MPA/SAR Hercules patrolling the Falklands

[mmitch]

Article on the Hercules being used for fishery protection and SAR around the Falklands. Will the Falklands need a permanent based Voyager once the VC10 ends its days.
Falklands Hercules Mission (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/falklands-hercules-mission-11092013)
mmitch.

[BEagle]

Will the Falklands need a permanent based Voyager once the VC10 ends its days.

Not until after the 3-engined aerodrome denial device is out of service.

Best get that Voyager KC3 FRU release to service sorted out sharpish...... Not to mention the non-functional MPS.....:(

[Courtney Mil]

Well, that's that thread killed in one. Or maybe not.

Thing is, BEags knows about such things.

[Roadster280]

At the risk of opening the floodgates, what's the downer on TriStars for?

It's bigger & newer (haha!) than the VC10.

How about a list of pros/cons for both?

[ExAscoteer]

Hercules Tanker (again) anyone?

As in all those years where the VC10s insisted they couldn't cover the task and that it had to be done by Albert.

Then, of course, there is the rank hypocrisy of certain Tanker Wankers insisting that Albert crews knew **** all about tanking

[BEagle]

According to STANEVAL, many of the C-130 tanker mob were frankly b£oody dangerous.....:mad: Whether or not that was fair, I don't know. But STANEVAL aren't usually wrong.

The C-130 tanker was only retained in theatre until there were sufficient VC10Ks available to spare one to waste its time doing the Bennyland task. Incidentally, my only downer on the TriShaw is its poor reliability record of late - and the fact that it's a single hose (at a time) tanker. So it's a good job that the TypHoon has a fast onload rate then.......:rolleyes: As someone said, TypHoon crews should press for the big jugs to be fitted now that the TriShaw is providing the tanker task....:oh:

Still, once the Alberts are no longer with us, the A400M Atlas should be able to do all the Malvinas tasks......except that the RAF won't be allowed to use it as a tanker thanks to the AirTanker contract stitch up, or so I'm told....:rolleyes:

[Biggus]

Which STANEVAL would that be, presumably the VC-10 STANEVAL and not the C-130? I expect they thought the Victor crews were "bloody dangerous" too!! :ugh:

STANEVALs can be wrong, and when they are they're all the more dangerous for it, because generally they'll never admit/accept the fact!


C-130s were tanking well before a HDU got anywhere near a VC-10, and doing a pretty fair job of it too. But let's not let any facts get in the way of a good story.

[ExAscoteer]

Biggus, EXACTLY!

[fergineer]

As an ex Herc Tanker man I resent the remark that we were not up to the job. The MPA and SAR roles were done well by the Herc's as well.

[Laarbruch72]

How about we all cease talk about current types and their potential deployment and potential capabilities in a current theatre? I know we have many here who are just itching to provide info to Argentina if it makes them look clever, but surely it's better to keep scthum.

[BEagle]

Which STANEVAL would that be..

AAR STANEVAL, although thy were called something else back then. ('GSU'?) They checked standards across all AAR fleets.

Sorry, but that's what was said at the time: "They think they're doing a good job, but they're pretty gash - and some are dangerous!".

I don't know why they thought this, but they did!

[Lima Juliet]

I never had any complaints sitting behind an Albert Tanker. In fact you get a nice picture taken down the hose through the hole in the tail ramp :ok:

Like this!

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/4936896463_90d9317942_m.jpg

LJ

[Ken Scott]

"They think they're doing a good job

And we did do a good job, ALL the roles required around the FI with one ac type that was reliable, flexible, could use both runways & cope with a hefty crosswind too. In the event of a QRA scramble we could be airborne in less than 10 mins , probably a tad faster than any converted airliner could react.

All you have is the quoted opinion of one individual who probably had a prejudice against a fleet that wasn't dedicated AAR so perhaps he didn't see them as 'professional tankers' because we could do a whole lot more than just give away gas.

Laarbruch72 - obviously all my comments refer to an ac no longer in service so no 'Beadwindow' moment here.

