Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
Well done Nige, Chappie and everyone involved with the Channel 4 report. Day after day the lid is being lifted in the national media on the can of worms that purports to be the Defence Policy of this government. There is a negligent disregard for the manning, equipment and support requirements necessitated by the reckless calls on our Armed Forces, dictated by the White House via number10 and the MOD. The strong suspicion is that all three institutions either don't care or don't understand the self inflicted harm done to our forces before they can even close with the enemy. The supine way in which senior officers have collaborated with these demands, while paring budgets to the bone is a scandal. If they can't stop the rot they should go, or forever be infected by it. Someone has to tell the Great Leader that he has overstretched his withered forces, and must start to reduce commitments and simultaneously markedly increase expenditure. That someone has to be a Senior Officer, backed up by his fellow senior officers, because no member of this government or its submissive Civil Service will do so. Any volunteers gentlemen?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the first line of arguments brought out by the MoD was that the RAF had been concentrating on missile defence and that the vulnerability of the Hercules to this kind of attack was not known about. Well, back in 2002 we certainly had little or no defence against missiles. However, the cancellation of the anti-missile program for the Hercules in 2004/05 just served to underline the fact that there is not enough money in the hands of the RAF to provide adequate protection against the perceived threat. As for not knowing about the need for foam, this foam presentation and concerns about lack of protection were made back in 2002, by the pilots themselves!
If the MoD end up with a huge bill for damages then they will have deserved it for the negligent way in which they have gone about aircraft protection. Maybe, just maybe, the Hercules foam fitting program will now be accelerated.
If the MoD end up with a huge bill for damages then they will have deserved it for the negligent way in which they have gone about aircraft protection. Maybe, just maybe, the Hercules foam fitting program will now be accelerated.
I’ve just watched BBC West. Generally very positive, but ended on a sour note; to the effect that money spent on Hercs is money not spent on Body Armour and better protected Troop Carriers.
As those who know the truth will be aware, this is absolute bollix. Finding the money for a full fleet fit is child’s play and beneath the pay grade of the most lowly project officer in both DLO and DPA. So WTFGO?
As those who know the truth will be aware, this is absolute bollix. Finding the money for a full fleet fit is child’s play and beneath the pay grade of the most lowly project officer in both DLO and DPA. So WTFGO?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc
Better CBA and improved armour for troop carriers is f@ck all use if the troops are killed whilst being transported to/in/from theatre. Though I suspect you knew that already!!
The beeb are just p-d off that Ch4 got the 'scoop' first.
That said, any publicity is good publicity and I would think a number of top MoD staff and politicos have been reminded that we are watching their painfully slow progress to give our crews (and their pax) the protection they deserve - and for which we have been asking for years!!!
I just hope that they can get the foam and other 'niceties' sorted PDQ as further delays would be unacceptable.
Flipster
Better CBA and improved armour for troop carriers is f@ck all use if the troops are killed whilst being transported to/in/from theatre. Though I suspect you knew that already!!
The beeb are just p-d off that Ch4 got the 'scoop' first.
That said, any publicity is good publicity and I would think a number of top MoD staff and politicos have been reminded that we are watching their painfully slow progress to give our crews (and their pax) the protection they deserve - and for which we have been asking for years!!!
I just hope that they can get the foam and other 'niceties' sorted PDQ as further delays would be unacceptable.
Flipster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tuc,
If you had flicked over channels you would have seen the HTV version. They came up to film today. They finished the piece in a poignant fashion by stating that the crews are out there to protect us but who is protecting them. I think the AVM was making a fair point that we need new funding for this protection. I would hate to think that any money spent on the Herc is taken from soldiers needing equally important equipment. The latest on the foam program ( I think) is that a majority of Js will get foam but they are not all funded. I do however believe that all Hercules ac likely to be sent into theatre will "eventually" get foam.
NG
If you had flicked over channels you would have seen the HTV version. They came up to film today. They finished the piece in a poignant fashion by stating that the crews are out there to protect us but who is protecting them. I think the AVM was making a fair point that we need new funding for this protection. I would hate to think that any money spent on the Herc is taken from soldiers needing equally important equipment. The latest on the foam program ( I think) is that a majority of Js will get foam but they are not all funded. I do however believe that all Hercules ac likely to be sent into theatre will "eventually" get foam.
