Parliamentary Questions concerning Hercules Safety
Sorry Nige, could you please spell this out in words of one syllable for those like me who are not up to speed on J model block 8/9 etc? Is this merely an invitation from Lockheed for retrofitting in service aircraft, or an extra for when ordering new aircraft? My concern, and the last I heard, is that the RAF has a grand total of one ESF fitted Hercules that leaks! Have we improved on that yet, and what is the planned rate of fitting out aircraft (that hopefully won't leak). If the Channel 4 news item is correct, it needs little more than a piece of flint thrown up into a fuel tank on a strip landing to result in a totally burned out airframe! As this is surely a scenario that any Hercules can find itself in from time to time, without ever going to the 'theatre', is it not an absolute necessity that ALL aircraft to be retained in the fleet are protected as soon as possible. Is the answer for the J model OBIGGS rather than ESF? But thanks for spelling out what that stands for, it would have kept me awake all night trying to decode it!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chug with pleasure, keeps me away from my tax return.
Firstly the Defence Minister has made it clear that as far as the MoD is concerned there is no chance of the Herc foam program being accelerated due to the high intensity of operations. The frames cannot be spared. RAF Hercules are to be fitted with reticulated foam. It does not take the brains of a rocket scientist to work out that at the current snails pace this could take years. Now then, when US Military initially looked at the J they conducted a study of options for fuel safety.
Foam,
Nitrogen inerting,
Halon.
The study that I have seen concluded that for the J, foam was still the way ahead. The latest version lasts years in the fuel tank and once fitted, little can go wrong. Aside from fuel filters getting clogged.
The downside is that foam takes up some fuel tank capacity. According to info I received recently, and this is a rumour network, Lockheed are looking to increase the range of the J. Remember that the RAF chose not to have external tanks for the J, so fuel capacity and range is more of an issue on this model. It appears that Lockheed are going to factory fit OBIGGS on the production line. One thing that made me rage at the beginning of all this was the RAF saying that they didn't know about foam or understand the need for it when across the way at Brize Norton, the RAF was operating leased C17s complete with OBIGGS fuel tank inerting systems.
OBIGGS inerts the ullage by reducing the oxygen level to below 10% by using nitrogen. The early system generates gas by using bottles containing nitrogen. I am no expert so anyone reading this please correct where necessary. Downside with this system is the one shot nature and the potential for oxygen levels to increase with a fire still present. As a result, the US is now retrofitting C17s with OBIGGS 2, this continually generates nitrogen and provides positive pressure all the way down to landing. This keeps the Oxygen level to around 9% and is very safe. I hope the new build Js are getting this latest version because it is the safer of the 2 options. In answer to your question, I believe that RAF Js are getting the same foam as the K, so OBIGGS will not be retrofitted.
Finally, it all shames the MoD. The US are now into 2nd generation nitrogen fuel inerting systems and their 41st year of foam tank protection. So far we have managed 1 Hercules. Not very good is it? The US Military understand the high probability of losing ac to fuel tank explosions and have spent an awful lot of time and money coming up with effective light weight options. In fact they are so good, nitrogen systems are now appearing on the latest generation 777s. I hope our campaign has fundamentally changed thinking in the UK about fuel tank explosions. I am also amazed, that if this info is correct Lockheed are taking the kind of safety decisions that our safety lite, payless MoD should have taken years ago.
Firstly the Defence Minister has made it clear that as far as the MoD is concerned there is no chance of the Herc foam program being accelerated due to the high intensity of operations. The frames cannot be spared. RAF Hercules are to be fitted with reticulated foam. It does not take the brains of a rocket scientist to work out that at the current snails pace this could take years. Now then, when US Military initially looked at the J they conducted a study of options for fuel safety.
Foam,
Nitrogen inerting,
Halon.
The study that I have seen concluded that for the J, foam was still the way ahead. The latest version lasts years in the fuel tank and once fitted, little can go wrong. Aside from fuel filters getting clogged.
The downside is that foam takes up some fuel tank capacity. According to info I received recently, and this is a rumour network, Lockheed are looking to increase the range of the J. Remember that the RAF chose not to have external tanks for the J, so fuel capacity and range is more of an issue on this model. It appears that Lockheed are going to factory fit OBIGGS on the production line. One thing that made me rage at the beginning of all this was the RAF saying that they didn't know about foam or understand the need for it when across the way at Brize Norton, the RAF was operating leased C17s complete with OBIGGS fuel tank inerting systems.
