Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there was alot more worthwhile stuff that i had to say that as usual got edited....i'm gettting used to it.
i'm sorry i have been away so long but i thought i would try and respect the "professionals" doing the fitting of foam, let them do their job and hope that instead of hindering i will help the process. clearly, sadly that has not been achieved and so the pressure mounts again and will sustain until the fleet and you are all protected. soon to pop so i'm a hormone bomb in waiting...therefore lethal. not on net at mo..will check in soon.
i'm sorry i have been away so long but i thought i would try and respect the "professionals" doing the fitting of foam, let them do their job and hope that instead of hindering i will help the process. clearly, sadly that has not been achieved and so the pressure mounts again and will sustain until the fleet and you are all protected. soon to pop so i'm a hormone bomb in waiting...therefore lethal. not on net at mo..will check in soon.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have given the Coroner evidence that I have accumulated in the course of the year. It is the duty of the Coroner to seek the truth and in doing so, the Coroner will accept evidence from any member of the public. It is in the public interest and certainly in the interests of the British servicemen that all of the relevant facts and documents are presented to the Coroner's office. Anyone who has information from whatever source should do the same. Understandably, serving personnel might feel particularly exposed in such a high profile case. Anyone who heard Sqn Ldr Seal explain how doing the right thing harmed his career will surely understand that. I am willing to act as a conduit for anyone who feels exposed in a similar way.
As for the efficacy of foam, well the new AOC 2Gp made it clear in the BBC interview how essential foam is for the protection of Hercules ac. I am still intrigued as to which air force is discontinuing with the protection of foam in Hercules ac. It is clear now that all 3 RAF Hercules ac have been destroyed by enemy action and that none of them had fuel tank protection. Who knows if foam would have saved them for sure, the RAF didn't see fit to have it on board at the time. One thing is for certain, USAF have proved that foam works. I could provide you with a list of names.
As for the efficacy of foam, well the new AOC 2Gp made it clear in the BBC interview how essential foam is for the protection of Hercules ac. I am still intrigued as to which air force is discontinuing with the protection of foam in Hercules ac. It is clear now that all 3 RAF Hercules ac have been destroyed by enemy action and that none of them had fuel tank protection. Who knows if foam would have saved them for sure, the RAF didn't see fit to have it on board at the time. One thing is for certain, USAF have proved that foam works. I could provide you with a list of names.
Last edited by nigegilb; 2nd Mar 2007 at 15:45.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ball gazing
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just listened to the Today interview with ex-Sqn Ldr Chris Seal...... amazing! Well done Chris (from your 'Rodeo' LM...)
Was it just me, or did AOC 2 Gp seem to be saying all the right 'political' words in his TV interview, but his body language/mannerisms/whatever appeared to be saying a completely different thing?
Was it just me, or did AOC 2 Gp seem to be saying all the right 'political' words in his TV interview, but his body language/mannerisms/whatever appeared to be saying a completely different thing?
Sqn Ldr Seal's career was over when he was promoted!!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reported here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2/nfoam102.xml
Well said Chug and well said Flip, you did a great thing today. For those who do not have real player;
Hercules concerns 'ignored'
02 March 2007
A former RAF squadron leader has claimed that his superiors ignored his warning about the safety of Hercules aircraft.
Chris Seal is now calling for explosive suppressant foam (ESF) - which is put in fuel tanks to stop them exploding - to be fitted to all Hercules aircraft as a matter of urgency.
In 2005 ten servicemen died when a Hercules 179 was brought down in Iraq. An inquiry has now suggested their lives may have been saved if ESF had been fitted.
Mr Seal says he first raised concerns about the aircraft back in 2002 when he was detachment commander in Oman.
His claims come after it was revealed that 41 of the RAF's 48 Hercules fleet were still without the foam at the time of the 2005 disaster, despite it being common practice to fit US planes with the substance for decades.
Mr Seal told the Today programme that "our aeroplanes weren't really fit for purpose" during his time in the RAF.
"The threats were high," he said.
"We had no flight deck armour, we had no defensive aid suite and at the time we didn't have secure communications or night vision. We were very lucky that we didn't lose a number of aeroplanes during those early months of 2002."
But he said he got little response to his emails outlining his concerns.
"From the lower levels… I got a 'well we've been around this boy before' and 'there's no funds, there's no point asking'," he said.
