SAR - staying military?

[cyclic]

Seeing as SAR is not expeditionary or "light", anyone know if Buff has it on the list for the chop?

[Taff Missed]

Not so much the chop but a gentle drift toward contractorisation.

Much cheaper than service crews and just as efficient/courageous/determined to get 'those in peril on the sea'
out of it.

Taff

[OOPS 78]

but not at night in the mountains..

[cyclic]

No reason why civvie crews can't do night mountains given the right authority - whether they would want to is another matter!

The days when NVG flying was a purely military domain are going but the amount of training may preclude a commercial operation. It certainly wouldn't be the skills involved as contrary to popular opinion it is not rocket science and believe it or not there are commercial operators who are just as good, doing a lot more with a lot less!

[Arctic Tern]

Who are we kidding, of course a civilian outfit could do SAR as well as the military. Given the same training resources and decent NVGs, they'd be every bit as good as the RAF and RN. Defeatist, no just realist. Dust-off your demob suits or look for a posting to SH.

[OOPS 78]

Quite agree, mil as the only people who do any nvg flying are coming to an end. The downside, as you have quite rightly pointed out you need a suitable nvg training programme and currency - all of which costs money.

I hope it does get contracted out(SAR - that is) as any organisation which sells it's blokes(NCAs or Airmen Aircrew) a dream and then shafts them for pursuing that dream is not the one I want to work for.

I just enjoy SAR.

How is Inverness and the Air Amb?

[cyclic]

Thanks for the anonymity mate! Wrong bloke, wrong contract!

If anyone wants your service number just let me know......

[psyclic]

Ah! That's better. A more mental moniker!

[M134]

Time for bed. I'm seeing double!!:eek:

[Helibelly]

I wish the government would hurry up and contract out SAR as I'm getting fed up with flying little helicopters (Night NVG mountains with lots of recirculating snow, lovely :) )

[sarboy w****r]

I hate to disappoint all those in the civilian world who would love to do SAR, and are idly speculating on the imminent demise of military SAR. I have no doubt that you could find pilots/crews who could do just as good a job as those in the military, given the right kit and authority.

However...

It has come down from on high (very very high) that RAF SAR is not for sale (and by inference, RN SAR too). And to be fair, I do actually believe them. About the best PR the RAF has going, in fact. So nothing is likely to happen until the Sea King goes out of service, which is almost certainly not for another decade at least. Anything else anybody says is either them fishing, idly speculating or just plain wishful thinking. What will happen when we lose the Sea King however is another matter entirely...


SBW

[Arctic Tern]

SBW.
You seem to have convinced yourself where UK SAR is going, but the majority will need more solid evidence. Once the MCA harmonisation initiative is underway we should have a better idea. In the meantime, keep taking the loyalty tablets.:uhoh:

[psyclic]

Night mountains, Pre NVG. How the hell did we do it?!

The SeaKings might not be out of service but I understand all 6 cabs of 202 Sqn were u/s recently, for a variety of reasons.

[Helibelly]

What, all of 202 sqn's ac u/s again!!! It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.

[cyclic]

It's not that the civilians desparately want to do SAR for any altruistic reasons, although I'm sure that many would, but financially it means a great deal to the commercial operators (only one company in the running?).

Anything that pays the rent and provides a secure job is worthwhile. If it happens to be rewarding, satisfying etc. then so much the better. Lets not forget that 37% of SAR in the UK is already done by civilians with older aircraft and a good deal less staff. Agreed, they don't go to the mountains at night but there again nor does the majority of military SAR flights if we are honest. Not many mountains in East Anglia for example. From previous comments, I don't remember all of HMCG's aircraft being off at the same time; if they did they would surely be in breach of contract which is why they provide a replacement.

The mere fact that it has come from "high" about SAR's status would concern me greatly!

Oh, this is a rumour network, so idle speculation is probably allowed!

[keepin it in trim]

The dear old Sea King has done a tremendous job over the years, but being bounced around at high AUM in crappy weather takes its toll on any airframe, especially an old one. If you then slash spares support you get the level of serviceability now being experienced, despite the best efforts of the engineers.

I know that the Sea King has had its OSD shifted off into the distance and senior officers may well be saying RAF SAR is not for sale... BUT the military role of SAR was essentially a cold war task and doesn't fit into todays expeditionary operations terribly well. There is nothing in the role that could not be done by contract crews flying modern civil aircraft. Things to be gained by this change; new, faster, more capable, more serviceable aircraft: a lot less personnel required to manage and run the operation; no military pensions or salaries to pay.

Most important for MoD is the money saved by taking this approach, they may even be able to shift the whole financial burden across to DoT. I know SAR isn't that expensive compared to eurofighter etc but when you're skint if you can save a few million here or there and the job still gets done. It is all slightly sad but this has been on the cards for a long time. I think that when the MCA contracts come up for renewal there could be some serious changes. Also, unlike the military any civil company could ramp up to take it all over within 18 months to 2 years of contract award and that includes getting aircraft and crews ready.

