Hercules ESF - technical, tactical and service issues. (Title edited)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft Fuel Tank Explosion Suppression
All,
Hope you don't mind some input from a colonial, but I have been following this thread for a couple of weeks now and I finally decided to add a few points. Firstly, my sympathies to family and friends of those lost in XV179, I do not wish to add any anguish, simply put a few current truths forward.
Below is an Australian Defence magazine extract on self-protection efforts for RAAF C-130J and an RFT for some follow on foam installation - has also project manager contact details (all open source). The following web site is a commercial manufacturer that supplies the ESF. http://www.crestfoam.com/ This manufacturer also has available a documentation (unclas), that summarises a number of US studies into fuel tank protection and explains the advantages of ESF performance. You would need to approach the company directly on this as I am unable to release this directly (proprietary reasons).
Notwithstanding each countries own financial reasons for fitting/not fitting certain systems, the RAAF is in the process of fitting ESF to all its C-130H and C-130J (has operationally deployed such since 04/05). Fitting full fleet makes good sense from a fleet a management perspective. Also, C-130 is not the only aircraft type recognised requiring this capability.
There have been a lot of comments in the thread regarding the technological pros and cons of ESF and other systems such as OBIGGS (Onboard Inert Gas Generating Systems), however ESF does have significant advantage over OBIGGS in some areas. The RAAF has done its research on this and has consulted widely prior to fitting ESF.
OBIGGS is designed to suppress the secondary ignition of fuel tank ullage, however once the tank is breached (first shot), air can re-enter and so increase the fuel-air mix again increasing the likelihood of subsequent explosion (multi-hit scenario). ESF, by its passive nature has a multi-hit capability. Also, unless the fuel tank is integrally designed for OBIGGS and strengthened to withstand hydrodynamic ram (HDR) effects, HDR will be a significant limitation with OBIGGS. ESF, again by its nature of completely filling the tank void, inhibits HDR. OBIGGS would be difficult, expensive and less effective as fuel tank protection fitted to a C-130. Google these keys words for more detail.
A significant part of ESF use however is the maintenance aspect and providing the correct Personal Protective Equipment and fuel tank venting equipment to enable a safe environment for maintainers to remove and replace the ESF when required and to conduct fuel tank entry. Again this has to be fully scoped and the impact understood and provisioned for. This has been done as part of the RAAF project. Full length (and hood) fuel resistant Gore-Tex suits (see http://www.goremilitary.com/prod_04_mil.html) are available, modern tank venting systems (see http://www.rhineair.com/) are just a couple of examples of things to consider. All up though ESF still comes out on top.
The RAAF were the first to retro-fit ESF to C-130J and have now gained much experience also fitting C-130H. With that in mind the RAAF has been active in assisting other Air Forces with project level details for ESF fitment, including the RAF.
Thinks are being done, but I agree with 'tucumseh - 6 Jun 06' for comments WRT staffing this sort of thing. To succeed, you need to have someone within the MoD to champion this and not allow any push back from any quarters, this can be difficult if one wants to still have a career. The cost mentioned by tucumseh is bit in excess I think - try that amount in $ and that would be ball park for 24 aircraft, then some. Aircraft availablity to fit the ESF on a rotating ongoing basis is a big planning issue and NOT to be under estimated. Each Services' requirements are unique, only the RAF chaps can plan this.
Hope this has provided some more insight and I can really only sumarise what can be gained from open sources. Just need to find it.
Cheers,
navbro
Enhancing survivability for the RAAF C-130J-30
C-130J-30 releasing flares
Delivering new capability doesn't necessarily take years to happen. Certainly, this was not the case when a need was identified to equip the C-130J-30 with self-protection capability for deployment to the Middle East.
As background, Project AIR 5216 procured 12 C-130J-30 aircraft for the RAAF. Self-protection equipment was not procured as part of this project but was to be incorporated under Project Echidna AIR 5416 Phase 4. This phase of Echidna was to provide Electronic Warfare Self- Protection (EWSP) for our C-130J-30 comprising radar warning, basic chaff-dispensing, missile warning and infra-red countermeasure systems (Public DCP). Project Air 5416 Phase 4 was not due for government approval until 2005-2006.
Air transport support for Australian involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq required deployment of C-130 aircraft that were equipped with self-protection equipment. At the time, only our C-130H aircraft satisfied the self-protection requirement. As our involvement in the Middle East continued, the need to provide some relief for the C-130H became apparent. Air Force determined the most appropriate way of doing this was to advance the fitment of self-protection equipment for the C-130-30 with the view of deploying these aircraft. This was achieved by splitting project AIR 5416 Phase 4 into two sub-phases, 4A and 4B.
AIR 5416 Phase 4A now aimed to accelerate the fitment of ballistic protection, missile warning and countermeasure dispensing capability - EWSP - for the C-130J-30. CDG staff - in close cooperation with AFHQ, DMO, Aerospace Operational Support Group, APP Project Management and DoFA - were able to rapidly progress the project to second pass approval by April 2004.
