards

LJ

[tucumseh]

LJ

Whether you are right or wrong, the MoD wastes, every day, the money it would have cost to fit ESF. At one time it was incompetence and/or ignorance, but as the most senior staffs, both Service and Civilian, have been told this and continue to actively condone it; then that makes it criminal. Just my opinion. Petition signed.

[RileyDove]

Leon - there isn't indeed any really conclusive proof that ESF could have saved XV179. However there isn't any real proof that a seat belt will save your life at 50 mph . It is however reasonable to suggest that ESF protection
is a cheap gamble which could save lives in future.

[FormerFlake]

I would sooner have a fleet wide fit of DIRCM than ESF. By the way are you 100% sure that ESF would have saved those poor chaps? I'm not - I think they were hit by everything but the kitchen sink...ESF won't save you from that!

Regards

LJ

Are actually aware of the limitation of DIRCM and LAIRCM? ESF needs to be fitted to all the AT ac now (except the C17 as the USAF kindly fitted it with OBIGS, LAIRCM and C&F).

[Lima Juliet]

Amply aware of DIRCM's current capability and the near future (I'm an EWI by the way). I just think the 'holy crusade' for ESF that seems to be developing is a touch misguided if people think it would have saved XV179.

IMHO I believe that money could be better spent on the Hercy bird in other ways, and also other RAF aircraft for that matter.

And by the way, the Tonka mate on board was a good mate of mine.

LJ

[chappie]

hi chappie here. i'm bob o'connors sis. he was one of the unlucky crew on the plane xv179. whether you think that foam would or would not have saved them can be your own personal view, but there is no getting away from the fact that there is a huge degree of neglience from many quarters in the fact there is no reason that i can see that can make it okay not to have foam/ESF. it was me who decided to organise the petition. there is a real need for there to be a visual aid for those in higher office who consider that it isn't really seaired/needed or important. the crew didi not die in vain. i understand that there will be many views which will say to the contrary about the outcome. i've seen with my own eyes that the independent AAIB man thought the probability of loss if foam was fitted would be altered significantly. nonetheless, there is no way of bringing the boys back. i want to help leave a legacy in the name of the boys to ensure no other family have to go through what i have. if you agree that foam would have changed the outcome then great...sign the petition and spread the word. if you don't feel that foam would have any impact for that fateful flight then fine....sign the petition and spread the word. please .

[nigegilb]

Leon, there is a big misunderstanding about what brought XV 179 down. If you knew you would be shocked. Talk to USAF Herc operaters. The first item of self protection that goes onto a USAF Hercules is foam. It is the first layer on which every other type of protection is built. I have heard other RAF aircrew say the same as you. I believe you are wrong. 6 USAF Hercs were hit by ground fire in GW2. Much more severe attacks than that which brought down XV179. With unprotected tanks this ac is a death trap. It is right that every Herc should have foam. It even acts as a FOD barrier. I believe foam would have helped in this latest incident.

The Tornado has a fuel tank inerting system in the fin. It travels twice as fast as a Hercules and is a much smaller target. Herc operaters face a small arms threat every time they fly in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you cannot see that they need this protection I suggest you do a bit of research.

All power to the petition. If you are still unconvinced think in the big picture. Hercules safety is being raised in the conscience of the British public. I think enhanced protection will follow. Today I wrote requesting the immediate reinstatement of the J DAS program. First we want the foam.

NG

[HrkDrvr]

I would sooner have a fleet wide fit of DIRCM than ESF. By the way are you 100% sure that ESF would have saved those poor chaps? I'm not - I think they were hit by everything but the kitchen sink...ESF won't save you from that!

Amply aware of DIRCM's current capability and the near future (I'm an EWI by the way). I just think the 'holy crusade' for ESF that seems to be developing is a touch misguided if people think it would have saved XV179.


And DIRCM would've done jack squat for 'em as well.:sad: At least w/ESF, they probably wouldn't have blown off the end of their wing & gone instantly uncontrollable...:(

DIRCM alone is ****e - wish this were a classified forum, I could tell story after story of the shortcomings of DIRCM. As an EWI, however, you're probably overly enamoured of all the invisible 'trons streaming to your rescue - typical. :ugh:

Familiar with Trial EMBOW? Read up & see the "old" technology is damn near as good, more reliable, & cheaper to boot.

Finally, DIRCM only works against IR MANPADS - ESF isn't threat specific...

BTW, MoD is being fleeced by whomever is quoting £700K/aircraft :yuk: to fit ESF (Marshalls?) ...raw materials are on the order of £15-20K/aircraft - check with the MFGR.:rolleyes:

[nigegilb]

Hrk Drvr,
I sometimes feel exasperated by some of the attitudes towards this safety measure. How many ac have we lost to SAMs? There is a preoccupation with anti-missile defence. I am well aware of the capability of modern missiles and it is important that crews have that protection. But sending them in without foam is a huge mistake. You simply have to look at the proliferation of the most common weapons in the sort of theatres that the Hercules operates to see that the protection afforded by foam is essential. :ugh:

[tucumseh]

Hrc Drvr

“BTW, MoD is being fleeced by whomever is quoting £700K/aircraft to fit ESF (Marshalls?) ...raw materials are on the order of £15-20K/aircraft - check with the MFGR”.


There could be many reasons for this – the most likely being £20k is the cost of the mod set and the remainder is taken up with installation and various non-recurring costs. But yes, it seems a lot if that is the cost per a/c.

On one occasion, I had cause to manage the procurement and installation of a relatively simple mod. However, due to the MoD’s long standing policy of not maintaining the build standard (which includes safety) I discovered I had to arrange the procurement and installation of over 60 essential mods, dating back some 10 years or more, before the build standard was correct to fit one I actually wanted. So, the mod set I wanted was a few £k, but the total cost many £Ms. This may seem extreme but it’s actually very common and helps explain why a seemingly innocuous requirement can end up being years “late” and “over budget” (but not over the fair and reasonable cost).


Read the first page of this and you’ll get the idea. (BTW, whoever briefed, or was interviewed by, the NAO was very economical with the truth or just plain ignorant of the subject. In any case, MoD ignored the report).

http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/989924.htm

And this….

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmpubacc/300/30005.htm

[HrkDrvr]

There could be many reasons for this – the most likely being £20k is the cost of the mod set and the remainder is taken up with installation and various non-recurring costs. But yes, it seems a lot if that is the cost per a/c.

On one occasion, I had cause to manage the procurement and installation of a relatively simple mod. However, due to the MoD’s long standing policy of not maintaining the build standard (which includes safety) I discovered I had to arrange the procurement and installation of over 60 essential mods, dating back some 10 years or more, before the build standard was correct to fit one I actually wanted. So, the mod set I wanted was a few £k, but the total cost many £Ms. This may seem extreme but it’s actually very common and helps explain why a seemingly innocuous requirement can end up being years “late” and “over budget” (but not over the fair and reasonable cost).


I have no doubt of your points - even from my extremely limited exposure to MoD procurements/contracts. However, it is extremely doubtful any modifications to the internal tanks have been accomplished that would necessite modifications to the installation of ESF as even minorly different from the hundreds, and probably thousands, of other C-130s that have had foam fitted...about the only thing it may affect might be a recalibration of the fuel gauges (as they measure capacitance & the addition of foam would likely alter this), but this hardly constitutes a 3500% increase in cost :rolleyes: While the company who installs it will have to be paid for the installation, you shouldn't be paying for R&D or developing a programme, or anything else that implies this is a new endeavour - else, just have someone in the states (with the experience & stock on hand) fit it (at nearly 1.9$/1£ this might be a good deal anyway) - if the mod runs longer than a few weeks/aircraft, there's something wrong too...

Someone give the mfgrs a bell:
http://www.crestfoam.com/
http://www.newdimension-inc.com/index.cfm
http://www.foamengineers.co.uk/foam_engineers_materials.htm
http://www.customfoams.co.uk/cf/content/products/esf.htm

These off the first page of a google search (reticulated foam esf)

[Tombstone]

Just signed & will approach the rest of the guys at work to do the same.
Only 922 signatures, come on guys, lets push this.

[John Boeman]

This important thread should have been left on Rumours and News (with a copy here if that's possible) for maximum exposure.

I rarely visit this forum and would not have spotted the "moved" link if it had not been on the front page of R&N. I am sure there are plenty like me, who would wish to sign but may not now see it.

[nigegilb]

This is takem from rumours and news. In the space of a few days we have lost A C130 Herc and now a commercial airliner appears to have suffered a fuel tank explosion. The FAA is very close to legislating, cost is a big factor. Before this incident I believe 4 airliners have been lost to fuel tank explosions in 16 years. This may prompt FAA to move. Modern airliners are increasingly having fuel tank inerting technology installed as standard. MoD, your ac are targetted by all kinds of weaponry, act now!


Wing Tank Explosion Madras
NTSB SENDS TEAM TO INDIA TO ASSIST INVESTIGATION OF AIRLINER WING FUEL TANK EXPLOSION
************************************************** **********
The National Transportation Safety Board is sending a team of investigators to Bangalore, India, to assist in the investigation of a reported left wing fuel tank explosion on a Transmile Airlines B727-200.
The incident involving a Malaysia-registered airplane occurred May 4, 2006, during a ground repositioning. There were no passengers on board and no injuries were reported.
"The tragic TWA 800 accident in 1996 highlighted the vulnerability of transport aircraft fuel tanks," said NTSB Acting Chairman Mark V. Rosenker. "A decade later, the issue remains a major concern of the Safety Board and is on our Most Wanted List of Safety Improvements. I am hopeful what is learned in this investigation may provide added impetus for a resolution of this problem without further delay. "
The NTSB team will be led by Lorenda Ward, the U.S.
Accredited Representative. She will be joined by three Safety Board specialists in systems, structures and fire/explosions, plus representatives of the FAA and the Boeing corporation.
.
Should reinvigorate this long running issue
.
Doesn't seem to have made the world's press thus far....

[FormerFlake]

And DIRCM would've done jack squat for 'em as well.:sad: At least w/ESF, they probably wouldn't have blown off the end of their wing & gone instantly uncontrollable...:(

DIRCM alone is ****e - wish this were a classified forum, I could tell story after story of the shortcomings of DIRCM. As an EWI, however, you're probably overly enamoured of all the invisible 'trons streaming to your rescue - typical. :ugh:

Familiar with Trial EMBOW? Read up & see the "old" technology is damn near as good, more reliable, & cheaper to boot.

Finally, DIRCM only works against IR MANPADS - ESF isn't threat specific...

BTW, MoD is being fleeced by whomever is quoting £700K/aircraft :yuk: to fit ESF (Marshalls?) ...raw materials are on the order of £15-20K/aircraft - check with the MFGR.:rolleyes:

Well said that man.

DIRCM/LAIRCM does more for the politicians and CAS than for the crew. It sound impressive, but of course no one can tell you what it does. But it must be good becuase it is expensive. A bit like stealth.

The reality is our infantry train to shoot down low flying aircraft using their rifles. We can assume that any unfriendlies will also train for this, and use it (its a lot cheaper than MANPADs). ESF, cockpit armour and aircrew body armour are a must for all our AT assets.

[Lima Juliet]

The reality is our infantry train to shoot down low flying aircraft using their rifles
Wasn't the last shoot down by an infantryman and his rifle a while a go? Something to do with a red plane with 3 wings and a Baron?
On the subject of Tonka inert gas systems in the fin - yup it would be nice if it were working in all the jets, but it didn't stop us going sausage side anyway. At the end of the day if something makes the fin go bang then the chances are that the same ignition source is also going to give you a rather bad day in the office!
On the DIRCM issue, hot bricks and flares will most likely not fully protect you from the later bits of kit (I mean anything that was built in the last 15-20yrs). Also it won't protect you from ground fire, rockets and RPGs and alike - that's why in that last few conflicts the Tonka hasn't been anywhere near terra firma (well as far away as you can get it!). Flying at low-level is a dangerous game and you can expect to pay the ultimate price sooner or later (ask the helo mates).
ESF, cockpit armour and aircrew body armour are a must for all our AT assets
I couldn't agree more that it would be nice to have all these bits of kit. It would also be nice to have a lot of other stuff - like TCAS on FJs, DIRCM on FJs, a few more tankers, a few more C17s, Towed Radar Decoy/DIRCM on Sentry, a Typhoon with a weapons clearance, a sizeable RAF Regt Force that could protect our departure lanes, a RAF-owned SHORAD, Accident Data Recorders fleet-wide, anticipators on the Puma - where shall I stop...? With our paultry defence budget it's as its always been, "balancing the risk". Now if we believe that ESF would have saved the latest Afghan Herc and the one at Kukes so that we could fly them again, then I might be convinced that it's worth it (also that if it definately would have saved the poor souls on XV179).
If it were down to me, I don't know where I would spend the money, but I'm pretty sure ESF is not the answer to your problems (IMHO). Maybe we should look at neutralising the source of the threat to our AT fleet as they recover (in Force Protection or something else) rather than relying on another system that gets slated when it gets fitted (a la DIRCM which you AT guys have been asking for years and are now slating it). I know that the Hercy Bird can fly nicely with bits of wing missing, however, there is no guarantee it will (especially if in an approach config near to the ground).
Rant over and out...:oh: Thinking of 'trons as type;)

[siddar]

Whilst I would never generally detract from appeals for kit that would increase safety I really feel that this foam stuff is a load of Boleaux. Why bother having kit that will not really increase surviveability in an op theatre? Lets get a better DAS and better radios and stuff that will make us operationally more effective. to buy This foam stuff is just a pander the multi fleet who are having to operate in a more threatening environment than they are used to. MAN UP and DRY YOUR EYES.

