RAF planes 'at risk' as MoD cancels anti-missile system
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: wilts
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad Mark - spot on mate...
I'm sure the reason Southside cant actually afford a ferrari is because he is infact a twelve year old boy... if he isn't he certainly has the mental age of one.
I'm sure the reason Southside cant actually afford a ferrari is because he is infact a twelve year old boy... if he isn't he certainly has the mental age of one.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wilts
Age: 57
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By Zoë Mills
FORMER RAF pilot Nigel Gilbert who was a close friend of a number of
the Lyneham crew who died in Iraq believes their aircraft could have
survived the enemy fire that brought it down.
He has hit out at Government claims the Hercules crash in which ten men
died, was not survivable and says he has evidence to prove it.
He says the main reason servicemen perished in the tragedy was because
the aircraft didn't have an anti explosion protection system, known as
foam retardant.
After Mr Gilbert went to a national newspaper with his claims, North
Wiltshire MP James Gray asked the Government if anything more could
have been done to prevent the crash.
He said Defence Secretary John Reid assured him the plane had
everything except foam retardant, but would now be looking into whether
it could be fitted.
Mr Gray said not only the bereaved families, but others in Lyneham with
relatives serving overseas, deserved to know that their loved ones were
not being exposed to unnecessary dangers.
A spokesman for the MoD said it was investigating whether fuel tank
inerting systems could be installed on the planes as a matter of
urgency.
"We have lost an aircraft and a brave crew but they need not have
died," said Mr Gilbert, who was a flight lieutenant based at RAF
Lyneham for eight years.
"The US Air Force first had foam in 1965 and the Australians have had
it since 2003."
He says an American plane fired at more than 19 times during the
opening days of the Iraq war managed to land safely with 58 people on
board.
Mr Gilbert, who lives near Calne, said: "That was a bigger calibre
attack, but everyone survived because the aircraft had foam.
"In the Lyneham crash, the round went into the fuel tank and caused an
explosion which ripped an outboard section of the wing off making the
aircraft uncontrollable.
"If it had had foam there would have been no explosion. The worst
scenario would have been a wing fire, which means they would have had
20 minutes to land. They were only six minutes away from a coalition
air base, and they could have put the plane down in the desert."
Mr Gilbert, 40, who is now a commercial airline pilot, trained with the
pilot of the downed aircraft, Flight Lieutenant David Stead, and was
also friends with crew members Mark Gibson, Gary Nicholson and Bob
O'Connor.
He said he is now making it his mission to ensure other servicemen
don't suffer the same fate as his pals.
"I've been in touch with Stead's parents and they don't want anyone to
go through what they've been through," he said. "Every Herc that goes
to war needs this stuff. I'm doing this for the wives of the guys that
are out there today and tomorrow. I won't stop fighting until this
lifesaving equipment is fitted on every plane."
Mr Gilbert said foam retardant was first requested by RAF crews in 1982
at the time of the Falklands War.
He realised the importance of foam himself when he was serving in
Afghanistan four years ago and his aircraft was regularly shot at.
"John Reid said the Herc crew last year was unlucky but you can't rely
on luck when you go to war," he said.
Mr Gilbert said the excuses given by the MoD for not fitting the foam
retardant were money and time.
He said: "It is an act of negligence that the Hercules did not have
foam retardant on board. In fact, no RAF Hercules has foam in the fuel
tanks even though it has been requested on many occasions.
"The only safe method to protect the crews is to do what other air
forces have done and provide the best kit and best training. Our
service people have become expendable assets under this Government."
"If we do not learn the lessons of this crash then I am afraid that
this tragedy will happen again.
North Wiltshire MP James Gray supports the campaign.
He said: "We want the Hercs to have as many defence aids as they can.
The Secretary of State is now in urgent discussion with Marshalls of
Cambridge over the matter."
FORMER RAF pilot Nigel Gilbert who was a close friend of a number of
the Lyneham crew who died in Iraq believes their aircraft could have
survived the enemy fire that brought it down.
He has hit out at Government claims the Hercules crash in which ten men
died, was not survivable and says he has evidence to prove it.
He says the main reason servicemen perished in the tragedy was because
the aircraft didn't have an anti explosion protection system, known as
foam retardant.
After Mr Gilbert went to a national newspaper with his claims, North
Wiltshire MP James Gray asked the Government if anything more could
have been done to prevent the crash.