[lj101]

In the event of a QRA scramble we could be airborne in less than 10 mins , probably a tad faster than any converted airliner could react.

The Queen of the skies has matched that a few times. Usually depended on the location of the crew- from the swimming pool we used to allow an extra 10min so the Flt Eng could blow dry his hair.

[WIDN62]

Yet another anti-C130 post from you I see BEagle. Calling the Hercules tanker crews a "mob" gives away where you are coming from and is completely out of order.
From a fleet with only a couple of co-pilots who were ex-fast jet, to refuelling south of Ascension and then in the Falklands in a matter of months doesn't smack of the lack of professionalism that you hint at.
In the early days of Hercules tanking we had very little interest from AAR STANEVAL. A little later, one of the C130 STANEVAL pilots was posted to the Tanker Training Flight - he would never accept any lack of professionalism.
Some years later Wg Cdr STANEVAL went to Mount Pleasant on a visit with a C130 STANEVAL pilot, and found a very professional organisation - there was nothing adverse in the report from that visit.
Everybody I have talked to who tanked behind the C130 told me it was a very stable tanker flown by very flexible and professional crews. The standards of crews in all fleets will vary enormously and even if there were some lapses in professionalism, you are wrong to tar all with the same brush.
Personally I prefer the testimony from Leon (maybe my Loady took that picture, Leon?), rather than a second-hand quote from an un-named source.
Just because you have cracked the 20000 posts, BEagle, doesn't mean everybody has to take your word as gospel.

[BEagle]

In which case I'd be intrigued to know why he had cause to make the comment he did...:confused: But it was in the early days, so perhaps by the time Wg Cdr STANEVAL paid the visit to MPA to which you refer, any such earlier 'issues' had been resolved?

But remind us why 'HercDet' became part of 1312 Flt...???

C-130 tanker 'mob' was perhaps the wrong collective noun. Traditionally, in polite society the correct collective noun for AAR aircrew was always tanker 'trash'....:p

Incidentally, the C-130 tanker first flew only 2 weeks before the first VC10K2 in June 1982. But whereas the former was a war emergency programme, the latter followed the traditional path through Boscombe and hence didn't enter service until the following year.

[ksimboy]

Beags I may may be wrong but 1312 Flt was Herc tankers at Stanley well before the 10 appeared at MPA. Lovely photo Leon, sadly all my pics are of Phantoms plugged in behind Albert .

[CoffmanStarter]

Ksimboy ... Would love to see your F4 tanking pics ... :ok:

[BEagle]

Anyway, to put the record straight, I am not 'anti-Herc' in general. I am as equally 'anti' some of the things some VC10K crews did as I am 'anti' some of the things some C-130 crews did. As a passenger in any aircraft, I didn't expect to be put at the risk in the way I was during a simple Patrick AFB - Gander transit when the C-130 captain decided to 'say good-bye' to the hotel on Cocoa Beach with some ultra low-level flying, for example. I gather that he was in the 'Bud Holland' league of rule-adherence, but never actually killed anyone. But equally, when we were 2 crewed at the Abbotsford Air Show one year, I was surprised when the 'other' crew's captain flew a poorly-executed low-level beat up on departure in a K3 at MTOW, causing 2 years' worth of fatigue with a single ham-fisted yug into the climb.....:mad:

Many of the 1312 Flt C-130 crews do indeed have a proud record - for example the long-range life-saving SAR trips they flew out into the middle of nowhere in filthy South Atlantic weather. The citation for one was on the 1312 Flt wall when I was last there and should by now have been joined by another, after last year's SAR mission way out into the Atlantic.

But, it would seem that there were also some 'bad apples'. Hence it was decided by 'them upstairs' that independent supervision was needed, hence 1312 Flt had an independent OC for this purpose - the trigger for this decision isn't relevant; suffice to say that it was taken.

Although on occasion that proved to be a bit of an own goal. I was doing a temporary ground stint down there once and was surprised that the Herc wasn't flying its planned sortie - the weather was unusually excellent. My Wg Cdr boss also noticed and asked me to find out... So off to 1312 for a coffee and to check personal Hotmail.

