While I appreciate that Pprune is an open forum, and we all like to make comments on subjects we have only a passing/interest/knowledge in, many (but not all) people on this thread are talking rubbish.
First of all I’ll treat all the usual RAF vs RN point scoring comments with the contempt they deserve!
Here are some relevant points:
The UK made an international agreement, as part of the Chicago conventions in the 40s/50s which established ICAO, to provide SAR coverage within a certain area of responsibility (which stretches out to 30W). At the time the only organization capable of actually providing airborne assets was the military, who had established a sophisticated system for rescuing downed aircrew. UK SAR provision ever since has been both for military and civil requirements.
The responsibility for meeting our international obligations for SAR lies with the Department of Transport within UK government, but they in turn rely on other departments, e.g. MOD, to actually deliver it for them.
There is no doubt that the UK SAR Sea King fleet (I know the RN assets aren’t necessarily SAR only) is old and expensive to run, in terms of both time and money. It needed replacing, the only question was, by another military run asset, or a civil contract?
There are currently 12 assets available during the day, 11 at night. That’s about 1 per 5 million people, which is not especially generous. Under the new contract 10 assets will be available at any one time. That’s a reduction of 1/6th of capability, or 16-17%. The new assets may be faster, but they can’t be in two places at once.
I’m sure someone has drawn all the nice 1hr radius circles, and apparently coverage is better. However, as has already been pointed out, having only one asset (Humberside) all the way down the east coast from Inverness to Manston does look a bit bare.
Civil MRTs currently prefer working with Sea Kings rather than S-92s, as the latter has a greater down draught. However, this would no doubt have been an issue with any newly purchased military helicopter, and no doubt the Sea King had a worse down draught than the Wessex, which was worse than the Whirlwind, etc….
While I don’t doubt either the skill or bravery of civil SAR helicopter crews, what (CAA?) rules will they be obliged to work to compared to a military equivalent? For example, will they be allowed to (as opposed to be capable of) hover-taxi in almost zero visibility?
See:
grough — Honour for Royal Navy pilot in daring rescue of stricken Ben Sgulaird walker
In summary, this change gives a fleet of new generation, lower maintenance, cheaper to run and faster to scene helicopters. However, the overall fleet shrinks by 1/6th, and there are doubts about the limits they will be able to fly to compared with equivalent military assets.
I like to think the above is a dispassionate assessment of the situation. I am not advocating a particular course of action – just trying to put some meaningful points into a somewhat misinformed debate…
Only time will tell, but personally I think the new contract will bring a reduction in terms of what SAR helos will (be allowed to) achieve in poor weather in the mountains. However, privatization of the service had a certain inevitability about it!!
One last point, with regard to the issue of charging. There is no general intention to charge anyone who is rescued by a SAR helo, but interestingly enough, charges are already raised for one particular mission conducted by todays fleet of SAR assets, whether it be RAF, RN or CG! Just one indication of how little many contributors to this thread know of the subject.
I hope nobody has been offended by my comments, that was not my intent!