He said Defence Secretary John Reid assured him the plane had
everything except foam retardant, but would now be looking into whether
it could be fitted.
Mr Gray said not only the bereaved families, but others in Lyneham with
relatives serving overseas, deserved to know that their loved ones were
not being exposed to unnecessary dangers.
A spokesman for the MoD said it was investigating whether fuel tank
inerting systems could be installed on the planes as a matter of
urgency.
"We have lost an aircraft and a brave crew but they need not have
died," said Mr Gilbert, who was a flight lieutenant based at RAF
Lyneham for eight years.
"The US Air Force first had foam in 1965 and the Australians have had
it since 2003."
He says an American plane fired at more than 19 times during the
opening days of the Iraq war managed to land safely with 58 people on
board.
Mr Gilbert, who lives near Calne, said: "That was a bigger calibre
attack, but everyone survived because the aircraft had foam.
"In the Lyneham crash, the round went into the fuel tank and caused an
explosion which ripped an outboard section of the wing off making the
aircraft uncontrollable.
"If it had had foam there would have been no explosion. The worst
scenario would have been a wing fire, which means they would have had
20 minutes to land. They were only six minutes away from a coalition
air base, and they could have put the plane down in the desert."
Mr Gilbert, 40, who is now a commercial airline pilot, trained with the
pilot of the downed aircraft, Flight Lieutenant David Stead, and was
also friends with crew members Mark Gibson, Gary Nicholson and Bob
O'Connor.
He said he is now making it his mission to ensure other servicemen
don't suffer the same fate as his pals.
"I've been in touch with Stead's parents and they don't want anyone to
go through what they've been through," he said. "Every Herc that goes
to war needs this stuff. I'm doing this for the wives of the guys that
are out there today and tomorrow. I won't stop fighting until this
lifesaving equipment is fitted on every plane."
Mr Gilbert said foam retardant was first requested by RAF crews in 1982
at the time of the Falklands War.
He realised the importance of foam himself when he was serving in
Afghanistan four years ago and his aircraft was regularly shot at.
"John Reid said the Herc crew last year was unlucky but you can't rely
on luck when you go to war," he said.
Mr Gilbert said the excuses given by the MoD for not fitting the foam
retardant were money and time.
He said: "It is an act of negligence that the Hercules did not have
foam retardant on board. In fact, no RAF Hercules has foam in the fuel
tanks even though it has been requested on many occasions.
"The only safe method to protect the crews is to do what other air
forces have done and provide the best kit and best training. Our
service people have become expendable assets under this Government."
"If we do not learn the lessons of this crash then I am afraid that
this tragedy will happen again.
North Wiltshire MP James Gray supports the campaign.
He said: "We want the Hercs to have as many defence aids as they can.
The Secretary of State is now in urgent discussion with Marshalls of
Cambridge over the matter."
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, oh dear...
Mr giblet...doing it for the boys eh..????
More likely scoring a few brownies for his next career in politics.
Shame the incumbants on 'the sqn' arent as forthcoming with their ideas...
5d2d
Short-sighted penny pinching par excellence
I have some understanding and experience of budgetary pressures, but having read the text below (ref Flight Magazine), I wonder how the people who make these decisions sleep at night:-
Flight International can, meanwhile, reveal that the UK is the only launch nation involved in the Airbus Military A400M programme not to have funded the installation of the safety equipment as part of its production order. “The [A400M] common standard aircraft does not come fitted with a fuel tank inerting system,” says the MoD. “Fuel tank inerting was not selected by the UK prior to, or after, contract signature.”
Airbus Military sources confirm that all other programme launch customers – Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey – have selected the equipment for their 155 aircraft. The UK also previously removed defensive countermeasures equipment from all but nine of its 25 A400Ms, reducing procurement costs by around £240 million ($417 million).
Full article
Flight International can, meanwhile, reveal that the UK is the only launch nation involved in the Airbus Military A400M programme not to have funded the installation of the safety equipment as part of its production order. “The [A400M] common standard aircraft does not come fitted with a fuel tank inerting system,” says the MoD. “Fuel tank inerting was not selected by the UK prior to, or after, contract signature.”
Airbus Military sources confirm that all other programme launch customers – Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey – have selected the equipment for their 155 aircraft. The UK also previously removed defensive countermeasures equipment from all but nine of its 25 A400Ms, reducing procurement costs by around £240 million ($417 million).
