Royal Navy Dauphin

[Yellow & Blue Baron]

I would be interested to know for how long the UK Navy has been operating the Dauphin, how many they use and in what role?

nKL11DjaxII&feature=related

[Tallsar]

2 are operated for use on behalf of FOST (Flag Officer Sea Trainng). They are used to ferry personnel and light cargo from ship to shore and ship to ship during RN sea training exercises south of the English coast. They are COMR aircraft (Commercially Owned Military Registered) operated under MoD contract (5 yearly terms I think) by British International Helicopters (BIH) out of Plymouth, and using military registration to allow them to be flown under MoD regulation. They replaced RN owned Sea Kings that were used for this task more than ten years ago now.

[Yellow & Blue Baron]

Thank you. :ok:

And is reason MOD not buying because it is not Westland?

[Earl of Rochester]

Royal Navy Dauphins:

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/7/4/3/0547347.jpg (http://www.pprune.org/photo/UK---Navy/Aerospatiale-AS-365N-2-Dauphin/0547347/L/&sid=884573e00db7a9c647153e02d734fb10)

AS365N2 ZJ164 operated by Bond Helicopters on behalf of the UK MoD at Fairford 19th July 2002

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/8/7/3/1365378.jpg (http://www.pprune.org/photo/UK---Navy/Aerospatiale-AS-365N-2-Dauphin/1365378/L/&sid=884573e00db7a9c647153e02d734fb10)

AS365N2 ZJ165 operated by British International Helicopters (according to Tallsar) on behalf of the UK MoD at Plymouth 8th May 2008

Not sure why this particular exercise is contracted out but, one assumes, it must be cost-driven and considered a low-security mission.

Would have thought it would have been an ideal exercise for AW139 training sorties.

Earl

[Tallsar]

Hi Earl...thanks for the Bond pics too....they having been the original contractor for this task before BIH. Who were you thinking would provide the 139s for such "training" sorties......certainy not contracturally possible for the DofT HMCG ones at either Lee or Portland, and no others are wthin the MoD orbat nearby. I do understand at least one of the competitors bid 139s for the latest FOST contract rebid, but did not succeed.

No Y&B..nothing to do with AWL...just entirely about which platform the contractor thought was best value for money for the task...as you know the twin engine Dauphin/Dolphin is used worldwide in all sorts of maritime tasks including SAR...so was well equipped to meet the requirement which also includes winching on to decks etc.

In many ways this was the originator/prototype for MoD COMR type helo contracts...testing the water so to speak...allowed valuable Mk4 SKs to go to sandy places etc....and because of its competitive nature keeps costs down...and gets the overheads off MoD's budget for what is at heart a non-operational support task at supposedly "the best possible price". Then followed various other small contracts such as the Cyprus/84 Sqn COMR and for other tasks (Belize, & Brunei) where one can argue it was the originator of MoD's enthusiasm for the SAR-H PFI!! Arghhh :ugh:

[Earl of Rochester]

http://www.zap16.com/zapnew/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/AW139_ZR326.jpg

Perhaps from the SARTU contract or elsewhere? I'm just thinking that there are Mil drivers needing to be trained, needing to gain experience and that the FOST contract could have been an opportunity to accomplish two objectives simultaneously!

I'm all for cost-cutting but, at the same time, feel sad that the UK Mil couldn't have defended itself better so that all of these contracts, DHFS, SARTU, national SAR-H etc. could have been retained within the military remit - hopefully adding to our crews competence and retaining a little national pride.

I fully understand the rationale behind these outsourcing efforts however as well as the 'vulturous' appetite of commercial operators to retain them and shred off more of the military aviation flesh!

Earl

[Tallsar]

Earl...you are a man of similar sympathies to myself I see..sadly we are "old hat" and have been overtaken by too many events to be the accepted wisdom anymore.....one could wax lyrical as to why...not least our modern generation of politicians knowing so little of what you speak ,and why it is so neccessary to ensure our military are up there with the best.....look only to the GR9 and MRA4 decisions to see this.

Nice pic of the SARTU 139s ..but of course they are there not for UK Mil training but are part of a major foreign nation training contract so not available at all for tasks such as FOST etc......although they might fortell as to where FBH would like to be in the future under the MFTS contract that is forthcoming.

