Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
 

The following questions have been asked in Parliament this week concerning the circumstances of the shooting down of XV179 and the deployment of Hercules ac to Afghanistan.

26
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence, what representations he has received in the last five years on
fitting reticulated foam to all Mk1 Hercules aircraft.
(57108)
27
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): 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)
28
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence, what plans he has to fit the new K model Hercules aircraft with
(a) the latest generation defensive aids suite and (b) foam in the wing
tanks; and if he will make a statement.
(57110)
29
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence, which J model Hercules aircraft have been fitted with (a) the
latest generation defensive aids suite and (b) foam in the wing tanks;
and what plans he has to equip the remaining aircraft.
(57111)
30
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence, what recent research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated
on the value of (i) the latest generation defensive aids suite and (ii)
foam in the wing tanks of Hercules aircraft; and what assessment he has
made of the research on these issues.
(57154)
31
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence, when each of the Mk 3 Hercules were fitted with associated
defensive aids systems.
(57158)
32
Mr Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South): To ask the Secretary of State for
Defence, if he will make it his policy not to use Hercules aircraft
which have not been fitted with (a) latest generation Defensive Aids
Suite and (b) foam in the wing tanks in (i) Iraq and (ii) Afghanistan;
and if he will make a statement.
(57160

For those who do not know, I am a former Hercules pilot and friend of some of those who were killed last year. Without the restrictions imposed by the Military, I am now in a position to demand answers from the Establishment as to why this crew may have died unnecessarily. I have been working for several weeks through contacts in the media and the House of Commons to improve the safety and security of Hercules aircrew. The above questions have been asked as a result of evidence I submitted to the Defence Committee. The Government has been hiding for too long behind a veil of secrecy and must be brought to account both morally and financially.

If Q28 means we are getting some new K models then top work Nige!
;)

Mr SlipperySlappery (Lashville North): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he can provide an assurance that future heavy aircraft platforms such as A400 and FSTA will be procurred sufficient defensive aids.

What do you think the answer to that would be? Blah blah yes of course we give a damn about our people blah blah blah.

SS

PS Nige, what you doing these days?

Thank you for all your hard work with this Nige. You have the full support of everyone who knew the guys.

33
SirPeterHardingsLovechild (Danger W@nking at the Stbd Para Door) : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to confirm that the best form of defence is to have God on our side.

Given that Saint Tony is invoking God,

time we all declared for another, or none.

Sven

Stunning work Nige. Hope all goes well and not just pushed aside, as always!

See you at the next reunion bud.

Nige

It is right to highlight the problems faced by Hercs (old and new) - not to mention ALL RAF AT - flying in-theatre. The boys and girls who fly these ac and the trusting passengers that they carry deserve so much better protection than has been afforded them in the past.
Good luck - you have my total support.

Flipster

I too, am also astounded about the lack of forethought that seems to have gone into the procurement of A400M - pitiful!

Just want to say thanks for the messages of support both private and public. Sadly, there is no new “K” Model on the cards - that was an honest mistake by Mike Hancock...Unlike other MPs who are seeemingly happy to accept Government platitudes on the subject, Mike is very concerned about safety issues facing British military personnel and fortunately he is on the Defence Committee. I have put him straight on question 28/29! Pressure is building on the MoD. When Adam Ingram was challenged about the cancellation of the “J” DAS programme at the Defence Committee public hearing this week, he tried to duck the issue. In an unusual move the Chairman asked for a more considered answer and as a result the Committee was forced into private session. Now Mr Ingram and Mr Reid have got to answer some very awkward questions. Expect further developments on Hercules Foam/DAS/Ballistic Matting issues. I will post any answers on this forum just as soon as I get them. I am aware of the sensitivity of this issue but pressure has got to be maintained if the money is going to get to the front line and RAF AT crews are to get the protection they deserve. I think it is fair to say that as a result of the media interest generated so far there is no way that the slick Hercules fiasco of 31/2 years ago is going to be repeated this time round. The Chiefs of Staff will simply not get away with it.

