Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PQs
Interesting answer that lays out the quality of the contract work carried out on the C130K program. Note no answer given to the days lost to the front line.
Hercules Aircraft
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 17 May 2007, Official Report, column 845W, on Hercules aircraft, what percentage of Hercules C-130K aircraft has (a) returned to the front line within 44 days and (b) developed fuel leaks following the installation of the foam; and if he will make a statement. [140664]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: In order to improve overall aircraft availability to the Front Line Command (FLC), the Hercules C-130K Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) modification has been combined with scheduled maintenance wherever possible. All of the aircraft that have been fitted with ESF in conjunction
9 July 2007 : Column 1285W
with scheduled maintenance have been returned to the FLC within an agreed timeframe. One aircraft was modified on a standalone programme and the fitment of ESF was completed in 46 days.
Of the C-130Ks that have been modified with ESF, 75 per cent. have subsequently developed fuel leaks. However, all were repaired by the contractor under warranty and returned to flying. RAF Hercules aircraft are designed and certified to strict airworthiness and safety standards. These fuel leaks did not compromise the safety of the aircraft.
Hercules Aircraft
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 17 May 2007, Official Report, column 845W, on Hercules aircraft, what percentage of Hercules C-130K aircraft has (a) returned to the front line within 44 days and (b) developed fuel leaks following the installation of the foam; and if he will make a statement. [140664]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: In order to improve overall aircraft availability to the Front Line Command (FLC), the Hercules C-130K Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) modification has been combined with scheduled maintenance wherever possible. All of the aircraft that have been fitted with ESF in conjunction
9 July 2007 : Column 1285W
with scheduled maintenance have been returned to the FLC within an agreed timeframe. One aircraft was modified on a standalone programme and the fitment of ESF was completed in 46 days.
Of the C-130Ks that have been modified with ESF, 75 per cent. have subsequently developed fuel leaks. However, all were repaired by the contractor under warranty and returned to flying. RAF Hercules aircraft are designed and certified to strict airworthiness and safety standards. These fuel leaks did not compromise the safety of the aircraft.
Last edited by nigegilb; 13th Jul 2007 at 13:30.
Glad as I am, as we all are, that this essential work on the Herc Fleet is well under way, are not the figures that you quote, Nige, an indictment in the way it is being conducted. When you compare them with those posted by Herkman at post #984 there is scarcely any co-relationship! He quoted a max fitting time of 160 hours per frame. I assume this must be man-hours. If 4 men do the work it should be done in one week, two weeks max! 46 days? 75% fuel leaks? Even if there was a learning curve to overcome I feel that there should be a close look at this programme and how and why it was instituted. It smacks of penny wise, pound foolish. My instincts were that the work should have gone to the people who have a proven track record in doing it already, Herkman's people in Australia, or to the States. As ever cost rules everything, along with local employment/election considerations. So the programme crawls along in this inept casual way. Have we been told what it is costing?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Under a Log
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that 160 Man-Hours would only get the aircraft into the hangar and the tanks opened up.
A new build aircraft though, requiring no prep work, no fuel purging, old sealant removal etc could be closer to the 160!
A new build aircraft though, requiring no prep work, no fuel purging, old sealant removal etc could be closer to the 160!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug, the MoD is quoting 2 weeks to convert Js and 4 weeks to convert Ks. I am not sure about the RAAF program, I think it too is a combination of J and K. The reason I arranged for the latest PQ was to put right some of the outrageous crap the Defence Minister was saying with regard to the RAF Foam program. It looks like things are improving. My own contacts assured me that a couple of months ago every single K had developed leaks. More irritating for Lyneham is the fact that the aircraft were delivered with leaks and that it was Lyneham engineers who discovered the leaks. I believe you are right Chug about saving money. The sealant process required a test flight during the sealant process. This was denied by the contractor and the following chaos was easy to predict.