The VC10K crew were in typical "It's a war-goer, but the Tic-TOC won't drop our RS" mood, but there was no sign of the C-130 crew. "Albert not flying, chaps?", I asked. "Err, no." "Hmm, OK - where's the boss?"

"That's why Albert isn't flying. He was too pissed to turn up and auth their trip, they missed their briefed time on the area, so they've stacked"

What did I tell my boss? A little white lie - that one of the crew was in permanent residence in trap one with the galloping squits. He believed me, fortunately - I didn't think he'd want to check.....:hmm:

I won't disclose the background of the 1312 boss as some would only accuse me of bias....

[Xercules]

1312 Flt started its present existence at RAF Stanley shortly after the war - exactly when I do not know but soon enough to be housed in tents initially. Its original establishment was 3 ac - 2 tankers and one "flatbed" (a normal truck albeit with a probe). The raison d'etre for the flatbed was maritime reconnaissance and support for the South Georgia infantry garrison thus saving the tankers for their primary role of supporting the F4s. At this time the VC10 K of any ilk was unable to operate into FI, because of the nature and length of the runway at Stanley.

In due course MPA opened and 1312 moved across there on 17 April 1986. During the move 1312 did not lose a sortie, mounting Q at Stanley with one tanker whilst the other did the normal morning sortie with the F4s and the flatbed its MRR and ferrying "stuff" between the 2 airfields. Tanker 1 then landed at MPA took over the Q and Tanker 2 did the afternoon sortie with the F4s before landing at MPA. Next day we then did a crew rotation. I know because I captained Tanker 2.

BEagle is quite right that the Herc tanker was a wartime modification - probably done as a UOR (did they exist by that name in 1982?). Like a lot of UORs, however, it was not funded properly and never taken into core to have the mod properly completed. Eventually the EA said we can cover it no more as it is not truly airworthy . The price of completing the mod was too high, the money was not found and those 6 ac were grounded and withdrawn. That was when, and only then, that the VC10s deigned to get involved in the FI detachment and took over 1312 - it was rather a case of the 10s being permitted to join the remaining Albert on 1312 than the other way round.

Originally, and I think right up until the tankers were withdrawn, the 1312 crews did 4 months at a time. There were 3 ac and 3 crews spending one night in 3 at the Flight on 15 minute standby. As has been said we could be airborne in 10 minutes although the requirement was 15, to follow the F4s on 10. What usually happened, and I expect to get challenged on this by F4 mates, especially at Stanley but also at MPA, we taxied and then had to hold short of the active to await the departure of the F4s. At Stanley we quite definitely had to hold short because we had only a very short distance to the active which we had to backtrack almost its whole length for take off. At MPA we did have some taxiway to follow before backtracking the active only a short distance.

I cannot vouch for the professionalism of all Herc tanker crews over about 15 years but I can say that they all worked hard and tried to deliver the goods whatever the problems and all those I knew did it professionally (whatever that really means). In FI we had a near to 100% despatch rate and never, in my time there to my knowledge, failed to give fuel when asked. I would guess that over the rest of their time there similar claims could be justified.

By the way, by the time of GW1 and after, those 6 Herc tankers were flying somewhere in the region of 30% of the tanker fleet's hours because of their higher hours allocation than any of other the tankers. It is also notable that during GW1 the 2 tankers we usually had available at LYE did most , even nearly all, of the UK AAR flying whilst the others went off to earn their medals.

[lj101]

That was when, and only then, that the VC10s deigned to get involved in the FI detachment and took over 1312 - it was rather a case of the 10s being permitted to join the remaining Albert on 1312 than the other way round.

The spin we were sold (101 Sqn) was that we would be in situ for about 18-24 months whilst the J's were being converted circa 1996?
As for being 'permitted' - thanks.

[edwardspannerhands]

Now here's a thought.............

