U.K. Military Crews Won't Be Part of SAR-H Deal

[Pink Panther]

I'm hearing an announcement is to be made on Monday (source not from pprune.)


U.K. Military Crews Won't Be Part of SAR-H Deal - Defense News (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=5158632&c=air;%20policy;%20budget&s=TOP)

[Army Mover]

So, who is now going to do battlefield SAR?

[draken55]

We will avoid battles but if not rely on our allies for rescue:O

Yet another capability lost:mad:

[Could be the last?]

"Losing bidders will be watching carefully to ensure the contract has not been materially altered since Soteria was named preferred bidder, one analyst here said."

Surely the whole prog will have to be rebid as this is a significant change to the original contract? Or will there be some crappy get out clause that protects the 'Preferred Bidder'...............:D

What a sad day that such an iconic capability is being offloaded!

And will there be any requirement for the MRT? Or is that being offloaded aswell?

[tucumseh]

Surely the whole prog will have to be rebid as this is a significant change to the original contract?


Good point but such shenanigans are common place. Losing bidders (i.e. hadn't a hope in the first place) are usually told to keep quiet or they will be blacklisted. In the days when we had funding, you often found the "losers" were awarded another contract a month or so later, thus maintaining their share of the Defence budget. Happens less these days, for some reason.

[Tallsar]

The demise of any mil input to UK SAR, while not affecting general civ helo rescue in many circumstances, will have a marked effect on the UK mil's profile in the UK...especially once we have withdrawn from that unwinnable conflict in Afghanistan. What a strange country we now live in where fighting such a distant war is apparently more important than ensuring air force involvement in our own shore and maritime defences. It will also stunt any future military initiatives in this capability as the strategic situation changes around our coasts - a double blow along with the chopping of our LRMP/ISTAR platform capability.

Thus 2010 will stand as the year in which UK plc gave up on any dedicated maritme air capability within its air force. From the 3 major components that formed Coastal Command (and it's later sub versions) from WW2 onwards (ASW, Antiship & ASR (as it was then)) - to nil...s*d all...finito...... Many of course will continue to believe that the Battle of Britain clinched the deal for us in WW2, when in fact it was the continous and brave efforts of our maritime air forces (Coastal & the FAA) that won the Battle of the Atlantic...and from there victory was borne.

Bye bye good friend....many courageous, professional and dedicated people served (and continue to serve for a few years yet) and worked hard with limited resources to develop much of the capability which is now being contracted out.....Goodbye.............

"Constant Endeavour"......no more:{:ugh::confused:

[heights good]

"So, who is now going to do battlefield SAR?"

It was never the SAR guys that fulfilled that role, good god, that would mean working more that 10 days a month and no slippers and pipe! :ok:

The guys that have been doing it for years will continue to do it, SH and the Americans.

I am sure the Taliban would appreciate a huge bright yellow Sea King shaped target in Afghanistan. :E

[themightyimp]

A SAR-H contract being let? :=

[vecvechookattack]

This is great news (although not really news) but will mean plenty of jobs for the boys in civvy street....thankfully, I see a lot of CV's being written....

[Tinribs]

I have spent the last five years operating fixed wing into Aberdeen along with many angry palm trees

During those years I have been vastly impressed by the profesionalism and sheer tenacity of the helo boys and girls

Who should do SAR is a valid argument but don,t enter it with the idea the civy helos are not capable

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

an heir to the throne receiving a P45


Hardly! It's not as if the existing SAR set-up is going to be binned overnight...is it?:eek:

[Rigga]

Quite - I mean, it may take a whole week when they finally decide who gets the job and when.

[busdriver02]

There is a distinct difference between civil SAR and CSAR. Your EH101 crews will no doubt continue to improve their CSAR ability despite the loss of civil SAR mission.

[Roger the cabin boy]

The EH101 CSAR role never actually materialised mate. As I understand it, the Merlin boys did a fairly big work-up, configured the sqn and were validated by NATO in role - only to have the role deleted.

Should the USAF be unavailable, Brit CSAR (such as it is..) will be cuffed by whatever platform is available in-theatre at the time.

[Oldandgrey]

So what will happen to SARTU and the SAR cover in the Falklands and Cyprus?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

So what will happen to SARTU and the SAR cover in the Falklands and Cyprus?


Noone's quite sure yet...even when the main SAR-H announcement is made (I'm assuming it's 'when' not 'if'!), it may take some time for the loose ends such as the 3 units you mention are dealt with. If you have time on your hands, you can gain some idea of the options from the concise and 100% accurate SAR-H thread on Rotorheads...:\

[Biggus]

So when will the announcement be made...?

[Biggus]

It sounds as though something official may finally be announced at some point this week:

BBC News - Coastguard centres face closure amid spending cuts (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11978002)

[TheSmiter]

Seems like we are heading for the unprecedented sight of an heir to the throne receiving a P45 from his current job.


Well that's not going to happen as PW will, by 2014, have moved on to his next post as XO UK :D

However, my money's on the above being the angle the red tops take, soon as they realise the implications of this announcement.

Cynical? Moi?

PS By red top, I mean any and all modern dumbed down media.

[TheSmiter]

:ugh:

I swear I never read this on Rotorheads before posting above!

Prince William helicopter crew could be cut as David Cameron sells off search and rescue - mirror.co.uk (http://redirectingat.com/?id=42X487496&xs=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mirror.co.uk%2Fnews%2Ftop-stories%2F2010%2F12%2F12%2Fprince-william-helicopter-crew-could-be-cut-as-david-cameron-sells-off-search-and-rescue-115875-22778963%2F&sref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pprune.org%2Frotorheads%2F405129-sar-h-contract-soteria-preferred-bidder-58.html)

You couldn't make it up! So predictable!

[NorthernKestrel]

Someone once told me the PR value of those big friendly yellow helicopters was 'priceless'...



Given that the RAF will have an even more reduced footprint in terms of aircraft, bases and personnel, does it make sense to get rid of one of the few ways in which Joe Public are aware of the RAFs (+RNs) work which has a direct, positive impact on saving UK lives....

[TheSmiter]

Kestrel

No.

But when did value figure in the bottom line - which is all we're interested in nowadays.

You're right, though; post Afg what visibility will the Armed Forces have in the public eye? Little, I suspect. Which then makes Defence easy pickings for cuts in the future.

One day, we'll wake up and it'll all be a bad dream :hmm:

[Jayand]

The armed forces do not exist just to be seen and have a high profile with the public, cutting mil sar would be a huge shame but keeping it mil just so people can see us doing stuff other than fighting isn't right either.

[vecvechookattack]

BBC News - Search and rescue fleet 'could be privatised' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11978628)

At 47 seconds there are a pair of maintainers marshalling the aircraft. One with his sleeves rolled up and one who doesn't believe in eye protection.....

[TheSmiter]

Jay

I don't think anyone is even remotely suggesting the Forces should exist just to be seen - however, even with the latest cuts, the budget is still a big chunk of taxpayers money and I think they need to know what you're bringing to the party. There is precious little positive profile at the moment, much less with the demise of mil SAR. Aside from Afghanistan and the odd bit of MACP eg troops (inc RN and RAF) shovelling snow, some of the few 'good news' stories coming out of MoD are to do with the professionalism and bravery of RAF / RN SAR crews.

The point is, it won't take much for JP to ask, post Afg - what exactly do you do?

[Jayand]

The problem is I am so cynical about everything now, experience show us that anything could and will happen and I am afraid no ammount of good news stories or high profile press will make any difference.