The way this program has been handled, its tardiness and incompetence, highlights the basic fact that vast areas of the MoD empire are continuing as though we are not at war and it does not matter. Summed up by the bumbling dual hatted Minister in charge.
Take another look at these answers in May.
Hercules Aircraft
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 21 March 2007, Official Report, column 925W, on Hercules aircraft, if he will take steps to ensure that Hercules aircraft being fitted with explosive suppressant foam are flown to flex the wings after the sealant is applied but before the foam is put in place. [136695]
Mr. Ingram: The replacement of the fuel tank sealant is only undertaken on the Hercules C-130K aircraft. Flying the aircraft between fuel tank sealant replacement and fitting Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) would introduce unacceptable delays to this urgent programme. Therefore, quality assurance processes are used to ensure that it is not necessary to fly the Hercules C-130K aircraft after the fuel tank sealant has been replaced but before ESF is fitted.
17 May 2007 : Column 845W
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 21 March 2007, Official Report, column 925W, on Hercules aircraft, how long it has taken for each Hercules aircraft being fitted with explosive suppressant foam to return to active service; and if he will make a statement. [136696]
Mr. Ingram: The Hercules C-130K Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) modification takes approximately 44 days per aircraft to complete. The less complex Hercules C-130J modification takes approximately 16 days. The difference in time scale between the two marks of aircraft is due to the need to replace the fuel tank sealant on the older C-130K. In order to improve overall aircraft availability to the front line command, the ESF modification has been combined with scheduled maintenance wherever possible.
Utter b*****t. One aircraft completed in 44 days. No requirement to fly because of the urgent requirement but 75% returned. Rank incompetence, the only quality on offer here.
The way this program has been handled, its tardiness and incompetence, highlights the basic fact that vast areas of the MoD empire are continuing as though we are not at war and it does not matter. Summed up by the bumbling dual hatted Minister in charge.
Take another look at these answers in May.
Hercules Aircraft
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 21 March 2007, Official Report, column 925W, on Hercules aircraft, if he will take steps to ensure that Hercules aircraft being fitted with explosive suppressant foam are flown to flex the wings after the sealant is applied but before the foam is put in place. [136695]
Mr. Ingram: The replacement of the fuel tank sealant is only undertaken on the Hercules C-130K aircraft. Flying the aircraft between fuel tank sealant replacement and fitting Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) would introduce unacceptable delays to this urgent programme. Therefore, quality assurance processes are used to ensure that it is not necessary to fly the Hercules C-130K aircraft after the fuel tank sealant has been replaced but before ESF is fitted.
17 May 2007 : Column 845W
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 21 March 2007, Official Report, column 925W, on Hercules aircraft, how long it has taken for each Hercules aircraft being fitted with explosive suppressant foam to return to active service; and if he will make a statement. [136696]
Mr. Ingram: The Hercules C-130K Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) modification takes approximately 44 days per aircraft to complete. The less complex Hercules C-130J modification takes approximately 16 days. The difference in time scale between the two marks of aircraft is due to the need to replace the fuel tank sealant on the older C-130K. In order to improve overall aircraft availability to the front line command, the ESF modification has been combined with scheduled maintenance wherever possible.
Utter b*****t. One aircraft completed in 44 days. No requirement to fly because of the urgent requirement but 75% returned. Rank incompetence, the only quality on offer here.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 55
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Australians are aware of the ESF situation in the UK, from Defence Minister, Cheif of the Defence Forces, to those who worked on the project and the following is a little summary of the Aust experience;
"The decision to install ESF was taken after a review of the RAAF c-130's vunerability to small arms and blast shrapnel. The insallation of ESF in an aircraft enhances survivabilty should an ignition event such as an electrical spark or small arms fire penetration occur in the fuel tank. Small arms risk was identified late 2003.
Time taken was between 2 wks for the J's to install. Cost approx $320,000.
ESF is a proven product used in other aircraft and easily installed".
Some of the herc's were installed here in Canberra, a shut down base and not particularly sophisticated.
