Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety

[flipster]

exsnowdrop

Quote - "At the end of the day as the aircraft Capt YOU are breaking the rules not 2 Gp."

So you want us to tell 2 Gp they are in the wrong - ho ho ho ho ho!?

Or does this mean you think all 2 gp orders are illegal and we should just 'down tools'?

I think you are not tuned into reality, although I have to agree with you sentiments!

Chuckling still

flipster

[nigegilb]

Foam

I understamd that a press statement from the MoD is due shortly. We await the news with interest. Meanwhile I have been looking at the A400M. It appears the Lords are on the ball.


"As the A400M has an in-service date of 2010, there will be sufficient time to adapt its capability to the evolving threat.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, how long will it take to transfer defensive aids suites from one aircraft to another? More importantly, how much will that cost? The operation could be quite expensive.

Lord Bach: My Lords, there is no intention to move defensive aids suites from one aeroplane to another. One must realise that defensive aids suites are a package that can contain various units—they do not all contain the same ones. The average cost of a defensive aids suite is roughly £15 million per plane.

Lord Jones: My Lords, when will the first aircraft fly? Does my noble friend believe that the Germans will buy it? Lord Bach: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord and the House that assurance. The attack in Kenya highlights what is an evolving threat to aircraft in general. We keep that threat under constant review, as the noble Lord would expect us to do. Such incidents are taken into consideration when assessing the need for future DAS capabilities. The decision taken in 2001 was based on planning assumptions valid at the time. We are now looking into that as a matter of priority.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the Minister said that there was "time to adapt" the other aircraft. Does that expression apply to all 16 remaining aircraft?

Lord Bach: My Lords, our order is for 25 aircraft. We will adapt them with defensive aids suites if we feel that it is necessary for the safety of their crew—that is our primary responsibility—or if the role of the A400M changes so that it is used in a much more tactical role than at present.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, was the point of the supplementary question by my noble friend Lord Astor not to illustrate the fact that the Al'Qaeda attack on the Israeli plane in Mombasa failed because it was fitted with heat deflectors? Does that not suggest that not only should all Royal Air Force aircraft have that equipment, but there is probably a case for fitting many civilian airliners with heat deflectors against such missiles, given the present threat from Al'Qaeda and similar terrorist group?


So, we have 9 units out of 25 with DAS none with fuel tank inerting protection and we are not planning to switch the DAS between frames. Should be good for some nice trips to the States......

[flipster]

FF

I am sure that people ARE asking questions - and we'll see what comes of them or whether they get the 'DO-AS-YOU-ARE-TOLD' (D-A-Y-A-T) treatment!

Now, don't get me wrong, in the military, sometimes, we DO have to say 'Yessir, nossir, threebagsfullsir' - but normally there has to be a VERY good reason and, ideally, their Lordships should tell the troops WHY it is so important they risk their necks before lauching into D-A-Y-A-T - you know, that basic leadership/SMEAC-thing!?

For example, during the movement of Hajj Prilgrims from Kabul to Jeddah in 2002. Everyone thought it was bonkers and far too dangerous, being as we were going to be carrying the very same people who had just mobbed and murdered their Aviation minister on the apron at Kabul (in front of the armed UK det)!

We asked for clarification, pointing out some very sensitive int that perhaps their airships at PJHQ had overlooked. Apparently, the questions went up very high but as ministerial assurances had already been given, it was fait-a-complis.

As it happens, the situation on the ground at Kabul was so unstable, that the commander of ISAF believed that if WE didn't start moving these pilgrims, they could lose control of the ground situation - endangering 1000s of brit soldiers. Now if their lordships had had the courage to tell us the danger our countrymen were in, our crews would have had no qualms about carrying these 'pilgrims' (all Northern Alliance families - perhaps? - dunno?). (I only learnt this after the event.)

Instead, we got the D-A-Y-A-T treatment with no reasons, along with the definite threat of disciplinary action - and a whole load of platitudes and assurances - as if we were school-children.