You :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: moron.

The lost of one plane that would have survived if it had had ESF would be a larger cost then fitting out entire fleet with ESF. The cost of crew and other onboard is beyond putting a price on.

Your desire to throw away both money and people lifes for no reason disgusts me.

[BEagle]

Perhaps with all your vast experience you can explain how " a better DAS and better radios and stuff that will make us operationally more effective" will improve the survivability of vulnerable large aircraft at risk from small arms fire, you utter ar$e.

Show some respect for the dead - and their families - and delete your ignorant post forthwith.

[chappie]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

kim, while we are all entitled to an opinion there is a way of putting it across. so, now i'll put my opinion across!

i'm bob o'connors sis. he was one of the crew that lost his life on XV179. i am fighting f:mad: :mad: :mad: hard to help get this system in place fleetwide. this is done to ensure that no other family have to go through what i have had to endure. when i write endure i am not being over dramatic. it is not just a fanciful whim that is being acted on. it is of the opinion from the lead AAIB investigator of the crash that the probability of loss would be significantly altered HAD the foam been fitted. it was the explosive mixture of vapours and air mix that ignited. there was no explosive in the projectile that pierced the tank. so put that in your pipe and smoke it! you may not think that it is necessary or desired. have a look at the signatures on the petition! there are over 1000 in only three days. people are helping to spread the word. whilst you are busy being controversial, as you are unable to back up your views, you fail to realise that having fantastic radios are no bloody use to you when you are tumbling out of control to the ground! at best you will ensure that you will be heard very well as you crash to your death. that will do you no good in your operational effectivness. it is, in my opinion, the real MEN that are doing something about this and getting off their backsides to help little ol me make this a reality.let us not forget that they were real men who lost their lives on jan 30th 05.

[Lara crofts pants]

Edited in order to keep the worthy nature of this thread intact.

[albi]

Whilst I would never generally detract from appeals for kit that would increase safety I really feel that this foam stuff is a load of Boleaux. Why bother having kit that will not really increase surviveability in an op theatre? Lets get a better DAS and better radios and stuff that will make us operationally more effective. to buy This foam stuff is just a pander the multi fleet who are having to operate in a more threatening environment than they are used to. MAN UP and DRY YOUR EYES.

Lets just hope you never have to be put in the situation that the servicemen and women's family have been put through by losing their nearest and dearest. There is no price that can be put on someones life, its a sad state of affairs that accountants dictate whether a vital piece of kit is worth its expenditure over a life.

My heart goes out to the families affected and i will be signing the petition, and reccommend others do if it helps save other lives.

Rant over!! happy flying everyone!!:cool:

[nigegilb]

I would like to remind our two narrow minded contributors that 47 Sqn is the most highly decorated Sqn in the RAF in modern times. For the record LCP is an exceptional person, who was awarded a very distinguished gong for an extraordinary piece of flying. To suggest that multi-crews do not know what it is like to experience warfare displays an outrageous inability to face facts. There is nothing I hate more than ignorance and arrogance. You seem to possess these "qualities" in abundance. Kim,have some respect for the bereaved, do some research and when you are ready to contribute in an adult fashion you can start with an apology.

NG

Leon, I would be very interested to see the breakdown in Tornados lost in GW1. In particular how many were brought down by lead.

[Lima Juliet]

Note, no personal insults...:= Can we please be ladies and gentlemen about this difference in opinion.

I would be very interested to see the breakdown in Tornados lost in GW1. In particular how many were brought down by lead

I would say none, but we can never be sure (the 2 Johns may have had an uncontained engine let go and not been hit by a missile if you read the mini-BOI on the subject - same result either way so it make no difference). However, it wasn't just lead that brought down XV179 was it now? Something akin to SNEB rockets springs to mind.

This is the last time I will post on this subject as I feel I have had my say, may you like it or loathe it.

LJ

[TheInquisitor]

Leon - you obviously know :mad: -all about current front-line ops, how we operate, what kit we have and it's capabilities.

The reason all of this kit has been fitted / has been asked for is that the AT fleet is very much part of the front line nowadays. We can't shoot back when attacked and our role is essential to theatre ops.

Kim, I STRONGLY suggest you do not reveal your identity after that comment. Feel free, however to "MAN UP" yourself and come and join the front line, instead of tooling around 14T in your fag-chariot, you prize tw@t.

[16 blades]

Edited to reflect Kim Il Jong's contrition below and removal of original post.

Apology accepted - thank you.
:D :D :D :D

[Kim Il Jong]

Firstly let me apologise about the tone of my post and the offence I've caused, please accept my humble apologies.

Err I think what I was trying (Badly) to say was that we all operate ac that have safety flaws in one way or another, and that sometimes there is a trade off in where money (if any available at all) is spent. Sometimes go for the safety enhancement, Sometimes the operational gizmos. We'll never get everything.

Chappie: I stand corrected on the nature of the foam and can see your valid point.

All: Soz. pse look at the time of post:O :O :O Back in my box and winding neck in.

[nigegilb]

Line drawn under the subject gentlemen. Leon you would be very surprised by what brought the ac down. Please trust experienced Herc operators when they ask for foam. I do not know what the AAIB have found re. 206, but I would not be surprised if a lack of foam contributed to the destruction of this ac.

Guys, please empathise with the wide ranging people reading this thread and the other Herc thread. We want to hear the other point of view but just ease back in how you deliver it. I wish the RAF would come clean it would make our job easier.

Kim thanks for taking it on the chin.

Cheers,

Nige

[HrkDrvr]

DIRCM/LAIRCM does more for the politicians and CAS than for the crew. It sound impressive, but of course no one can tell you what it does. But it must be good becuase it is expensive. A bit like stealth.

I know what it does & can explain it simply. The problem is not a capability limitation - the system is very capable - it has serious practical operating limitations that many operators are unfamiliar with - it is my belief that it is overrated due to these limitations. Jury's still out on LAIRCM...

On the DIRCM issue, hot bricks and flares will most likely not fully protect you from the later bits of kit (I mean anything that was built in the last 15-20yrs). Also it won't protect you from ground fire, rockets and RPGs and alike - that's why in that last few conflicts the Tonka hasn't been anywhere near terra firma (well as far away as you can get it!). Flying at low-level is a dangerous game and you can expect to pay the ultimate price sooner or later (ask the helo mates).


Nothing will "fully protect" you - even DIRCM has a percentage of ineffectiveness in the very controlled trials. Hot bricks & flares, in the right combination, actually do surprisingly well against modern MANPADS - see Trial EMBOW referenced earlier.

DIRCM will also not protect you from "ground fire, rockets, and RPGs and alike" (in fact, no DAS kit I'm aware of will), but ESF will make taking those rounds (that you cannot defeat with 'trons) much, much safer. When hit, you don't necessarily go "bang" & are able to (hopefully) limp home.

Now if we believe that ESF would have saved the latest Afghan Herc and the one at Kukes so that we could fly them again, then I might be convinced that it's worth it (also that if it definately would have saved the poor souls on XV179).
If it were down to me, I don't know where I would spend the money, but I'm pretty sure ESF is not the answer to your problems (IMHO). Maybe we should look at neutralising the source of the threat to our AT fleet as they recover (in Force Protection or something else) rather than relying on another system that gets slated when it gets fitted (a la DIRCM which you AT guys have been asking for years and are now slating it).

Won't speculate on the latest mishap. The outcome at Kukes would not have been altered by ESF. However, based on my personal experience, I believe XV179 would have stood an exponentially higher percentage survival probability had ESF been fitted. If your wing doesn't blow off - we're not talking small pieces, the entire outer wing section - you can fly the Herk - it is robust & battle-proven. So prevent the outer wing from going & I think you have a different outcome for the crew of XV179.

As for begging for DIRCM - I've been fighting it since it was announced - never believed in the technology & it doesn't do what they say - wish I could say what is wrong with it here - it might make a bunch of folks uncomfortable about its alleged effectiveness...Having said that, given the choice between ALQ-157 & DIRCM, I'd "beg" for DIRCM any day of the week & twice on Sundays.

Lastly, good luck neutralising the threat from small arms, MANPADS, RPGs, & light AAA - "heavily proliferated" doesn't even come close to describing the sheer quantity out there...

How many ac have we lost to SAMs? There is a preoccupation with anti-missile defence.
Can think of only 1 US Herk confirmed down by MANPAD - it has been a long time ago. Believe there was a US slick that lost an engine to a MANPAD w/in the last two years at Baghdad as well, but landed (relatively) uneventfully.

You're spot on - There is a tremendous preoccupation with MANPAD threat, but as the crews on the "Ugly Baby" mission (same mission Harley 37) can attest, AAA is still a very real threat - particularly at the altitudes the Hercules operates. Because it's older technology, there is a "belief" that we've done all we can to counter AAA - we can jam the radar (if you're so kitted out), have it jammed for us (good luck on that one), or if optical, fly at night & hope they shoot at the noise & aren't receiving off-site cueing...

So if taking a few rounds of AAA is more likely than being shot with MANPADs (which I believe it is) - what can we do to mitigate that risk and protect the plane, protect the crew, and protect the passengers? Sounds like ESF, cockpit armour, & kevlar matting fit the bill nicely - none of these is expensive when compared to most blinky things that emit 'trons to protect us & other than the foam, require no further maintenance, upkeep, or care & feeding once installed...

[chappie]

kim, all i would like to say on the matter is thankyou. i really appreciate your apology. in my view you have just shown me that you can also be the man about it. there is so much speculation about what brought down bob's plane. that is what makes this so hard. it's hard to lose someone you love, and in some peoples opinion because bob took the queens shilling it was the downside to the job, even i accept that. i am a realist after all. however, he didn't need to die and that is what makes all of this so very painful, but necessary. while there is speculation what there isn't is the truth. the more that is hidden the more concerned i get. so, yet again kim, no hard feelings. i hope you still feel able to contribute. i am always keen to hear other views but there are ways etc. thanks.:)

now, leon. not that there is any point to me writing this, as if what you say is true, you will not return to the thread. this is a disappointment as you are clearly not interested in a debate, just getting your point across and no intention of hearing others. however, i will try anyway. while you talk of what brought down bob's plane i would ask this a) the report that was made public was redacted and so any spec about weapon type was classified. b) despite this you seem to be very confident of what brought the plane down, therefore who the hell are you? c) if what you say is true then you have proved my point that the truth has not been circulated and therefore i need to push extra hard to find out the source of the cover up! just a thought.

[Colonal Mustard]

Just reading through the thread and i cant believe it was Jan 05, still feels like last week, good on you for keeping it at the forefront of the media....keep up the goodwork and remember .....you WILL succeed:ok:

[John Blakeley]

The DPA Accounts for 2004/2005 show a contrsuctuve loss of £1.791M for "cancellation of a classified programme on C130J". Presumably this was linked to some form of defensive aids and this was the money already spent or committed, with the savings being much higher. The point is, of course, that somebody in Customer 1 (the ECC) had to have agreed such a cancellation - the DPA does not operate alone, and if it was part of the defensive aids the cancellation took place in full knowledge of what was already happening in Iraq and with UK troops already in Afghanistan. Still the RAF and other services did, as I understand it, find the money, indeed rather a lot of it, for a new admin system!

I wonder where JPA fits in the "fitness for purpose" and "duty of care" considerations!

JB

[nigegilb]

John, I think you will find that this project was to equip the J with a modern DAS and it was cancelled. Sir Glenn Torpy did not appear to be aware of it when quizzed on 7 Mar by Def Com. Belies the myth that MoD was concentrating on anti-missile system before XV179 was shot down. They cancelled the bl***y thing due to cost!

[John Blakeley]

Nigel,
Thanks - I do not know if you ever got answers to the original questions on the PQ thread, but I found this interesting snippet on Hansard:

C130J Progamme

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

16 Mar 2006 : Column 2434W


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

I do not know whether the Js are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I assume so. It would not be approriate to ask for details, but I wonder if the J crews would agree with Ingram's last sentence?

