Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
more answers
Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, Liberal Democrat) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the circumstances were of each incident of C130 aircraft being hit by hostile fire in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.
Adam Ingram (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence) Hansard source
There were no incidents of RAF C130 aircraft being hit by hostile fire in 2003.
In 2004 there were three incidents of RAF C130 aircraft being hit by hostile fire.
On 11 April 2004, a C130K aircraft travelled en route from Baghdad International airport to Balad. On inspection of the aircraft at Balad, it was found that a projectile had hit the upper fuselage. The aircraft was deemed serviceable and was able to continue its mission.
On 1 May 2004, an inspection of a C130K aircraft at Baghdad International airport revealed evidence of a small single ballistic impact on the aircraft's front quarter. The damage was repaired and the aircraft was able to continue its mission.
On 6 August 2004, a C130 was en route to Baghdad International airport, when a fuel leak was discovered in one of the wing fuel tanks. The aircraft was able to continue to its destination. On arrival, it was found that the wing fuel tank had been ruptured by a small calibre round.
In January 2005, C130 Hercules XV179 was hit by hostile fire, which resulted in the tragic loss of the aircraft, its crew and passengers. This incident was investigated by a RAF Board of Inquiry and the Air Accident Investigation Branch, as outlined in my right hon. Friend's statement of 8 December 2005, Official Report, column 1009.
There have been no reported incidents in which C130 Hercules aircraft have been hit by hostile fire since the loss of XV179.
So there we have it, the Minister confirms that almost 6 months before XV179 was shot down an RAF C130 was hit in the fuel tank with a small calibre round. Remember this ac had just been fully refuelled with relatively cool fuel hence very little fuel vapour build up.....But it was not deemed necessary to fit foam until we lost one.
LEADERSHIP???????
Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, Liberal Democrat) Hansard source
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the circumstances were of each incident of C130 aircraft being hit by hostile fire in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.
Adam Ingram (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Ministry of Defence) Hansard source
There were no incidents of RAF C130 aircraft being hit by hostile fire in 2003.
In 2004 there were three incidents of RAF C130 aircraft being hit by hostile fire.
On 11 April 2004, a C130K aircraft travelled en route from Baghdad International airport to Balad. On inspection of the aircraft at Balad, it was found that a projectile had hit the upper fuselage. The aircraft was deemed serviceable and was able to continue its mission.
On 1 May 2004, an inspection of a C130K aircraft at Baghdad International airport revealed evidence of a small single ballistic impact on the aircraft's front quarter. The damage was repaired and the aircraft was able to continue its mission.
On 6 August 2004, a C130 was en route to Baghdad International airport, when a fuel leak was discovered in one of the wing fuel tanks. The aircraft was able to continue to its destination. On arrival, it was found that the wing fuel tank had been ruptured by a small calibre round.
In January 2005, C130 Hercules XV179 was hit by hostile fire, which resulted in the tragic loss of the aircraft, its crew and passengers. This incident was investigated by a RAF Board of Inquiry and the Air Accident Investigation Branch, as outlined in my right hon. Friend's statement of 8 December 2005, Official Report, column 1009.
There have been no reported incidents in which C130 Hercules aircraft have been hit by hostile fire since the loss of XV179.
So there we have it, the Minister confirms that almost 6 months before XV179 was shot down an RAF C130 was hit in the fuel tank with a small calibre round. Remember this ac had just been fully refuelled with relatively cool fuel hence very little fuel vapour build up.....But it was not deemed necessary to fit foam until we lost one.
LEADERSHIP???????
Last edited by nigegilb; 4th Apr 2006 at 20:10.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige,
You and I know that the 'Slick' Mk3s did not have a DAS - all it had was a stand-alone jammer which was old, it had serious limitations aginst the threats against which it could work (it would not be prudent to discuss here). Furthermore, it was as much use as a chocolate teapot against some of the stuff in AFG/PAK/IRQ in 2002/3. People have already mentioned the trial in 2001 which pointed all this out.