I asked Sir Glen Torphy, if he engaged in any conversation about the above and other things during his recent trip to Oz. A nice reply...but failed to answer.
Different courses for different forces!
"The decision to install ESF was taken after a review of the RAAF c-130's vunerability to small arms and blast shrapnel. The insallation of ESF in an aircraft enhances survivabilty should an ignition event such as an electrical spark or small arms fire penetration occur in the fuel tank. Small arms risk was identified late 2003.
Time taken was between 2 wks for the J's to install. Cost approx $320,000.
ESF is a proven product used in other aircraft and easily installed".
Some of the herc's were installed here in Canberra, a shut down base and not particularly sophisticated.
I asked Sir Glen Torphy, if he engaged in any conversation about the above and other things during his recent trip to Oz. A nice reply...but failed to answer.
Different courses for different forces!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't expect much from Torpy, Kam, he is happy with the safety situation on the Nimrod fleet, and happy with the Quality Assurances put in place for RAF Herc fitting program. His only interest appears to be standing in front of fast pointy aircraft for photo shoots. Remember, this is the man who went before the Defence Committee and said he was confident that RAF Hercs had the required defensive equipment for deployment to Afg. No RAF Hercs had foam at this stage.
Interestingly, the RAAF review took place at the same time foam was considered for the RAF fleet. We all know, foam was rejected by the RAF, hopefully we will find out why when the Inquest reconvenes.
Interestingly, the RAAF review took place at the same time foam was considered for the RAF fleet. We all know, foam was rejected by the RAF, hopefully we will find out why when the Inquest reconvenes.
Nige, totally agree your comment re the CAS. Why he just doesn't retire and flog Typhoons for BAE instead of merely promoting them while in post I'm not sure, but I suspect the nub is all down to timing. Meanwhile part of the RAF is at war and his interests seem to centre on the part that isn't. We are a long way from the Falklands War, where the MOD, as well as the Armed Forces, mobilised itself and industry onto a war footing. One only has to study the reports you quote of the Laurel and Hardy job done on the Ks to realise how far we have to go. When the Nimrods are done, as done they must be, let us for goodness sake be professional for a change!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His sidekick CDS is no better Chug. CDS denies the existence of over-stretch, presumably to keep his political masters happy. The sooner the pair of them go the better. BAe are welcome to them.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Deepest darkest sx
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Msg for Nigegild n Chappie
Dear Both,
Sorry to attract your attention this way, I need your help getting some media coverage on another thread (Mike Jenvey sugg you may have some contacts!) -
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=284330
Pls check your pm will send a msg
Sorry to attract your attention this way, I need your help getting some media coverage on another thread (Mike Jenvey sugg you may have some contacts!) -
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=284330
Pls check your pm will send a msg
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article in today's Telegraph
Article concerning Inquest delays, specifically XV179. There is also a link from this page to the 14 outstanding cases.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...inquest122.xml
..."Mr Masters said he had met Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, to ask for more funding and was waiting to hear from him.
However, he said his only "outstanding main inquest" was the deaths of 10 personnel killed when a Hercules aircraft went down in Iraq in January 2005, which was delayed because it addressed "very sensitive issues in terms of classified information from the MoD".
Dr Fox criticised the Government's response to the situation. "We have had an increase in the number of fatalities and yet the Government has not matched this increase with the same increase in funding," he said.
"As a consequence the backlog has simply not diminished and that's an utterly unacceptable burden for the families to bear."
Lord Moonie, a former Labour defence minister, yesterday called for "additional resources to be spent on the process".
Lyn Kelly, whose son Richard Brown, died in the Hercules, said it was essential that the inquest was "thorough". She said: "It's down to the RAF and other services to get their inquiries moving so we can have these inquests held. I appreciate that there is an awful lot of information to sort through and, if there is to be a delay, I hope it is because the inquest, when it happens, is thorough."
