Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
Chappie - it's good to hear you cutting through all the bluster and flannel of JSPs, UORs and the rest to put your demands in a clear, unequivocal manner.
nigegilb, is it really wise to rely on 'plans' to fit ESF? Clear programme dates with mandatory deadlines, perhaps. But some hot air uttered by a faceless, non-accountable Monastery of Definance statement? Err, no. In my opinion.
Are all the other AT/AAR assets based in theatre also being provided with a comprehensive defensive aids sub system. Not something like the useless antique kit we had on the Vulcan, but something which is both state of the art and actually works?
The 'fast jet-centric' RAF seems intent to spend billions on the EuropHoon which has about as much chance of being used in Afghanistan or Iraq as a Tucano. Bliar's little 'come as you are and bring a bottle' wars have provided RW, AT, AAR, Recce and 'Nimrod' fleets with massive tasking levels - and they should be the ones receiving the largest chunk of the ever-shrinking budget - not some pointy thing which rushes around Lincolnshire and makes a lot of noise at RIAT.
nigegilb, is it really wise to rely on 'plans' to fit ESF? Clear programme dates with mandatory deadlines, perhaps. But some hot air uttered by a faceless, non-accountable Monastery of Definance statement? Err, no. In my opinion.
Are all the other AT/AAR assets based in theatre also being provided with a comprehensive defensive aids sub system. Not something like the useless antique kit we had on the Vulcan, but something which is both state of the art and actually works?
The 'fast jet-centric' RAF seems intent to spend billions on the EuropHoon which has about as much chance of being used in Afghanistan or Iraq as a Tucano. Bliar's little 'come as you are and bring a bottle' wars have provided RW, AT, AAR, Recce and 'Nimrod' fleets with massive tasking levels - and they should be the ones receiving the largest chunk of the ever-shrinking budget - not some pointy thing which rushes around Lincolnshire and makes a lot of noise at RIAT.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags - well said, spend the money where it is needed right now, rather than where it might be needed if we ever fight a major air war again. Sadly, don't think it will happen as long as CAS is a fast-jet mate and we remain hog-tied by the need to partner ourselves with the cash-cow that is B
Systems that of course is only interested in fast-jet!
Sorry to say it guys, but in the main (small Harrier dets excluded!) fast jet is not the front line anymore, SH and AT is. Personally I would argue that the SH world is the most in need of some cash...
Systems that of course is only interested in fast-jet!Sorry to say it guys, but in the main (small Harrier dets excluded!) fast jet is not the front line anymore, SH and AT is. Personally I would argue that the SH world is the most in need of some cash...
Good news from the Lords
One of my spies has just drawn my attention to this exchange in the House of Lords on Monday 8 May (Text from Hansard - I have added 'bold' to some text)
Lord Craig of Radley, cross-bench peer, Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Chief of the Defence Staff 1988-91 (David Craig)
My Lords, ..........there have been a number of reports in the press of inadequacies, such as body armour not being available and that a Hercules aircraft unhappily shot down had not been provided with the right protection against a fire outbreak in its fuel tanks. Indeed, on that occasion, before the full board of inquiry conclusions came out, one was led to believe that adequate protection had been provided. The Minister has just suggested to noble Lords adequate protection is in place for our Lynx helicopters. I hope very much that when the board of inquiry reports, that will indeed prove to have been the case in this instance. More generally, does the Minister agree that when our forces face hazardous operations, there can be no excuse whatever for any penny-pinching or short-changing on the essential protective measures and equipment with which they should be provided?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, who knows from his own experience the challenges that our troops face. I absolutely agree that there is no excuse for failure to provide our troops with the equipment they need to do their job properly. We are doing that in response to the threats as they emerge and change. The threats have presented us with significant challenges in certain areas and we need to respond to them with speed and diligence. We need to learn any lessons which may come out of the board of inquiry and apply those lessons speedily to our helicopters if that is required.