It was the most difficult thing I've ever had to do - ordering people to do something they knew was possible suicide. But if we had just downed tools or I had 'fallen on my sword' - someone more senior would have just come along and ordered the crews to go anyway, over my dead body, so to speak. I figured that I was more use asking questions and supporting those brave guys and girls who were going to be flying into danger. As it was, everything turned shambolic when most of the assurances that we had been given failed to materialise.

BTW we were most grateful for the help of some ATSy snowflakes who helped keep order.

The only place that a D-A-Y-A-T attitude has a place, is actually on the battlefield (land, air or sea) - I have never seen a reason to act like that when planning/briefing the battle, or after, in the recovery phase. Officers who hide behind this are doing a dis-service to themselves and those they command.

[nigegilb]

PPRUNE

I understand that this thread is being read at the very highest levels of the MoD and Government. I also understand that there is some concern at the level of detail being discussed. We must continue to tread a fine line. Nobody is enjoying this. If Senior Officers/Defence Ministers accepted their responsibility to look after those on operations there would be no need to have this discourse in public. I have reason to believe that the campaign has achieved amazing success. Any feeling of elation is muted by the thought that we lost one of the finest crews in the process. I never want to have to do this again, but I say we continue until we get adequate protection for the guys/girls doing the stuff on the front line.

[flipster]

You're right Nige, its all gone quiet!!

However, you are also right to keep asking questions on behalf of the crews and sqns - as they are somewhat constrained. But I don't believe that anything on Pprune is so sensitive to be 'giving things away to the other side' - this stuff is available in open domain - its just the slant which we are putting on it is making some people squirm - and not because of operational reasons!

Any muzzling of the sqns may just be a smokescreen to keep serving people from contributing - which would be a shame but not unexpected.

[chappie]

hi guys, i've just spent half an hour placing a view to share with the senior officials that may read this thread only for it to be magically wiped off prior to submitting it. seems like someone does'nt want to upset them or they're controlling this thread as well.

[chappie]

cost v. safety

i'll try again. the long and short of what i was trying to say was that on this thread at an earlier point or on another thread follwing the scotsmans article there was reference to an article from flight magasine outlining what was to be or not to be included in the A400M's. i don't know if this is of any use.

my other point is this. if the higher powers that be are reading this then read on.the gamble made with the crew of XV179 did not pay off. it was only a matter of time before this would happen. while all you could see or value was the pound signs in your eyes an outstanding set of men died an horrific death. what saving possibly could be made when you've had to spend out on[LIST][*]cost of investigation[*]cost of inquiry[*]cost of manpower of those now killed and those who were taken from their roles to help families[*]cost of the recovery operation[*]cost of repatriation[*]burial costs[*]memorial costs[*]pension payouts[*]accomodation and travel expenses for families[*]cost of the inquest
just a thought to bear in mind, not to mention the cost of losing one of your planes. did you not stop to think of this? or do you have a fund for covering up your prize cock ups?! if so you then have a cost to put on the lives of these men. if you have this money to save your arses then you had the money to protect the lives of those men. i'd be so interested to see what it is. i've lost my brother and as a result my whole family. i need him to get me through this but here's not here and i'm trying my best to help everyone. i might get it wrong sometimes. sorry for that.
i await with interest the MOD press release i wonder why they are waiting to release it. why not ages ago. how sincere is it?

[nigegilb]

I am inclined to agree with all of the above. The MoD, Government, Chiefs of Staff have been caught well and truly with their pants down. In January 2006, Mr Ingram was still claiming that ALQ 157 was a suite of defensive aids! This is turning in to a political hot potato. There was no plan to put foam on to the J. We should find out soon if we have forced a u turn on that decision. I do not blame the relatives for being angry at the lack of protection and I do not blame them for demanding accountability. Question is, what is the best way to achieve it? And whose head should roll for failing in their "Duty of Care." Where is the apology and where is the compensation?

[flipster]

One might like to ask Geoff Hoon MP and Jack Straw MP what sort of DAS suite they thought they had on the Hercs that took them into Afghanistan in 2002?

