U.K. Military Crews Won't Be Part of SAR-H Deal
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,975
Received 2,885 Likes
on
1,231 Posts
Not good is it. 
With the bank withdrawing the funding it looks to be all lost at sea.
With the bank withdrawing the funding it looks to be all lost at sea.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds a very convenient way for HMG to back away from the project, namely rumours of a police investigation and a part nationalised bank pulling out...
But if it is true that the consortium had a mole in the MOD, all the partners are tainted.
But if it is true that the consortium had a mole in the MOD, all the partners are tainted.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Ares: U.K. SAR Program In Need of Rescue
The U.K. is finding itself in yet another helicopter procurement mess, this time over the effort to outsource search-and-helicopter service.
Having selected the Soteria consortium in 2009 to provide the service, the private finance initiative has come completely unglued.
Military police are investigating improper conduct in the ₤6 billion deal, the Financial Times reports. The financial institution key to pulling off the PFI, the Royal Bank of Scotland, has pulled out, and the program progress has been suspended as the government tries to sort out what has transpired and how to move forward.
U.K. government officials have said next to nothing since they indicated, in December, the program was under review. However, there are growing indications an announcement could emerge soon, perhaps next week, on how to proceed.
Scrapping the deal would be particularly bad news for Sikorsky, which was to provide the search-and-rescue helicopter using its S-92.
Other manufacturers, AgustaWestland and Eurocopter, are watching with interest to see if there will be a new tender. Several industry officials suggest it could be difficult to proceed with the arrangement currently on the books given all that has transpired in recent weeks.
AgustaWestland is all but assured to benefit from the turmoil. The current rotorcraft used in the SAR role, the Sea King, will almost certainly require additional work to remain viable until a replacement is fielded, regardless of whether that is the S-92 or something else.
But the really big questions the U.K. needs to ask is whether a PFI makes sense and whether the demand to sustain 12 bases makes sense?
The U.K. is finding itself in yet another helicopter procurement mess, this time over the effort to outsource search-and-helicopter service.
Having selected the Soteria consortium in 2009 to provide the service, the private finance initiative has come completely unglued.
Military police are investigating improper conduct in the ₤6 billion deal, the Financial Times reports. The financial institution key to pulling off the PFI, the Royal Bank of Scotland, has pulled out, and the program progress has been suspended as the government tries to sort out what has transpired and how to move forward.
U.K. government officials have said next to nothing since they indicated, in December, the program was under review. However, there are growing indications an announcement could emerge soon, perhaps next week, on how to proceed.
Scrapping the deal would be particularly bad news for Sikorsky, which was to provide the search-and-rescue helicopter using its S-92.
Other manufacturers, AgustaWestland and Eurocopter, are watching with interest to see if there will be a new tender. Several industry officials suggest it could be difficult to proceed with the arrangement currently on the books given all that has transpired in recent weeks.
AgustaWestland is all but assured to benefit from the turmoil. The current rotorcraft used in the SAR role, the Sea King, will almost certainly require additional work to remain viable until a replacement is fielded, regardless of whether that is the S-92 or something else.
But the really big questions the U.K. needs to ask is whether a PFI makes sense and whether the demand to sustain 12 bases makes sense?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: In The Trap, trapped.....
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK Military Crews Won't be Part of SAR-H Deal
Seems there were too many in the first place! 
FT.com / UK / Politics & policy - MoD was told of air rescue privatisation concerns
What next?
FT.com / UK / Politics & policy - MoD was told of air rescue privatisation concerns
What next?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Privatisation of SAR
Is it still going ahead?
I've heard from some that this has been cancelled due to it being too expensive.I've not been able to find any reliable news articles backing this up, and I'd hope to hear something from those more in the know, before I head down to Cranwell.
I've heard from some that this has been cancelled due to it being too expensive.I've not been able to find any reliable news articles backing this up, and I'd hope to hear something from those more in the know, before I head down to Cranwell.
PBI,
You might want to look at the Thread "UK Military Crews won't Be Part Of...."
This Thread is currently on about page 2 of this element of the Forum and contains much discussion which will be of interest to you.
Old Duffer
You might want to look at the Thread "UK Military Crews won't Be Part Of...."
This Thread is currently on about page 2 of this element of the Forum and contains much discussion which will be of interest to you.
Old Duffer
Although this is old news, I suspect very true. I’ve no doubt Dave and his crew are looking closely at a great many programs with a view to saving money.
But regarding the ear bending, can you imagine the public outcry - not to mention the ensuing onslaught by both the Pinkos and Republicans alike - were Dave and his elected parliament (rubber stamped by the Queen) to terminate the (then) preferred solution for the SAR-H PFI at the behest of HRH.
As such, he was never going to be able pay too much attention to any opinions whispered in his shell like from this particular source.
Hopefully we should know soon in which direction this program is heading.
But regarding the ear bending, can you imagine the public outcry - not to mention the ensuing onslaught by both the Pinkos and Republicans alike - were Dave and his elected parliament (rubber stamped by the Queen) to terminate the (then) preferred solution for the SAR-H PFI at the behest of HRH.
As such, he was never going to be able pay too much attention to any opinions whispered in his shell like from this particular source.
Hopefully we should know soon in which direction this program is heading.
