U.K. Military Crews Won't Be Part of SAR-H Deal
I wonder if anyone in MoD intends clarifying this continual claim that the SAR fleet is “ageing”. All the press reports use this term and I’m sure the public (if they even care) swallow it. In fact, the Mk3A fleet comprises some of the newest aircraft in the inventory. The programme only started in 1994. What was the ISD – about 1997?
Perhaps there are wider issues here. Other SKs date back to the late 60s (testament to their enduring nature) and it could be that the decision to replace the ASW, and now retire the SH and AEW fleets early, made the support costs of the remaining Mk3As (and slightly older Mk3s) prohibitively expensive. There are many components of aircraft support that are not volume related (something, if better understood in MoD, would have prevented many of their current aviation problems). But I may be crediting MoD with too much there – and I completely disagree with the decision to slash the MoD’s in-house capability. Short sighted and absolutely barking.
MoD are very often ambushed on these issues. Many years ago in the mid-80s I was at the annual SAR policy meeting. Main topic – Combat SAR. Aircraft tail numbers for conversion allotted. Prime contractor selected. Place of conversion agreed. What cabs would be allotted to sustain capability during conversion , and so on. All good stuff.
Then a beancounter walked in and set up flipchart. The chair (an Air Cdre) was clearly taken by surprise. BC announced that the aircraft had enough fuel to fly 400 miles; 200 out, 200 back. (He didn’t know we had both Wessex and Sea King). He flipped over a map which had 200 mile circles around each SAR station in the UK. (It was clearly borrowed from the Met Office – the Orkney and Shetland Isles were in their box off the NE coast of England). He simply said – Where there is overlap, a station must close. To a man, all 20 or so present shouted “time on task”, but he was gone. Word came down that “higher ups” had been given the heads up, but hadn’t bothered making a counter argument; they thought the Treasury were flying a kite. You may recall subsequent closures. You allow them to slice away and eventually what remains is too thin, so they ditch the capability altogether.
I’m afraid that is the level of their thinking, although I may be crediting them with too much.
Perhaps there are wider issues here. Other SKs date back to the late 60s (testament to their enduring nature) and it could be that the decision to replace the ASW, and now retire the SH and AEW fleets early, made the support costs of the remaining Mk3As (and slightly older Mk3s) prohibitively expensive. There are many components of aircraft support that are not volume related (something, if better understood in MoD, would have prevented many of their current aviation problems). But I may be crediting MoD with too much there – and I completely disagree with the decision to slash the MoD’s in-house capability. Short sighted and absolutely barking.
MoD are very often ambushed on these issues. Many years ago in the mid-80s I was at the annual SAR policy meeting. Main topic – Combat SAR. Aircraft tail numbers for conversion allotted. Prime contractor selected. Place of conversion agreed. What cabs would be allotted to sustain capability during conversion , and so on. All good stuff.
Then a beancounter walked in and set up flipchart. The chair (an Air Cdre) was clearly taken by surprise. BC announced that the aircraft had enough fuel to fly 400 miles; 200 out, 200 back. (He didn’t know we had both Wessex and Sea King). He flipped over a map which had 200 mile circles around each SAR station in the UK. (It was clearly borrowed from the Met Office – the Orkney and Shetland Isles were in their box off the NE coast of England). He simply said – Where there is overlap, a station must close. To a man, all 20 or so present shouted “time on task”, but he was gone. Word came down that “higher ups” had been given the heads up, but hadn’t bothered making a counter argument; they thought the Treasury were flying a kite. You may recall subsequent closures. You allow them to slice away and eventually what remains is too thin, so they ditch the capability altogether.
I’m afraid that is the level of their thinking, although I may be crediting them with too much.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MoD suspends helicopter rescue contract - 18 December 2010
“However, the preferred bidder has informed the Ministry of Defence (MoD) it has become aware of a possible issue in connection with its bid to provide the UK search and rescue capability, which was the basis of its selection as the preferred bidder as announced in February 2010,” Hammond said in a statement. “In the circumstances it is not appropriate for us to proceed with the programme.”
Oh well - back to the drawing board!
“However, the preferred bidder has informed the Ministry of Defence (MoD) it has become aware of a possible issue in connection with its bid to provide the UK search and rescue capability, which was the basis of its selection as the preferred bidder as announced in February 2010,” Hammond said in a statement. “In the circumstances it is not appropriate for us to proceed with the programme.”