OBIGGS inerts the ullage by reducing the oxygen level to below 10% by using nitrogen. The early system generates gas by using bottles containing nitrogen. I am no expert so anyone reading this please correct where necessary. Downside with this system is the one shot nature and the potential for oxygen levels to increase with a fire still present. As a result, the US is now retrofitting C17s with OBIGGS 2, this continually generates nitrogen and provides positive pressure all the way down to landing. This keeps the Oxygen level to around 9% and is very safe. I hope the new build Js are getting this latest version because it is the safer of the 2 options. In answer to your question, I believe that RAF Js are getting the same foam as the K, so OBIGGS will not be retrofitted.
Finally, it all shames the MoD. The US are now into 2nd generation nitrogen fuel inerting systems and their 41st year of foam tank protection. So far we have managed 1 Hercules. Not very good is it? The US Military understand the high probability of losing ac to fuel tank explosions and have spent an awful lot of time and money coming up with effective light weight options. In fact they are so good, nitrogen systems are now appearing on the latest generation 777s. I hope our campaign has fundamentally changed thinking in the UK about fuel tank explosions. I am also amazed, that if this info is correct Lockheed are taking the kind of safety decisions that our safety lite, payless MoD should have taken years ago.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well i am back from my hospital stay, i was more ill than first thought so apologies for being out of the loop for so long. i hope to resume relative normal duties with the campaign. i will do all that i can in the capacity of my vomitting schedule! first things first letters to all those in the hierarchy with whom i have corresponded and the delivery of the petition. i have checked and we have 2806 0nline signatures, not counting the paper version and so we are nearing 3000!
great news about lockheed. it really does make me laugh that it takes everyone else other than the government to lead the way.the drive to succeed in this campaign is strong as always.
when i deliver the petition i will have every member of the media i have contact details with notified and it is fair to say it will not pass un noticed....shame that...not!
keep up the good work guys, we are gathering strength.
great news about lockheed. it really does make me laugh that it takes everyone else other than the government to lead the way.the drive to succeed in this campaign is strong as always.
when i deliver the petition i will have every member of the media i have contact details with notified and it is fair to say it will not pass un noticed....shame that...not!
keep up the good work guys, we are gathering strength.
Chappie, great to see you back on the thread, and as ever spoiling for the good fight! From what Nige tells us above we have a long road to travel still and need you to shame those Whitehall warriors, both suits and uniforms, into action rather than their endless useless assurances!
Nige, many thanks for your detailed and exhaustive state of play of Hercules Fuel Protection Systems, or lack of them. So the latest card being played is the "We'd like to move faster, but we're booked solid". They must attend the same business school as my plumber! If the program doesn't allow for faster modification, then change the program! Other than urgent Operational calls on the Fleet this should be their highest priority. When a Hastings crashed on Take Off at Abingdon in the mid 60s, the entire fleet was grounded for months until every airframe was the subject of an extensive mod of 100s of hours. But that was when the RAF was commanded by men with principles! I see the state of the Hercules Fleet now similarly compromised. We have lost two aircraft in Theatre, where ESF may have meant the survival of one or even both. OK, to ground the Fleet would be an over reaction, especially given the urgent calls upon it now. But its speedy protection with ESF is essential, and their Airships, the Servile Servants and the Scottish Mafia will be called to account, if God forbid, we lose another unprotected. I don't know what else the Fleet is doing out of theatre, but if it can't be done with other types, put it out to contract, or postpone or cancel it. Can't afford any of those options? You can't afford not to, believe me!
Now that the need for protection is conceded, anything other than the highest priority for this program is unacceptable! Please get back to your Tax return Nige, Mr Brown is going to need every penny!
