Hercules ESF - technical, tactical and service issues. (Title edited)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flip, I think Blod was just trying to explain the price difference. It validates the figures we have been hearing. The more detailed knowledge we have the easier it is for everyone to understand this issue. we have obviously won a big argument on the fitting of foam. However, there is no agreement to fit foam fleetwide. Maybe the RAF should consider a guarantee much the same as RAAF has done.
RAAF guarantee, EW BW and ESF protection for any hostile theatre. To be able to do this RAF would need to agree to reinstate J DAS upgrade. And agree to scope Ballistic matting. The guarantee would ensure that slicks were not sent into theatre. It would also mean that ESF would not necessarily need to be fitted across the fleet. Any thoughts?
I have been impressed with RAAF since I started researching this subject but I have to say, after leafing through some of the threads provided by navbro today, I am even more impressed. They seem determined to do the best by their people. I am aware of some issues in Aus but for a modest sized military they appear to be doing many things very well indeed. In the process they maintain a very open system. I truly believe that their close relationship with US and a US foreign policy increasingly looking East they will play an even more important role in the future.
RAAF guarantee, EW BW and ESF protection for any hostile theatre. To be able to do this RAF would need to agree to reinstate J DAS upgrade. And agree to scope Ballistic matting. The guarantee would ensure that slicks were not sent into theatre. It would also mean that ESF would not necessarily need to be fitted across the fleet. Any thoughts?
I have been impressed with RAAF since I started researching this subject but I have to say, after leafing through some of the threads provided by navbro today, I am even more impressed. They seem determined to do the best by their people. I am aware of some issues in Aus but for a modest sized military they appear to be doing many things very well indeed. In the process they maintain a very open system. I truly believe that their close relationship with US and a US foreign policy increasingly looking East they will play an even more important role in the future.
Last edited by nigegilb; 12th Jun 2006 at 20:07.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that was indeed my intention. some of the previous posts imply the RAF are being ripped by being charged a huge amount for fitting a few chunks of foam. when in reality its quite an involved job, and the RAF are asking for a lot more work to be done at the same time.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige/Blod
Yes, you are quite right that ESF is not a simple stick-on job, it takes time and specially trained engineers and, once fitted, it is not a 'fire-and-forget' solution.
However, the MoD should not be allowed to hide behind the cost of fitment - that is what I was trying to say - sorry, if it sounded otherwise.
Also, the USAF has had this stuff for so long they have ironed out the 'teething' problems . As a result, the OzAF have had no problems once the foam was fitted. This means that the MoD can't hide behind 'operational difficulties' either.
The only problem for us is that we had already committed to this latest deployment without arrangements to fit ESF; that was criminal and a decision the MoD may regret.
Yes, you are quite right that ESF is not a simple stick-on job, it takes time and specially trained engineers and, once fitted, it is not a 'fire-and-forget' solution.
However, the MoD should not be allowed to hide behind the cost of fitment - that is what I was trying to say - sorry, if it sounded otherwise.
Also, the USAF has had this stuff for so long they have ironed out the 'teething' problems . As a result, the OzAF have had no problems once the foam was fitted. This means that the MoD can't hide behind 'operational difficulties' either.
The only problem for us is that we had already committed to this latest deployment without arrangements to fit ESF; that was criminal and a decision the MoD may regret.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flipster.
Thanks. I will gladly translate any TLA's!
Starting with ALARP - As Low As Reasonably Practicable
And I agree with your sentiment, in that sometimes 'process' impairs our ability to think clearly about what it is we do and the impact that it will have. Process is a tool to make sure we do things properly, not a tool to make sure we make the right decision!
And yes, the current fleet are in a pickle. Could the mod not get done during roulemont?
Thanks. I will gladly translate any TLA's!
Starting with ALARP - As Low As Reasonably Practicable
And I agree with your sentiment, in that sometimes 'process' impairs our ability to think clearly about what it is we do and the impact that it will have. Process is a tool to make sure we do things properly, not a tool to make sure we make the right decision!