Oh well - back to the drawing board!
the preferred bidder has informed the Ministry of Defence (MoD) it has become aware of a possible issue in connection with its bid
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Retired to Bisley from the small African nation
Age: 67
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“In the circumstances it is not appropriate for us to proceed with the programme.”
Does anyone else read that as saying it's been cancelled? Or does it just mean " wait out, there's an issue we have to work through"?
Sven
still seeking employment
Does anyone else read that as saying it's been cancelled? Or does it just mean " wait out, there's an issue we have to work through"?
Sven
still seeking employment
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a bit more background here:
UK halts £6 billion helicopter deal after bid issue
UK halts £6 billion helicopter deal after bid issue
A spokesman for Soteria was not available for comment.
The reasons for the suspension were not clear but it follows growing domestic concern over the costs of the proposal to demilitarise Britain's search and rescue fleet.
Government and aerospace industry officials, who are upset about proposals to replace Westland Sea Kings with the U.S.-made S-92s, have called for a pause or rethink of plans.
The reasons for the suspension were not clear but it follows growing domestic concern over the costs of the proposal to demilitarise Britain's search and rescue fleet.
Government and aerospace industry officials, who are upset about proposals to replace Westland Sea Kings with the U.S.-made S-92s, have called for a pause or rethink of plans.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sooooo, the loss of near (coastguard stations) and far (Nimrod), SAR co-ordination has thrown a enough of a wobbly for "Government and aerospace industry officials" to throw their anchor in and stop the modernisation process.
It would seem that callmedave and his coalition cronies have been somewhat naive in the ways of Whitehall and are about to receive their comeuppance on this and many other proposed budget restrictions.
As long as they don't touch foreign aid/EU etc etc
.
It would seem that callmedave and his coalition cronies have been somewhat naive in the ways of Whitehall and are about to receive their comeuppance on this and many other proposed budget restrictions.
As long as they don't touch foreign aid/EU etc etc
.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad Rag...I believe you have some valid points there...there has certainly been some niavety at various levels and involving wider issues in both MoD and the DfT than just SAR-H.
These changes in various associated areas are important issues ...and the potential loss of direct MoD involvement will certainly have disturbed some members of those supporting the Soteria bid...think of it from a bankers perspective...SAR helo ops are regarded as risky, never mind if the contract also calls for other non-SAR helo missions that have previously been flow under military control..
Other major financial factors have also changed in the last 15 months or so. Don't forget that was when the final 2 bidders submitted their detailed bids and the final detaled pre-contract discussions had yet to be finalised.....It could just be that some key players in the Soteria consortium just don't see this a profitable exercise anymore.....certainly not without substantial re-negotiation...and if so that then opens up the distinct possibility of previous bidders intervening too.
Do I think the Minister's statement was indicating the collapse of the programme?...not nccessarily at this stage...but it was certainly a holding statement while all concerned see if there is a way forward, and would not heve been made if there was not a signifcant issue(s) to be resolved.
These changes in various associated areas are important issues ...and the potential loss of direct MoD involvement will certainly have disturbed some members of those supporting the Soteria bid...think of it from a bankers perspective...SAR helo ops are regarded as risky, never mind if the contract also calls for other non-SAR helo missions that have previously been flow under military control..
Other major financial factors have also changed in the last 15 months or so. Don't forget that was when the final 2 bidders submitted their detailed bids and the final detaled pre-contract discussions had yet to be finalised.....It could just be that some key players in the Soteria consortium just don't see this a profitable exercise anymore.....certainly not without substantial re-negotiation...and if so that then opens up the distinct possibility of previous bidders intervening too.
Do I think the Minister's statement was indicating the collapse of the programme?...not nccessarily at this stage...but it was certainly a holding statement while all concerned see if there is a way forward, and would not heve been made if there was not a signifcant issue(s) to be resolved.