DSEi: BAe 146 offered as tactical air-to-air refueller (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dsei-bae-146-offered-as-tactical-air-to-air-refueller-390417/)

Surely cheaper to run than Voyager.

Hope the Tristar is a success down there. Was a bit worried when asked by a member of the Project Team if there was "hangar space" for a Tristar at MPA!! Perhaps if they'd blown the dust of that file lying in the corner of the office..........:ugh:

[BEagle]

Yet again 't Bungling Baron Waste o' Space is trying to peddle a pretty useless 5-APU tanker derivative....:ugh:

You want a modern, tactical tanker-transport with an 18+ tonne offload? Try the Embraer KC-390, which will have 2 wing AAR pods, something which 't Bungling Baron's team seem to have overlooked:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/KC-390_zps775a879b.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/KC-390_zps775a879b.jpg.html)

[The Helpful Stacker]

BAe also have their fingers in the KC-390 pie too.

[melmothtw]

I'm guessing the KC-390 doesn't come with the £5 million price tag quoted for the BAe 146M mind.

[Martin the Martian]

Reading the article, with the throw-away comment about maritime surveillance, you can see exactly what BAE have in mind.

Genuine question: was a KC-130 style modification of some RAF Hercs ever seriously considered to replace the C.1K? And if not, why?

[Just This Once...]

Yes, the short C-130Js were bought with AAR in mind. As the money got tight and the requirement (driven by Chinook and Merlin, with an ability for tactical FJ) became less pressing the funding was removed as a savings measure.

[Busta]

I have nothing but praise for the Stanley C130 tankers; they were always where they should have been, when they were supposed to be there. Adaptability and flexibility were always available in abundance when needed, they never let me down.

Nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.

[WIDN62]

Busta,

Thank you!

[ksimboy]

Busta, Many thanks, lovely to know that our efforts were appreciated . Still can't watch Life of Brian without thinking of all that went on during my 4 months in 85.

[Cows getting bigger]

I recollect a particularly miserable, wet dark morning at MPA in 1988. I guess it was around 25 May as we had all been briefed about the increased threat.

Anyway, Byron and/or Alice were doing their usually good job and a mandatory launch was ordered by Kent. 1312 were most definitely the first in the sky, closely followed by two F4s of 23 Sqn. Our side of things stood up and we then waited, a long time. The second tanker went (I don't recollect there being three airframes at MPA but could be mistaken) as the first returned having seen the lights at 200ft....... ish. A very quick turnaround and that tanker went off again.

It must have been sometime after lunch that the packet of two F4s and two C130s finally came back for a full stop. The F4s must have been up for at least 8 hrs and the C130s had been in support throughout.

In my quarter if a century in the RAF this was one of the moments where teamwork drove the day. Could the VC10 have done the same? Probably. However and without doubt, the Albert proved its worth and capability in such an environment. Some weeks later I had the pleasure of flying in one of the C130s on a South Georgia mail drop; quite a versatile aircraft.

PS. I'm pretty sure that a C130 Orange Crop pod must have had a nightly close look at tarmac as the first aircraft rounded the rather tight corner between the ATC taxiway and RW23. :)

[smujsmith]

Cows getting bigger,

Was this your return then ?

http://i1292.photobucket.com/albums/b572/smujsmith/image_zps7b3d04c4.jpg (http://s1292.photobucket.com/user/smujsmith/media/image_zps7b3d04c4.jpg.html)


Respect to 1312, always enjoyed my times.

Smudge :ok:

[dragartist]

I started to become annoyed at this thread. I know it is just a bit of banter. for those interested enough in facts you may wish to read the history of AAR by Dick Tanner MBE. good detail on the development of the Herc during the Falklands and thereafter. What an achievement for the guys at FRL and Marshall.

You can find the book at P&S on special offer at the moment £8. I think I paid £25 for my copy some time back but only got round to reading it recently stimulated by some other threads on here.

I visited Cambridge a couple of times in 82 to fit some other stuff to the 130. I thought it was going on the tanker we used for the TI but apparently it went on another frame (discussed elsewhere on PPRuNe).