The first C-130J-30s were rotated into the Middle East later in 2004 equipped with ballistic protection (BP) and EWSP. A further enhancement to the survivability of the C-130 is being provided under a separate project (Explosion Suppressive Foam - ESF Project). This will provide explosion suppression for RAAF C-130 fuel tanks, with initial deliveries already made in early 2005. Aircraft now and in future deployments will have BP, EWSP and ESF as standard 'Survivability Equipment'.
Developed to address operational requirements that demanded aircraft survivability enhancement, the speed with which these projects were implemented is credit to all who contributed to the process.
Update provided by the Project AIR 5416 sponsor.
'); Click here to see your time zone
Publication Date:09 Sep 2005 Location:All States
Overseas
Description: The Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) is seeking tenders from industry to fit up six RAAF C-130J-30 Hercules aircraft with Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) and to upgrade up to eleven C-130J-30 Hercules aircraft to Block 5.4 standard. A copy of the RFT may be obtained on written request (e-mail or hard copy) to: ESF Project Manager ALSPO PACE Building 108 RAAF Base Richmond NSW 2755 Ph: (02) 4587 2569 Fax: (02) 45872235
Other Instructions:
Questions should be in writing as per the RFT
Conditions for Participation:
N/A
Timeframe for Delivery:
Mar 06 - Jun 07
Address for Lodgement:
POSTAL DELIVERIES: Defence Mail Services Department of Defence CANBERRA ACT 2600 PERSONNEL DELIVERIES: Defence Mail Services Queanbeyan Annex 6 14-22- Wycombe Street Queanbeyan NSW 2620 Between the hours of 8:30-12:30 and 14:30 ?16:30
Tender Type:
Request for Tender
RFT Enquiries:
ESF Project ManagerPhone:(02) 4587 2569
RFT Document(s):
As above
Hope you don't mind some input from a colonial, but I have been following this thread for a couple of weeks now and I finally decided to add a few points. Firstly, my sympathies to family and friends of those lost in XV179, I do not wish to add any anguish, simply put a few current truths forward.
Below is an Australian Defence magazine extract on self-protection efforts for RAAF C-130J and an RFT for some follow on foam installation - has also project manager contact details (all open source). The following web site is a commercial manufacturer that supplies the ESF. http://www.crestfoam.com/ This manufacturer also has available a documentation (unclas), that summarises a number of US studies into fuel tank protection and explains the advantages of ESF performance. You would need to approach the company directly on this as I am unable to release this directly (proprietary reasons).
Notwithstanding each countries own financial reasons for fitting/not fitting certain systems, the RAAF is in the process of fitting ESF to all its C-130H and C-130J (has operationally deployed such since 04/05). Fitting full fleet makes good sense from a fleet a management perspective. Also, C-130 is not the only aircraft type recognised requiring this capability.
There have been a lot of comments in the thread regarding the technological pros and cons of ESF and other systems such as OBIGGS (Onboard Inert Gas Generating Systems), however ESF does have significant advantage over OBIGGS in some areas. The RAAF has done its research on this and has consulted widely prior to fitting ESF.
OBIGGS is designed to suppress the secondary ignition of fuel tank ullage, however once the tank is breached (first shot), air can re-enter and so increase the fuel-air mix again increasing the likelihood of subsequent explosion (multi-hit scenario). ESF, by its passive nature has a multi-hit capability. Also, unless the fuel tank is integrally designed for OBIGGS and strengthened to withstand hydrodynamic ram (HDR) effects, HDR will be a significant limitation with OBIGGS. ESF, again by its nature of completely filling the tank void, inhibits HDR. OBIGGS would be difficult, expensive and less effective as fuel tank protection fitted to a C-130. Google these keys words for more detail.
A significant part of ESF use however is the maintenance aspect and providing the correct Personal Protective Equipment and fuel tank venting equipment to enable a safe environment for maintainers to remove and replace the ESF when required and to conduct fuel tank entry. Again this has to be fully scoped and the impact understood and provisioned for. This has been done as part of the RAAF project. Full length (and hood) fuel resistant Gore-Tex suits (see http://www.goremilitary.com/prod_04_mil.html) are available, modern tank venting systems (see http://www.rhineair.com/) are just a couple of examples of things to consider. All up though ESF still comes out on top.
The RAAF were the first to retro-fit ESF to C-130J and have now gained much experience also fitting C-130H. With that in mind the RAAF has been active in assisting other Air Forces with project level details for ESF fitment, including the RAF.
Thinks are being done, but I agree with 'tucumseh - 6 Jun 06' for comments WRT staffing this sort of thing. To succeed, you need to have someone within the MoD to champion this and not allow any push back from any quarters, this can be difficult if one wants to still have a career. The cost mentioned by tucumseh is bit in excess I think - try that amount in $ and that would be ball park for 24 aircraft, then some. Aircraft availablity to fit the ESF on a rotating ongoing basis is a big planning issue and NOT to be under estimated. Each Services' requirements are unique, only the RAF chaps can plan this.
Hope this has provided some more insight and I can really only sumarise what can be gained from open sources. Just need to find it.