And yes, the current fleet are in a pickle. Could the mod not get done during roulemont?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep up the TLAs! I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Fixed on roulement? The problem is that when the ac get home, they need a certain amount of 'husbandry' (ie lots), not to mention the fact that crews still need to train on something.
Ultimately, there is not a lot of flex in the number of ac in the fleet. The number of ac we have left (we sold a load around the turn of the millenium) is not enough to give us the flex to get mods/SEMs done while carrying out our mandated 2 med-scale ops and still maintaining the training system.
I think you would agree that this was not the world's best bit of planning!
Fixed on roulement? The problem is that when the ac get home, they need a certain amount of 'husbandry' (ie lots), not to mention the fact that crews still need to train on something.
Ultimately, there is not a lot of flex in the number of ac in the fleet. The number of ac we have left (we sold a load around the turn of the millenium) is not enough to give us the flex to get mods/SEMs done while carrying out our mandated 2 med-scale ops and still maintaining the training system.
I think you would agree that this was not the world's best bit of planning!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In that respect, humour me for a moment when I say that someone in the ministry has an attack of conscience and states that this mod MUST be done.
How the heck can it be planned in whilst we are still committed across the globe?
I am just thinking that helping to solve this dichotomy, is helping the drive toward getting the mod carried out. After all, it's not just a lack of funding stopping this, but the lack of appetite in grounding aircraft for so long while the tanks are sorted out.
How the heck can it be planned in whilst we are still committed across the globe?
I am just thinking that helping to solve this dichotomy, is helping the drive toward getting the mod carried out. After all, it's not just a lack of funding stopping this, but the lack of appetite in grounding aircraft for so long while the tanks are sorted out.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely!
Unfortunately, until someone with the Kahunas big enough (or a number of people with smaller ones) to say "Stop", the candle will keep burning at both ends.
I believe that we may yet have such people high up - only time will tell.
For sure, if they do, they will go down in the annals of history and rightly so, as someone has to tell our political masters that 'playing with the big boys' is not cheap and can't be done on the same grounds as measly-minded commercial management. You don't measure people's lives on some resource budget!
flipster
Unfortunately, until someone with the Kahunas big enough (or a number of people with smaller ones) to say "Stop", the candle will keep burning at both ends.
I believe that we may yet have such people high up - only time will tell.
For sure, if they do, they will go down in the annals of history and rightly so, as someone has to tell our political masters that 'playing with the big boys' is not cheap and can't be done on the same grounds as measly-minded commercial management. You don't measure people's lives on some resource budget!
flipster
Last edited by flipster; 14th Jun 2006 at 09:13.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well done guys, over 2200 signatures. thanks to kellie in australia as there is alot of australian input. the aussies have it and are supporting the call to have it. keep it going.
MY LENGTHY ANSWER
THIS POST QUOTES FROM OPEN SOURCE ON THE INTERNET
Ok, I've been chastised for knowing F*** All and I've now trawled the redacted BOI and the internet to check that I haven't been holding the wrong end of the stick.
My point 1: XV179 was hit by more than just bullets is borne out in the AOC's comments:
The latter half of the BOI's summary was:
You can't keep putting bullets in the spaces as it doesn't make sense.
My point 2: That unguided rockets were potentially used, they even had them in the disgraceful video they released. The Iraqi Terrorists have Russian and French sourced rockets such as 68mm SNEB - taken from the internet:
My point 3: There is no evidence that ESF would have definately saved XV179. See the Stn Cdr's comments, an experienced Herc pilot:
The CINC goes on to say:
Where does all that lot leave me? Why don't we leave the decision to fit ESF to the experts? - at the moment I see no indivisible evidence to support the fact that it would have saved XV179. Therefore, it must surely go into the decision and planning process to decide when, how and which aircraft they will fit it to; and if deemed exceptionally neccesary an Urgent Operational Requirement will be raised. I'm not sure the lobbying is the right way to do business as it looks like we're trying to find someone to blame.