Nige, many thanks for your detailed and exhaustive state of play of Hercules Fuel Protection Systems, or lack of them. So the latest card being played is the "We'd like to move faster, but we're booked solid". They must attend the same business school as my plumber! If the program doesn't allow for faster modification, then change the program! Other than urgent Operational calls on the Fleet this should be their highest priority. When a Hastings crashed on Take Off at Abingdon in the mid 60s, the entire fleet was grounded for months until every airframe was the subject of an extensive mod of 100s of hours. But that was when the RAF was commanded by men with principles! I see the state of the Hercules Fleet now similarly compromised. We have lost two aircraft in Theatre, where ESF may have meant the survival of one or even both. OK, to ground the Fleet would be an over reaction, especially given the urgent calls upon it now. But its speedy protection with ESF is essential, and their Airships, the Servile Servants and the Scottish Mafia will be called to account, if God forbid, we lose another unprotected. I don't know what else the Fleet is doing out of theatre, but if it can't be done with other types, put it out to contract, or postpone or cancel it. Can't afford any of those options? You can't afford not to, believe me!
Now that the need for protection is conceded, anything other than the highest priority for this program is unacceptable! Please get back to your Tax return Nige, Mr Brown is going to need every penny!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 26th Sep 2006 at 22:55.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chaps...i have booked the date for the petition to be handed in to downing street. i am not sure that it is safe to reveal it on here, i'll await instructions from you guys. i am only allowed 6 peoples in to go up to the door and i think that it is fair to say that should be the family members. i know a very passionate 11 yr old who lost her dad wants to be there. so yes...i am back and ready to resume the next stage of battle/campaign. be assured this will not pass unnoticed and my numerous media contacts will be notified imminently so that the moment that nearly 3000 peoples names that desire protection for the troops gets ignored by the government is recorded. i won't take any chances!
off to work now..lives to save, bums to wipe! stay safe!
nige, i am working on your suggestion.
off to work now..lives to save, bums to wipe! stay safe!
nige, i am working on your suggestion.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: hotels
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nought to go wrong with foam. OBIGGS I is limited by carrying onboard N2O = weight = can be empty = might not work. OBIGGS II is a "system" = can break = will it be a requirement to be operational prior to going sausage side? Or is fitting it sufficient? 
Again, nought to go wrong with foam. Must also believe the expense is not even comparable - foam should be loads cheaper.
Point taken though, Nige - even aircraft manufacturers recognise risks & actively pursue ever more effective prevention measures. MOD are still firmly 'head in sand' it would seem.
As for Lockheed extending the range of J - it is because higher TAS and fuel savings did not occur as promised. Why? Because all were based on flight in the upper FL300s & J is far too slow to mix it up with Civil AT. Rare they get above FL330 as they're in the heart of the mil cargo jet traffic above FL300. Consequently, they are held down where they are not as quick & not as fuel efficient, so it makes for some tight fuel legs LYE-AKT-LYE depending on cargo/wind/met. That extra 2% fuel (no externals) is handy to have on these type routes.
Yes, all J are equipped for external tanks from new - even RAF.
Again, nought to go wrong with foam. Must also believe the expense is not even comparable - foam should be loads cheaper.
Point taken though, Nige - even aircraft manufacturers recognise risks & actively pursue ever more effective prevention measures. MOD are still firmly 'head in sand' it would seem.
As for Lockheed extending the range of J - it is because higher TAS and fuel savings did not occur as promised. Why? Because all were based on flight in the upper FL300s & J is far too slow to mix it up with Civil AT. Rare they get above FL330 as they're in the heart of the mil cargo jet traffic above FL300. Consequently, they are held down where they are not as quick & not as fuel efficient, so it makes for some tight fuel legs LYE-AKT-LYE depending on cargo/wind/met. That extra 2% fuel (no externals) is handy to have on these type routes.
Yes, all J are equipped for external tanks from new - even RAF.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that Hrk Drvr.
I wasn't trying to suggest that OBIGGS was better than foam by the way. Interestingly the US Herc study that I read still came down in favour of Foam for the J. And you are right to hint at the serviceability requirement or otherwise of RAF C17s going sausage. You know that with foam you are protected and some "military risk" goon from Gp is not going to ruin your day.
External tanks may well be hard wired but I understand that supplying them now will be at a much higher cost. Ouch...
I wasn't trying to suggest that OBIGGS was better than foam by the way. Interestingly the US Herc study that I read still came down in favour of Foam for the J. And you are right to hint at the serviceability requirement or otherwise of RAF C17s going sausage. You know that with foam you are protected and some "military risk" goon from Gp is not going to ruin your day.
External tanks may well be hard wired but I understand that supplying them now will be at a much higher cost. Ouch...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chappie,
Glad you are all ok - Bravissimo!
