Sold out - SAR force to be privatised

[JessTheDog]

The front page of the Mail on Sunday (no link unfortunately) carries the story that the SAR force is to be privatised, with Bristow among the companies likely to be in the frame for the contract.

One of the reasons is the fact that Sea Kings are getting old and knackered, and that the Merlin is not up to the job.

Now I understood that SAR was established with the primary purpase of military search-and-rescue, and that civilian rescues provided both invaluable training and a humanitarian duty.

So, if this rationale is turned on its head, what about CSAR in future conflicts? Will this be written into the contract? :uhoh:

[Dillon the dog]

JTD

The Sea King does not have a CSAR role, it is done by other assets. Therefore why should future civil SAR contracts have CSAR written into them? :cool:

DTD

[JessTheDog]

Sorry, I meant "military search and rescue" for the SAR fleet - like plucking the F3 crew out of the North Sea in 2004. My concern is that the UK does not have a comprehensive CSAR capability and this privatisation will make the future prospect of such a capability even more unlikely.

Also, the career path of SAR crews is integrated with the wider RN/RAF rotary fleets (to my knowledge based on working at a unit with a SAR flight - I will, of course, defer to the experts!) and this appears to be both a back-door cutback which removes military expertise in a specific capability area - and the loss of a harmony posting.

[LFFC]

My concern is that the UK does not have a comprehensive CSAR capability and this privatisation will make the future prospect of such a capability even more unlikely.
Why should it make it more unlikely? I know this may be a controversial view, but perhaps the military provision of a UK coastal SAR service is an outdated Coldwar anachronism.

Maybe if the new civilian contract is controlled by the UK Coastguard and funded by another government department, the MOD may be able to concentrate its funding on a deployable, CSAR capability - which is, after all, what the front-line needs these days.

[Green Flash]

Whilst the thought of the loss of Mil SAR does leave me a little uneasy, perhaps this could be the chance for the current SAR org (those who do not want to work on the Erics!) to be re-roled into a proper mil CSAR. Would the Bristows operate from the present SAR unit site or will they be pushed off base?

Dream time; what would be the ideal CSAR mount? Osprey?

[Suckmabobby]

[quote=LFFC] I know this may be a controversial view, but perhaps the military provision of a UK coastal SAR service is an outdated Coldwar anachronism.

I'll remember that the next time I'm risking my neck on the end of the wire! LLFC, It's Sunday. You're supposed to have a day off from talking b0ll0cks.

Bell end.

[LFFC]

Sorry to have upset you - I have the greatest respect for what you do, and I do believe that SAR services will always be required around the UK coastline. But I did say ".. the military provision of..." - are you saying that a civilian service couldn't provide that? If so, why?

[harrogate]

The involvement of private money in SAR would mean only one thing - someone would be hoping to make financial profit from it.

I find that a bit sick.

Sure, a private company willing to provide expertise in return for financial gain in any area is just business and is fine, but the RAF/RN model ain't broke - so don't try to fix it.

To outsource could mean that the government don't regard that element of the RAF and RNs role as important, i.e. it's not as essential as putting those resources into military operations where the outcome could be to financial gain - Iraq, for example where the objective is to secure oil resources, not to liberate civilians.

On the other hand, to outsource an essential, lifesaving service like this could also mean that the government doesn't think the armed forces are as good as privateers, which raises all sorts of bigger questions. The main one being, "why aren't the armed forces as good?".

Oh, and if the Sea Kings are getting old and knackered - buy some new ones, or make provision for other choppers that can do the job. There's some things you HAVE to spend money on. These assets save lives. Simple.

Labour Plc is getting out of hand.

[Bismark]

I will defer to serving colleagues but I think there is a difference between RN and RAF SAR. In the RN all helo crews are trained in SAR as they need it when deployed at sea. Their roles at Culdrose and Prestwick are primarily for civil rescue and hours paid for by the DTI - effectively an RN SAR tour is a respite (shore) tour from the front line, it is not a career path. In the RAF, SAR is there primarily for the rescue of downed RAF aircrew and is a career path in itself. In the RAF there is virtually no transfer into the front line for CSAR or vice versa, whereas in the RN any helo aircrew can ask for a SAR tour.

Re CSAR I thought Hoon announced a while back that the RN (via the JHC) were providing a nascent CSAR capability and the RAF Merlins would add to the role in due course.

[SASless]

Harrogate,

the RAF/RN model ain't broke - so don't try to fix it.

At what cost to the taxpayer vice the civvie model being proposed?

[harrogate]

Harrogate,
At what cost to the taxpayer vice the civvie model being proposed?

It doesn't really matter, because if the government want to do this, they will. They'll present some figures to back their argument up, even if they are a product of the usual 'bent' accounting / manipulation.

You could argue that all roles carried out by the services can be carried out by private companies - but you need to draw a line. Where you draw that line depends on what you value as an individual; I'd rather the RAF or RN plucked me from the water - that's just a personal choice. They're good at it - I've seen them. With my eyes.

Ask people what they begrudge their taxes being spent on and they say things like - unnnecessary wars, 7 layers of management in their local NHS trust, politicians making unnecessarry flights on the royal jets or big white domes in central London. When a SeaKing flies over my house in Cleethorpes on a busy afternoon in the summer, I don't hear anyone saying "I wonder who the hell is paying for that?".

If someone's complete and utter idiocy results in a avoidable call-out, then the MoD aren't scared of sending them the bill and making them pay. I've seen them do that too.

There's an undeniable feel good factor in having the armed forces fulfilling this role too. Our taxes have paid for us to have the best armed forces in the world (despite Labour Plc's best efforts) and the tax payers deserve to benefit from them.

Still, resistance is futile, I fear. Privatisation is the order of the day... I've no doubt whatsoever that in 15 years time UAVs from the Tesco Squadon will be dropping bright red 'Coca Cola' emblazoned bombs on a bunch of pathetic peasants in some far corner of the globe and your rescue from the sea by the Vodafone SAR Flight will entail a compulsory 24 month phone contract.