Last edited by Tallsar; 19th Dec 2010 at 20:14.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: in a state of flux
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps all that has actually happenned is that somebody in a position to do so, has actually had the intestinal fortitude to halt this false process before it goes too far (albeit at quite a late stage). It cannot be reasonably argued that it is cheaper for the Government to privatise SAR than it is to simply write a cheque for 20 or so brand new SAR platforms, and give them to the military (and this Rolls-Royce option is probably not even required at this stage). Why bother setting up a SAR service of unknown and unproven ability when the best SAR service in the world already exists in the UK? I have no doubt that Soteria have convincing arguments to support their case - but forgive me here, they would...wouldn't they - facts can be skewed and goals 'realigned' to suit most purposes. Are Soteria being dishonest? I seriously doubt it, but they have an agenda and are looking for a profit (not much of a commercial concern if they aren't!) Saving Lives is not traditionally a get rich quick scheme in my book. The RAF/RN can continue to provide the current service, easily. Keep the 3A's, add in a few 412's (already operated in the COMR at DHFS and 84 Sqn), in the short term, and upgrade in the future. Keep it military and it will cost less, retain a pool of expert pilots in the MOD, allow the Gov't to tell the public that safety is not a cost issue and that is why they have decided to retain the best SAR service in the world. If Soteria get the contract, then as a new company, they are going to have to immediately enter the market as the very best SAR service in the entire world, just to be the equal of the service they are replacing. And they will still be far more expensive.
'Beefer,
If only 'twas true. Military SAR is expensive; we, as servicemen, are expensive once training, pension, allowances and housing are all factored in (for groundcrew as well as aircrew). The MoD simply can't write a cheque for 20-25 new aircraft in the current fiscal environment; what would you rather cancel to prop up SAR? This delay is worrying; it opens up the potential for all sorts of day-on-day delays and increased costs. Unfortunately the PFI route is the only one that makes sense for SAR; if the community had embraced CSAR and accepted more drifting in/out of SH then perhaps people would have found a justification to roll the new SAR ac into a project such as FMH. The SARF didn't move with the times and made itself a sitting duck for privitisation. The massive reduction in mil FJ flying in the UK is probably the last nail in the coffin. SARH offers the beancounters the opportunity to recapitalise the ac at low intial cost and move the risk burden onto industry and then not worry about it for a generation. I feel the dark hand of Westlands in this mix and the coalition would just love to announce a new year fillip for LibDem South West MPs by bringing Yeovil back into the game.
Oh, and will someone offer Sven a job....
If only 'twas true. Military SAR is expensive; we, as servicemen, are expensive once training, pension, allowances and housing are all factored in (for groundcrew as well as aircrew). The MoD simply can't write a cheque for 20-25 new aircraft in the current fiscal environment; what would you rather cancel to prop up SAR? This delay is worrying; it opens up the potential for all sorts of day-on-day delays and increased costs. Unfortunately the PFI route is the only one that makes sense for SAR; if the community had embraced CSAR and accepted more drifting in/out of SH then perhaps people would have found a justification to roll the new SAR ac into a project such as FMH. The SARF didn't move with the times and made itself a sitting duck for privitisation. The massive reduction in mil FJ flying in the UK is probably the last nail in the coffin. SARH offers the beancounters the opportunity to recapitalise the ac at low intial cost and move the risk burden onto industry and then not worry about it for a generation. I feel the dark hand of Westlands in this mix and the coalition would just love to announce a new year fillip for LibDem South West MPs by bringing Yeovil back into the game.
Oh, and will someone offer Sven a job....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good points in there Evalu8ter......seen those arguments rehearsed quite a few times before and they remain sadly pertinent.
The only issue I'd take with you is about moving on to CSAR. It was not the fault of the RAF SARF that it was bypassed in any move to generate a UK CSAR capablity..(which has now withered on the vine anyway!)...there was a real push at various levels to do precisely that...starting from our involvement in the Falklands in '82,and frquent particpation in CS&R & AWC exercises. Its apogee of course was '97 when 2 cabs were despatched to the States as part of the big UK/US joint warfare exercise at the time...it was hard work...and created some signifcant problems to keep UK SAR going simultneously Unfortunately it backfired when SDR98 appeared as several key MoD players (incldung some from within the SH Force) were determined to marginalise the SARF for several reasons...thus the scene was set...and RN/RAF SAR did not join the JHC (as it should have done IMO)...and all might then have been very different...
There has always been a proportion of the RAF SARF that rather enjoys just doing the job (and very professionally!) and remain on the margins of the "combat" RAF....and no doubt they sent their CVs to Soteria as soon as Preferred Bidder was announced. However, since the arrival of the SK all those years ago, there has always been a good cross section of ex SH, and younger aircrew who would have been able to adapt very enthusiastically and competently to any deployable role had that been sent their way.....Shame it never happened ..as you say...