airsound
Lord Craig of Radley, cross-bench peer, Marshal of the Royal Air Force, Chief of the Defence Staff 1988-91 (David Craig)
My Lords, ..........there have been a number of reports in the press of inadequacies, such as body armour not being available and that a Hercules aircraft unhappily shot down had not been provided with the right protection against a fire outbreak in its fuel tanks. Indeed, on that occasion, before the full board of inquiry conclusions came out, one was led to believe that adequate protection had been provided. The Minister has just suggested to noble Lords adequate protection is in place for our Lynx helicopters. I hope very much that when the board of inquiry reports, that will indeed prove to have been the case in this instance. More generally, does the Minister agree that when our forces face hazardous operations, there can be no excuse whatever for any penny-pinching or short-changing on the essential protective measures and equipment with which they should be provided?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, who knows from his own experience the challenges that our troops face. I absolutely agree that there is no excuse for failure to provide our troops with the equipment they need to do their job properly. We are doing that in response to the threats as they emerge and change. The threats have presented us with significant challenges in certain areas and we need to respond to them with speed and diligence. We need to learn any lessons which may come out of the board of inquiry and apply those lessons speedily to our helicopters if that is required.
airsound
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On Monday, the new Sec Defence said that the Lynx had a range of defensive aids. Last time I heard that phrase I was sitting on coils of chain. A range of defensive aids does not refer to certain other protections. Specific questions are now being asked. If the guys are short of equipment we are not waiting 1 year for BoI result. We will be taking action forthwith.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't write off the CAS so lightly. Yes, Typhoon is the latest toy in the arsenal and gets all the glamour breaks, by you don't get to be an ACM [and CAS at that] without being well aware of the issues surrounding ALL fleets and their operations.
I don't know the man, but what I've heard from guys on the fast pointy things is that Sir Glenn is no slouch. I have no doubt he reads this thread to get a feel for how things are perceived at grass roots level, and I wouldn't mind betting that he has raised this issue at a very high level within the MOD.
The unfortunate part about it is that he and the other Service Chiefs are often lip-buttoned by the politicians and the advice of very sernior civil servants. He can do far more behind the scenes quietly than he can by shooting his mouth off in public and embarrassing the govt - it was tried before, remember, and the individual was firmly and publically locked back in his box with a large dose of humiliation thrown in.
As usual, the politicians will want to make the bad image go away and save face at the same time. Remember that this is not an issue for the great unwashed British public, who is more interested in Joe Bloggs who got caught for shoplifting last week and upped the local crime statistics.
Nige and Chappie are going about things the right way, talking to those that count and bringing the pressure to bear where it can do most good. Every interview that Nige has had will have been reported up the chain with positive comment as to his credibility because of his background; Chappie's comment because of the loss of a family member and giving Nige her full support.
The loss of the Herc will have focussed minds on the vulnerability of the non-pointy fleets. The groundswell of professional opinion will have high level of MOD attention on the question of protection systems/devices. The issue at stake is releasing the funding to do something about it and in timely fashion; the latter could prove to be problematical, because those companies capable of carrying out the modifications may not have the capacity to achieve the DESIRED timelines.
I believe it will happen, but not as fast as we would like. What we DO need, and what would scotch much of the discussion and adverse publicity, is a credible statement on WHAT and WHEN it is going to be done.
How about it CAS?
I don't know the man, but what I've heard from guys on the fast pointy things is that Sir Glenn is no slouch. I have no doubt he reads this thread to get a feel for how things are perceived at grass roots level, and I wouldn't mind betting that he has raised this issue at a very high level within the MOD.
The unfortunate part about it is that he and the other Service Chiefs are often lip-buttoned by the politicians and the advice of very sernior civil servants. He can do far more behind the scenes quietly than he can by shooting his mouth off in public and embarrassing the govt - it was tried before, remember, and the individual was firmly and publically locked back in his box with a large dose of humiliation thrown in.
As usual, the politicians will want to make the bad image go away and save face at the same time. Remember that this is not an issue for the great unwashed British public, who is more interested in Joe Bloggs who got caught for shoplifting last week and upped the local crime statistics.
Nige and Chappie are going about things the right way, talking to those that count and bringing the pressure to bear where it can do most good. Every interview that Nige has had will have been reported up the chain with positive comment as to his credibility because of his background; Chappie's comment because of the loss of a family member and giving Nige her full support.
The loss of the Herc will have focussed minds on the vulnerability of the non-pointy fleets. The groundswell of professional opinion will have high level of MOD attention on the question of protection systems/devices. The issue at stake is releasing the funding to do something about it and in timely fashion; the latter could prove to be problematical, because those companies capable of carrying out the modifications may not have the capacity to achieve the DESIRED timelines.