Cheers,
navbro
Enhancing survivability for the RAAF C-130J-30
C-130J-30 releasing flaresDelivering new capability doesn't necessarily take years to happen. Certainly, this was not the case when a need was identified to equip the C-130J-30 with self-protection capability for deployment to the Middle East.
As background, Project AIR 5216 procured 12 C-130J-30 aircraft for the RAAF. Self-protection equipment was not procured as part of this project but was to be incorporated under Project Echidna AIR 5416 Phase 4. This phase of Echidna was to provide Electronic Warfare Self- Protection (EWSP) for our C-130J-30 comprising radar warning, basic chaff-dispensing, missile warning and infra-red countermeasure systems (Public DCP). Project Air 5416 Phase 4 was not due for government approval until 2005-2006.
Air transport support for Australian involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq required deployment of C-130 aircraft that were equipped with self-protection equipment. At the time, only our C-130H aircraft satisfied the self-protection requirement. As our involvement in the Middle East continued, the need to provide some relief for the C-130H became apparent. Air Force determined the most appropriate way of doing this was to advance the fitment of self-protection equipment for the C-130-30 with the view of deploying these aircraft. This was achieved by splitting project AIR 5416 Phase 4 into two sub-phases, 4A and 4B.
AIR 5416 Phase 4A now aimed to accelerate the fitment of ballistic protection, missile warning and countermeasure dispensing capability - EWSP - for the C-130J-30. CDG staff - in close cooperation with AFHQ, DMO, Aerospace Operational Support Group, APP Project Management and DoFA - were able to rapidly progress the project to second pass approval by April 2004.
The first C-130J-30s were rotated into the Middle East later in 2004 equipped with ballistic protection (BP) and EWSP. A further enhancement to the survivability of the C-130 is being provided under a separate project (Explosion Suppressive Foam - ESF Project). This will provide explosion suppression for RAAF C-130 fuel tanks, with initial deliveries already made in early 2005. Aircraft now and in future deployments will have BP, EWSP and ESF as standard 'Survivability Equipment'.
Developed to address operational requirements that demanded aircraft survivability enhancement, the speed with which these projects were implemented is credit to all who contributed to the process.
Update provided by the Project AIR 5416 sponsor.
ATM CSASD 8/2005 Details (Closed)
if ((window.screen.width >= 1024) && (window.screen.height >= 768)) document.write(''); else document.write(''); Number: CSASD 8/2005 if ((window.screen.width >= 1024) && (window.screen.height >= 768)) document.write(''); else document.write(''); Title: Request for Tender for the Installation of Explosion Suppressant Foam and Block 5.4 Upgrade to C-130J Aircraft if ((window.screen.width >= 1024) && (window.screen.height >= 768)) document.write(''); else document.write(''); Category: Aerospace systems and components and equipment if ((window.screen.width >= 1024) && (window.screen.height >= 768)) document.write(''); else document.write(''); Closing Date: 09 Nov 2005 if ((window.screen.width >= 1024) && (window.screen.height >= 768)) document.write(''); else document.write(''); Closing Time: 12:00 noon (ACT Local Time) if ((window.screen.width >= 1024) && (window.screen.height >= 768)) document.write(' '); else document.write(''); Click here to see your time zone
Publication Date:09 Sep 2005 Location:All States Overseas
Description: The Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) is seeking tenders from industry to fit up six RAAF C-130J-30 Hercules aircraft with Explosion Suppressant Foam (ESF) and to upgrade up to eleven C-130J-30 Hercules aircraft to Block 5.4 standard. A copy of the RFT may be obtained on written request (e-mail or hard copy) to: ESF Project Manager ALSPO PACE Building 108 RAAF Base Richmond NSW 2755 Ph: (02) 4587 2569 Fax: (02) 45872235 Other Instructions:
Questions should be in writing as per the RFT
Conditions for Participation:
N/A
Timeframe for Delivery:
Mar 06 - Jun 07
Address for Lodgement:
POSTAL DELIVERIES: Defence Mail Services Department of Defence CANBERRA ACT 2600 PERSONNEL DELIVERIES: Defence Mail Services Queanbeyan Annex 6 14-22- Wycombe Street Queanbeyan NSW 2620 Between the hours of 8:30-12:30 and 14:30 ?16:30
Tender Type:
Request for Tender
RFT Enquiries:
ESF Project ManagerPhone:(02) 4587 2569
RFT Document(s):
As above
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Navbro,
Was all the above done as a permanent fit (Equipment Programme) or a short-term fix (UOR)? (Does the OzAF have a similar system to ours)
Nonetheless, I am most impressed with the RAAFs ' just get on and do it' attitude to fit ESF, DAs and BP to ALL ac.
It shows what can be done with a little top-level support!
The MOD's top-level, on the other hand, should be ashamed to watch our colonial cousins supporting their crews and protecting their assets, while ours are put at risk by penny-pinchers.
Tucumseh - any thoughts on the Aussie's procurement system - could the MoD's long-winded IPT/DEC/DPA cycle for EPs (and posibly UORs) have contributed to the lengthy delays to our own ESF fitment? Furthermore, how likely is it that, given the 'political desire', ESF could have been (and could still be) fitted more quickly?