The only issue I'd take with you is about moving on to CSAR. It was not the fault of the RAF SARF that it was bypassed in any move to generate a UK CSAR capablity..(which has now withered on the vine anyway!)...there was a real push at various levels to do precisely that...starting from our involvement in the Falklands in '82,and frquent particpation in CS&R & AWC exercises. Its apogee of course was '97 when 2 cabs were despatched to the States as part of the big UK/US joint warfare exercise at the time...it was hard work...and created some signifcant problems to keep UK SAR going simultneously Unfortunately it backfired when SDR98 appeared as several key MoD players (incldung some from within the SH Force) were determined to marginalise the SARF for several reasons...thus the scene was set...and RN/RAF SAR did not join the JHC (as it should have done IMO)...and all might then have been very different...
There has always been a proportion of the RAF SARF that rather enjoys just doing the job (and very professionally!) and remain on the margins of the "combat" RAF....and no doubt they sent their CVs to Soteria as soon as Preferred Bidder was announced. However, since the arrival of the SK all those years ago, there has always been a good cross section of ex SH, and younger aircrew who would have been able to adapt very enthusiastically and competently to any deployable role had that been sent their way.....Shame it never happened ..as you say...
Last edited by Tallsar; 20th Dec 2010 at 12:05.
E8,
All flying is expensive, but if you were to map the Soteria solution onto Mil manpower/ac etc then I would expect it to be cheaper, more flexible and deliver an exceptional service. Don't forget the 60's ac and subsequent trg mentality that goes along with the current SARF dictates the majority of the cost. With new ac (no fleets within fleets) and 21st century equipment you could overhaul the entire trg package and, more importantly, for the beancounters be VFM.
Anyone who thinks the 'preferred bidder' doesn't have profit as the number one priority then needs to get their head out of their AR$£!
Just my opinion!
All flying is expensive, but if you were to map the Soteria solution onto Mil manpower/ac etc then I would expect it to be cheaper, more flexible and deliver an exceptional service. Don't forget the 60's ac and subsequent trg mentality that goes along with the current SARF dictates the majority of the cost. With new ac (no fleets within fleets) and 21st century equipment you could overhaul the entire trg package and, more importantly, for the beancounters be VFM.
Anyone who thinks the 'preferred bidder' doesn't have profit as the number one priority then needs to get their head out of their AR$£!
Just my opinion!
Could Be,
I quite agree. I was at a product brief for S92 and was frankly astonished by the direct operating cost they quoted - it was much, much less than I expected. Now, even allowing for sales hype & spin, as you say, a modern platform (even one based on UH60) should have cheaper costs - it would be commercial suicide to do elsewise. However, the whole "lets buy S92/EC725/Refurbished Carson SKs" falls down on one essential premise; we are broke for the next EP epoch. To invest in a new type would mean cutting elsewhere - so where? Another pair of GR sqns? A Typhoon sqn? The CH47 new buy? I'd rather we had our own cabs and crews (and a more rotating door from SH) but we cannot afford it. The PFI is just the same as leasing a car from the garage; a bit of legwork and you end up with a Beemer instead of a Ford. Seems that Westlands are lobbying hard for us to buy Ladas though....
Of course Sartoria need to make a profit - how else do you raise the capital to buy the machines and provide a return to shareholders? The question is, can they provide the requisite service and still make a profit? As I said before, the contract puts this risk firmly with them. If it's that unpopular with crews I'm surprised how many have sent Nicky a CV.....
I quite agree. I was at a product brief for S92 and was frankly astonished by the direct operating cost they quoted - it was much, much less than I expected. Now, even allowing for sales hype & spin, as you say, a modern platform (even one based on UH60) should have cheaper costs - it would be commercial suicide to do elsewise. However, the whole "lets buy S92/EC725/Refurbished Carson SKs" falls down on one essential premise; we are broke for the next EP epoch. To invest in a new type would mean cutting elsewhere - so where? Another pair of GR sqns? A Typhoon sqn? The CH47 new buy? I'd rather we had our own cabs and crews (and a more rotating door from SH) but we cannot afford it. The PFI is just the same as leasing a car from the garage; a bit of legwork and you end up with a Beemer instead of a Ford. Seems that Westlands are lobbying hard for us to buy Ladas though....
Of course Sartoria need to make a profit - how else do you raise the capital to buy the machines and provide a return to shareholders? The question is, can they provide the requisite service and still make a profit? As I said before, the contract puts this risk firmly with them. If it's that unpopular with crews I'm surprised how many have sent Nicky a CV.....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi again Evalu8ter.