[JessTheDog]

So, two possible reasons for this privatisation are:

1. Creation of a "world class" civilian SAR capability for the 21st century, things can only get better etc.. :yuk:

2. Another military cut back.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

I have to say all this "can the civvies do the job" speak is a bit un-necessary.. do not bristows already fly cover for the coastguard? (although I seem to recall they're not 24 hrs? anyone?) It seems that extending the contract to cover the rest of the UK for all hours is not unreasonable. And everyone knows, in their heart of hearts, that civvy cover will be cheaper and be equally professional (ambulance service seems to do a reasonable job, and the fire chaps also (when they're not on strike!)). It's a shame that it's going out of mil hands, but hopefully the new guys will do a good job, and the resources and experience freed up dumped into some kind of csar effort (pipe dream!)...

Osprey by the way;)

[SAR Bloke]

Bismark,

That's not entirely true. All RAF crews are also trained in basic SAR but not to the same level as the frontline SAR crews. They also practise this on their frontline aircraft (occasionally). Lots of RAF SAR pilots are now flying Merlin, Chinook and Puma (as well as instructing at SARTU and Shawbury) and I do know of at least one LM who has also gone that way. This rotation of crews was encouraged to provide transference of skills. It also works the other way and there are numerous SH personnel on SAR.

The winchman training is so specialised that to do one tour and return to SH (if that is where they have come from) would not be cost effective or ideal for manning; it takes about 18 months for them to gain their full paramedic qual. A large proportion of the Radar/Winch operators come from the Nimrod and not from rotary. It is, however, true that a lot of the RAF personnel spend several tours on SAR whereas the RN crews typically only do one.


I wouldn't believe everything you read in the paper. It is well know that the aircraft are tired. It is well known that there are contract proceedings ongoing for future SAR provision. How this is going to happen is not known but the current suggestions are that, wherever the airframe comes from, there will still be a large number of military crews. I wouldn't be hugely surprised if this changes but it is still exceptionally early days yet.

p.s. One of the bidders will be Westland and they make the Merlin. Don't rule that out yet.

p.p.s. Don't necessarily tie civvy and Bristow's together. As of next year the Coastguard will be provided by CHC. Basing decisions are up to the contract bidder to decide.

[A and C]

Having worked with the UK armed forces over the years I have always been very favorably impressed by the professional attitude of all that I have met, what always seemed to be holding these guys back was the people at the blunt end.

Shed loads of petty rules that seemed to do nothing except cover the 6 of some civil servant are it seems the order of the day and very little attention paid to enableing the guys at the front end to get the job required done and even less attention paid to making the job less of a problem.

Perhaps we should see this as a chance to scrap the top heavy management and let the guys do the job with a management who want to fly and not to push paper.

I'm sure that most of the crews of civilian SAR will be ex-military and so if properly funded I don't see a drop in the presant (outstanding) standards of SAR service.

[Talk Wrench]

There was a serious debate about this last year.

Lots of opinion so well worth a read.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=174268



Regards

TW

(first few replies to original thread are good though)

[SASless]

HGate,

When bobbin in the Oggin...I will gladly latch onto the first line thrown be it a commercial fisherman (assuming there are any left) or a RN or RAF or Civvie Helicopter. As long as we get the same level and quality of service for the same or less costs....who is the loser?

The guy whose ox is getting gored is the one that will be doing the moaning here.

[Talking Radalt]

All RAF crews are also trained in basic SAR but not to the same level as the frontline SAR crews.
I resent that. I'm extremely well versed, highly qualified and massively experienced in chasing old oil drums in 100kts of downwash across Holyhead harbour and onward to Belfast. :E

[Gonzo]

IMHO the mil SAR organisation generates huge amounts of goodwill towards the RAF/RN. I suppose that counts for nothing these days in Whitehall.

[Ali Barber]

When they go on strike, will we roll out the flying yellow goddess?

When I joined a milliion years ago, it was because I wanted to be a SAR pilot. Of course, I ended up fighters but it doesn't mean I don't still regard the SAR guys in the highest regard. So, what value PR? I bet we get more good PR from the yellow wokkas than we do from the Red Arrows! Exceptional value for money and a capability we should not lose.

[jack-oh]

Whilst no one could ever doubt the bravery and profesionalism of the RN/RAF SAR crews, the cold reality is, that for every single call out to a Mil type rescue, there must be over a thousand to either, a fisherman in distress, boy on a lilo, mountain walker lost, child stuck on a cliff etc.etc. The Mil is paying for this with no direct benifit to the front line, it ties up crews, engineers, airframes, the ARCC, staff work, you name it.

Surely it is time to have a re-think and place Mil resorces where they are needed. If this means the DTI taking over the running of UK SAR in all its guises and removing the Mil from the equation, whilst providing the same level of service to the public, then all well and good.

PS The RAF mountain rescue team can go as well, unless anyone can tell me what front line roll they perform or when the last jet pilot safely ejected into a cavern, 200ft below the surface of the earth.

[sooms]

If this is true- haven't seen the paper myself- OOA. Then it's very sad news, although not entirely unexpected in this financially driven world.
It's a great pity that we have to loose it though, I believe the good PR we gain from it is far more important than what it costs. We are bombarded with bumpf about the new RAF logo and how 50 per cent or whatever of the public don't know what that RAF does- what better than a big yellow taxi with 'Royal Air Force' written on the sides?
We are constantly being told we have to justify ourselves and remain relevant- what better way is there to get the civvies on side. Lets face it, most of Joe Public doesn't give a monkey's about Tornado's flying over Iraq or GR7's over Afganistan. Maybe we'd be better spending our money on things that directly aid the UK populace- taking over the UK Air Ambulance?- Just a thought.- I believe the Luftwaffe used to do it in Germany until recently.

By the way, does this mean the ARCC will no longer be manned by the RAF?

[Climebear]

PS The RAF mountain rescue team can go as well, unless anyone can tell me what front line roll they perform or when the last jet pilot safely ejected into a cavern, 200ft below the surface of the earth.


I think that you mean the RAF Mountain Rescue Service that comprises several teams. These are mainly manned by part-time volunteers that fulfill their primary duties and train mainly at weekends. Therefore, they are comparatively cheap!