However, no-one I know of (at Gp,AWC and STC) ever called the jammer 'a suite' - that was left to the minifleet and then DIRCM with its integrated bits and pieces - which, is what I hope, all ac are wearing in-theatre - they were even mandated for DR Congo in 2003, so I would hope its 'de-rigeur' in IRQ/AFG this time.
Flip
You and I know that the 'Slick' Mk3s did not have a DAS - all it had was a stand-alone jammer which was old, it had serious limitations aginst the threats against which it could work (it would not be prudent to discuss here). Furthermore, it was as much use as a chocolate teapot against some of the stuff in AFG/PAK/IRQ in 2002/3. People have already mentioned the trial in 2001 which pointed all this out.
However, no-one I know of (at Gp,AWC and STC) ever called the jammer 'a suite' - that was left to the minifleet and then DIRCM with its integrated bits and pieces - which, is what I hope, all ac are wearing in-theatre - they were even mandated for DR Congo in 2003, so I would hope its 'de-rigeur' in IRQ/AFG this time.
Flip
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do not hold your breath Flip. Why was the J DAS program cancelled? Answer - cost with the proviso that operations can be dangerous and guess what, you volunteered to take the Queen's Shilling. Does anyone seriously believe that the threat in Afghanistan this time round is less? I am sick of politcos hiding behind words and secrecy.
Are you impressed with these answers?
Have we learned anything?
Are you impressed with these answers?
Have we learned anything?
Last edited by nigegilb; 4th Apr 2006 at 20:26.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
warnings
it makes my heart go cold reading the answers that lay before us. it really does seem as if there's the slightest amount of secrecy in the matters discussed, the politicans and the powers that be, use that to avoid being truthful and try to create a smokescreen to hide behind. bob's death does not come down to technicalities in the english language. it comes down to the most short sighted officials who are unable to see the warnings in front of them. XV179 was failed. it was a timebomb, waiting to happen.
today is the first year anniversary of my brothers funeral. there are no words to describe how i feel. why are the lies still being told. they've been caught well and truly with their pants down.
i've been watching and waiting for the MoD press release re: foam. still nothing has come of it. what is their purpose in waiting? we've waited long enough for the foam...so long that we lost ten outstanding crew. time has come for action, not empty words. the waiting game does not go any way towards reassuring myself that there is any sincerity in resolving this and preventing more tragedy. is this press release a sincere action or a well timed response ?
i wonder also. does anyone know when the contract for the A400M's was signed? i'm wondering if it was after the crash. if so what the hell were they doing requesting removal of foam and defensive measures to save money after our tragic loss? i also wonder why it's taken soo long to get the questions answered. it does'nt bode well!
today is the first year anniversary of my brothers funeral. there are no words to describe how i feel. why are the lies still being told. they've been caught well and truly with their pants down.
i've been watching and waiting for the MoD press release re: foam. still nothing has come of it. what is their purpose in waiting? we've waited long enough for the foam...so long that we lost ten outstanding crew. time has come for action, not empty words. the waiting game does not go any way towards reassuring myself that there is any sincerity in resolving this and preventing more tragedy. is this press release a sincere action or a well timed response ?
i wonder also. does anyone know when the contract for the A400M's was signed? i'm wondering if it was after the crash. if so what the hell were they doing requesting removal of foam and defensive measures to save money after our tragic loss? i also wonder why it's taken soo long to get the questions answered. it does'nt bode well!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too am running out of patience Chappie. I understood that some kind of decision on foam had been agreed and signed last week. The press statement should already be out. Last time it went quiet the reason was a good one. The Govt backtracked on foam for the J. We can only hope that something else positive has happened. I very much doubt if we are now waiting for bad news. There is no moral argument to exclude the J from additional protection. Whilst senior officers and politicians can hide behind their dictionaries the sight of grieving relatives in public is something they are desperate to avoid. You are doing an amazing job. I find it unbelievable that the lives of Hercules crews may be dependent upon some relatives/widows and concerned ex colleagues. All we can do is keep the pressure on and make them squirm.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys just heard that the news about foam is breaking. Start looking for it, no exact news about the J maybe some one can find out.
