It's a fair arguement to make that budgets need to be cut and air support needs to modernise, because they do. But, the question needs to be asked, is the new model the best model.
The new 'NPAS operating model' is based on, and I quote, 'threat, risk and harm'. I have challanged, what threat? what risk? and what harm?
I was told to think about it like this. Units will be required to respond to tasking in this order of priority;
- Counter terrorism / major incident, (protecting the public/life saving incidents)
- Immediate response police work, (pursuits/search for suspects/firearms etc.)
- Admin tasks, (photos for ops planning/TI searches/work for other agencies)
Now, what NPAS have done in deciding what bases to close, is look at the priorites and say, if base xxx is not likely to respond to priority 1, it will close. This effectively keeps open the urban ASU's and condemns the rural ASU's. (Makes you wonder who drew up the new 'operating model', MET? West Mids? West Yorkshire?)
The problem is, not all ASU's do the same work. Never have done and never will. You can't shoe-horn them all into the same 'operating model'. Some units spend hours and hours on proactive patrols, (the Stone Roses gig at Finsbury park was ruined by the MET ASU sitting over it for nearly 2 hours. Why?). Other units spend the bulk of hours on rural misper searches.
And this brings me to my main point. If the main priority for air support is saving life - and it should be - why not close the urban bases and keep the rural ones open.
I will bet my bottom dollar that the likes of Rhuddlan, Ripley, Warton, Wattisham and Husbands Bosworth have located more vunerable missing persons, (and by that I mean suicidal, elderly, children), and saved their lives than the MET ever will do with their 3 aircraft.