I believe it will happen, but not as fast as we would like. What we DO need, and what would scotch much of the discussion and adverse publicity, is a credible statement on WHAT and WHEN it is going to be done.
How about it CAS?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I DO know David Craig [as AOC 1 Group]. His chasing this topic in his own way is typical of the man, and he is adding subtle weight to the arguements. Keep an eye on his pronouncements - he won't let this go...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FJJP,
There is a lot of interest in the Lords. The Lordships are also batting for helos as well. I thought CAS got off to a slow start with his answers to HCDC on 07 Mar. Since then, there has been a very interesting decision made concerning Hercules. Cannot discuss here, but I agree with you there are signs of a learning curve. With ref to Beagle's point, I spent a long time with AOC 2, if he says it is going to happen and there is a timeline I am OK with that. I am looking for a guarantee that Herc crews will not be sent into hostile zones without "modern DAS", foam and passenger protection. I am not interested in numbers just the guarantee.
If we can help helo world we are willing!!
If I may just correct you on one thing with regard to this thread. This is not a grass roots rebellion I have had messages of support all the way up. There is a realisation that a lot of people made the wrong call on foam and self-protection. Now it is time for Des Browne to act.
There is a lot of interest in the Lords. The Lordships are also batting for helos as well. I thought CAS got off to a slow start with his answers to HCDC on 07 Mar. Since then, there has been a very interesting decision made concerning Hercules. Cannot discuss here, but I agree with you there are signs of a learning curve. With ref to Beagle's point, I spent a long time with AOC 2, if he says it is going to happen and there is a timeline I am OK with that. I am looking for a guarantee that Herc crews will not be sent into hostile zones without "modern DAS", foam and passenger protection. I am not interested in numbers just the guarantee.
If we can help helo world we are willing!!
If I may just correct you on one thing with regard to this thread. This is not a grass roots rebellion I have had messages of support all the way up. There is a realisation that a lot of people made the wrong call on foam and self-protection. Now it is time for Des Browne to act.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just like to add that Hercs were regularly targetted by small arms fire and worse in 2001. This obviously predated the threat assessment in 2002 which concluded that Hercules was not being exposed to this kind of attack. FF you are spot on. Now everyone knows it, the Defence Ministers have legal notices hanging over them and hey presto they are finally doing something about it. What a way to run a war!!!
I am sure Mr Browne is a busy man just now, but he should be aware that this issue is not going away. At least the previous Tory Govt was prepared to debate the issue of the day. The refusal to put up MoD spokesmen last week, spectacularly backfired. They should have the guts to appear in public and defend the cancellation of essential counter measures on the Hercules fleet.
I am sure Mr Browne is a busy man just now, but he should be aware that this issue is not going away. At least the previous Tory Govt was prepared to debate the issue of the day. The refusal to put up MoD spokesmen last week, spectacularly backfired. They should have the guts to appear in public and defend the cancellation of essential counter measures on the Hercules fleet.
Last edited by nigegilb; 10th May 2006 at 18:22.
"We are doing that in response to the threats as they emerge"
Wouldn't it be rather better to have a better idea of the threats long before they emerge? Isn't there an Air Warfare Centre in addition to various desks in the MoD-box who are all supposed to be assessing future threats and making sure that the Armed Forces are protected against such things?
Link 16, DASS (including DIRCM and 'clever' pyrotechnics) - I seem to recall discussing the need for those in AT/AAR aircraft when I did my EWO course back in 1993......
Wouldn't it be rather better to have a better idea of the threats long before they emerge? Isn't there an Air Warfare Centre in addition to various desks in the MoD-box who are all supposed to be assessing future threats and making sure that the Armed Forces are protected against such things?
Link 16, DASS (including DIRCM and 'clever' pyrotechnics) - I seem to recall discussing the need for those in AT/AAR aircraft when I did my EWO course back in 1993......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Procured by Donkeys
Talk to any of the SF guys involved in Sarajevo airlift in the 90's, they were regularly getting shot at. That airlift resulted in the shooting down of an Italian transporter. The Italians then decided to get DAS. It is totally unacceptable to cite our lack of involvement in the Vietnam war being the reason to not know about small arms. A procurement "expert" took an active decision not to fit foam in the J. Even following the shooting down of XV179, the Govt did not want to fit foam to the J, or to the MK3. This is a scandal. I have respect for the guys at AWC. They need a bigger say in all this. Sadly the cost of retrofitting this stuff is a lot higher than having it on board at the time of procurement. So if it costs £600,000 don't blame the pilots!