[Climebear]

So, with the demise of Harrier and if the Merlins don't go to the Junglies, and if SARH disbands 771 and Gannet, how big/small will the FAA be in 5 years time? Will it be sustainable then or will l
the light blue brethren need to get used to spending time afloat flying of the back if Pussers' big grey war canoes!

Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force anyone?
;)

[Martin the Martian]

That would leave 30 Merlin HM.2s, about the same number of Lynx Wildcats and the ASaC cabs. Could the FAA justify keep Culdrose and Yeovilton open? Plenty of room at VL for the grey fleet, 750 could decamp to Cranwell as part of MFTS, SFDO to wherever Dave is based, FRADU back to Bournemouth or even St. Mawgan -sorry, Newquay Cornwall Airport. I guess the Fire School could merge with the Manston establishment.

Ouch.:sad:

[TwoStep]

Bear in mind that Yeovilton won't just be home to the Navy Wildcats, but also the Army and Marine examples as well, so that's 62 aircraft, and the potential for a handful more to come. VL will be a very busy place.

[Biggus]

Does that mean that Middle Wallop will close?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

No, Middle Wallop is needed to house DHFS when Shawbury closes...

[TwoStep]

No, Middle Wallop is needed to house DHFS when Shawbury closes...

Or will it be Lyneham in 2017?

[Biggus]

So where does MFTS fit into military helicopter training in all this....?

[ORAC]

BBC: Search and rescue helicopter announcement delayed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12007031)

16 December 2010 Last updated at 08:46

The government has postponed a planned announcement about the sell-off of the UK's search and rescue helicopters.

A foreign consortium had been due to take over their running from the RAF.

But the government "had become aware of a possible issue in connection with its bid" within the past 48 hours, said Transport Secretary Philip Hammond.

He said that "as soon as we are able" the government would set out its plans "to secure the provision of search and rescue helicopter capability".

[blodwyn]

What issue has just come to light then? Don't go needingvto be rescued in the Falklands :D

[Postman Plod]

Slightly off topic, but government announcing its cutting coastguard centres from 18 to 8, of which only 3 will be 24/7, and this is going to improve current levels of service....

How?!?!

I'm guessing the intention was to announce this and SAR-H at the same time... A good time to bury bad news?

[vecvechookattack]

BBC News - Coastguard stations set to be slashed (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12007031)

Essentially,

Aberdeen, Dover and Lee on solent remain 24 hrs.

Swansea, Falmouth, Humber, Belfast or Liverpool, Stornoway or Shetland go to daylight only

The rest will close

[Yeoman of England]

First post please bear with me.

The cost of SAR-H is escalating at the same time the MCA has announced station closures - but since last month, and continuing for at least a year the MCA is spending thousands on a roll-out of new computer systems and upgraded radio systems in ALL 19 stations.:ugh:

So much for saving money. At the same time the MCA is still advertising low paid vacancies.

How can this be justified ?

Too much overpaid middle management & meddlers in situations that they do not understand.:ugh:

This has a major impact on all aspects of SAR. No DF, 3 full time stations, no local knowledge - how can we at the coalface direct SAR assets ?
Part time SAR does not work 9-5:rolleyes:

Thoughts ?

[robin]

Great isn't it.

The Far SW has the longest coastline but won't be getting much in the way of cover.

[Postman Plod]

But this is an improvement in service!! It'll be better! :ugh:

[tucumseh]

I wonder if anyone in MoD intends clarifying this continual claim that the SAR fleet is “ageing”. All the press reports use this term and I’m sure the public (if they even care) swallow it. In fact, the Mk3A fleet comprises some of the newest aircraft in the inventory. The programme only started in 1994. What was the ISD – about 1997?

Perhaps there are wider issues here. Other SKs date back to the late 60s (testament to their enduring nature) and it could be that the decision to replace the ASW, and now retire the SH and AEW fleets early, made the support costs of the remaining Mk3As (and slightly older Mk3s) prohibitively expensive. There are many components of aircraft support that are not volume related (something, if better understood in MoD, would have prevented many of their current aviation problems). But I may be crediting MoD with too much there – and I completely disagree with the decision to slash the MoD’s in-house capability. Short sighted and absolutely barking.

MoD are very often ambushed on these issues. Many years ago in the mid-80s I was at the annual SAR policy meeting. Main topic – Combat SAR. Aircraft tail numbers for conversion allotted. Prime contractor selected. Place of conversion agreed. What cabs would be allotted to sustain capability during conversion , and so on. All good stuff.

Then a beancounter walked in and set up flipchart. The chair (an Air Cdre) was clearly taken by surprise. BC announced that the aircraft had enough fuel to fly 400 miles; 200 out, 200 back. (He didn’t know we had both Wessex and Sea King). He flipped over a map which had 200 mile circles around each SAR station in the UK. (It was clearly borrowed from the Met Office – the Orkney and Shetland Isles were in their box off the NE coast of England). He simply said – Where there is overlap, a station must close. To a man, all 20 or so present shouted “time on task”, but he was gone. Word came down that “higher ups” had been given the heads up, but hadn’t bothered making a counter argument; they thought the Treasury were flying a kite. You may recall subsequent closures. You allow them to slice away and eventually what remains is too thin, so they ditch the capability altogether.

I’m afraid that is the level of their thinking, although I may be crediting them with too much.

[AQAfive]

Commercial SAR - how long before they start charging for a rescue?
Make sure your insurance is up to date!

[Rigga]

Interesting point.
What happens in Australia?
Isnt all their coastal SAR private? (LifeFlight?)

[LFFC]

MoD suspends helicopter rescue contract - (http://www.supplymanagement.com/news/2010/mod-suspends-helicopter-rescue-contract/)18 December 2010 (http://www.supplymanagement.com/news/2010/mod-suspends-helicopter-rescue-contract/)



“However, the preferred bidder has informed the Ministry of Defence (MoD) it has become aware of a possible issue in connection with its bid to provide the UK search and rescue capability, which was the basis of its selection as the preferred bidder as announced in February 2010,” Hammond said in a statement. “In the circumstances it is not appropriate for us to proceed with the programme.”



Oh well - back to the drawing board!

[tucumseh]

the preferred bidder has informed the Ministry of Defence (MoD) it has become aware of a possible issue in connection with its bid

I imagine the cancellation of Nimrod MRA4 and the resultant cut in SAR capability and facilities, which the SAR-H negotiations would regard as "Government Furnished Services" and a given, may be a "possible issue" that would affect the bid. Perhaps SAR-H will be renamed SAR-H/FW and take another decade to negotiate.

[Sven Sixtoo]

“In the circumstances it is not appropriate for us to proceed with the programme.”

Does anyone else read that as saying it's been cancelled? Or does it just mean " wait out, there's an issue we have to work through"?

Sven
still seeking employment

[Shell Management]

Tuc

It is the basis to which the SK was certified.
Very elderly 1960s standards.

[LFFC]

There's a bit more background here:

UK halts £6 billion helicopter deal after bid issue (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6BF1SC20101216)


A spokesman for Soteria was not available for comment.

The reasons for the suspension were not clear but it follows growing domestic concern over the costs of the proposal to demilitarise Britain's search and rescue fleet.

Government and aerospace industry officials, who are upset about proposals to replace Westland Sea Kings with the U.S.-made S-92s, have called for a pause or rethink of plans.

[glad rag]

Sooooo, the loss of near (coastguard stations) and far (Nimrod), SAR co-ordination has thrown a enough of a wobbly for "Government and aerospace industry officials" to throw their anchor in and stop the modernisation process.