Also there is major dwang occurring. I cannot disclose due confidentiality, but check out all news outlets in the next 24 hours. I do believe our beloved Defence Ministers and RAF Lordships are under a spot of pressure .
Also there is major dwang occurring. I cannot disclose due confidentiality, but check out all news outlets in the next 24 hours. I do believe our beloved Defence Ministers and RAF Lordships are under a spot of pressure .
ALQ 157
Nige
"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?"
Having managed ALQ 157 (ARI 23469) in the early 90s, when it was a designated (partial) fit to Sea King HC Mk4, Chinook and Hercules, I can assure you it is NOT a Defensive Aids Suite. It is a (rather simplistic) Infra Red Jammer manufactured (or at least supplied by) by Loral Electro Optical Systems in Pasadena. The Maintenance Policy was 1A, 2B (Lyneham), 4CD. That is, we suffered the usual nonsense of having to return u/s kit to California and, because we were a minority user, the Pipeline Times were very lengthy; with Customs exacerbating things at every turn. Perhaps things are better now?
I've managed quite a few DAS systems, and can assure you that one could only term it a "suite" if they were fully integrated. That is, a comprehensive fit of RWR, ESM, MAW, Chaff/Flare, DIRCM etc is not a "suite" unless they are intelligently integrated; with themselves and with other aircraft systems such as comms. And that is where the MoD fall down because kit like this which is only partial or role fit is often fitted by Service Engineered Modification, and so highly unlikely to work to its full potential. I know of many long standing cases whereby we have sought to do this integration properly only to have funding denied on cost grounds. (It's admittedly very expensive to properly trial EW kit, but what this means is that, lacking performance/integration trials results, it is difficult to make a case for MAR, so the default position becomes, in many cases, a hastily cobbled together SEM. It is well known that Westland once assessed such an EW SEM and said "It works, but it's unsafe". It entered service (!!), whereupon Westland were immediately proved right. Funding to make it safe was denied).
Finally, you will find that such systems (partial/role fit) are often procured under UOR or are cash-capped. That means the Service buy as many full systems as they can, and few spares. I've seen UORs approved to procure more systems, when all the existing ones are stacked up at the company because we lack funding to pay for relatively cheap, simple spares. You can get millions for a UOR, but not thousands for the spares which would negate the UOR! I used to think this daft, but then I was told to wind my neck in as complaining about such waste is, of course, a disciplinary offence in the Civil Service. (Confirmed under FOI).
"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?"
Having managed ALQ 157 (ARI 23469) in the early 90s, when it was a designated (partial) fit to Sea King HC Mk4, Chinook and Hercules, I can assure you it is NOT a Defensive Aids Suite. It is a (rather simplistic) Infra Red Jammer manufactured (or at least supplied by) by Loral Electro Optical Systems in Pasadena. The Maintenance Policy was 1A, 2B (Lyneham), 4CD. That is, we suffered the usual nonsense of having to return u/s kit to California and, because we were a minority user, the Pipeline Times were very lengthy; with Customs exacerbating things at every turn. Perhaps things are better now?
I've managed quite a few DAS systems, and can assure you that one could only term it a "suite" if they were fully integrated. That is, a comprehensive fit of RWR, ESM, MAW, Chaff/Flare, DIRCM etc is not a "suite" unless they are intelligently integrated; with themselves and with other aircraft systems such as comms. And that is where the MoD fall down because kit like this which is only partial or role fit is often fitted by Service Engineered Modification, and so highly unlikely to work to its full potential. I know of many long standing cases whereby we have sought to do this integration properly only to have funding denied on cost grounds. (It's admittedly very expensive to properly trial EW kit, but what this means is that, lacking performance/integration trials results, it is difficult to make a case for MAR, so the default position becomes, in many cases, a hastily cobbled together SEM. It is well known that Westland once assessed such an EW SEM and said "It works, but it's unsafe". It entered service (!!), whereupon Westland were immediately proved right. Funding to make it safe was denied).