Nige,

Slick-Hercules fiasco????

I was told it was a well-supported operation that had the in-depth knowledge and intelligence (sic) back-up at the highest level of MOD - rumour has it that the DefSec and ForSec (and their aids) thought they were in fully protected aircraft - ho ho ho!

Or did we all just close our eyes and cross our fingers and sit on coils of chain while the 'emperors fiddled'?

Best of British

Flipster

Flip,
I heard a little story that Geoff Hoon's face, allegedly, was a picture when he was told that he was sitting on the aircraft's defensive aids suite (a flak jacket). tee hee.

I understand your concerns. With regard to the generalisations used in terminology this was entirely deliberate on my part. The MPs have been given more specific guidance as to what system is required. I have asked in my evidence to the Defence Committee that the Hercules fleet be brought to the same standard of protection. This would include ESF, DAS Flight Deck Armour. The Australian Air Force policy is not to put its AT Fleet into harms way without all of the above. I am walking a tightrope here if I had gone into specifics in public I would have been accused of endangering crews on operations. On the other hand we have all sat on chains whilst Chiefs of Staff have turned a blind eye and Ministers have told the Country that Hercules crews have full protection. Having now lost some mates I am doing my best to not lose any more. Remember that the threat in Afghanistan is already there. With regard to the questions asked by Mike Hancock I had no input. The questions are specific for very good reasons. I have made certain allegations in my evidence and they may have prompted some of the more specific questions. There are other reasons that I cannot go into at the moment. The natural instinct of the MoD is to avoid the issue. I am not sure what to expect from the PQs, but the added scrutiny is a bonus. Hope this helps, any feedback from crews doing the job on the frontline is very useful to me. I am concerned that within the fleets at Lyneham a lottery of protection is developing, this needs fixing quickly.

Nige

I hear that GH was not half as much surprised as his 1* 'mil adviser' - who went a strange colour of purple. The 1* was a good guy (even if he was a bona-mate) and was genuinely shocked to hear the news - funny nonetheless!

Still, we were all hooting and roaring when we were told that 'Albert' eventually 'bit' GH before he got off the lower bunk!

Flip,
In all seriousness this makes it all the more surprising to read the comments of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in a letter to a constituent written on 07 Aug 2002.

"On the C130 Hercules aircraft engaged in Afghanistan area of operations firstly I can assure you that all C130 aircraft operating in Afghanistan are provided with a suite of defensive aids.........We are confident that for all military flights into Afghanistan appropriate self-protection measures are in place."

Maybe this is why the MoD does not comment on such matters any more....

It depends on how you define 'suite' - I guess flak jackets (some without kevlar plates), coils of chain, hand-held NVGs, a sense of duty and 'the force' would probably count for MOD!

But also, I seem to remember that, for DR Congo in 2003/4, HQSTC insisted that the ac sent over there had to have 'the full monty' (barring RWR). I would like to think that AFG would be the same - I certainly hope so!

:O

Flip,
Might have something to do with the fact that on 21 Dec 2002, TB and GH were put on notice for corporate manslaughter in the event that any British military personnel were killed in action due to a lack of protective equipment. With reference to the Ingram statement that slick Hercules were equipped with a DAS in 2002, I have a funny feeling that a very senior officer at 2GP may have contributed to this deception. By the way, there is no time limit/theatre restriction to the notice of corporate manslaughter.

It is becoming obvious by the PMs and Postings that there is a lot of concern out there about the level of protection of the RAF AT fleet. The Government and Chiefs of Staff know exactly what brought down XV179 last year and how to prevent it happening again. Armed with this knowledge work should have started last year on providing the Hercules fleet with Explosive Suppressant Foam. No action was taken and by agreeing to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and publishing BOI on the web, every “bad guy” in the World with an internet connection can find out how to shoot a Hercules down.

