MPA/SAR Hercules patrolling the Falklands
Thread Starter
MPA/SAR Hercules patrolling the Falklands
Article on the Hercules being used for fishery protection and SAR around the Falklands. Will the Falklands need a permanent based Voyager once the VC10 ends its days.
Falklands Hercules Mission
mmitch.
Falklands Hercules Mission
mmitch.
Will the Falklands need a permanent based Voyager once the VC10 ends its days.
Best get that Voyager KC3 FRU release to service sorted out sharpish...... Not to mention the non-functional MPS.....
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
At the risk of opening the floodgates, what's the downer on TriStars for?
It's bigger & newer (haha!) than the VC10.
How about a list of pros/cons for both?
It's bigger & newer (haha!) than the VC10.
How about a list of pros/cons for both?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Sneaking up on the Runway and leaping out to grab it unawares
Age: 61
Posts: 684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hercules Tanker (again) anyone?
As in all those years where the VC10s insisted they couldn't cover the task and that it had to be done by Albert.
Then, of course, there is the rank hypocrisy of certain Tanker Wankers insisting that Albert crews knew **** all about tanking
As in all those years where the VC10s insisted they couldn't cover the task and that it had to be done by Albert.
Then, of course, there is the rank hypocrisy of certain Tanker Wankers insisting that Albert crews knew **** all about tanking
According to STANEVAL, many of the C-130 tanker mob were frankly b£oody dangerous.....
Whether or not that was fair, I don't know. But STANEVAL aren't usually wrong.
The C-130 tanker was only retained in theatre until there were sufficient VC10Ks available to spare one to waste its time doing the Bennyland task. Incidentally, my only downer on the TriShaw is its poor reliability record of late - and the fact that it's a single hose (at a time) tanker. So it's a good job that the TypHoon has a fast onload rate then.......
As someone said, TypHoon crews should press for the big jugs to be fitted now that the TriShaw is providing the tanker task....
Still, once the Alberts are no longer with us, the A400M Atlas should be able to do all the Malvinas tasks......except that the RAF won't be allowed to use it as a tanker thanks to the AirTanker contract stitch up, or so I'm told....
Whether or not that was fair, I don't know. But STANEVAL aren't usually wrong. The C-130 tanker was only retained in theatre until there were sufficient VC10Ks available to spare one to waste its time doing the Bennyland task. Incidentally, my only downer on the TriShaw is its poor reliability record of late - and the fact that it's a single hose (at a time) tanker. So it's a good job that the TypHoon has a fast onload rate then.......
As someone said, TypHoon crews should press for the big jugs to be fitted now that the TriShaw is providing the tanker task.... Still, once the Alberts are no longer with us, the A400M Atlas should be able to do all the Malvinas tasks......except that the RAF won't be allowed to use it as a tanker thanks to the AirTanker contract stitch up, or so I'm told....
Last edited by BEagle; 11th Sep 2013 at 20:07.
Which STANEVAL would that be, presumably the VC-10 STANEVAL and not the C-130? I expect they thought the Victor crews were "bloody dangerous" too!! 
STANEVALs can be wrong, and when they are they're all the more dangerous for it, because generally they'll never admit/accept the fact!
C-130s were tanking well before a HDU got anywhere near a VC-10, and doing a pretty fair job of it too. But let's not let any facts get in the way of a good story.
STANEVALs can be wrong, and when they are they're all the more dangerous for it, because generally they'll never admit/accept the fact!
C-130s were tanking well before a HDU got anywhere near a VC-10, and doing a pretty fair job of it too. But let's not let any facts get in the way of a good story.
Last edited by Biggus; 11th Sep 2013 at 20:22.
How about we all cease talk about current types and their potential deployment and potential capabilities in a current theatre? I know we have many here who are just itching to provide info to Argentina if it makes them look clever, but surely it's better to keep scthum.
Which STANEVAL would that be..
Sorry, but that's what was said at the time: "They think they're doing a good job, but they're pretty gash - and some are dangerous!".
I don't know why they thought this, but they did!
I never had any complaints sitting behind an Albert Tanker. In fact you get a nice picture taken down the hose through the hole in the tail ramp 
Like this!
LJ
Like this!
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 11th Sep 2013 at 22:48.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
"They think they're doing a good job
All you have is the quoted opinion of one individual who probably had a prejudice against a fleet that wasn't dedicated AAR so perhaps he didn't see them as 'professional tankers' because we could do a whole lot more than just give away gas.
