Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are referring to the HCDC report. This is a snippet re Herc foam,
20.We note that the safety of C-130 Hercules remains an issue of concern to aircrew in theatre. While we welcome the decision to fit Explosion Suppressant Foam to some Hercules, we believe that it should be fitted to all Hercules in operational theatres. We are alarmed by the suggestion that the MoD might not be fitting protective systems because of the impact on other priorities. The protection of our Armed Forces should be given the highest priority. (Paragraph 74)
21.We seek reassurance from the MoD that lessons will be learned and safety features will be integrated in the plans for the A400M. (Paragraph 75)
I am on the case. Last time I spoke with the office of AOC 2 was 18 days ago and I was assured everything was ok. Will do some checking up. The Chairman of HCDC is in no mood to take bull from the MoD. It could be a case of overstretch and overtasking, we will see.
20.We note that the safety of C-130 Hercules remains an issue of concern to aircrew in theatre. While we welcome the decision to fit Explosion Suppressant Foam to some Hercules, we believe that it should be fitted to all Hercules in operational theatres. We are alarmed by the suggestion that the MoD might not be fitting protective systems because of the impact on other priorities. The protection of our Armed Forces should be given the highest priority. (Paragraph 74)
21.We seek reassurance from the MoD that lessons will be learned and safety features will be integrated in the plans for the A400M. (Paragraph 75)
I am on the case. Last time I spoke with the office of AOC 2 was 18 days ago and I was assured everything was ok. Will do some checking up. The Chairman of HCDC is in no mood to take bull from the MoD. It could be a case of overstretch and overtasking, we will see.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have made some enquiries and I have to say I can find no reason to disbelieve the reassurance provided by the office of AOC 2 regarding the foam equipment program. The program appears to be going ahead and if anything is more extensive than I first thought. I will contact HCDC direct and ask for some kind of an explanation for their comments. The only criticism I have is the length of time it is taking to fit the foam. I still have no idea why Ingram said the first ac would be fitted by July, but I am convinced that the RAF is firmly committed to providing fuel tank protection for the Hercules fleet.
Hope this helps.
NG
Hope this helps.
NG
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Norfolk England
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hercules IPT
Nigel,
Without in any way wishing to belittle the role of AOC 2 Group in this affair he will be being briefed on industrial progress and contracting arrangments by the Hercules IPT - part of the DLO at RAF Wyton. They will have let the contract for the foam fit, and I assume given the high profile they are very carefully monitoring it - it might be worth asking them what is going on as I would assume they are one of the HCDC sources. According to the public domain DLO organisation chart the IPT Team Leader is Gp Capt Mark Hobbs on 01480 52451 ext 4305.
JB
Without in any way wishing to belittle the role of AOC 2 Group in this affair he will be being briefed on industrial progress and contracting arrangments by the Hercules IPT - part of the DLO at RAF Wyton. They will have let the contract for the foam fit, and I assume given the high profile they are very carefully monitoring it - it might be worth asking them what is going on as I would assume they are one of the HCDC sources. According to the public domain DLO organisation chart the IPT Team Leader is Gp Capt Mark Hobbs on 01480 52451 ext 4305.
JB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks JB. I wondered if there was confusion with some of the Ks earmarked for the scrap heap in recent days. I hesitate to say it but I almost feel our job is done. It would be reckless in the extreme for the MoD to withdraw long term airframes from the foam program. The reassurance received recently has been independently confirmed. If I am right then attention will now shift to the inquest, bearing in mind a week is a long time in politics!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nige, i am saddened by your comment that you feel that "our job" has nearly come to an end!
i wholeheartedly feel that for myself that is not the case, until it has been confirmed in writing that all the hercules will be fitted with explosive suppressant foam. i understand that the retrofit will take a considerable length of time to complete. what has not been made clear, however, is the number of planes that have definitely been earmarked for foam and the potential timescale that we are looking at. with a transport fleet dangerously overstretched the planning for the modernisation must be extremely watertight to allow the work to go ahead. thus, the information must be in existence....or does my niaevity let me down again?
i am aware there is only so much desk thumping that can be done over the matter, nonetheless, it is not acceptable, nor should it be tolerated, that there is only fitting to part of the fleet. i do not see how the aircrew and pax safety can be ensured unless there is a specific role/schedule for each aircraft for it's entire working life. this would have to occur to guarantee that only the protected planes go to the high threat area.