The Coroner's Society said the situation highlighted the under-funding of coroners' courts across the country.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said military inquests were often delayed because the MoD had to hold a thorough internal investigation beforehand.
However, the Tories said the issue betrayed Labour's lack of understanding of the Armed Forces. Gerald Howarth, the shadow defence minister, said: "It is another example of the way Labour ministers simply do not understand the ethos of the Armed Forces."
He accused ministers of presiding over a system that "prolongs the grief" of bereaved Service families...."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...inquest122.xml
..."Mr Masters said he had met Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, to ask for more funding and was waiting to hear from him.
However, he said his only "outstanding main inquest" was the deaths of 10 personnel killed when a Hercules aircraft went down in Iraq in January 2005, which was delayed because it addressed "very sensitive issues in terms of classified information from the MoD".
Dr Fox criticised the Government's response to the situation. "We have had an increase in the number of fatalities and yet the Government has not matched this increase with the same increase in funding," he said.
"As a consequence the backlog has simply not diminished and that's an utterly unacceptable burden for the families to bear."
Lord Moonie, a former Labour defence minister, yesterday called for "additional resources to be spent on the process".
Lyn Kelly, whose son Richard Brown, died in the Hercules, said it was essential that the inquest was "thorough". She said: "It's down to the RAF and other services to get their inquiries moving so we can have these inquests held. I appreciate that there is an awful lot of information to sort through and, if there is to be a delay, I hope it is because the inquest, when it happens, is thorough."
The Coroner's Society said the situation highlighted the under-funding of coroners' courts across the country.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said military inquests were often delayed because the MoD had to hold a thorough internal investigation beforehand.
However, the Tories said the issue betrayed Labour's lack of understanding of the Armed Forces. Gerald Howarth, the shadow defence minister, said: "It is another example of the way Labour ministers simply do not understand the ethos of the Armed Forces."
He accused ministers of presiding over a system that "prolongs the grief" of bereaved Service families...."
Last edited by nigegilb; 22nd Aug 2007 at 07:54.
The more one reads the various threads on this forum, the more one realises that rather than separate issues, be they AT force protection, Mull Chinook injustice, Nimrod Airworthiness, British Legion Broken Covenant Campaign, Pay, Quarters, Mail, whatever, there is only really one issue and that is the sheer uncaring, incompetent and mean-spirited attitude of this government, and in particular the MOD, to our Armed Forces. The only time they ever relent is when there is a concentrated outcry against them that has a possible electoral sting in its tail. There are no finer feelings to appeal to, no over arching realisation of the greater national interest, just the parochial need to cling to power. Very well, let us take heart from the success of previous outcries, be they Gurkha VCs, SSAFA homes, Herc ESF, etc, and realise that the relentless pressure of those who care about right and wrong must be concentrated again and again on these robber barons and their minions. That the British Legion of all organisations has felt compelled to go down this path says everything about the need for us all to stand up and be counted. Politicians of all parties, with very few honourable exceptions, have failed the Forces, so people power must be heard and felt by those in power, including the Chiefs of Staff. One or two highly publicized resignations might have been expected, not these days it seems! What a shame we didn't get Lord Garden as CAS for I am sure we would have heard and seen far more effort to enhance our woeful AT and SH provision, rather than the incumbent's enchantment with the "Cavalry of the Skies".
Lord Moonie, a former Labour defence minister, yesterday called for "additional resources to be spent on the process".
Surely not the same Moonie who, in 2003, upheld CDP’s ruling that refusing to knowingly waste money was a disciplinary offence? (And the order to do so was not). How times change when you don the ermine.
Surely not the same Moonie who, in 2003, upheld CDP’s ruling that refusing to knowingly waste money was a disciplinary offence? (And the order to do so was not). How times change when you don the ermine.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two years and seven months.....and waiting ....and waiting....and waiting....you get the picture!
