Sold out - SAR force to be privatised

[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]

Originally Posted by jack-oh

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......

[Krystal n chips]

Originally Posted by jack-oh

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" 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]

Half-way house?

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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??

[Taffer]

Originally Posted by thelynxeffect

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??

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.

[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?

[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]

Originally Posted by junglyAEO

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.

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]

Originally Posted by junglyAEO

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...2.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?