NG
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
did anyone hear me on radio wiltshire? weds? did the usual but at the end the reporter tried to end it on the same as the news programme, clearly it is that the bbc are towing the party line. sad, eh! he said goodbye, then finished with if the money goes to the hercs then it can't go on protection for the soliders or armoured vehicles. i managed to deflect that and put him straight much to his suprise. i'm now out of loop as now in hospital thanks to thetroublesome bean! keep up the good work, thnks for your support.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't this all underpinned by the sort of issues discussed in the thread 'What is the true position on defence finances' (~p9) in which you and I aired our grave concerns for defence finances?
Absolute disgrace.
GlosMike
Correct. BTW, I didn’t mean to suggest that a choice has to be made between kitting out troops, Hercs or anyone else for that matter. The answer to the argument put forward by the media (and who knows who put them up to it as they clearly cannot think for themselves) that money spent on Hercs is money not spent on Body Armour and better protected Troop Carriers, is simply answered by reference to the numerous MoD and NAO/PAC reports over the past decades that state, quite categorically, that the MoD is wasting money. Not piddling amounts, but hundreds of millions every year. In fact, single projects waste this and nothing is done about it. If you keep telling them, and they keep doing it, then it goes far beyond incompetence. The waste is an absolute disgrace, but so is the failure to deal with those who condone it. Sack them.
Correct. BTW, I didn’t mean to suggest that a choice has to be made between kitting out troops, Hercs or anyone else for that matter. The answer to the argument put forward by the media (and who knows who put them up to it as they clearly cannot think for themselves) that money spent on Hercs is money not spent on Body Armour and better protected Troop Carriers, is simply answered by reference to the numerous MoD and NAO/PAC reports over the past decades that state, quite categorically, that the MoD is wasting money. Not piddling amounts, but hundreds of millions every year. In fact, single projects waste this and nothing is done about it. If you keep telling them, and they keep doing it, then it goes far beyond incompetence. The waste is an absolute disgrace, but so is the failure to deal with those who condone it. Sack them.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: London
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tucumseh,
I sympathise with your frustration working within the organisation, but (much-maligned) suppliers equally feel it too. We go through months of contract negotiations where the customer emphasis is to slash the price (to the detriment of functionality), only for the DLO to suddenly discover a substantial underspend later on.
Rather than divert funds to causes that will immediately benefit the frontline, the (non-aircraft) IPT approaches us for ideas that are, in essence, money wasters that will add one or two new features to an equipment scheduled for replacement. However, the mindset is that it is better to proceed in this manner rather than admit poor fiscal forecasting and subsequently lose funding in the next FY.
I know that it is a common sport for PPruNers to bash industry, but they should understand that the ex-servicemen amongst us get equally annoyed with an organisation that is one day dangerously frugal and the next has money to burn on trivia.
Back to my Laphroaig….
I sympathise with your frustration working within the organisation, but (much-maligned) suppliers equally feel it too. We go through months of contract negotiations where the customer emphasis is to slash the price (to the detriment of functionality), only for the DLO to suddenly discover a substantial underspend later on.
Rather than divert funds to causes that will immediately benefit the frontline, the (non-aircraft) IPT approaches us for ideas that are, in essence, money wasters that will add one or two new features to an equipment scheduled for replacement. However, the mindset is that it is better to proceed in this manner rather than admit poor fiscal forecasting and subsequently lose funding in the next FY.
I know that it is a common sport for PPruNers to bash industry, but they should understand that the ex-servicemen amongst us get equally annoyed with an organisation that is one day dangerously frugal and the next has money to burn on trivia.
Back to my Laphroaig….
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BC
I don't know if you've read the thread I referenced but if not, have a quick gallop through. I think you'll find you, Tuc and me are violently agreeing. Others too. It all boils down to money, or rather the lack of it in my view.
Tuc has a good point about the waste - and he knows better than I the scale of it (not small!). The dreadful decision making and searching for money that isn't there that goes on -which is wasteful of cash in itself - is horrific.
However, my bottom line is that no system can be made perfect. You have to accept there will be some bad decisions, waste, etc - and scale for it with hard cash. Government won't like that and DPA isn't likely to go public and admit it either, but the headlines speak for themselves.
Without a serious boost in defence expenditure the ridiculous situations we witness daily in news reports and see with our own professional experiences, won't stop. Nothing will improve and people will continue to die needlessly.