Two years and seven months left to wonder what happened, why did it happen, what will be the answers to the questions that are left to play on over and over inside your mind daily for all that time? It's hard enough to lose someone you cherish, despite understanding the risks that they knowingly put themselves into as part of military life, but it is truly unforgivable when that death may have been avoided and was not part of the expected risk that each member of HM Forces puts themselves in. Or one could ask todays serving personnel is it indeed part of the norm that there is,an accepted culture that instead of being provided for and supported by the organisation and country that you fight for, you will almost certainly, be left to get on with it, make the best of what you have got and hope that you won't, as one government minister said two years and seven months ago, simply be unlucky?! Of course it's not all down to luck but they won't admit the inadequacies of the bean counters and the government ministers who continue to stick their heads in the sand are the primary reason behind the catastrophic failings that cost so many lives in so many ways.
With the amount of grieving families now who are speaking out the only message that is coming across loud and clear is that you will be let down should the poo hit the fan and the second you cease to exist then so does your family in the eyes of the MoD. No answers for them, just a case of oh dear terribly sorry, now please go and for god sake don't ask for the truth about what happened. It should not be down to us the grieving families,friends and RAF community to stamp our feet and get attention to action something.
The coroner is doing his best but the poor bloke gets non stop questions and queries about what is happenening because we are just left out in the cold. That's not fair on the coroner or us. Do the idiots in government not compute the idea that if they fund and action the process with the level of prority it deserves then the grieving families who are such a hassle might go away, shut up and stop being the embarrasessment that we have had to become!
Sorry for rant but very frustrated with the whole process. Only last night my 6 yr olddaughter out of the blue started to cry and when i asked her what was wrong she said she missed uncle bob and that dead means dead mummy, it's forever and that makes me sad. why did that happen to him it's not fair i want to see him and i get sad when you cry about him. i was totally not expecting it, so it was distressing enough but it's even more distressing when i know i can't answer her questions. Something as private and as sad as that means nothing to the government if it was harry or wills that had died what's the betting that the process will be quick, efficient and as it should be but sadly not afforded to us the great british public. i want to grieve but can't until i know that i have all the facts about what actually happened to my brother and that this never happpens again for anyone.
Two years and seven months left to wonder what happened, why did it happen, what will be the answers to the questions that are left to play on over and over inside your mind daily for all that time? It's hard enough to lose someone you cherish, despite understanding the risks that they knowingly put themselves into as part of military life, but it is truly unforgivable when that death may have been avoided and was not part of the expected risk that each member of HM Forces puts themselves in. Or one could ask todays serving personnel is it indeed part of the norm that there is,an accepted culture that instead of being provided for and supported by the organisation and country that you fight for, you will almost certainly, be left to get on with it, make the best of what you have got and hope that you won't, as one government minister said two years and seven months ago, simply be unlucky?! Of course it's not all down to luck but they won't admit the inadequacies of the bean counters and the government ministers who continue to stick their heads in the sand are the primary reason behind the catastrophic failings that cost so many lives in so many ways.
With the amount of grieving families now who are speaking out the only message that is coming across loud and clear is that you will be let down should the poo hit the fan and the second you cease to exist then so does your family in the eyes of the MoD. No answers for them, just a case of oh dear terribly sorry, now please go and for god sake don't ask for the truth about what happened. It should not be down to us the grieving families,friends and RAF community to stamp our feet and get attention to action something.
The coroner is doing his best but the poor bloke gets non stop questions and queries about what is happenening because we are just left out in the cold. That's not fair on the coroner or us. Do the idiots in government not compute the idea that if they fund and action the process with the level of prority it deserves then the grieving families who are such a hassle might go away, shut up and stop being the embarrasessment that we have had to become!