Last edited by nigegilb; 10th May 2006 at 17:47.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige, Chappie et al
Sorry if my post yesterday was unclear - all I was saying is that Safeware et al have pointed you to the official costs of saving a life. I understand that there is some flex in the numbers - road transport values a the amount spent per life saved lower than the railways, which, because they are intrinsically much safer, need to spend much more money to save the same number of lives - but these green book numbers are the ones you need to overcome the argument of "it costs this much and how many lives will it save anyway?"
This is a real consideration because senior types do have to take hard decisions within a finite budget. I'm not saying that the powers that be got it right with the omission of foam until now - I would want all of my crews to have it every time they go sausage side. This is not to say that all frames would need it - we have lots of mini-fleets across the fleets - but ideally it would be a standard fit.
This is especially true as it's so cheap - but if it cost £250m per airframe, you could understand that people would take a risk based view. (Or gamble, depending on you point of view.)
Therefore, it's really important to be able to quantify the potential gain using the system's own numbers - ie, 70 pax at £Xm protected from a threat that is real by spending £Rk. I suspect your numbers do stack up - so use them to bolster your case.
Honest question: if foam is standard on all US Hercs, did we have to specify that we didn't want it when we bought the J? If so, well done to whoever came up with that one.
S41
Sorry if my post yesterday was unclear - all I was saying is that Safeware et al have pointed you to the official costs of saving a life. I understand that there is some flex in the numbers - road transport values a the amount spent per life saved lower than the railways, which, because they are intrinsically much safer, need to spend much more money to save the same number of lives - but these green book numbers are the ones you need to overcome the argument of "it costs this much and how many lives will it save anyway?"
This is a real consideration because senior types do have to take hard decisions within a finite budget. I'm not saying that the powers that be got it right with the omission of foam until now - I would want all of my crews to have it every time they go sausage side. This is not to say that all frames would need it - we have lots of mini-fleets across the fleets - but ideally it would be a standard fit.
This is especially true as it's so cheap - but if it cost £250m per airframe, you could understand that people would take a risk based view. (Or gamble, depending on you point of view.)
Therefore, it's really important to be able to quantify the potential gain using the system's own numbers - ie, 70 pax at £Xm protected from a threat that is real by spending £Rk. I suspect your numbers do stack up - so use them to bolster your case.
Honest question: if foam is standard on all US Hercs, did we have to specify that we didn't want it when we bought the J? If so, well done to whoever came up with that one.
S41
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Squirrel. The AOC kindly showed me a set of probabilities concerning the safety of various ac. It is a completely new area for me. I did not realise it was quantified in such a definite way. I realise how difficult it is to be making these kinds of decisions. I assume from the way you are talking that you are responsible for people. In the situation of XV179, when a weakness or vulnerability is identified in such an obvious way, is it morally correct to continue to ask the crews to risk their necks until the safety protection can be fitted? In the case of the Afg deployment, this is a new deployment seemingly at the request of the FO. Should crews be sent on a new deployment, with no obvious security threat to UK, without such a safety feature? Are we asking too much of our military leaders to say no in these circumstances? I know that many service personnel wouldn't think twice about going, believing it to be their duty and they might be offended by merely suggesting this. The thing that really troubles me is the threat assessment. Without hostile fire indicators I do not see how an accurate type specific assessment can be made. Perhaps you can enlighten me, but I would rather we erred on the side of caution just now.
I understand your point about mini-fleets. However, after my own experience I simply do not trust the military commanders to make the correct safety calls. In Afg in 2001, dumb Hercs were sent in because they were the only ones available. The temptation to send crews to war without adequate protection will surely happen again. The Hercules fleet needs a common standard of protection, so the guys/girls are given some protection from those in charge of managing their own risk.
PS I believe Foam has been a standard fit since 1973/74 when USAF were purchasing C130 E Model. The K Model at Lyneham dates from around 1967. If we decide to buy some new wings for the venerable beast foam is standard.