Full article
Lyneham Lad,
I have over the years frequently gone into bat to protect this Govt's Defence expenditure record and attempt to deflect some of the justified criticism toward the uniformed top brass.
HOWEVER,
Lyneham Lads little quoted piece above is the last straw. I don't care if this decision was made by a Two Star, the CAS or a senior Civil Servant, the Minister of Defence is ultimately responsible for this and to allow a situation where the UK is the ONLY customer for the A400M NOT to have specified a fuel tank inerting system, to cancel DAS fit on 16 of a 25 frame order and STILL not to have fitted foam anti fire systems in existing C-130K wing fuel tanks is quite simply negligence of the highest order!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some one get a grip.
If it's good enough for the likes of Luxembourg then it should be on RAF a/c.
I have over the years frequently gone into bat to protect this Govt's Defence expenditure record and attempt to deflect some of the justified criticism toward the uniformed top brass.
HOWEVER,
Lyneham Lads little quoted piece above is the last straw. I don't care if this decision was made by a Two Star, the CAS or a senior Civil Servant, the Minister of Defence is ultimately responsible for this and to allow a situation where the UK is the ONLY customer for the A400M NOT to have specified a fuel tank inerting system, to cancel DAS fit on 16 of a 25 frame order and STILL not to have fitted foam anti fire systems in existing C-130K wing fuel tanks is quite simply negligence of the highest order!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some one get a grip.
If it's good enough for the likes of Luxembourg then it should be on RAF a/c.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The difference is that other nations values the lives of their own men and women in the forces. The UK however puts a cost on the lives of its men and women.
Nobody within HMG, MOD or the Defence Council cares a jot about a single death, not one and I don't say that lightly. The circa 1955 view that each and every one of you has taken the shilling and is therefore expendable is still bread and butter today.
Just the way it is I am sorry to say and I suspect it's going to get much worse..
Nobody within HMG, MOD or the Defence Council cares a jot about a single death, not one and I don't say that lightly. The circa 1955 view that each and every one of you has taken the shilling and is therefore expendable is still bread and butter today.
Just the way it is I am sorry to say and I suspect it's going to get much worse..
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Gorilla has hit the nail on the head there. I think it is shocking that we send our men and women into harms way without the adequate protection. I operate within a fleet which oerates 68/69 aircraft and we have 8 DAS kits....8 !!!!
On the other hand though we have to balance things up with the cost. My DAS kit cost £100G each and so is bloomin expensive. On top of that, all of our servicemen are crying out for better kit. The Typhoon, Typhoon 2 (with or without engines), JSF, T45, CVS, new radios, new boots, more Nav bags, flak Jackets for the troops on the floor, bigger guns, better guns etc etc etc....and there is a limit to what the people can afford. Ask Joe Public what he wants his money spent on and it will be more Hospitals, more Police and more Schools....not a DAS kit for an aircraft he's never heard of.
Notwithstanding that, some people have criticised CAS and Admiral JB etc for this problem. Im sure that all our Sea/land/air lords would love to send our boys into battle with the bestest, most reliable kit but it simply doesn't happen. However, following the tragic loss of life on the Herc last year, our Politicians should be ashamed of themselves if they ever send another Serviceman/woman into harms way without adequate protection.
On the other hand though we have to balance things up with the cost. My DAS kit cost £100G each and so is bloomin expensive. On top of that, all of our servicemen are crying out for better kit. The Typhoon, Typhoon 2 (with or without engines), JSF, T45, CVS, new radios, new boots, more Nav bags, flak Jackets for the troops on the floor, bigger guns, better guns etc etc etc....and there is a limit to what the people can afford. Ask Joe Public what he wants his money spent on and it will be more Hospitals, more Police and more Schools....not a DAS kit for an aircraft he's never heard of.
Notwithstanding that, some people have criticised CAS and Admiral JB etc for this problem. Im sure that all our Sea/land/air lords would love to send our boys into battle with the bestest, most reliable kit but it simply doesn't happen. However, following the tragic loss of life on the Herc last year, our Politicians should be ashamed of themselves if they ever send another Serviceman/woman into harms way without adequate protection.
Originally I suggested caution on disclosing the capabilities of our ac due to be deployed soon, if not so already. I still think that it would be wise to keep schtum about what is actually out there or going there, but that's all...