lastly,i would like to add a comment by a high placed source which reads " if the operational environment requires additional protection, then it can be- and is-provided."
it is my view that unless, the entire fleet is subject to a retrofit then that comment is sadly null and void in my view.
i wholeheartedly feel that for myself that is not the case, until it has been confirmed in writing that all the hercules will be fitted with explosive suppressant foam. i understand that the retrofit will take a considerable length of time to complete. what has not been made clear, however, is the number of planes that have definitely been earmarked for foam and the potential timescale that we are looking at. with a transport fleet dangerously overstretched the planning for the modernisation must be extremely watertight to allow the work to go ahead. thus, the information must be in existence....or does my niaevity let me down again?
i am aware there is only so much desk thumping that can be done over the matter, nonetheless, it is not acceptable, nor should it be tolerated, that there is only fitting to part of the fleet. i do not see how the aircrew and pax safety can be ensured unless there is a specific role/schedule for each aircraft for it's entire working life. this would have to occur to guarantee that only the protected planes go to the high threat area.
lastly,i would like to add a comment by a high placed source which reads " if the operational environment requires additional protection, then it can be- and is-provided."
it is my view that unless, the entire fleet is subject to a retrofit then that comment is sadly null and void in my view.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chappie, I am no fan of the politico speak used by the Chiefs of Staff, however I am satisfied that the foam program is extensive and that it will eventually provide protection for the crews who need it. Once the foam program is complete it would simply be an act of outright negligence to send Herc crews into theatre without it. I no longer think this will happen. Too many people are looking at Herc safety.
I still disagree with the original decision to send crews to Afg and I do not support the guarantees provided by CAS, but I do think we have helped change things for the
better.
I still disagree with the original decision to send crews to Afg and I do not support the guarantees provided by CAS, but I do think we have helped change things for the
better.
Last edited by nigegilb; 16th Aug 2006 at 15:31.
Let Right be done
I have just completed reading this entire thread. May I say how much I admire the tenacity and sincerity of all who have supported the campaign to fit ESF to the RAF Hercules Fleet, in particular Chappie and Nigegilb. The former because she has shown such courage and dedication to a highly technical cause in a highly complex organisation, but then as she copes with the vicissitudes of the NHS on a daily basis we can see where she gets it from. Well done Ma’am, and as has been said previously, your brother must be so proud of you! And Nigel, like me an ex Herc driver, but unlike me , one who has grasped this nettle and fought the good fight until at last there is light at the end of the tunnel! Congratulations to you both, you have achieved a remarkable victory and enhanced the survivability and hence effectiveness of the MRT force (old speak). That is why you have encountered such resistance, because those whose professional duty it was to do so did not, and resent you for revealing that! There is always money available; the trick is to spend it in the right way.
When we ordered the original K model, the RAF asked Lockheed to hang Rolls Royce Tynes on them. They declined. So instead the hulls were stuffed with British electronics whether or not they were appropriate (i.e. Decca Nav Mk 1, which told you where you were, after you told it where it was, providing you were within chain coverage!).We had to hand fly the aircraft, even on 14 hour legs, for about a year, as the British Auto Pilot was incompatible with the impedance of the wiring looms and was collared out. Yet more money was splashed out on downward looking periscopes for supply dropping, and enlarged flight deck escape apertures to accommodate an Astrodome for the Force commander to view his formation. Neither had been deemed necessary by the USAF who had been operating Hercs for over 15 years by then. The reason for all this largess became clear when “the Pound in your pocket” Wilson stood up in Parliament and announced that over half the cost of the fleet would be in Pounds Sterling!
What Lockheed did advise was the use of FIIS fuel additive. They were poopooed. The result was fuel seeping out of the wings and a multi million pound contract to Messrs Marshalls to replank the entire fleet’s wings, within a very few years, as has been previously mentioned . Donkeys all!