I understand your point about mini-fleets. However, after my own experience I simply do not trust the military commanders to make the correct safety calls. In Afg in 2001, dumb Hercs were sent in because they were the only ones available. The temptation to send crews to war without adequate protection will surely happen again. The Hercules fleet needs a common standard of protection, so the guys/girls are given some protection from those in charge of managing their own risk.
PS I believe Foam has been a standard fit since 1973/74 when USAF were purchasing C130 E Model. The K Model at Lyneham dates from around 1967. If we decide to buy some new wings for the venerable beast foam is standard.
Last edited by nigegilb; 10th May 2006 at 19:31.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel,
The minifleets point is well taken - the fear I would have is that a burst of pressonitis from Group or above could mean that people were coerced into taking a frame that wasn't fitted "just this once" because "we have to hit our numbers". Sorry, senior people need to accept that if you go the minifleet route (and presumably only because of money), it comes with a health warning that says "not fitted, not going" in all but the most extreme circumstances. As you say, this is why you have the whole lot done, asap.
In the case of the foam - which is CHEAP - the risk vs. cost trade off would be so far in the right direction that it's a no brainer to do it, and it shouldn't arise. All I'm saying is that this won't always be true - some systems are extremely expensive and in a given scenario would be of marginal, if any benefit. At some level, in voluntarily signing on, we are accepting that there will be more risk in our lives than those who do not. Not all of our missions are safe, nor could some of them be made safe.
So, if I were an Airship (which I'm not, and won't be) I could imagine occassions where I would commit crews to very dangerous missions from which I knew a proportion would likely not come back. Ultimately, this would be for the sake of UK foreign policy. And I'd do it with a heavy heart, but if it was mission critical, then it's got to be done: this is presumably the challenge of senior command.
Not sure if this is an answer, but just my 2p.
On the new build foam point, very interesting. I can fully understand that the K's (nee E's) didn't have it from new - because contemporary US built aircraft didn't either as built.
But presumably new build US J's do. So if our Js don't have foam, and it's standard on the American ones, we would have had to specify that we didn't want it: so a really good procurement call there by someone. Did they pay with their career and their pension? Guesses on the back of an envelope.
S41
The minifleets point is well taken - the fear I would have is that a burst of pressonitis from Group or above could mean that people were coerced into taking a frame that wasn't fitted "just this once" because "we have to hit our numbers". Sorry, senior people need to accept that if you go the minifleet route (and presumably only because of money), it comes with a health warning that says "not fitted, not going" in all but the most extreme circumstances. As you say, this is why you have the whole lot done, asap.
In the case of the foam - which is CHEAP - the risk vs. cost trade off would be so far in the right direction that it's a no brainer to do it, and it shouldn't arise. All I'm saying is that this won't always be true - some systems are extremely expensive and in a given scenario would be of marginal, if any benefit. At some level, in voluntarily signing on, we are accepting that there will be more risk in our lives than those who do not. Not all of our missions are safe, nor could some of them be made safe.
So, if I were an Airship (which I'm not, and won't be) I could imagine occassions where I would commit crews to very dangerous missions from which I knew a proportion would likely not come back. Ultimately, this would be for the sake of UK foreign policy. And I'd do it with a heavy heart, but if it was mission critical, then it's got to be done: this is presumably the challenge of senior command.
Not sure if this is an answer, but just my 2p.
On the new build foam point, very interesting. I can fully understand that the K's (nee E's) didn't have it from new - because contemporary US built aircraft didn't either as built.
But presumably new build US J's do. So if our Js don't have foam, and it's standard on the American ones, we would have had to specify that we didn't want it: so a really good procurement call there by someone. Did they pay with their career and their pension? Guesses on the back of an envelope.
S41
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SQ You make your point loud and clear. It is my belief that on one specific occasion in Afg in 2002 fatalities were actually pencilled in. I think crews would have understood the requirement to undertake such a mission if the effect to UK foreign policy had been explained at the time. It wasn't and it was very badly handled. Most people should remember the one-way missions in the cold war. It is a fact of life and I fully accepted I might have to pay the ultimate price. What I could not accept was a politician telling my father how well protected I was in my aircraft, when it was so obviously not the case. It is clear from the telegram sent from Strike at the end of Afg conflict that they expected to lose ac and crews. We were lucky, sadly that luck ran out on 30 Jan last year. I am genuinely trying to change the culture at MoD. I will investigate further the procurement of the J. Accountability is a relatively new thing for politicians and chiefs of staff to handle. They would be advised to get used to it.