Finally, you will find that such systems (partial/role fit) are often procured under UOR or are cash-capped. That means the Service buy as many full systems as they can, and few spares. I've seen UORs approved to procure more systems, when all the existing ones are stacked up at the company because we lack funding to pay for relatively cheap, simple spares. You can get millions for a UOR, but not thousands for the spares which would negate the UOR! I used to think this daft, but then I was told to wind my neck in as complaining about such waste is, of course, a disciplinary offence in the Civil Service. (Confirmed under FOI).
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chappie/Kilwhang
My thoughts are with you and the other families. You are absolutely right to keep asking the questions to help prevent another sad loss and I do hope you would not be surprised to find that you have enormous and heartfelt support for your distress and understanding of your actions - we are behind you (even if some of us are 'encouraged' to remain silent).
Flipster
Tucumseh - You obviously know what you are talking about and your knowledge will, undoubtedly, help dispel the farcical implication by MOD that IRCM is 'a defensive aids suite'. That in itself will increase the pressure on MOD to face facts.
The Hercs (and others) have needed long-term war-going protection/support for years but have been failed by a number of faceless top budget holders.
This is despite the fleet asking for better protection for ages and ages. The top people who, over the years, have refused our crews proper protection surely have blood on their hands; they can't want more?
If their Airships and Lordships read this site (as it is rumoured), please would they waste no more time and do the honourable, moral and decent thing - find the money to protect ALL out ac before it is too late.
My thoughts are with you and the other families. You are absolutely right to keep asking the questions to help prevent another sad loss and I do hope you would not be surprised to find that you have enormous and heartfelt support for your distress and understanding of your actions - we are behind you (even if some of us are 'encouraged' to remain silent).
Flipster
Tucumseh - You obviously know what you are talking about and your knowledge will, undoubtedly, help dispel the farcical implication by MOD that IRCM is 'a defensive aids suite'. That in itself will increase the pressure on MOD to face facts.
The Hercs (and others) have needed long-term war-going protection/support for years but have been failed by a number of faceless top budget holders.
This is despite the fleet asking for better protection for ages and ages. The top people who, over the years, have refused our crews proper protection surely have blood on their hands; they can't want more?
If their Airships and Lordships read this site (as it is rumoured), please would they waste no more time and do the honourable, moral and decent thing - find the money to protect ALL out ac before it is too late.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
impending press release enquiry
i've yet to hear anything....all has gone eerily quiet. there is, understandably, a level of secrecy has to be maintained hence the abbreviations. i don't pretend to understand many of them and i understand their role but there is something i don't "get" and would like to if anyone can help. why is there a difference in the K and J Hercs and the ability and high level of reticence to equip it with a defensive aids suite. why is it i get the feeling that we are going to get treated to foam in some K's and that's it?! that won't be accepted as any part reasonable as a conclusion to the recommendations as a result of the inquiry. why is the J seen as the poor cousin?
why do i get the feeling that i'm seen by the higher powers as a silly relative meddling in things that i don't understand and i'm not helping the situation and won't progress it any further. all that's been achieved has been done so by nigegilb. he's the most outstanding of all, who has done so much and should be congratulated. i want foam and the best protection for all not adequate protection. adequate is not a word that should be used by a country that is a leading world power for forces in the most dangerous places in the world. the sooner they understand that will not be accepted by families the sooner we can progress. they should be helping us and seeing what they can do for us not make us feel like we should go cap in hand with the adage of please sir can we have some........more........defensive aids suites of the highest standarda nd life saving foam please. it smacks too much of the fact that they seem to have completely forgotten about the tradegy they caused and while they think that they're untouchable in their ivory tower they'd be wise to see that they can't discipline me. i'm waiting for them to honour those boys...your colleagues dead and alive.
