5D2D

You see, that's the problem with assumptions they are invariably wrong and in this case concerning the assumptions about me they are completely wrong. You obviously need a gentle reminder about the progress we have made in the last few days. The K is sorted, the J is in the balance. I respectfully suggest that we all remain focussed. I will not bother to address your comments again and kindly refrain from making any other assumptions about my politics, ambitions or motivations.

I should add that Ingram's statement in 2002 was made after he had been informed of all of the deficiences in the protection of crews. He decided it was still appropriate for crews to go over the border. Following the MoS article Dr Liam Fox (Shadow Minister) asked several pointed questions of Govt handling of the Afghan campaign. In the light of all this as recently as January this year Mr Ingram stands by his remarks made in 2002. This does not bode well for Herc crews waiting to go to Afghanistan in 2006. If anyone is wondering why we are spending so much time and energy talking about something that happened 4 years ago then it is this. Ministers made the decision to fight on 2 fronts because they were told that frames were available and personnel were available. Dr Reid is on record as saying that Hercules sent to Afghanistan this time will have every defensive aid mechanism possible. Well the numbers do not stack up. At least by highlighting the problems slick crews faced last time Chiefs of Staff will not be able to send them again. I have higher hopes of Dr Reid than his predecessor, however he will be well advised to be more incisive with his questioning of Chiefs of Staff. As for Mr Ingram, it seems clear to me that his position is untenable.

I have just found out that OBIGS was fitted to the SR71 development and production aircraft. It is hardly new technology, and also developed by Lockheed. Can there be an excuse for the C130 not having it as standard?

It seems clear that time is now a factor for the in-theatre C130 crews. If, as Dr Reid has promised, all Hercs will have every defensive mechanism available, then the foam-fitting program must go as the highest priority. We've committed over 3000 troops...

Having done some research, I have also found the following info:

1. The US have a Joint Aircraft Survivability Program. It publishes a journal 3 times a year which reports on the huge amounts of testing they carry out. C130s included. Even the Predator UAV has been tested against ballistics damage! I find it hard to believe that there was not a huge awareness (at command level) of the dangers faced by the crews. More than that indicated by the stock "Military Risk" responses.

2. In 1993 the 32 UK Chinooks were upgraded to HC2 standard. This included the IRCMs, MAWS and Chaff/Flares. I think this was the entire fleet. I cannot find if the Chinny has an fuel-tank inerting system. Perhaps an operator could clarify. (My guess is that it does). However, this appears to set a precedent in my mind.

3. In the short-term, while researching I found that there are fuel additives that will act as explosive suppressant. I am no expert on this area but it strikes me as a possible interim solution until all frames can be adapted. If the government agrees that it is necessary to modify the frames of course. Perhaps appropriate additive could be incorporated and also carried where necessary. I hope this has been (or will be) considered.

Maybe there are people more highly qualified/informed who can elaborate on these areas.

Indie.

(edited for clumsy wording - thanks Kitbag)

Not to deny the urgency of the case for improving protection for airframe/crew, the issue of putting additional additives (sic) in the fuel system would need a degree of testing for operating clearances, effects on internal seals etc. It may be that this work has already been carried out, either here or in the US as they are the equipment provider. AFIK even US sourced ac tend to have UK sourced items like seals, so, unless the specs are identical we would run an additional, perhaps predictable risk. It would be a bummer to lose a frame 'cos a seal failed through a simple read across that it works for them so it must work for us. The use of reticulated foam though seems to carry less risk and has to be seen as an urgent requirement. I just hope that the view that nigegilb has on this thread that something is going to happen is confirmed by actuality, and as soon as possible. :ok:

The date for the first K Herc to roll out with foam is out and it is happening quickly. ( not sure how sensitive the date is). I think it is a result. The response from the MoD after the first MoS article was that foam was expensive, slow to fit and unlikely to be needed. I have no idea how much we have moved the argument along and I greatly appreciate the contributions. I think it is fair to say that foam is a no brainer. Dr Reid is now in a difficult situation. He promised that Hercules going to Afghanistan would have every possible defensive aids mechanism, excluding foam. In my view this excludes the J because of the cancellation of the "modern" J DAS program in 2004/05. I understand that it is now likely that the J will get foam. This was definitely not going to happen a couple of weeks ago. As soon as we get confirmation of the J foam program all efforts go to getting the J DAS upgraded and the passengers protected by ballistic matting.
Please help me to keep this thread going.
Another word about an inconsistency about our Defence Ministers. Dr Reid is saying Hercs in AFG must have every poss defensive aids mechanism but Ingram is said that IRCM only was appropriate for the airspace. Should slick Herc crews be worried? Or is Ingram afraid to admit that he was wrong about Afghanistan 4 yrs ago? I feel another letter coming on......