You make an adroit point about the cost/effectivenessof foam. I was startled over the weekend to hear talk of preferring the option of more DAS fit frames to the fitting of foam to existing frames. Even after the crash there is a lack of understanding about its benefits. It really is the baseline protection for USAF Hercs. I glanced at some other US ac today, foam, fuel tank inerting, self sealing tanks, it is ever present. The USAF truly understand it, we are still to grasp it. But this is helping. I know I am right on this and you are helping lots of people to understand why.
You make an adroit point about the cost/effectivenessof foam. I was startled over the weekend to hear talk of preferring the option of more DAS fit frames to the fitting of foam to existing frames. Even after the crash there is a lack of understanding about its benefits. It really is the baseline protection for USAF Hercs. I glanced at some other US ac today, foam, fuel tank inerting, self sealing tanks, it is ever present. The USAF truly understand it, we are still to grasp it. But this is helping. I know I am right on this and you are helping lots of people to understand why.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a lighter note here is what a concerned citizen wants us to do;
Write to: [email protected]
SHAME THEM INTO ACTION
10:30 - 09 May 2006
I saw a BBC story this morning regarding the largest loss of British personnel in Iraq to date, namely the 10 people who lost their lives in an RAF Hercules crash in January 2005.
Again it would appear that this loss of life may have been prevented if the right protective equipment had been fitted.
Apparently, such equipment has been fitted to similar American aircraft since the 1970s.
Yet, was it only a couple of weeks ago that we heard that I and other taxpayers had allegedly paid some £7,500 (one-third of my annual income) to keep the unelected wife of the Prime Minister's hair in order?
I believe, in the Second World War, groups of people would band together and save to purchase hardware such as Spitfires to assist our armed forces in their fight against our then enemies.
Would it not be a good opportunity, through your fine publications, to take a straw poll of public opinion to see if the British public, which is most generous in giving to all good causes at home and abroad, would give to a cause providing our armed forces, who are risking their lives every day, with the right equipment to keep them as safe as any can when they are engaged in warfare.
This could possibly become a national issue or campaign and at long last embarrass the Government, for all the right reasons for once, into doing something good for the nation and those who defend it at home and abroad.
R J Limpenny, Leicester.
Write to: [email protected]
SHAME THEM INTO ACTION
10:30 - 09 May 2006
I saw a BBC story this morning regarding the largest loss of British personnel in Iraq to date, namely the 10 people who lost their lives in an RAF Hercules crash in January 2005.
Again it would appear that this loss of life may have been prevented if the right protective equipment had been fitted.
Apparently, such equipment has been fitted to similar American aircraft since the 1970s.
Yet, was it only a couple of weeks ago that we heard that I and other taxpayers had allegedly paid some £7,500 (one-third of my annual income) to keep the unelected wife of the Prime Minister's hair in order?
I believe, in the Second World War, groups of people would band together and save to purchase hardware such as Spitfires to assist our armed forces in their fight against our then enemies.
Would it not be a good opportunity, through your fine publications, to take a straw poll of public opinion to see if the British public, which is most generous in giving to all good causes at home and abroad, would give to a cause providing our armed forces, who are risking their lives every day, with the right equipment to keep them as safe as any can when they are engaged in warfare.
This could possibly become a national issue or campaign and at long last embarrass the Government, for all the right reasons for once, into doing something good for the nation and those who defend it at home and abroad.
R J Limpenny, Leicester.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nigegilb
PS I believe Foam has been a standard fit since 1973/74 when USAF were purchasing C130 E Model. The K Model at Lyneham dates from around 1967. If we decide to buy some new wings for the venerable beast foam is standard.
As for vulnerability to ground fire, that's something that the C130 fleet has been aware of pretty much since the aircraft first came into service - in fact, ever since the UK began tactical AT in WW2! I've experienced ground fire in some odd places - including Gatow (not during the Airlift, before anyone has a dig at my advanced age!), and from the Royal Navy! More seriously, small-arms ground fire was recognised as a problem requiring defensive tactics in campaigns in Rhodesia, Ethiopia, Beiruit, Oman, and several others now disappearing into the mists of time. The benefits of suppressant foam were well known among the SF community at least as early as the mid-'80s, and I recall talk of it having been requested around that time, though I have no specific evidence of that (I was a South Atlantic specialist by then!).