At the time we were desperate for such. The installation was the best that could be done in the available time. It may not have been absolutely perfect but don't knock it.

in 2000 and something the C130J IPT at ABW did have a tanker programme. this was dissolved when the programme was cancelled. Not sure why. The J now operating down there can fly much further than the K. Not sure where the one with the tanks fitted is these days. the tanks were removable. This element started out under the LRDI programme which morphed into something else. I am sure you can read about it on the Lockheed HOC web site. a couple of years back ASRA was cleared on the J specifically to go South along with some other mission avionics for MPA.

I do hope the picture above is photo shopped. It still gives me the willys thinking of Pvt Game at Cerney. It's just not that funny.

[ancientaviator62]

dragartist,
as you rightly say the Herc tanker fit was the best solution in the time available. It demonstrated what could be done in the hour of need. Yes it was a bit of a ' parts bin lash up' but it soldiered on well until the mid nineties. Our biggest problem as operators of the Herc tanker was the Marham tanker mafia who found it difficult to understand that Herc tanking was in many ways very different to Victor tanking. The a/c could and did so many things the Victor could not- and vice versa. I do not recall ever seeing anyone from the Marham Tanker Staneval on one of our a/c. Given that one of their many edicts was that we were all to be sat down and strapped in whilst dispensing fuel (impossible for the ALM and Nav) I have no doubt that if one did fly with us he may have thought us 'gash'. There were many other items I will not bore you with. But it is also oft forgotten that the standard 'prodding' training in the early days that a captain would receive would consist of a few dry prods and then it was off to do it for real. No pressure then.

[WIDN62]

AA62

I am pretty sure I did a wet prod in the UK before heading south (I am away from home so can't check). However all my prods were behind a Vulcan because there were no Victors available in the UK. There was so much pressure to get C130K crews trained, we were told that we would be OK when we got there and to "Man up". At least when I got to Ascension, I was able to arrange to meet a returning Victor and do a couple of dry prods before having to do it for real the next day.

[smujsmith]

Dragartist,

I'm pretty sure the picture I posted is photoshopped. I apologise if you find it offensive, I can assure you I'm well aware of the event you mention and never meant to associate this with the said event. Having said that, from experience, if you believe that C130 crews didn't do low fly byes, like every other type in RAF service then you are deluding yourself. If you wish I will delete the post in question, it was meant in jest to a previous post, and as such is of no consequence to me. Please let me know and I will comply.

Smudge

[BEagle]

....for those interested enough in facts you may wish to read the history of AAR by Dick Tanner MBE. Good detail on the development of the Herc during the Falklands and thereafter. What an achievement for the guys at FRL and Marshall.

Indeed, that part of the book is most interesting.

Unfortunately, much of the rest is rather less so. ''Tech. heavy', riddled with errors of detail and some very, very poor diagrams which are almost illegible. Very little about the history of AAR, but a fair bit about the history of AAR equipment. For example, I found the F-84 Thunderjet electrical system somewhat less than fascinating....:8

Nevertheless, when 'can do' was needed, Marshall and FRL managed the C-130K tanker and receiver programme in remarkably short timescales, both of which are well chronicled.

[wiggy]

I have nothing but praise for the Stanley C130 tankers; they were always where they should have been, when they were supposed to be there.

+1 :ok:

(Grateful receiver, Dec 82-Mar 83 and Oct 83)

[woptb]

Glad you appreciate its versatility & particularly its availability :rolleyes:
It was a lnightmare to keep the HDU serviceable,we worked our nuts off !
Still have nightmares about setting up the liquid clutch, with background music provided buy a clicking Ledex:{

[ancientaviator62]

WIDN62,
your single wet prod before being despatched south proves my more general point that the level of training in extremis was of necessity short indeed.
The learning curve for all was vertical.
I think everyone connected with the Herc tanker, from Marshalls to the maintainers did an excellent job keeping it going for as long as it did. We only had six a/c total, two of which were always down south. Out of the remaining four we had perhaps two 'goers' at any one time. It was amusing to get signals addressed to the Lyneham Tanker Wing !
The tanker was operated at well over the normal T/O weights and as I recall Lockheed refused to supply fatigue data as these 'overload ' weights were not meant for everyday use. Marshalls, as the European Design Authority had to produce their own. Seemed to work as at least one decommissioned tanker was sold to a foreign airforce.