As a serving C-130 techie, I would just like to add my thoughts. As ever, the guys doing the job ( aircrews, engineers etc) all seem to be ignored by the "big-wigs", and get told to get on with it, stop moaning etc etc, and as usual do a stirling job of getting results with ever decreasing resources and funding. If you cut all the political spin and lies out of the equasion, all it boils down to are a simple few points :mad:
1) Money is far far more important than troops lives- FACT
2) Its not going to change while the beancounters are in control
3) A nice shiny DAS suite will NOT stop a fuel tank exploding when a round goes through it :mad:

Why are our crews not being offered every avaliable defence and safty measure possible? We KNOW the threats, we KNOW the solutions :mad: , sadly, we would rarther loose our guys than spend a bit extra on protecting them :( Nige, my hat goes off to you, keep up the good work, someone somewhere will have to listen eventualy :ok: I think your next question should be presented in paxman style. " IS money more important than troops lifes?"

Nige,
I am ex Nimrods and E-3s, so I have very little AT experience, (other than when you nice chaps have given me a lift home occasionally!!) but I have followed this thread with immense interest, as I'm sure all aircrew are.
When we lost the Nimrod in the trees at the end of KS runway many years ago now, it burned badly and the post accident report harped on and on about having non combustable sound proofing etc inside the jet.
Outcome = F**K all ever got done!

When Art' ditched the jet into the Moray Firth, at least one seat became detached, and again the post accident report harped on about loading and weight restrictions blah
Outcome = F**K all again but.................................

I now understand that someone has challenged that decision in the courts, and weight restrcitions are in place for Nimrod rear crew, so please stick with your campaign, its vital you do.

Of course you will never beat Bliar, Bufoon, and that squirming little &*%$ Reid or any politicians come to that, but I genuingly hope and feel that you are winning the battle with them. Sadly, until we have Airships that have the courage to say NO or stand up to these numpties, then it will be left to the likes of yourself and your truckie mates to do the work. Airships, despite all their comments in their earlier years, won't upset their Lords and Masters. How else are they ever going to get on the board of BWOS and others??

Kind regards
TSM

You live in a 'fast jet centric' air force. How many of the folk at the top have any large a/c background at all? Precious few, if any, I would venture to suggest....

When Ba$tard Bill retired, we all had to troop along to the OM to hear him quack on about how marvellous he was. When he referred to the AT/AAR squadrons as "Second line support units" to his beloved FJ chums, he lost our attention. Only the brownest of brown nosers bothered to meet him in the bar afterwards.

The AT/AAR force creaks along underfunded, overstretched and with little obvious regard for its value from on high, it seems. Time for Reid to demand that Greedy Gordon puts his fat hands into his sporran and bungs the MoD sufficient funds to replace ageing equipment and to provide adequate protection for all in-theatre AT/AAR assets - particularly the tactical AT. But most of all, time for those at the top to realise that today, the C130J&K are of far more actual operational value than the EuropHoon or J-TLA...and that AT/AAR and Recce assets have been far greater providers of UK military air support in recent conflicts than have a handful of fast jets.

How goes the Fictional Strategic Tanker Aircraft programme, for example?

Yep, Can't argue with you there BEags' me old trout!
But I cannot undretsand why so many Airships change their views when they get to such dizzy heights - is the lack of Oxygen do you think? after all, therre are only so many places in a board room surely?

Stick with Nige, we're all on your side
TSM

There is a palpable feeling that the argument is being won. I know I am being listened to. At the Defence Committee meeting in which Ingram was challenged about the cancellation of the J DAS program all the journalists were thrown out. The MPs then had a gentlemen's agreement not to divulge the ensuing discussion. All I know is that my 2 letters of evidence were handed to the Minister in question. These letters are now being checked out for the voracity of their claims. I share the belief that the RAF is still dominated by fast jet thinking. An example would be the staggering cost of one hours use of EW ranges in the US by Typhoon. It would pay for foam on Hercules ac. However, the Chiefs of Staff are not stupid. Back in 2002 I was advised by an RAF legal expert to put my concerns in writing. I tried the Chain of Command and that failed. I then set out a clear paper trail highlighting the lack of protection on the Hercules fleet. If this campaign fails and crews are not given adequate protection, the Chiefs of Staff and Defence Ministers will not have a leg to stand on.