JB

[nigegilb]

John this is the subject of a letter I am writing to HCDC.

Will PM you when it is done. Needless to say I will not be agreeing with the MoD!!


This is a link to the Scotsman story about the cancellation of J DAS prog.

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=290482006

This is what Sir Glenn Torpy (CAS) said to HCDC on 7 Mar 2006.

On the subject of cancelled program.

Robert Key. "Can you confirm that in 2004/05 the programme to equip 15J Hercules with the latest generation defensive aids suites was cancelled.?"
Air Marshall Sir Glenn Torpy. "I cannot confirm that."

On the subject of DAS in theatre.

Sir Glenn Torpy. "...We will never put an aircraft into Afghanistan which does not have a defensive aids suite that we think is capable of taking on the threat which they may be faced with." He went on to say."All our aircraft will have an appropriate suite of those capabilities to match the threat our intelligence indicates is going to be faced in Afghanistan." You couldn't make it up.

I wonder, slick Herc Afg 2002.......J Herc 2006.
J and K Herc no foam.......But I suppose AAA, small arms, RPG does not count. That's OK then.

[FormerFlake]

Don't forget the Tristars went into Afg as well, long before they got LAIRCM and cockpit armour. I very much doubt the Tristar has ESF, and I know it does not OBIGS.

[Lima Juliet]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/02/01/wcrash01.jpg

Taken from the stills of the Terrorists video - this is an unguided rocket like a SNEB and ESF will probably not protect you from this (certainly not half a dozen or so).

The picture came from open-source on the internet (Daily Telegraph) - any other info that I have is not for me to disclose.

Sorry I can't help you more...good luck

LJ

[nigegilb]

LJ, don't go yet. Read the BoI it is published on MoD website archived now I should think. The video had different stuff spliced into it. Parts of the video are genuine other parts not. I have spoken to some of the families of the dead crew who attended BoI presentation. Phone up the chief investigator and ask him I will give you his name. He asked for foam to be fitted. I believe you are wrong.The ac was being flown at OLF heights think about it, how is it possible to do that sort of filming?
Hope this helps,

NG

[HrkDrvr]

Nice pics. But you need to read the BOI, not watch Al Jazeera.:= One is a panel of crash investigation experts whose agenda is the prevention of further accidents & loss of life. The other is a propaganda tool for terrorists whose agenda is the destruction of Western civilization.:ugh:

The wreckage of XV179 was found in 2 separate and distinct locations. The main site contained all human remains and ac structure less the outboard section of the right-hand wing, which was found at a second site, 1.3 miles away. The separated section of wing had become detached due to an explosive over-pressure event occurring within the number 4 fuel tank.

This part's worth repeating:

The separated section of wing had become detached due to an explosive over-pressure event occurring within the number 4 fuel tank.

Virtually impossible to occur with ESF installed. It was not "blown off" by a weapon, the weapon ignited the fuel-air mixture & the wing popped off. Consequently, weapon type becomes somewhat irrelevant. The BOI comes to this same conclusion when it states this:

The large, relatively intact, but separate sections of the outboard wing prove that the wing blew apart due to an internal overpressure. ... The over-pressure that separated the wing must have occurred in the number 4 fuel tank, ... The cause of this explosive event has been considered in detail by the AAIB Senior Investigator, who concludes that it is most likely to have been caused by an ignition of the fuel/air mix in the space above the fuel, known as the ullage. ... Furthermore, the Board concluded that the lack of a supression system within the fuel tank, such as foam or inert gas, was a contributory factor.

This part is worth repeating:

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the lack of a supression system within the fuel tank, such as foam or inert gas, was a contributory factor.

Furthermore, the authenticity of the beginning portion of the video containing the rocket firing scenes has not, to my knowledge, been verified. Regardless, the fitting of ESF would, in all probability, have prevented the explosion that blew the wing off regardless of weapon type.

And tell me again what your preferred "fleet wide fit of DIRCM" could have done against unguided rockets? I'll save you the effort - Answer = Square root of F**K ALL!

Besides, I thought you said your piece & weren't going to comment further...

[Lara crofts pants]

LJ,

It disgusts me that you can be so stupid and callous as to include stills from an obviously spliced terrorist video to attempt to make your incorrect point. You seem to feel that you are worth listening to. You are not. Please leave this thread alone and please do not feel that it is necessary to make a final parting comment - it isn't.

Listen to Nige - he does actually do his research and is very well informed. A phrase such as "any other info that I have is not for me to disclose." may make you feel important, but cuts no ice with others.

I notice that you ignored my suggestion to get in touch. It still stands, so do it.

[Malcom Glazier]

The fleet, job and people are very different from when you left Nige and whilst your efforts are appreciated, the biggest threat to our safety is you informing our internet savy enemies and the world about our frailties on am open forum such as this.

[k1rb5]

Hello there LCP

LJ
I'm not quite as gifted in the literary department as some of my colleagues so here goes

http://www.smilies-world.de/smilies/smilies_Picture/boese_smilies/19.gif

[nigegilb]

Malcolm, PM me with your concerns.

[FormerFlake]

The fleet, job and people are very different from when you left Nige and whilst your efforts are appreciated, the biggest threat to our safety is you informing our internet savy enemies and the world about our frailties on am open forum such as this.

I think you will find the tactics used by insurgents in places like Iraq are already designed against our weaknesses. They were getting good information long before this thread started.

If that fact wont stop 2 Gp sending the boys into countries like that with limited/no DAS, what will?

Also

I think the fact flight details being passed by unsecure systems such as SITA by Brize and Lyneham is more dangerous than this thread. Crews also give away a lot of details over RT and other coms. Digby caught a C130 co-pilot and an Air Traffic Controller giving away flight details of every flight due in/out of Basrah during that day on an unsecure frequency. Not a good way to spend your time before flying into the Sunni triangle.

Everyone, please keep it safe, you can all make a difference.

[flyingbug]

Not ex RAF, but currently fly with some ex-Hercules crew. I was surprised (and disgusted) when one explained to me the importance and absence of equipment on the ground in Iraq and other theatres of war and on the Hercules (ESF). It is a disgrace that Service personnel are further endangered through lack of funding and equipment.
Petition signed, good luck.

FB

[Permanent Sand]

My first ever post on this site guys, so go easy on me!

Freedom to make comments is a vital right that we take for granted. Unfortunately, some people decide to jump in trying to look (and maybe feel) a little more educated on matters that others deal with every day of their lives. So for those who make comments that offend those who have a wealth of information than most will ever have...... I would do a bit of research.

I'm not sitting on the wall here guys, but I'm not prepared to make a full decision on whether it is fully feasible to implement the foam system fleet wide. Now I say this as I'm currently researching all angles of the upgrade. It's not easy, I have to be totally honest with myself and come to terms with the simple fact that every human life does have a price tag, and it makes me feel so sorry for those who've lost loved ones, it really does. I'm not just talking about initial cost of fitments, it's the big picture of any shortfalls involved in the future with maintenance and delay of assets because of this. Something that those above will be worried about I'm sure. Again, trying to play devils advocate, not nice. The other side of the coin is brimming with experts with vast experience saying this system could save a recurrence of that fateful day last year. Now what could be more compelling than that attitude? Maybe I am swaying on the latter side of the argument.

We all know morale is going through a low phase that occurs every now and again. It's obvious that this is getting a little frequent for some, and they are showing it by departing to what they see as a more relaxed lifestyle. The fun factor seems to be sliding below a level where by even those of the thickest hides are wondering where the future lies with the Armed Forces. Let's not make this cloud our judgment on these matters we're all professionals here, not cowboys on a 4week contract! (That last sentence is bound to get a quoted reply! :) )

This thread will go on for some time, I hope with a little more tact and thought will be applied in future comments. It will add to the great respect this forum already holds in many eyes.

Many thanks for reading my first attempt on this site,

Permanent Sand.

[flipster]

Very eloquent, PS......... but what are you really trying to say?


a.'People post on these fora without knowing the full facts?'

b. 'You are not sure whether ESF is a good idea or not?'

c. 'It could cost a lot?'

d. 'Life is sh!te in the RAF at the moment but, hey, we are professionals, so let's not let that cloud our judgement?'

I think you'd find people who might agree with your conclusions......BUT


a. Is a given! BULL-FILTER set to 'MAX DEFLECTION' and read between the lines. Tact is an optional extra!

b. THE BOI SAID ESF WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT...do you know something they don't?

c. TOUGH! Whatever the cost of ESF, it is TINY comapred to the 'cost' of a very experienced crew, their valuable aircraft and the cost of their replacement. Its worth the relatively small cost and one or 2 probs that may (or may not) come with it.

d. That sort of 'subservient' attitude went out with the Charge of the Light Brigade and Nuremberg ('Vee ver only obeying zee orders' etc).



Might I suggest that you consider the following quote



'For evil to flourish, good men must do nothing'



Also remember that you only ever really answerable to 3 people


Your subordinates.

The 'person in the mirror'.

Your God!


Please think about that the next time anyone considers the 'price' of better aircraft self-protection.

However, as your post was sincere PS, I think you already know the truth and you sound as if your conscience is already acutely aware of the poor high-level management of the issues.:ugh:

Join the club mate and welcome aboard!:D :D :D

[scroggs]

There have been calls to combine this thread with Nige's Parliamentry Questions (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=215665) thread. However, I think that to do so would disrupt both threads and dilute their impact, as Nige's thread is specifically about the popular campaign, and this thread seems to have become focussed on technical, tactical and service issues. As posts would be placed in chronological order, and the threads are running contemperaneously, conversations within the threads would be broken up and the flow destroyed.

If no-one has any major objection, I will re-title this thread to clarify its purpose and distinguish it from the campaign thread. Those of you who wish to discuss the campaign should gravitate to Nige's thread; the technical and service issues can remain here.

Scroggs

[flipster]

Sroggs

I think your solution is a good one - TVM

Flipster

[flipster]

Any news from XV206 BOI - not sure if 24 hr signal has been seen?

Small Arms, Wheel failure, FOD damage, Hyd fire or even land mine have been rumoured as poss causes - anything more concrete?:confused: :confused:

Keep the petition going - over 1600 now! It is an inspiring piece of work Chappie - well done!

[nigegilb]

Only thing I know is that there must have been exceptional bravery involved. Well done fellas....

[flipster]

I hope the EPA worked out as planned and the ensuing 'debrief' lasted long into the hours of the night!?

However, I did hear that the VIP pax was very grateful to the crew and wrote a fine letter of commendation! I guess it is nice to feel appreciated by someone?

Hope the stains come out, boys!


Flip

[chappie]

leon, you absolute bastard.

[John Blakeley]

Leon,

You are certainly right about being hit by 6 unguided rockets - have you any OA to support this as a possibility? If so and the probability is, say, 1 in 10 to minus 9 then the RAF has probably achieved its duty of care compared with the standards for civilian aircraft. However as others have pointed out the BoI does not agree with you. Assuming only one hits what OA do you have to say that ESF offers no protection? Where does your OA say an unguided rocket would most likely hit - fuselage, tail, wings? It would be very good to have some science to back up your comments.

JB

[chappie]

leon, what i meant to say is do you not think before you engage in your reply. those stills prove what exactly? they show the destruction of my brothers plane and the crew that were once the colleagues and friends of the good men and women of this page. very worthwhile, to bring back such painful memories for what? there is no point. what if they were shot at with 6 unguided rockets what if they were shot at with 10? the point is it was one that hit that is all it takes and then ten young lives were snuffed out. why, well, because of the incessant penny pinching that goes on and the constant misuse of funds. money for an admin system but no money for a potentially ac and most importantly life saving system. makes sense...not. so, while you still don't want to accept that ESF is a necessity that i will continue to fight on for, please feel free to answer this question. do you buy shreddies by the busload or do you have an amazing remedy to rid your shreddies of certain stubborn stains? if, so please share with your fellow ppruners!!! i suggest that instead of tanuting some very good people you make time to read the BoI then come back and make your points. your stunt, and that is all it is, is tantamount to a cruel little boy who pulls wings off flies then watches them suffer. now, go away, grow some balls and find it within you to be a man and make a point with facts to back them up. otherwise, please feel free to crawl back under the rock from where you clearly came.

[flipster]

Attagirl!

But I would ignore him - everyone else does!

[Permanent Sand]

It looks like the roller coaster is continuing and I'm afraid to say, may not ride a horizontal line for some time to come.

First off, flipster, you may not have understood one of my points ref deciding factors on a green light for full fitment of the foam. Maybe it was my wording, but I was basically saying that the decisions would not be solely based on the initial outlay but the possible loss of assets in or out of theater. This problem, if even a slight one of occurring, sends shivers down the loose spines of those above. I thank you for your latter thoughts, as yes I am sincere, and yes I know the truth. PM me if you want more basic information on my comments, I'm a chilled guy and respect the knowledge you show.