Laarbruch72 - obviously all my comments refer to an ac no longer in service so no 'Beadwindow' moment here.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: oxford
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the event of a QRA scramble we could be airborne in less than 10 mins , probably a tad faster than any converted airliner could react.
Yet another anti-C130 post from you I see BEagle. Calling the Hercules tanker crews a "mob" gives away where you are coming from and is completely out of order.
From a fleet with only a couple of co-pilots who were ex-fast jet, to refuelling south of Ascension and then in the Falklands in a matter of months doesn't smack of the lack of professionalism that you hint at.
In the early days of Hercules tanking we had very little interest from AAR STANEVAL. A little later, one of the C130 STANEVAL pilots was posted to the Tanker Training Flight - he would never accept any lack of professionalism.
Some years later Wg Cdr STANEVAL went to Mount Pleasant on a visit with a C130 STANEVAL pilot, and found a very professional organisation - there was nothing adverse in the report from that visit.
Everybody I have talked to who tanked behind the C130 told me it was a very stable tanker flown by very flexible and professional crews. The standards of crews in all fleets will vary enormously and even if there were some lapses in professionalism, you are wrong to tar all with the same brush.
Personally I prefer the testimony from Leon (maybe my Loady took that picture, Leon?), rather than a second-hand quote from an un-named source.
Just because you have cracked the 20000 posts, BEagle, doesn't mean everybody has to take your word as gospel.
From a fleet with only a couple of co-pilots who were ex-fast jet, to refuelling south of Ascension and then in the Falklands in a matter of months doesn't smack of the lack of professionalism that you hint at.
In the early days of Hercules tanking we had very little interest from AAR STANEVAL. A little later, one of the C130 STANEVAL pilots was posted to the Tanker Training Flight - he would never accept any lack of professionalism.
Some years later Wg Cdr STANEVAL went to Mount Pleasant on a visit with a C130 STANEVAL pilot, and found a very professional organisation - there was nothing adverse in the report from that visit.
Everybody I have talked to who tanked behind the C130 told me it was a very stable tanker flown by very flexible and professional crews. The standards of crews in all fleets will vary enormously and even if there were some lapses in professionalism, you are wrong to tar all with the same brush.
Personally I prefer the testimony from Leon (maybe my Loady took that picture, Leon?), rather than a second-hand quote from an un-named source.
Just because you have cracked the 20000 posts, BEagle, doesn't mean everybody has to take your word as gospel.
In which case I'd be intrigued to know why he had cause to make the comment he did...
But it was in the early days, so perhaps by the time Wg Cdr STANEVAL paid the visit to MPA to which you refer, any such earlier 'issues' had been resolved?
But remind us why 'HercDet' became part of 1312 Flt...???
C-130 tanker 'mob' was perhaps the wrong collective noun. Traditionally, in polite society the correct collective noun for AAR aircrew was always tanker 'trash'....
Incidentally, the C-130 tanker first flew only 2 weeks before the first VC10K2 in June 1982. But whereas the former was a war emergency programme, the latter followed the traditional path through Boscombe and hence didn't enter service until the following year.
But it was in the early days, so perhaps by the time Wg Cdr STANEVAL paid the visit to MPA to which you refer, any such earlier 'issues' had been resolved?But remind us why 'HercDet' became part of 1312 Flt...???
C-130 tanker 'mob' was perhaps the wrong collective noun. Traditionally, in polite society the correct collective noun for AAR aircrew was always tanker 'trash'....
Incidentally, the C-130 tanker first flew only 2 weeks before the first VC10K2 in June 1982. But whereas the former was a war emergency programme, the latter followed the traditional path through Boscombe and hence didn't enter service until the following year.
Last edited by BEagle; 12th Sep 2013 at 15:42.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: wiltshire
Age: 65
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beags I may may be wrong but 1312 Flt was Herc tankers at Stanley well before the 10 appeared at MPA. Lovely photo Leon, sadly all my pics are of Phantoms plugged in behind Albert .