You are correct of course...not any extra cash in the pot...except that already programmed in for maintaining the SK until 2015 (now) and then the annual payments for the SAR-H programme post 2012 until 2042 (when the last flight ceases to be on contract).
Therefore there is already the bulk of the cash programmed in...Question is simply do they go ahead with that, or if not (due to whatever reason is behind the recent announcement) then any SK continuance will have to fit the spend profile as already mentioned - and only perhaps for up to 10 years to 2020 when a bright new finacial dawn might allow something shiney and new. If immediate mods are required...be they sustainment or capability...then if they can't be afforded from the already planned profile funds...as you say they will have to be found to the detriment of something else......IMO it will not be allowed to be so much as to have the effect you mention...but surely something will have to give from the MoD budget somewhere if Minister's want to save their skins - twas ever thus...or taken at risk - hoping that JSF will underspend in-year or something similar!
...and anyway...Lada is quite a good brand these days!
You are correct of course...not any extra cash in the pot...except that already programmed in for maintaining the SK until 2015 (now) and then the annual payments for the SAR-H programme post 2012 until 2042 (when the last flight ceases to be on contract).
Therefore there is already the bulk of the cash programmed in...Question is simply do they go ahead with that, or if not (due to whatever reason is behind the recent announcement) then any SK continuance will have to fit the spend profile as already mentioned - and only perhaps for up to 10 years to 2020 when a bright new finacial dawn might allow something shiney and new. If immediate mods are required...be they sustainment or capability...then if they can't be afforded from the already planned profile funds...as you say they will have to be found to the detriment of something else......IMO it will not be allowed to be so much as to have the effect you mention...but surely something will have to give from the MoD budget somewhere if Minister's want to save their skins - twas ever thus...or taken at risk - hoping that JSF will underspend in-year or something similar!
...and anyway...Lada is quite a good brand these days!
Back in the winter of 1962-3, which older readers might recall was pretty severe, my abiding memory of the local Westward TV news was of the SAR Whirlwinds spending a lot of time helping to deliver fodder to livestock on the moors.
If this snow stays around much longer, and with most of the SH force out in the Afghan theatre, will one of these mercenary SAR contractors be carrying out a similar task?
And when the thaw and floods start, will they be capable of another Boscastle-type rescue? 3 minutes after a 10ft wall of water devastated the town, RCC Kinloss was alerted; 19 min later RN and RAF helicopters were scrambled. About an hour later, Kinloss were advised to put all available helicopters on standby and 2 further helicopters were then scrambled.
Eventually 7 helicopters airlifted 100 people to safety during this major incident - on a British summer day.
I might be a simple old Hector, but I simply cannot see that type or level of rapid response being provided by a lowest-bidder contractor unless that contractor's crews are all ex-military and thoroughly experienced on the aircraft type. You cannot just go out and buy it....
If this snow stays around much longer, and with most of the SH force out in the Afghan theatre, will one of these mercenary SAR contractors be carrying out a similar task?
And when the thaw and floods start, will they be capable of another Boscastle-type rescue? 3 minutes after a 10ft wall of water devastated the town, RCC Kinloss was alerted; 19 min later RN and RAF helicopters were scrambled. About an hour later, Kinloss were advised to put all available helicopters on standby and 2 further helicopters were then scrambled.
Eventually 7 helicopters airlifted 100 people to safety during this major incident - on a British summer day.
I might be a simple old Hector, but I simply cannot see that type or level of rapid response being provided by a lowest-bidder contractor unless that contractor's crews are all ex-military and thoroughly experienced on the aircraft type. You cannot just go out and buy it....
BEagle,
Regarding your first point:
Delivering fodder to livestock in winter comes under the terms of..
Military Aid to the Civil Community....
Military Aid to the Civil Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While I am no expert on the matter, I believe costs are incurred, and paid by the ministry of agriculture (or whatever it is called this week) in the case of feeding animals. A variety of military assets, e.g. SH, can be used as well as/instead of SAR helos.
If the contractor is to be reimbursed on a case by case basis I see no reason why a private SAR organization would not be willing to provide such a service. Indeed it was probably part of the original contract. I also consider skill sets would not be an issue in terms of completing the task of feeding livestock!!
Whether the ministry of agriculture is willing to pay for the service is probably another matter entirely....