I think I speak for many, many people when I say, we will be watching and loudly cheering you on!
Nige,
Thanks for that confirmation - but where do we stand 'officially' with the A400M?
HrkDvr
I think you have just confirmed my doubts over the 'legs' of the J - I suspect that they don't do a LYE-LEU(or LEE or LSS)-AKR day but could easily if they had ext tanks! Consequently, foam is not ideal for them if they dont have ext tanks and I agree that OBIGGS II may have its limitations. So foam and ext tanks it is then!?
Flip
(ps if there any ex QFI, Tac AT, flt cdr types out there, BEagle wants you for a job with the A400M - wouldn't it be good to get this ac right 'from the off', rather than have a repeat of the J model accquistion/MAR faff? - PM either of us!)
Glad you are all ok - Bravissimo!
I think I speak for many, many people when I say, we will be watching and loudly cheering you on!
Nige,
Thanks for that confirmation - but where do we stand 'officially' with the A400M?
HrkDvr
I think you have just confirmed my doubts over the 'legs' of the J - I suspect that they don't do a LYE-LEU(or LEE or LSS)-AKR day but could easily if they had ext tanks! Consequently, foam is not ideal for them if they dont have ext tanks and I agree that OBIGGS II may have its limitations. So foam and ext tanks it is then!?
Flip
(ps if there any ex QFI, Tac AT, flt cdr types out there, BEagle wants you for a job with the A400M - wouldn't it be good to get this ac right 'from the off', rather than have a repeat of the J model accquistion/MAR faff? - PM either of us!)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jees Flip, I am going to have to work my own tax out at this rate.
Official position is this
(Q44) HCDC Request: A note on MoD's current estimate of the in-service date of the Hercules replacement, the A400M, including details of whether the fleet will be fitted with explosive suppressant foam before they enter service.
The current estimate of the A400M In-Service Date is 2011. The A400M Common Standard Aircraft (CSA) will not be fitted with a Fuel Tank Inerting system as standard but an Inert Gas Generation and Distribution (to the fuel tanks) System is available as an option.
An ongoing study, on Large Aircraft Survivability is due to be published at the end of 2006 and will be used to help inform decisions on fitting Fuel Tank Inerting systems to RAF Air Transport aircraft. The study will compare Explosion Suppressant Foam (as currently being fitted to some C130 aircraft) against Inert Gas systems (as fitted to C-17 and an option for A400M). This study will inform any decision of the fitting of a Fuel Inerting System to the A400M.
So we should know soon. Unofficial position, or PPRUNE/Rumour position is that 2 days after R4 Today and C4 News feature in May this year it was agreed that A400M would get 25xDAS 25X Gen 2 inerting systems. Haven't got a price on that yet but I don't think my tax return will help much.
Official position is this
(Q44) HCDC Request: A note on MoD's current estimate of the in-service date of the Hercules replacement, the A400M, including details of whether the fleet will be fitted with explosive suppressant foam before they enter service.
The current estimate of the A400M In-Service Date is 2011. The A400M Common Standard Aircraft (CSA) will not be fitted with a Fuel Tank Inerting system as standard but an Inert Gas Generation and Distribution (to the fuel tanks) System is available as an option.
An ongoing study, on Large Aircraft Survivability is due to be published at the end of 2006 and will be used to help inform decisions on fitting Fuel Tank Inerting systems to RAF Air Transport aircraft. The study will compare Explosion Suppressant Foam (as currently being fitted to some C130 aircraft) against Inert Gas systems (as fitted to C-17 and an option for A400M). This study will inform any decision of the fitting of a Fuel Inerting System to the A400M.
So we should know soon. Unofficial position, or PPRUNE/Rumour position is that 2 days after R4 Today and C4 News feature in May this year it was agreed that A400M would get 25xDAS 25X Gen 2 inerting systems. Haven't got a price on that yet but I don't think my tax return will help much.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: england
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, a big big well done to the guys constantly kicking our inept leaders up the arse repeadedly until they finally realize that they have a duty of care to thier troops 
Your efforts are appreciated by all on the herc fleet and no doubt anyone with any link to the airforce and flying in general - Keep it up guys, don't let the 
grind you down.