Jackonicko, I apologise to you for casting aspersions on your professional integrity and am sure that, whilst you would never write anything on the lines of "Brit Troops Face Death Due To Ministry Bungling", an article combining that astonishing story about the A400M DASS and the continuing state of the C130 DASS programmes would not be a bad thing. I'll certainly buy that edition of AFM or whatever!
I am utterly appalled that no fleet wide DASS or foam supression system has been ordered for the C130 and A400M. Even though I have crossed swords with Pr00ne and southside in the past, it seems that all military forum PPRuNers are united on this.
We have already lost one Herc and its crew to hostile fire. How many more will it take before Reid and those toads Bliar and Grasping Gordon pay for what is clearly needed. Even if it means cancelling or delaying other programs......
Jackonicko, I apologise to you for casting aspersions on your professional integrity and am sure that, whilst you would never write anything on the lines of "Brit Troops Face Death Due To Ministry Bungling", an article combining that astonishing story about the A400M DASS and the continuing state of the C130 DASS programmes would not be a bad thing. I'll certainly buy that edition of AFM or whatever!
I am utterly appalled that no fleet wide DASS or foam supression system has been ordered for the C130 and A400M. Even though I have crossed swords with Pr00ne and southside in the past, it seems that all military forum PPRuNers are united on this.
We have already lost one Herc and its crew to hostile fire. How many more will it take before Reid and those toads Bliar and Grasping Gordon pay for what is clearly needed. Even if it means cancelling or delaying other programs......
Last edited by BEagle; 28th Feb 2006 at 20:29.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notwithstanding that, some people have criticised CAS and Admiral JB etc for this problem. Im sure that all our Sea/land/air lords would love to send our boys into battle with the bestest, most reliable kit but it simply doesn't happen. However, following the tragic loss of life on the Herc last year, our Politicians should be ashamed of themselves if they ever send another Serviceman/woman into harms way without adequate protection.
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand though we have to balance things up with the cost. My DAS kit cost £100G each and so is bloomin expensive. On top of that, all of our servicemen are crying out for better kit. The Typhoon, Typhoon 2 (with or without engines), JSF, T45, CVS, new radios, new boots, more Nav bags, flak Jackets for the troops on the floor, bigger guns, better guns etc etc etc....and there is a limit to what the people can afford. Ask Joe Public what he wants his money spent on and it will be more Hospitals, more Police and more Schools....not a DAS kit for an aircraft he's never heard of.
Going to war is an expensive business...if we can't afford it, we shouldn't go...
S_H
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
There was a piece in Air International that discussed the SoF fit on the Ks in detail, and the way in which contractual issues have prevented installation of a decent DAS on the J has been widely discussed and described.
No-one need get too twitchy just yet, methinks.
No-one need get too twitchy just yet, methinks.
Oh that's gospel then!!! I read it in Air International!!!!!!
Hahahahahahahahaha
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re BEagle's 26 Feb posts
I am appalled as an old fart truckie, (the K was brand new in my day!) to see the complete lack of security restraint in some of the previous posts. Don't you guys know anything about 'need to know'. What are you trying to do? Show the world how smart you are with your possible classified chat. Even if it isn't really classified any more you don't go shouting the odds from the treetops. But it's all in Flight or the Beano or whatever! B****cks!
First principles gents. Some magazine prints an article on equipment X or procedure Y. Probably true, but unless it's been officially declassified, you don't go shouting your mouth off like a gaggle of school kids and prove to all and sundry that Air International's snippet of information is true. Keep your mouth shut and make the bad guy's job just that tintzy little bit harder. He'll find out in the end, why make life easier for him. Sorry guys, rant over , but I'm with BEagle. Retires to fireplace with copy of First Light!!
First principles gents. Some magazine prints an article on equipment X or procedure Y. Probably true, but unless it's been officially declassified, you don't go shouting your mouth off like a gaggle of school kids and prove to all and sundry that Air International's snippet of information is true. Keep your mouth shut and make the bad guy's job just that tintzy little bit harder. He'll find out in the end, why make life easier for him. Sorry guys, rant over , but I'm with BEagle. Retires to fireplace with copy of First Light!!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Middle Drawer
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel Inerting.
I am inclined to agree with many posts on this thread. Even Southside hit a note with his comment that nothing is classified on this thread.
Firstly, yes. The SPAMS have had fuel inerting for years.
Secondly, why do we not have it?