[idle stop]

The needs of Military SAR as I knew it when a RAF helicopter pilot, have evolved.
There is the 'conventional' onshore and maritime role, which is currently covered by RN, RAF and HMCG aircraft and crews.
And there is Combat SAR, highly specialised and requiring state-of-art equipment to maximise success potential. This is the area where military resources must be concentrated.
There is no reason to fret about potential contractorisation of military SAR units around the UK coast. Existing HMCG crews are highly professional and the airframes, though elderly, have a high standard of equipment, sometimes exceeding the spec of their military counterparts.
If you want to see a state of art civilian SAR helicopter, look no further than the BP 'Jigsaw' AS332 aircraft with an equipment installation designed by a well-known North Sea helicopter company. It's now working. (And, btw, if this had been a military project it would still be in the discussion phase!)
One final point: training. If you contractorise, you must make adequate (financial/contractual) allowance for both continuation training and the initial training of crews.

[OOPS 78]

1. Cyclic. I am very sorry about the potential unmasking of you. You are absolutely right it was thoughtless and very very stupid. As a result this has the potential of being my last post as I am a little thick after a few beers and this is when I post usually.

2. The skill set that the SAR boys have developed over time is of great use to the MOD, but does SAR need to be military or can the military send their guys to learn of the SAR boys - that is probably the question.

as long as it is funded and regualted properly ie allowing crews to do the job required why can't it be done by civilians? no reason as far as I can see.

OOPS 78 signing off.

[Droopystop]

The posts on this thread re the unserviceability of the SAR aircraft shocked me.

Let me get this straight:

The RAF have 6 SAR bases in the UK.
I assume that at every base, there is a "main aircraft plus at least one spare.
So does that mean that there are times when the RAF cannot get one out of twelve aircraft serviceable?
And the top level people want the Seaking to be around for another 10 years or more?????

I know that this is a simplistic view, but it seems to me that someone at a high level is not doing their job properly.

Does anyone know what the serviceability of the Coastguard machines are?

[Impiger]

I think the gentle slide to contractorisation is about right. It will take time because we already have problems with civilian flying regulations (CAA not company) which is effectively what precludes the Coastguard contractors from doing overland rescue - I know its only bureaucracy but think how long it would take to change the legislation.

The gentle slide has begun with contracted engineering support and now aircraft (in Cyprus) but so long as they are military registered and operated then the marvellous ANO doesn't apply.

There are many reasons why the final step might be a long way off:

a. PR for the RAF from SAR is immense and goes some way to offsetting the bad vibes created by low flying.

b. Maintaining a full skill set in mountain flying and NVG would be very expensive and thus a contractor might struggle to compete with the public sector comparator. Operators such as Bond with Police and Air Ambulance contracts already struggle to give their pilots more than basic currency.

c. SAR flyers can do other things and thus are part of the overall GD cadre which supports the whole executive branch of the RAF.

d. There is still a need for some deployable SAR for the expeditionary RAF - they don't have to be in Yellow Choppers but the skill sets remain the same.

There are probably more but this is beginning to look like Ascoteers multiple choice.

[Phoney Tony]

Do we have a credible CSAR capability?

Or as I suspect do we rely upon our cousins for support in one of the most important areas of support to the war fighters.

Our US aircrew step into danger with the knowledge that there is a very good chance that they will be picked up if they find themselves as an evader sausage side.

If we are ever required to conduct a UK only op we will need a good integrated CSAR force including SEAD and CAS elements.

[keepin it in trim]

Impiger

Sadly I don't believe the pr that SAR generates will carry much weight when decisions about the capabilities that can be afforded in a squeezed defence budget are being made.

Taking a couple of your other points, Bristows SAR contracts have, I believe, 45 hours a month of training built into the contract. Given a likelihood of only 3 to 4 crews per unit this would be more than adequate when added to training gained on ops to ensure skills are maintained. It is also a lot more than many SAR force crews have been getting for the last few years given the serviceability problems and hours limitations that have been steadily imposed.

I seem to recall an hour a month each of mountains and NVG being the training requirement for currency at the "mountain" flights, and even less for the "flat earthers". I think that shouldn't be too difficult to accommodate if you have anything like the number of training hours available that Bristows have. There are also quite a lot of people out there with previous experience that any contractor could use to get their system up and running or help to set up the training.

In a shrinking air force I think that the GD cadre would not suffer too badly for the loss of people to fill all those exciting ground tours.

Deployable SAR/CSAR is in many ways a very different game, the only way the present force could do deployable SAR would be by creating a significant gap in current UK cover and if you're going to do that you need someone else to cover that gap. CSAR I am afraid is a game that requires significant investment in people and equipment and is probably something that should either be given to a dedicated specialist unit or we accept, as we have done in GW1 & 2, that we need Uncle Sam to get us out of that one.