It would seem that callmedave and his coalition cronies have been somewhat naive in the ways of Whitehall and are about to receive their comeuppance on this and many other proposed budget restrictions.

As long as they don't touch foreign aid/EU etc etc :mad:.

[Tallsar]

Glad Rag...I believe you have some valid points there...there has certainly been some niavety at various levels and involving wider issues in both MoD and the DfT than just SAR-H.

These changes in various associated areas are important issues ...and the potential loss of direct MoD involvement will certainly have disturbed some members of those supporting the Soteria bid...think of it from a bankers perspective...SAR helo ops are regarded as risky, never mind if the contract also calls for other non-SAR helo missions that have previously been flow under military control..

Other major financial factors have also changed in the last 15 months or so. Don't forget that was when the final 2 bidders submitted their detailed bids and the final detaled pre-contract discussions had yet to be finalised.....It could just be that some key players in the Soteria consortium just don't see this a profitable exercise anymore.....certainly not without substantial re-negotiation...and if so that then opens up the distinct possibility of previous bidders intervening too.

Do I think the Minister's statement was indicating the collapse of the programme?...not nccessarily at this stage...but it was certainly a holding statement while all concerned see if there is a way forward, and would not heve been made if there was not a signifcant issue(s) to be resolved.

[chopabeefer]

Perhaps all that has actually happenned is that somebody in a position to do so, has actually had the intestinal fortitude to halt this false process before it goes too far (albeit at quite a late stage). It cannot be reasonably argued that it is cheaper for the Government to privatise SAR than it is to simply write a cheque for 20 or so brand new SAR platforms, and give them to the military (and this Rolls-Royce option is probably not even required at this stage). Why bother setting up a SAR service of unknown and unproven ability when the best SAR service in the world already exists in the UK? I have no doubt that Soteria have convincing arguments to support their case - but forgive me here, they would...wouldn't they - facts can be skewed and goals 'realigned' to suit most purposes. Are Soteria being dishonest? I seriously doubt it, but they have an agenda and are looking for a profit (not much of a commercial concern if they aren't!) Saving Lives is not traditionally a get rich quick scheme in my book. The RAF/RN can continue to provide the current service, easily. Keep the 3A's, add in a few 412's (already operated in the COMR at DHFS and 84 Sqn), in the short term, and upgrade in the future. Keep it military and it will cost less, retain a pool of expert pilots in the MOD, allow the Gov't to tell the public that safety is not a cost issue and that is why they have decided to retain the best SAR service in the world. If Soteria get the contract, then as a new company, they are going to have to immediately enter the market as the very best SAR service in the entire world, just to be the equal of the service they are replacing. And they will still be far more expensive.

[Evalu8ter]

'Beefer,
If only 'twas true. Military SAR is expensive; we, as servicemen, are expensive once training, pension, allowances and housing are all factored in (for groundcrew as well as aircrew). The MoD simply can't write a cheque for 20-25 new aircraft in the current fiscal environment; what would you rather cancel to prop up SAR? This delay is worrying; it opens up the potential for all sorts of day-on-day delays and increased costs. Unfortunately the PFI route is the only one that makes sense for SAR; if the community had embraced CSAR and accepted more drifting in/out of SH then perhaps people would have found a justification to roll the new SAR ac into a project such as FMH. The SARF didn't move with the times and made itself a sitting duck for privitisation. The massive reduction in mil FJ flying in the UK is probably the last nail in the coffin. SARH offers the beancounters the opportunity to recapitalise the ac at low intial cost and move the risk burden onto industry and then not worry about it for a generation. I feel the dark hand of Westlands in this mix and the coalition would just love to announce a new year fillip for LibDem South West MPs by bringing Yeovil back into the game.

Oh, and will someone offer Sven a job....

[Tallsar]

Some good points in there Evalu8ter......seen those arguments rehearsed quite a few times before and they remain sadly pertinent.
The only issue I'd take with you is about moving on to CSAR. It was not the fault of the RAF SARF that it was bypassed in any move to generate a UK CSAR capablity..(which has now withered on the vine anyway!)...there was a real push at various levels to do precisely that...starting from our involvement in the Falklands in '82,and frquent particpation in CS&R & AWC exercises. Its apogee of course was '97 when 2 cabs were despatched to the States as part of the big UK/US joint warfare exercise at the time...it was hard work...and created some signifcant problems to keep UK SAR going simultneously Unfortunately it backfired when SDR98 appeared as several key MoD players (incldung some from within the SH Force) were determined to marginalise the SARF for several reasons...thus the scene was set...and RN/RAF SAR did not join the JHC (as it should have done IMO)...and all might then have been very different...
There has always been a proportion of the RAF SARF that rather enjoys just doing the job (and very professionally!) and remain on the margins of the "combat" RAF....and no doubt they sent their CVs to Soteria as soon as Preferred Bidder was announced. However, since the arrival of the SK all those years ago, there has always been a good cross section of ex SH, and younger aircrew who would have been able to adapt very enthusiastically and competently to any deployable role had that been sent their way.....Shame it never happened ..as you say...

[Could be the last?]

E8,

All flying is expensive, but if you were to map the Soteria solution onto Mil manpower/ac etc then I would expect it to be cheaper, more flexible and deliver an exceptional service. Don't forget the 60's ac and subsequent trg mentality that goes along with the current SARF dictates the majority of the cost. With new ac (no fleets within fleets) and 21st century equipment you could overhaul the entire trg package and, more importantly, for the beancounters be VFM.

Anyone who thinks the 'preferred bidder' doesn't have profit as the number one priority then needs to get their head out of their AR$£!

Just my opinion! :ok:

[Evalu8ter]

Could Be,
I quite agree. I was at a product brief for S92 and was frankly astonished by the direct operating cost they quoted - it was much, much less than I expected. Now, even allowing for sales hype & spin, as you say, a modern platform (even one based on UH60) should have cheaper costs - it would be commercial suicide to do elsewise. However, the whole "lets buy S92/EC725/Refurbished Carson SKs" falls down on one essential premise; we are broke for the next EP epoch. To invest in a new type would mean cutting elsewhere - so where? Another pair of GR sqns? A Typhoon sqn? The CH47 new buy? I'd rather we had our own cabs and crews (and a more rotating door from SH) but we cannot afford it. The PFI is just the same as leasing a car from the garage; a bit of legwork and you end up with a Beemer instead of a Ford. Seems that Westlands are lobbying hard for us to buy Ladas though....

Of course Sartoria need to make a profit - how else do you raise the capital to buy the machines and provide a return to shareholders? The question is, can they provide the requisite service and still make a profit? As I said before, the contract puts this risk firmly with them. If it's that unpopular with crews I'm surprised how many have sent Nicky a CV.....

[Tallsar]

Hi again Evalu8ter.

You are correct of course...not any extra cash in the pot...except that already programmed in for maintaining the SK until 2015 (now) and then the annual payments for the SAR-H programme post 2012 until 2042 (when the last flight ceases to be on contract).

Therefore there is already the bulk of the cash programmed in...Question is simply do they go ahead with that, or if not (due to whatever reason is behind the recent announcement) then any SK continuance will have to fit the spend profile as already mentioned - and only perhaps for up to 10 years to 2020 when a bright new finacial dawn might allow something shiney and new. If immediate mods are required...be they sustainment or capability...then if they can't be afforded from the already planned profile funds...as you say they will have to be found to the detriment of something else......IMO it will not be allowed to be so much as to have the effect you mention...but surely something will have to give from the MoD budget somewhere if Minister's want to save their skins - twas ever thus...or taken at risk - hoping that JSF will underspend in-year or something similar!