With the relevant fleet about to be pushed to it's limit, any spanner in the works will also put a halt to careers of those pushing the work rate. This is what you guys should be more worried about. I get a scent of 'Let's get this done first guys then sort it later'.

Keep the faith,

PS.

[BEagle]

Excellent debrief for that pratt Leon, chappie!

Permanent Sand, presumably by your comments 'With the relevant fleet about to be pushed to it's limit, any spanner in the works will also put a halt to careers of those pushing the work rate. This is what you guys should be more worried about.', you mean that concern should be expressed that those in the mad MoD-box are more worried about delays to their bottom-licking upwards crawl than they are in protecting the dwindling assets of the overstretched AT force?

[flipster]

Beags

Oh yes...... nail/head/contact!

PS

Sorry, I know there is more to the cost thingy than just being able to get the frame to Marshalls and the initial cost of the foam.

Sadly, you are are all too correct in that 'them with egg on their hats' will not be keen to lose assets off the AT prog. This is basically because we got rid of too many ac in the late 90s/early 00s - now we don't have enough to give us any flexibility......

..... especially as we have lost 3 ac since those decisions were taken in mid 90s!

We certainly don't have enough flex to continue wage war, continue to train and get the foam fitted. I doubt that, even if we stopped all training, things would be any better - as we have pretty much stopped training already!:uhoh: :uhoh:

That happened back in 2002/3 from which hiatus, we never really totally recovered!

The only answer is for the AOC to put his hand up and call 'Terminate'. I doubt that wil happen though. Of course, if enough pressure to fit foam is applied then maybe the MoD may just have to ask the treasury for extra spondulicks!

I am an eternal optimist!

[chappie]

now, this might seem too simplistic but nonetheless if something needs saying you can guarantee i'll be the one saying it. what is the problem with the AOC going cap in hand to the treasury to ask for extra funds? is there something that i'm missing? i'm not sure the comparison i'm going to make is of any use but here goes. the government can release funds to help sort out the pensions cock up with a large company (can't remember) and give money to the car industry so why not protect one of this contries most necessary assets? or am i being too thick about this?

moving on. this weekend i'm going to discuss the next step in the campaign, the petition specifically. i have a list of people i think who should see it but i would be very grateful for any suggestions to who else i should forward the petition on to. i would also like to let you know that on the campaign blog page there is a section where you can download the petition onto a paper format. this would be very useful if we could get this done and sent round lyneham and it's community. i'm anticipating about another week before i'm looking to take it off and give to the necessary people although one person in particular seems to have his head in the sand and i would appreciate ideas how to combat it. des browne seems to think that he has met with the families and therefore does not see the need to do this again. i've asked for a meeting with him. this was prior to the petition. he has not answered letters or emails and is frankly quite elusive yet displaying all the signs of a very worried man. why else avoid meeting me. what has he got to be frightened of a little nursie like me! i'm harmless really.

anyone who has yet to sign the petition please do so....please. if you are in two minds then read this i need your signatures to help change this atrocious situation i need your signatures so that the three little ones sig.no's 1698,1699 and 1700 can see they've made a difference. if these kids have got the guts through their grief to stand up and be heard then so can we all. this campaign is about protection it is not a sideline or diversion for the pain i feel in not having bob around, but i tell you this i will do everything i can painful or not to get my voice heard and try and lead by example so that the children that are left behind can see that their loved daddies and uncles left a wonderful legacy so that no others have to go through this atrocity with which we are left to deal with. yes, it hurts ,yes, i miss him so much and god knows i need him to get me through this but i will not back down, so please lend me your voice and lend me your knowledge. now, to change the subject as misty eyes here is off for a long hard bawl.


before i away...come on leon, time for round three, your serve!

[tucumseh]

“now, this might seem too simplistic but nonetheless if something needs saying you can guarantee i'll be the one saying it. what is the problem with the AOC going cap in hand to the treasury to ask for extra funds? is there something that i'm missing? i'm not sure the comparison i'm going to make is of any use but here goes. the government can release funds to help sort out the pensions cock up with a large company (can't remember) and give money to the car industry so why not protect one of this contries most necessary assets? or am i being too thick about this?”


Chappie

You are not being simplistic. If anything, the solution lies well below the pay grade of those you mention.

Someone in the IPT (certainly no higher than a Sqn Ldr/C1) should sit down and draft a “Business Case”. Having jotted down key phrases like “Duty of Care”, “unsustainable attrition”, “threat of litigation” and “Operational Constraint” the rest is simple. There is an excellent template to fill in to make sure you cover everything for “Requirement Scrutiny”. The fact that no complicated or expensive development is required makes it relatively simple as the funding could be committed “in-year”. Final approval depends on the cost, but I imagine a Gp Capt would have the signing powers (typically up to £20M).

While what I describe is not quite routine (it bypasses DEC but one would seek their support up front and they’d probably be glad of the help) it is a common way of acquiring kit. It avoids the pitfalls of the UOR route and is quicker than EP bids. The key is identifying funding. I mentioned £20M. Again, while not routine, it is a basic competence demanded of a Sqn Ldr/C1 in DPA or DLO to be required to identify such a sum for precisely such a reason and, having done so, staff the requirement to completion. (And why shouldn’t it be?)

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I speak from personal experience, having done this many times in PE, DLO and DPA. The expected competences I speak of have been endorsed by CDP. (He went further by confirming one is expected to work at home in your own time to complete the task). The good thing about this route is that you are not dealing with a faceless beancounter in Whitehall, but looking the guy with the signature in the eye. Be prepared for the snide comments behind your back but I find the best thing to do is simply promise them they can take the credit if all goes well. (My last boss wouldn’t sign until I put this in writing!).

My apologies to the IPT if their Business Case has been prepared and thrown back. But at least you now have a name. Others here will know in more detail at what level this is being addressed.

Chappie, I sincerely hope this helps.

[nigegilb]

MoD is saying something different to RAF. I understand that foam is being fitted on back of UOR. However MoD saying the only restriction on fitting it to the whole fleet is age of ac etc. Can anyone clear this up?

[nigegilb]

I saw General Jackson being interviewed about the commencement of GW2. He was asked specifically if he realised that all the protective kit was not in place for the army. He admitted so and then retorted that nothing was perfect in war. Extraordinary. The reason the stuff was not in place was because of the desire of Blair not to upset his European counterparts by showing his hand too soon. The logistical problem for the military was difficult to solve in the remaining time available. Shame on General Jackson for not turning round and saying to the PM that the military did not have enough time to be ready.
I saw GJ in the Kosovo war, I tried to have a word but his CPT boys soon got in the way. He was very well protected then. I understand MoD admitted culpability for the death of the soldier forced to hand over his body armour. Our overarching aim is to change the culture at the MoD and amongst the so-called Top Brass. They need to spend more time thinking about their own people and less time thinking about their careers.

HC you are wise to point out that youth equates to feelings of immortality. I am sure the guys on XV179 were not preoccupied by the risks they were taking. I too consider myself very lucky, which may be a reason for my own zeal. Incidentally, if you had a bang seat you probably had a chance of surviving. Herc crews only have tactics and luck at the moment.

[flipster]

Herc crews only have tactics and luck at the moment.

.....but we are using up our luck at a prodigous rate!

(A few years back, I seem to remember writing something similar to someone quite senior :ugh: )

[highcirrus]

Further to my previous post and mention of the attitude of the “brass”, the following piece will be instructive to serious students of the genre. It really is worth wading through and it is also interesting to note that, to date, General Jackson has made no reply to Bruce Anderson.

Perhaps the most damming article written in the last 10 years? (" ... Mike Jackson has the heart of a toy poodle. His career as Chief of the General Staff is a study in moral failure... ")

Spectator 19 November 2005

CONDUCT UNBECOMING

Bruce Anderson damns senior officers for not resisting moves to have British soldiers appear before the International Criminal Court

Actions are being taken in the British people's name which should make us feel appalled. The government's behaviour towards the British army has been despicable.

In Northern behind, there are plans to give an amnesty to IRA terrorists who were never prosecuted because they went on the run, Though an unappealing prospect that could he regarded as falling within the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. But someone saw a difficulty. What if evidence emerged which could lead to the prosecution of a British soldier, after all the terrorists had won immunity. A bizarre solution was found. It is proposed to re-examine thousands of killings which look place in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, including the killings of terrorists by members of the security forces. The intention is that this will lead to a general amnesty. It would also establish a moral equivalence between the British army and the terrorists. This has caused outrage throughout the army. When the Romans took prisoners, they made them pass under a yoke which normally harnessed beasts of burden. This was not painful but it was humiliating. The British Army feels that it is now being made to pass under the yoke. If the defence ministers were trying to sabotage recruitment and eradicate morale they could hardly have done better.

Yet there is worse. The ministers have not acted out of malice. They are merely guilty of naivety, incompetence and stupidity. They could not have done anything like as much damage without the help of the generals. Politically, this government is weak and growing weaker. If the generals had been prepared in push their disagreements to the point of resignation, the ministers would have collapsed like a wet meringue. But - and this is terrible - there is no evidence that the generals did disagree.

Man for man, the British army is now the best in the world. The principal reason for this is the quality of training. But training is not just a matter of teaching techniques and instilling discipline. Training is about bonding and instilling an ethos. Both of those depend on the integrity of the chain of command and on leadership. However well-drilled, the modem private soldier may be, he is a thinking creature, not an automaton.

He will not long follow men whom he does not respect. Those in authority over him win that respect by their confidence, their courage and their commitment to his welfare. That is the unspoken contract between the officer and his men: do what I tell you, and I will look after you as best I can.

That is the contract which the lawyers are now forcing the officers to dishonour. In his dealings with Tony Blair over the legality of the Iraq war, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, was so invertebrate that he would go on licking the Prime Minister’s boots even while his backside was being kicked in his dealings with the army. The Attorney General has been consistent. He believes that UK armed forces should be a free-fire zone for human rights, political correctness and international jurisdiction. As a result, dubious solicitors who used to chase ambulances now chase khaki. British soldiers in Iraq often come across the slug slime of shyster lawyers.

Senior officers are not seeking permission for their men to run amok. That would the the end of discipline. It is always impressed upon soldiers that they must fight within the Geneva Convention. When troops are in combat, every serious incident is investigated within the chain of command, and this is not a formality. Over the years plenty of soldiers have been prosecuted.

Chain of command justice has one advantage. As those conducting the investigation understand the context in which soldier must operate. They can make informed judgements as to acceptable behaviour. That is not true of Lord Goldsmith and his minions. Yet over the past few years, the lawyers in London have succeeded in devaluing the chain of command.

Trooper Williams was cleared after an investigation by two colonels. That availed him nothing once the Crown Prosecution Service intervened. In court, the case against him collapsed. But the good soldier who had risked his life was rewarded with two years under the shadow of a murder charge. Other CPS-inspired cases have also folded, but not until the soldiers concerned had been punished with months of anxiety for the crime of serving their country.

As a result of this, one might have thought that the army would have asserted itself to restore the primacy of the chain of command. Not so: the Attorney General was able to rebut any such moves with the threat of the International Criminal Court. When Britain signed up to the ICC, there were assurances that British soldiers would never appear in front of it. It would only act in countries which refused to mount proper investigations of their own. But senior officers have now been warned that the ICC would not regard the chain of command as an adequate legal procedure. So methods which have been tried and tested over the decades would not prevent foreign lawyers from putting British soldiers on a par with Milosevic; more of the yoke.

The generals alone cannot solve the problem of the ICC. But one might expect some resistance. Instead, senior figures have made love to their employment as lawyers' pimps. A brigadier working directly for General Sir Michael Jackson wrote as follows: 'Do you have any evidence of officer misbehaviour in Iraq which I could use?’

The cold, callous tone of that missive could have come from some satirists’ version of the château-generals in the first world war. The satirists were writing fiction. That brigadier's letter encouraged the prosecution of Colonel Jorge Mendonca, DSO, an outstanding soldier. A country which can treat Colonel Mendonca like this ought to be ashamed of itself. As for the brigadier, better men have shot themselves for worse reasons. Around Mike Jackson, however, they are beyond shame.

Mike Jackson corruptio optimi pessima. Everything about the outward man inspires respect. He looks like a mensch: a fighting soldier, a soldier’s soldier, the last commander on earth to be seduced by the politicians. He has force of personality, reinforced by a hint of menace. If he had been willing to stand up to the politicians, they would never have dared to stand up to him.
But all his supposed strengths were a sham. It was said of the great Slim that he had the brains of a Field Marshal and the heart of a private soldier. Mike Jackson has the heart of a toy poodle. His career as Chief of the General Staff is a study in moral failure.