why do i get the feeling that i'm seen by the higher powers as a silly relative meddling in things that i don't understand and i'm not helping the situation and won't progress it any further. all that's been achieved has been done so by nigegilb. he's the most outstanding of all, who has done so much and should be congratulated. i want foam and the best protection for all not adequate protection. adequate is not a word that should be used by a country that is a leading world power for forces in the most dangerous places in the world. the sooner they understand that will not be accepted by families the sooner we can progress. they should be helping us and seeing what they can do for us not make us feel like we should go cap in hand with the adage of please sir can we have some........more........defensive aids suites of the highest standarda nd life saving foam please. it smacks too much of the fact that they seem to have completely forgotten about the tradegy they caused and while they think that they're untouchable in their ivory tower they'd be wise to see that they can't discipline me. i'm waiting for them to honour those boys...your colleagues dead and alive.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MP's VOICE CONCERN OVER AFGHAN MISSION
I have taken out chunks of the article because the subject is covered on another thread....
.........The MPs also said they were "deeply concerned" that the 3,300-strong taskforce lacked sufficient close air support or transport helicopters.
And they demanded the Ministry of Defence produce evidence that the RAF's Hercules transport aircraft were fitted with adequate "defensive aids suites" to protect them from ground attack............
The MPs also urged the MoD to rethink it decision to withdraw the squadron of RAF Harrier GR7s based at Kandahar just as the taskforce was beginning its mission.
.....The committee also disclosed that they had received a letter from a former Hercules pilot expressing concerns that "resources had been a constraint" on the fitting of defensive aids suites to the aircraft.
It followed the shooting down of a Hercules C130K in Iraq in January.
Despite an assurance from the commander of joint operations, Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, that all aircraft deployed to Afghanistan would be fitted with a defensive aids suite "appropriate" to the threat, the MPs were not satisfied.
"The suggestion that aircraft are not being properly protected for resource reasons is a serious one and we call on the MoD to provide evidence that this is not the case," they said.
I have also obtained elements of the Def Com report published yesterday
Defensivee Aid Suite
65. On 30 January 2005, a C130K Hercules was shot down in Iraq.
Inevitably discussion arose about the extent and effectiveness of the Defensive Aid Suite (DAS) fitted to aircraft deployed to Afghanistan. One former C130 Hercules pilot wrote to us expressing his concerns suggesting, amongst other things, that resources had been a constraint on decisions taken about the fitting of the DAS.
66. Air Marshal Torpy told the Committee that "All 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". Following the evidence session, we asked MoD to respond to the concerns that had been put to us in more detail. We had not received a substantive responsive from MoD by the end of the inquiry.
67. We note that concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of
the defensive aid suite fitted to C130 Hercules used in Afghanistan. We also note MoD's assurances that the Hercules DAS is appropriate to conditions in Afghanistan.
68. We accept that the scope for investment in equipment is infinite, but the suggestion that aircraft are not being properly protected for resource reasons is
a serious one and we call on MoD to provide evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case.
Nice to see the Def Comm flexing its muscles. Now the MoD has to prove that the J DAS program was not cancelled because of cost and that the current DAS is up to the threat in theatre. And I do believe another letter will be winging in soon. Heads up for this weekend, Mail on Sunday and Sunday Telegraph may be worth a look. Cannot disclose now due confidentiality.
Just want to make a point about spares for DAS and suchlike. When Sarajevo was at its peak and IRCM was required we started running out of bulbs and had to hand across spares to the Chinook fleet. I believe stocks ran low resulting in IRCM becoming desirable instead of mandatory. Tucumseh the definition of DAS is hugely helpful to what I am trying to do. If you can PM me I would greatly appreciate it. Ingram's argument for sending in the slick MK3 rests on the "facts" that MK3 ac were equipped with DAS, and this DAS (IRCM) was appropriate for the task. I believe he may regret confirming the statemente he made in 2002.