I know a few people out in OzAF- I am glad they are being well looked after.
However, I remain most concerned about those serving in our own RAF.
I would hope I am not alone in this - maybe, just maybe, there is someone above the rank of 'Air Comode' who feels the same?
Was all the above done as a permanent fit (Equipment Programme) or a short-term fix (UOR)? (Does the OzAF have a similar system to ours)
Nonetheless, I am most impressed with the RAAFs ' just get on and do it' attitude to fit ESF, DAs and BP to ALL ac.
It shows what can be done with a little top-level support!
The MOD's top-level, on the other hand, should be ashamed to watch our colonial cousins supporting their crews and protecting their assets, while ours are put at risk by penny-pinchers.
Tucumseh - any thoughts on the Aussie's procurement system - could the MoD's long-winded IPT/DEC/DPA cycle for EPs (and posibly UORs) have contributed to the lengthy delays to our own ESF fitment? Furthermore, how likely is it that, given the 'political desire', ESF could have been (and could still be) fitted more quickly?
I know a few people out in OzAF- I am glad they are being well looked after.
However, I remain most concerned about those serving in our own RAF.
I would hope I am not alone in this - maybe, just maybe, there is someone above the rank of 'Air Comode' who feels the same?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navbro, thank you for a comprehensive and illuminating post. I understand that USAF looked at all types of fuel tank protection before coming to the same conclusion that ESF was right for C130 J. I have a couple of questions for you.
RAF did a risk assessment in 2002 and decided ESF was not required. As RAAF were operating in the same areas of the World why did you come to a different conclusion?
Funding. I have been told that RAAF could only afford to fit ESF because of an in year underspend. Is this true, or is it likely that ESF would have been fitted anyway?
Have you suffered any flameouts whilst foam bedding in?
With reference to ballistic matting, has there been any operational problems with its use or carrying the extra weight? Could you add a few words about the requirement/risk assessment for fitting it?
RAF are quoting £600,000 per ac to fit ESF. Do you have an accurate figure for RAAF?
The length of time to complete ESF fit here is worrying, esp for crews in theatre. Where did RAAF get their Hercs fitted? Do you have a suggestion for speeding up the RAF program?
Finally, XV206 perished on a strip a couple of weeks ago. In the open press here 3 possible reasons have been given.
1. Tyre burst
2. Mine
3. Ground fire
Our Defence Minister has stated that ESF would not have helped survivability, ahead of any investigation. Do you have a comment?
Cheers,
NG
RAF did a risk assessment in 2002 and decided ESF was not required. As RAAF were operating in the same areas of the World why did you come to a different conclusion?
Funding. I have been told that RAAF could only afford to fit ESF because of an in year underspend. Is this true, or is it likely that ESF would have been fitted anyway?
Have you suffered any flameouts whilst foam bedding in?
With reference to ballistic matting, has there been any operational problems with its use or carrying the extra weight? Could you add a few words about the requirement/risk assessment for fitting it?
RAF are quoting £600,000 per ac to fit ESF. Do you have an accurate figure for RAAF?
The length of time to complete ESF fit here is worrying, esp for crews in theatre. Where did RAAF get their Hercs fitted? Do you have a suggestion for speeding up the RAF program?
Finally, XV206 perished on a strip a couple of weeks ago. In the open press here 3 possible reasons have been given.
1. Tyre burst
2. Mine
3. Ground fire
Our Defence Minister has stated that ESF would not have helped survivability, ahead of any investigation. Do you have a comment?
Cheers,
NG
Last edited by nigegilb; 12th Jun 2006 at 08:15.
Flipster
“Tucumseh - any thoughts on the Aussie's procurement system - could the MoD's long-winded IPT/DEC/DPA cycle for EPs (and posibly UORs) have contributed to the lengthy delays to our own ESF fitment? Furthermore, how likely is it that, given the 'political desire', ESF could have been (and could still be) fitted more quickly?”
First, just because the funding is via the EP, it does not mean it will be a permanent fit. Even if you get funding for the full monty, very often the IPT will rob it to bolster other projects and deliver a partial fit, no spares and a dodgy SEM. The politician will be able to say the kit exists, but ask the sustainability, safety and fit policy questions. As for fitting more quickly, I’m afraid it looks to me like the RAF don’t have the C130s to sustain a full capability while the others are in for modification. That is, the engineering pool (in EP terms) is unrealistically low. To offset this, I’d be looking to paying a premium for a contractors working party to do the rounds, both in UK and abroad. Train them on the PI and set them loose. As I said before, the money is easily found. We waste more every day than what it would cost.
I know little of the Australian procurement system, but over many years I did notice they tended to publish results of research, and act upon them, long before we were voted funding to initiate research or development. Maybe it was just what I worked on at the time, I don’t know. They seem to be more focused and less politically correct. This raises the point of lack of co-ordination between friendly nations, but we haven’t cracked co-ordination across our 3 Services yet. Some of our Servicemen have kit others can only dream of. Some are about to be given obsolescent kit to replace 2 generations newer kit they’ve had for years. I’ve been given development funding to find a solution when 15 years previously I was the project manager delivering that very solution to another Service.