In combat zones, soldiers invariably ask one question of senior visitors: is the country behind them? They desperately want to hear a yes. But how can today's soldiers believe that when the lawyers are allowed to run amok? Throughout the services, there are problems with recruiting and retention. Mr Blair wants to use the army more and more. The way the ministers are acting, there will be less and less to use. What happened to joined-up government?

What has happened to duty, honour, patriotism - to common decency? What has happened to this country when brave colonels are prosecuted while generals full of rank and titles, wearing resplendent uniforms, by all appearances worthy successors to their illustrious forebears - fail in their most basic duty to the men under their command?

[nigegilb]

When he (Jackson) explained away the deaths caused as a result of starting GW2 on time I was very angry. To this day I am disgusted by the thought that a man was ordered to handover his chest protection. There were enough sets in theatre, but not in the right place. As usual the Brass decided to please their political masters. The result of yesterday's collapsed court case highlights the fact that ordinary soldiers have been left "High and Dry" by their ownso-called Top Brass.
Well, recruitment is collapsing and people like Jackson oversaw the break up of the regimental system and said it was a good thing.....
Can anyone confirm if Chiefs retire on full pay? Just wondered if we are getting good value for money.
HC, I have become an avid reader of The Spectator, interestingly this site has been referred to a couple of times in the mag already. Touche.

[highcirrus]

From the thread "Tony Bliar - What is going on with the Armed Forces?", posted today, quoting Con Coughlin in the Daily Telegraph:

....Having served their country with courage, the least our servicemen and women might have expected in return was the support, if not the gratitude, of the Government. In fact, the opposite has proved to be the case.

Instead of rewarding the Armed Forces for their efforts, the Labour Government - acting on the instructions of its pacifist-minded Chancellor, Gordon Brown - has seen Britain's cherished regimental structure torn asunder.

Spending has been reduced to such a level that the Army is unable even to provide troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan with sufficient protection against the sophisticated roadside bombs being used to kill and maim them by Islamic militants .....

[John Blakeley]

Nigel,

Re post 83 - sadly not! It used to the case when we had them as CDS that 5* officers were seen as serving until the end of their days, and I believe that they were on full pay. Unless there are special arrangements for CDS then I believe his reward now lies in the Upper House.

JB

[nigegilb]

"Sergeant Steven Roberts, 33, was with the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment when he was shot dead at Zubayr, near Basra, on March 24 while confronting Iraqi protesters. A Ministry of Defence report showed that only days before, Sgt. Roberts was issued with body armour, but was told to hand it back as there were not enough to go around. A pathologist’s report found that the bullet would have been stopped by an armoured body vest, but Roberts had been left with standard armour. To add insult to injury, Sgt. Roberts was apparently killed by so-called “friendly fire.”

This much was already known, but last week Mrs. Roberts, 32, from West Yorkshire, released her husband’s audio diary to the press—given to her by her father-in-law on the day of Roberts’s funeral. In it, Sgt. Roberts called supplies to soldiers “a joke” and the shortages “disgraceful.”

In his entry for March 13, Sgt. Roberts said, “General [Sir Michael] Jackson last week turned round and said ‘yes, we are ready to go’ and our vehicles were still in the boats ready to come into port, so what a blatant lie that was.”

On March 15, he said, “As I have written in your letter we have now got absolutely nothing. It is disgraceful what we have got out here.”

On March 21, after war had begun, he said, “I have not got my combats yet. Things we have been told we are going to get, we’re not and it’s disheartening because we know we are going to go to war without the correct equipment.”

Hoon said he was “extremely sorry” for the death and “extremely sorry” Sgt. Roberts did not have enhanced body armour. But he rejected calls by the Conservatives for his resignation. He said that enhanced body armour had been issued for as many troops as possible, but some of the 38,000 sets sent had not reached units before the war began. Therefore, priority had been given to infantry units."

[Tourist]

Oi!
Keep this thread on the subject of Herc Foam and we are all behind you.
Move into whinging peacenick anti war b@llocks and you can p1ss off.

Plenty of us have no problem with Jackson or his decisions

[nigegilb]

Whoops, sorry if I touched a raw nerve, guilty of a bit of thread creep, important to realise soldiers have real issues with a lack of protection though. Standing by for more incoming!

[tucumseh]

Nigel

I imagine the Army have no problem with your support. Despite what the MoD claim, it most definitely IS policy to have soldiers buy certain kit. (I base this on the premise that, if the MoD know and acknowledge essential kit is required, but deliberately choose not to procure it in the knowledge that the soldier will have no choice but to buy it himself, then that is a policy decision). Ask Silvermans in Warminster. They do a roaring trade. It is disgraceful.

[flipster]

Tourist,

You were right to point out the slight 'thread creep' - but please try to be a little more tactful next time, there's a good chap.

TVM

Flip

[highcirrus]

Tourist

Whilst nigegilb may have slipped into the specific and whilst I’m sure that he would probably agree with the rest of us that General Jackson will indeed have merits as a fine soldier and military leader, notwithstanding the assessment made by Bruce Anderson, in the Spectator article that I posted previously, he was illustrating the point with example, that, to a man, our generals and air marshals have been in mesmeric thrall to the Bliar government and have been derelict in their duty towards the welfare of their subordinates in the conflicts already mentioned.

You may be justifiably content with General Jackson’s performance as a soldier – and I do not contend this element of assessment – but there are those of us who are less than happy with his and others’, supine acquiescence to the deleterious intent and execution of New Labour policy towards the military services.

I agree with that part of the Anderson assessment that he (and others) could have personally stood up to Bliar and the latter would have backed down. Maybe General Jackson is not a very good negotiator?

Perhaps you ought to cut nigegilb some slack? His intentions are entirely honourable and I think that you are both on the same side.

PS. I'm not a "whinging peacenick anti war". I actually supported the thing in 2003 but am now utterly disillusioned by the joint political incompetence and mendacity demonstated to have been in place at the time and seemingly growing more acute as days go by.

[FormerFlake]

What is relvant is when I tried to get some ECBA for the terrific boy and girls from RAF Cartertoon town, 2 years after the war had started, we still could not get any!!! Eventually 80 sets turned up which apparently upset various other stn as we had more than there entire stn did just for aircrew.

My UOR for Military Police Body Armour was approved, but nothing has turned up (any one now at Brize please (hopefull) correct me if I am wrong).

As an aside, I have heard from some RAF supplier who were in Iraq at the time that a load of ECBA turned up by ship and was awaiting distibution. Aparently some Army type came along and said he wanted the area where the body armour was beeing held (along with a lot of other stuff) cleared. So overnight the ISOs disappeared with no proper paperwork done. I'm sure the turned up eventually, but if this action resulted in someones death heads should surely role?


I'm not sure if General Jackson will retire on full pay or not. But no doubts he will be overed some cushy job when he retires, as long as he does not rock the boat. Jobs fo rthe boys and all that.

[A2QFI]

I understand that we don't have any serving 5* officers at the moment? When we did, they retired on 1/2 pay for life as a pension. I heard that one 4* RAF officer declined promotion to 5* on the basis that his index linked pension was a better deal than 5*'s half pay.

[airborne_artist]

I heard that one 4* RAF officer declined promotion to 5* on the basis that his index linked pension was a better deal than 5*'s half pay.

That differential has existed for a long time - my father used to reckon that it was the wives who told the 4* to take the 5th* - left to their own devices most of the Admirals he knew would have taken the bigger pension and retired to the 19th hole.

[navbro]

All,

Hope you don't mind some input from a colonial, but I have been following this thread for a couple of weeks now and I finally decided to add a few points. Firstly, my sympathies to family and friends of those lost in XV179, I do not wish to add any anguish, simply put a few current truths forward.

Below is an Australian Defence magazine extract on self-protection efforts for RAAF C-130J and an RFT for some follow on foam installation - has also project manager contact details (all open source). The following web site is a commercial manufacturer that supplies the ESF. http://www.crestfoam.com/ This manufacturer also has available a documentation (unclas), that summarises a number of US studies into fuel tank protection and explains the advantages of ESF performance. You would need to approach the company directly on this as I am unable to release this directly (proprietary reasons).

Notwithstanding each countries own financial reasons for fitting/not fitting certain systems, the RAAF is in the process of fitting ESF to all its C-130H and C-130J (has operationally deployed such since 04/05). Fitting full fleet makes good sense from a fleet a management perspective. Also, C-130 is not the only aircraft type recognised requiring this capability.

There have been a lot of comments in the thread regarding the technological pros and cons of ESF and other systems such as OBIGGS (Onboard Inert Gas Generating Systems), however ESF does have significant advantage over OBIGGS in some areas. The RAAF has done its research on this and has consulted widely prior to fitting ESF.

OBIGGS is designed to suppress the secondary ignition of fuel tank ullage, however once the tank is breached (first shot), air can re-enter and so increase the fuel-air mix again increasing the likelihood of subsequent explosion (multi-hit scenario). ESF, by its passive nature has a multi-hit capability. Also, unless the fuel tank is integrally designed for OBIGGS and strengthened to withstand hydrodynamic ram (HDR) effects, HDR will be a significant limitation with OBIGGS. ESF, again by its nature of completely filling the tank void, inhibits HDR. OBIGGS would be difficult, expensive and less effective as fuel tank protection fitted to a C-130. Google these keys words for more detail.

A significant part of ESF use however is the maintenance aspect and providing the correct Personal Protective Equipment and fuel tank venting equipment to enable a safe environment for maintainers to remove and replace the ESF when required and to conduct fuel tank entry. Again this has to be fully scoped and the impact understood and provisioned for. This has been done as part of the RAAF project. Full length (and hood) fuel resistant Gore-Tex suits (see http://www.goremilitary.com/prod_04_mil.html) are available, modern tank venting systems (see http://www.rhineair.com/) are just a couple of examples of things to consider. All up though ESF still comes out on top.

The RAAF were the first to retro-fit ESF to C-130J and have now gained much experience also fitting C-130H. With that in mind the RAAF has been active in assisting other Air Forces with project level details for ESF fitment, including the RAF.

Thinks are being done, but I agree with 'tucumseh - 6 Jun 06' for comments WRT staffing this sort of thing. To succeed, you need to have someone within the MoD to champion this and not allow any push back from any quarters, this can be difficult if one wants to still have a career. The cost mentioned by tucumseh is bit in excess I think - try that amount in $ and that would be ball park for 24 aircraft, then some. Aircraft availablity to fit the ESF on a rotating ongoing basis is a big planning issue and NOT to be under estimated. Each Services' requirements are unique, only the RAF chaps can plan this.

Hope this has provided some more insight and I can really only sumarise what can be gained from open sources. Just need to find it.

Cheers,

navbro

Enhancing survivability for the RAAF C-130J-30
http://www.defence.gov.au/defencemagazine/editions/20050401/images/c130j_with_flares_th.jpg (http://www.defence.gov.au/defencemagazine/editions/20050401/images/c130j_with_flares.jpg) C-130J-30 releasing flares

Delivering new capability doesn't necessarily take years to happen. Certainly, this was not the case when a need was identified to equip the C-130J-30 with self-protection capability for deployment to the Middle East.
As background, Project AIR 5216 procured 12 C-130J-30 aircraft for the RAAF. Self-protection equipment was not procured as part of this project but was to be incorporated under Project Echidna AIR 5416 Phase 4. This phase of Echidna was to provide Electronic Warfare Self- Protection (EWSP) for our C-130J-30 comprising radar warning, basic chaff-dispensing, missile warning and infra-red countermeasure systems (Public DCP). Project Air 5416 Phase 4 was not due for government approval until 2005-2006.
Air transport support for Australian involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq required deployment of C-130 aircraft that were equipped with self-protection equipment. At the time, only our C-130H aircraft satisfied the self-protection requirement. As our involvement in the Middle East continued, the need to provide some relief for the C-130H became apparent. Air Force determined the most appropriate way of doing this was to advance the fitment of self-protection equipment for the C-130-30 with the view of deploying these aircraft. This was achieved by splitting project AIR 5416 Phase 4 into two sub-phases, 4A and 4B.
AIR 5416 Phase 4A now aimed to accelerate the fitment of ballistic protection, missile warning and countermeasure dispensing capability - EWSP - for the C-130J-30. CDG staff - in close cooperation with AFHQ, DMO, Aerospace Operational Support Group, APP Project Management and DoFA - were able to rapidly progress the project to second pass approval by April 2004.
The first C-130J-30s were rotated into the Middle East later in 2004 equipped with ballistic protection (BP) and EWSP. A further enhancement to the survivability of the C-130 is being provided under a separate project (Explosion Suppressive Foam - ESF Project). This will provide explosion suppression for RAAF C-130 fuel tanks, with initial deliveries already made in early 2005. Aircraft now and in future deployments will have BP, EWSP and ESF as standard 'Survivability Equipment'.
Developed to address operational requirements that demanded aircraft survivability enhancement, the speed with which these projects were implemented is credit to all who contributed to the process.
Update provided by the Project AIR 5416 sponsor.