[kilwhang]

A little bit of history.......

First of all, apologies for being a bit late on this thread.
Nige, you asked if there were any 'senior' ex-members of the Herc fleet who had any information about earlier foam or personal protection incidents.
I was an F/E on the fleet for almost all of the 70's and 80's; spending most of my time on 47Sqn (both the big bit and the small bit) and as an instructor at the Support Training Sqn.
Around 1978 one of our a/c, on a training trip to Berlin was hit by ground fire while flying along the corridor. For those not in the know, corrider flying rules were that you had to transit at a reasonably low altitude (if I remember correctly) around 2 -4000ft. On landing at Gatow the crew discovered that fuel was 'persisting' out of a hole in one of the wing tanks. Investigation showed that they had been hit by small arms fire but, because the round had lost most of it's power by the time it hit the a/c, it penetrated the skin but did no more damage. As you can imagine, this caused a lot of consternation in the fleet and I remember one of the Sqn Execs writing a paper recommending the fitment of foam suppression. I read the draft and know that it was passed up the line.
Fast forward a couple of years to the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe Independence Ops. To minimise the risk of ground fire (nearly all flying was done in daylight) we flew at a max height of 100ft. The Lox pack was emptied and we did have protective plates which we placed below our seat cushions. There was some ground fire damage, the worst of which was an RPG hit to the nose of one of the a/c - directly onto an empty Lox pack.
After the Op, there were papers written on lessons learned - again asking for foam suppression and also highlighting the need for adequate crew protection.
I have no idea if this will be of any use but I wish you all the best in what you're trying to do.
If I've been a boring old f**t, I apologise........I only knew one of the crew of XV179.....he was one of my students.

[Facilitator]

CHOCOLATE FIREGUARDS

Nige. Well done for keeping the pressure up on this despicable bunch who claim to care about our armed forces. Anyway to the point.

In January 2006, Mr Ingram was still claiming that the ALQ 157 IRCM was a suite of defensive aids!

In January 2002 Trial BISHOP (it has been mentioned in earlier posts before I'm accused of treachery) was hastily conducted to assess the vulnerabity of both the K and J to the perceived IR threats in the Afghan theatre. By the end of day 1 on what was to become a 3 day trial it was quite obvious that both types were highly susceptible to all the threats. The J had at that time no DAS so it was a fairly obvious conclusion. The 'slick' K had the ALQ 157 and the trial concluded that it was about as much use as a chocolate fireguard! At the end of the trial the results and AWC recommendations were passed up the chain of command at supersonic speed - despite those recommendations subsequent operations were then conducted under the guise of 'military risk' and/or changing the threat matrix on a daily if not mission by mission basis. To have called the ALQ 157 IRCM a defensive aids suite is a complete misnomer since a 'suite' - to me - implies more than one component, ie. a detection/indication system coupled to a jamming/decoy system, whereas in fact it is only a 'dumb' 1st generation IR jammer giving the crew no indication of a missile launch and subsequent 'jam' (assuming it worked!). There are a lot of people involved with this whole debacle who had their part to play and didn't, either for their careers sake or to meet our great leader's demands to be seen to be doing our bit - they all deserve to rot in hell.

[nigegilb]

Thanks guys. I think I have flown with someone who was on the Gatow trip but I had not previously connected up the two incidents. I remember Reid saying that in the threat assessment undertaken in 2002 it was not deemed necessary to equip the Herc with foam. This claim can clearly be seen to be ridiculous. Now we can establish that the first request goes back an awful long way. It is most useful in demolishing Government claims. As for "IRCM only" being appropriate for Afghan airspace, I still do not understand why I am here to tell the story. I always understood IRCM to be a stand alone jammer and yes my crew did go into theatre on one occasion when we suspected it was not working, such was the faith we had in its ability to keep us safe.

I am tempted to say we now need an enquiry, but we have all seen the results of enquiries, you select a friendly face to ask the questions and hey presto "it was nothing to do with me guv." No wonder this is getting people worried. It is nothing to do with protecting lives more a rearguard action to protect precious careers.