“Normal” procurement via the EP can be swift and cost effective. But the system is process-driven these days. You can demonstrate understanding of one process and romp up the greasy pole without actually delivering kit. But when faced with a routine problem these “managers” topple and the system gets stuck thropugh lack of decisive, knowledgeable decision making. It is now more important to follow process and the main objective – delivery of kit that is fit for purpose at the correct price and on time – is lost in the administrative fog.
There are many references here to what I believe is a major obstacle to the Services getting the right kit. It is an unwillingness to stick the head above the parapet knowing very well that doing so will blight your career. The worst quote I ever heard in DPA (from an Army Colonel) was “Don’t fight the white”; meaning, it’s signed so don’t challenge it. This negates original thought and breeds “yes men”, not to mention enormous waste. Those of you who, quite rightly, moan about lack of kit answer this question honestly – If you were posted to DPA or DLO as, say, a Sqn Ldr, would you stand your ground when they wheeled out the big guns to threaten you with the sack or disciplinary action? That’s what the Services and Civilian management do to junior civvies who try to do the right thing.
“Tucumseh - any thoughts on the Aussie's procurement system - could the MoD's long-winded IPT/DEC/DPA cycle for EPs (and posibly UORs) have contributed to the lengthy delays to our own ESF fitment? Furthermore, how likely is it that, given the 'political desire', ESF could have been (and could still be) fitted more quickly?”
First, just because the funding is via the EP, it does not mean it will be a permanent fit. Even if you get funding for the full monty, very often the IPT will rob it to bolster other projects and deliver a partial fit, no spares and a dodgy SEM. The politician will be able to say the kit exists, but ask the sustainability, safety and fit policy questions. As for fitting more quickly, I’m afraid it looks to me like the RAF don’t have the C130s to sustain a full capability while the others are in for modification. That is, the engineering pool (in EP terms) is unrealistically low. To offset this, I’d be looking to paying a premium for a contractors working party to do the rounds, both in UK and abroad. Train them on the PI and set them loose. As I said before, the money is easily found. We waste more every day than what it would cost.
I know little of the Australian procurement system, but over many years I did notice they tended to publish results of research, and act upon them, long before we were voted funding to initiate research or development. Maybe it was just what I worked on at the time, I don’t know. They seem to be more focused and less politically correct. This raises the point of lack of co-ordination between friendly nations, but we haven’t cracked co-ordination across our 3 Services yet. Some of our Servicemen have kit others can only dream of. Some are about to be given obsolescent kit to replace 2 generations newer kit they’ve had for years. I’ve been given development funding to find a solution when 15 years previously I was the project manager delivering that very solution to another Service.
“Normal” procurement via the EP can be swift and cost effective. But the system is process-driven these days. You can demonstrate understanding of one process and romp up the greasy pole without actually delivering kit. But when faced with a routine problem these “managers” topple and the system gets stuck thropugh lack of decisive, knowledgeable decision making. It is now more important to follow process and the main objective – delivery of kit that is fit for purpose at the correct price and on time – is lost in the administrative fog.
There are many references here to what I believe is a major obstacle to the Services getting the right kit. It is an unwillingness to stick the head above the parapet knowing very well that doing so will blight your career. The worst quote I ever heard in DPA (from an Army Colonel) was “Don’t fight the white”; meaning, it’s signed so don’t challenge it. This negates original thought and breeds “yes men”, not to mention enormous waste. Those of you who, quite rightly, moan about lack of kit answer this question honestly – If you were posted to DPA or DLO as, say, a Sqn Ldr, would you stand your ground when they wheeled out the big guns to threaten you with the sack or disciplinary action? That’s what the Services and Civilian management do to junior civvies who try to do the right thing.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navbro
Try to remember to copy what you are writing just in case you lose connections. Alternatively, write out your post in Word and when done, log on then copy!
Tumcumseh
You paint a revealing picture of the procurment process and all its woes. It does not fill me with hope and 'good vibes'. The sentiments you express about the lack of willingness to stand up and shout are spot on. Nonetheless, I have symapthy with those put in that unenviable position - they have mortgages to pay and families to support. That is why the 'seniors' often get their way when they 'up the ante'.
But I repeat what i said on another post
'For evil to flourish, good men must do nothing'
Also remember that you only ever really answerable to 3 people
Your subordinates.
The 'person in the mirror'.
Your God!
Try to remember to copy what you are writing just in case you lose connections. Alternatively, write out your post in Word and when done, log on then copy!
Tumcumseh
You paint a revealing picture of the procurment process and all its woes. It does not fill me with hope and 'good vibes'. The sentiments you express about the lack of willingness to stand up and shout are spot on. Nonetheless, I have symapthy with those put in that unenviable position - they have mortgages to pay and families to support. That is why the 'seniors' often get their way when they 'up the ante'.
But I repeat what i said on another post
'For evil to flourish, good men must do nothing'
Also remember that you only ever really answerable to 3 people
Your subordinates.