ATM CSASD 8/2005 Details (Closed) https://www.tenders.gov.au/federal/gfx/spacer.gif
if ((window.screen.width >= 1024) && (window.screen.height >= 768)) document.write(''); else document.write(''); Number: CSASD 8/2005 if ((window.screen.width >= 1024) && (window.screen.height >= 768)) document.write(''); else document.write(''); Title: Request for Tender for the Installation of Explosion Suppressant Foam and Block 5.4 Upgrade to C-130J Aircraft if ((window.screen.width >= 1024) && (window.screen.height >= 768)) document.write(''); else document.write(''); Category: Aerospace systems and components and equipment if ((window.screen.width >= 1024) && (window.screen.height >= 768)) document.write(''); else document.write(''); Closing Date: 09 Nov 2005 if ((window.screen.width >= 1024) && (window.screen.height >= 768)) document.write(''); else document.write(''); Closing Time: 12:00 noon (ACT Local Time) if ((window.screen.width >= 1024) && (window.screen.height >= 768)) document.write(' '); else document.write('
'); Click here to see your time zone (http://javascript<b></b>:openPopWin('other_time_zones.cfm?rft_number=CSASD 8/2005&rft_title=Request for Tender for the Installation of Explosion Suppressant Foam and Block 5.4 Upgrade to C-130J Aircraft&rft_closingdate=09-11-2005&rft_closingtime=12:00:00', 700, 500, 'scrollbars=1, resizable=1', 'cen', 'cen')) https://www.tenders.gov.au/federal/export/logos/adagencylogo-20.gif Publication Date:09 Sep 2005 Location:All States
Overseas
https://www.tenders.gov.au/federal/gfx/spacer.gifDescription: The Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) is seeking tenders from industry to fit up six RAAF C-130J-30 Hercules aircraft with Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) and to upgrade up to eleven C-130J-30 Hercules aircraft to Block 5.4 standard. A copy of the RFT may be obtained on written request (e-mail or hard copy) to: ESF Project Manager ALSPO PACE Building 108 RAAF Base Richmond NSW 2755 Ph: (02) 4587 2569 Fax: (02) 45872235
Other Instructions:
Questions should be in writing as per the RFT
Conditions for Participation:
N/A
Timeframe for Delivery:
Mar 06 - Jun 07
Address for Lodgement:
POSTAL DELIVERIES: Defence Mail Services Department of Defence CANBERRA ACT 2600 PERSONNEL DELIVERIES: Defence Mail Services Queanbeyan Annex 6 14-22- Wycombe Street Queanbeyan NSW 2620 Between the hours of 8:30-12:30 and 14:30 ?16:30 https://www.tenders.gov.au/federal/gfx/spacer.gif
Tender Type:
Request for Tender
RFT Enquiries:
ESF Project ManagerPhone:(02) 4587 2569
RFT Document(s):
As above

[flipster]

Thank you Navbro,
Was all the above done as a permanent fit (Equipment Programme) or a short-term fix (UOR)? (Does the OzAF have a similar system to ours)

Nonetheless, I am most impressed with the RAAFs ' just get on and do it' attitude to fit ESF, DAs and BP to ALL ac.

It shows what can be done with a little top-level support!

The MOD's top-level, on the other hand, should be ashamed to watch our colonial cousins supporting their crews and protecting their assets, while ours are put at risk by penny-pinchers.

Tucumseh - any thoughts on the Aussie's procurement system - could the MoD's long-winded IPT/DEC/DPA cycle for EPs (and posibly UORs) have contributed to the lengthy delays to our own ESF fitment? Furthermore, how likely is it that, given the 'political desire', ESF could have been (and could still be) fitted more quickly?

I know a few people out in OzAF- I am glad they are being well looked after.

However, I remain most concerned about those serving in our own RAF.
I would hope I am not alone in this - maybe, just maybe, there is someone above the rank of 'Air Comode' who feels the same?

[nigegilb]

Navbro, thank you for a comprehensive and illuminating post. I understand that USAF looked at all types of fuel tank protection before coming to the same conclusion that ESF was right for C130 J. I have a couple of questions for you.

RAF did a risk assessment in 2002 and decided ESF was not required. As RAAF were operating in the same areas of the World why did you come to a different conclusion?

Funding. I have been told that RAAF could only afford to fit ESF because of an in year underspend. Is this true, or is it likely that ESF would have been fitted anyway?

Have you suffered any flameouts whilst foam bedding in?

With reference to ballistic matting, has there been any operational problems with its use or carrying the extra weight? Could you add a few words about the requirement/risk assessment for fitting it?

RAF are quoting £600,000 per ac to fit ESF. Do you have an accurate figure for RAAF?

The length of time to complete ESF fit here is worrying, esp for crews in theatre. Where did RAAF get their Hercs fitted? Do you have a suggestion for speeding up the RAF program?

Finally, XV206 perished on a strip a couple of weeks ago. In the open press here 3 possible reasons have been given.
1. Tyre burst
2. Mine
3. Ground fire
Our Defence Minister has stated that ESF would not have helped survivability, ahead of any investigation. Do you have a comment?

Cheers,

NG

[tucumseh]

Flipster

“Tucumseh - any thoughts on the Aussie's procurement system - could the MoD's long-winded IPT/DEC/DPA cycle for EPs (and posibly UORs) have contributed to the lengthy delays to our own ESF fitment? Furthermore, how likely is it that, given the 'political desire', ESF could have been (and could still be) fitted more quickly?”


First, just because the funding is via the EP, it does not mean it will be a permanent fit. Even if you get funding for the full monty, very often the IPT will rob it to bolster other projects and deliver a partial fit, no spares and a dodgy SEM. The politician will be able to say the kit exists, but ask the sustainability, safety and fit policy questions. As for fitting more quickly, I’m afraid it looks to me like the RAF don’t have the C130s to sustain a full capability while the others are in for modification. That is, the engineering pool (in EP terms) is unrealistically low. To offset this, I’d be looking to paying a premium for a contractors working party to do the rounds, both in UK and abroad. Train them on the PI and set them loose. As I said before, the money is easily found. We waste more every day than what it would cost.

I know little of the Australian procurement system, but over many years I did notice they tended to publish results of research, and act upon them, long before we were voted funding to initiate research or development. Maybe it was just what I worked on at the time, I don’t know. They seem to be more focused and less politically correct. This raises the point of lack of co-ordination between friendly nations, but we haven’t cracked co-ordination across our 3 Services yet. Some of our Servicemen have kit others can only dream of. Some are about to be given obsolescent kit to replace 2 generations newer kit they’ve had for years. I’ve been given development funding to find a solution when 15 years previously I was the project manager delivering that very solution to another Service.


“Normal” procurement via the EP can be swift and cost effective. But the system is process-driven these days. You can demonstrate understanding of one process and romp up the greasy pole without actually delivering kit. But when faced with a routine problem these “managers” topple and the system gets stuck thropugh lack of decisive, knowledgeable decision making. It is now more important to follow process and the main objective – delivery of kit that is fit for purpose at the correct price and on time – is lost in the administrative fog.

There are many references here to what I believe is a major obstacle to the Services getting the right kit. It is an unwillingness to stick the head above the parapet knowing very well that doing so will blight your career. The worst quote I ever heard in DPA (from an Army Colonel) was “Don’t fight the white”; meaning, it’s signed so don’t challenge it. This negates original thought and breeds “yes men”, not to mention enormous waste. Those of you who, quite rightly, moan about lack of kit answer this question honestly – If you were posted to DPA or DLO as, say, a Sqn Ldr, would you stand your ground when they wheeled out the big guns to threaten you with the sack or disciplinary action? That’s what the Services and Civilian management do to junior civvies who try to do the right thing.

[navbro]

Sorry chaps, had a reply going to your questions, but the system lost it all before posting. Will have to go again.

navbro

[nigegilb]

Navbro, suggest you do it in Word first, we are all suffering with our "comms"

[flipster]

Navbro

Try to remember to copy what you are writing just in case you lose connections. Alternatively, write out your post in Word and when done, log on then copy!

Tumcumseh

You paint a revealing picture of the procurment process and all its woes. It does not fill me with hope and 'good vibes'. The sentiments you express about the lack of willingness to stand up and shout are spot on. Nonetheless, I have symapthy with those put in that unenviable position - they have mortgages to pay and families to support. That is why the 'seniors' often get their way when they 'up the ante'.

But I repeat what i said on another post


'For evil to flourish, good men must do nothing'


Also remember that you only ever really answerable to 3 people


Your subordinates.

The 'person in the mirror'.

Your God!

[navbro]

I'll try again in smaller chunks.

The RAAF ESF is a permanent fit to to all our C-130s until a better system is detremined (research continues). This capability is going well so far (touch wood, however we have our own share of stuff ups).

ESF was put up as a Minor Project and was argued for and endorsed and funded as a stand alone project.

Can not imagine why your 2002 risk assessment went against ESF. RAAF did a good degree of research, consulted Lockheed Martin, USAF and Air National Guard among others to present the business case.

No reported problems so far bedding foam in. As said earlier ESF has been used in the USN and USAF since the 60's in C-130, P-3, F-15, A-10, F-18 to name a few. There are laid down procedures, numbers of fuel drains and filtering to avoid potential fuel blochage and flame out problems.

₤600K is excessive per aircraft unless this is an attempt express the total project cost as a function per airframe. An educated pluck (generous)would be in the order of ₤6.5M for 24 aircraft, so if broken down ₤270.8K per airframe, but this includes all the additional PPE and systems required to deliver the capability as well. The foam cost about US$50K per shipset.

RAAF C-130 were fitted in Aust. with the assistance of a USAF team providing OJT. This stuff is just foam blocks, about as hard as putting together a jigsaw. It is labor intensve, but when learnt, is not difficult. Once the fuel tanks are prepared ESF fittment by trained personal takes about two weeks. Prepartion time for this depands on local procedures. However fuel tank venting down to the required safe limit (for fuel tank entry by personnel)can be now in a number of hours.

For those of you who are on the inside of RAF or MoD, the RAAF has been assisting with standing up ESF. If approached, I am sure that it could be arranged for a team to go to the UK to help or the RAAF could host a visit out here to Aust. (the cost of some air fares, but would be worth it). Rather than this forum, contact the ESF project sponsor in Canberra Aust.

More to follow,

navbro

[navbro]

Here are some web sites for those who would like to read more deeply (where I first started)

http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews.htm
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/systems/fueltank/inerting.stm

more of an EW emphasis

https://www.myaoc.org/eweb/StartPage.aspx

Also, just found this one. The survivability onion is what the RAAF designs its self-protection criteria around. Can explain more in future sessions.

http://www.esw2006.com/download/programme.pdf

navbro

[navbro]

Here's some more. To follow on from ballistic matting questions. Ballistic matting is different from ballistic armour. The armour is normally of a ceramic plate design and is quite heavy but is what is used to protect vital aircraft systems in most cases. See alsohttp://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml (http://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml)
http://www.defence.gov.au/teamaustralia/index6d2a.html (http://www.defence.gov.au/teamaustralia/index6d2a.html)
http://www.austballisticlab.com.au/ (http://www.austballisticlab.com.au/)
http://www.combatclothing.com.au/cgi-bin/cp-app.pl?usr=50X1318506&rnd=737994&rrc=N&cip=66.249.65.99&pg=cat&ref=999&catstr (http://www.combatclothing.com.au/cgi-bin/cp-app.pl?usr=50X1318506&rnd=737994&rrc=N&cip=66.249.65.99&pg=cat&ref=999&catstr)=
http://www.armedforces-int.com/categories/ballistic-protection/lightweight-ballistic-protection.asp (http://www.armedforces-int.com/categories/ballistic-protection/lightweight-ballistic-protection.asp)
http://www.airforce-technology.com/contractors/modifications/roshield/ (http://www.airforce-technology.com/contractors/modifications/roshield/)
, the same category of armour applies to vehicle and aircraft as it does for personnel.
Also have a look for MIS 944 – C-130 Ballistic protection for passengers (down the list in the Ms).
http://www.defence.gov.au/csig/SenateOrder05/File_List.cfm?cat=5&List=category2005_2 (http://www.defence.gov.au/csig/SenateOrder05/File_List.cfm?cat=5&List=category2005_2)
This looks at scoping a solution to help out down in the C-130 cargo compartment. Could be applied in a number of areas though.

Cheers for now,

navbro

[flipster]

Navbro

Thanks for the links - absolutely fasicinating reading for EWOs - lots to chew on there!

However, it proves that there has been a lot of work done in this area for may yearsa and most of it open source. Why, therefore, have the RAFs and MoDs top kneddies ignored it all?