"At high levels I got no response at all. So I knew it was the wrong thing to do in terms of procedure. I emailed the commander-in-chief of Strike Command. I got myself in a fair amount of trouble."
Mr Seal left the RAF in 2005 and he admitted: "I knew when I let that email go, I knew that was the end of my career. However, I felt that morally I had no other option."
He confirmed that his initial warnings about problems with the aircraft did not include ESF, because he was only alerted to this later by two American exchange officers.
"They were concerned that we actually had foam in our wings, because the Americans have fitted foam as standard since 1967," he said.
And he said he then sent a further email in 2002 expressing concerns about the lack of ESF to the station commander at RAF Lyneham.
This was three years prior to the 2005 crash.
"I wasn't so much amazed because I know how difficult it is to get things out of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget," he added.
"I was incredibly saddened and I was very angry, but I was also unsure as to what had happened to my request."
Following a Board of Inquiry conclusion that lives could have been saved had ESF been fitted, the MoD confirmed that the programme to fit the "majority of the RAF Hercules fleet is ongoing".
news.viewlondon.co.uk/...76997.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2/nfoam102.xml
Well said Chug and well said Flip, you did a great thing today. For those who do not have real player;
Hercules concerns 'ignored'
02 March 2007
A former RAF squadron leader has claimed that his superiors ignored his warning about the safety of Hercules aircraft.
Chris Seal is now calling for explosive suppressant foam (ESF) - which is put in fuel tanks to stop them exploding - to be fitted to all Hercules aircraft as a matter of urgency.
In 2005 ten servicemen died when a Hercules 179 was brought down in Iraq. An inquiry has now suggested their lives may have been saved if ESF had been fitted.
Mr Seal says he first raised concerns about the aircraft back in 2002 when he was detachment commander in Oman.
His claims come after it was revealed that 41 of the RAF's 48 Hercules fleet were still without the foam at the time of the 2005 disaster, despite it being common practice to fit US planes with the substance for decades.
Mr Seal told the Today programme that "our aeroplanes weren't really fit for purpose" during his time in the RAF.
"The threats were high," he said.
"We had no flight deck armour, we had no defensive aid suite and at the time we didn't have secure communications or night vision. We were very lucky that we didn't lose a number of aeroplanes during those early months of 2002."
But he said he got little response to his emails outlining his concerns.
"From the lower levels… I got a 'well we've been around this boy before' and 'there's no funds, there's no point asking'," he said.
"At high levels I got no response at all. So I knew it was the wrong thing to do in terms of procedure. I emailed the commander-in-chief of Strike Command. I got myself in a fair amount of trouble."
Mr Seal left the RAF in 2005 and he admitted: "I knew when I let that email go, I knew that was the end of my career. However, I felt that morally I had no other option."
He confirmed that his initial warnings about problems with the aircraft did not include ESF, because he was only alerted to this later by two American exchange officers.
"They were concerned that we actually had foam in our wings, because the Americans have fitted foam as standard since 1967," he said.
And he said he then sent a further email in 2002 expressing concerns about the lack of ESF to the station commander at RAF Lyneham.
This was three years prior to the 2005 crash.
"I wasn't so much amazed because I know how difficult it is to get things out of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) budget," he added.
"I was incredibly saddened and I was very angry, but I was also unsure as to what had happened to my request."
Following a Board of Inquiry conclusion that lives could have been saved had ESF been fitted, the MoD confirmed that the programme to fit the "majority of the RAF Hercules fleet is ongoing".
news.viewlondon.co.uk/...76997.html
Was it just me, or did AOC 2 Gp seem to be saying all the right 'political' words in his TV interview, but his body language/mannerisms/whatever appeared to be saying a completely different thing?
Whereas we know that Sqn Ldr Seal meant it - he was prepared to put his career on the line for it.
airsound
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snake oil in the chamber
Recent exchange in Parliament.
"I know that that has been completed in two or three planes, but will he recommit the Government to fit suppressant as soon as possible in all those planes that are in any area of risk?"
The Defence Minister responded by saying: "That is another matter that we are looking at with great urgency.
"It is not only a question of suppressant foam but also an improved defensive aid suite fit across the fleet where that is practicable and required.
"Clearly, that process takes time: aircraft have to come out of the rota, and they then have to be worked up.