I have taken out chunks of the article because the subject is covered on another thread....
.........The MPs also said they were "deeply concerned" that the 3,300-strong taskforce lacked sufficient close air support or transport helicopters.
And they demanded the Ministry of Defence produce evidence that the RAF's Hercules transport aircraft were fitted with adequate "defensive aids suites" to protect them from ground attack............
The MPs also urged the MoD to rethink it decision to withdraw the squadron of RAF Harrier GR7s based at Kandahar just as the taskforce was beginning its mission.
.....The committee also disclosed that they had received a letter from a former Hercules pilot expressing concerns that "resources had been a constraint" on the fitting of defensive aids suites to the aircraft.
It followed the shooting down of a Hercules C130K in Iraq in January.
Despite an assurance from the commander of joint operations, Air Marshal Sir Glenn Torpy, that all aircraft deployed to Afghanistan would be fitted with a defensive aids suite "appropriate" to the threat, the MPs were not satisfied.
"The suggestion that aircraft are not being properly protected for resource reasons is a serious one and we call on the MoD to provide evidence that this is not the case," they said.
I have also obtained elements of the Def Com report published yesterday
Defensivee Aid Suite
65. On 30 January 2005, a C130K Hercules was shot down in Iraq.
Inevitably discussion arose about the extent and effectiveness of the Defensive Aid Suite (DAS) fitted to aircraft deployed to Afghanistan. One former C130 Hercules pilot wrote to us expressing his concerns suggesting, amongst other things, that resources had been a constraint on decisions taken about the fitting of the DAS.
66. Air Marshal Torpy told the Committee that "All 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". Following the evidence session, we asked MoD to respond to the concerns that had been put to us in more detail. We had not received a substantive responsive from MoD by the end of the inquiry.
67. We note that concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of
the defensive aid suite fitted to C130 Hercules used in Afghanistan. We also note MoD's assurances that the Hercules DAS is appropriate to conditions in Afghanistan.
68. We accept that the scope for investment in equipment is infinite, but the suggestion that aircraft are not being properly protected for resource reasons is
a serious one and we call on MoD to provide evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case.
Nice to see the Def Comm flexing its muscles. Now the MoD has to prove that the J DAS program was not cancelled because of cost and that the current DAS is up to the threat in theatre. And I do believe another letter will be winging in soon. Heads up for this weekend, Mail on Sunday and Sunday Telegraph may be worth a look. Cannot disclose now due confidentiality.
Just want to make a point about spares for DAS and suchlike. When Sarajevo was at its peak and IRCM was required we started running out of bulbs and had to hand across spares to the Chinook fleet. I believe stocks ran low resulting in IRCM becoming desirable instead of mandatory. Tucumseh the definition of DAS is hugely helpful to what I am trying to do. If you can PM me I would greatly appreciate it. Ingram's argument for sending in the slick MK3 rests on the "facts" that MK3 ac were equipped with DAS, and this DAS (IRCM) was appropriate for the task. I believe he may regret confirming the statemente he made in 2002.
Last edited by nigegilb; 6th Apr 2006 at 14:22.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XV179 defence
i tried this morning to put out about the press release that i'd seen via sky news but suddenly experienced problems....not for the first time i might add.
formerflake, to the best of my knowledge i'm not 100% sure but i don't think that the boys were wearing any body armour. i will do my best to look in the report to see what it stated. it does make harrowing reading but is sooo necessary to us and this fight at the moment. i don't think any level of body armour would have saved any of them. i'll await the inquest to make up my mind.
i so hope that there are a few stained pants in the necessary government departments now that the net is closing in. if my memory serves me correctly i'm sure that resources/funding was a huge factor stated in the cancellation of foam and the like being inserted on the planes pror to the cash. i've heard vague terms used about other priorities taking place which contributed to the cancelation also.