Sorry for rant but very frustrated with the whole process. Only last night my 6 yr olddaughter out of the blue started to cry and when i asked her what was wrong she said she missed uncle bob and that dead means dead mummy, it's forever and that makes me sad. why did that happen to him it's not fair i want to see him and i get sad when you cry about him. i was totally not expecting it, so it was distressing enough but it's even more distressing when i know i can't answer her questions. Something as private and as sad as that means nothing to the government if it was harry or wills that had died what's the betting that the process will be quick, efficient and as it should be but sadly not afforded to us the great british public. i want to grieve but can't until i know that i have all the facts about what actually happened to my brother and that this never happpens again for anyone.
Last edited by chappie; 22nd Aug 2007 at 16:36. Reason: poor punctuation due to ranting!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are being heard loud and clear Chappie. The Telegraph gave a leader about it today and it remains firmly on the political agenda. I am even hearing that the RAF at very high levels are being extremely co-operative. I think everyone now wants this inquest to happen just as quickly as possible. The MoD and RAF have taken a caning over the issue of foam.. In many ways it pre-meditated a flow of information concerning all the issues chug refers to. Almost as though the issue opened the floodgates on years of under-funding, mis-management and manpower reductions. Not sure if it consoles you in anyway, but nothing has been the same since the Herc campaign. You are right though, we must not give up harrying the MoD for a second. Every single UOR could well be a reduction in next year's defence budget. The MoD will continually look to save money. Still no sign of fuel tank protection for Nimrod, (cost?), armoured vehicles? Rocket and mortar overhead protection in Basra? All basics, still found wanting.
The biggest shortage of all is probably manpower, and still the Chiefs of Staff are in denial. Keep the faith over the coming months, a very thorough investigation is continuing.
More from Lord King;
The Prime Minister continued:
“For our part, in Government, it will mean increased expenditure on equipment, personnel and the conditions of our Armed Forces; not in the short run but for the long term".
I would have preferred to hear that statement at the start of his term of office and not on his farewell tour.
The current situation is no secret and is known to the House. Obviously, there are challenges for the RAF and the Royal Navy, but I shall concentrate on the Army. We have 39 battalions in the Army, only two of which are at full strength and 37 under strength. Last June, the Minister said in a debate in this House that recruitment was good and retention was satisfactory. I would be very interested to hear the current situation. In welcoming the recent pay settlement for our Armed Forces, I suspect that that sort of settlement does not come out of the Treasury
15 Mar 2007 : Column 834
unless there is a stark realisation that something needs to be done and that the Treasury was presented with some pretty dire figures to persuade it to move in the apparently much more generous approach than it had in the past. In technical terms, it is claimed that planning assumptions have been exceeded in the past seven years, which is hitting the training and regeneration capabilities of our Armed Forces.
I do not know how many of your Lordships were here when we had the Minister repeated a Statement on troop withdrawal from Bosnia. The Minster will recall that he started by expressing his condolences to Rifleman Coffeyof the 2nd Battalion of the Rifles. What hit your Lordships at the time was the realisation that here was a young man who had been a trained soldier for barely a year, who was on his second tour in Afghanistan, already having done a seven-month tour—longer than the intended six months. He sadly lost his life on a second tour that he had been asked to volunteer for because of a shortage of trained troops.
Recently in the other place a Question was asked about the Government’s definition of overstretch. The Answer given by Mr Adam Ingram was that overstretch would be if the Army was unable to fulfil the tasks asked of them. That is a very limited interpretation of overstretch. The Armed Forces are outstandingly good at taking on and meeting the immediate challenge of the moment—that is one of the challenges that they face. The duty of Government and Parliament is to see not just whether they are able to fulfil the tasks asked of them at this moment but whether they are going to be able to fulfil those tasks in two, three or five years’ time. That is my reason for raising this debate.
Obviously the pay settlement is an attempt to help with retention and recruitment problems. There are morale issues; recently there has been much publicity about medical facilities. I do not wish to go over that in detail but other Members may wish to. It was mentioned in the other place yesterday by the Prime Minister. We face the challenge of a much tougher combat environment than was expected, and the number of casualties are rising. The Minister may like to comment on the number of wounded who are now facing the kind of issues found in the Walter Reed Hospital, which led to the sacking of the Army Secretary and the Surgeon-General. It was stated that they were overwhelmed by the number of casualties coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq. I do not know to what extent we are able to cope with the numbers that we are incurring.