The 'person in the mirror'.
Your God!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll try again in smaller chunks.
The RAAF ESF is a permanent fit to to all our C-130s until a better system is detremined (research continues). This capability is going well so far (touch wood, however we have our own share of stuff ups).
ESF was put up as a Minor Project and was argued for and endorsed and funded as a stand alone project.
Can not imagine why your 2002 risk assessment went against ESF. RAAF did a good degree of research, consulted Lockheed Martin, USAF and Air National Guard among others to present the business case.
No reported problems so far bedding foam in. As said earlier ESF has been used in the USN and USAF since the 60's in C-130, P-3, F-15, A-10, F-18 to name a few. There are laid down procedures, numbers of fuel drains and filtering to avoid potential fuel blochage and flame out problems.
₤600K is excessive per aircraft unless this is an attempt express the total project cost as a function per airframe. An educated pluck (generous)would be in the order of ₤6.5M for 24 aircraft, so if broken down ₤270.8K per airframe, but this includes all the additional PPE and systems required to deliver the capability as well. The foam cost about US$50K per shipset.
RAAF C-130 were fitted in Aust. with the assistance of a USAF team providing OJT. This stuff is just foam blocks, about as hard as putting together a jigsaw. It is labor intensve, but when learnt, is not difficult. Once the fuel tanks are prepared ESF fittment by trained personal takes about two weeks. Prepartion time for this depands on local procedures. However fuel tank venting down to the required safe limit (for fuel tank entry by personnel)can be now in a number of hours.
For those of you who are on the inside of RAF or MoD, the RAAF has been assisting with standing up ESF. If approached, I am sure that it could be arranged for a team to go to the UK to help or the RAAF could host a visit out here to Aust. (the cost of some air fares, but would be worth it). Rather than this forum, contact the ESF project sponsor in Canberra Aust.
More to follow,
navbro
The RAAF ESF is a permanent fit to to all our C-130s until a better system is detremined (research continues). This capability is going well so far (touch wood, however we have our own share of stuff ups).
ESF was put up as a Minor Project and was argued for and endorsed and funded as a stand alone project.
Can not imagine why your 2002 risk assessment went against ESF. RAAF did a good degree of research, consulted Lockheed Martin, USAF and Air National Guard among others to present the business case.
No reported problems so far bedding foam in. As said earlier ESF has been used in the USN and USAF since the 60's in C-130, P-3, F-15, A-10, F-18 to name a few. There are laid down procedures, numbers of fuel drains and filtering to avoid potential fuel blochage and flame out problems.
₤600K is excessive per aircraft unless this is an attempt express the total project cost as a function per airframe. An educated pluck (generous)would be in the order of ₤6.5M for 24 aircraft, so if broken down ₤270.8K per airframe, but this includes all the additional PPE and systems required to deliver the capability as well. The foam cost about US$50K per shipset.
RAAF C-130 were fitted in Aust. with the assistance of a USAF team providing OJT. This stuff is just foam blocks, about as hard as putting together a jigsaw. It is labor intensve, but when learnt, is not difficult. Once the fuel tanks are prepared ESF fittment by trained personal takes about two weeks. Prepartion time for this depands on local procedures. However fuel tank venting down to the required safe limit (for fuel tank entry by personnel)can be now in a number of hours.
For those of you who are on the inside of RAF or MoD, the RAAF has been assisting with standing up ESF. If approached, I am sure that it could be arranged for a team to go to the UK to help or the RAAF could host a visit out here to Aust. (the cost of some air fares, but would be worth it). Rather than this forum, contact the ESF project sponsor in Canberra Aust.
More to follow,
navbro
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here are some web sites for those who would like to read more deeply (where I first started)
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews.htm
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/systems/f...k/inerting.stm
more of an EW emphasis
https://www.myaoc.org/eweb/StartPage.aspx
Also, just found this one. The survivability onion is what the RAAF designs its self-protection criteria around. Can explain more in future sessions.
http://www.esw2006.com/download/programme.pdf
navbro
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/
http://www.bahdayton.com/surviac/asnews.htm
http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/systems/f...k/inerting.stm
more of an EW emphasis
https://www.myaoc.org/eweb/StartPage.aspx
Also, just found this one. The survivability onion is what the RAAF designs its self-protection criteria around. Can explain more in future sessions.
http://www.esw2006.com/download/programme.pdf
navbro
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's some more. To follow on from ballistic matting questions. Ballistic matting is different from ballistic armour. The armour is normally of a ceramic plate design and is quite heavy but is what is used to protect vital aircraft systems in most cases. See alsohttp://www.bulletproofme.com/Ballistic_Protection_Levels.shtml
http://www.defence.gov.au/teamaustralia/index6d2a.html
http://www.austballisticlab.com.au/
http://www.combatclothing.com.au/cgi-bin/cp-app.pl?usr=50X1318506&rnd=737994&rrc=N&cip=66.249.65.99&pg=c at&ref=999&catstr=
http://www.armedforces-int.com/categories/ballistic-protection/lightweight-ballistic-protection.asp
http://www.airforce-technology.com/contractors/modifications/roshield/
, the same category of armour applies to vehicle and aircraft as it does for personnel.