It beggars belief that MOD had the temerity to try to argue priorities between body armour and fuel tank foam. It's just such a breathtakingly stupid position to hold on paper, let alone use as an argument in public.
Tuc's right in that there ought to be some internal 'career opportunities' for some on the inside at DPA - but far more of the folks there are battling valiantly and doing a good job in dreadful circumstances.
I wonder about the roles and responsibilities of their starships in this too. When did any of them come out and say 'up with this we will not put'. And as for politicians....so many in high office set such debased exaples of reason, trust and humanity it amazes me they wonder why we hold them in such low esteem and get turned off at the mention of politics.
I don't know if you've read the thread I referenced but if not, have a quick gallop through. I think you'll find you, Tuc and me are violently agreeing. Others too. It all boils down to money, or rather the lack of it in my view.
Tuc has a good point about the waste - and he knows better than I the scale of it (not small!). The dreadful decision making and searching for money that isn't there that goes on -which is wasteful of cash in itself - is horrific.
However, my bottom line is that no system can be made perfect. You have to accept there will be some bad decisions, waste, etc - and scale for it with hard cash. Government won't like that and DPA isn't likely to go public and admit it either, but the headlines speak for themselves.
Without a serious boost in defence expenditure the ridiculous situations we witness daily in news reports and see with our own professional experiences, won't stop. Nothing will improve and people will continue to die needlessly.
It beggars belief that MOD had the temerity to try to argue priorities between body armour and fuel tank foam. It's just such a breathtakingly stupid position to hold on paper, let alone use as an argument in public.
Tuc's right in that there ought to be some internal 'career opportunities' for some on the inside at DPA - but far more of the folks there are battling valiantly and doing a good job in dreadful circumstances.
I wonder about the roles and responsibilities of their starships in this too. When did any of them come out and say 'up with this we will not put'. And as for politicians....so many in high office set such debased exaples of reason, trust and humanity it amazes me they wonder why we hold them in such low esteem and get turned off at the mention of politics.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Combat Immunity no more
This is an important article. It deals with the blanket combat immunity clause invoked by MoD lawyers. This immunity is now being challenged by test cases and could have a bearing on the shooting down of XV179.
Army widows battle MoD on 'immunity'
The days when the military could avoid legal action by bereaved relatives over reckless actions could be numbered, writes Jon Robins
Sunday September 24, 2006
The Guardian
'I feel as though a weight has been lifted from my shoulders,' says Samantha Roberts. Her husband, Steve, was the first soldier to die in action in the Iraq war, but it has taken three-and-a-half years of legal wrangling for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to admit liability. A confidential out-of-court settlement was agreed this month.
Steve Roberts was a 33-year-old sergeant with the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment when he was shot in the stomach and chest by 'friendly fire' in March 2003 while he was trying to quell a demonstration near Basra. His wife's campaign to discover the circumstances of his death caught the public imagination when it emerged that hours before he died he had been ordered to hand over his flak jacket to another soldier.
Mrs Roberts never wanted 'compensation'. 'I wanted an apology and an explanation, and this is where it has ended up,' she says. 'It's horrible to put a price on somebody's life, but sometimes money is the only language people listen to.'
Suing the MoD for negligence was a no-go area until 1987, when the statutory bar on legal action was lifted. Nonetheless, a doctrine known as 'combat immunity' continues to be invoked by the military when incidents arise out of fi ghting in a war zone, granting the military protection not available to other employers. Mrs Roberts's solicitor, Geraldine McCool, a partner at the law firm MPH, explains: 'Post-1987, there has been an almost knee-jerk line from the MoD that cases are covered by "combat immunity", even when they clearly aren't. The consequence is that military personnel don't get a penny, no matter how reckless the forces have been with their lives.'
According to the MoD's annual report on claims, circulated publicly last week, payments for claims in 2005-06 totalled £67.7m, including 621 claims by personnel (£26.3m). By contrast, the armed forces' boarding school allowance rose from £67.5m in 2000 to £100.2m last year. 'It puts claims against the MoD into some sort of perspective,' says McCool, who is advising 60 families of servicemen who have been on tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last week's claims report cites a 2004 case (Bici v MoD) in which the judge ruled that for immunity to apply any threat 'must be imminent and serious'. The MoD says: 'Following investigation and legal advice, the vast majority of cases have been accepted and some have now been settled.'