...and anyway...Lada is quite a good brand these days!:ooh::)

[BEagle]

Back in the winter of 1962-3, which older readers might recall was pretty severe, my abiding memory of the local Westward TV news was of the SAR Whirlwinds spending a lot of time helping to deliver fodder to livestock on the moors.

If this snow stays around much longer, and with most of the SH force out in the Afghan theatre, will one of these mercenary SAR contractors be carrying out a similar task?

And when the thaw and floods start, will they be capable of another Boscastle-type rescue? 3 minutes after a 10ft wall of water devastated the town, RCC Kinloss was alerted; 19 min later RN and RAF helicopters were scrambled. About an hour later, Kinloss were advised to put all available helicopters on standby and 2 further helicopters were then scrambled.

Eventually 7 helicopters airlifted 100 people to safety during this major incident - on a British summer day.

I might be a simple old Hector, but I simply cannot see that type or level of rapid response being provided by a lowest-bidder contractor unless that contractor's crews are all ex-military and thoroughly experienced on the aircraft type. You cannot just go out and buy it....:mad:

[Biggus]

BEagle,

Regarding your first point:

Delivering fodder to livestock in winter comes under the terms of..

Military Aid to the Civil Community....

Military Aid to the Civil Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Aid_to_the_Civil_Community)

While I am no expert on the matter, I believe costs are incurred, and paid by the ministry of agriculture (or whatever it is called this week) in the case of feeding animals. A variety of military assets, e.g. SH, can be used as well as/instead of SAR helos.

If the contractor is to be reimbursed on a case by case basis I see no reason why a private SAR organization would not be willing to provide such a service. Indeed it was probably part of the original contract. I also consider skill sets would not be an issue in terms of completing the task of feeding livestock!!

Whether the ministry of agriculture is willing to pay for the service is probably another matter entirely....

While not wishing to criticize BEagle personally, this particular point illustrates, assuming that I am correct, that coming to the forum having already done one's research can save a lot of time and effort for everyone.



Reference your second point, I see no reason why a private SARH organization could not deal with a Boscastle type incident. You specifically mention "the level of rapid response" - I would assume the contract for the SARH privatization specified the response times required, which are no doubt the same as the current military (and civil -don't forget the coastguard) ones. Indeed, given that the S-92 has a higher transit speed than a Sea King you could argue that the overall response of the proposed new system would have been FASTER. My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that any private company would seek initially to recruit ex-military SAR aviators. They know the job, the local area issues, and they might be cheaper to hire (as most contractors seem to assume all e-military people already have a pension) to start with. But I fully admit I haven't researched this particular issue.... :ok:

[Lioncopter]

BEagle,

Civilian crews go where they are tasked.... be it by ARCC or a MRCC.


P.S a fully crewed and ready to go spare SAR S-92 was offered to help with flooding in the past but was turned down.

Cheers

[Evalu8ter]

TallSar,
Quite correct; if any AW inspired SK LEP were to fit the SARH spend profile into the next epoch then when we return to the sunny uplands of underspend we could revisit the requirement...along with trying to buy-back the 10 CH47s, 4 Puma 2s, 3 Merlin 3/3A, MPA (from scratch...) and the inevitable under-buy of F35 that we're foregoing now. However, if, as I'm sure AW have hawked to the MoD, you roll-up SK LEP to replace Puma2 as well you could probably leverage some quite meaty in-year savings and still put a type out of the inventory and have more LitM capable machines. And keep LibDems happy in the SW.

Beags,
You were critical on another thread of buying RW in case a "real" enemy arises. Hmm, investing in RW gives you a palpable public return on the investment and goes a long way towards improving our public image. At the moment the real enemies are the Taliban and the British winter, neither of which the Typhoon is doing anything to counter...:}

[Tallsar]

E8ter..we are in angry agreement with each other I see.....save to say SDSR2015 is a long way away...and all those "buy back issues" etc will be seen in yet another (cutting?) light by then.....there is a case for continued mil investment in UK based rotary (IMO a transformed SARF)...depending on what roles and military style requirements you place on them, including their inter-departmental use too...an issue not addressed as yet except in the narrow SAR-H construct and which did little to address this properly. Another issue they could have tackled was vfm fixed wing provision too...and how sad the inevitable MoD protectionism of the Nimrod based capability now looks. Maybe it will ever be so given the UK Government's sad record on sorting inter-departmental issues effectively, despite all the ministerial rhetoric to the contrary.

[Squirrel 41]

It's worth remembering that the announcement was made by Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport, not by the good Dr Fox - because it's all about the Maritime & Coastguard Agency's (MCA) cash IIRC. So if Dept for Transport (DfT) are the ones paying the bill, then the higher costs of MoD doing it for them will be very unattractive, even if it provides MoD with some positive PR / baseline CSAR capability / flex for SH / <<insert positive MoD point here>>.

I was - and remain - very sceptical of PFI in the forces (FSTA, anyone?); and I hate the idea of SAR being all civil (always happy to see big yellow taxi over Suffolk knowing that the best possible help is on the way). It's not rational - I'm sure the same guys in civvie suits would do a good job (eg FRL EW training) - but I want it to stay two shades of blue.

However.

If contractorisation is significantly cheaper and takes care of the capital spend on new cabs now (obviously more expensive long term), then DfT would only go down the mil-SAR route if the MoD matched the cost to DfT of a contractor solution - by MoD subsidising the costs, presumably.

Which given the state of the MoD budget is NOT going to happen. As has been said, we'd all like a 24 cab buy of Merlin SAR Mk. 4 (or whatever - like the shiney Canadian ones), but what are you prepared to cut furhter in the MoD to pay for it?

S41

[Tallsar]

I shall state the obvious.....this thread is now verging well off topic...which I have assisted :uhoh: ...there is a good thread on Rotorheads.....suggest all carry on there instead of risking repeating all the same points.....

As for mil aircrew retention...that of course wll be the bonus of maintaning the SK should SAR-H collapse....issues about re-equipment and transfer of funding or subsdies will then have been kicked into the long grass for at least another 10 years. As suggested above...this then opens up broader possibilities for what will come next, given there wil be a new government with yet another different take on our Defence and other government expenditure priorities..

[chopabeefer]

I note that my comments were dismissed in a fairly cavalier manner. This is unfortunate as it may lead those viewing the forum to conclude that the comments made in opposition to mine are correct. They are not. I will not enter in an argument as it is pointless. Rather, I implore all viewing to look at the FACTS... Do your own research (that way you will trust the numbers). How much would new helo's cost to buy, and run? 65% less than SOTERIA claim. How much to run them? Interesting - I note a lot of posters have said that the MOD is too expensive and hard to change. Really? Seems to me it is changing in unheard of ways at the moment - it employs some incredibly intelligent people - is it really unable to change? No, it is not. Now, those supporters of the civilian option will scorn and scoff and deride my comments, I am sure, but I am still right. Nikki may have CV's, but only from those who are unwilling or more realistically unable to revert to the mainstream MOD - a new employee who was so bad as a QHI his entire course refused to fly with him - you won't believe what position he has been given!- great, well done Soteria.... far more telling is to look at a list of those who have not applied. There exists a hunger and a desire in the MOD to provide an world leading SAR force, as has been the case for years - if a private contractor can match that service, then good, well done, and crack on. If they cannot, they will have blood on their hands. This is a disaster waiting to happen - I will document it all and report back with alacrity. Deriders may pour scorn on me, but when it comes to SAR, I care, and I know exactly what I am talking about. If others have been SAR crew, run Sqn's, and now run SAR contracts in Civvy street (albeit abroad), as senior managers, then you may berate me, otherwise please accept that I speak with a clear conscience and a heavy heart. And I assure you I am right.