There is a long Willie waving contest between military and civil SAR on this thread here.
http://SAR-H Contract - Soteria are preferred bidder
http://SAR-H Contract - Soteria are preferred bidder
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
If you are heading for OASC, I would steer clear of SAR as a subject. You obviously are not up to speed on the issues (no reason why you should be compared with those of us that were banking on it for our post-55 income after 27 years), and the RAF has made it perfectly clear over several years that SAR is not core business. Stick with what you know, and if you are asked about SAR - 2 Sqns, 22 and 202, operating SK3 and 3A, 6 bases, Navy do 2 more, CHC on behalf of HMCG do 4 more, Aeronautical rescue run by ARCC at Kinloss, and don't forget the only true all-weather land rescue service - RAF Mountain Rescue Teams.
Sven
still hoping for a job
Sven
still hoping for a job
...and don't forget the other RAF Sea King operators: 203(R) Sqn, the only RW OCU, and 1564 Flt in the Falklands. And there's the SAR70 anniversary this year (NB that's ASR/SAR in toto, not 70 years of Sea Kings!).
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norf West by West
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC Reporting it's OFF
BBC News have just reported that the whole process has been abandoned due to "Irregularities in the Bidding Process"
Where do we go from here?
Where do we go from here?
This has popped up again this morning on the BBC, as if it is new news.
I’ve no idea what this officer is supposed to have done, but have a feeling the waters are murky.
When MoD decided to stop specifying “requirements” (mainly because they stopped recruiting people who could write them!) the immediate problem faced by industry was how to respond to Invitations to Tender which were vaguely worded with meaningless KURs and URs.
It meant they had to ask clarification questions. That meant dealing with “Commercial” who (a) Hadn’t a scoobie, (b) Didn’t want to admit it so didn’t ask Project Managers who, in turn (c) Were head down because they knew SFA anyway, having been dumped in a PM job without relevant training or experience. Please don’t mention “Requirements Managers” - since being gradually “militarised” since 1988 they have never been taught their primary role, although I notice Bernard Gray has inadvertently stumbled on the “solution”, which resurrects old policy (although he doesn’t realise this).
The problem then is that the bidders are still in the dark, despite asking relevant and fair questions. They must answer the “exam question”, but when it relates to a submarine and the bid is for fast jets, what do they say? They sneak up to a friendly MoD employee, Service or civvy, and quietly ask WTFGO? If the MoD employee so much as answers, he is in breach of so called Commercial Practice. If he dares help the contractor by offering common sense, he is crucified. He’s in a no win situation, because all the while the ISD is slipping; and the bidding has only just begun.
If this has happened in this case, I have a degree of sympathy. I can see how the helpful man would be sucked in. He sees the bidder who is asking proper questions in a better light than the others who are willing to answer “Yes, we will supply submarine gear for your Fast Jet”, thereby gaining top marks in the bid assessment. (All the while preparing a Contract Change Proposal for £MMMs to add the actual requirement, in addition to what we don’t need).
And if you think I’m being facetious with the submarine/fast jet bit; not at all. More common than you think.
I’ve no idea what this officer is supposed to have done, but have a feeling the waters are murky.
When MoD decided to stop specifying “requirements” (mainly because they stopped recruiting people who could write them!) the immediate problem faced by industry was how to respond to Invitations to Tender which were vaguely worded with meaningless KURs and URs.
It meant they had to ask clarification questions. That meant dealing with “Commercial” who (a) Hadn’t a scoobie, (b) Didn’t want to admit it so didn’t ask Project Managers who, in turn (c) Were head down because they knew SFA anyway, having been dumped in a PM job without relevant training or experience. Please don’t mention “Requirements Managers” - since being gradually “militarised” since 1988 they have never been taught their primary role, although I notice Bernard Gray has inadvertently stumbled on the “solution”, which resurrects old policy (although he doesn’t realise this).
The problem then is that the bidders are still in the dark, despite asking relevant and fair questions. They must answer the “exam question”, but when it relates to a submarine and the bid is for fast jets, what do they say? They sneak up to a friendly MoD employee, Service or civvy, and quietly ask WTFGO? If the MoD employee so much as answers, he is in breach of so called Commercial Practice. If he dares help the contractor by offering common sense, he is crucified. He’s in a no win situation, because all the while the ISD is slipping; and the bidding has only just begun.
If this has happened in this case, I have a degree of sympathy. I can see how the helpful man would be sucked in. He sees the bidder who is asking proper questions in a better light than the others who are willing to answer “Yes, we will supply submarine gear for your Fast Jet”, thereby gaining top marks in the bid assessment. (All the while preparing a Contract Change Proposal for £MMMs to add the actual requirement, in addition to what we don’t need).
And if you think I’m being facetious with the submarine/fast jet bit; not at all. More common than you think.
While the announcement that the SAR force is no longer to be privatised answers one question, it throws up many more.
Instantly apparent ones to me include:
Will the RAF/RN Sea Kings need replacing/refurbishing?
Will the RW training system cope with having to provide crews for the SAR force which it hadn't expected to have to do in the near future?
How will MOD continue to fund a SAR force it expected to lose - can we expect financial cuts elsewhere to compensate?
Will the current SAR assets remain where they are?
Instantly apparent ones to me include:
Will the RAF/RN Sea Kings need replacing/refurbishing?
Will the RW training system cope with having to provide crews for the SAR force which it hadn't expected to have to do in the near future?
How will MOD continue to fund a SAR force it expected to lose - can we expect financial cuts elsewhere to compensate?
Will the current SAR assets remain where they are?