Also have a look for MIS 944 – C-130 Ballistic protection for passengers (down the list in the Ms).
http://www.defence.gov.au/csig/SenateOrder05/File_List.cfm?cat=5&List=category2005_2
This looks at scoping a solution to help out down in the C-130 cargo compartment. Could be applied in a number of areas though.
Cheers for now,
navbro
http://www.defence.gov.au/teamaustralia/index6d2a.html
http://www.austballisticlab.com.au/
http://www.combatclothing.com.au/cgi-bin/cp-app.pl?usr=50X1318506&rnd=737994&rrc=N&cip=66.249.65.99&pg=c at&ref=999&catstr=
http://www.armedforces-int.com/categories/ballistic-protection/lightweight-ballistic-protection.asp
http://www.airforce-technology.com/contractors/modifications/roshield/
, the same category of armour applies to vehicle and aircraft as it does for personnel.
Also have a look for MIS 944 – C-130 Ballistic protection for passengers (down the list in the Ms).
http://www.defence.gov.au/csig/SenateOrder05/File_List.cfm?cat=5&List=category2005_2
This looks at scoping a solution to help out down in the C-130 cargo compartment. Could be applied in a number of areas though.
Cheers for now,
navbro
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navbro
Thanks for the links - absolutely fasicinating reading for EWOs - lots to chew on there!
However, it proves that there has been a lot of work done in this area for may yearsa and most of it open source. Why, therefore, have the RAFs and MoDs top kneddies ignored it all?
Thanks for the links - absolutely fasicinating reading for EWOs - lots to chew on there!
However, it proves that there has been a lot of work done in this area for may yearsa and most of it open source. Why, therefore, have the RAFs and MoDs top kneddies ignored it all?
Last edited by flipster; 12th Jun 2006 at 15:13.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps more pertinent Flip, how can the RAF deny knowledge of the system that could have prevented the deaths of 10 brave men?
That argument, one of claiming ignorance will not stand up. We also need to see the 2002 risk assessment. Liam Fox suggested that Lockheed had offered ESF to the RAF in 2002. We need to explore this possibility.
When I started this thing in January it took me 30 mins to assemble a working knowledge of ESF and who was fitting it. I cannot understand why RAF are denying knowledge.
Does anyone have any info regarding Danish Air Force C130s? They also have foam. PM if you don't want it in the open.
That argument, one of claiming ignorance will not stand up. We also need to see the 2002 risk assessment. Liam Fox suggested that Lockheed had offered ESF to the RAF in 2002. We need to explore this possibility.
When I started this thing in January it took me 30 mins to assemble a working knowledge of ESF and who was fitting it. I cannot understand why RAF are denying knowledge.
Does anyone have any info regarding Danish Air Force C130s? They also have foam. PM if you don't want it in the open.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flipster and others,
That would be the million ₤/$ question, only your people can answer. But, we all have our own examples when something could've/should've been done - and we ask why, why us. Keep up the good fight and keep the pressure on is about all I can add at this stage. We cannot tell the Brit
hierarchy what to do, but as compatriot Air Force aviators, help is there for the asking.
navbro
That would be the million ₤/$ question, only your people can answer. But, we all have our own examples when something could've/should've been done - and we ask why, why us. Keep up the good fight and keep the pressure on is about all I can add at this stage. We cannot tell the Brit
hierarchy what to do, but as compatriot Air Force aviators, help is there for the asking.
navbro
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello all,
My first post so please take it easy on me!
Firstly, my belated condolences to the families/friends of the crew and passengers. You have been through a terrible time and I take my hat off to your courage in taking this issue forward.
I won't profess to know anything about the Hercy bird or a great deal about DAS or foam protection, but hope that my post offers some additional food for thought on the subject - although the food in some instances may be 'eggs ready to suck' - for granny!
I have been involved for a number of years with the whole process in delivering new modifications to aircraft. There are always hundreds of potential modifications to be carried out that originate for a number of reasons e.g to reduce cost of ownership, to improve capability, to improve airworthiness. I have been involved with several platforms that had many outstanding Safety Modifications that have been on hold for years, pending sufficient resource to move ahead. What we must be clear about is that every Safety Modification is not a critical modification to the aircraft, some will reduce the likelihood of the event occurring, some will mitigate against the event should it occur. Aka Risk. As you know, some risks are likely to occur and have a catastrophic impact - so we most definitely resolve those first! (And we do) Some risks will probably never occur and if they do, will not cause catastrophic loss of the aircraft, but may impact the safety - e.g loss of a single radio in a dual redundant system. This second one is still a Safety Mod, but unless we are particularly flush with STP, we are unlikely to fund it's modification unless its very easy and a quick/cheap win.
The grey area is those risks managed in the ALARP region. I expect that some clever safety chap (either in the DA or EA or both)has a fault tree analysis of the C130, and this person can, for example, initiate a fire in a wing. The Fault Tree will tell him how likely/unlikely it is that this will cause a catastrophic event for the wing and what impact this system will have on the aircraft as a whole and therefore the crew.