[A4scooter]

If the SAR services are to be privatised I presume they will rely on ex RAF/RN/army personnel to crew and maintain the helicopters.
Given that PFI has proved to be a failure and that a private consortium will make money out of saving lives wouldn't it be a more sensible to purchase the helicopters (I'm sure a finance packages are used for military procurement similarly to the private sector ensuring that at least we own the helicopters) and use full time reservists to crew and maintain the helicopters etc.
Using ex RAF/RN/army personnel would enable the UK to keep trained personnel "in house" without the requirement to house them etc.

[Hedgeporker]

Have we learnt nothing? This is just another case of jobs for the boys . . . on the board, that is.

Oh well, at least there will also be more jobs for ex-mil chaps in future.

[Could be the last?]

Chopa,


:D

[Thomas coupling]

Even senior insiders are in the dark on this one.
My best hunch for what it's worth:
The mil were expected to pay for 2/3rds of this. Now they are gone. Can MCA be expected to front up the whole amount, especially after they have just undegone a massive SDR of their own? Of course not. Where will the government go for the remainder?
Consequently I suspect Soteria are uneasy with the contract now and worried that IF they sign on the dotted line after confirmation the mil are history, then somewhere down the line they may be expected to carry more of the financial load...and this wasn't part of the deal.
The MCA are a shadow of their former selves after these savage cuts in their inventory - does anyone honestly feel they are capable of running an alien concept such as SAR-H before their cuts never mind after them? It requires specialist aviators to run a SAR outfit and the coastguard for all their expertise have zero, nil, nada aviation experience in the UK. They leave it to the helicopter companies themselves.

Soteria are going to have to renegotiate the contract, which means they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Sign up and be damned. Argue over the changes and the competition will return for seconds! There will be no prisoners :{

The government have just shot themselves in the foot with this.......

[Tallsar]

TC...empathise with much of what you say..its all entirely plausible...coupled with the (changed) assessment of Soteria's bankers concerning what you have said. A PFI's bankers worry more about the risks at all levels than even the customer! While the risks you talk of are to some extent intangible..they are the very sort that frightens the banking horses. Not withstanding the DfT/CG issues you noted....the very involvement of a high proportion of mil aircrew sent a clear commitment message which reassured those in the banking community...suggesting that HMG would always stand behind the programme..sometimes for unforeseen political reasons that can never be enshrined in a contract..and from what has been rumoured, was about to disappear.
As you say, all these issues have undermined the very solidity the customer was looking for in any bidder's bid construct giving Soteria no choice but to identify their concerns......or maybe it was nothing about this at all, but rather some very inappropriate goings-on in the bid process (I hope not!)
.....I gather the local rag in North Devon today quotes Min AF (the local MP) as saying "there may have to be a rebid"....although he says nothing of the cause....hopefully we will all hear more soon.

Given what's happened elsewhere in departmental budgets, its hard to believe that what will replace it will not be as shiney and expensive which by definition means either something smaller and radical (Mmmm unlikely) or a much truncated version of what we have in order to keep costs under control.

[PhamousPhotographer]

Already referred to on Rotorheads, but have a look at

MoD suspends contract sell-off after leak to winning bidder - Channel4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/mod-suspends-contract-sell-off-after-leak-to-winning-bidder)

What next from the MoD?

[Evalu8ter]

PP,
Not wishing to appear cynical but this looks like a piece of theatre to me. Almost any project could have the same accusation laid at it thanks to the ease with which military/DE&S pers (esp contractors) move between the ECC/DE&S (and other senior mil/CS appointments) and Industry. Quite naturally, all bidding consortia engaged military specialists to help prepare their submissions - they would be mad not to. The problem is that the "cooling off" period for senior hands appear to have been enforced less than completely since BLiar intervened to help a certain retiring ex-VSO to secure a place with BAES upon leaving....

I would suggest that the Govt don't want to front up the cash as they have politically distanced themselves from PFIs, other Industrial partners are lobbying furiously for the work and the Govt doesn't want another bad news story on the heels of MRA4. Therefore, shift the blame onto some poor ex-MoD type and wipe your hands on making a decision.

Cynical? Yes, but stranger things have happened.....

[Autorev]

Evaluator,
Whilst many here may share your cynicism, I fear this is more than 'theatre'.

Whilst the allegations against the un-named ex-serving officer now working for CHC (not a huge list of candidates, I grant you,) are serious, the withdrawal of RBS from the consortium is likely to be a huge obstacle to overcome.

Regardless of what plan B turns out to be, the inevitable delay to the programme, and associated costs, is not a good thing. Except maybe for the mil crews who will remain in SAR a bit longer ( that's if they haven't already dug an escape route based on previous transition schedules!)

There are very few winners in this sorry debacle. Another botched DE&S project is not the kind of press needed right now. Here's hoping this 'news' will result in a bit more information from MoD/DfT and a bit less uncertainty for the "UK" SAR Force.

You really couldn't make it up....

[Tallsar]

Well Said AutoRev :ok:

If this all proves to be true...and lets not forget this is press "speculation" at the moment.......then it willbe a sorry day for UK SAR, and yet anothe rone for effective MoD/HMG procuremnt processes.

I understand your cycnicism Evalua8ter...but this rumoured inappropriate behaviour seems to have originated from within the IPT...and not anything to do with ex operators of any seniority embedded within the bidding teams......I pray it proves unfounded...as if proved true, it will be an real embarrasment and only further undermine the integrity of the system.

The whole thing depends on integrity and a level playing field...and if either the processes or individuals do not contibute honestly to this, then the whole thing deserves fall apart...it would appear this is what is happening with SAR-H...supposedly one of the most "Straight forward commercial style PFIs" that MoD has been involved in...to paraphrase someone very close to the programme!

:{:sad::ooh:

[green granite]

Or is it a case that, with the demise of the Nimrod, there is to be no top cover for long range rescue ops which could be out of radio contact. If the consortium were expecting cover then safety wise it has seriously altered the circumstances.
The Government couldn't possibly admit that this was the reason of course so they spin it.

[Tallsar]

GG - a thought for sure...but I can assure you that the SAR-H contract did not hinge in any shape or form on the provision of Nimrods, or its top cover role. In fact, this already has been, and could be again, provided by other means (however less focussed), including the C130 the RAF that now has allocated the role too.

Cheers

[green granite]

Ok thanks for that info Tallsar, I didn't realise the C130 carried ASV radar.

[Tallsar]

GG...of course it doesn't ......and I would never suggest that the substitutes are a complete and fully effective replacement for what the Nimrod in any guise, would have offered. The C130 can of course, visually locate targets, and no doubt offer some degree of radar target aquisition, however inadequate. Its prime role will of course be to offer visual search, radio link top cover (although that will normally prove irrelevant given that a future SAR-H cab will have both satcom and HF.... )..and of course be in the overhead if things go wrong and offer some additional SAR/rescue equipment support.

.....the demise of the MRA4 has been tragic for so many reasons...and well covered in other threads...

....but the SAR-H programme was no way dependent on it as a programme bid process or essential element in the choices made.

[tucumseh]

I didn't realise the C130 carried ASV radar

I retain a 1998 letter from a Gp Capt (Supplier) at Wyton justifying the proposed procurement of certain equipment for C130 on the grounds it was fitted with an Active Dipping Sonar.