Anyway, to put the record straight, I am not 'anti-Herc' in general. I am as equally 'anti' some of the things some VC10K crews did as I am 'anti' some of the things some C-130 crews did. As a passenger in any aircraft, I didn't expect to be put at the risk in the way I was during a simple Patrick AFB - Gander transit when the C-130 captain decided to 'say good-bye' to the hotel on Cocoa Beach with some ultra low-level flying, for example. I gather that he was in the 'Bud Holland' league of rule-adherence, but never actually killed anyone. But equally, when we were 2 crewed at the Abbotsford Air Show one year, I was surprised when the 'other' crew's captain flew a poorly-executed low-level beat up on departure in a K3 at MTOW, causing 2 years' worth of fatigue with a single ham-fisted yug into the climb.....
Many of the 1312 Flt C-130 crews do indeed have a proud record - for example the long-range life-saving SAR trips they flew out into the middle of nowhere in filthy South Atlantic weather. The citation for one was on the 1312 Flt wall when I was last there and should by now have been joined by another, after last year's SAR mission way out into the Atlantic.
But, it would seem that there were also some 'bad apples'. Hence it was decided by 'them upstairs' that independent supervision was needed, hence 1312 Flt had an independent OC for this purpose - the trigger for this decision isn't relevant; suffice to say that it was taken.
Although on occasion that proved to be a bit of an own goal. I was doing a temporary ground stint down there once and was surprised that the Herc wasn't flying its planned sortie - the weather was unusually excellent. My Wg Cdr boss also noticed and asked me to find out... So off to 1312 for a coffee and to check personal Hotmail.
The VC10K crew were in typical "It's a war-goer, but the Tic-TOC won't drop our RS" mood, but there was no sign of the C-130 crew. "Albert not flying, chaps?", I asked. "Err, no." "Hmm, OK - where's the boss?"
"That's why Albert isn't flying. He was too pissed to turn up and auth their trip, they missed their briefed time on the area, so they've stacked"
What did I tell my boss? A little white lie - that one of the crew was in permanent residence in trap one with the galloping squits. He believed me, fortunately - I didn't think he'd want to check.....
I won't disclose the background of the 1312 boss as some would only accuse me of bias....
Many of the 1312 Flt C-130 crews do indeed have a proud record - for example the long-range life-saving SAR trips they flew out into the middle of nowhere in filthy South Atlantic weather. The citation for one was on the 1312 Flt wall when I was last there and should by now have been joined by another, after last year's SAR mission way out into the Atlantic.
But, it would seem that there were also some 'bad apples'. Hence it was decided by 'them upstairs' that independent supervision was needed, hence 1312 Flt had an independent OC for this purpose - the trigger for this decision isn't relevant; suffice to say that it was taken.
Although on occasion that proved to be a bit of an own goal. I was doing a temporary ground stint down there once and was surprised that the Herc wasn't flying its planned sortie - the weather was unusually excellent. My Wg Cdr boss also noticed and asked me to find out... So off to 1312 for a coffee and to check personal Hotmail.
The VC10K crew were in typical "It's a war-goer, but the Tic-TOC won't drop our RS" mood, but there was no sign of the C-130 crew. "Albert not flying, chaps?", I asked. "Err, no." "Hmm, OK - where's the boss?"
"That's why Albert isn't flying. He was too pissed to turn up and auth their trip, they missed their briefed time on the area, so they've stacked"
What did I tell my boss? A little white lie - that one of the crew was in permanent residence in trap one with the galloping squits. He believed me, fortunately - I didn't think he'd want to check.....
I won't disclose the background of the 1312 boss as some would only accuse me of bias....
Last edited by BEagle; 12th Sep 2013 at 17:01.
1312 Flt Falklands
1312 Flt started its present existence at RAF Stanley shortly after the war - exactly when I do not know but soon enough to be housed in tents initially. Its original establishment was 3 ac - 2 tankers and one "flatbed" (a normal truck albeit with a probe). The raison d'etre for the flatbed was maritime reconnaissance and support for the South Georgia infantry garrison thus saving the tankers for their primary role of supporting the F4s. At this time the VC10 K of any ilk was unable to operate into FI, because of the nature and length of the runway at Stanley.
In due course MPA opened and 1312 moved across there on 17 April 1986. During the move 1312 did not lose a sortie, mounting Q at Stanley with one tanker whilst the other did the normal morning sortie with the F4s and the flatbed its MRR and ferrying "stuff" between the 2 airfields. Tanker 1 then landed at MPA took over the Q and Tanker 2 did the afternoon sortie with the F4s before landing at MPA. Next day we then did a crew rotation. I know because I captained Tanker 2.