:ugh:

[nigegilb]

Perhaps more pertinent Flip, how can the RAF deny knowledge of the system that could have prevented the deaths of 10 brave men?

That argument, one of claiming ignorance will not stand up. We also need to see the 2002 risk assessment. Liam Fox suggested that Lockheed had offered ESF to the RAF in 2002. We need to explore this possibility.

When I started this thing in January it took me 30 mins to assemble a working knowledge of ESF and who was fitting it. I cannot understand why RAF are denying knowledge.

Does anyone have any info regarding Danish Air Force C130s? They also have foam. PM if you don't want it in the open.

[navbro]

Flipster and others,

That would be the million ₤/$ question, only your people can answer. But, we all have our own examples when something could've/should've been done - and we ask why, why us. Keep up the good fight and keep the pressure on is about all I can add at this stage. We cannot tell the Brit
hierarchy what to do, but as compatriot Air Force aviators, help is there for the asking.:ok:

navbro

[navbro]

The Danes are in the picture on this, but I think it would not be appropriate to continue this line further.

navbro

[nigegilb]

It's OK Navbro DAF Foam is a matter of Hansard record. I will do some digging in the background!

[navbro]

OK, signing off.

navbro

[flipster]

Navbro,

Well done and thanks.

Nige,

Quite!

Flip

[Mr-AEO]

Hello all,
My first post so please take it easy on me!


Firstly, my belated condolences to the families/friends of the crew and passengers. You have been through a terrible time and I take my hat off to your courage in taking this issue forward.


I won't profess to know anything about the Hercy bird or a great deal about DAS or foam protection, but hope that my post offers some additional food for thought on the subject - although the food in some instances may be 'eggs ready to suck' - for granny!


I have been involved for a number of years with the whole process in delivering new modifications to aircraft. There are always hundreds of potential modifications to be carried out that originate for a number of reasons e.g to reduce cost of ownership, to improve capability, to improve airworthiness. I have been involved with several platforms that had many outstanding Safety Modifications that have been on hold for years, pending sufficient resource to move ahead. What we must be clear about is that every Safety Modification is not a critical modification to the aircraft, some will reduce the likelihood of the event occurring, some will mitigate against the event should it occur. Aka Risk. As you know, some risks are likely to occur and have a catastrophic impact - so we most definitely resolve those first! (And we do) Some risks will probably never occur and if they do, will not cause catastrophic loss of the aircraft, but may impact the safety - e.g loss of a single radio in a dual redundant system. This second one is still a Safety Mod, but unless we are particularly flush with STP, we are unlikely to fund it's modification unless its very easy and a quick/cheap win.


The grey area is those risks managed in the ALARP region. I expect that some clever safety chap (either in the DA or EA or both)has a fault tree analysis of the C130, and this person can, for example, initiate a fire in a wing. The Fault Tree will tell him how likely/unlikely it is that this will cause a catastrophic event for the wing and what impact this system will have on the aircraft as a whole and therefore the crew.


So (and this is the crux) depending on how well the Fault Tree Analysis is put together and that the probabilities of events are based on factual data rather than data 'pulled from the air', the model should say how likely/unlikely it is that the aircraft would be lost.


So that's one part, now introduce a mitigation (e.g suppressant foam) into the model and run it again. The safety team can now see the effectiveness of the proposed new modification. It won't change the likelihood in this case, just the outcome.


Now it gets tacky. Someone has to make the decision on whether the money spent on embodying this modification is well spent, considering the outcome of the above analysis - it may be bloody obvious, but more often that not it is a very difficult judgement call. There may be a very narrow margin between the pre/post mitigation risk (I'm not making any statement here about the effectiveness of foam in the fuel tanks).


Usually if it sits in the ALARP region it is 'managed'. This is where I stray from the views of my lords and masters. I believe, very strongly, that we should fund every Safety Modification that sits within this ALARP region because the likelihood of occurrence, although not very likely, is possible. If it is possible and it can lead to catastrophic loss and it has happened before - then for goodness sake do it! For the sake of safety.



The problem with this is multifold. Where do you place the 'do it' threshold? As I said this is usually set to be above the ALARP region, unless the mod is quick and easy etc, but I reckon this is wrong from a duty of care perspective. What if you can't afford it? I'm sorry but this is a crap excuse. Just because we are strapped for cash doesn't mean that we can't afford to embody safety mod's. We are spending vast sums of money across the MOD on other projects, and can draw on funds in addition to this for UORs etc. Although this is a different pot of gold, I believe that we should trade on capability to achieve safety. More often than not, we don't and we want the new kit. There are often good reasons for this, e.g DAS, modifications which in themselves bring crew protection and an increase in capability. IMHO, this fire suppressant foam is much like DAS in that you can't carry out your role and maintain your safety case - so it should be possible to find the funds from the CPF under UOR, then take it into core.



A typical example of all the above is the use of our OM15 Hydraulic fluid. I'm sure you all have stories, experiences with the flammability of this stuff and how lethal it is when pumped at high pressure near ignition sources, one leak and you have a major event. How long have we stalled the introduction of a non-flammable replacement despite the numerous injuries, deaths sustained by this stuff? Too long, but I suspect that someone has carried out the above and said its ALARP. Bollox, put your hand in your pocket and modify it out.


Sorry if this has bored you, but like I say, just a little food for discussion and an alternative view.


Lastly, I would like to point out that in my experience, the safety of our crews and the airworthiness of our aircraft is taken extremely seriously by those on IPTs etc. Its just that this doesn't seem to resonate up to the treasury like it should.


Good luck with your campaign and safe flying to the crews putting themselves in harms way.

[Blodwyn Pig]

i would have thought that a major portion of the cost of fitting foam to the RAF c-130's would be the total stripping of the fuel tank sealant, inspection, and then resealing of the fuel tanks. this is a very time consuming job, even when specialist contractors are employed.
to my knowledge, this wasn't done on RAAF c-130's, and is done at the request of the RAF, this i suspect, would go a long way to explaining the difference in prices being bandied around.

[flipster]

Mr AEO - not boring a all - a very interesting perspective but some of your TLAs have me baffled. I think you might help everyone by clarifying them a little.

Nonetheless, whatever name you give things, your post again underlines the fact the procurement processes sometimes cloud the common-sense of the top officers meant to be making the decisions, while those below them, with a better grip of reality, are not listened to. Furthermore, if something is really important, like foam, this too-lengthy process lets down the front line when they need help most.

Even the most twisted fund-manger can see that it makes no monetary sense to lose 2 expensive ac and 10 priceless people - all of whom could have been saved 'for a ha'p'th of tar'.

Thanks

Flipster

(Blod - whatever the price, would it not have been cheaper than 10 lost souls and 2 totalled ac?)

[nigegilb]

Flip, I think Blod was just trying to explain the price difference. It validates the figures we have been hearing. The more detailed knowledge we have the easier it is for everyone to understand this issue. we have obviously won a big argument on the fitting of foam. However, there is no agreement to fit foam fleetwide. Maybe the RAF should consider a guarantee much the same as RAAF has done.

RAAF guarantee, EW BW and ESF protection for any hostile theatre. To be able to do this RAF would need to agree to reinstate J DAS upgrade. And agree to scope Ballistic matting. The guarantee would ensure that slicks were not sent into theatre. It would also mean that ESF would not necessarily need to be fitted across the fleet. Any thoughts?

I have been impressed with RAAF since I started researching this subject but I have to say, after leafing through some of the threads provided by navbro today, I am even more impressed. They seem determined to do the best by their people. I am aware of some issues in Aus but for a modest sized military they appear to be doing many things very well indeed. In the process they maintain a very open system. I truly believe that their close relationship with US and a US foreign policy increasingly looking East they will play an even more important role in the future.

[Blodwyn Pig]

that was indeed my intention. some of the previous posts imply the RAF are being ripped by being charged a huge amount for fitting a few chunks of foam. when in reality its quite an involved job, and the RAF are asking for a lot more work to be done at the same time.

[flipster]

Nige/Blod

Yes, you are quite right that ESF is not a simple stick-on job, it takes time and specially trained engineers and, once fitted, it is not a 'fire-and-forget' solution.

However, the MoD should not be allowed to hide behind the cost of fitment - that is what I was trying to say - sorry, if it sounded otherwise.

Also, the USAF has had this stuff for so long they have ironed out the 'teething' problems . As a result, the OzAF have had no problems once the foam was fitted. This means that the MoD can't hide behind 'operational difficulties' either.

The only problem for us is that we had already committed to this latest deployment without arrangements to fit ESF; that was criminal and a decision the MoD may regret.

[Mr-AEO]

Flipster.

Thanks. I will gladly translate any TLA's!

Starting with ALARP - As Low As Reasonably Practicable

And I agree with your sentiment, in that sometimes 'process' impairs our ability to think clearly about what it is we do and the impact that it will have. Process is a tool to make sure we do things properly, not a tool to make sure we make the right decision!

And yes, the current fleet are in a pickle. Could the mod not get done during roulemont?

[flipster]

Keep up the TLAs! I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Fixed on roulement? The problem is that when the ac get home, they need a certain amount of 'husbandry' (ie lots), not to mention the fact that crews still need to train on something.
Ultimately, there is not a lot of flex in the number of ac in the fleet. The number of ac we have left (we sold a load around the turn of the millenium) is not enough to give us the flex to get mods/SEMs done while carrying out our mandated 2 med-scale ops and still maintaining the training system.

I think you would agree that this was not the world's best bit of planning!:{

[Mr-AEO]

In that respect, humour me for a moment when I say that someone in the ministry has an attack of conscience and states that this mod MUST be done.

How the heck can it be planned in whilst we are still committed across the globe?

I am just thinking that helping to solve this dichotomy, is helping the drive toward getting the mod carried out. After all, it's not just a lack of funding stopping this, but the lack of appetite in grounding aircraft for so long while the tanks are sorted out.

[flipster]

Absolutely!

Unfortunately, until someone with the Kahunas big enough (or a number of people with smaller ones) to say "Stop", the candle will keep burning at both ends.

I believe that we may yet have such people high up - only time will tell.
For sure, if they do, they will go down in the annals of history and rightly so, as someone has to tell our political masters that 'playing with the big boys' is not cheap and can't be done on the same grounds as measly-minded commercial management. You don't measure people's lives on some resource budget!

flipster

[chappie]

well done guys, over 2200 signatures. thanks to kellie in australia as there is alot of australian input. the aussies have it and are supporting the call to have it. keep it going.

[Lima Juliet]

THIS POST QUOTES FROM OPEN SOURCE ON THE INTERNET

Ok, I've been chastised for knowing F*** All and I've now trawled the redacted BOI and the internet to check that I haven't been holding the wrong end of the stick.

My point 1: XV179 was hit by more than just bullets is borne out in the AOC's comments:
There is doubt about the exact sequence of event and whether the loss of the aircraft was solely due to _________, most probably________, or due to two seperate types of weapon, namely____________ and some unidentified projectile, possibly______________. Given the impossibility of gaining the physical evidence, the Board have correctly left the debate open. However, the final report by the Air Accident Investigation Branch states that "The evidence points very strongly to the aircraft having been caught in some form of coordinated attack involving multiple weapons sites". Acknowledging the lack of hard evidence, but based on his expert opinion, he concludes that the two scenarios involving different weapon systems are much more viable as hypotheses that the scenarios involving a single agency. It is my view, therefore, that the loss was more probably caused by the coincident action of two weapon systems than by one.
The latter half of the BOI's summary was:
Furthermore, the Board conclude that the explosive seperation could have been caused solely by___________ or a combination of ________ and another _______________ impacting the wing in the vicinity of the seperation boundary.
You can't keep putting bullets in the spaces as it doesn't make sense.

My point 2: That unguided rockets were potentially used, they even had them in the disgraceful video they released. The Iraqi Terrorists have Russian and French sourced rockets such as 68mm SNEB - taken from the internet:
One of the most frightening examples of how the militants put French weapons to use against the Americans came Oct. 26, 2003. That morning, at about 6 o'clock, they bombarded the Rashid Hotel in Baghdad with French missiles. The French rockets nearly killed Wolfowitz, whom Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has called "the brains" of the Pentagon. Half the missiles fired at Wolfowitz's hotel were French-made Matra SNEB 68-millimeter rockets, with a range of two to three miles. The others were Russian in origin.

My point 3: There is no evidence that ESF would have definately saved XV179. See the Stn Cdr's comments, an experienced Herc pilot:
Although our Hercules aircraft had suffered hits in the fuel tank area by ___________ in recent months, it is clear that there is a vulnerability when a fuel/air mix forms in the ullage. Foam and inert gas systems can prevent this explosive mix from developing and may have reduced the damage to XV179's wing.
The CINC goes on to say:
However, there is no guarantee that, had XV179 been fitted with such a system, the outcome would have been different.