"I do not think that it is appropriate to talk about absolute numbers, but all the aircraft will have the necessary fit to meet the operational requirements."
Is this the same Minister who cancelled the modern DAS for the Herc "J" model on grounds of cost? In the same week in which we have been told cost is not a factor? I do believe TCI might be feeling the heat. Ingram explained away the cancellation of the DIRCMprogram as being a "result of competing priorities."
That explanation fits in neatly with his line that missions are not able to be carried out "risk free," a rather understated way to describe sending Herc crews to war in flying bombs.
"I know that that has been completed in two or three planes, but will he recommit the Government to fit suppressant as soon as possible in all those planes that are in any area of risk?"
The Defence Minister responded by saying: "That is another matter that we are looking at with great urgency.
"It is not only a question of suppressant foam but also an improved defensive aid suite fit across the fleet where that is practicable and required.
"Clearly, that process takes time: aircraft have to come out of the rota, and they then have to be worked up.
"I do not think that it is appropriate to talk about absolute numbers, but all the aircraft will have the necessary fit to meet the operational requirements."
Is this the same Minister who cancelled the modern DAS for the Herc "J" model on grounds of cost? In the same week in which we have been told cost is not a factor? I do believe TCI might be feeling the heat. Ingram explained away the cancellation of the DIRCMprogram as being a "result of competing priorities."
That explanation fits in neatly with his line that missions are not able to be carried out "risk free," a rather understated way to describe sending Herc crews to war in flying bombs.
Last edited by nigegilb; 3rd Mar 2007 at 12:25.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hello one and all i'm finally back on track and back on internet for good. i understand from a relative who lives in hong kong that the interview on news 24 was seen on bbc worldservice so at least we know there was the fullest coverage given, despite being incomplete and not just confined to these shores.
airsound, i wonder if you could be so kind as to let me know if the paperwork i sent you was seen by/given to who it was intended for. it would be interesting to have your thoughts also. i'm probably wide of the mark thinking that it had any important info, but i didn't want to take any risks. thanks for all the help you gave over what was a very hard week.
not that it matters what ithink but i have to agree that it was hard not to see the frightened rabbit look on the face of avm pulford the other night on the news. maybe the thumbscrews were on but just out of shot....or even he couldn't believe the words coming out of his mouth!!
airsound, i wonder if you could be so kind as to let me know if the paperwork i sent you was seen by/given to who it was intended for. it would be interesting to have your thoughts also. i'm probably wide of the mark thinking that it had any important info, but i didn't want to take any risks. thanks for all the help you gave over what was a very hard week.
not that it matters what ithink but i have to agree that it was hard not to see the frightened rabbit look on the face of avm pulford the other night on the news. maybe the thumbscrews were on but just out of shot....or even he couldn't believe the words coming out of his mouth!!
Welcome back Chappie. It was a great pleasure for me to have been able to help - as I’m sure it would have been for anyone else in your large fan club here on PPRuNe.
I don’t agree with you when you say “not that it matters what i think”. There are people up and down the land, from Ministers and Senior Officers to us plebs, who have found that what you think is pretty important. So please don’t underestimate the effect you have when you set your mind to it.
I’m not quite sure how sensitive your paperwork might be, so rather than discuss it here I’ll contact you privately.
airsound
I don’t agree with you when you say “not that it matters what i think”. There are people up and down the land, from Ministers and Senior Officers to us plebs, who have found that what you think is pretty important. So please don’t underestimate the effect you have when you set your mind to it.
I’m not quite sure how sensitive your paperwork might be, so rather than discuss it here I’ll contact you privately.
airsound
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following the recent loss of a "J" on a strip in Iraq, I have mounting concerns for the safety of pasengers on board Hercules aircraft. I have written to the Chairman of the Defence Committee asking him to bring his influence to bare on the possibility of urgently fitting Kevlar Matting to the cargo bay of Hercules aircraft.
More later
More later
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige
Freight Bay Armour?.... do you mean that stuff that is used (allegedly) by our allies?
Don't be silly, Nige....what could we possibly learn from them????????? Seriously, though, how heavy is it - if too heavy, this could be stopper?
What also worries me is our apparent lack of 'force protection' ie 'airfield defence'. Wasn't that the raison d'etre of the RAF Regt? Where are the RE to make good the strip and clear the mines?