McCool hopes that the acknowledgement amounts to a change of policy. 'In most of our cases, combat immunity is cited, we fight it, and pretty much every time the Ministry concedes the point. But for a grieving widow, the intervening three years plus that the process takes is very long and painful,' she says.
A new armed forces compensation scheme came into effect in April, replacing the old war pensions scheme. McCool argues that calling the tariff-based system a 'compensation' scheme is misleading in so far as it supersedes old pension arrangements and that any claim made on it would not prevent service personnel from taking legal action in court: 'The disparity between compensation from the courts and compensation from the scheme can be considerable.' She cites one of her clients - a lance corporal who suffered a signifi cant spinal injury after a fall and settled out of court for £1.6m. Under the compensation scheme, he would have received £103,350, or an annual pension of £7,771.
'Every soldier signed up to the army knowing that it's highly likely they're going to be in a war situation,' says Mrs Roberts. 'But I always knew the army was at fault and that to try and hide behind "combat immunity" is a very ungracious response.'
She has helped to set up the Army Widows Association, providing information about pension rights and accommodation, as well as creating a support network.
· For more information, go to www.armywidows.org.uk.
'I received an eviction notice two days after he was shot'
In April 2003, 23-year-old Lance Corporal Darren George of the 1st Royal Anglian Regiment was killed by 'friendly fire' while on patrol in Kabul.
'I was living in married quarters and received an eviction notice two days afterwards, saying that I had six months to get out,' says his 24-year-old widow Sarah.
'I was just on autopilot. I have a little boy and couldn't break down. The army hasn't helped me with a thing. Luckily, the local authority housed me pretty quickly.'
Her husband was shot in the head by a colleague who suffered a dizzy spell as he loaded a machine gun. At first, the Ministry of Defence pleaded combat immunity, but in January Sarah settled her negligence action for £500,000. However, her army pension has since been cut from £560 a month to £411 a year. 'It's an insult,' she says. 'The money is supposed to be there to provide a house and security for myself and my son.'
'When I watch the men come back now from Iraq to RAF Brize Norton, they're met by family, friends and people from the regiment to give them a proper homecoming. My husband was brought back late at night, no one was allowed in, and I couldn't talk to the press. I think that's because he was shot by one of his own.'
The RAF 'acts like a closed shop'
Nigel Gunther was a warrant officer attached to the RAF and lost his leg below the knee following a landmine explosion while rescuing a Land Rover for spares in April 2003 in the Ramala oil fields in Iraq. 'I've been a serviceman all my life and I loved my job,' says 45-year-old Gunther, who joined up when he was 16.
There has been a report and an inquiry into events surrounding his injury, but he is still not happy: 'The question I wanted answered was, why was my life put at risk for the sake of a Land Rover in a minefield when the next day it was allowed to be stolen by the Iraqis? I've come to terms with what has happened, but not a day goes by when I don't think about it. I still haven't had an answer.'
In his view, the RAF 'acts like a closed shop' and he has been forced to try and uncover details leading to his injury using freedom of information laws.
His legal case against the MoD was settled for £900,000 after the Ministry attempted to argue combat immunity. He is also entitled to an invalidity pension of £16,500 a year. 'You hear about the dead, but you never hear about the injured,' he says. 'The Americans are very good at looking after their guys. The British attitude is "stiff upper lip, get on with it".'
Army widows battle MoD on 'immunity'
The days when the military could avoid legal action by bereaved relatives over reckless actions could be numbered, writes Jon Robins
Sunday September 24, 2006
The Guardian
'I feel as though a weight has been lifted from my shoulders,' says Samantha Roberts. Her husband, Steve, was the first soldier to die in action in the Iraq war, but it has taken three-and-a-half years of legal wrangling for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to admit liability. A confidential out-of-court settlement was agreed this month.
Steve Roberts was a 33-year-old sergeant with the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment when he was shot in the stomach and chest by 'friendly fire' in March 2003 while he was trying to quell a demonstration near Basra. His wife's campaign to discover the circumstances of his death caught the public imagination when it emerged that hours before he died he had been ordered to hand over his flak jacket to another soldier.
Mrs Roberts never wanted 'compensation'. 'I wanted an apology and an explanation, and this is where it has ended up,' she says. 'It's horrible to put a price on somebody's life, but sometimes money is the only language people listen to.'