[Al-bert]

Thanks also to 1312 for some excellent and much appreciated comms and top cover when SAR ing up to 300 miles offshore plus one notable casevac from South Georgia. :ok:
Al 78Sqn SK

[Ken Scott]

Al - with a name like yours surely you were on the wrong fleet? SKs not
C130s?

[Al-bert]

sorry Ken, rotary only - it's a short story but I'd have to kill you :E

[sycamore]

Al-B, 15 March `93..?

[Al-bert]

14 Jan '88 Sycamore! I believe we were the first from Mt Pleasant. ;)

[ksimboy]

There has to be some interesting tales from those who served on 1312, both at Stanley and MPA? Hands up all who remember the "Turdis"?

[fergineer]

Now let me think did I have fun there or not mmmmmmmmmmm Yep I had fun fun fun, great flying great support and the 4 months past quickly. Stories, there are many but could I tell them don't think so.

[Jet In Vitro]

Some of us are old enough to remember the 'Dets'. An interesting event for me was recovering to Stanley at night when a Haulamatic bounced off the road, outside ATC, and rolled into a ditch. In doing so it cut the power from the ATC generator. We were at about 5 miles to go on the approach when the airfield was plunged into darkness. We overshot and held, eventually ATC called us on their battery powered UHF back radio to tell us what had happened. They then switched on the glim lights and we carried out a visual approach and landing.


Do we still have those basic back ups in place?

[Cows getting bigger]

We certainly did in the late 90s. I recollect operating into a strip somewhere near the Albanian/Kosovan border under such conditions.


To those who know the strip - it wasn't me!!!! :=

[WIDN62]

JIV

HERCDET actually old chap!

[scarecrow450]

Had LE58's(modern glims) at MPA in 91/92 a Timmy took off and blew a LE58 into the undershoot, never found it even after a S King had an aerial look for us as well. Stiil had LE58's at Marham in 97 and we still use them at Shawbury's RLG's
for night T's etc.

[ksimboy]

Are goosenecks out of the ATC inventory now? Remember the instructors making the young WRAFs demonstrate how to extinguish them on my basic TG9 course all those years ago !

[scarecrow450]

Goosenecks are long gone, there were replaced by FGI's(Flare Ground Indicator's) basically a giant roman candle which was ignited by a port fire(like a big phosphorous match).
Flare Ground Indicating No. MK-1 Yellow (http://www.weaponsindia.com/flaregroundmk1.html)

The glims came into use then the LE58's.


Remember the loss of a F4 at MPA in Oct 91, the C130's and Sea King's seemed to be flying dawn to night in an effort to find the guys, the C130's
also flew the ill or relatives of the seriously ill or dying to Santiago for onward flight to the UK, they even did once such flight on Christmas Day 1991, complete with an inflatable Father Christmas !

[ksimboy]

FGI's , loved standing outside the tower at Honington waiting for the signal to light them for a check of Buccaneers gear. Then watch it taxi past , those don't chaps upstairs kindly forgetting to let us know outside lol .

[CAW]

Very interesting reading indeed!!

Thanks to you all.

Since you are refering to C-130 in some SAR/MAR based either at RAF Stanley or MPA, I´d like to know if other than "Excersice Millenium" was ever done with the Fuerza Aerea Argentina. (late 90s)

As far as I Know, it was a SAR excersice which was conducted south of Lafonia (may be some 50/70 NM) which involved at least an argentinean C-130, an a naval vessel from each navy. I tend to believe that many other aircrafts must have been involved but that´s pretty much all the information I have.

Anything anyone could add?

Christian