On a final note. The French, and others who didn't join in Gulf War 2 (such as Germany), were allowing their arms to be supplied to Iraq. I know this first hand having had Roland fired at me and it could have been part of this batch (from the internet):
Now, a hypothetical question. Why didn't the report mention unguided or SNEB rockets? Hypothetical answer - politically embarrassing? That is just my cynical mind working...
I still stand by what I have said all along; I am not convinced that ESF would have saved XV179. In addition, I remain unconvinced that ESF should take priority over our other procurement programs (ie. A Typhoon with air-ground capability, FJ TCAS, anticipators for Puma, DIRCM for Sentry, the list goes on...). I also feel dreadfully sorry for the families of the crew.
LJ
By the way, I don't go to France and Germany for holidays anymore out of principle!
Ok, I've been chastised for knowing F*** All and I've now trawled the redacted BOI and the internet to check that I haven't been holding the wrong end of the stick.
My point 1: XV179 was hit by more than just bullets is borne out in the AOC's comments:
There is doubt about the exact sequence of event and whether the loss of the aircraft was solely due to _________, most probably________, or due to two seperate types of weapon, namely____________ and some unidentified projectile, possibly______________. Given the impossibility of gaining the physical evidence, the Board have correctly left the debate open. However, the final report by the Air Accident Investigation Branch states that "The evidence points very strongly to the aircraft having been caught in some form of coordinated attack involving multiple weapons sites". Acknowledging the lack of hard evidence, but based on his expert opinion, he concludes that the two scenarios involving different weapon systems are much more viable as hypotheses that the scenarios involving a single agency. It is my view, therefore, that the loss was more probably caused by the coincident action of two weapon systems than by one.
Furthermore, the Board conclude that the explosive seperation could have been caused solely by___________ or a combination of ________ and another _______________ impacting the wing in the vicinity of the seperation boundary.
My point 2: That unguided rockets were potentially used, they even had them in the disgraceful video they released. The Iraqi Terrorists have Russian and French sourced rockets such as 68mm SNEB - taken from the internet:
One of the most frightening examples of how the militants put French weapons to use against the Americans came Oct. 26, 2003. That morning, at about 6 o'clock, they bombarded the Rashid Hotel in Baghdad with French missiles. The French rockets nearly killed Wolfowitz, whom Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has called "the brains" of the Pentagon. Half the missiles fired at Wolfowitz's hotel were French-made Matra SNEB 68-millimeter rockets, with a range of two to three miles. The others were Russian in origin.
Although our Hercules aircraft had suffered hits in the fuel tank area by ___________ in recent months, it is clear that there is a vulnerability when a fuel/air mix forms in the ullage. Foam and inert gas systems can prevent this explosive mix from developing and may have reduced the damage to XV179's wing.
However, there is no guarantee that, had XV179 been fitted with such a system, the outcome would have been different.
On a final note. The French, and others who didn't join in Gulf War 2 (such as Germany), were allowing their arms to be supplied to Iraq. I know this first hand having had Roland fired at me and it could have been part of this batch (from the internet):
On April 8 came the downing of Air Force Maj. Jim Ewald's A-10 Thunderbolt fighter over Baghdad and the discovery that it was a French-made Roland missile that brought down the American pilot and destroyed a $13 million aircraft. Ewald, one of the first U.S. pilots shot down in the war, was rescued by members of the Army's 54th Engineer Battalion who saw him parachute to earth not far from the wreckage.
Army intelligence concluded that the French had sold the missile to the Iraqis within the past year, despite French denials.
A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.
Army intelligence concluded that the French had sold the missile to the Iraqis within the past year, despite French denials.
A week after Ewald's A-10 was downed, an Army team searching Iraqi weapons depots at the Baghdad airport discovered caches of French-made missiles. One anti-aircraft missile, among a cache of 51 Roland-2s from a French-German manufacturing partnership, bore a label indicating that the batch was produced just months earlier.
