Originally Posted by
Northernstar
Our CHC brethren on the SAR S92 in Norway are arguing the case to turn the interim nature of their contract into a permanent solution. They have proven the civilian operation of a pair of S92's equally as capable in real terms but government want to make it all AW101 including remote bases. 45 minute hover limit due to recurring MGB chips is less than ideal. Serviceability rate overall nowhere near the civlian S92 standard across CHC and Bristow of 96-98%.
Here in the UK, in the days when the SAR helicopter service comprised both military and civil provision, the civil S61 units almost always achieved better availability, in statistical terms, than the military Sea King units. The types were similar, but they were operating under entirely different regulatory regimes, with different tasking requirements, continuation training regimes, equipment levels and maintenance systems. Consequently, it was notoriously difficult to achieve a genuine comparison between the two. I would guess that the same is true in Norway. Civil contractors, of course, have a vested interest in highlighting those statistics that favour them while the military, with no competition, has none.
As for the S92 being 'as capable as the AW101 in real terms', that too is a familiar argument used to justify the procurement of a cheaper, but ultimately less capable, aircraft. In many ways, that's fair enough; in the UK, I remember the Bell 412 being promoted as an alternative to the Sea King. Indeed, it could probably have performed at least 80% of the Sea King's missions at a much lower cost. However, the Bell 412 could not meet the MOD's requirements, especially in terms of range.
Similarly, the Norwegian Air Force, during its comprehensive procurement process, set out clear performance requirements. The S92 could not meet them, and it still can't. Should the criteria be changed to match the aircraft?