Save you the trouble.


The 2004 winner of the Gen. P.K. Carlton Award for Valor is the crew of “Harley 37,” cited for its role in safely landing a battle-damaged MC-130H loaded with special operations forces during a mission in the opening days of Operation Iraqi Freedom. During the mission, the plane took 19 hits from anti-aircraft artillery fire, ranging from 7.62 mm to 57 mm, with one shell shattering the pilot’s windscreen, and others striking the main wing spar. The plane landed with only three working engines and all 58 people on board were safely evacuated.



I have edited this post iaw the request below. The point about this posting is that the USAF aircraft suffered a much more serious attack than the one encountered by Steady and his crew. The USAF aircraft had the protection of foam in the wing tanks.

nigegilb,
Please remove or edit your post with the MC-130's crew names. Regardless of you finding it elsewhere, you still potentially put these folks at risk by publishing their names and the base where then serving.
Mods, if he won't, will you?

nigegilb,
Thanks

(edited to acknowledge the courtesy shown)

BH and Mods

Really no need to delete post - just one click on Google and there are the names!

Despite the 'darkness' normally surrounding Spec Ops stuff, the USAF have seen fit to publish the crew's names in full. They like to honour their heroes publicly but I also suspect these guys are no longer where the USAF said they are.

You think ALQ and others hadn't already got this information?

Anyway, really good work Harley 37!

A tad unfair you think?

Maybe. Of course, the guys on the front-line Sqns try very hard to use tactics and common-sense. Its just that the higher echelons at HQ that sometimes let the workers-bees down - eg insisting on flying Hercs and Tri*s in daylight to Kabul - not even the Americans were doing that! This was NOT the best decision I heard from Grope and - I can recall how those at BZN and LYE were mightly unimpressed!

Brickhistory

I respect your concern for the crew of the MC-130 - but you should be aware that the first page on Google is http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009001 - the USAF's own page. I'm not sure than copying that info on Pprune could compromise personal/Op sec?

I reckon there will be a few red faces at Group today. Here is another one. I understand that there are files on 47 Sqn with post op/exercise reports requesting the immediate installment of foam. I understand that these go back to the year 2000 or thereabouts. The reports point out the vulnerability of the Hercules to certain types of ground fire. How do I know this? Well, the person who wrote them has confirmed it to me. He has two wishes.

1. The relatives should now receive compensation.
2. All Hercules crews going operational should be protected by foam.

I would concur with these laudable aims.

I should also add that this officer is no longer serving.

But it doesn't add to it either.
Additionally, what about the generally accepted Prune rule of no real names?

It's is a minor point compared to the purpose of this thread and shouldn't detract from that point, but in most cases, serving line crew are not ID'd by name here. I am a big fan of that convention.

I agree with Brickhistory and I am sorry if I inadvertently broke a convention. When I first saw the long list of surviving crew of "Harley 37", I was struck by how many names there were. In total there were 58 people on board. I have taken 70+ into Afghanistan in the past. It is worth remembering that the shooting down of XV179 caused the largest loss of life for British Forces, but it could have been even worse....

Just like to add my thanks to nige. As a current operator any help is better than none. Thanks mate keep it up!! I say better protection for all AT it is the only way, the way the world is going there is no safe haven, we will be in harms way nearly every where we go and no sight of any change...

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement. Coalition partners have been mentioned a couple of times, thought I would show you what the Australians have been doing. All downloads from Aus DoD website.

"The first C-130J-30s were rotated into the Middle East later in 2004 equipped with ballistic protection (BP) and electronic warfare self-protection (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'......

.....THE first explosive suppressant foam has been fitted in the fuel tanks of C-130 aircraft to protect both the platform and the people who operate them.

The first installation took place at RAAF Base Richmond on December 10 (2004) when the foam was fitted to a C-130J“We would be putting foam in both Hercules types but the immediacy is for the C-130J,” GPCAPT Bennett said......

....funds had been allocated to conduct a study on the feasibility of ballistic matting.

“We are anticipating Government approval for the project later this year and to fit the first aircraft early in 2005,” GPCAPT Bennett said.
The ballistic matting is intended as a protection against small arms rounds that might penetrate the aircraft, as occurred in an incident earlier this year when a US civilian died in a Hercules hit by small arms fire. The matting acts as a form of armour, similar to the underfloor and seat armour fitted to helicopters in Vietnam.

GPCAPT Bennett said the upgrades were largely a result of lessons in the Middle east Area of Operations (MEAO). “Iraq has taught us a lot about operations in a combat environment,” he said.

Says it all really, the only thing to emphasise is that contrary to considered opinion the first AAF Herc to roll off the line with foam was December 2004 predating the tragedy of last year.