Anyway, I've been watching your campaign with interest and admiration. I have pointed out this topic to at least one retired Air Officer (some of you will know who that is!) who will hopefully ask a few pointed questions of the current Airships at the next opportunity. Good luck and Well Done!
Edit: my age is telling. Of course, I meant 'outer wing replacement programme', not centre wings!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
while we realise that in comparison to alot of mis spending by the government foam is cheap. let's also realise that talk is cheap. there is only so much talking that can be had before it looks like the shirking of responsibilities,yet again. i understand the need to approach this from every angle but one would hope that the end result is the implementation of this safety system. the longer this talking goes on the less warm the cockles of my heart are. this may, yet again, be niave but enough now. by now the first ones should be rolling out. does any one know how long it takes? i heard an interesting thing yesterday. the view of opinion was that the crash can be quite easily seen as one of the militarys recent biggest scandal. it was also stated that by english law the cost of a human life is £10,000. makes me more determind to ensure protection for troops.
paz, still waiting for a PM! where are you? hopefuloly i answered your queries satisfactorily.
paz, still waiting for a PM! where are you? hopefuloly i answered your queries satisfactorily.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scroggs,
It seems the worry about FOI has beaten us to it. I have been told about Gatow, Rhodesia, Corporate, Afg, you have added a couple more. Sadly file shredding is de-rigeur. Many of the requests have simply disappeared. The SF community had a knowledge of foam. This knowledge came about from exchange guys both US and UK. However, the lack of paperwork is overwhelming. Fortunately, some paperwork survived, just about.
Thanks for your support, I doubt if we would have come this far without this institution. It really is remarkable.
Nige G
It seems the worry about FOI has beaten us to it. I have been told about Gatow, Rhodesia, Corporate, Afg, you have added a couple more. Sadly file shredding is de-rigeur. Many of the requests have simply disappeared. The SF community had a knowledge of foam. This knowledge came about from exchange guys both US and UK. However, the lack of paperwork is overwhelming. Fortunately, some paperwork survived, just about.
Thanks for your support, I doubt if we would have come this far without this institution. It really is remarkable.
Nige G
Last edited by nigegilb; 11th May 2006 at 23:06.
Join Date: Dec 1997
Location: Suffolk UK
Posts: 4,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige,
there are undoubtedly many, many incidents of which there never was any record - especially if ground fire didn't make contact. There are others, a few within my own experience, where the nature of the operation meant that details of any kind will be sparse or non-existent. Neither of these helps you particularly, but the anecdotal evidence may still be available from some of us older Alberteers. Whether anyone would listen is another matter... Nevertheless, seems like you're getting quite a lot of verifiable info anyway!
That said, it might be worth looking into books about the Beverley, Hastings, Andover and others for historical evidence of the dangers of small-arms ground-fire. The idea that there could have been a relatively cheap protective measure against this risk up to 40 years ago is galling in the extreme. It's long overdue.
there are undoubtedly many, many incidents of which there never was any record - especially if ground fire didn't make contact. There are others, a few within my own experience, where the nature of the operation meant that details of any kind will be sparse or non-existent. Neither of these helps you particularly, but the anecdotal evidence may still be available from some of us older Alberteers. Whether anyone would listen is another matter... Nevertheless, seems like you're getting quite a lot of verifiable info anyway!
That said, it might be worth looking into books about the Beverley, Hastings, Andover and others for historical evidence of the dangers of small-arms ground-fire. The idea that there could have been a relatively cheap protective measure against this risk up to 40 years ago is galling in the extreme. It's long overdue.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am receiving a lot of assistance. I can't disclose everything here for obvious reasons but if any former Herc crew can help it would certainly be most welcome. I fear that this specific type of self-protection has been overlooked over a range of ac including helos for a number of years. I know it is painful to keep this subject high profile but I still do not believe the Military has sufficiently learnt a very big lesson. We intend to keep beavering away until we can be certain that the required self-protection is in place.
Cheers,
Nige
Cheers,
Nige