As for what service they perform - well the deployed to the Balkans when a certain C130 departed from the usual rules of flight; spent many days combing the Cairngorms in attrocious weather for the F15s and then remained as crash gaurds; spent some miserable days guarding the Sea King parked in the Cairngorms recently ...

If I ever have to leave an ac I am sure that I would wish someone who understands the characteristics of parachute desents to come looking for me (civilian teams don't).

As for caverns - I think you will find that that is cave rescue not Mountain Rescue (tip - mountains are big lumps of rock that protrude into the sky!).

[Could be the last?]

There are other issues to consider:

Post 9/11 the SARF were asked to consider there input into a national disaster plan. Also, they are currently holding one of the national standby commitments.

Why were they asked to do this, especially as this area would be considered a green (SH) fleet type task? Probably because the green fleet is over committed elsewhere and is suffering from the same underfunding of aircraft etc, etc.

So, by privatising the SARF what will happen? Discuss......:ugh:

[Krystal n chips]

PS The RAF mountain rescue team can go as well, unless anyone can tell me what front line roll they perform or when the last jet pilot safely ejected into a cavern, 200ft below the surface of the earth.
They've also been known to assist the odd civilian--or two --over the years. I think their role is what the beancounters would call "added value":ok: by the way--maybe you should ask a team for a visit or two--and do a bit of research into the history of the MRT's since their formation--then possibly revise your perceptions ? . Just a thought.

[RileyDove]

I think it's worth pointing out that in the early 1970's the RAF withdrew SAR cover from RAF Manston. The Department of Trade viewed the situation so seriously that H.M Coastguard was tasked with providing SAR cover to the busy shipping lanes. This was carried out by Bristow Helicopters for a few years before the RAF had a change of heart!
The Bristow crews served with distinction and by and large were ex military aircrew. I would not expect a current U.K civil SAR operation to differ greatly in it's crew profile.
Whils it's seen by some as retrograde - if it can free up resources for better provision of CSAR for our forces that can only be for the better.

[airborne_artist]

Some countries provide maritime SAR via their Coast Guard org. UK could do the same, with civil owned, Coast Guard manned aircraft. By having them in Coast Guard uniform they would then come under the direct control of HMG, which would be useful in times of national emergency.

Training could still be conducted by a private contractor if required.

[thelynxeffect]

JTD

The Sea King does not have a CSAR role, it is done by other assets. Therefore why should future civil SAR contracts have CSAR written into them? :cool:

DTD

I was under the impression that we (the Uk) don't have dedicated CSAR, it being done ad-hoc by theatre assets so to speak, has this changed? I have been on leave for two weeks?? :ugh:

[Taffer]

I was under the impression that we (the Uk) don't have dedicated CSAR, it being done ad-hoc by theatre assets so to speak, has this changed? I have been on leave for two weeks?? :ugh:

I believe this was one of the points raised by the National Audit Office - one of their suggestions being privatising the current SAR set-up to enable a dedicated CSAR service in theatre.

Call me cynical, but I predict the privatisation of SAR will go ahead, the new CSAR force will be conveniently forgotten about, and the current ad-hoc CSAR methods will remain.

Bit of a shame - I was looking forward to getting the opportunity to fly the big orange and grey beasties. :(

[soddim]

The long term worry with so much privatisation is what happens when the supply of military trained personnel dries up? It surely will as less and less military personnel are required to be trained and then it will be down to the contractor to pay for the training of most of his people.

Just sit back and watch as the price of the contract ramps up and the quality of the training goes down.

Glad I belong to a generation that will be no longer be likely to need SAR cover.

[green granite]

Shurely the thing that we should be asking is not which is better, but why is
it, that a private company, which is supplying the same service as RAF SAR
can do it cheaper & make a profit. Perhaps the correct way forward would be
to ask for tenders, and allow the RAF / RN to tender, as well as civilian
companies. :ok:

[JTIDS]

Doesn't 28 sqn nominally provide the rotary part of the CSAR/ JPR role at the moment? I thought they were taking over from the junglies?

[Evalu8ter]

"Doesn't 28 sqn nominally provide the rotary part of the CSAR/ JPR role at the moment? I thought they were taking over from the junglies" Technically yes. Here's the rub though; no funding, no dedicated assets, little spare capacity for training, no dedicated Sandys, two/three hatted airframes & crews, no tanker aircraft, no viable long range capability (with any useful payload) etc etc etc. If you look at how the USAF/USMC approach the issue you'll see how, yet again, we're trying to punch above our weight. The Pave Low has RF/IR jammers, a probe (and a tanker...), three really big guns, stacks of fuel, INS, TFR, armor (as our cousins would say), flares and all the rest of the toys. Most importantly, they work with the A10/F16 Sandy communities. The USMC approach is to do TRAP with Ch-53s, Huey Hogs and Cobras, and a SOC MEU will practise the drills before they are declared SOC for a combat cruise. We'll have one, maybe two, Merlins with little of the above. In the UK case, the best Recovery platform is always going to be the nearest/quickest (as long as the threat permits) regardless of platform or service. If I were cynical, I'd say that the whole CSAR thing was another attempt to define a role for the Merlin, before it surprised everyone by how well it's done in Iraq. Furthermore, if the Merlin wasn't in the CSAR-X competition I wonder if we'd even still be talking about it? If UKPLC want a CSAR force then give the Merlin boys what they need; a tanker, some new DAS toys and a dedicated Sandy flight of GR9s-in other words, PAY FOR IT!! And as for civillianising SAR, has anybody thought about how hard it would be to militarise most of the RAF SARF?:ok:

[RileyDove]

Bottom line is that H.M government doesn't want to pay for Merlin etc to replace the Sea King. The MoD is cutting just about everything and whilst
RAF SAR is a nice thing to have - a civil operation with lower overheads
will fit the bill.

