New SAR Aircraft??
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jackonicko
Merlin too loud? It's the quietest cab I've ever flown in.
And unreliable? It's been the most reliable asset we've had in Iraq.
It is expensive, and price may well rule it out for UK SAR, but it sounds as though it's the US choice for their CSAR requirement, though politics are likely to result in an MH-47G derivative being procured.
And unreliable? It's been the most reliable asset we've had in Iraq.
It is expensive, and price may well rule it out for UK SAR, but it sounds as though it's the US choice for their CSAR requirement, though politics are likely to result in an MH-47G derivative being procured.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Up North
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New SAR aircraft
Sorry Stratia, my only faux pas was going onto the Merlin. Strangely enough the posting man was called Jim! However soon saw the light and exited to the civvy world.
SARREMF mentions that you can stand up in the AW-139 - only if you are a midget by all accounts. The guys at Lee and Portland are not particularly impressed with getting it in 08 due to the size of the cabin. It appears to bulk out quickly and lets be honest its only a wheeled 412 on steroids.
Surprised that CRAB has not appeared on this thread yet.
Forward 40, winching out, steady.
SARREMF mentions that you can stand up in the AW-139 - only if you are a midget by all accounts. The guys at Lee and Portland are not particularly impressed with getting it in 08 due to the size of the cabin. It appears to bulk out quickly and lets be honest its only a wheeled 412 on steroids.
Surprised that CRAB has not appeared on this thread yet.
Forward 40, winching out, steady.
And, as if by magic, here I am.
I believe that the industry bidders asked SAR H at the beginning of the process if the answer was going to be Merlin because they didn't want to waste a lot of time and effort just to be told by the politicians that regardless of common sense, the only way forward would be to support Wastelands again.
Fortunately the decision to waste a whole heap of money on Super/future/lynx just to keep wastelands order book full will ensure that the bid for the SAR contract will be dictated by industry other than wastelands.
As for the Sea King crash, any helicopter will fall to bits if you smash it into the ground hard enough, especially with drift or yaw - from what I gather, they were very lucky to stay upright.
I believe that the industry bidders asked SAR H at the beginning of the process if the answer was going to be Merlin because they didn't want to waste a lot of time and effort just to be told by the politicians that regardless of common sense, the only way forward would be to support Wastelands again.
Fortunately the decision to waste a whole heap of money on Super/future/lynx just to keep wastelands order book full will ensure that the bid for the SAR contract will be dictated by industry other than wastelands.
As for the Sea King crash, any helicopter will fall to bits if you smash it into the ground hard enough, especially with drift or yaw - from what I gather, they were very lucky to stay upright.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Falmouth
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant help that think that spending a small amount of money on F.Lynx is money wasted.....surely money well spent. The MOD worked long and hard to award that contract and for once we can safely say that F.Lynx will bring VFM.
As for industry asking SAR H if Merlin was the answer..... If you think that is the case then please contact the Serious Fraud Squad.....thats Illegal fella.
As for industry asking SAR H if Merlin was the answer..... If you think that is the case then please contact the Serious Fraud Squad.....thats Illegal fella.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
And, as if by magic, here I am.
I believe that the industry bidders asked SAR H at the beginning of the process if the answer was going to be Merlin because they didn't want to waste a lot of time and effort just to be told by the politicians that regardless of common sense, the only way forward would be to support Wastelands again.
Fortunately the decision to waste a whole heap of money on Super/future/lynx just to keep wastelands order book full will ensure that the bid for the SAR contract will be dictated by industry other than wastelands.
As for the Sea King crash, any helicopter will fall to bits if you smash it into the ground hard enough, especially with drift or yaw - from what I gather, they were very lucky to stay upright.
I believe that the industry bidders asked SAR H at the beginning of the process if the answer was going to be Merlin because they didn't want to waste a lot of time and effort just to be told by the politicians that regardless of common sense, the only way forward would be to support Wastelands again.
Fortunately the decision to waste a whole heap of money on Super/future/lynx just to keep wastelands order book full will ensure that the bid for the SAR contract will be dictated by industry other than wastelands.