Other issues affect morale and retention. I live not far from the Lyneham airbase. A recent issue of the local paper, the Wiltshire Gazette, under the heading “How Many More Men Must Die?” stated:
“Crews are being sent to war in flying bombs”.
This refers to damage due to the lack of fire-suppressant foam in the Hercules aircraft that are used—or are not, I hope, now being used—for airbridge activities. That sort of article can be damaging. It was written by a former Hercules pilot, expressing his concern about the lack of proper equipment. Why are all the planes that the Americans have flying in the war zone properly protected? Why did the Australians take action in 2004 with their Hercules? When the matter was brought up in 2002 each Hercules could be protected for $25,000. That is one small illustration to establish whether we are taking justified care of our Armed Forces.
The biggest shortage of all is probably manpower, and still the Chiefs of Staff are in denial. Keep the faith over the coming months, a very thorough investigation is continuing.
More from Lord King;
The Prime Minister continued:
“For our part, in Government, it will mean increased expenditure on equipment, personnel and the conditions of our Armed Forces; not in the short run but for the long term".
I would have preferred to hear that statement at the start of his term of office and not on his farewell tour.
The current situation is no secret and is known to the House. Obviously, there are challenges for the RAF and the Royal Navy, but I shall concentrate on the Army. We have 39 battalions in the Army, only two of which are at full strength and 37 under strength. Last June, the Minister said in a debate in this House that recruitment was good and retention was satisfactory. I would be very interested to hear the current situation. In welcoming the recent pay settlement for our Armed Forces, I suspect that that sort of settlement does not come out of the Treasury
15 Mar 2007 : Column 834
unless there is a stark realisation that something needs to be done and that the Treasury was presented with some pretty dire figures to persuade it to move in the apparently much more generous approach than it had in the past. In technical terms, it is claimed that planning assumptions have been exceeded in the past seven years, which is hitting the training and regeneration capabilities of our Armed Forces.
I do not know how many of your Lordships were here when we had the Minister repeated a Statement on troop withdrawal from Bosnia. The Minster will recall that he started by expressing his condolences to Rifleman Coffeyof the 2nd Battalion of the Rifles. What hit your Lordships at the time was the realisation that here was a young man who had been a trained soldier for barely a year, who was on his second tour in Afghanistan, already having done a seven-month tour—longer than the intended six months. He sadly lost his life on a second tour that he had been asked to volunteer for because of a shortage of trained troops.
Recently in the other place a Question was asked about the Government’s definition of overstretch. The Answer given by Mr Adam Ingram was that overstretch would be if the Army was unable to fulfil the tasks asked of them. That is a very limited interpretation of overstretch. The Armed Forces are outstandingly good at taking on and meeting the immediate challenge of the moment—that is one of the challenges that they face. The duty of Government and Parliament is to see not just whether they are able to fulfil the tasks asked of them at this moment but whether they are going to be able to fulfil those tasks in two, three or five years’ time. That is my reason for raising this debate.
Obviously the pay settlement is an attempt to help with retention and recruitment problems. There are morale issues; recently there has been much publicity about medical facilities. I do not wish to go over that in detail but other Members may wish to. It was mentioned in the other place yesterday by the Prime Minister. We face the challenge of a much tougher combat environment than was expected, and the number of casualties are rising. The Minister may like to comment on the number of wounded who are now facing the kind of issues found in the Walter Reed Hospital, which led to the sacking of the Army Secretary and the Surgeon-General. It was stated that they were overwhelmed by the number of casualties coming back from Afghanistan and Iraq. I do not know to what extent we are able to cope with the numbers that we are incurring.