Are our rock-apes and engineers so overstretched that they cannot secure LZ/DZs? If so, then perhaps our AT and SH shouldn't be operating there? Especially, as the enemy seems to know where to attack and when?! Or perhaps the ALQ/TB just sit there and wait to fire off RPGs/mortars or IEDs when one of ac comes along? This, in itself, would underline our inability to protect the strips and make life difficult for the enemy.
Whatever the underlying reasons, I suspect that the current attrition rate of Hercs is not sustainable!
Flip
Freight Bay Armour?.... do you mean that stuff that is used (allegedly) by our allies?
Don't be silly, Nige....what could we possibly learn from them????????? Seriously, though, how heavy is it - if too heavy, this could be stopper?
What also worries me is our apparent lack of 'force protection' ie 'airfield defence'. Wasn't that the raison d'etre of the RAF Regt? Where are the RE to make good the strip and clear the mines?
Are our rock-apes and engineers so overstretched that they cannot secure LZ/DZs? If so, then perhaps our AT and SH shouldn't be operating there? Especially, as the enemy seems to know where to attack and when?! Or perhaps the ALQ/TB just sit there and wait to fire off RPGs/mortars or IEDs when one of ac comes along? This, in itself, would underline our inability to protect the strips and make life difficult for the enemy.
Whatever the underlying reasons, I suspect that the current attrition rate of Hercs is not sustainable!
Flip
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: GONE BY 2012
Age: 51
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kevlar matting - no way, far too heavy. The old girl really is piling on the pounds!!!
As for FP - the boys are doing a stirling job.
I'd rather settle for 15 more AT airframes!!!!!!!
As for FP - the boys are doing a stirling job.
I'd rather settle for 15 more AT airframes!!!!!!!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: South West
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fully protecting the entire freight bay with armour similar to that on the flight deck would surely be far too heavy. Anything less (and I think it would have to be a lot less to be viable), would only provide an arbitary level of protection to arbitary portions of the fuselage. Also, getting consensus on the best compromise would be near impossible.
I would see a decent DAS and the best FP that circumstances allow as far preferable to fighting the other pax for the seat behind the kevelar patch.
N Joe
I would see a decent DAS and the best FP that circumstances allow as far preferable to fighting the other pax for the seat behind the kevelar patch.
N Joe
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All,
It is rumoured that there is some modern stuff that is not too heavy and works well for other nations - and also there are partial-fit options!
Yes, this stuff is not featherweight and would reduce the op capability a tad. In many circumstances, however, it could be seriously considered as a no-go item - if only for the ALM/GE.
I suggest that your Sqns start asking questions of 'them that (should) know the details' ie Gp, MoD, AWC and IPT - I suspect that there will be some work already done and your execs may already have some idea. Nonetheless, the Sqns are entitled to an explanation - either way. Be careful not to overload the system, mind you, as there may not be enough people to do the work and answer queries. Good luck.
Until the day we design a 'cloaking device', we owe it to the whole crew and any pax to have better protection from SA.
Flip
N Joe - why is it not possible to have good DAS, better FP AND upgraded armour? If it is purely a money-issue, then how come other nations find the dosh?? Perhaps it is because our political leaders want to fight a war on shoestring budget? Surely, our Services deserve better than that?
It is rumoured that there is some modern stuff that is not too heavy and works well for other nations - and also there are partial-fit options!
Yes, this stuff is not featherweight and would reduce the op capability a tad. In many circumstances, however, it could be seriously considered as a no-go item - if only for the ALM/GE.
I suggest that your Sqns start asking questions of 'them that (should) know the details' ie Gp, MoD, AWC and IPT - I suspect that there will be some work already done and your execs may already have some idea. Nonetheless, the Sqns are entitled to an explanation - either way. Be careful not to overload the system, mind you, as there may not be enough people to do the work and answer queries. Good luck.
Until the day we design a 'cloaking device', we owe it to the whole crew and any pax to have better protection from SA.
Flip
N Joe - why is it not possible to have good DAS, better FP AND upgraded armour? If it is purely a money-issue, then how come other nations find the dosh?? Perhaps it is because our political leaders want to fight a war on shoestring budget? Surely, our Services deserve better than that?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steps to better protect aircraft
By Andrew Stackpool
FURTHER upgrades to AP-3Cs and C-130s are being investigated as a result of experiences in the Middle East.