BEagle is quite right that the Herc tanker was a wartime modification - probably done as a UOR (did they exist by that name in 1982?). Like a lot of UORs, however, it was not funded properly and never taken into core to have the mod properly completed. Eventually the EA said we can cover it no more as it is not truly airworthy . The price of completing the mod was too high, the money was not found and those 6 ac were grounded and withdrawn. That was when, and only then, that the VC10s deigned to get involved in the FI detachment and took over 1312 - it was rather a case of the 10s being permitted to join the remaining Albert on 1312 than the other way round.
Originally, and I think right up until the tankers were withdrawn, the 1312 crews did 4 months at a time. There were 3 ac and 3 crews spending one night in 3 at the Flight on 15 minute standby. As has been said we could be airborne in 10 minutes although the requirement was 15, to follow the F4s on 10. What usually happened, and I expect to get challenged on this by F4 mates, especially at Stanley but also at MPA, we taxied and then had to hold short of the active to await the departure of the F4s. At Stanley we quite definitely had to hold short because we had only a very short distance to the active which we had to backtrack almost its whole length for take off. At MPA we did have some taxiway to follow before backtracking the active only a short distance.
I cannot vouch for the professionalism of all Herc tanker crews over about 15 years but I can say that they all worked hard and tried to deliver the goods whatever the problems and all those I knew did it professionally (whatever that really means). In FI we had a near to 100% despatch rate and never, in my time there to my knowledge, failed to give fuel when asked. I would guess that over the rest of their time there similar claims could be justified.
By the way, by the time of GW1 and after, those 6 Herc tankers were flying somewhere in the region of 30% of the tanker fleet's hours because of their higher hours allocation than any of other the tankers. It is also notable that during GW1 the 2 tankers we usually had available at LYE did most , even nearly all, of the UK AAR flying whilst the others went off to earn their medals.
In due course MPA opened and 1312 moved across there on 17 April 1986. During the move 1312 did not lose a sortie, mounting Q at Stanley with one tanker whilst the other did the normal morning sortie with the F4s and the flatbed its MRR and ferrying "stuff" between the 2 airfields. Tanker 1 then landed at MPA took over the Q and Tanker 2 did the afternoon sortie with the F4s before landing at MPA. Next day we then did a crew rotation. I know because I captained Tanker 2.
BEagle is quite right that the Herc tanker was a wartime modification - probably done as a UOR (did they exist by that name in 1982?). Like a lot of UORs, however, it was not funded properly and never taken into core to have the mod properly completed. Eventually the EA said we can cover it no more as it is not truly airworthy . The price of completing the mod was too high, the money was not found and those 6 ac were grounded and withdrawn. That was when, and only then, that the VC10s deigned to get involved in the FI detachment and took over 1312 - it was rather a case of the 10s being permitted to join the remaining Albert on 1312 than the other way round.
Originally, and I think right up until the tankers were withdrawn, the 1312 crews did 4 months at a time. There were 3 ac and 3 crews spending one night in 3 at the Flight on 15 minute standby. As has been said we could be airborne in 10 minutes although the requirement was 15, to follow the F4s on 10. What usually happened, and I expect to get challenged on this by F4 mates, especially at Stanley but also at MPA, we taxied and then had to hold short of the active to await the departure of the F4s. At Stanley we quite definitely had to hold short because we had only a very short distance to the active which we had to backtrack almost its whole length for take off. At MPA we did have some taxiway to follow before backtracking the active only a short distance.
I cannot vouch for the professionalism of all Herc tanker crews over about 15 years but I can say that they all worked hard and tried to deliver the goods whatever the problems and all those I knew did it professionally (whatever that really means). In FI we had a near to 100% despatch rate and never, in my time there to my knowledge, failed to give fuel when asked. I would guess that over the rest of their time there similar claims could be justified.
By the way, by the time of GW1 and after, those 6 Herc tankers were flying somewhere in the region of 30% of the tanker fleet's hours because of their higher hours allocation than any of other the tankers. It is also notable that during GW1 the 2 tankers we usually had available at LYE did most , even nearly all, of the UK AAR flying whilst the others went off to earn their medals.
Last edited by Xercules; 12th Sep 2013 at 17:31. Reason: accuracy