If the programme to equip the “J” with a “modern” DAS had not been cancelled in 2004, 15 additional aircraft would now have been available for deployment with a “modern” DAS. There is also an urgent need to afford passengers the protection of simple to use lightweight ballistic matting, aka our coalition partners. The failure of the Defence Chiefs and Government Ministers to provide this basic level of protection to Hercules crews and passengers deployed in hostile environments is a scandal. Their dereliction of "duty of care" leaves them open to a charge of gross negligence.

FF

Bashing your head against a wall?

I think the way grope did it in 2002/3 was to pick and choose which bit of the threat matrices they wanted to believe, change the bits they didn't like and ignore the rest. At the same time, they also ignored advice from specialist personnel within the HQ - and those who were being regularly shot at - Nige for example.

However, like I've said before, the RAF didn't have the cash to update the ac, nor could they have done anything very quickly - even if the Brown-of-the-Tight-Fist had given us a blank cheque. But sadly, only those low-level specialist staff officers took the warnings seriously and, for sure, they felt like they were bashing their head against a brick wall.

So, it is suspected that people like SASO and AOC 2 Gp (and right up the chain) 'risk-managed' the whole op with our lives, while we did the best we could with what little we had. (BTW 'Risk Management' is another word for 'gambling for the sake of promotion'.)

Ok, so we took the Queen's shilling but I don't think Her Majesty would have been too impressed with the apparently cavalier way in which 2 Gp treated her AT crews (and their passengers).

Nonetheless, I could almost forgive their Lordships for 2002/3/4 but, by now, they have had some money, the knowledge and the time to have rectified the parlous state of our AT fleet (including the widebodies). If they haven't done so and then they send these ac to AFG/Iraq/Iran- then, yes, IMHO they will be negligent. One lives in hope that our hierarchy are smarter than that.
Perhaps those PQs will reveal the extent of the preparedness of our ac?


sad: :sad:

FF

HQ 2 Gp? Tactics? Common-sense? - Now there are some words that don't often get put together in the same sentence! Ask the AWC what they think of 2 Gp!

Seriously, though, you are right - even with ALL the right kit, nothing is 'for certain' and you can't get 'invisible shields' from stores.

Having the kit, however, makes our crews' (and their passengers') chances of survival soooo much higher.

Furthermore, DIRCM or LAIRCM are very damn good compared to the old kit on some aircraft, with some limitations admittedly. Add some 'other bits and pieces' though and DIRCM is very,very good - but it wouldn't have saved 179. On the other hand, having foam or a fire suppression system would have given 179 a much better chance. But next time (Lord forbid), it may be different again.

Not getting a bit of kit for all our ac, based purely on cost, is unforgiveable. If the ac is 'not fit for purpose', it shouldn't be there!

If anyone has any doubt about the effectiveness of foam please read the following statement. This is from a friend of mine who under the circumstances I am sure will not mind me repeating it here. This aircraft landed with fuel pouring from its wings. The crew were hit 19 times with everything up to 57mm. The ac was loaded with SF Troops and they all survived......

Our technical manuals still carry performance numbers for aircraft with and without foam, but there isn't a Herk in the USAF inventory that doesn't carry reticulated foam in the tanks. They have been in since at least the 60's, and we still replace and service this foam before any aircraft going through heavy/depot/Marshall's maintenance gets returned to the fleet. There were problems with the foam breaking up and clogging the fuel filters, but there haven't been any operational problems with it. The MC-130H that was forced down in Turkey on the first night of OIF (the crew got the PK Carlton award) took several hits in the wings with no damage other than fuel leaking out of the holes. They were engaged by everything up to 57mm at the same altitude Steady was flying. It is a miracle that only one crew has been lost taking on the risks that the USAF and DOD have avoided and eliminated through kit, training and leadership changes since 1987.

I have edited these comments.

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.