I still stand by what I have said all along; I am not convinced that ESF would have saved XV179. In addition, I remain unconvinced that ESF should take priority over our other procurement programs (ie. A Typhoon with air-ground capability, FJ TCAS, anticipators for Puma, DIRCM for Sentry, the list goes on...). I also feel dreadfully sorry for the families of the crew.
LJ
By the way, I don't go to France and Germany for holidays anymore out of principle!
Leon
While I profess to be no expert, it seems to me that what is NOT said in BOI reports is often just as important. Or what transpires afterwards – for example, an unscheduled procurement or modification programme. There are numerous examples of inconclusive ramblings in such reports and very often a “complete” report will have deliberate omissions or be heavily sanitised. (Tornado/Patriot in GW2 is a good example).
What you quote is probably a fair and honest assessment of this one incident (no-one knows for sure) but I suspect that in the background the author, and many colleagues, are raging that the question as to whether or not the aircraft would have survived with ESF had to be asked in the first place.
You go on to say;
“Therefore, it must surely go into the decision and planning process to decide when, how and which aircraft they will fit it to; and if deemed exceptionally necessary an Urgent Operational Requirement will be raised. I'm not sure the lobbying is the right way to do business as it looks like we're trying to find someone to blame”.
Again, forgive me if I’m wrong, but I assume the decision and planning process you speak of includes a threat analysis of what this aircraft type may face; and someone hasn’t been doing their homework if it didn’t include the weapons you mention. Assuming it did, someone made a decision to omit the mitigation (DAS/ESF) from his recommendations, or a superior rejected the recommendation. It is not a case of finding someone to blame, but it is a simple fact that there aren’t too many signatures in the decision cycle.
You mention UORs. Just to clarify one thing – no-one should be under the impression that a UOR can be raised, procured, trialled and fitted at the drop of a hat. Even with the extraordinary success of this current campaign, it will be some months yet before a fleet fit can be accomplished. If one cannot reduce the UOR end-to-end timescale to within the threat assessment > in-theatre timescale, then you have to try another route. In this case, that is clearly to specify DAS/ESF from the outset (which it seems someone did, but was later over-ruled). Too many UORs are too little, too late. It is almost always a truism that one mans UOR is another’s total incompetence and lack of foresight.
You make the point, correctly, about other countries denying events when the truth is patently obvious. So do we!! That is no excuse, but it's another good reason not to buy French, isn't it? (As if another were needed).
Finally, you are “unconvinced that ESF should take priority over our other procurement programs”. There is indeed a long list and the argument is perpetual. I can think of others myself. But, the MoD forever lets itself down by continuing with practices which KNOWINGLY waste hundreds of millions each year. I say “knowingly” because the usual DPA/DLO response to audits pointing out this waste is to ignore the recommendations. In fact, their response to one report was to make it a disciplinary offence to implement the recommendations, when it was not an offence before the report. (Confirmed under FOI). Eliminate that waste, spend the money wisely on the programmes you mention, and then see what is lacking. Far less I warrant.
While I profess to be no expert, it seems to me that what is NOT said in BOI reports is often just as important. Or what transpires afterwards – for example, an unscheduled procurement or modification programme. There are numerous examples of inconclusive ramblings in such reports and very often a “complete” report will have deliberate omissions or be heavily sanitised. (Tornado/Patriot in GW2 is a good example).
What you quote is probably a fair and honest assessment of this one incident (no-one knows for sure) but I suspect that in the background the author, and many colleagues, are raging that the question as to whether or not the aircraft would have survived with ESF had to be asked in the first place.
You go on to say;
“Therefore, it must surely go into the decision and planning process to decide when, how and which aircraft they will fit it to; and if deemed exceptionally necessary an Urgent Operational Requirement will be raised. I'm not sure the lobbying is the right way to do business as it looks like we're trying to find someone to blame”.