[harrogate]

Sorry, can't resist it any further...
That we need a SAR service around the UK (off shore and overland, on the ground/sea and in the air) is not disputed. That service needs to be capable of rescuing predominantly civillians and occaisionally servicemen, as well as being an integral part of any contingency or disaster relief plans.
Fine...agreed.
What is questionable is whether such a service ought to be provided, at great cost (both financial, manpower and complexity) by the military, whose primary role, lest we forget, is to defend the UK and its dependancies. Having been part of the IPT investigating this very issue it is clear that the RAF (and the RN to a lesser extent) gets some PR and training value from maintaining the status quo. However, in these times of great financial pressure and operational stretch it has be considered whether the money would be more wisely spent getting a contractor to provide this non-deployable, non-warlike SERVICE.
I know the figures, and they're mind boggling. If you think its worth the PR and training, then all I can say is the hundreds of millions currently spent per anum on RAF SARF would buy you a lot of training and PR.
Besides, we could then employ all those expensively trained, X-factor receiving, military pilots, doing proper military tasks.
Standing by for usual banal, pointless arguments...
jungly


*reads condescending drivvle in above quote*

All of what you said above is merely the 'stock' argument used by those in favour of privatisation of anything. Congratulations, you've understood what it means and you've been able to relay it back in writing. That would probably get you about a 'C' at school. The higher grades are achieved when you add a bit of flesh to the bones by applying the theory to the reality of a specific situation far better than you just did. To do this you do at least 3 things: look back to the past, consider the status quo and look to the future. When these have been considered, you formulate a reasonably rational opinion based on reason, logic and precedent, as well as leaving a bit of room for a few 'maybes' so as to ensure a level of progress.

Anyway, junglyAEO's study tips aside, the gripe a lot of people rightfully have with privatisation or radical reform is that it can be OK in theory (from a financial perspective and it also may entail equal or similar standards of service - none of this is in doubt), but privatisation has traditionally been frought with problems and people simply have a justifiable right to question proposals such as these.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe at those making the decisions (I really don't know which way I swing politically these days), but I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that we don't trust our politicians not to **** it up. It's that simple.

I try not to be swayed by everything I read in the paper and my perspective on any issue is largely based on my own experiences, so here's a handful of my recent experiences and my subsequent personal conclusions...

NHS: Reformed and ****** up; Higher Education: Reformed and ****** up; Policing and the Criminal Justice System (very generalised, I know, but nonethelesss...); Reformed and ****** up; The Railways: Reformed and ****** up; Local Authority Planning Regulations; Reformed and ****** up; Human Rights (a biggie): In reform and being ****** up. Couldn't work out how to fit the whole Iraq thing into the 'reforms' category, but nonetheless, it's still a **** up. I haven't been to Iraq recently, though, so the latter is an opinion that I have formed based in part on what I've seen in the media... a media, which coincidentally, the government are trying to reform and **** up.


There's a good mixture of privatisation examples and more general reforms, both of which are relevant. They are just a few of my recent experiences, so forgive me for thinking that the Government might just **** something else up. Yes, I'm worried about them ******* a lot of things up too, but we're talking about something here which constitutes an 'Emergency Service' (in reality at least, if not on paper) so I personally rate it as quite important. I'm not just talking about the current government either - British politicians have been ******* this place up for longer than 9 years.

Some folks are too eager to look at the situation purely from a cost perspective. When people go on about how we live in times of 'great financial pressure' and 'overstretch', it's only because successive **** ups in all sorts of areas have created this environment. To say we can no longer afford to provide a vital service like this from our taxes doesn't wash with people who have seen their money spent on things like big white domes and irresponsible wars or who have received a speeding ticket in the post within 10 days of doing 33 mph, but haven't yet had a visit from a police officer some 3 weeks after their home was burgled.

It's a question of priority. Ask anyone on the street - the vast majority would not object to taxes being spent on things like SAR, especially when they see such needless spending and terrible value for money elsewhere by the government.

And one last thing... I'm not saying that civvies would do a worse job, as there would inevitibly be a hell of a lot of direct and indirect military experience involved in any civvy service. I just wouldn't want my lilo to pop one day when they're on strike or when their parent company's gone tits up.

Not everything has to make a profit, why can't we settle for value for money once in a while? If it isn't broke, don't try to fix it. If it is broke, or is breaking, but it worked really well before - then fix it. By all means make tweaks and refinements to help lower costs if possible, but keep the formula because it works really, really well (for what it's worth - I'm living proof of this).

PS - Another thought after reading a few posts above.... if the government is saying the current assetts are tired and soon won't be up to the job of picking little Tommy off a sandbank on a sunny day in Devon, then surely they are admitting that their ability to carry out the defined military SAR is defunct too? And then to replace the Sea Kings with an aircraft that isn't up to the SAR job officially? Sounds like a copromise to me. Ooo.

[foormort]

What do you current SAR ladies and gents think of the role being taken on by the private sector. I can imagine the SAR job has a reasonable quality of life in a rotary world dominated by countless months away on operational tours. The apparent trend of needing to have all military members directly involved in ongoing ops seems to offer no respite for those who serve. Do personnel remain in the SAR world once qulified or do they move round the rotary world?

[Tourist]

Well an obvious starting point would be 90% of all AEOs, since we currently have more AEOs than we have engines. That should save some cash, especially with your nearly 100% pull through to Cdr.

[Could be the last?]

Very easy answer to the above, sell part of the Typhoon fleet and purchase more helos. NH90 perhaps, and then you could replace elements of the green fleet and all of yellow fleet. Reduce overall costings, trg and maintenance etc, and more importantly the yellow hatters can deploy as regularly as the rest of us.

:ok: FI doesn't count!

[LFFC]

I think there are 2 arguments here:

The first is whether UK coastal SAR should be conducted by military assets or civilian assets. Although I have great sympathy for all the points about PR etc, as a tax payer, I'm not convinced that we need all the additional expense that the "military" label brings with it.

Once you make the decision to conduct UK coastal SAR with civilian assets, the second decision is whether to privatise the whole service, or to setup and fund a public organisation to provide it. I wouldn't like to make that decision, but intuitively, I'd go for the latter. Having seen how well these so-called "not for profit" companies perform, like many of the contributors to this thread, I'd be very worried about trusting them with such an important role.