Small arms fire has always been a common risk to MRT Ops. In Borneo, during Confrontation, Hastings and Beverleys supply dropped to the army along the borders, etc. At least two of our Hastings came back with additional ventilation, one of which had some 3or 4 rounds recovered, all of varying calibres! As we fuelled with 100/115 Avgas, they considered themselves lucky. Self sealing tanks were the state of the art answer in those days, and I feel silly that I knew of no other technology when I left the RAF in 1973, having spent some 4years on Hercs.
You guys are so much better informed than we were. Of course the W.W.W. and the likes of Pprune have revolutionised information dissemination since then. If that helps to spend the taxpayers’ money for our Nation’s defence more effectively and cut down on the needless waste, as above, we should embrace it. Don’t stop now, we must have ESF, or similar, fitted to all aircraft liable to Take Off, Land or fly Low Level in hostile Airspace. Let Right be done!
When we ordered the original K model, the RAF asked Lockheed to hang Rolls Royce Tynes on them. They declined. So instead the hulls were stuffed with British electronics whether or not they were appropriate (i.e. Decca Nav Mk 1, which told you where you were, after you told it where it was, providing you were within chain coverage!).We had to hand fly the aircraft, even on 14 hour legs, for about a year, as the British Auto Pilot was incompatible with the impedance of the wiring looms and was collared out. Yet more money was splashed out on downward looking periscopes for supply dropping, and enlarged flight deck escape apertures to accommodate an Astrodome for the Force commander to view his formation. Neither had been deemed necessary by the USAF who had been operating Hercs for over 15 years by then. The reason for all this largess became clear when “the Pound in your pocket” Wilson stood up in Parliament and announced that over half the cost of the fleet would be in Pounds Sterling!
What Lockheed did advise was the use of FIIS fuel additive. They were poopooed. The result was fuel seeping out of the wings and a multi million pound contract to Messrs Marshalls to replank the entire fleet’s wings, within a very few years, as has been previously mentioned . Donkeys all!
Small arms fire has always been a common risk to MRT Ops. In Borneo, during Confrontation, Hastings and Beverleys supply dropped to the army along the borders, etc. At least two of our Hastings came back with additional ventilation, one of which had some 3or 4 rounds recovered, all of varying calibres! As we fuelled with 100/115 Avgas, they considered themselves lucky. Self sealing tanks were the state of the art answer in those days, and I feel silly that I knew of no other technology when I left the RAF in 1973, having spent some 4years on Hercs.
You guys are so much better informed than we were. Of course the W.W.W. and the likes of Pprune have revolutionised information dissemination since then. If that helps to spend the taxpayers’ money for our Nation’s defence more effectively and cut down on the needless waste, as above, we should embrace it. Don’t stop now, we must have ESF, or similar, fitted to all aircraft liable to Take Off, Land or fly Low Level in hostile Airspace. Let Right be done!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Chugalug, it is nice to get some context to the situation. You alluded to fuel tank protection back in the 70s. You will have read the posts from other Herc operators in 78 and 82 requesting foam for the wing tanks. One of the things that has saddened and angered me over the last few months is the absolute denial by the Chiefs of Staff that the RAF was aware of any risk to the fuel tanks of the Hercules and that Herc crews had requested foam protection in the past. I do not believe this to be true, I knew about foam back in 99. I am sure these facts will be substantiated in the future but I agree with you, in that we have landed a blow for what is right. I do not know if fuel tank protection is official for A400M. Frankly I do not care, my own sources tell me it is going to happen and I know that thanks to the success of the campaign it is inconceivable that A400M will not get the protection now.
Regards,
NG
Regards,
NG
Last edited by nigegilb; 17th Aug 2006 at 02:36.
[. One of the things that has saddened and angered me over the last few months is the absolute denial by the Chiefs of Staff that the RAF was aware of any risk to the fuel tanks of the Hercules and that Herc crews had requested foam protection in the past. NG[/quote]
NG, I didn't know about foam in 1973 (when I left the RAF), and as a line Pilot still feel bad about that. If I knew then what I know now, I it would have been possible to plead for the same protection that the USAF had as standard from before our "Ks" were delivered. As it was in the Cold War, and unlike now our leaders declined invitations from the White house to join in Hot ones, I suspect very little Small Arms fire was directed at the fleet in those days. All that has changed completely and your generation and the present one have been in the thick of it. We let you down and that is bad. At least in the most part it was ignorance of the facts. That extenuating cop out cannot extend to the Air Staff. Either they knew and did nothing, or they didn't know and were derelict in their duty. Either way they are guilty as charged, and know it!