Perhaps most important of all (if the rumours are true, and I have no reason to doubt them) the current situation where multiple SAR units are simultaneously without a serviceable aircraft for several hours or more at a time cannot continue because eventually something very bad will happen. If and when that occurs the brown stuff will go through the fan in a very public and highly embarrassing way.

Sorry to seem so negative but it is only a matter of time.

[cyclic]

The issue regarding currency and commercial ops is not one of cost but more of how the contract is written. If a contract states that the operator provides its crews with x hours/month and then fails to comply, the company is in breach of contract and the customer will have every right to recompense.

As far as I am aware, HMCG aircraft already do quite a bit of overland ops and it wouldn't take much of a re-write of the AIP to allow further authorisation.

The skill set for mountain flying only applies to two locations in the UK, although the Lakes in winter (if we ever get another winter) would also qualify. For the remainder of the country it is not a requirement and therefore not as difficult for a commercial operator to achieve.

[Impiger]

It is true that continuation training can be written into the contract but this is the whole cost/benefit point - if you stipulate mucho CT hours the price will go sky high. When you contract for a service you do just that - buy in the capability. However, when push comes to shove and the contractor 'fails' to deliver (and some have in the past) all you get back is money - you don't have any capability. Not a nice position to be in if you're bobbing about in your dinghy on a dark night in the Minches wondering if the Sarbe is actually working and why that numbing feeling seems to be creeping up your legs!!

I agree the slide to contractorisation is somewhat inevitable but think it will be slower than some (who perhaps want to be contract pilots?) might think.

The biggest driver will be Sea King replacement affordability and timing. If we can't aford the capital cost of SABR(SAR) then contractorisation is much more likely at the lifex of the venerable Sea King.

In the meantime many thanks to the Yellow eggbeater operators they make night low level in the deep mid-winter seem almost sensible.:ok:

[cyclic]

I totally agree, and I am not one of those contract pilots who would like to do it (but never say never!), I've done my bit! Yes, the customer would only benefit in financial terms but it would not regain the contract if it was to default. At the moment, if you were to find yourself bobbing around in the oggin and the serviceability rumours are to be believed, then there still might not be anyone to come and get you - it just hasn't happened yet and I hope it never does.

[detgnome]

What about the possibility of the halfway solution of COMR? This allows the MOD to keep control of SAR without the capital outlay for new equipment (as seen in Cyprus). Yes I know there have been a lot of problems with the Cyprus contract, but look how successful its forerunner, DHFS, has been. The COMR route also gets round all those sticky problems of the ANO and ultimately you can stipulate as much or as little CT as you like.

As as aside to this has anyone given much thought to the prospect of a split fleet? The Sea King rarely has to use all its capabilities and in some ways could be considered overkill for a lot of the jobs it carries out in the UK. Although I haven't done the maths and drawn lots of pretty circles, it would be possible to have 2 long range SAR bases (St Mawgan & Lossiemouth as an opening bid!) and then a series of coastal units to provide the current capability out to 100nm, using a smaller and cheaper ac. Ah, but I hear you say, what ac would you use? Well that is the 64 million dollar question. A nod to Westlands would see the Merlin as the long range ac and to be honest quite a good one, however, the small ac poses a problem. We all know the problems the 412 has and whilst a good solid ac, it has its limitations. Sadly, there is not much else on the market that represents an improvement in the same cost bracket. Perhaps the new AB139 would be a contender although like the 412 it still has a fairly low cabin height. That said it does have wheels that go up and down and so therefore gets my vote!


Over to you lot for more comment....

[Impiger]

Detgnome

Couldn't resist.......

The current SAR basing and aircraft are decided from the minimum military requirement (MMR) for SAR which I seem to recall is day/night recovery in (nearly) all weather out to 200 miles within 2 hours (to pick up that is) - if thats not quite right you get the idea.

The thought that you might extend the Sea King life by interspersing shorter range platforms such as the 412 (and thus using fewer SK airframe hours) has been investigated and fails to meet the MMR. Of course we could always move the goal posts and reduce our rescue aspiration to say daylight hours and 100 miles off the coast.

COMR is probably the next step for the whole SAR world followed perhaps by a PFI solution such as is planned for FSTA.

Happy hovering.:ok:

[detgnome]

Have to say, I always thought the requirement was 100nm in one hour, but am happy to be proved wrong if anyone has the gospel on it - perhaps someone from the RCC knows?

Rather than extending the Sea King I was more thinking of a 'total' solution to the problem with new kit all round. Agree that COMR is probably the next step and if I'm honest, probably the best the military can hope for. Would be interesting to see if the Navy will provide some crews for it, as I'm sure they wouldn't want to lose the opportunities that SAR gives for training etc.

Now where to put all those smaller bases.... Leuchars and Newcastle for starters....!