Suing the MoD for negligence was a no-go area until 1987, when the statutory bar on legal action was lifted. Nonetheless, a doctrine known as 'combat immunity' continues to be invoked by the military when incidents arise out of fi ghting in a war zone, granting the military protection not available to other employers. Mrs Roberts's solicitor, Geraldine McCool, a partner at the law firm MPH, explains: 'Post-1987, there has been an almost knee-jerk line from the MoD that cases are covered by "combat immunity", even when they clearly aren't. The consequence is that military personnel don't get a penny, no matter how reckless the forces have been with their lives.'
According to the MoD's annual report on claims, circulated publicly last week, payments for claims in 2005-06 totalled £67.7m, including 621 claims by personnel (£26.3m). By contrast, the armed forces' boarding school allowance rose from £67.5m in 2000 to £100.2m last year. 'It puts claims against the MoD into some sort of perspective,' says McCool, who is advising 60 families of servicemen who have been on tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Last week's claims report cites a 2004 case (Bici v MoD) in which the judge ruled that for immunity to apply any threat 'must be imminent and serious'. The MoD says: 'Following investigation and legal advice, the vast majority of cases have been accepted and some have now been settled.'
McCool hopes that the acknowledgement amounts to a change of policy. 'In most of our cases, combat immunity is cited, we fight it, and pretty much every time the Ministry concedes the point. But for a grieving widow, the intervening three years plus that the process takes is very long and painful,' she says.
A new armed forces compensation scheme came into effect in April, replacing the old war pensions scheme. McCool argues that calling the tariff-based system a 'compensation' scheme is misleading in so far as it supersedes old pension arrangements and that any claim made on it would not prevent service personnel from taking legal action in court: 'The disparity between compensation from the courts and compensation from the scheme can be considerable.' She cites one of her clients - a lance corporal who suffered a signifi cant spinal injury after a fall and settled out of court for £1.6m. Under the compensation scheme, he would have received £103,350, or an annual pension of £7,771.
'Every soldier signed up to the army knowing that it's highly likely they're going to be in a war situation,' says Mrs Roberts. 'But I always knew the army was at fault and that to try and hide behind "combat immunity" is a very ungracious response.'
She has helped to set up the Army Widows Association, providing information about pension rights and accommodation, as well as creating a support network.
· For more information, go to www.armywidows.org.uk.
'I received an eviction notice two days after he was shot'
In April 2003, 23-year-old Lance Corporal Darren George of the 1st Royal Anglian Regiment was killed by 'friendly fire' while on patrol in Kabul.
'I was living in married quarters and received an eviction notice two days afterwards, saying that I had six months to get out,' says his 24-year-old widow Sarah.
'I was just on autopilot. I have a little boy and couldn't break down. The army hasn't helped me with a thing. Luckily, the local authority housed me pretty quickly.'
Her husband was shot in the head by a colleague who suffered a dizzy spell as he loaded a machine gun. At first, the Ministry of Defence pleaded combat immunity, but in January Sarah settled her negligence action for £500,000. However, her army pension has since been cut from £560 a month to £411 a year. 'It's an insult,' she says. 'The money is supposed to be there to provide a house and security for myself and my son.'
'When I watch the men come back now from Iraq to RAF Brize Norton, they're met by family, friends and people from the regiment to give them a proper homecoming. My husband was brought back late at night, no one was allowed in, and I couldn't talk to the press. I think that's because he was shot by one of his own.'
The RAF 'acts like a closed shop'
Nigel Gunther was a warrant officer attached to the RAF and lost his leg below the knee following a landmine explosion while rescuing a Land Rover for spares in April 2003 in the Ramala oil fields in Iraq. 'I've been a serviceman all my life and I loved my job,' says 45-year-old Gunther, who joined up when he was 16.
There has been a report and an inquiry into events surrounding his injury, but he is still not happy: 'The question I wanted answered was, why was my life put at risk for the sake of a Land Rover in a minefield when the next day it was allowed to be stolen by the Iraqis? I've come to terms with what has happened, but not a day goes by when I don't think about it. I still haven't had an answer.'
In his view, the RAF 'acts like a closed shop' and he has been forced to try and uncover details leading to his injury using freedom of information laws.
His legal case against the MoD was settled for £900,000 after the Ministry attempted to argue combat immunity. He is also entitled to an invalidity pension of £16,500 a year. 'You hear about the dead, but you never hear about the injured,' he says. 'The Americans are very good at looking after their guys. The British attitude is "stiff upper lip, get on with it".'