Can't help thinking that if a similar level of effort as is shown towards such pointless bolleaux as silly yellow road digger's vests and similar enviro-fundamentalist tree-hugging health and safety tosh was instead directed towards things that actually matter - such as protection for large aircraft in hostile zones - then people might have a little more confidence in the support they receive from on high......

Thinking about it again, Dr Reid assured us at the time of the BOI report that a full risk assessment had been done in 2002 and that the conclusion was that no foam was deemed necessary for RAF Hercules aircraft. Thing is the Australians were operating in exactly the same theatre of operations and yet their conclusion was the opposite. Indeed, they rushed through mods with impressive urgency. Anyone shed any light on this contrasting approach to safety?

Nigegilb, 3 factors:

Money. You win some, you lose some - who cares who dies.

Underwhelming regard for the British Military displayed by our political masters. Talk is cheap.

Senior Officers at MOD/STC/Gp level who don't have the guts to embarass said political masters by telling the truth publically.

Thank you for your commendable efforts, Nige. Keep plugging away.

I fear, however, that they will end up retiring the K fleet early before they shell out to fit ESF. Maybe they could cancel the next few rounds of glossy pension brochures to pay for it - heaven forbid!!

It's nice, though, that the MoD can afford to put big Plasma screen TVs in every Whitehall civil serpent's office, that's the main thing.

....and £1000-a-pop chairs, because that too, after all, is of paramount importance.

16B

FJJP,I do agree, but the fact that we have it in black and white that foam was requested years ago must be causing problems at Group. In fact, I have been told unofficially that 47 Sqn first requested foam in 1982. If there are any "mature" Herc operators out there, I would appreciate confirmation of this. Thing is, if the MoD had just put its hands up and said "sorry we screwed up, foam for all we are taking protection seriously," I probably would not be here now. I am fairly sure that we are about to get an announcement that foam is coming for a few smart frames at Lyneham. This is not going to be enough. There will be no urgency and probably nothing for the J. Just reading about the pride the Australian senior officers have in giving enhanced protection for their crews made me reflect on our own "Top Brass," and their lamentable performance in all this. They have every right to be embarrassed, but I also feel they should apologise along with our Defence Ministers. We need a fundamental rethink in the approach to safety and self-protection.

I understand that RAF C17s have an inerting system in the fuel tanks called OBIGGS, based on nitrogen. This seems remarkable considering as recently as 2002 it was not deemed necessary to fit ESF to RAF Hercules. Could it be that it has something to do with the leasing contract? I remember watching the very first C17 land in Afghanistan. A fantastic job those guys/girls did as well. Can't help but feel uneasy about the lottery of protection between aircraft types though.


Edited iaw concern expressed below

"Flight International can, meanwhile, reveal that the UK is the only launch nation involved in the Airbus Military A400M programme not to have funded the installation of the safety equipment as part of its production order. “The [A400M] common standard aircraft does not come fitted with a fuel tank inerting system,” says the MoD. “Fuel tank inerting was not selected by the UK prior to, or after, contract signature.”
Airbus Military sources confirm that all other programme launch customers – Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Spain and Turkey – have selected the equipment for their 155 aircraft. The UK also previously removed defensive countermeasures equipment from all but nine of its 25 A400Ms, reducing procurement costs by around £240 million ($417 million)."


Should we be asking who is responsible for this decision? Is this based on the same consultation and consideration given to UK C130 protection???

Re Flight International
 

Surely if all other launch customers have the equipment fitted at launch it becomes 'standard' by definition or is the spinning £ symbol blurring the real truth?
Who is going to be the first to say it wasn't in the original specs? and is that any good reason for it not to be installed? :bored:

Nige, Cx PMs!

Got the first answer back from the Minister regarding CSAR cover for downed crews in Afghanistan. Predictably the Minister has declined to comment;

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his plans are for combat search and rescue cover for downed RAF aircrews in (a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [57109]

Mr. Ingram: For reasons of operational security, and to protect our troops in such a circumstance, I cannot reveal the detail of such rescue plans.

This is the Minister who lied about MK3 Hercules having DAS in 2002. I assume from his reply that there is a CSAR plan, which is encouraging.

Thanks for the info about the A400. I am about to start compiling another list of questions. I think it is already becoming clear that this Government is not interested in paying for safety. The stock answer seems to be "military operations are dangerous." That is what Dr Reid told grieving relatives the other day. The proactive Australian Government fitted enhanced self-protection before a tragedy occurred. Standard survival equipment includes latest anti-missile system, flight deck armour and explosive suppressant foam. This is the minimum protection for all Aus Herc crews. (I am trying to confirm if ballistic matting is now standard). Last time I checked UK PLC was the fourth biggest economy in the World. The only thing that is preventing adequate protection for RAF Crews is political will and absence of leadership.