Just thought I'd plunge in again.....mostly about the cost issue.
£6Bn seems a lot as a big headline figure - (if indeed that is the final contract price)...but bear in mind that is a locked in through life figure accounting for inflation and industy's best guess of future costings ...and it has to be right otherwise the winning contractor is locked in to a big loss sometime in the future - some would argue that the risks here are immense to any contractor however well refined the bid process...30 years is one hell of a long time - think how costs have changed both in the military and the civ aviation world over the last 30 years, and that's before forthcoming oil shocks and other commercial pressures as yet unseen - what for example if the usage expands beyond all predictions?
If it is £6Bn - (including the shiney new helos of course!) then that is an average £200M a year - think (although truely accurate figures are unavailable) of how much the present annual costs of the RAF, RN and Coastguard services are in 2009, never mind how they would escalate with inflation and pay rises alone over the next 30 years - (and thats just the running costs and doesn't include the large capital sums for new infrastructure and new helos) - especially as the military have a clear record of being more expensive over the civilian aviation world type for type (this is not neccessarily a criticism - just a fact). So to me £200M a year for a fully integrated national SAR helo service is not that expensive, particularly as any alternative may well prove unaffordable or politically unattainable.
By the way you may not appreciate that the SAR-H winner does not get anything like full annual payments until the complete service is in situ (ie after 7 years from contract award to last base commissioned) and anyone who knows anything about PFI financing knows that (depending on the size of the programme) - the winner usually does not make a profit until at least productive year 5 and maybe as far out as year 10 (SAR-H?) ie, Industry is paying up front to create the new service with the prospect of some (smallish but regular) profit in later years. The risks are considerable - be in no doubt.
As for paying this sum for a lesser service - well IMO this is very debatable and arguable (if you can ignore all the ill informed political hoo ha that always surrounds SAR bases) - the key indicator most talked about at present (the reduction of some bases to daylight only) is not neccessarily a reduction except from a very tactical perspective of local rescue to the base concerned (Chivenor?) - and why may I ask as an example does the locality of Chivenor deserve a rapid response over say 50 miles away across the Briz Channel on the Gower?. There are many complexities here - not least the possible "excess" rescue capability nearby - eg. see how many lifeboats await at readiness in close and effective proximity to where the very small number of SAR helo bases are, and maybe CG cliff rescue teams too. Note too, that essential and professional as the UK's SAR helo capability is for many tasks, a large number (and I would argue the majority) of missons carried out each year could have been done with no or little predjudice to the casualties concerned given those other means of rescue if the helo was not there at all. Throw this into the capability argument and a different perspective arises as to what UK SAR helo capability we actually need - particularly if the right and well coordinated balance is to be struck with the other rescue servcies such as the air ambulances, the RNLI, the MRTs and the Police and Fire Services - and not forgetting the rest of the military too who can always be called on to help at any suitable stage.
Nobody likes SAR flights to close or reduce their availability but it is not always the fundamental problem that is made out - think of how many flights there were 40 years ago. All I will say is that a truely open minded possibility to create a SAR-H solution that might have been affordable yet provide a more balanced and responsive capability was cut off by the very focus on keeping the 12 present bases at the same capability - don't you just love ill-informed politicians!
Cheers