I have decided to write to the Defence Committee Chairman again......

By the way, if anyone was involved in the Falklands War or First Gulf War and you feel like contributing, it sure would be nice to hear from you!!!!!!

[chappie]

i ask this while we gain our info on the above is it worth bearing in mind if other countries know that they're sending their troops as passengers in planes with a force who through no fault of their own are able to protect them. i have tried three times to post this reply but i keep getting into trouble. i have the desire and the incllination to write to the military and government leaders to inform them that there is no safety net for their troops, as it were. surely, knowing the cost of manpower and financial implications we may get some backing to insist the foam is installed throughout. i'm probably being niave i guess. it's worth a try.

we await the MoD press release re: foam insertion that we were informed of earlier this week. it's something to bear in mind, but is this a half hearted attempt to quell the concerns and demands that we have? it's all well releasing it, but actioning it is the more important element otherwise empty words i'm afraid.

i'm backed by two mothers from the crew of XV179 and i will not rest until all planes are protected. it was stated earlier that higher powers are aware of this thread with interest. if you are reading this from your upper eschalons be assured that although you may not like the fact that i'm involved in trying to help protect your troops ( a job you should be doing) think about the fact that you should'nt have put me in this position in the first place. where have our apologies been for the almighty huge cock up you made in gambling with my brothers life? not even after you admitted that you underlined the role that foam,if present, could've played did you proffer one. it was left to the airmen and women and officers who looked us in the eye to say sorry. how proud you must be! when will you realise that prevention is better than cure?!

[nigegilb]

Whichever way you look at it, it is clear that the RAF has now learnt the hard way. It takes a crash and inevitable loss of lives for people who should know better to wake up and smell the coffee. We all deserve to know what the MoD has planned in the way of enhanced self-protection. I fear that the statement will be non-specific in nature. We have all had enough of spin, let us hope that the MoD is straight with the facts. Surely the relatives deserve this much at least.

[nigegilb]

Kam, if it helps I would have wanted my wife to do the same as you, in fact I would have been proud of her for having the fortitude to do it.

[chappie]

it's not an easy path we're about to travel. but one thing is certain it will be done united. i plan to help and support all where i can. i to am a mother to a small child who was robbed of her uncle as they died on her birthday. it's a daunting task that we're facing up to but no ones untouchable and my view is that they've placed themselves in this position. kam, they put us in this position. as you quite rightly pointed out look around to see the support that we have. i will not fail my brother, you will not fail your husband. that's already been done. i hope you don't think that i'm spouting rubbish but i see a number of purposes behind these steps that we're making. there are people doing their job as we speak that face the same dilemma that our loved ones did. they have the same fears as do their loved ones. we can use our voice but when in the forces there is the constraints placed upon them which does not allow them to go as far as they need. i look at my daughter and worry about what this has cost her and what this is costing her as i prepare to do battle as it were. i'm sure that i'm doing the right thing. so i know some of the where you're coming from.
i to am arranging to speak to a lawyer. this will go ahead. where was our official apology...when did they say sorry? sometimes i wonder even if they are. if they say sorry now, i'd question if they even really mean it or is it empty words because of their failings and they've been caught out.

[Squirrel 41]

Kam; Chappie;

The very best of luck - and big tick for both of you to have the fortitude to see this through under such difficult circumstances.

Nige et al:

I've been standing back from this one, having had nothing to add. But one thing still really confuses me: why wasn't the DAS and the foam wasn't fitted in 2002? The implication from the posts above was that there wasn't any money to pay for it, but IMHO this ignores the salient points that the Treasury coughs up for UORs and the net additional cost of military operations (NACMO).
Having seen the UOR system work very rapidly (and let's face it, the clue is in the title: "URGENT OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENT"), I can't understand why the AT fleet didn't put this up the chain as soon as the trials showed that the aircraft was vulnerable against the threat, and get the Treasury to stump up the cash as a UOR?