[harrogate]

Harrogate
If you're adamant that the military should continue to pay for UKSAR (and I don't really see a persuasive argument in your post), then what would you like us to cancel in order to pay for it?
jungly

... The deployment of 3000 soldiers to Afghanistan, the deployment of 8000 thousand troops in Iraq, the new IT system for the NHS which has cost nearly £20billion from conception and is already obselete despite not having been rolled out yet (likely to cost £30billion in the end), the nearly £2billion annual subsidy Britain pays to the EU which goes purely to european farmers, the £1billion given to Network Rail for work the government's own regulator says, and I quote, "it doesn't need to do", the "Quangos" (yes, they still exist) that cost us over £11billion last year, the Whithall "Arts Budget" which spends half a million a year on decorating the walls round Whitehall, the Lady Diana enquiry which has so far cost £2.5billion, the £45 million a year spent by the Government on consultants to do the Politician's jobs for them (if a Cabinet Minister can't do the job, appoint someone with experience who can)...

Tell you what, have a read of this: http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/1897597797.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg and choose what you'd like to cancel yourself, then tell me that SAR is still not worthy of my tax.

By all means take some of it with a pinch of salt, but there's £89billion per year of wastage detailed in that book so there'll still be enough left, fear not.

To say you can't see a persuasive argument in my earlier post just serves to highlight your own cognitive shortcomings further. At least I dissected your post, whereas you just made a throwaway statement about mine. Are you a politician?

[jumpjumpjohn]

'Could be the last' - We'd rather have the Super Puma/Cougar, but other than that a good idea.
Also, a point that no-one has raised yet - Bristows etc provide a very competent and effective SAR cover in their AORs. HOWEVER, the overriding majority of their crews, both front- and rear-end, come from a military SAR background. I would meekly suggest that if we privatise mil SAR, in 5-10 years time when the supply of ex-mil SAR crews dries up you will suddenly see the cost of the contract leap up as they have to pay for a massively increased training programme et al. Another fine example of the Birtish political system's inability to see aywhere beyond the next General Election.:hmm:
The removal of the britmil pipe-and-slippers brigade, much as we love to banter them, would also lead to a further loss of expertise in the basic SAR techniques at the front-line as the cross-pollenisation between SAR and SH would obviously cease. But on the plus side it would remove some of the more embarassing elements of the RAF aircrew fraternity that seem to get squirrelled away at SARTU. So maybe it is worth it after all :ok:

[WhiteOvies]

As has been proved numerous times landing and taking off from a carrier can be very dangerous. SAR cover on carriers is provided by 771 NAS, who also do civi rescue in Cornwall. With new carriers (hopefully) and new ship based FJs (hopefully) would Bristows or another civi operator be prepared to provide the same service? Or should we invest in more SAR training for the Merlin crews? In which case why can't Merlin do the same for the UK coastline as well? IMHO a Merlin with a winch should be able to conduct a rescue as long as the crew are properly trained in the techniques. Happy to be corrected as SAR is not my area of expertise.

[SARREMF]

Do you all believe everything you read in the press!

As far as I am aware we intend to keep military crews in SAR. Numbers TBD. The infrastructure will be civilian provided as will the ac - it works elsewhere so why not here. The ac may be on the military register or off it. Jungly mentions he worked in the IPT which incidentatly, is a run from the military side of the house with MCA partnership. If this was a total civilianisation with ZERO military input then we wouldn't have an IPT at all but a 'project' within the DTi [or whatever its called these days!].

Calm down everyone, no one is selling anything down the swanny. In fact this could be the best thing to happen to mil SAR for a long time - new investment with skills retained for battlefield use. What could be better.

Surely, this does all that we want and captures almost all the points previously raised?

[SASless]

Harrogate,

Just imagine what life would be like if you got all the government you pay for?:{

Far better they waste it on pork barrel projects rather than government I would suggest.:ugh:

That is the only reason we have not had a second American Revolution over taxes.:E

[harrogate]

Harrogate,
Just imagine what life would be like if you got all the government you pay for?:{
Far better they waste it on pork barrel projects rather than government I would suggest.:ugh:
That is the only reason we have not had a second American Revolution over taxes.:E

Call me old fashioned. I just want my taxes spent on good services.

[robin]

As a PPL who flies regulary around the coasts, I have been watching this thread with some interest

I have had experience of 'outsourcing' on the grounds that the service should concentrate on its core function - very much in the way this proposal is being sold.

Where this has happened in my old business, there was a massive decline in standards on both the contracted-out and retained services

1) the contractor had an SLA and anything in addition to that was charged for at exorbitant prices. Similarly they made a massive profit on variations cos the civil servants got the figures wrong

2) the retained service suffered, as they lost a lot of the day-to-day low-level functions so training was reduced.

Finally, the bean-counters got hacked off with staff waiting around, seemingly doing nothing, they cut the budget again

In this case the CSAR is a great facility, gives the Great British Public a good feeling and advertises that you are there for us. From my perspective, having already lost some SAR facilities locally, I would hope that your bosses put up a fight

[ratty1]

What was your old business?

[SAR Bloke]

What a load of rubbish.

I must admit I haven't seen the article but I understand there are loads of errors in it and it would appear that very little research had been done. As SARREMF says, don't believe everything you read in the papers.

Bottom line is that H.M government doesn't want to pay for Merlin etc to replace the Sea King.

Not true. One of the bidders for the contract will be Westland and one of their available platforms is the Merlin which they are keen to push for obvious reasons. However, it is expensive and not ideally suited to short range SAR (but would be OK for long range).

Allowing the military to bid for the contract would not work. Call me a cynic but the money comes from a different budget. Therefore the cost to the MOD for a civilian aircraft is nothing. The military could not bid lower than that!!

It is my understanding that the proportion of Military to Civilian crews will remain the same, although I would not guarantee it. Civilian engineering was announced ages ago but has been delayed, and the contract for a Sea King replacement has also been openly discussed. None of this is news.


p.s. Just because SAR crews don't deploy very often, it does not mean they are not working bloody hard. Quality of life is good but it is no free ride. If you calculate the number of 24 hr shifts carried out by the average 'battle-dodger' it works out to be in excess of 4 months away from home every year (not including FI/Basra etc for those involved). Admittedly the longest, single, det is likely to be the annual (or more frequent for some) 6 weeks in FI.