NG, I didn't know about foam in 1973 (when I left the RAF), and as a line Pilot still feel bad about that. If I knew then what I know now, I it would have been possible to plead for the same protection that the USAF had as standard from before our "Ks" were delivered. As it was in the Cold War, and unlike now our leaders declined invitations from the White house to join in Hot ones, I suspect very little Small Arms fire was directed at the fleet in those days. All that has changed completely and your generation and the present one have been in the thick of it. We let you down and that is bad. At least in the most part it was ignorance of the facts. That extenuating cop out cannot extend to the Air Staff. Either they knew and did nothing, or they didn't know and were derelict in their duty. Either way they are guilty as charged, and know it!
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: west yorkshire
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have followed this subject for some time re ESF since the death of our son, and have also been working unceasingly behind the scenes since the BoI report. It's nice to know that there are people out there (nigegilb etc) who have had the guts to stand up and be counted and helped us through the technical minefield of jargon covering this subject. We have all come a long way since 30/01/05 but not as far as we would like to believe, perhaps the inquest will endorse Kam's sentiments of innocent/culpable ignorance! We have stood shoulder to shoulder with Chappie and Kam and liaised closely with them and applaud their tenacity. Bob and Pards would be so very proud of them. Finally, thanks to anyone and everyone out there who has contributed/ supplied information or helped in any way, you all have our gratitude.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF officers and MoD claiming ignorance is pure spin. The plea of ignorance is based on the initial claim that foam had not been requested in writing. Self sealing tanks were requested in 2000. This piece of MoD spin fell apart when it was revealed that 47 Sqn pilots requested the foam in 2002. MoD spin suggested that the RAF was focussed on countering missile threats to the Hercules ac. Well, it was then revealed that the MoD cancelled a program to equip the J with a modern DAS in 2004/05.
In my view it was negligent not to have equipped the Hercules with foam when it was requested 25 years ago. I have agreed with nothing that CAS has written and said on this subject. I find it unbelievable that RAF experts did not think the Hercules was vulnerable to a fuel tank explosion. It is clear from all the evidence about a poorly equipped military that all of this is driven by cost and a failure of leaders to lead.
In my view it was negligent not to have equipped the Hercules with foam when it was requested 25 years ago. I have agreed with nothing that CAS has written and said on this subject. I find it unbelievable that RAF experts did not think the Hercules was vulnerable to a fuel tank explosion. It is clear from all the evidence about a poorly equipped military that all of this is driven by cost and a failure of leaders to lead.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thankyou to everyone who has passed on kind words, support and reassurances. i feel so strongly about my belief that ALL aircrew and passengers on hercules should be protected.
there is NO way that ignorance can stand as an acceptable reason for the negliegence shown and blatant disregard for the lives of every airman/woman. in my line of work i claimed ignorance as a reason for the loss of life i would be booted out of my profession quicker than you can say suppositries!
when i wrote to the hierarchy i got nothing back except hot air, platitudes and the party line. i know there are those of us who believe that the lack of foam was intrinsic in the loss of the lives of those ten men on XV179, also understand that there is no way in the world that CAS or anyone else within that structure will ever indicate that was the case. that would be like signing their own discharge papers. remember this though, all because you say that the findings are the way that they are it does'nt make it true. i have so many questions that need to be answered. i am in the process of writing back to those who chose to ignore me again, and those responsible for the letter of nothingness. my questions? look at all that hgas been aforementioned. why did the DAS get cancelled? why does the RAF have to insist that they were unaware of the risks of the plane, when that is simply not true? why was the foam not fitted when the requests date back as far as the eighties? why is there more secrecy around how many planes that will be fitted with foam than is necessary? it's not as if the planes are going to be flying around the sky with a banner saying i've got foam or painted a different colour so that any terrorist can figure out which plane is vunerable. no...this is not done yet. i have so many questions.
i also have the oppurtunity to meet with AOC 2 Gp, which i will sort on my return from holiday. i am away for a week as of tomorrow. on my return i will continue to fight the good fight!