Just a little point about the OBIGGS being fitted to the hercs, I work on K's myself, and as I am sure a lot of people are aware, the fuel tanks are non pressurised, and have open-to-atmosphere vent systems, so surley the inert gas system would be working very hard and to not much effect if it has to constantly fill an emptying space?
- ESF is by far the better solution in my eyes, and I can only assume not knowing the in's and outs of the J fuel sysyem that they also have unpressurised fuel tanks?
The other question is that if we don't have enough A/C / Time / Space in MAE etc to get ESF fitted quick sharp to our active frames, then why can we not lease some ESF equipped A/C off the Yanks or australians, surley they must have some "spare" frames kicking about? It might be expensive in the short term, but its got to be cheaper than the human cost should the worst happen again
Your efforts are appreciated by all on the herc fleet and no doubt anyone with any link to the airforce and flying in general - Keep it up guys, don't let the grind you down.Just a little point about the OBIGGS being fitted to the hercs, I work on K's myself, and as I am sure a lot of people are aware, the fuel tanks are non pressurised, and have open-to-atmosphere vent systems, so surley the inert gas system would be working very hard and to not much effect if it has to constantly fill an emptying space?
- ESF is by far the better solution in my eyes, and I can only assume not knowing the in's and outs of the J fuel sysyem that they also have unpressurised fuel tanks? The other question is that if we don't have enough A/C / Time / Space in MAE etc to get ESF fitted quick sharp to our active frames, then why can we not lease some ESF equipped A/C off the Yanks or australians, surley they must have some "spare" frames kicking about? It might be expensive in the short term, but its got to be cheaper than the human cost should the worst happen again
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Glowcesestershiiiire
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK Sometimes
Posts: 1,062
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kirbs is right -
a. Cost....again!
b. I suspect that the US would be reluctant.
c. There are too many differences on the flt deck, back-end and many bits of engineering for it to be short-term 'straight swap' - lbs v kgs, for starters!
c. OTOH, new wings for the long-term K fleet may be a lot simpler and solve a lot of probs in one fell-sweep?
Hopefully, the co pilots' training has got a lot better now that I have left?
If not, it can only be because they are not getting enough 'hands on'. One hopes you have enough frames to do MCT/CPT/TALT - or are all BTRs done at the end of a Tac trip/PTS/sim/16hr CDT route/? (None of which sound very good options!)
Flip
a. Cost....again!
b. I suspect that the US would be reluctant.
c. There are too many differences on the flt deck, back-end and many bits of engineering for it to be short-term 'straight swap' - lbs v kgs, for starters!
c. OTOH, new wings for the long-term K fleet may be a lot simpler and solve a lot of probs in one fell-sweep?
Hopefully, the co pilots' training has got a lot better now that I have left?
If not, it can only be because they are not getting enough 'hands on'. One hopes you have enough frames to do MCT/CPT/TALT - or are all BTRs done at the end of a Tac trip/PTS/sim/16hr CDT route/? (None of which sound very good options!)
Flip
Guest
Posts: n/a
how do you get rid of the title thingy
Hi kirbs, when Paul died the Aust gov asked if there was anything they could do just ask.... so I have written to the Aust defence minister and opposition leader several times throughout the year, about the RAAF helping out the RAF, in any way, with the whole ESF fiasco, a little naive of me, but we are afterall mates in the 'coalition of the willing' etc! They haven't replied. I reckon both Howard and Blaire are so intoxicated and infatuated by the prestige of their friendship with the president of the world's only superpower to notice eachother... or me!
Sorry for the political jab but sometimes I just can't help myself
Sorry for the political jab but sometimes I just can't help myself
Last edited by kam; 28th Sep 2006 at 10:17.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Came across this publication SURVIAC detailing the very latest technologies being developed for fuel tank protection. Lifted a couple of snippets to give a flavour. Chappie made the point that the MoD are being dragged kicking and screaming, just read the final paragraph here, OK its very American but these people are absolutely committed. Just how many aircraft have we lost due to a lack of fuel tank protection?
Historically, fuel fire and explosion has been a major cause of aircraft losses in combat. Data from Southeast Asia showed that over half of the aircraft combat losses involved fuel fire and explosions where the combustion overpressure generated exceeded the structural strength of the tank. To help address this problem, fuel tank protection systems are used on military aircraft to protect the ullage (the void space above the fuel level in a fuel tank). Ullage can have a potentially explosive fuel-air mixture. If initiated by a combat threat, an explosion can result.