Again, forgive me if I’m wrong, but I assume the decision and planning process you speak of includes a threat analysis of what this aircraft type may face; and someone hasn’t been doing their homework if it didn’t include the weapons you mention. Assuming it did, someone made a decision to omit the mitigation (DAS/ESF) from his recommendations, or a superior rejected the recommendation. It is not a case of finding someone to blame, but it is a simple fact that there aren’t too many signatures in the decision cycle.
You mention UORs. Just to clarify one thing – no-one should be under the impression that a UOR can be raised, procured, trialled and fitted at the drop of a hat. Even with the extraordinary success of this current campaign, it will be some months yet before a fleet fit can be accomplished. If one cannot reduce the UOR end-to-end timescale to within the threat assessment > in-theatre timescale, then you have to try another route. In this case, that is clearly to specify DAS/ESF from the outset (which it seems someone did, but was later over-ruled). Too many UORs are too little, too late. It is almost always a truism that one mans UOR is another’s total incompetence and lack of foresight.
You make the point, correctly, about other countries denying events when the truth is patently obvious. So do we!! That is no excuse, but it's another good reason not to buy French, isn't it? (As if another were needed).
Finally, you are “unconvinced that ESF should take priority over our other procurement programs”. There is indeed a long list and the argument is perpetual. I can think of others myself. But, the MoD forever lets itself down by continuing with practices which KNOWINGLY waste hundreds of millions each year. I say “knowingly” because the usual DPA/DLO response to audits pointing out this waste is to ignore the recommendations. In fact, their response to one report was to make it a disciplinary offence to implement the recommendations, when it was not an offence before the report. (Confirmed under FOI). Eliminate that waste, spend the money wisely on the programmes you mention, and then see what is lacking. Far less I warrant.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: wiltshire
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Leon Jabachjabicz
Now, a hypothetical question. Why didn't the report mention unguided or SNEB rockets? Hypothetical answer - politically embarrassing? That is just my cynical mind working...
bye bye
Leon, you are aware that history didn't begin in 1991? All kinds of countries, France, the UK, and many others, sold all sorts of stuff to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. There was a reason why Saddam could take UK nationals hostage in Iraq in '91 - because they were there, building things.
I've no idea which nutter club's backside your quotes were pulled out of, because - wow! - you haven't sourced them.
It seems to have helped Alistair Campbell a lot to have the Scum & Co blame everything on France, but grown-ups prefer to a) ignore bull**** propaganda or, failing that, b) only work themselves into a war fever against the country they're actually at war with.
I've no idea which nutter club's backside your quotes were pulled out of, because - wow! - you haven't sourced them.
It seems to have helped Alistair Campbell a lot to have the Scum & Co blame everything on France, but grown-ups prefer to a) ignore bull**** propaganda or, failing that, b) only work themselves into a war fever against the country they're actually at war with.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't suppose we will ever change your opinion about ESF Leon, so I am not even going to try. In many ways it does not matter what you think, you will not change anything. However, you raise an interesting point about Roland. I have always been interested in why the French were fervently against the war. It would not surprise me in the least if the Iraqis were operating Roland against the coalition. Unfortunately, wrong thread. I hope you at least acknowledge that Herc crews are taking very big risks and deserve a lot more protection. I do not believe the level of risk would be accepted on a Tornado Sqn. If you cannot support ESF please support the general idea of enhanced protection. One day you might need it.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I say “knowingly” because the usual DPA/DLO response to audits pointing out this waste is to ignore the recommendations
Pants of Lara Croft
Not having a go at the BOI team, old boy, but the chinless wonders that we call civil servants that get the final say on redacting...Sorry to confuse. All they normally worry about is what No 10 will say!
LJ
Not having a go at the BOI team, old boy, but the chinless wonders that we call civil servants that get the final say on redacting...Sorry to confuse. All they normally worry about is what No 10 will say!