As for the Sea King crash, any helicopter will fall to bits if you smash it into the ground hard enough, especially with drift or yaw - from what I gather, they were very lucky to stay upright.
Given the MoDs track record, I think it's wholly reasonable for a potential bidder to ask if the decision has already been made. Bidders often have to spend many millions answering, meaningless Invitations to Tender. However, an experienced bidder will spot the tell-tale signs, such as vital information being withheld but made available to just one bidder. But, they have to play the game in case they are frozen out of future work.
Flynx may well be popular with the RN as it seems to have a good track record on board. However, for Army use it is next to useless as it isn't big enough to do the job that the AAC need ie to provide support for Apache ops. It can't lift enough, it can't get enough troops in the cabin and, since it has no sensors of any kind - it is not a battlefield recce machine either.
The MOD keeps being criticised for not having enough battlefield helicopter lift capability yet the RAF buys Typhoon and the AAC will get Flynx. Meanwhile the Sea King fleet is knackered and can't cope with hot and high ops so we are left with not enough Chinooks and Merlins. But it's OK, Wastelands are propped up again by the UK taxpayer.
PS - liaison not laison
The MOD keeps being criticised for not having enough battlefield helicopter lift capability yet the RAF buys Typhoon and the AAC will get Flynx. Meanwhile the Sea King fleet is knackered and can't cope with hot and high ops so we are left with not enough Chinooks and Merlins. But it's OK, Wastelands are propped up again by the UK taxpayer.
PS - liaison not laison
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Too far North - hardly a RAF base that isn't these days...
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tucumseh
Given the MoDs track record, I think it's wholly reasonable for a potential bidder to ask if the decision has already been made. Bidders often have to spend many millions answering, meaningless Invitations to Tender. However, an experienced bidder will spot the tell-tale signs, such as vital information being withheld but made available to just one bidder. But, they have to play the game in case they are frozen out of future work.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting back OT.
Some threads so far seem to be looking at how MOD contracts, does business etc and how this has manifested itself in our other UK Helicopter projects. Let's not forget that the SAR-H programme is joint MOD and UK Coastguard. They will bring another perspective to the party I'm sure.
Some threads so far seem to be looking at how MOD contracts, does business etc and how this has manifested itself in our other UK Helicopter projects. Let's not forget that the SAR-H programme is joint MOD and UK Coastguard. They will bring another perspective to the party I'm sure.
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope they bring something new. It must be a bit dull to spend years generating a 'best-value-for -money-while -meeting-the-requirement' business case, only to have the beanies send it back with 'Buy British' written all over it...
Well, just as long as BAe Systems, Westlands, DARA and Marshalls survive, that is the main thing...
Well, just as long as BAe Systems, Westlands, DARA and Marshalls survive, that is the main thing...
Mr-AEO
I’m sure you are right although for some years the MoD and Coastguard have been procuring/supporting/sharing together.
I think the underlying point of any procurement discussions is that, for every penny wasted, the front line suffers a capability loss. A simple example. What is the point 10 members of an IPT spending 9 months preparing a 700 question Invitation to Tender when the answer to 99% of them is either “yes” or “no”; and yes = 1 point and no = 0 points? Everyone knows that every bidder (and there can be 20+) will answer “yes”. 1 “differentiating” question is better than 700 neutral ones. Main culprits? ILS and commercial. So far up themselves they are blind to the nuisance they cause.
I’m sure you are right although for some years the MoD and Coastguard have been procuring/supporting/sharing together.
I think the underlying point of any procurement discussions is that, for every penny wasted, the front line suffers a capability loss. A simple example. What is the point 10 members of an IPT spending 9 months preparing a 700 question Invitation to Tender when the answer to 99% of them is either “yes” or “no”; and yes = 1 point and no = 0 points? Everyone knows that every bidder (and there can be 20+) will answer “yes”. 1 “differentiating” question is better than 700 neutral ones. Main culprits? ILS and commercial. So far up themselves they are blind to the nuisance they cause.