(The company refused to quote on the grounds they could not be party to such rank incompetence. MoD Legal chose not to proceed with his next recommendation, that the company be sued. I wonder why).


And you wonder where the money goes! :ugh:

[NutLoose]

U.K. Military Crews Won't Be Part of SAR-H Deal


Already referred to on Rotorheads, but have a look at

MoD suspends contract sell-off after leak to winning bidder - Channel4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/mod-suspends-contract-sell-off-after-leak-to-winning-bidder)

What next from the MoD?

Erm in reply to both of them, it appears the Money has now gone to fund it as well..




RBS pulls out of £6bn helicopter deal

Bank walks away from rescue service contract after claims MoD gave away sensitive information

The financial backers of a £6billion privatisation contract for search-and-rescue helicopter services have pulled out of the deal, it emerged last night.
The Royal Bank of Scotland, which was financing the Soteria consortium bid, confirmed it has pulled out of the deal, but declined to say why.


Read more: RBS pulls out of £6bn helicopter deal - Press & Journal (http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/2111440?UserKey=#ixzz1CLm7i34R)



never rains, but it pours...........:ugh:

[Old-Duffer]

Where does this leave the whole programme?

Given the cost of bidding and the time taken to set up the competition, I would have thought just about everybody involved would be pretty (descriptive expletives deleted) annoyed with the MOD.

Presumably the current arrangements will have to run on for a further number of years, with tired old Sea King getting ever more tired.

I'm just waiting for somebody to say that there are so few military aircraft likely to crash that the risk of the crew landing in the sea is so small that the military don't need an SAR capability and the crew can be left bobbin about in the oggin 'till a passing trawler picks them up.

Drifting slightly off thread, the following story is recounted in "The Strider", the magazine of the Long Distance Walking Association. Walker/climber calls 999 and gives map reference where they are in extremis. Call centre says 'don't know about map references, what's the post code'?

O-D

[NutLoose]

Not good is it. :uhoh:

With the bank withdrawing the funding it looks to be all lost at sea.

[Shell Management]

It sounds a very convenient way for HMG to back away from the project, namely rumours of a police investigation and a part nationalised bank pulling out...

But if it is true that the consortium had a mole in the MOD, all the partners are tainted.

[ORAC]

Ares: U.K. SAR Program In Need of Rescue (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a3ef522ac-6b4f-48f9-aeb8-f48a6796ce42&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest)

The U.K. is finding itself in yet another helicopter procurement mess, this time over the effort to outsource search-and-helicopter service.
Having selected the Soteria consortium in 2009 to provide the service, the private finance initiative has come completely unglued.

Military police are investigating improper conduct in the ₤6 billion deal, the Financial Times reports (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7db0dfe-2a4a-11e0-b906-00144feab49a.html#axzz1CoYpGgCp). The financial institution key to pulling off the PFI, the Royal Bank of Scotland, has pulled out, and the program progress has been suspended as the government tries to sort out what has transpired and how to move forward.

U.K. government officials have said next to nothing since they indicated, in December, the program was under review. However, there are growing indications an announcement could emerge soon, perhaps next week, on how to proceed.

Scrapping the deal would be particularly bad news for Sikorsky, which was to provide the search-and-rescue helicopter using its S-92.

Other manufacturers, AgustaWestland and Eurocopter, are watching with interest to see if there will be a new tender. Several industry officials suggest it could be difficult to proceed with the arrangement currently on the books given all that has transpired in recent weeks.

AgustaWestland is all but assured to benefit from the turmoil. The current rotorcraft used in the SAR role, the Sea King, will almost certainly require additional work to remain viable until a replacement is fielded, regardless of whether that is the S-92 or something else.

But the really big questions the U.K. needs to ask is whether a PFI makes sense and whether the demand to sustain 12 bases makes sense?

[pasptoo]

Seems there were too many in the first place! :mad:

FT.com / UK / Politics & policy - MoD was told of air rescue privatisation concerns (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e90bffc2-2f14-11e0-88ec-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1Ct8m0Uyr)

What next?

[GreenKnight121]

That site won't let me read the story unless I register with them.

[Finnpog]

That newspaper has put up a pay wall. Everyone is blocked unless you register.
It's not just you.:ok:

[Rotary Girl]

Google is your friend.
Try entering the article title in Google News. Clicking on the link displayed the story for me without having to register.

[PBI]

Is it still going ahead?

I've heard from some that this has been cancelled due to it being too expensive.I've not been able to find any reliable news articles backing this up, and I'd hope to hear something from those more in the know, before I head down to Cranwell.

[Old-Duffer]

PBI,

You might want to look at the Thread "UK Military Crews won't Be Part Of...."

This Thread is currently on about page 2 of this element of the Forum and contains much discussion which will be of interest to you.

Old Duffer

[WASALOADIE]

Trawl through recent (last couple of weeks) Financial Times, or search FT online, tere arequite a few articles.

[PBI]

Thanks for that, certainly makes for interesting reading.

The challenge now is not to be too cynical at OASC!:O

[Oops Lajes]

There was some articles in Sunday tabloids that HRH had bent PM ear whilst in Zurich for World Cup bid & PM now having re-think!!!!!

[Hilife]

Although this is old news, I suspect very true. I’ve no doubt Dave and his crew are looking closely at a great many programs with a view to saving money.

But regarding the ear bending, can you imagine the public outcry - not to mention the ensuing onslaught by both the Pinkos and Republicans alike - were Dave and his elected parliament (rubber stamped by the Queen) to terminate the (then) preferred solution for the SAR-H PFI at the behest of HRH.

As such, he was never going to be able pay too much attention to any opinions whispered in his shell like from this particular source.

Hopefully we should know soon in which direction this program is heading.

[Fareastdriver]

There is a long Willie waving contest between military and civil SAR on this thread here.
http://SAR-H Contract - Soteria are preferred bidder

[Sven Sixtoo]

If you are heading for OASC, I would steer clear of SAR as a subject. You obviously are not up to speed on the issues (no reason why you should be compared with those of us that were banking on it for our post-55 income after 27 years), and the RAF has made it perfectly clear over several years that SAR is not core business. Stick with what you know, and if you are asked about SAR - 2 Sqns, 22 and 202, operating SK3 and 3A, 6 bases, Navy do 2 more, CHC on behalf of HMCG do 4 more, Aeronautical rescue run by ARCC at Kinloss, and don't forget the only true all-weather land rescue service - RAF Mountain Rescue Teams.

Sven

still hoping for a job

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

...and don't forget the other RAF Sea King operators: 203(R) Sqn, the only RW OCU, and 1564 Flt in the Falklands. And there's the SAR70 anniversary this year (NB that's ASR/SAR in toto, not 70 years of Sea Kings!).

[Thatsthewaytodoit]

BBC News have just reported that the whole process has been abandoned due to "Irregularities in the Bidding Process"
Where do we go from here?

[skua]

MOD police now involved. see
Investegate |Dept. For Transport Announcements | Dept. For Transport: Search & Rescue Helicopter- C (http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=201102080701318471A)

[tucumseh]

This has popped up again this morning on the BBC, as if it is new news.

I’ve no idea what this officer is supposed to have done, but have a feeling the waters are murky.

When MoD decided to stop specifying “requirements” (mainly because they stopped recruiting people who could write them!) the immediate problem faced by industry was how to respond to Invitations to Tender which were vaguely worded with meaningless KURs and URs.