[Toxteth O'Grady]

and not ideally suited to short range SAR (but would be OK for long range).

Agree it's expensive to operate but why isn't it suitable for short range? Just asking out of interest. Also do you include all Merlin Marks in this?

:cool:

TOG

[LFFC]

Therefore the cost to the MOD for a civilian aircraft is nothing. Whilst the cost for the aircraft might be nothing, I bet the cost of recruiting, training and retaining the military crews comes from the PTC budget and that it isn't communicated to any other budget - it just "falls where it lies". :yuk:

[EnginEars]

The Canadians seem to be doing OK using their version of the Merlin for SAR.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/ch-149/history_e.asp

I'm sure Westland would jump at the chance to bulid a few more for UK use. :hmm:

[LFFC]

I'm sure it would!

If a public body were to procure a new SAR helicopter, I'm sure it would be tempted to support British industry - at whatever the cost to the taxpayer!

However, a private company might look elsewhere for cheaper, but just as capable, solutions that offer better value for money.

[SAR Bloke]

That depends on what link you look at.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2005/10/11/202032/Hub+fix+fails+to+remedy+CH-149+tail-rotor+cracks.html


I guess the Merlin could be used for short range but it is not ideal. It is big and has a fairly fierce downwash. These arguments against change were also used when the Sea King replaced the Wessex but there is a limit to what can be coped with. I also understand that it's design causes it to be little tricky in turbulent air which may cause difficulties in the mountains in 50kt+ winds. However I haven't flown it so don't know about this. I will get to see one tomorrow so will ask the pilot how it copes. With regard to the Mk's available, I don't know a lot about them but the RAF version does not have a radar so would be unsuitable.

Incidentally, I believe Westland may agree and understand they may offer a mixed fleet solution including Merlins and Agusta 139's (or similar).

[rafloo]

I haven't flown the Merlin (sadly) and therefore feel unable to comment. But, I have flown the Wessex and Seaking on SAR flights and feel that the Merlin would be just too big to conduct SAR operations around our coastline.

Would a Merlin be able to hover over a Yacht? A Dingy? An Inshore LB ?

Would a Merlin be able to conduct Cliff winching? Would a Merlin have been OK to operate inside the confines of the Valley at Boscastle? Anyone know the answers?

[Si Clik]

This whole issue has been on the streets both in and out of the MoD for at least 18 months including the fact that there will be military aircrew in the system. I don't quite understand the bleating here since I know all SAR units have been briefed on the surrounding facts.

The fact is we can't afford to pay for a military SAR that seems to do 90% civil rescues (especially the Spainish fisherman 300m out), mean that this is not a MILITARY function especially now a large number of civvy operators can do it.

This would have happened whatever Govt was in power and was under scrutiny under the previous Conservative one.

What would you rather have - SH or SAR.

:cool:

[Bertie Thruster]

The removal of the britmil pipe-and-slippers brigade, much as we love to banter them, would also lead to a further loss of expertise in the basic SAR techniques at the front-line as the cross-pollenisation between SAR and SH would obviously cease. But on the plus side it would remove some of the more embarassing elements of the RAF aircrew fraternity that seem to get squirrelled away at SARTU. So maybe it is worth it after all :ok:

In what way "embarassing"?

Would it be "cross-pollenisation"?

"squirrelled away" You mean like nuts?

[Ali Barber]

How about £15 billion of UK taxpayers money (or whatever our share is) for text books in Africa! Should be able to get a few helis for that!

[rafloo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/4924110.stm

[snafu]

I know the figures, and they're mind boggling. If you think its worth the PR and training, then all I can say is the hundreds of millions currently spent per anum on RAF SARF would buy you a lot of training and PR.

I've heard of paying through the nose, but are we really spending hundreds of millions on the RAF SARF per anum!! I can see why they're attracted to the role!:ok:

[[email protected]]

The SARF is already being privatised by the back door anyway; despite sterling effort from Helicopter Maintenance Flight at St Mawgan to improve throughput and productivity, all major servicing will be handed over to DARA at Fleetlands this year. Additionally, all the very dedicated first line engineers who populate the SAR flts fixing the cabs at all hours of the day and night are to be replaced by civilian contractors by the middle of 08. Quite who would be foolish enough to take on the aging Sea King fleet and the ponderous RAF engineering practices and expect to make a profit is beyond me but apparently it is happening. And just to improve matters, the move to calendar servicing and lean maintenance has pushed more of the engineering load on the flights.
The move from St Mawgan (where lots of people want to be) to Valley (where no-one wants to be) is just the icing on the cake when the SARF is already chin deep in uncertainty and change.
As for the cost of the SARF, this has been argued extensively on this forum before and nobody has come up with a way of accurately comparing like with like, yet they always come to the conclusion that civilianisation will be cheaper. You will still be paying for the SAR cover from your taxes and 24 hr SAR cover doesn't come cheap, whoever is the provider.

[Bclass]

You may not like their politics but:

SNP Defence Spokesperson Angus Robertson MP, whose Moray constituency includes RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss, has today (Tuesday) tabled a Parliamentary motion to gather support for retaining military search and rescue services in light of recent concerns about the privatisation of the service.

Commenting Mr Robertson said:

"There is deep concern about the Labour Government's privatisation agenda in the armed forces. This latest news is unwelcome in Moray and of great concern to many.

"Recent attempts to privatise defence fire services had to be dropped so I'm unconvinced there is any merit in pursuing that agenda in yetanother vital area of provision.

"Many questions remain to beanswered about the privatisation of essential lifesaving services and hillwalkers and mountaineers will be equally concerned about these developments."



Notes:

Mr Robertson's draft motion reads:

PRIVATISATION OF SEARCH AND RESCUE SERVICES

That this House notes with concern plans by Her Majesty's Government to privately outsource search and rescue services; further notes that such a move would see RAF, Royal Navy and Coastguard helicopters replaced by civilian aircraft and crews; believes that replacing a public professional service with private companies would not meet the high standards of the military emergency teams that have saved thousands of lives over the decades; agrees with Tim Walker, director of the Glenmore Lodge national mountain training centre, that military crews would lose "essential training" if no longer involved in civilian rescues; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to abandon these plans and preserve the well established and highly professional service we currently enjoy.