there is NO way that ignorance can stand as an acceptable reason for the negliegence shown and blatant disregard for the lives of every airman/woman. in my line of work i claimed ignorance as a reason for the loss of life i would be booted out of my profession quicker than you can say suppositries!
when i wrote to the hierarchy i got nothing back except hot air, platitudes and the party line. i know there are those of us who believe that the lack of foam was intrinsic in the loss of the lives of those ten men on XV179, also understand that there is no way in the world that CAS or anyone else within that structure will ever indicate that was the case. that would be like signing their own discharge papers. remember this though, all because you say that the findings are the way that they are it does'nt make it true. i have so many questions that need to be answered. i am in the process of writing back to those who chose to ignore me again, and those responsible for the letter of nothingness. my questions? look at all that hgas been aforementioned. why did the DAS get cancelled? why does the RAF have to insist that they were unaware of the risks of the plane, when that is simply not true? why was the foam not fitted when the requests date back as far as the eighties? why is there more secrecy around how many planes that will be fitted with foam than is necessary? it's not as if the planes are going to be flying around the sky with a banner saying i've got foam or painted a different colour so that any terrorist can figure out which plane is vunerable. no...this is not done yet. i have so many questions.
i also have the oppurtunity to meet with AOC 2 Gp, which i will sort on my return from holiday. i am away for a week as of tomorrow. on my return i will continue to fight the good fight!
Originally Posted by nigegilb
In my view it was negligent not to have equipped the Hercules with foam when it was requested 25 years ago..
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The United States Air Force has successfully used Foamex Polyurethane Safety Foam to suppress fuel tank explosions in combat and special mission aircraft since 1965. USAF retrofitted foam for the first few years. From the early to mid 1970s I understand that foam was fitted on the production line across the whole fleet. For another example of MoD speak read the following. I am still amazed to read that before this incident Hercs would not have been exposed to this type of attack, according to the world of the MoD.
Thursday, 18 May 2006.
Armed Forces: Explosive-Suppressant Foam
Lord Luke asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the Ministry of Defence first considered fitting explosive-suppressant foam devices to Royal Air Force Hercules aircraft; and [HL5589]
What is the estimated cost of fitting explosive-suppressant foam devices to a Hercules aircraft; and [HL5590]
Why explosive-suppressant foam devices have not already been fitted to all Royal Air Force Hercules aircraft; and [HL5591]
How many Royal Air Force aircraft are to be left without explosive-suppressant foam devices; and why; and [HL5593]
What assessment the Ministry of Defence has made of the United States' use of explosive-suppressant foam devices in aircraft. [HL5594]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): In the past, our Hercules aircraft would not have been exposed to the type and level of threat that now prevails in today's operational environments. Hercules defensive systems have, however, been enhanced and modified considerably in recent years, with the emphasis on countering the greatest perceived threats, while also evolving tactics and improving force protection on the ground.
Although the Ministry of Defence was aware that explosive-suppressant foam (ESF) was available as a possible upgrade for the Hercules, until the loss of Hercules XV 179 the Hercules aircraft was not judged vulnerable to the form of attack that caused XV 179 to crash, albeit that there had been some working-level correspondence on the subject within the RAF. The board of inquiry into the loss of Hercules XV 179 recommended that the MoD should consider the fitting of a fuel tank inerting system, and this was taken forward as a matter of urgency. As a result, we have recently decided to fit ESF to some of our Hercules aircraft, concentrating on those aircraft which operate at the highest threat. Subject to final contract negotiations, we expect to have the first aircraft fitted with ESF available for operations in the next few months. The initial programme will cost £600,000 per aircraft.
We are aware of the approach that the United States has taken, but we do not comment on the capability of other nations.
And another cracker.
Lord Luke (Conservative)
My Lords, I declare an interest, as my son-in-law will soon take his regiment to Iraq. Will the Minister confirm that transport aircraft flying into Afghanistan and Iraq—the chartered ones as well as those belonging to the RAF—will be equipped with effective defensive measures?
Lord Drayson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Defence Procurement), Ministry of Defence)
Yes, my Lords, I am happy to assure the House that all aircraft flying into operations will have the appropriate defensive measures. We do not use charter aircraft going into operations in areas that we regard as operationally challenging. Aircraft that go into those areas have, in all cases, the defensive aid suites that they require.