Studies are being completed into the potential acquisition of MIC 934 explosive suppressant foam, ballistic matting and an electronic warfare self-protection package for the Orion fleet.
Electronic warfare self-protection is already in place for the C-130 H and J models (the latter is currently operating in the MEAO).
Air Force Director of Combat Capability Management Group Captain Mike Bennett said the Air Force was funding aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin to undertake preliminary work into the viability of fitting the explosive suppressant foam and funds had been allocated to conduct a study on the feasibility of ballistic matting.
“We are anticipating Government approval for the project later this year and to fit the first aircraft early in 2005,” GPCAPT Bennett said.
The MIC 934 foam is a new capability for the RAAF, although it is in service with Hercs and Orions in some other air forces. The foam is put in the wing cavities and fuel tanks of the aircraft and acts to suppress the explosion and subsequent fire from a missile hit.
“We would be putting foam in both Hercules types but the immediacy is for the C-130J,” GPCAPT Bennett said.
“[Lockheed Martin] will provide the necessary clearance for our C-130 types. We didn’t buy the aircraft with the system and we need to ensure it doesn’t interfere with other components and also that we know how to operate it competently.
“It will alter the way we do maintenance on the aircraft and systems (fuel gauges etcetera) will need to be maintained differently.
“Both air and ground crews must understand what the aircraft is telling them, so we shall need changes in that respect.
“We shall need training for both air and ground crews. This training will probably be done in Australia but these are aspects that Lockheed Martin will investigate to ensure optimum value.”
The ballistic matting is intended as a protection against small arms rounds that might penetrate the aircraft, as occurred in an incident earlier this year when a US civilian died in a Hercules hit by small arms fire. The matting acts as a form of armour, similar to the underfloor and seat armour fitted to helicopters in Vietnam.
GPCAPT Bennett said the upgrades were largely a result of lessons in the MEAO. “Iraq has taught us a lot about operations in a combat environment,” he said.
The speed with which the Aussies moved was impressive. See below;
Enhancing survivability for the RAAF C-130J-30
C-130J-30 releasing flares
Delivering new capability doesn't necessarily take years to happen. Certainly, this was not the case when a need was identified to equip the C-130J-30 with self-protection capability for deployment to the Middle East.
As background, Project AIR 5216 procured 12 C-130J-30 aircraft for the RAAF. Self-protection equipment was not procured as part of this project but was to be incorporated under Project Echidna AIR 5416 Phase 4. This phase of Echidna was to provide Electronic Warfare Self- Protection (EWSP) for our C-130J-30 comprising radar warning, basic chaff-dispensing, missile warning and infra-red countermeasure systems (Public DCP). Project Air 5416 Phase 4 was not due for government approval until 2005-2006.
Air transport support for Australian involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq required deployment of C-130 aircraft that were equipped with self-protection equipment. At the time, only our C-130H aircraft satisfied the self-protection requirement. As our involvement in the Middle East continued, the need to provide some relief for the C-130H became apparent. Air Force determined the most appropriate way of doing this was to advance the fitment of self-protection equipment for the C-130-30 with the view of deploying these aircraft. This was achieved by splitting project AIR 5416 Phase 4 into two sub-phases, 4A and 4B.
AIR 5416 Phase 4A now aimed to accelerate the fitment of ballistic protection, missile warning and countermeasure dispensing capability - EWSP - for the C-130J-30. CDG staff - in close cooperation with AFHQ, DMO, Aerospace Operational Support Group, APP Project Management and DoFA - were able to rapidly progress the project to second pass approval by April 2004.
The first C-130J-30s were rotated into the Middle East later in 2004 equipped with ballistic protection (BP) and EWSP. A further enhancement to the survivability of the C-130 is being provided under a separate project (Explosion Suppressive Foam - ESF Project). This will provide explosion suppression for RAAF C-130 fuel tanks, with initial deliveries already made in early 2005. Aircraft now and in future deployments will have BP, EWSP and ESF as standard 'Survivability Equipment'.
Developed to address operational requirements that demanded aircraft survivability enhancement, the speed with which these projects were implemented is credit to all who contributed to the process.
I understand that they beat their in service date for foam, I have found reports that the first foam equipped aircraft rolled out in Dec 04. It can be done!
By Andrew Stackpool
FURTHER upgrades to AP-3Cs and C-130s are being investigated as a result of experiences in the Middle East.