Bristow recruits James Goodbourn as Development Manager for the SAR Harmonisation Project
Bristow Helicopters is delighted to announce that Jim Goodbourn will be joining their team to secure the recently announced Search and Rescue Harmonisation contract and to develop other search and rescue opportunities.
Jim was the Head of the RAF Search and Rescue Service from 2003 to 2005, responsible for all RAF search and rescue command, operational planning, policy aircrew training and engineering support. He has been a commissioned aircrew officer since 1981 and in his earlier career was a search and rescue and Chinook pilot as well as a joint forces operational planner. Jim joins Bristow from his current role as Head of Media Operations for HM forces.
Bristow already operates four of the twelve search and rescue bases at Lee on Solent, Portland, Sumburgh and Stornoway and has been involved in the delivery of UK search and rescue services since 1982.
Richard Burman, Managing Director of Bristow stated:
“We are delighted that Jim will be joining us as his expertise and experience with the military delivery of search and rescue services will assist us greatly in our desire to extend Bristow’s services across the UK. Bristow will seek to work with the RAF and Navy to ensure that the military search and rescue capability continues to develop, and Jim’s appointment indicates our commitment to this co-operation and a smooth transition to a UK-wide Bristow search and rescue service.”
Jim will report to Allan Blake who leads the Bristow Search and Rescue Harmonisation team.
Bristow Helicopters is delighted to announce that Jim Goodbourn will be joining their team to secure the recently announced Search and Rescue Harmonisation contract and to develop other search and rescue opportunities.
Jim was the Head of the RAF Search and Rescue Service from 2003 to 2005, responsible for all RAF search and rescue command, operational planning, policy aircrew training and engineering support. He has been a commissioned aircrew officer since 1981 and in his earlier career was a search and rescue and Chinook pilot as well as a joint forces operational planner. Jim joins Bristow from his current role as Head of Media Operations for HM forces.
Bristow already operates four of the twelve search and rescue bases at Lee on Solent, Portland, Sumburgh and Stornoway and has been involved in the delivery of UK search and rescue services since 1982.
Richard Burman, Managing Director of Bristow stated:
“We are delighted that Jim will be joining us as his expertise and experience with the military delivery of search and rescue services will assist us greatly in our desire to extend Bristow’s services across the UK. Bristow will seek to work with the RAF and Navy to ensure that the military search and rescue capability continues to develop, and Jim’s appointment indicates our commitment to this co-operation and a smooth transition to a UK-wide Bristow search and rescue service.”
Jim will report to Allan Blake who leads the Bristow Search and Rescue Harmonisation team.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tucumseh - I like at your ILS comments
I don't have much experience of tendering so can't really comment on that. I was just muting that perhaps, with the UK CG Agency being part of the project, the DIS won't drive the decision on which company will build the aircraft. However, I may being naive on that one!
I was hoping that the answer would come after the question! Rather than the usual, 'The answer is a Westlands Merlin (for example), now go away and make your OA, etc fit'
Hellbound
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Blighty
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And that is the problem with UK industry bidding for anything. They bid cheap enough to get the contract then plead poverty and warn of job losses if they don't get 4 times as much once they have won the contract. Wouldn't it be better if we went to ITT saying 'we have this much cash, what can we have?' Might see a real competition then...
Mr-AEO
Thanks. In my experience, it certainly is known for the answer to be advised before the tender. (So what’s the point of issuing the tender? Better to be honest with industry). Often, a lengthy, expensive yet fairly conducted and robust tender which produces a clear winner is ignored on political grounds. An “Industrial Impact Paper” is a common cause; perhaps as a result of lobbying by local MPs. (And IIPs are themselves often weighted). Yet I’ve known far more projects delayed for years because of the dogma of competition, when there could only be one winner – usually because of intellectual property rights or deep, long-standing engineering expertise. I inherited one in 1994 which had been frozen for 4 years because the selected contractor didn’t want the contract, on the grounds he didn’t hold IPR and would have to sub-contract 95% of it to the Design Authority/IPR owner – at a huge mark-up to MoD. There had been 7 previous project managers, and there was one file in the cabinet – containing 40+ monthly project plans, each exactly the same only showing one month slippage each time. An example which proves both our points.