Bclass
“I sympathise with your frustration working within the organisation, but (much-maligned) suppliers equally feel it too. We go through months of contract negotiations where the customer emphasis is to slash the price (to the detriment of functionality), only for the DLO to suddenly discover a substantial underspend later on”.
I couldn’t agree more. The administrative hoops that technical project managers have to jump through in MoD are mind-numbing. And most hate industry being told to do the same, usually unnecessarily. I must say though, that my experience of industry is mostly positive, with one or two major exceptions.
The most humbling experience I have ever had was to witness a young soldier returning to his unit half-recovered from injuries received on active duty, and nearly in tears because his CO had to tell him to go back home, he wasn’t fit yet. CO turned back to me to finish discussing when he was getting desperately needed kit – the trials had been successful and deployment was imminent. I was trying to explain the delay was down to the “approvals” process whereby about a third of the IPT had to “approve” my Business Case. (Not that any had the slightest clue about the subject, and few had even written a BC). All but one of them had finally signed, but I had to wait until this last chap returned from extended leave. His only comment? “You put a double full-stop at the end of that sentence”. Six week f****** delay. Frustrated? Incandescent with rage more like. Like I said, sack them.
“I sympathise with your frustration working within the organisation, but (much-maligned) suppliers equally feel it too. We go through months of contract negotiations where the customer emphasis is to slash the price (to the detriment of functionality), only for the DLO to suddenly discover a substantial underspend later on”.
I couldn’t agree more. The administrative hoops that technical project managers have to jump through in MoD are mind-numbing. And most hate industry being told to do the same, usually unnecessarily. I must say though, that my experience of industry is mostly positive, with one or two major exceptions.
The most humbling experience I have ever had was to witness a young soldier returning to his unit half-recovered from injuries received on active duty, and nearly in tears because his CO had to tell him to go back home, he wasn’t fit yet. CO turned back to me to finish discussing when he was getting desperately needed kit – the trials had been successful and deployment was imminent. I was trying to explain the delay was down to the “approvals” process whereby about a third of the IPT had to “approve” my Business Case. (Not that any had the slightest clue about the subject, and few had even written a BC). All but one of them had finally signed, but I had to wait until this last chap returned from extended leave. His only comment? “You put a double full-stop at the end of that sentence”. Six week f****** delay. Frustrated? Incandescent with rage more like. Like I said, sack them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More good news from this thread. It has come to my intention that Lockheed are planning to factory fit fuel tank protection to J Hercs. Block 8/9 onwards. Not foam, OBIGGS. Inert gas system. This will increase fuel capacity and hence range. I have heard talk that foam(2/3% reduction fuel cap) can cause probs on Lye Akr legs.
This is great news, a manufacturer has moved before Govts. It further shames Govt's like our own, which routinely sends aircraft of all types into war without fuel tank protection.
Looks like we keep this campaign going....
This is great news, a manufacturer has moved before Govts. It further shames Govt's like our own, which routinely sends aircraft of all types into war without fuel tank protection.
Looks like we keep this campaign going....
Last edited by nigegilb; 26th Sep 2006 at 09:55.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is great news Nige.
Just a tech question, though - Other than foam taking up a small percentage of the tank capacity/reducing range, is there any tactical advantage of OBIGGS over foam (or vice versa)?
I would have thought that a possible disadvantage of OBIGGS-type systems is that, once the tank is ruptured by the first bullet/shrapnel, then out goes the nitrogen from the ullage and now you don't have any fire suppressant for the subsequent bullets etc! However, one could argue that if the tank is ruptured, you have less risk of an explosion anyway - not sure about that, though? On the other hand, if foam is installed, the suppressant is unaffected by multiple hits (and bullets dont often arrive on their own)!
Anyone from a position of knowledge care to comment?
Flipster
ps Are foam Js now going to have external tanks fitted? There was talk about that once if I recall - because of the reduced fuel load of the J along with the shorter crew-duty day making things difficult for the longer sectors. I would think that foam would exacerbate this? Nonetheless, I have not heard one J pilot/ALM saying that they would rather have a bit extra fuel instead of fire suppressant foam!
Just a tech question, though - Other than foam taking up a small percentage of the tank capacity/reducing range, is there any tactical advantage of OBIGGS over foam (or vice versa)?