Studies are being completed into the potential acquisition of MIC 934 explosive suppressant foam, ballistic matting and an electronic warfare self-protection package for the Orion fleet.
Electronic warfare self-protection is already in place for the C-130 H and J models (the latter is currently operating in the MEAO).
Air Force Director of Combat Capability Management Group Captain Mike Bennett said the Air Force was funding aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin to undertake preliminary work into the viability of fitting the explosive suppressant foam and funds had been allocated to conduct a study on the feasibility of ballistic matting.
“We are anticipating Government approval for the project later this year and to fit the first aircraft early in 2005,” GPCAPT Bennett said.
The MIC 934 foam is a new capability for the RAAF, although it is in service with Hercs and Orions in some other air forces. The foam is put in the wing cavities and fuel tanks of the aircraft and acts to suppress the explosion and subsequent fire from a missile hit.
“We would be putting foam in both Hercules types but the immediacy is for the C-130J,” GPCAPT Bennett said.
“[Lockheed Martin] will provide the necessary clearance for our C-130 types. We didn’t buy the aircraft with the system and we need to ensure it doesn’t interfere with other components and also that we know how to operate it competently.
“It will alter the way we do maintenance on the aircraft and systems (fuel gauges etcetera) will need to be maintained differently.
“Both air and ground crews must understand what the aircraft is telling them, so we shall need changes in that respect.
“We shall need training for both air and ground crews. This training will probably be done in Australia but these are aspects that Lockheed Martin will investigate to ensure optimum value.”
The ballistic matting is intended as a protection against small arms rounds that might penetrate the aircraft, as occurred in an incident earlier this year when a US civilian died in a Hercules hit by small arms fire. The matting acts as a form of armour, similar to the underfloor and seat armour fitted to helicopters in Vietnam.
GPCAPT Bennett said the upgrades were largely a result of lessons in the MEAO. “Iraq has taught us a lot about operations in a combat environment,” he said.
The speed with which the Aussies moved was impressive. See below;
Enhancing survivability for the RAAF C-130J-30
C-130J-30 releasing flares
Delivering new capability doesn't necessarily take years to happen. Certainly, this was not the case when a need was identified to equip the C-130J-30 with self-protection capability for deployment to the Middle East.
As background, Project AIR 5216 procured 12 C-130J-30 aircraft for the RAAF. Self-protection equipment was not procured as part of this project but was to be incorporated under Project Echidna AIR 5416 Phase 4. This phase of Echidna was to provide Electronic Warfare Self- Protection (EWSP) for our C-130J-30 comprising radar warning, basic chaff-dispensing, missile warning and infra-red countermeasure systems (Public DCP). Project Air 5416 Phase 4 was not due for government approval until 2005-2006.
Air transport support for Australian involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq required deployment of C-130 aircraft that were equipped with self-protection equipment. At the time, only our C-130H aircraft satisfied the self-protection requirement. As our involvement in the Middle East continued, the need to provide some relief for the C-130H became apparent. Air Force determined the most appropriate way of doing this was to advance the fitment of self-protection equipment for the C-130-30 with the view of deploying these aircraft. This was achieved by splitting project AIR 5416 Phase 4 into two sub-phases, 4A and 4B.
AIR 5416 Phase 4A now aimed to accelerate the fitment of ballistic protection, missile warning and countermeasure dispensing capability - EWSP - for the C-130J-30. CDG staff - in close cooperation with AFHQ, DMO, Aerospace Operational Support Group, APP Project Management and DoFA - were able to rapidly progress the project to second pass approval by April 2004.
The first C-130J-30s were rotated into the Middle East later in 2004 equipped with ballistic protection (BP) and EWSP. A further enhancement to the survivability of the C-130 is being provided under a separate project (Explosion Suppressive Foam - ESF Project). This will provide explosion suppression for RAAF C-130 fuel tanks, with initial deliveries already made in early 2005. Aircraft now and in future deployments will have BP, EWSP and ESF as standard 'Survivability Equipment'.
Developed to address operational requirements that demanded aircraft survivability enhancement, the speed with which these projects were implemented is credit to all who contributed to the process.
I understand that they beat their in service date for foam, I have found reports that the first foam equipped aircraft rolled out in Dec 04. It can be done!
Last edited by nigegilb; 14th Mar 2007 at 14:22.