LJ
Steam Chicken,
The difference between GW1 and before was that there was no UN-acknowledged arms emargo. I know we sell stuff to people that eventually use it against us - but we do try and play by the rules and are certainly not as blatant.
Why do I believe the quote from the internet on Roland? Because I've seen the pictures that the UK troops took of the missiles when they discovered the store with the manufacturers dates on the bloody things!
Nige,
I am open to a change of mind for protection that will save lives - it's just that there are other things in the shopping basket that I would sooner have. If we were losing Hercs at an alarming rate to ground-fire (and from the AOC's statement we don't seem to be) then I would back it 100%. I just get the impression that the poor crew and pax of XV179 were doomed as soon as the Terrorists decided to let all hell break loose - nothing would have saved them apart from geographical seperation. That said, that's my opinion and remain open to change if ESF would save you from a multiple hit from a large unguided rocket like 68mm SNEB (saw them going off on TWU - hell of a big bang!)
LJ
PS Civil Servants do sometimes have chins.
The difference between GW1 and before was that there was no UN-acknowledged arms emargo. I know we sell stuff to people that eventually use it against us - but we do try and play by the rules and are certainly not as blatant.
Why do I believe the quote from the internet on Roland? Because I've seen the pictures that the UK troops took of the missiles when they discovered the store with the manufacturers dates on the bloody things!
Nige,
I am open to a change of mind for protection that will save lives - it's just that there are other things in the shopping basket that I would sooner have. If we were losing Hercs at an alarming rate to ground-fire (and from the AOC's statement we don't seem to be) then I would back it 100%. I just get the impression that the poor crew and pax of XV179 were doomed as soon as the Terrorists decided to let all hell break loose - nothing would have saved them apart from geographical seperation. That said, that's my opinion and remain open to change if ESF would save you from a multiple hit from a large unguided rocket like 68mm SNEB (saw them going off on TWU - hell of a big bang!)
LJ
PS Civil Servants do sometimes have chins.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
over 2230 think you're wrong."It doesn't matter what type of weapon pierced the fuel tank. there was no explosive in the weapon it was the spark associated with the fuel tank being penetrated that ignited the lethal mixture of air and vapours that caused the explosion. it doesn't matter how skilled the pilots are you cannot fly a one winged herc. they did not need to die. the gamble did not pay off."
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i know that i'm pants with the computer hence bits in my last post i don't want. please excuse it!
leon, it's true what nige says. it's of no consequence what you think. you seem unable to know how to make your point. you are choosing quotes and shaping them to your argument. there may be multiple weapon sites but all it takes is one hitting the plane. so your point i'm afraid means diddly......again!
while you quote the station commander you know that he can not state what he believes. also, you can read into that comment you included what you will. it's open to interpretation. you then include that the CinC disbelieves that foam would have made a difference but no matter how you talk this up or talk around it the end point is the same. the wing blew off because there was an explosive mixture in the fuel tank. my brother did not need to die.
let me share this with you. the AOC 2 Gp informed us that the board and the AAIB investigator agree that foam was a contributory factor and the AAIB believes that the inclusion of foam would have reduced the probability of loss.one could argue that the term contributory and probability are downplayed, i suspect that they are both in the larger terms not inconsequential factors. the CinC had directed urgent work as a result of this.interesting considering your attempt at making a point of their beliefs,eh?! this of course has been helped by the lobbying. see my earlier point.over 2230 people of varying walks of life are helping that decision to go through.
while you concern yourself with the decision being left to the experts, you need not worry leon. the decision is made. it's the implementation and funding that is being decided now. if ESF has no place then we would not be at this point in the process would we?
so please leon, when i say to make your point with back up, that does not mean to pick up any old drivel and misuse it and misplace it to try and back up your arguement. you actually insult my intelligence by offering your sorrow to the families. why then do you make points that mean you have to show the wreckage of the plane to try and make your point? i don't see how that strengthened your points i don't need reminding of what state the plane was left in. i see that every night in nightmares so not only did that fail to back up your arguement it caused distress. your condolences do not add gravitas to your arguement and nor do i see that they were sincere as surely they'd been offered at an earlier point?