It meant they had to ask clarification questions. That meant dealing with “Commercial” who (a) Hadn’t a scoobie, (b) Didn’t want to admit it so didn’t ask Project Managers who, in turn (c) Were head down because they knew SFA anyway, having been dumped in a PM job without relevant training or experience. Please don’t mention “Requirements Managers” - since being gradually “militarised” since 1988 they have never been taught their primary role, although I notice Bernard Gray has inadvertently stumbled on the “solution”, which resurrects old policy (although he doesn’t realise this).

The problem then is that the bidders are still in the dark, despite asking relevant and fair questions. They must answer the “exam question”, but when it relates to a submarine and the bid is for fast jets, what do they say? They sneak up to a friendly MoD employee, Service or civvy, and quietly ask WTFGO? If the MoD employee so much as answers, he is in breach of so called Commercial Practice. If he dares help the contractor by offering common sense, he is crucified. He’s in a no win situation, because all the while the ISD is slipping; and the bidding has only just begun.

If this has happened in this case, I have a degree of sympathy. I can see how the helpful man would be sucked in. He sees the bidder who is asking proper questions in a better light than the others who are willing to answer “Yes, we will supply submarine gear for your Fast Jet”, thereby gaining top marks in the bid assessment. (All the while preparing a Contract Change Proposal for £MMMs to add the actual requirement, in addition to what we don’t need).

And if you think I’m being facetious with the submarine/fast jet bit; not at all. More common than you think.

[Biggus]

While the announcement that the SAR force is no longer to be privatised answers one question, it throws up many more.

Instantly apparent ones to me include:


Will the RAF/RN Sea Kings need replacing/refurbishing?

Will the RW training system cope with having to provide crews for the SAR force which it hadn't expected to have to do in the near future?

How will MOD continue to fund a SAR force it expected to lose - can we expect financial cuts elsewhere to compensate?

Will the current SAR assets remain where they are?

[TBM-Legend]

It isn't hard to see why China/India etc are on the rise while the West flounders in its own mire....

Great coats on, great coats off......where the f$%k are we?????

[Fareastdriver]

It isn't hard to see why China/India etc are on the rise while the West flounders in its own mire....


No National Health Service, (The third largest employer in the world after the Chinese PLA and Indian State Railways. No benefits system for anybody anybody who is not a citizen. No illegal imigrants, even tourists are fined and ejected if their visa runs out. No child allowance, no this that and the other politically correct quangos. It is quite easy when you have your finances sorted.

[teeteringhead]

Biggus While the announcement that the SAR force is no longer to be privatised answers one question, .... I think "not at the moment" would be more accurate than "no longer" ...

.... but don't hold yer breath (with or without STASS!)

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

If the MoD employee so much as answers


Tucumseh,

I applaud your championing of the poor MoD employee as victim of circumstances, but this may not be what has happened here...


Will the RAF/RN Sea Kings need replacing/refurbishing?

Will the RW training system cope with having to provide crews for the SAR force which it hadn't expected to have to do in the near future?

How will MOD continue to fund a SAR force it expected to lose - can we expect financial cuts elsewhere to compensate?

Will the current SAR assets remain where they are?


Biggus,

1. Probably, unless the delay is only a year or two (seems unlikely that this mess will get sorted so quickly).

2. Yes, easily - in fact, the extension of Mil SAR is potentially a very good thing for people in the training system who were expecting to find themselves in a Puma/Merlin/Chinook but have been put on indefinite hold

3. ...by not buying the extra Chinooks which were funded by ditching Mil SAR?

4. No idea - one hopes so, but if we can do without an MPA, carriers, etc etc, we may well have to do without 12 SAR helicopter bases.

Here's a solution, far from perfect, but then what is?

Refurb the existing Sea Kings, bring out of storage the pinger ones, mil takes over all SAR bases. If there's enough money (as if!), upgrade/refurb all the Sea Kings to one standard eg Mk 8; if not, make the 3s and 3As into Mk 8s, and the 5s/6s into Mk 9s with less fuel/windows etc. No huge problem if some of the aircraft have shorter legs - base them on the south and east coasts, while the ex-3s/3As do Culdrose up the west coast where the long-range work happens. One organisation, all mil aircrew (some RAF, some RN), contracted engineers, and the force does National Standby and various other Govt tasks as well as SAR. Hey presto!

[sycamore]

T-o-t-D,just check there`s no silver Mondeos outside,check yr phones...you can`t talk like that!!!..

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Sycamore,

Thanks for the warning, I was just...what was that...ow, get off...who are you...where are you taking me...

(several days later, recovering from torture and rendition flight to Guantanamo)

Hi, I'm Torque, you must be M***:oh:...

[Pheasant]

First question is whether the Seakings actually need refurbishing or is it just the fact that funding for Seaking finishes in 2015? I am sure the Seaking airframe could go on for many years yet. Also, rather than train up new crews on a false hope of a career why not use reservists on short term contracts?

Finally, despite the current shenanigans re MoD employees being employed by industry, is there any reason (apart from money) why the MCA can't extend the current CHC contract to cover the mil SAR bases as an interim position?

[extpwron]

Interesting article on today's BBC R4 World at One -with names!

Starts at minute 18:15

BBC iPlayer - World at One: 08/02/2011 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00y8v0t/World_at_One_08_02_2011)

[glad rag]

Interesting article on today's BBC R4 World at One -with names!ROFL, one gets the suggestion that they are only just getting started within the MOD.

[tucumseh]

Torque

Thanks. Accepted. I was making a general point, which I think you appreciate.


I listened to the BBC broadcast. There has to be more to this because what was reported is a non-story. If they want to stop the "revolving door", fine, but from what was said his move was within the rules. It is common practice. The officer concerned was probably annoyed he had to wait, because more senior staffs have the "requirement" routinely waived. A certain Reviewing Officer on the Mull of Kintyre crash is a case in point.

The concept if "Chinese Walls" has, to my mind, always been laughable. Only a fool would think (any) company would not seek to use their new employee's expertise - presumably that's why they recruited him. After all, it is acceptable for IPTs to visit one company and brief them on the required answer to bids and afford access to key source documents; while refusing to speak to other bidders and carpeting them for daring to complain. (I don't agree with such favouritism, and wouldn't practice it, but it is nevertheless permitted; especially if a Government Defence Minister and his son are on the Board - perhaps just a coincidence).

Methinks a key phrase in the report was that the preferred bidder "was in trouble anyway". That, coupled with the relatively high profile and potential cost. Not forgetting the money other bidders have sunk into their bids. The words scape and goat come to mind.

[cuckoopen]

I have been reading these threads for a number of years but have never been inclined to post anything until now. And it is the wild generalisations made by Tecumseh about the SAR-H programme that has made me do it.

I speak as someone who has been involved in the SAR-H programme for a number of years and who spent his life in the RAF helicopter world. At the outset I would like to say that IMHO, if the Soteria bid had gone through we would have ended up with a first rate SAR service, crewed by professional aviators from the civil and military world, with a modern, SAR capable aircraft easily meeting, and at times exceeding, the demands set by the Government for the service. Yes, it would have been expensive over the life of the programme but that seems to be the nature of PFI deals in the UK.

Soteria was chosen after a very comprehensive review of all bidders returns and the results of that review are transparent and completely traceable.

The 12 bases would not have been ideal (or even necessary) but there were political issues to consider. Operationally, a different deployment plan would have been better but have you ever tried to close an ambulance station? MPs can get very heated. Logic does not form part of the argument.

Nevertheless, Tecumsehs point about the requirements is ridiculous. Reading his rant you might come to believe that if he had been involved all would have been well. The User Requirements actually evolved over an extended period as a result of much debate among a number of very experienced SAR operators and some detailed OA. These were translated into a set of quite complex system requirements, which were certainly not "vaguely worded and meaningless", and then passed to the potential contractors to form the basis of their responses. Those Contractor responses were actually very detailed and comprehensive rather countering the idea that there was confusion and misunderstanding about the requirements.