We have the technology for self sealing fuel tanks, it was developed many years ago (WW2) as well as fuel inerting (F I)
Fuel inerting will inevitably cost cash to an already underfunded defence budget. To retrofit will cost milions of pounds which simply isn't there because it is now spent on other national priorities. Such as, well, you know where I am coming from.
The bean counters have us all over a barrel again.
The cost of life involved with the omission of F I is calculated into the cost of defence budgetry. i.e DEAD MENS LIVES COST LESS IN COMPENSATORY PAYMENTS than to install FI.
SAD, as we all know and remember, but true.
However, hope is not lost.
FI can be achieved cheaply and effectively by taking lessons from the civil industry. Instead of using foam retardant (an expensive option) it is possible to inert fuel tanks by pressurising them with nitrogen and using self sealing protocols.. Simple, effective and cheap.
Sell that one to the accountants.
What costeth a mans life?
Talk Wrench
Firstly, yes. The SPAMS have had fuel inerting for years.
Secondly, why do we not have it?
We have the technology for self sealing fuel tanks, it was developed many years ago (WW2) as well as fuel inerting (F I)
Fuel inerting will inevitably cost cash to an already underfunded defence budget. To retrofit will cost milions of pounds which simply isn't there because it is now spent on other national priorities. Such as, well, you know where I am coming from.
The bean counters have us all over a barrel again.
The cost of life involved with the omission of F I is calculated into the cost of defence budgetry. i.e DEAD MENS LIVES COST LESS IN COMPENSATORY PAYMENTS than to install FI.
SAD, as we all know and remember, but true.
However, hope is not lost.
FI can be achieved cheaply and effectively by taking lessons from the civil industry. Instead of using foam retardant (an expensive option) it is possible to inert fuel tanks by pressurising them with nitrogen and using self sealing protocols.. Simple, effective and cheap.
Sell that one to the accountants.
What costeth a mans life?
Talk Wrench
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: northside
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good call. I must confess to having little knowledge about using self sealing protocols but your comment
couldn't be truer.
What costeth a mans life?
Last edited by southside; 9th Mar 2006 at 23:47.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fuel inerting
i feel compelled to post a reply. whilst i'm not a pilot (please don't be mad for me being on your territory.) i'm the sister of bob o'connor who died in iraq on 30th jan when the herc got shot down. i'm trying to understand some of the terminology that was used the day i was at lyneham in the inquiry and being told about an inerting system and the purpose it could/would serve! that's how i've found myself here! on more than one ocassion by more than one top brass i was told an inerting system would be looked into. i was assured that pilots had'nt previously requested or stressed that there was a need for it. it may or may not have saved the crew, that i don't know. the lack of respect and honesty that i experienced is slowly being revealed. it pains my family and the other families to know that you don't have the appropiate protection when you go into theatre, that are afforded to other forces around the world. 
yet it is felt by the upper eschalons of power that you are protected). at risk of offending, which i don't mean to, tony blair and john reid remain unaffected by the loss of your colleagues, the grief i feel at losing bob and the fear that it could happen again. i don't know what more it will take to get you protected. the familes want to do something to get the fuel inertion system a reality, and i will tread on politicans *@!! to get it for you. the currency of dead men has been laid on the table. talkwrench asks what costeth a mans life?...not a fuel inerting system!we've yet to see a compensation payment so they're wriggling out of all of it.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
500Days2Do
You obviously don't know Nige Gilbert very well - if you did, you would know how crass were your comments.
NG was a very close friend and colleague of those who so sadly perished on XV179. Along with many others, he is trying to use whatever connections he can to prevent a reoccurrence of such a tragedy involving RAFAT. To suggest otherwise is, frankly, deeply offensive to the memory of the fallen.
Although you are quite entitled to your own opinion and I am sure you didn't mean to offend but I would, however, politely suggest that you retract your comments, or at least delete them.
Flipster
Chappie, You have my most deeply heartfelt condolences.
You obviously don't know Nige Gilbert very well - if you did, you would know how crass were your comments.
NG was a very close friend and colleague of those who so sadly perished on XV179. Along with many others, he is trying to use whatever connections he can to prevent a reoccurrence of such a tragedy involving RAFAT. To suggest otherwise is, frankly, deeply offensive to the memory of the fallen.
Although you are quite entitled to your own opinion and I am sure you didn't mean to offend but I would, however, politely suggest that you retract your comments, or at least delete them.
Flipster
Chappie, You have my most deeply heartfelt condolences.