[[email protected]]

Out of interest, a recent estimate of the cost of the SARF was circa £50 million per annum; offset against that are treasury level cross-subsidies because DtR don't have to pay to provide the military flights. As far as the RAF is concerned, it would cost almost that much to buy all the good PR and media exposure that the SARF brings so it really doesn't cost more than a couple of premier league footballers a year - and we don't spit, swear or fall over pretending to be hurt:)

[Bertie Thruster]

£50 mill. A lot of little choppers for that! (and pilot jobs) Wonder what proportion of UK sar jobs are more than 30-40 minutes transit from base and pick up more than 1 cas?

[TruBlu351]

The RAAF has had civilian SAR for years. Used to be Lloyds I think, but now it's a company called CHC. They use Sikorsky S76's and some older Hueys.

I have nothing but good things to say about them - great bunch of blokes...and a few gals too.

[MarkD]

CHC Search and Rescue (UK CG, Aus, Ireland CG, Norway (http://www.chc.ca/search_and_rescue.php))

[[email protected]]

Bertie - you just want to bring back the Wessex!

[Shackman]

If we used the same creative accounting as Blair and his cronies have used for their use of 32 Sqn aircraft for the running costs of the SAR fleet we could also reduce them considerably.
(Great idea crab: By the same token if we went back to the Wessex we might even end up in profit! :) )

[cpmafia]

Gents, having flown both the Mk 3 and 3a I can say that they are great helicopters and the addition of FLIR has greatly improved our capabilities. However; the Mk 3 fleet is over 25 years old and the Mk 3a is almost 10, both being based on a design that is almost 50 years old. We have the slowest Vmax of any UK military helicopter in service and even if we get the Carson blades we will still have the slowest Vmax of any helicopter in UK military service. We are unable to get hoist cables that last more than 50 lifts and in some cases unable to get whole helicopters working. If the government is unable or unwilling to spend the money then let a Canadian company spend theirs and give us the kit and support we need to carry out our job of saving life. We all do a difficult job in very difficult conditions and we need to view this change in a positive light. We get better kit to do our job and in the end the we are better placed to help the casualty. The question of who fles them, thats for the government beancounters to decide.

[Jimmy does SAR]

There is lot of tosh being talked about above e.g RAF SAR costs hundreds of millions etc. The RAF costs are in tens of millions, under the current MCA contract Bristows only provides 4 x S-61s at a cost of £17M (check out the MCA's business plan). RAF SAR provides two aircraft and crews at each fllght location. (Granted the second cab is only serviceable around 50% of the time.) The OCU also provides additional surge capacity. The second aircraft/crew and the OCU aircraft/crews have been used repeatedly over the years for large scale incidents.

Also, the MCA cabs are primarily for maritime use. The aircraft don't have an NVG overland capabilty (and only carry out night coastal work). Over 50% of the RAF/RN SAR effort is overland, so this capability is important. And as an aside, it wouldn't be DTI or even DfT who'd pay for overland SAR as this is the repsonsibility of the Home/Scottish/Welsh/Northern Ireland Offices (enacted through the local police forces).

As for pipe and slippers...that betrays the age of the correspondent rather than the reallity that has existed for over 15 years.

I love a misininformed and prejudiced debate!

[Bertie Thruster]

It was "pipe and slippers" up to at least 1997.

[Spurlash2]

Not, dear Bertie, on the SAR flt where I was working, and I started there in 1995!

[FrogPrince]

Walking along Robin Hoods Bay on Sunday afternoon with the family. Daughter spots the Sea King, obviously hoisting to the North. Job done, the aircraft moves purposefully but gracefully past at low level and away southwards, the loadie waving to the punters below as they go by.

The RAF has an iconic brand here, the bright yellow SAR SK generates huge goodwill from Joe Public when going about its business, because just about everyone in the UK knows that the RAF (and the RN) are on call, 24/7 and will come and get you out of the proverbial.

Alas, the first responders appear to be out on a limb compared even to their JHC brethren and are definitely an afterthought for the RAF FJ (tunnel visioned ?) Head Shed. Would it make any difference if SAR was moved across to JHC ? Would the AAC / RN be happy to take up the mantle...?

[angelonawire]

RAF AND NAVY TO KEEP ROLE IN RESCUE REVAMP
More Headlines | Back to home page
Be the first reader to comment on this story
DAVID PERRY
09:00 - 08 May 2006
Raf and Royal Navy crews are to continue flying search-and-rescue missions under radical changes expected to increase private-sector involvement in the service due to be announced tomorrow, the Press and Journal understands.
Proposals delayed until after the Scottish Parliament by-election in Moray and English local government elections are expected to retain a Ministry of Defence commitment to the vital service now provided by a mix of civilian and military aircraft and crew.
The Commons announcement will provide a national strategy for the service, which is now provided for historic reasons from RAF Lossiemouth and by civilian helicopter firms under contract to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency at Sumburgh, in Shetland, and Stornoway, in the Western Isles, with a co-ordination HQ at RAF Kinloss.
The announcement will also propose the use of private-sector finance to fund a new generation of helicopters to replace ageing RAF and Navy Sea Kings.
The aim of the Treasury-driven initiative is to remove from the hard-pressed MoD budget the burden of a service that has the main function of rescuing civilians without stopping RAF and Navy personnel gaining essential training from carrying out the work.
Some 97 out of 100 flights involve civilian rather than armed services emergencies.
MoD sources have been denying for weeks that the outcome of a wide-ranging review of the service would be the sale of teams at the 12 search-and-rescue bases around the UK coast and the imposition of charges for those rescued.
MPs across the north made it clear last night that they expected military involvement to continue and said they would fight to prevent any further reduction in RAF or Navy participation.
Orkney and Shetland Liberal Democrat Alistair Carmichael warned that the new arrangements would receive "the closest possible scrutiny" and said other private finance initiatives of this type "have given very poor value to the taxpayer".
"Most important of all, the balance sheet should never be allowed to come before safety considerations," he said.
"This service is vital for many of our coastal and island communities and that must not be lost in the drive for economy."
Moray SNP MP Angus Robertson said: "The MoD needs to ensure that military aircrew continue to be trained to the highest standards in search and rescue as this is essential for the future wellbeing of servicemen and women in combat zones.
"Concerns remain about the privatisation agenda of the Labour Government, which appears to be more to do with cost-cutting and belt-tightening rather than the optimal provision of defence services.
"It is ironic that a Labour administration is privatising lifeline services which were not even considered by the Tories under Margaret Thatcher."
US-owned Bristow and Canadian-based CHC Scotia Helicopters have been reported to be competing for a £40million-a-year contract, possibly running for 25 years, to provide aircraft.
CHC is due to take over the provision of new rescue helicopters at Sumburgh and Stornoway after winning a contract awarded previously to Bristow.
Military sources have also been reported as saying the provision of helicopters, crews, training, maintenance and operation of rescue centres were all "up for grabs".
The move follows the announcement last month that 60 north firefighters had been put on alert to combat large-scale disasters at sea.
They are one of a dozen teams around the UK that will use search-and-rescue helicopters to get to the scene of emergencies.
A team from the new Maritime Incident Response Group was flown to the stricken cruise ship Calypso at the weekend after a fire started in the vessel's engine room in the English Channel.