leon, it's true what nige says. it's of no consequence what you think. you seem unable to know how to make your point. you are choosing quotes and shaping them to your argument. there may be multiple weapon sites but all it takes is one hitting the plane. so your point i'm afraid means diddly......again!
while you quote the station commander you know that he can not state what he believes. also, you can read into that comment you included what you will. it's open to interpretation. you then include that the CinC disbelieves that foam would have made a difference but no matter how you talk this up or talk around it the end point is the same. the wing blew off because there was an explosive mixture in the fuel tank. my brother did not need to die.
let me share this with you. the AOC 2 Gp informed us that the board and the AAIB investigator agree that foam was a contributory factor and the AAIB believes that the inclusion of foam would have reduced the probability of loss.one could argue that the term contributory and probability are downplayed, i suspect that they are both in the larger terms not inconsequential factors. the CinC had directed urgent work as a result of this.interesting considering your attempt at making a point of their beliefs,eh?! this of course has been helped by the lobbying. see my earlier point.over 2230 people of varying walks of life are helping that decision to go through.
while you concern yourself with the decision being left to the experts, you need not worry leon. the decision is made. it's the implementation and funding that is being decided now. if ESF has no place then we would not be at this point in the process would we?
so please leon, when i say to make your point with back up, that does not mean to pick up any old drivel and misuse it and misplace it to try and back up your arguement. you actually insult my intelligence by offering your sorrow to the families. why then do you make points that mean you have to show the wreckage of the plane to try and make your point? i don't see how that strengthened your points i don't need reminding of what state the plane was left in. i see that every night in nightmares so not only did that fail to back up your arguement it caused distress. your condolences do not add gravitas to your arguement and nor do i see that they were sincere as surely they'd been offered at an earlier point?
Last edited by chappie; 15th Jun 2006 at 23:40.
Mr-AEO
"Complete bollox m8, and this lets down some valid points in your post by making yourself out to be the stereotypical myopic operator, thereby letting the side down".
What I said is a simple fact. I do not post such statements lightly or without written evidence to support them. In this case I just happen to agree with the MoD's own auditor that they are knowingly wasting money. External auditors (NAO, for example) are even more damning. To reiterate, I sought and received, under FOI, papers from MoD confirming that various senior staffs acted properly when taking disciplinary action against a civil servant for implementing recommendations aimed at ensuring probity and avoiding waste. This was merely confirmation of what I'd known since 1991. I'll let you know if they ever change their mind.
But otherwise thank you for acknowledging some of my other points and let us not detract from the main thrust of this thread.
Regards
"Complete bollox m8, and this lets down some valid points in your post by making yourself out to be the stereotypical myopic operator, thereby letting the side down".
What I said is a simple fact. I do not post such statements lightly or without written evidence to support them. In this case I just happen to agree with the MoD's own auditor that they are knowingly wasting money. External auditors (NAO, for example) are even more damning. To reiterate, I sought and received, under FOI, papers from MoD confirming that various senior staffs acted properly when taking disciplinary action against a civil servant for implementing recommendations aimed at ensuring probity and avoiding waste. This was merely confirmation of what I'd known since 1991. I'll let you know if they ever change their mind.
But otherwise thank you for acknowledging some of my other points and let us not detract from the main thrust of this thread.
Regards
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tucumseh,
Agree that this thread is WAY more important than debating the merits or otherwise of the DLO/DPA!
To wit - How likely is this looking? Does any1 have any Herc IPT inside knowledge on what's being discussed?
Agree that this thread is WAY more important than debating the merits or otherwise of the DLO/DPA!
To wit - How likely is this looking? Does any1 have any Herc IPT inside knowledge on what's being discussed?