RAF planes 'at risk' as MoD cancels anti-missile system
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF planes 'at risk' as MoD cancels anti-missile system
Is this another penny pinching cutback that will put lives at risk?
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/
The Scotsman today:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/
The Scotsman today:
RAF planes 'at risk' as MoD cancels anti-missile system
JAMES KIRKUP
POLITICAL EDITOR
DEFENCE ministers are facing questions about the safety of British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan amid claims that a key defensive system on RAF transport planes was scrapped to save money.
Military sources have told The Scotsman that plans to install a "state of the art" countermeasures system on Hercules aircraft were dropped after the Ministry of Defence decided it would cost too much.
The revelation comes amid a continuing row about an RAF Hercules shot down in Iraq last year with the loss of ten lives.
Several of the aircraft that have been denied the cancelled defensive system are thought to be in regular use in Iraq. Others are said to be scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan.
Despite the decision to scrap the new system - thought to be an electronic jamming device intended to confuse the targeting systems of surface-to-air missiles - defence ministers insist that all British Hercules planes are fully protected from attack.
The MoD last night said: "Only Hercules with appropriate defensive countermeasures are deployed to operational theatres." A spokesman said the planes carry systems to warn pilots of radar sensors and approaching missiles, and to dispense countermeasures to deflect missiles.
But in the case of at least 15 J-model Hercules, the countermeasures system currently in place is said to be inferior to the one that had been scheduled for installation.
While the MoD refuses to disclose where its C-130J aircraft are deployed, it is believed that some are operating in southern Iraq and others are set to go to Helmand province in southern Afghanistan to support the new 4,000-strong British deployment there.
The decision to cancel the new system on the aircraft has worried RAF insiders. "There is a real operational problem with what they've done," said an RAF source. "The boys are more vulnerable because of this."
The countermeasures project was only dropped after the MoD had already spent £1.8 million on it. That expenditure appears in the ministry's annual financial report for 2004-5 which refers only to the "cancellation of a classified programme on C130J".
The ministry is likely to face parliamentary questions from MPs about the safety of Hercules planes when parliament returns next week. Those questions will not be confined to anti-missile systems.
The Hercules shot down in Iraq last January was a "K" model from 47 Squadron, the RAF special forces unit specially trained to work with the SAS. It crashed 20 miles north-west of Baghdad. An MoD investigation found it was brought down not by a missile but by gunfire.
The plane was not fitted with insulating foam around its fuel tanks, a system installed as standard on US Hercules planes. Foam can prevent the tanks exploding, sometimes allowing a damaged plane to land safely.
Despite recommendations that Hercules sent to Afghanistan should have foam installed, it is thought that the modifications will also not take place in time for the deployment.
JAMES KIRKUP
POLITICAL EDITOR
DEFENCE ministers are facing questions about the safety of British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan amid claims that a key defensive system on RAF transport planes was scrapped to save money.
Military sources have told The Scotsman that plans to install a "state of the art" countermeasures system on Hercules aircraft were dropped after the Ministry of Defence decided it would cost too much.
The revelation comes amid a continuing row about an RAF Hercules shot down in Iraq last year with the loss of ten lives.
Several of the aircraft that have been denied the cancelled defensive system are thought to be in regular use in Iraq. Others are said to be scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan.
Despite the decision to scrap the new system - thought to be an electronic jamming device intended to confuse the targeting systems of surface-to-air missiles - defence ministers insist that all British Hercules planes are fully protected from attack.
The MoD last night said: "Only Hercules with appropriate defensive countermeasures are deployed to operational theatres." A spokesman said the planes carry systems to warn pilots of radar sensors and approaching missiles, and to dispense countermeasures to deflect missiles.
But in the case of at least 15 J-model Hercules, the countermeasures system currently in place is said to be inferior to the one that had been scheduled for installation.
While the MoD refuses to disclose where its C-130J aircraft are deployed, it is believed that some are operating in southern Iraq and others are set to go to Helmand province in southern Afghanistan to support the new 4,000-strong British deployment there.
The decision to cancel the new system on the aircraft has worried RAF insiders. "There is a real operational problem with what they've done," said an RAF source. "The boys are more vulnerable because of this."
The countermeasures project was only dropped after the MoD had already spent £1.8 million on it. That expenditure appears in the ministry's annual financial report for 2004-5 which refers only to the "cancellation of a classified programme on C130J".
The ministry is likely to face parliamentary questions from MPs about the safety of Hercules planes when parliament returns next week. Those questions will not be confined to anti-missile systems.
The Hercules shot down in Iraq last January was a "K" model from 47 Squadron, the RAF special forces unit specially trained to work with the SAS. It crashed 20 miles north-west of Baghdad. An MoD investigation found it was brought down not by a missile but by gunfire.
The plane was not fitted with insulating foam around its fuel tanks, a system installed as standard on US Hercules planes. Foam can prevent the tanks exploding, sometimes allowing a damaged plane to land safely.