[XV277]

If a mere civvie can comment....

I've long thought (as a keen mountaineer) that the RAF/RN have been a victim of their own success in respect of the SAR tasking - they provide such an efficient service that there is no need to provide a civillian rescue service in many areas of the country (It's noticable that in those areas without MIlSAR coverage, then you have the HMCG Helos).

There are a couple of other issues that may affect this - if a Civillian organisation takes over with civillian rescue as it's prime task, it may lead to an increase in demand for 'costs recovery' - ie get back from the rescued the costs of the rescue - and an need for insurance for those who require the services of the SAR.

Also, am I cynical in thinking that nay SAR purchase will be the S-92 as a sop to Sikorsky for the US101?

[Climebear]

Announcement on the MOD website here:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/HelicopterSearchAndRescueTheNextStage.htm

It is planned to replace this capability with a single contract that will still however retain a high proportion of military aircrew alongside civilian aircrew trained to the same high standards. The service will continue to be managed jointly by the MOD and the MCA.

Although decisions regarding helicopters, basing and contract duration have yet to be taken and will now be subject to dialogue with industry, the SAR-H project has developed a detailed requirement specification to ensure that all aspects of the service requirement are met. Key performance indicators will be set and performance measured against these to ensure the high level of service is maintained.

[Bertie Thruster]

Spurlash2; Hasn't RAFSAR always been "pipe and slippers" when compared to SH? (and in the future will be even more so, it now seems!)

[flipster]

Frankly, I'd rather see some of the FJ fleet go rather than a single SAR asset.

Lets face it - we just can't compete with the big boys anymore because successive gov'ts have made a complete c0ck-up of running this country since the end of WW2. We are not blameless either. We have all bought far too many nice cheap imports from China and the EU while some would argue that younger generations (mine included) just don't know the meaning of hard work but want a high-class lifestyle.

As a result, we have no manufacturing industry, no fishing industry, an underfunded and failing argiculture industry and an overpaid and overstaffed civil service. What GNP we have left comes from shuffling paper and money about. Grrrrrrrrrr.

Its no wonder why we can't afford a decent military anymore!

Sadly, this is componded by almost everyone in positions of control in the civil service/NHS/Police/military knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing!?:mad: :mad:

Rant mode to standby

[JTIDS]

On the bright side a civilian company would be able to buy a new helicopter for the task based on capability and cost, rather than subsidising Westlands!

[Colonal Mustard]

On the bright side a civilian company would be able to buy a new helicopter for the task based on capability and cost, rather than subsidising Westlands!

Wont be long and retained firefighters in the country will be sponsored fully by the local companies surrounding their station, thats the way this government seem to be going me thinks:ouch:

[umba]

Letter in FT today from Jim McAusian, General Sec of BALPA entitled 'Search and Rescue will not be compromised.'

What caught my eye was his argument that the employment of civvy firms in the SAR role will free up 'scarce' mil assets 'to be deployed where they are most needed.'

I'm fairly sure this was the same assertion put forward by parties with vested interests in the retention of work at DARA St Athan when in fact depth hubs such as at Marham were taking work away.

IMHO, UK PLC and vote hungry politicians seem happy for Service personel to be deployed automotons with no need for time with family or any stability. Despite the latest 'warfighter first' mantra, there has to be some respite for the guys and gals!

[JTIDS]

Wont be long and retained firefighters in the country will be sponsored fully by the local companies surrounding their station, thats the way this government seem to be going me thinks:ouch:

Would that mean Westlands being a sponsor for SAR rather than SAR being a sponsor for Westlands!!!!! :bored: :bored: :bored:

[viking25]

As a result, we have no manufacturing industry, no fishing industry, an underfunded and failing argiculture industry and an overpaid and overstaffed civil service. What GNP we have left comes from shuffling paper and money about. Grrrrrrrrrr.

Its no wonder why we can't afford a decent military anymore!

Sadly, this is componded by almost everyone in positions of control in the civil service/NHS/Police/military knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing!?:mad: :mad:

Rant mode to standby

You obviously think that all civil servants work in London and earn massive salaries. How wrong you are. I wouldn't think the military are suffering because of civil servants. Furthermore, most of the policy that is actioned is set and decided by Govt. It is the civil servants that have to implement it. As for the demise of the RAF search and rescue, I for one would rather the bean counters, get rid of RAF SAR helicopters at the terrific price that they are, replace them with, the excellent service that Bristows provide,soon to be CHC and put the money saved into providing good equipment for the troops on the ground. :}

[snaggletooth]

I'm a firm believer in the old adage 'buy cheap buy twice'. I really hope it goes well for all concerned, but i can see this 'harmonisation' being a f**k up from start to finish.