What all these commercial contracts do mean of course, is the total lack of military control and command. When everything belonged to the military, it was in theory, possible to redirect assets to meet urgent needs whatever they were perceived to be......if it ain't in the contract (which it usually isn't!) then it can't happen anymore. Low cost and supposed affordability comes at a heavy price IMO.:{

Cheers:ugh:

[squib66]

Contractors are so inflexible. Oh wait a minute:
FB Heliservices*** Helicopter Training******* (http://www.fbheliservices.com/FBH/Brunei.htm)

January and February 2005 saw two of the FB Heliservices Bell 212 helicopters from Brunei deploy to Banda Aceh in support of the Tsunami relief operation. FB Heliservices engineers detached with the aircraft to provide all engineering support, living in tents with the Army aircrew alongside the operating area. A total of 246 flying hours were flown during the 32 day deployment, carrying 250,000 lbs of freight and 71 passengers.


and
FBH Maintains Brunei Bells on Tsunami Front Line: AINonline (http://www.ainonline.com/ain-and-ainalerts/aviation-international-news/single-publication-story/browse/0/article/fbh-maintains-brunei-bells-on-tsunami-front-line-12059/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Bstory_pointer%5D=8&tx_ttnews%5Bmode%5D=1)

Bristow commercial director Allan Brown told AIN that the Bells will transport freight and relief workers to the hardest-hit areas of Aceh. “We have identified other helicopters in China and the Solomon Islands that, if required, can be drafted [into service]. The military types are taking the lion’s share of the burden at this stage, but commercial types normally take over as the peak of the crisis passes.”


Perhaps its just down to how imaginative the contract writers are and how responsive the contractors.

[Earl of Rochester]

~ Tallsar

As expressed above; commercial operators possess a ravenous appetite for these contracts and seek to defend them with a grotesque adamancy relating to the 'benefits' of the MoD's outsourcing rationale.

My experience is that anyone even remotely associated with any of the successfully contracted providers tends to join this barrage of justification and which discourse, if burdened with being the receipient, tends to be mildly sickening.

On a purely personal note .. I should have preferred to have seen the MoD make every effort to streamline the forces so that they could accommodate the necessary budgetary restrictions internally - such rationalisation in itself being a challenge from which the military could display its adeptness to all manner of circumstances.

The road we have chosen is one which can only lead to a weaker, less cohesive, less recognisable and ultimately less effective national force but .. that's just my personal perspective.

Earl

[Tallsar]

Earl....couldn't disagree at all...well said....

Squid66....some valid points..and I for one am not saying that contractors are not flexible at all or when the imperative demands it...and the 2 cases you seem to be quoting are examples of flexibility in response to disasters or emergencies. What they are not are internal adjustments and refocused use of contracted resources for routine tasks.....which as you rightly say, if they are not inlcuded in the contract by specifiers with sufficent foresight, will lead to no response..

In the context of using FBH 139s based at Valley for what the Earl was suggesting ..the argument stands

[Savoia]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4EWXF4sTPHc/TpAzgwQvmSI/AAAAAAAAFMs/wi1VW_fbJtA/s800/AS365N%252520Dauphin%2525202%252520Plymouth%25252022%252520J ul%25252011%252520%252528Richard%252520Vandervord%252529%252 520FOST%252520contract.jpg
Royal Navy AS365N Dauphin 2 ZJ164 at Plymouth on 22nd July 2011 (Photo: Richard Vandervord)

The FOST contract is run by Bond .. but the Bond drivers are flying a mil registered ship! Are they issued with mil licences or do they fly on some sort of dispensation?

[rufus.t.firefly]

BIH not Bond :ok:

[Savoia]

Apologies to the chaps at BIH!

BIH it is then.

[OvertHawk]

I believe they fly on civ licences with mil validations. I also believe that there is (or certainly used to be) a requirement that the pilots be ex RN.

I stand to be corrected however.

OH

[Brilliant Stuff]

I remember being told in 2000 the drivers had to be ex Navy since they were the ones who knew the decks etc.

[Savoia]

I remember being told in 2000 the drivers had to be ex Navy since they were the ones who knew the decks etc.

Fair enough, although I wouldn't have thought it beyond the reach of RAF and Army drivers to 'pick up' the required skill after a dozen or less landings with someone in the other seat who's done it before. I could be wrong.

Turning the clock back, were Air Hanson involved in the trials for this contract in the early 80's? Only that I remember Colin Bates (RIP) telling me one day (1981-2) on the pads at Brooklands that he was heading-out in G-OHTL (Hanson's first 76) to conduct some deck landings on an RN vessel as part of some MoD work they were pursuing.

[OvertHawk]

Upon further reflection i seem to recall that (again perhaps only in the early days) the ex RN Pilots were still in the RN Reserve and therefore whilst employed as civvies were technically still in the mil and flying mil aircraft.

I also recall that the plan had originally been to have the aircraft civ registered but that the CAA would not let them do public transport winching without single engine flyaway.

Again - i stand to be corrected on any of this.

OH

[RicP]

I was the responsible for the original concept, the contract, the aircarft evaluation and the final introduction of the 2 Bond Dauphins into service at Plymouth following the relocation of Royal Navy Sea Training from Portland to Plymouth. I do not wish to spend time telling the story of how we got there unless there is genuine interest but given the level of conjecture and second guessing that exists I will happily do so if requested.

[Savoia]

RICP: Was someone specifically asking?

Either way, for the sake of posterity (and at least as far as I am concerned) please go ahead and tell your tale - if you have photos you can post .. even better!

Also please identify which aircraft were used to support Flag Officer support ops before the Dauphins?