it's hard to trust, to know who will help us higher up. i pray to god we get this sorted.please.
formerflake, to the best of my knowledge i'm not 100% sure but i don't think that the boys were wearing any body armour. i will do my best to look in the report to see what it stated. it does make harrowing reading but is sooo necessary to us and this fight at the moment. i don't think any level of body armour would have saved any of them. i'll await the inquest to make up my mind.
i so hope that there are a few stained pants in the necessary government departments now that the net is closing in. if my memory serves me correctly i'm sure that resources/funding was a huge factor stated in the cancellation of foam and the like being inserted on the planes pror to the cash. i've heard vague terms used about other priorities taking place which contributed to the cancelation also.
it's hard to trust, to know who will help us higher up. i pray to god we get this sorted.please.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to keep banging on about IRCM but I believe Dr Reid stated that Hercs going to Afghanistan this time would have a full DAS\DAS appropriate for the task. It may become critically important to establish formally that IRCM is not a DAS and is not appropriate for Afghanistan. The shortage of frames at Lyneham will inevitably result in every option being looked at. We have not come this far only to see the task override common sense.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
while it's good the bods up top are listening to us, i'm a worried bunny about the language being used. am i being daft? it keeps getting said that the hercs have adequate protection and that's sufficient. we are fighting for complete protection for all environments. like i keep saying, it was a bullet meeting the lethal fuel mixture that they had on board that brought bob down. our troops need protecting from being shot at anywhere around the world and from the tanks of fuel they carry. terms like adequate and appropiate should not be allowed. this is the 21st century. for god sake bring us up to date. you can't continue to have a" can't have "situation in a "can do "culture. the sooner they change this to what should already be in situ then you can maintain the "can do "ethic successfully.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Swindonshire, UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the risk of repeating tucumseh above and of arguing semantics, IRCM is not DAS. DAS, by implication, refers to a "suite" of defensive aids to counter a wide range of threats be they IR, ballistic or radar guided. IRCM is designed to counter one particular threat. Perhaps. It is not a "suite".
MAWS and RWR are, as you quite rightly state, not much use on their own which is why they are installed in concert with a suitable dispensing system.
MAWS and RWR are, as you quite rightly state, not much use on their own which is why they are installed in concert with a suitable dispensing system.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: In the dark
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just found this:
Defensive Air Suite
Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many C2 aircraft in the Defensive Air Suite were (a) operational and (b) unserviceable on 31 January. [49117]
Mr. Ingram: On 31 January 2006 two RAF Tristar C2 passenger aircraft were available for operations. A third aircraft was undergoing scheduled maintenance. All three aircraft are fitted with a defensive aid suite and flight deck armour.
Defensive Air Suite
Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many C2 aircraft in the Defensive Air Suite were (a) operational and (b) unserviceable on 31 January. [49117]
Mr. Ingram: On 31 January 2006 two RAF Tristar C2 passenger aircraft were available for operations. A third aircraft was undergoing scheduled maintenance. All three aircraft are fitted with a defensive aid suite and flight deck armour.
Nice reply Mr Ingram. Now we know how many aircraft were 'available', how about you answer the question and say how many were 'operational' and how many were 'unserviceable' ? Or perhaps you hope that Mr Lancaster doesn't know that 'available' doesn't mean 'serviceable'?
Damned management speak. Makes my blood boil when people BS like that. (A consistent theme throughout the reporting highlighted by this thread.)
Damned management speak. Makes my blood boil when people BS like that. (A consistent theme throughout the reporting highlighted by this thread.)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Turks and Cacos
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nigegilb
Understand there are a few people who might be happy to buy me a beer at Lyneham today.......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shall we say we won the argument on foam. Do not want to say too much more just yet, suffice to say K is done and dusted. Still a bit grey about the J, just a question of numbers. I want to make sure it is not tokenism before I open my bottle of good value Australian sparkling wine.....