I would have thought that a possible disadvantage of OBIGGS-type systems is that, once the tank is ruptured by the first bullet/shrapnel, then out goes the nitrogen from the ullage and now you don't have any fire suppressant for the subsequent bullets etc! However, one could argue that if the tank is ruptured, you have less risk of an explosion anyway - not sure about that, though? On the other hand, if foam is installed, the suppressant is unaffected by multiple hits (and bullets dont often arrive on their own)!
Anyone from a position of knowledge care to comment?
Flipster
ps Are foam Js now going to have external tanks fitted? There was talk about that once if I recall - because of the reduced fuel load of the J along with the shorter crew-duty day making things difficult for the longer sectors. I would think that foam would exacerbate this? Nonetheless, I have not heard one J pilot/ALM saying that they would rather have a bit extra fuel instead of fire suppressant foam!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I asked this question about J range before. As I understand it the J will routinely be able to transit Lye Akr Lye, but there will be occasions, heavy load, winds etc when this is very tight. I have been told that external tanks were available at purchase for £1 mil approx per ac, but to retrofit would be more expensive. OBIGGS has its limitations. More modern system are continual gas generators, which solves the problem.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been told that all J models are already plumbed and have the hard points for external tanks.
Would have thought there would be a surplus of disgarded tanks around, from E models that have been broken up.
Though I cannot recall seeing in the Aussie and fuel guages for externals on the flight deck.
Regards
Col Tigwell
Would have thought there would be a surplus of disgarded tanks around, from E models that have been broken up.
Though I cannot recall seeing in the Aussie and fuel guages for externals on the flight deck.
Regards
Col Tigwell
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought OBIGGS did continually deliver N2 to the tanks using a bleed from the engine and clever reverse osmosis-type stuff - like the reverse of the OBOGS that produce O2 for modern fighter pilots?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flip,
I believe the US are retrofitting OBIGGS 2 to C17s. Obiggs 2 produces a positive pressure. I am not sure what the J is getting. One would hope OBIGGS 2.........I also understand A400M will get a 2nd gen system. Though the Govt remains tight lipped on this program.
"In a recent contract from Boeing, Hamilton Sundstrand Aerospace Power Systems (HSAPS) was selected to design, develop and produce the boost compressor and valves, and also undertake system integration testing, for the next-generation onboard inerting-gas generation system (OBIGGS) for USAF C-17 Globemaster III heavy-lift transports. With a combined total of over $40 million, the development and production program covers 139 new and retrofit aircraft, with a potential for another 83 C-17s in the future. Inerting-gas systems are generally used on military aircraft to increase fuel-tank safety, due to the potential for high concentrations of volatile vapor in the fuel tanks as they are depleted. An inert gas such as nitrogen is then pumped into the fuel tank to replace the volatile mixture. HSAPS president David Hess said that next-generation OBIGGS operator benefits included eliminating bottle storage requirements. The company has already supplied many accessories and systems for the C-17, worth more than $1.5 million per aircraft."
I believe the US are retrofitting OBIGGS 2 to C17s. Obiggs 2 produces a positive pressure. I am not sure what the J is getting. One would hope OBIGGS 2.........I also understand A400M will get a 2nd gen system. Though the Govt remains tight lipped on this program.
"In a recent contract from Boeing, Hamilton Sundstrand Aerospace Power Systems (HSAPS) was selected to design, develop and produce the boost compressor and valves, and also undertake system integration testing, for the next-generation onboard inerting-gas generation system (OBIGGS) for USAF C-17 Globemaster III heavy-lift transports. With a combined total of over $40 million, the development and production program covers 139 new and retrofit aircraft, with a potential for another 83 C-17s in the future. Inerting-gas systems are generally used on military aircraft to increase fuel-tank safety, due to the potential for high concentrations of volatile vapor in the fuel tanks as they are depleted. An inert gas such as nitrogen is then pumped into the fuel tank to replace the volatile mixture. HSAPS president David Hess said that next-generation OBIGGS operator benefits included eliminating bottle storage requirements. The company has already supplied many accessories and systems for the C-17, worth more than $1.5 million per aircraft."
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige
Well, whatever they are getting is a whole sight better than at present and even this wouldn't have been fitted without the pressure exerted by your good self and chappie!
Now, what about the next generation of threats!!!?
Flip
Well, whatever they are getting is a whole sight better than at present and even this wouldn't have been fitted without the pressure exerted by your good self and chappie!
Now, what about the next generation of threats!!!?
Flip