Point about Ballistic Matting. It is lightweight and easy to use. Talk to the Aussies!

The first line of defence will be "combat immunity" in this case. Not exactly a moral form of defence, but extremely convenient for the MoD. Interestingly, tactics were changed immediately following the crash in Jan 2005. Presumably the MoD had a very good idea about the cause of the crash from an early stage. As a result daylight "darkside" ops are now tightly restricted. Begs the question, why are J crews flying daylight ops? And why does the MoD not want to fit foam to J Hercs?

Having been part of the "can do" culture I recognise that it is one of the greatest strengths of British Military. Unfortunately, it is also an achilles heel.

A very difficult question to ask now is, are we making a huge mistake committing our overstretched Armed Forces to an open ended and obscure mission to Afghanistan? The Hercules fleet is going to need major work to bring it up to an adequate level of protection. This mission to Afghanistan could not have come at a worse moment.

Reading all this with interest. All the issues that we normally don't talk about in public for 'security' now being aired and proving that it can be good to talk.

Every operator knows that an effective DAS is NOT an optional extra. Thanks Nige. I hope you're able to keep it up!

A lot depends on how well the Airships and Ministers actually LISTEN!:*

I have the cost breakdown of the foam. The figures are based on those obtained from the ac manufacturer. All prices in pounds.

Basic set up cost = 275,000
Cost per airframe = 50,000

Not exactly breaking the bank to do it..

Parliamentary answer
 

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the classified programme on C130J referred to in Chapter 18 of the Ministry of Defence's annual report and accounts was cancelled; what assessment has been made of the operational implications; and if he will make a statement. [52270]

*
16 Mar 2006 : Column 2434W
*


Mr. Ingram: This programme was cancelled in light of emerging costs and competing priorities. The impact on operations was assessed and steps were taken to provide the capability where appropriate.


Good to know the impact on operations was assessed.........

I heard from a mate, that John Reid asked the Herc Captain on a recent visit to Iraq, what his thoughts were on the foam etc. He was flying in albert at the time (a J). It shows that he must be listening. Anyone know what the Captain said????

more Parliamentary answers
 

C-130 Hercules

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the defensive aids fitted to each (a) C130K and (b) C130J. [43369]

John Reid [holding answer 19 January 2006]: The following defensive aids are currently employed on the Hercules C130K and C130J fleet:

Directional Infra Red Counter Measures

Missile Approach Warning Systems

Radar Warning Receiver

Countermeasures Dispensing System

Lamp Infra Red Counter Measure

Flight Deck Armour

Only Hercules with appropriate defensive countermeasures are deployed to operational theatres.

Information relating to the defensive aids employed on each C130K and C130J airframe is being withheld because it would be likely to prejudice the security of the UK's armed forces.

25 Jan 2006 : Column 2124W

How convenient.... This statement was taken from an article in the Scotsman a while later.
""The MoD last night said: "Only Hercules with appropriate defensive countermeasures are deployed to operational theatres." A spokesman said the planes carry systems to warn pilots of radar sensors and approaching missiles, and to dispense countermeasures to deflect missiles.""

I'm assuming that's a shopping list is it?

:hmm:

FF

If (and that's a big IF) the ac deployed are actually fitted with a dispensing system (and, yes, NORMALLY,the system is filled). If this is so, then the stuff contained therein is very good. But however good the missile counter measures, this only nullifies some of the threats - which is where darkness (with goggs), armour and foam come in. Even then, alas, nothing is guaranteed but as Nige says, perhaps the full (and available) protection is a lot cheaper than we were led to believe.


"Information......J/K...... is being witheld....predudice...security....etc"

Does this mean that some of our ac are NOT appropriately protected (despite assurances to the contrary)? If so, this is scandalous, after the last few years of lessons ignored!

Nige, keep at it, as ALL ac must be 'appropriately protected' wrt the ACTUAL threat - and I think we all know what that means!

Our crews and their pax are owed a much better level of support from those at the top whom, incidently, we now hold accountable.