Southbound
Not so radical as you may think. MoD do tell industry in advance the ball-park budget. Trouble is that this rarely matches the fair and reasonable cost of the actual requirement. Get budget and cost closer together as early as possible and you avoid a big risk. However, I do realise that very few in DPA actually agree with this opinion, but then I don't agree with their view that wasting money "is of no concern to DPA". We agree to differ!
Thanks. In my experience, it certainly is known for the answer to be advised before the tender. (So what’s the point of issuing the tender? Better to be honest with industry). Often, a lengthy, expensive yet fairly conducted and robust tender which produces a clear winner is ignored on political grounds. An “Industrial Impact Paper” is a common cause; perhaps as a result of lobbying by local MPs. (And IIPs are themselves often weighted). Yet I’ve known far more projects delayed for years because of the dogma of competition, when there could only be one winner – usually because of intellectual property rights or deep, long-standing engineering expertise. I inherited one in 1994 which had been frozen for 4 years because the selected contractor didn’t want the contract, on the grounds he didn’t hold IPR and would have to sub-contract 95% of it to the Design Authority/IPR owner – at a huge mark-up to MoD. There had been 7 previous project managers, and there was one file in the cabinet – containing 40+ monthly project plans, each exactly the same only showing one month slippage each time. An example which proves both our points.
Southbound
Not so radical as you may think. MoD do tell industry in advance the ball-park budget. Trouble is that this rarely matches the fair and reasonable cost of the actual requirement. Get budget and cost closer together as early as possible and you avoid a big risk. However, I do realise that very few in DPA actually agree with this opinion, but then I don't agree with their view that wasting money "is of no concern to DPA". We agree to differ!
Because the MCA don't have their own helicopter division the only advice they could get about future helicopters was from industry who, not surprisingly, would always recommend their own equipment/company for the job. This is why MOD became involved since the RAF could use ROWETU to asess platforms and any industry bias would be removed.
However, SAR H has to be more precise in its requirements - up 'til now it has maintained a stance of 'we are looking at industry providing a capability not a platform' which sounds very noble but isn't something you can create a bid on as there are too many variables and unknowns.
I know that the next year will be spent in dialogue with industry but eventually some decisions will have to be made about manning and basing which really isn't worth messing with as a. it works and b. it would be expensive and time consuming to alter.
So, despite the grand aspirations, the bid will be about platforms along with training, support and engineering - anything else is fanciful optimism.
Unfortunately, due to the unique way in which we are funded, the MOD will probably delay the actual implementation since we can't afford to pay our part of the bill until after 2012.
However, SAR H has to be more precise in its requirements - up 'til now it has maintained a stance of 'we are looking at industry providing a capability not a platform' which sounds very noble but isn't something you can create a bid on as there are too many variables and unknowns.
I know that the next year will be spent in dialogue with industry but eventually some decisions will have to be made about manning and basing which really isn't worth messing with as a. it works and b. it would be expensive and time consuming to alter.
So, despite the grand aspirations, the bid will be about platforms along with training, support and engineering - anything else is fanciful optimism.
Unfortunately, due to the unique way in which we are funded, the MOD will probably delay the actual implementation since we can't afford to pay our part of the bill until after 2012.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wherever
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my God. The poison dwarf joins bristows. What next, an ex-OC 22 Sqn for CHC(you all know who I mean)
With representation like that the clash of egos should be fun to watch, from a distance - say New Zealand or Mars
With representation like that the clash of egos should be fun to watch, from a distance - say New Zealand or Mars
Maybe he is relying on his incredible popularity in the SARF to help their business case.....oh dear.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: North of Hadrians Wall
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'll be interesting to see how the poisoned dwarf gets on with the engineers, but if he is sensible he will give them a wide berth.
But knowing the bumptious little t@&t he will no doubt find out in the civil aviation world the hard way; that the engineers will not tolerate his little ways.
Oh to be a fly on the wall, to see him on his ar£e.
But knowing the bumptious little t@&t he will no doubt find out in the civil aviation world the hard way; that the engineers will not tolerate his little ways.
Oh to be a fly on the wall, to see him on his ar£e.