(Other than inter- / intra-service politics and pressonitis of those not actually flying, of course.... )

S41

[nigegilb]

I guess that question may be up to lawyers to answer now. There appears to have been several occasions when foam was requested from the frontline. Dr Reid says there was an element of "per chance" in the shooting down of XV179. Reading the heartbreaking postings from widows/relatives gives you an idea of the human tragedy that follows when luck is relied upon in war.

[nigegilb]

This is an account of Ingram and Def Com before the journos were asked to leave

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT
1.

This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.

Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.


Q183 Robert Key: Are all the Hercules deployed in Afghanistan fitted with full defensive aid suites?

Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy: They are.

Q184 Robert Key: Can you define what you mean by "full"?

Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy: They have adequate defensive aids to match the threat that we are going to face in Afghanistan, without going into the detail of the defensive aids.

Q185 Robert Key: This is quite important because yesterday in the House of Lords Lord Drayson said in column 524 that we use aircraft only when they have the appropriate defensive aid suites. Later on, in answer to Lord Luke, he said that the aircraft go into those areas having in all cases the defensive aid suites that they require. Can you confirm that in 2004/5 the programme to equip the 15J Hercules with the latest generation defensive aid suites was cancelled?

Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy: I cannot confirm that.

Mr Ingram: We will write to you on that. I do not have the detail. I used the word "vulnerability" earlier. We are up against a very clever, intelligent enemy. The more we want to examine in minutiae everything that we are doing, the more we are telling those who are going to pose a threat. I am not saying they are not legitimate or fair questions. I am telling you why there is a reluctance to expose too much knowledge. The knowledge may be interesting to you but it is much more interesting to those who pose a threat.

Q186 Robert Key: It is not just of interest to this Committee; it is of interest to all the military personnel involved and their families as well as the taxpayer. I suggest that there is a case for moving into closed session to explore some of these in detail because of the evidence that has been reaching the Defence Committee.

Mr Ingram: If it is evidence reaching the Defence Committee, on the basis of cooperation and willingness to give best information, we need the evidence. Let us make sure it is evidence and not tittle tattle.

Robert Key: I do not think that is a sensible thing for the Minister to have said.

Mr Hancock: Can I ask the Air Marshal to clarify his answer to Mr Key? Mr Key asked a specific question. He said, "Were the C130 Hercules deployed to Afghanistan fitted with full defensive aid suites?" You said, "Yes." You went on to say that there was a qualitative nature. They were adequate for what they were expected to do. I want to know if full is the same as adequate.

Q187 Robert Key: It is not, is it?

Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy: There is a range of defensive aids that you can put on any aircraft. There are radar warning receivers, missile warning receivers and other defensive aids and I would not want to go into the details of those. We will never put an aircraft into Afghanistan which does not have a defensive aid suite that we think is capable of taking on the threat which they may be faced with.

Q188 Chairman: It has been suggested that we should move into closed session which we will consider doing towards the end of this at about ten to twelve.

Mr Ingram: I am not sure that we have the answers you are seeking.

Chairman: You may not have the answers but in the questions which we will be able to put in closed session you will be able to go away and think about those answers.

Q198 Chairman: We have suggested going into private session. If the Committee is agreed we will do that.

Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy: Could I clarify on defensive aid suites? Maybe I did not make myself completely clear. Defensive aid suites mean exactly what they say. There is a range of capabilities which are brigaded under that. Some are for warning and some are for countering the threats which are then picked up by those systems. All of our aircraft will have an appropriate suite of those capabilities to match the threat that our intelligence indicates is going to be faced in Afghanistan.

Chairman: I think we still have some questions we would like to ask.

[nigegilb]

I was very interested by the carefully chosen words when explaining what a defensive aids suite is. Anyone still think ALQ 157 is a DAS? I remember the int threat from Afghan 4 yrs ago, I smell a rat. God help the guys/girls on the frontline. Whilst politicians and Senior officers argue over the meaning of words RAF crews are being sent to war in ac that can be brought down by a single round.