So (and this is the crux) depending on how well the Fault Tree Analysis is put together and that the probabilities of events are based on factual data rather than data 'pulled from the air', the model should say how likely/unlikely it is that the aircraft would be lost.
So that's one part, now introduce a mitigation (e.g suppressant foam) into the model and run it again. The safety team can now see the effectiveness of the proposed new modification. It won't change the likelihood in this case, just the outcome.
So (and this is the crux) depending on how well the Fault Tree Analysis is put together and that the probabilities of events are based on factual data rather than data 'pulled from the air', the model should say how likely/unlikely it is that the aircraft would be lost.
So that's one part, now introduce a mitigation (e.g suppressant foam) into the model and run it again. The safety team can now see the effectiveness of the proposed new modification. It won't change the likelihood in this case, just the outcome.
Now it gets tacky. Someone has to make the decision on whether the money spent on embodying this modification is well spent, considering the outcome of the above analysis - it may be bloody obvious, but more often that not it is a very difficult judgement call. There may be a very narrow margin between the pre/post mitigation risk (I'm not making any statement here about the effectiveness of foam in the fuel tanks).
Usually if it sits in the ALARP region it is 'managed'. This is where I stray from the views of my lords and masters. I believe, very strongly, that we should fund every Safety Modification that sits within this ALARP region because the likelihood of occurrence, although not very likely, is possible. If it is possible and it can lead to catastrophic loss and it has happened before - then for goodness sake do it! For the sake of safety.
The problem with this is multifold. Where do you place the 'do it' threshold? As I said this is usually set to be above the ALARP region, unless the mod is quick and easy etc, but I reckon this is wrong from a duty of care perspective. What if you can't afford it? I'm sorry but this is a crap excuse. Just because we are strapped for cash doesn't mean that we can't afford to embody safety mod's. We are spending vast sums of money across the MOD on other projects, and can draw on funds in addition to this for UORs etc. Although this is a different pot of gold, I believe that we should trade on capability to achieve safety. More often than not, we don't and we want the new kit. There are often good reasons for this, e.g DAS, modifications which in themselves bring crew protection and an increase in capability. IMHO, this fire suppressant foam is much like DAS in that you can't carry out your role and maintain your safety case - so it should be possible to find the funds from the CPF under UOR, then take it into core.
A typical example of all the above is the use of our OM15 Hydraulic fluid. I'm sure you all have stories, experiences with the flammability of this stuff and how lethal it is when pumped at high pressure near ignition sources, one leak and you have a major event. How long have we stalled the introduction of a non-flammable replacement despite the numerous injuries, deaths sustained by this stuff? Too long, but I suspect that someone has carried out the above and said its ALARP. Bollox, put your hand in your pocket and modify it out.
Sorry if this has bored you, but like I say, just a little food for discussion and an alternative view.
Lastly, I would like to point out that in my experience, the safety of our crews and the airworthiness of our aircraft is taken extremely seriously by those on IPTs etc. Its just that this doesn't seem to resonate up to the treasury like it should.
Good luck with your campaign and safe flying to the crews putting themselves in harms way.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i would have thought that a major portion of the cost of fitting foam to the RAF c-130's would be the total stripping of the fuel tank sealant, inspection, and then resealing of the fuel tanks. this is a very time consuming job, even when specialist contractors are employed.
to my knowledge, this wasn't done on RAAF c-130's, and is done at the request of the RAF, this i suspect, would go a long way to explaining the difference in prices being bandied around.
to my knowledge, this wasn't done on RAAF c-130's, and is done at the request of the RAF, this i suspect, would go a long way to explaining the difference in prices being bandied around.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr AEO - not boring a all - a very interesting perspective but some of your TLAs have me baffled. I think you might help everyone by clarifying them a little.
Nonetheless, whatever name you give things, your post again underlines the fact the procurement processes sometimes cloud the common-sense of the top officers meant to be making the decisions, while those below them, with a better grip of reality, are not listened to. Furthermore, if something is really important, like foam, this too-lengthy process lets down the front line when they need help most.
Even the most twisted fund-manger can see that it makes no monetary sense to lose 2 expensive ac and 10 priceless people - all of whom could have been saved 'for a ha'p'th of tar'.
Thanks
Flipster
(Blod - whatever the price, would it not have been cheaper than 10 lost souls and 2 totalled ac?)
Nonetheless, whatever name you give things, your post again underlines the fact the procurement processes sometimes cloud the common-sense of the top officers meant to be making the decisions, while those below them, with a better grip of reality, are not listened to. Furthermore, if something is really important, like foam, this too-lengthy process lets down the front line when they need help most.
Even the most twisted fund-manger can see that it makes no monetary sense to lose 2 expensive ac and 10 priceless people - all of whom could have been saved 'for a ha'p'th of tar'.
Thanks
Flipster
(Blod - whatever the price, would it not have been cheaper than 10 lost souls and 2 totalled ac?)