Thursday, 18 May 2006.
Armed Forces: Explosive-Suppressant Foam
Lord Luke asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the Ministry of Defence first considered fitting explosive-suppressant foam devices to Royal Air Force Hercules aircraft; and [HL5589]
What is the estimated cost of fitting explosive-suppressant foam devices to a Hercules aircraft; and [HL5590]
Why explosive-suppressant foam devices have not already been fitted to all Royal Air Force Hercules aircraft; and [HL5591]
How many Royal Air Force aircraft are to be left without explosive-suppressant foam devices; and why; and [HL5593]
What assessment the Ministry of Defence has made of the United States' use of explosive-suppressant foam devices in aircraft. [HL5594]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): In the past, our Hercules aircraft would not have been exposed to the type and level of threat that now prevails in today's operational environments. Hercules defensive systems have, however, been enhanced and modified considerably in recent years, with the emphasis on countering the greatest perceived threats, while also evolving tactics and improving force protection on the ground.
Although the Ministry of Defence was aware that explosive-suppressant foam (ESF) was available as a possible upgrade for the Hercules, until the loss of Hercules XV 179 the Hercules aircraft was not judged vulnerable to the form of attack that caused XV 179 to crash, albeit that there had been some working-level correspondence on the subject within the RAF. The board of inquiry into the loss of Hercules XV 179 recommended that the MoD should consider the fitting of a fuel tank inerting system, and this was taken forward as a matter of urgency. As a result, we have recently decided to fit ESF to some of our Hercules aircraft, concentrating on those aircraft which operate at the highest threat. Subject to final contract negotiations, we expect to have the first aircraft fitted with ESF available for operations in the next few months. The initial programme will cost £600,000 per aircraft.
We are aware of the approach that the United States has taken, but we do not comment on the capability of other nations.
And another cracker.
Lord Luke (Conservative)
My Lords, I declare an interest, as my son-in-law will soon take his regiment to Iraq. Will the Minister confirm that transport aircraft flying into Afghanistan and Iraq—the chartered ones as well as those belonging to the RAF—will be equipped with effective defensive measures?
Lord Drayson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Defence Procurement), Ministry of Defence)
Yes, my Lords, I am happy to assure the House that all aircraft flying into operations will have the appropriate defensive measures. We do not use charter aircraft going into operations in areas that we regard as operationally challenging. Aircraft that go into those areas have, in all cases, the defensive aid suites that they require.
Last edited by nigegilb; 18th Aug 2006 at 21:28.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless of course the ACC sticks his finger in the wind and says "Don't worry about your DAS old son, just go and do it."
That's why certain upgrades to 2Gp aircraft DAS capabilities haven't been funded under UOR.
Drayson's last quote is absolute rubbish, in fact I believe it to be a blatant lie.
Mind you, it wouldn't do to make the 3* late for an "otherwise enjoyable dinner" would it. Nice to see that the unservicability, described as "inflexibility", of the DAS and a sensible decision to divert into a low threat area was commented on in such a understanding way! Not that we'd be risking our lives for this sort of thing...
That's why certain upgrades to 2Gp aircraft DAS capabilities haven't been funded under UOR.
Drayson's last quote is absolute rubbish, in fact I believe it to be a blatant lie.
Mind you, it wouldn't do to make the 3* late for an "otherwise enjoyable dinner" would it. Nice to see that the unservicability, described as "inflexibility", of the DAS and a sensible decision to divert into a low threat area was commented on in such a understanding way! Not that we'd be risking our lives for this sort of thing...
[quote=nigegilb]The United States Air Force has successfully used Foamex Polyurethane Safety Foam to suppress fuel tank explosions in combat and special mission aircraft since 1965. USAF retrofitted foam for the first few years. From the early to mid 1970s I understand that foam was fitted on the production line across the whole fleet.
"Although the Ministry of Defence was aware that explosive-suppressant foam (ESF) was available as a possible upgrade for the Hercules, until the loss of Hercules XV 179 the Hercules aircraft was not judged vulnerable to the form of attack that caused XV 179 to crash, albeit that there had been some working-level correspondence on the subject within the RAF.
We are aware of the approach that the United States has taken, but we do not comment on the capability of other nations."]