Other issues affect morale and retention. I live not far from the Lyneham airbase. A recent issue of the local paper, the Wiltshire Gazette, under the heading “How Many More Men Must Die?” stated:
“Crews are being sent to war in flying bombs”.
This refers to damage due to the lack of fire-suppressant foam in the Hercules aircraft that are used—or are not, I hope, now being used—for airbridge activities. That sort of article can be damaging. It was written by a former Hercules pilot, expressing his concern about the lack of proper equipment. Why are all the planes that the Americans have flying in the war zone properly protected? Why did the Australians take action in 2004 with their Hercules? When the matter was brought up in 2002 each Hercules could be protected for $25,000. That is one small illustration to establish whether we are taking justified care of our Armed Forces.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes there is a flood gate situation all because others have drawn strength from what we achieved. in a way a good feeling knowing that the lengths that have been gone to have given confidence to others. what is not a good feeling though is that instead of the governemnt and the MoD taking care of those left behind it is us the grieving that are left to ensure that action is taken and adhered to, in effect doing their jobs for them.
good to hear of the upper rank co-operation within the RAF, but a biter pill to swallow when in some ways too little too late springs to mind.
as for manpower being a problem, no suprise there really. we may be a patriotic lot but plebs we are not and no one is going to put themselves into a situation where their life depends on a a governemnt and their systematic abuse and constant failings of the members of HM Forces on a plethora of isues that frankly should not even be issues.
be sure of this, as military families who are left behind...we will not disappear into the back ground but unite, gain strength and fight for what you all deserve. we do not scare and we will not back down. the lads and lasses of the forces, their families and their welfare is of paramount importance to us.
good to hear of the upper rank co-operation within the RAF, but a biter pill to swallow when in some ways too little too late springs to mind.
as for manpower being a problem, no suprise there really. we may be a patriotic lot but plebs we are not and no one is going to put themselves into a situation where their life depends on a a governemnt and their systematic abuse and constant failings of the members of HM Forces on a plethora of isues that frankly should not even be issues.
be sure of this, as military families who are left behind...we will not disappear into the back ground but unite, gain strength and fight for what you all deserve. we do not scare and we will not back down. the lads and lasses of the forces, their families and their welfare is of paramount importance to us.
be sure of this, as military families who are left behind...we will not disappear into the back ground but unite, gain strength and fight for what you all deserve. we do not scare and we will not back down. the lads and lasses of the forces, their families and their welfare is of paramount importance to us
As for yourself, Chappie, you remain an inspiration to us all. Despite your grief, despite your busy life, you soldier on to reduce the danger and suffering for others. We all salute you and admire you. Lead on!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks
The BOI report is an interesting read and was thoroughly done, well done chaps. I can't fault the recommendations and hope the issues have been addressed already.
At first sight, there is little in this BOI to help or hinder the ESF 'cause' - as the holes in the 206's wing were very big and ESF couldn't have stopped the fire - it is not meant to anyway.
Nonetheless, it does not take the brains of an archbishop to work out that smaller explosive fragments, entering the wing of an ac containing enough vapour but without ESF, could easily have had a different result.
I pray no-one thinks that, just because the demise XV206 was not prevented by ESF, the fitting of fuel-explosion prevention measures are is optional.
Or am I teaching granny?
Flip
The BOI report is an interesting read and was thoroughly done, well done chaps. I can't fault the recommendations and hope the issues have been addressed already.
At first sight, there is little in this BOI to help or hinder the ESF 'cause' - as the holes in the 206's wing were very big and ESF couldn't have stopped the fire - it is not meant to anyway.
Nonetheless, it does not take the brains of an archbishop to work out that smaller explosive fragments, entering the wing of an ac containing enough vapour but without ESF, could easily have had a different result.
I pray no-one thinks that, just because the demise XV206 was not prevented by ESF, the fitting of fuel-explosion prevention measures are is optional.
Or am I teaching granny?
Flip