As part of the EU rules on acquisition a period of competitive dialogue then took place. This gave the contenders the opportunity to ask the Project Team as many questions as they wanted in order that they be in no doubt as to the capability the military (and the DfT) were seeking. Yes, there were a number of clarifications requested but in a project of this size it would be remarkable if there were not. The questions and the responses, unless there was a commercial reason not to do so, were shared across all interested parties. Queries about operational matters elicited a response from serving Subject Matter Experts (ex SAR Flight Commanders/Training Officers/Experienced crewmen) and MoD and MCA Consultants. Although I cannot speak for the legal and commercial aspects I am convinced that those teams were fully competent.

Soteria and the others took full advantage of this facility and thanked the PT for the refreshing opportunity There can be no excuse for anybody subsequently claiming that they did not understand anything. This is complete "tosh". Everyone was given as much time as they wanted and at the end of the period the potential contractors went away happy. It was also made clear to them that they could come back to the PT with supplementaries on the understanding that these would also be shared. There was absolutely no need for anyone to make private approaches to individuals. Information that was requested was freely given.

An what exactly is Tecumseh "on" when he mentions fast jets and submarines? I cannot follow this at all. Can anybody help?

So, Tecumseh, I suspect you are being facetious. It is a great shame that the conduct of a single individual seems to have ruined this programme. But the new Government was never keen on Browne inspired PFI deals - was this just too good an opportunity to "kill it off" without actually having to cancel it themselves? Just a thought!

[Evalu8ter]

Tuc,
Agreed.

It's also important to remember the influence that short-term contractors can have on projects. My first exposure to this was a chap who'd been working for a PT that shared a project with us for 18mths. As such he was exposed to a large amount sensitive information and, perhaps more importantly, was also involved in several anecdotal coffee bar conversations. I was shocked when a week later he turned up contracting for one of the Industrial partners on the same project....

[tucumseh]

Evalu8ter

I can think of a few in AbbeyWood who will not want reminding of the contractor whose Programme Manager was given his own workstation during contract negotiations, including password access to all MoD's internal commercial and financial discussions and e-mails. He flaunted it daily and took the royal p***.

(I almost called them a "bidder", but they didn't bid for the programme; they just bought the company who won).

We were told to wind it in when we voiced concern. I couldn't put a price on what this supine appeasement cost us. Forty or fifty million maybe. Only time in my career I've been formally asked by (another) company if my boss was taking a backhander.

[Clearedtoroll]

I'm not sure anyone in the know will blame the gentleman concerned. He left the RAF and went to work for a private company in the full knowledge of the IPT, which he is perfectly allowed to do. If he used his knowledge of the SARH requirements to make sure his company's bid met those requirements than that seems quite sensible for both sides...

Would SARH have delivered a capable, reliable and safe (i.e. professional) SAR capability? I think it undoubtedly would as the many civilian SAR operators in the UK demonstrate, but I am not so sure - in the long run - it would have been in the best interests of the military rotary community or the taxpayer.

Some will argue from a resources perspective that SARH was the only deal in town and that the money isn't available for a Plan B... The only reason it isn't (right now) is because of the Government's obsession with PFIs to hide capital spending off balance sheet. Ultimately, the taxpayer pays and PFIs are expensive in the long run, both because of the higher cost of capital to private companies and because of the need to make a profit. Getting rid of RAF and RN SAR doesn't free up resources for the MoD, it just involves a transfer of resources to the DfT.

Others will argue from a military perspective that SAR has no place in an expeditionary military. Although the aircraft haven't deployed recently, the same is not true of the personnel. And then there is MCT, the paramedics, flexibility, morale :8.

So with the faff over new Chinook, Merlin and SARH, perhaps there is an opportunity to properly analyse the cost of doing this differently. When we are no longer in Afghanistan, the taxpayer is going to value a SAR capability in the UK a lot more than deployable SH (rightly or wrongly). And what the masses want, politicians will provide (or be too scared to cut). If we could use this opportunity to develop a SAR capability that can also deploy in some useful roles we might do ourselves a favour.

Anyway, I've been arguing this to whoever has been silly enough to listen for years and I think I'm in a minority.

[Sven Sixtoo]

Clearedtoroll

I don't think you are in a minority, or if you are, it's a big one. There are huge numbers in the business who think just as you do. Whether you get the Services to do it, or invent the Government Flying Service to run all the aircraft currently operated by or on behalf of at least 8 agencies (treating police as 1 and not 54 or however many Forces we have) on non-military Government tasks, there are economies of scale out there for the taking.

While you're at it, how about the Government Boating Service for the 11+ agencies that operate floating things?

Sven

[Dontflyfool]

You have to wonder if the current SDSR plan has already taken SAR crews as a saving and how expensive will it be to 'buy them back'? If this is the case then what other part of the RAF / RN will take the hit and lose more people? Food for thought...

[Tallsar]

Cuckoopen...a good post......well worth reading by all that ever wondered what sort of process we all went through in more detail...as you know...I could do nothing but support or agree with you.

I do agree however, that Tucum has rushed to a judgement in this case about RM activities on this programme....you have lanced that one....but his extensive experience has taught him that this is often not the case...and certainly in the past.....his view on submarine requirements etc were mean't to reflect on how bizarre and inapproriate the RM system has become in other projects using the MoDs conventional approaches.

As a former Bid Team member, while I would never subscribe to the a statement that the SAR-H IPT acted perfectly...clearly it didn't in at least one sad respect...nor was it consitituted in the way I would have like to have seen...but there is no doubt it did sterling work using a process that was intially unfamiliar, time consuming and demanding....and in the end of the 2 compliant bidders a winner was chosen...the sad bit is that the winner may well have gained advantage from the other goings on to the detriment of the other bidder...who knows at this stage.

However, given wider events, I am now glad it has all been kicked in to touch despite the immediate loss of the prospect of a shiney unfied and very competent SAR-H based UK SAR Force.....I only hope the opportunity of such a future development will not be lost for too long!

ClearedtoRoll

Ref your post and my last para...a minortiy we might be...but it is already getting bigger..even at ministerial level if my sources are right. And so it should after more than 8 years of UK National Resilience Policy development...and hence my last para to Cuckoopen...this is the straegic issue that should now influence any new UK SAR replecemnt policy/requirement...not the more narrow one that would have produced a perfectly competent UK SAR helo force...but not much else.

BTW your opening paras re mil pers moving to industry etc is prefectly valid in general cases ..and ever so if they move to an company that has already won the business that they were previously invovled in. However, it is not appropriate (and indeed illegal for senior personnel unless they are vetted and a waiver issued) for such people to move with knowledge to a company that is bidding for a contract and their information can help them then win the contract. Furthermore, in the SAR-H EU Competitve Dialogue process and rules as used in the SAR-H process....any inapproaite passing of any bidders confidential information required the immediate cancellation of the competition...so there we go.

[MoTiv@tor]

RBS pulled out because the military pulled out. Soteria pulled out because RBS pulled out.

Soteria, having ordered the helicopters, invested millions in winning the bid and now it seems fair game to accuse the military of wrong doing in order to re-coup their loses.

Makes sense to me!

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Soteria, having ordered the helicopters, invested millions in winning the bid and now it seems fair game to accuse the military of wrong doing in order to re-coup their loses [sic].



That's not the way it worked, as you probably know already!:=