Where does all that lot leave me? Why don't we leave the decision to fit ESF to the experts? - at the moment I see no indivisible evidence to support the fact that it would have saved XV179. Therefore, it must surely go into the decision and planning process to decide when, how and which aircraft they will fit it to; and if deemed exceptionally neccesary an Urgent Operational Requirement will be raised. I'm not sure the lobbying is the right way to do business as it looks like we're trying to find someone to blame.

On a final note. The French, and others who didn't join in Gulf War 2 (such as Germany), were allowing their arms to be supplied to Iraq. I know this first hand having had Roland fired at me and it could have been part of this batch (from the internet):
On April 8 came the downing of Air Force Maj. Jim Ewald's A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made Roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft. Ewald, one of the first U.S. pilots shot down in the war, was rescued by members of the Army's 54th Engineer Battalion who saw him parachute to earth not far from the wreckage.
Army intelligence concluded that the French had sold the missile to the Iraqis within the past year, despite French denials.
A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.

Now, a hypothetical question. Why didn't the report mention unguided or SNEB rockets? Hypothetical answer - politically embarrassing? That is just my cynical mind working...:E

I still stand by what I have said all along; I am not convinced that ESF would have saved XV179. In addition, I remain unconvinced that ESF should take priority over our other procurement programs (ie. A Typhoon with air-ground capability, FJ TCAS, anticipators for Puma, DIRCM for Sentry, the list goes on...). I also feel dreadfully sorry for the families of the crew.

LJ

By the way, I don't go to France and Germany for holidays anymore out of principle!

[tucumseh]

Leon

While I profess to be no expert, it seems to me that what is NOT said in BOI reports is often just as important. Or what transpires afterwards – for example, an unscheduled procurement or modification programme. There are numerous examples of inconclusive ramblings in such reports and very often a “complete” report will have deliberate omissions or be heavily sanitised. (Tornado/Patriot in GW2 is a good example).

What you quote is probably a fair and honest assessment of this one incident (no-one knows for sure) but I suspect that in the background the author, and many colleagues, are raging that the question as to whether or not the aircraft would have survived with ESF had to be asked in the first place.

You go on to say;

“Therefore, it must surely go into the decision and planning process to decide when, how and which aircraft they will fit it to; and if deemed exceptionally necessary an Urgent Operational Requirement will be raised. I'm not sure the lobbying is the right way to do business as it looks like we're trying to find someone to blame”.

Again, forgive me if I’m wrong, but I assume the decision and planning process you speak of includes a threat analysis of what this aircraft type may face; and someone hasn’t been doing their homework if it didn’t include the weapons you mention. Assuming it did, someone made a decision to omit the mitigation (DAS/ESF) from his recommendations, or a superior rejected the recommendation. It is not a case of finding someone to blame, but it is a simple fact that there aren’t too many signatures in the decision cycle.

You mention UORs. Just to clarify one thing – no-one should be under the impression that a UOR can be raised, procured, trialled and fitted at the drop of a hat. Even with the extraordinary success of this current campaign, it will be some months yet before a fleet fit can be accomplished. If one cannot reduce the UOR end-to-end timescale to within the threat assessment > in-theatre timescale, then you have to try another route. In this case, that is clearly to specify DAS/ESF from the outset (which it seems someone did, but was later over-ruled). Too many UORs are too little, too late. It is almost always a truism that one mans UOR is another’s total incompetence and lack of foresight.

You make the point, correctly, about other countries denying events when the truth is patently obvious. So do we!! That is no excuse, but it's another good reason not to buy French, isn't it? (As if another were needed).

Finally, you are “unconvinced that ESF should take priority over our other procurement programs”. There is indeed a long list and the argument is perpetual. I can think of others myself. But, the MoD forever lets itself down by continuing with practices which KNOWINGLY waste hundreds of millions each year. I say “knowingly” because the usual DPA/DLO response to audits pointing out this waste is to ignore the recommendations. In fact, their response to one report was to make it a disciplinary offence to implement the recommendations, when it was not an offence before the report. (Confirmed under FOI). Eliminate that waste, spend the money wisely on the programmes you mention, and then see what is lacking. Far less I warrant.

[Lara crofts pants]

Now, a hypothetical question. Why didn't the report mention unguided or SNEB rockets? Hypothetical answer - politically embarrassing? That is just my cynical mind working...:E


Hypothetical or not, you bring the reputation of the individuals on the board into question by making that remark. The board members are high calibre, trustworthy individuals and I am offended by your comment. You should retract that statement immediately and then please do not feel that you should return to this thread in order to massage your bruised ego.

bye bye

[steamchicken]

Leon, you are aware that history didn't begin in 1991? All kinds of countries, France, the UK, and many others, sold all sorts of stuff to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. There was a reason why Saddam could take UK nationals hostage in Iraq in '91 - because they were there, building things.

I've no idea which nutter club's backside your quotes were pulled out of, because - wow! - you haven't sourced them.

It seems to have helped Alistair Campbell a lot to have the Scum & Co blame everything on France, but grown-ups prefer to a) ignore bull**** propaganda or, failing that, b) only work themselves into a war fever against the country they're actually at war with.

[nigegilb]

I don't suppose we will ever change your opinion about ESF Leon, so I am not even going to try. In many ways it does not matter what you think, you will not change anything. However, you raise an interesting point about Roland. I have always been interested in why the French were fervently against the war. It would not surprise me in the least if the Iraqis were operating Roland against the coalition. Unfortunately, wrong thread. I hope you at least acknowledge that Herc crews are taking very big risks and deserve a lot more protection. I do not believe the level of risk would be accepted on a Tornado Sqn. If you cannot support ESF please support the general idea of enhanced protection. One day you might need it.

[Mr-AEO]

I say “knowingly” because the usual DPA/DLO response to audits pointing out this waste is to ignore the recommendations

Complete bollox m8, and this lets down some valid points in your post by making yourself out to be the stereotypical myopic operator, thereby letting the side down.

[Lima Juliet]

Pants of Lara Croft

Not having a go at the BOI team, old boy, but the chinless wonders that we call civil servants that get the final say on redacting...Sorry to confuse. All they normally worry about is what No 10 will say!:ugh:

LJ

[Lima Juliet]

Steam Chicken,

The difference between GW1 and before was that there was no UN-acknowledged arms emargo. I know we sell stuff to people that eventually use it against us - but we do try and play by the rules and are certainly not as blatant.

Why do I believe the quote from the internet on Roland? Because I've seen the pictures that the UK troops took of the missiles when they discovered the store with the manufacturers dates on the bloody things!

Nige,

I am open to a change of mind for protection that will save lives - it's just that there are other things in the shopping basket that I would sooner have. If we were losing Hercs at an alarming rate to ground-fire (and from the AOC's statement we don't seem to be) then I would back it 100%. I just get the impression that the poor crew and pax of XV179 were doomed as soon as the Terrorists decided to let all hell break loose - nothing would have saved them apart from geographical seperation. That said, that's my opinion and remain open to change if ESF would save you from a multiple hit from a large unguided rocket like 68mm SNEB (saw them going off on TWU - hell of a big bang!)

LJ

PS Civil Servants do sometimes have chins.

[chappie]

over 2230 think you're wrong."It doesn't matter what type of weapon pierced the fuel tank. there was no explosive in the weapon it was the spark associated with the fuel tank being penetrated that ignited the lethal mixture of air and vapours that caused the explosion. it doesn't matter how skilled the pilots are you cannot fly a one winged herc. they did not need to die. the gamble did not pay off."

[chappie]

i know that i'm pants with the computer hence bits in my last post i don't want. please excuse it!

leon, it's true what nige says. it's of no consequence what you think. you seem unable to know how to make your point. you are choosing quotes and shaping them to your argument. there may be multiple weapon sites but all it takes is one hitting the plane. so your point i'm afraid means diddly......again!

while you quote the station commander you know that he can not state what he believes. also, you can read into that comment you included what you will. it's open to interpretation. you then include that the CinC disbelieves that foam would have made a difference but no matter how you talk this up or talk around it the end point is the same. the wing blew off because there was an explosive mixture in the fuel tank. my brother did not need to die.

let me share this with you. the AOC 2 Gp informed us that the board and the AAIB investigator agree that foam was a contributory factor and the AAIB believes that the inclusion of foam would have reduced the probability of loss.one could argue that the term contributory and probability are downplayed, i suspect that they are both in the larger terms not inconsequential factors. the CinC had directed urgent work as a result of this.interesting considering your attempt at making a point of their beliefs,eh?! this of course has been helped by the lobbying. see my earlier point.over 2230 people of varying walks of life are helping that decision to go through.

while you concern yourself with the decision being left to the experts, you need not worry leon. the decision is made. it's the implementation and funding that is being decided now. if ESF has no place then we would not be at this point in the process would we?

so please leon, when i say to make your point with back up, that does not mean to pick up any old drivel and misuse it and misplace it to try and back up your arguement. you actually insult my intelligence by offering your sorrow to the families. why then do you make points that mean you have to show the wreckage of the plane to try and make your point? i don't see how that strengthened your points i don't need reminding of what state the plane was left in. i see that every night in nightmares so not only did that fail to back up your arguement it caused distress. your condolences do not add gravitas to your arguement and nor do i see that they were sincere as surely they'd been offered at an earlier point?

[tucumseh]

Mr-AEO

"Complete bollox m8, and this lets down some valid points in your post by making yourself out to be the stereotypical myopic operator, thereby letting the side down".


What I said is a simple fact. I do not post such statements lightly or without written evidence to support them. In this case I just happen to agree with the MoD's own auditor that they are knowingly wasting money. External auditors (NAO, for example) are even more damning. To reiterate, I sought and received, under FOI, papers from MoD confirming that various senior staffs acted properly when taking disciplinary action against a civil servant for implementing recommendations aimed at ensuring probity and avoiding waste. This was merely confirmation of what I'd known since 1991. I'll let you know if they ever change their mind.

But otherwise thank you for acknowledging some of my other points and let us not detract from the main thrust of this thread.

Regards

[Mr-AEO]

Tucumseh,

Agree that this thread is WAY more important than debating the merits or otherwise of the DLO/DPA!

To wit - How likely is this looking? Does any1 have any Herc IPT inside knowledge on what's being discussed?

[Lima Juliet]

Chappie

Thanks for the words. I was a good mate of one of the pax on the flight and I regret that you do not believe my sympathies:( - I would very much like to share a beer with him again.

I hope you get what you are looking for, but please be mindful that there are those that remain unconvinced that this is the answer to the probem (I am not alone if you look at this and other threads - there are several dissenters). I only hope for all our sakes it does not cancel (due to budgetary constraints) another project that is so desperately needed.

LJ

[StopStart]

So what other projects are desperately needed at the moment? I would have thought that DAS, ESF and armour for the SH and AT fleets would be a priority given the nature of ops at the moment.

No doubt body coloured wing mirrors for Typhoon are a higher priority though :rolleyes:

[chappie]

LJ

i am more than aware that there will be those who disagree with what i'm doing. i'm not in this to make friends. it is with great interest that i read opposing views but if there is going to be a point made please back up your points properly. like i said, i found the use of the stills from the terroist video distasteful to say the least.

i am doing this as it's what i believe in whole heartedly. we all have causes we think are more worthy than those that are currently being fought out but then do something about it. follow suit and fight for what you believe in. this campaign was started as this suppressant technology is needed. the hierarchy involved need to be made aware that this isn't a flight of fancy or a mad old bird gone insane in grief treading on toes that should n't be trod on. 2241 people can all back me up in this point. the upper echalons need to made aware of that.

this is not going to bring them back.:{ they are gone and only one day will we be able to share a cold beer with them in the bar in the sky. but i will do what i can to make sure that for now the bar doesn't get any new punters!:=

i am sorry for your loss. maybe then you can understand a little of the grief,desperation and anger i feel at this situation. so, please exercise a little more tact than previously. do not be a bully be a man. and no more stunts of images of wreckage. please. i beg of you.like i've said before, i don't need a reminder of the terrifying experience my brother and the others had to endure before they died. i see that every time a herc flies over. i wonder how high they were,how much they knew, how scared they were, how much it hurt nad how long it took. i also see it at night when i close my eyes. i see it when i hear a song when i think of him...i do not need reminding of it when we are debating foam. please do not pick up chunks of text that mean nothing to your arguement. it is not the forum to speculate lets talk facts. that is the way to be heard leon.:)

[Lima Juliet]

Chappie

Your points are taken and I apologise for any grief that I have personally caused you and your family; they were unintentional.

LJ

[chappie]

LJ,

thankyou. i appreciate your apology.

please do not knock those of us who stand up for what we believe in. if you believe in other worhty causes take a leaf out of my book and fight for it. you never know, you could be asking us for support for your camapign one day!:)

[chappie]

i'll be hoping that this thread is not dead by posting on it.

i'm still fighting.

please still support me.