Despite recommendations that Hercules sent to Afghanistan should have foam installed, it is thought that the modifications will also not take place in time for the deployment.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: wilts
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the trouble that has been caused is due to the money going to the older 'k' rather than the new 'j'. I'm sure this was due to contract issues with Lockheed and the sheer cost of fitting it to the 'j' because of it.
The trouble is that the 'k' is falling apart and is hardly being deployed operationally anywhere( a couple of frames aside) The 'j' is picking up most of the tasking and several crews are on standby for when the 'k' cant get deployed to the lastest theatre.
There is so much money being thrown at the 'k' to keep just a few frames airborne, and the only ones that really fly are training OCU trips, and TAC trips. But there has to come a point where the question is asked '' what are these guys actually training for, if virtually not deployable''
The trouble is that the 'k' is falling apart and is hardly being deployed operationally anywhere( a couple of frames aside) The 'j' is picking up most of the tasking and several crews are on standby for when the 'k' cant get deployed to the lastest theatre.
There is so much money being thrown at the 'k' to keep just a few frames airborne, and the only ones that really fly are training OCU trips, and TAC trips. But there has to come a point where the question is asked '' what are these guys actually training for, if virtually not deployable''
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote "the K model is falling apart". I must be missing it then have been operating it for ten years and havent noticed. Must get eyes tested, another bitter J bloke who thinks his electric plane is best. Never mind ..!!!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: various bits of UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by kfwalm...
Then I suggest you pop up to Eng plans and talk to them about the kites in long term rect's both on and off base!!! (And then say never mind)
Quote "the K model is falling apart". I must be missing it then have been operating it for ten years and haven’t noticed. Must get eyes tested, another bitter J bloke who thinks his electric plane is best. Never mind..!!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: wilts
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i didn't reply to this post to start a j v k argument. If you read what i said, then it is the fault of the contract with Lockheed that prevented us getting the better DAS. It was cheaper to put it on the 'K'.
The k has done a wonderful job for so many years, but KFWALM you are living in dream land if you think the k isnt falling apart. It simply is nowhere near the deployment levels of the 'j' and are falling off the program all of the time.
The k has done a wonderful job for so many years, but KFWALM you are living in dream land if you think the k isnt falling apart. It simply is nowhere near the deployment levels of the 'j' and are falling off the program all of the time.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I know its already been there, but I hear that the 4 deploying will not be Js. I completely agree that the J should go, shame it won't be.
Not saying that the J can't do the job, just saying that its not going - unless 70 Sqn are going to be re-equipped in the next couple of months?
Not saying that the J can't do the job, just saying that its not going - unless 70 Sqn are going to be re-equipped in the next couple of months?
This is all widely known and has been widely published. 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.
I disagree. Disclosure of capabilities which may be of use to an enemy should not appear on PPRuNe. Much as that might disappoint journos...
In fact I've already suggested that this thread is deleted...
In fact I've already suggested that this thread is deleted...
Join Date: May 2005
Location: wilts
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Point
Shouldnt both K and J frames be protected or does one side assume that they are more important than the other. To me this is another realisation that the Government doesnt really care about any member of the armed forces and protected the crews, troops or sailors should be on top of any shopping list irrespective of how old or new the kit is. Come on fellas we are all in one big company after all (Cheese i know) but lets focus on the real issues here. CP
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C-Pixie,
You may think it cheesey - but you are right!
Strange to think, that looking at the K v J threads, that these are people on the same base, flying in the same ac type, in the same role (for the same megalomaniac PM). I sometimes despair - but I can also sympathise!
However, banter aside, while all fleets should be fighting with the same back-up from HQ 2 Gp (Herc, VC10. Tri*, C17 etc), the sad fact is that:
a. There is only so much money to go round
b. The 'darkside' want it all
so,
c. some goes to the J but the majority goes to the old (and tiring) K work-horse - rightly or wrongly - its a matter of proven clearances and capabilities - that are not for discussion in the open.
In the meantime, however, crews on normal "low-risk" ops get to fly the 'dumb' frames where they normally shouldn't. As time goes by, the hired help at 'Grope' have, ever so slowly, realised that there is no such thing as 'safe' trucking anymore, so they are trying, wherever possible, to put the troops on ac that are best protected for the op (not very easy as there are so many ac in the sheds at LYN and at Marshalls). One hopes that Grope have learnt lessons from the last time in AFG/PAK and that there are enough ac and crews to do the job?
Sadly, however, there is not enough cash to make sure ALL AT ac are protected ALL the time - so its a risk management business - but guess who is taking the risk - not Grope for sure but it is you guys and your pax. So stay safe, think like the enemy but be one step ahead!
Happy Landings
Flip
You may think it cheesey - but you are right!
Strange to think, that looking at the K v J threads, that these are people on the same base, flying in the same ac type, in the same role (for the same megalomaniac PM). I sometimes despair - but I can also sympathise!
However, banter aside, while all fleets should be fighting with the same back-up from HQ 2 Gp (Herc, VC10. Tri*, C17 etc), the sad fact is that:
a. There is only so much money to go round
b. The 'darkside' want it all
so,
c. some goes to the J but the majority goes to the old (and tiring) K work-horse - rightly or wrongly - its a matter of proven clearances and capabilities - that are not for discussion in the open.