The responsibility of the survivability community is to protect our defenders by providing them with survivable aircraft. In the past half century, many technologies have been developed and fielded to fulfill this responsibility. To all the Service men and women who defend us, thank you for giving us – the survivability community – the opportunity to help protect you. May we be ever diligent to make the weapon systems you use to defend us more survivable. We salute you. DD ef en d
Visit our web site ! http://iac.dtic.mil/surviac
Historically, fuel fire and explosion has been a major cause of aircraft losses in combat. Data from Southeast Asia showed that over half of the aircraft combat losses involved fuel fire and explosions where the combustion overpressure generated exceeded the structural strength of the tank. To help address this problem, fuel tank protection systems are used on military aircraft to protect the ullage (the void space above the fuel level in a fuel tank). Ullage can have a potentially explosive fuel-air mixture. If initiated by a combat threat, an explosion can result.
The responsibility of the survivability community is to protect our defenders by providing them with survivable aircraft. In the past half century, many technologies have been developed and fielded to fulfill this responsibility. To all the Service men and women who defend us, thank you for giving us – the survivability community – the opportunity to help protect you. May we be ever diligent to make the weapon systems you use to defend us more survivable. We salute you. DD ef en d
Visit our web site ! http://iac.dtic.mil/surviac
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just heard a nasty rumour from a friend who works at a certain Cambridge-based company that the first C130K with ESF has been returned under warranty for investigation of numerous fuel tank leaks.
Bet the MOD don't release that in a press statement.
Another great rushed mod then!
Bet the MOD don't release that in a press statement.
Another great rushed mod then!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Just heard a nasty rumour from a friend who works at a certain Cambridge-based company that the first C130K with ESF has been returned under warranty for investigation of numerous fuel tank leaks.
Bet the MOD don't release that in a press statement.
Another great rushed mod then!
Bet the MOD don't release that in a press statement.
Another great rushed mod then!
Why the hell cant we get this job done by professionals in the US and australia? Oh, I will answer that question, hasnt got anything to do with jobs in the Cambridge constituency has it?!!?! This is a disgrace. Why are we relying on marshalls to d a botch job?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: canada
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GlosMike
Correct. BTW, I didn’t mean to suggest that a choice has to be made between kitting out troops, Hercs or anyone else for that matter. The answer to the argument put forward by the media (and who knows who put them up to it as they clearly cannot think for themselves) that money spent on Hercs is money not spent on Body Armour and better protected Troop Carriers, is simply answered by reference to the numerous MoD and NAO/PAC reports over the past decades that state, quite categorically, that the MoD is wasting money. Not piddling amounts, but hundreds of millions every year. In fact, single projects waste this and nothing is done about it. If you keep telling them, and they keep doing it, then it goes far beyond incompetence. The waste is an absolute disgrace, but so is the failure to deal with those who condone it. Sack them.
Correct. BTW, I didn’t mean to suggest that a choice has to be made between kitting out troops, Hercs or anyone else for that matter. The answer to the argument put forward by the media (and who knows who put them up to it as they clearly cannot think for themselves) that money spent on Hercs is money not spent on Body Armour and better protected Troop Carriers, is simply answered by reference to the numerous MoD and NAO/PAC reports over the past decades that state, quite categorically, that the MoD is wasting money. Not piddling amounts, but hundreds of millions every year. In fact, single projects waste this and nothing is done about it. If you keep telling them, and they keep doing it, then it goes far beyond incompetence. The waste is an absolute disgrace, but so is the failure to deal with those who condone it. Sack them.
For example would it not make sense that there is enough armour for each person. Why are the troop carriers not better protected already. Why when the military were to transform to an expeditionary force did no-one think that transport aircraft will have to go in harms way?
Until the Government gets away from a short term gain for long term loss mentality this will always be an issue. Both the present govt and previous govts have gone down this road.
A certain PM stated he was prepared to pay the price in blood and it appars he is keeping to that promise!!
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gloucestershire
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't fault what you say. Both TC and I have said much the same in other threads, in different ways but with the same sentiments - about the dreadful state of defence finances. It simply isn't good enough to say the defence budget is adequate when people are dying needlessly.