While not wishing to criticize BEagle personally, this particular point illustrates, assuming that I am correct, that coming to the forum having already done one's research can save a lot of time and effort for everyone.
Reference your second point, I see no reason why a private SARH organization could not deal with a Boscastle type incident. You specifically mention "the level of rapid response" - I would assume the contract for the SARH privatization specified the response times required, which are no doubt the same as the current military (and civil -don't forget the coastguard) ones. Indeed, given that the S-92 has a higher transit speed than a Sea King you could argue that the overall response of the proposed new system would have been FASTER. My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that any private company would seek initially to recruit ex-military SAR aviators. They know the job, the local area issues, and they might be cheaper to hire (as most contractors seem to assume all e-military people already have a pension) to start with. But I fully admit I haven't researched this particular issue....
Regarding your first point:
Delivering fodder to livestock in winter comes under the terms of..
Military Aid to the Civil Community....
Military Aid to the Civil Community - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While I am no expert on the matter, I believe costs are incurred, and paid by the ministry of agriculture (or whatever it is called this week) in the case of feeding animals. A variety of military assets, e.g. SH, can be used as well as/instead of SAR helos.
If the contractor is to be reimbursed on a case by case basis I see no reason why a private SAR organization would not be willing to provide such a service. Indeed it was probably part of the original contract. I also consider skill sets would not be an issue in terms of completing the task of feeding livestock!!
Whether the ministry of agriculture is willing to pay for the service is probably another matter entirely....
While not wishing to criticize BEagle personally, this particular point illustrates, assuming that I am correct, that coming to the forum having already done one's research can save a lot of time and effort for everyone.
Reference your second point, I see no reason why a private SARH organization could not deal with a Boscastle type incident. You specifically mention "the level of rapid response" - I would assume the contract for the SARH privatization specified the response times required, which are no doubt the same as the current military (and civil -don't forget the coastguard) ones. Indeed, given that the S-92 has a higher transit speed than a Sea King you could argue that the overall response of the proposed new system would have been FASTER. My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that any private company would seek initially to recruit ex-military SAR aviators. They know the job, the local area issues, and they might be cheaper to hire (as most contractors seem to assume all e-military people already have a pension) to start with. But I fully admit I haven't researched this particular issue....
BEagle,
Civilian crews go where they are tasked.... be it by ARCC or a MRCC.
P.S a fully crewed and ready to go spare SAR S-92 was offered to help with flooding in the past but was turned down.
Cheers
Civilian crews go where they are tasked.... be it by ARCC or a MRCC.
P.S a fully crewed and ready to go spare SAR S-92 was offered to help with flooding in the past but was turned down.
Cheers
TallSar,
Quite correct; if any AW inspired SK LEP were to fit the SARH spend profile into the next epoch then when we return to the sunny uplands of underspend we could revisit the requirement...along with trying to buy-back the 10 CH47s, 4 Puma 2s, 3 Merlin 3/3A, MPA (from scratch...) and the inevitable under-buy of F35 that we're foregoing now. However, if, as I'm sure AW have hawked to the MoD, you roll-up SK LEP to replace Puma2 as well you could probably leverage some quite meaty in-year savings and still put a type out of the inventory and have more LitM capable machines. And keep LibDems happy in the SW.
Beags,
You were critical on another thread of buying RW in case a "real" enemy arises. Hmm, investing in RW gives you a palpable public return on the investment and goes a long way towards improving our public image. At the moment the real enemies are the Taliban and the British winter, neither of which the Typhoon is doing anything to counter...
Quite correct; if any AW inspired SK LEP were to fit the SARH spend profile into the next epoch then when we return to the sunny uplands of underspend we could revisit the requirement...along with trying to buy-back the 10 CH47s, 4 Puma 2s, 3 Merlin 3/3A, MPA (from scratch...) and the inevitable under-buy of F35 that we're foregoing now. However, if, as I'm sure AW have hawked to the MoD, you roll-up SK LEP to replace Puma2 as well you could probably leverage some quite meaty in-year savings and still put a type out of the inventory and have more LitM capable machines. And keep LibDems happy in the SW.
Beags,
You were critical on another thread of buying RW in case a "real" enemy arises. Hmm, investing in RW gives you a palpable public return on the investment and goes a long way towards improving our public image. At the moment the real enemies are the Taliban and the British winter, neither of which the Typhoon is doing anything to counter...