In the meantime, however, crews on normal "low-risk" ops get to fly the 'dumb' frames where they normally shouldn't. As time goes by, the hired help at 'Grope' have, ever so slowly, realised that there is no such thing as 'safe' trucking anymore, so they are trying, wherever possible, to put the troops on ac that are best protected for the op (not very easy as there are so many ac in the sheds at LYN and at Marshalls). One hopes that Grope have learnt lessons from the last time in AFG/PAK and that there are enough ac and crews to do the job?
Sadly, however, there is not enough cash to make sure ALL AT ac are protected ALL the time - so its a risk management business - but guess who is taking the risk - not Grope for sure but it is you guys and your pax. So stay safe, think like the enemy but be one step ahead!
Happy Landings
Flip
If anyone was talking about the performance of the systems, then there'd be reason for caution, but when what is being written goes less far than what is already in the public domain, then such caution is stupid, and merely helps ensure that improvements don't happen.
What capabilities are being disclosed here, Beags? Let alone capabilities that might be useful to an enemy. If only you kept yourself more up to date with what is and isn't in the public domain already......
Like it or not, for the J to get a better DASS someone needs to die, or there needs to be pressure. A bit of publicity, leading to pressure, is, in my view, infinitely better than losing another Herc and another crew.
What capabilities are being disclosed here, Beags? Let alone capabilities that might be useful to an enemy. If only you kept yourself more up to date with what is and isn't in the public domain already......
Like it or not, for the J to get a better DASS someone needs to die, or there needs to be pressure. A bit of publicity, leading to pressure, is, in my view, infinitely better than losing another Herc and another crew.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JN
Please keep up the pressure to ensure that ALL AT ac that go 'sausage-side' are 'up to speed'. But let's keep the bad guys guessing shall we, and not be too specific?
Please try to imagine your friends or your children being on board RAF AT going into theatre, either as aircrew or pax - it might change your need to highlight specific failings of the 'hierarchy'.
But we must also ensure that we hold their Lordships accountable.
Whatever the support from above, I am sure that all crews are doing their absolute level-best to ensure they get back for 'tea and stickies', while also highlighting any sensitive gaps in their defences - so lets not undermine them?
Please keep up the pressure to ensure that ALL AT ac that go 'sausage-side' are 'up to speed'. But let's keep the bad guys guessing shall we, and not be too specific?
Please try to imagine your friends or your children being on board RAF AT going into theatre, either as aircrew or pax - it might change your need to highlight specific failings of the 'hierarchy'.
But we must also ensure that we hold their Lordships accountable.
Whatever the support from above, I am sure that all crews are doing their absolute level-best to ensure they get back for 'tea and stickies', while also highlighting any sensitive gaps in their defences - so lets not undermine them?
It's not journo fishing, and I resent the implication.
The crack that I would "make the enemy's task any easier just to flog a few magazines" is a disgrace, and you should apologise for and/or withdraw it, if you have a shred of integrity and decency left.
All that has been said is that the J doesn't have as good a DAS as the K. Well hold the front page. Colour me astonished.
There has been the suggestion that this is down to cost, and in particular down to the cost of a DA Mod, and there has been an inference that integration on the K is cheaper and easier. No-one has gone further than that. No-one has talked about what may or may not be included in either DAS, nor about what particular elements in the DAS can and cannot do, though if the enemy wanted to know they could go to the obvious Jane's yearbooks and get 'chapter and verse'.
The fact that some aircraft may be less than perfectly protected is a point that needs to be made, in order to ensure that the deficiency can be rectified. I'd also say that the continuing lack of foam (or an inerting system) in the tanks should be highlighted, if we want that put right.
The crack that I would "make the enemy's task any easier just to flog a few magazines" is a disgrace, and you should apologise for and/or withdraw it, if you have a shred of integrity and decency left.
All that has been said is that the J doesn't have as good a DAS as the K. Well hold the front page. Colour me astonished.
There has been the suggestion that this is down to cost, and in particular down to the cost of a DA Mod, and there has been an inference that integration on the K is cheaper and easier. No-one has gone further than that. No-one has talked about what may or may not be included in either DAS, nor about what particular elements in the DAS can and cannot do, though if the enemy wanted to know they could go to the obvious Jane's yearbooks and get 'chapter and verse'.
The fact that some aircraft may be less than perfectly protected is a point that needs to be made, in order to ensure that the deficiency can be rectified. I'd also say that the continuing lack of foam (or an inerting system) in the tanks should be highlighted, if we want that put right.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you jacko I honestly don't know what's up with Beagle these days!
If he doesn't like a particular thread he brands it as racist, sexist or a security risk etc!
I see nothing here that represents a security hazard and you are out of order Beagle!
"In fact I've already suggested that this thread is deleted..."
What arrogance!!
If he doesn't like a particular thread he brands it as racist, sexist or a security risk etc!
I see nothing here that represents a security hazard and you are out of order Beagle!
"In fact I've already suggested that this thread is deleted..."
What arrogance!!