Thankyou for the info NG, and congratulations on the thorough int job you have done on this saga! So here perhaps is the irony of this situation. If the Ks had been ordered and built just a few years later, Lockheed could have offered the Foam fit as part of the build package. As it was we just missed that window and were left with the (more expensive) retro fit solution resisted until now, when some of those very same aircraft are being retired. The form of attack "they" felt the Hercules was not judged vulnerable to was presumably ground fire; the USAF Herc at Khe Sahn was seen to be very vulnerable! These are military aircraft for goodness sake, that may be expected to go to war, as now. It is merely the fact that we have had to wait until now for Mr Bliar to engage us in two wars at the same time that the recklessness of that complacent assertion can be seen so clearly!
"Although the Ministry of Defence was aware that explosive-suppressant foam (ESF) was available as a possible upgrade for the Hercules, until the loss of Hercules XV 179 the Hercules aircraft was not judged vulnerable to the form of attack that caused XV 179 to crash, albeit that there had been some working-level correspondence on the subject within the RAF.
We are aware of the approach that the United States has taken, but we do not comment on the capability of other nations."]
Thankyou for the info NG, and congratulations on the thorough int job you have done on this saga! So here perhaps is the irony of this situation. If the Ks had been ordered and built just a few years later, Lockheed could have offered the Foam fit as part of the build package. As it was we just missed that window and were left with the (more expensive) retro fit solution resisted until now, when some of those very same aircraft are being retired. The form of attack "they" felt the Hercules was not judged vulnerable to was presumably ground fire; the USAF Herc at Khe Sahn was seen to be very vulnerable! These are military aircraft for goodness sake, that may be expected to go to war, as now. It is merely the fact that we have had to wait until now for Mr Bliar to engage us in two wars at the same time that the recklessness of that complacent assertion can be seen so clearly!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Reckless complacency," I could not have put it better myself. Too late for the K yes, but we took delivery of the J Herc in 2000, without foam of course and without a DAS fit. MoD answers have changed as facts about the history of foam transpired. Initially total ignorance was claimed now an awareness is stated but the MoD is trying to claim that SF ac had not been engaged in risky operations until this ac was shot down. Worse an RAF Herc survived an attack in similar circumstances 6 months before XV 179. The engineers worked out why the fuel tanks did not go bang but still nothing was done. The official line is that the BoI could not say that the crew would definitely have survived with foam in the fuel tanks. Well, who could say that? It most definitely does not mean they would not have survived if foam had been in the tanks. The scramble to retrofit foam now suggests that the MoD in private realise this is a screw up.
Just a few weeks after Lord Drayson made his comments another Herc was lost on a strip in Afg, most probably to a land mine. This ac did not have foam fitted to the fuel tanks. I do not support Govt guarantees about ac safety in Afg, which is why I have been fighting so hard.
I don't know the facts behind Rude Kid's comments but having been there before I think I understand the pressure on RAF crews to go sausage side without having the right equipment. I wonder how much has really changed .
Just a few weeks after Lord Drayson made his comments another Herc was lost on a strip in Afg, most probably to a land mine. This ac did not have foam fitted to the fuel tanks. I do not support Govt guarantees about ac safety in Afg, which is why I have been fighting so hard.
I don't know the facts behind Rude Kid's comments but having been there before I think I understand the pressure on RAF crews to go sausage side without having the right equipment. I wonder how much has really changed .
Last edited by nigegilb; 19th Aug 2006 at 07:38.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rudekid
Drayson's last quote is absolute rubbish, in fact I believe it to be a blatant lie...
Could there be a connection?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: hotels
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
So here perhaps is the irony of this situation. If the Ks had been ordered and built just a few years later, Lockheed could have offered the Foam fit as part of the build package. As it was we just missed that window and were left with the (more expensive) retro fit solution resisted until now, when some of those very same aircraft are being retired.
Originally Posted by nigegilb
Too late for the K yes, but we took delivery of the J Herc in 2000, without foam of course and without a DAS fit.
I'm still gobsmacked at the £600million per aircraft cost the government is fleecing us for! Raw materials are in the neighborhood of £15-£20thousand per aircraft. Installation, training, upkeep, refurb, et al cannot possibly be £600million per aircraft over the expected service life of the K fleet...same old rubbish!