U.K. Military Crews Won't Be Part of SAR-H Deal
It isn't hard to see why China/India etc are on the rise while the West flounders in its own mire....
Gentleman Aviator
Biggus
.... I think "not at the moment" would be more accurate than "no longer" ...
.... but don't hold yer breath (with or without STASS!)
While the announcement that the SAR force is no longer to be privatised answers one question,
.... but don't hold yer breath (with or without STASS!)
If the MoD employee so much as answers
I applaud your championing of the poor MoD employee as victim of circumstances, but this may not be what has happened here...
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?
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?
1. Probably, unless the delay is only a year or two (seems unlikely that this mess will get sorted so quickly).
2. Yes, easily - in fact, the extension of Mil SAR is potentially a very good thing for people in the training system who were expecting to find themselves in a Puma/Merlin/Chinook but have been put on indefinite hold
3. ...by not buying the extra Chinooks which were funded by ditching Mil SAR?
4. No idea - one hopes so, but if we can do without an MPA, carriers, etc etc, we may well have to do without 12 SAR helicopter bases.
Here's a solution, far from perfect, but then what is?
Refurb the existing Sea Kings, bring out of storage the pinger ones, mil takes over all SAR bases. If there's enough money (as if!), upgrade/refurb all the Sea Kings to one standard eg Mk 8; if not, make the 3s and 3As into Mk 8s, and the 5s/6s into Mk 9s with less fuel/windows etc. No huge problem if some of the aircraft have shorter legs - base them on the south and east coasts, while the ex-3s/3As do Culdrose up the west coast where the long-range work happens. One organisation, all mil aircrew (some RAF, some RN), contracted engineers, and the force does National Standby and various other Govt tasks as well as SAR. Hey presto!
Sycamore,
Thanks for the warning, I was just...what was that...ow, get off...who are you...where are you taking me...
(several days later, recovering from torture and rendition flight to Guantanamo)
Hi, I'm Torque, you must be M***
...
Thanks for the warning, I was just...what was that...ow, get off...who are you...where are you taking me...
(several days later, recovering from torture and rendition flight to Guantanamo)
Hi, I'm Torque, you must be M***
...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First question is whether the Seakings actually need refurbishing or is it just the fact that funding for Seaking finishes in 2015? I am sure the Seaking airframe could go on for many years yet. Also, rather than train up new crews on a false hope of a career why not use reservists on short term contracts?
Finally, despite the current shenanigans re MoD employees being employed by industry, is there any reason (apart from money) why the MCA can't extend the current CHC contract to cover the mil SAR bases as an interim position?
Finally, despite the current shenanigans re MoD employees being employed by industry, is there any reason (apart from money) why the MCA can't extend the current CHC contract to cover the mil SAR bases as an interim position?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article on today's BBC R4 World at One -with names!
Starts at minute 18:15
BBC iPlayer - World at One: 08/02/2011
Starts at minute 18:15
BBC iPlayer - World at One: 08/02/2011
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting article on today's BBC R4 World at One -with names!
Last edited by glad rag; 8th Feb 2011 at 15:20.
Torque
Thanks. Accepted. I was making a general point, which I think you appreciate.
I listened to the BBC broadcast. There has to be more to this because what was reported is a non-story. If they want to stop the "revolving door", fine, but from what was said his move was within the rules. It is common practice. The officer concerned was probably annoyed he had to wait, because more senior staffs have the "requirement" routinely waived. A certain Reviewing Officer on the Mull of Kintyre crash is a case in point.
The concept if "Chinese Walls" has, to my mind, always been laughable. Only a fool would think (any) company would not seek to use their new employee's expertise - presumably that's why they recruited him. After all, it is acceptable for IPTs to visit one company and brief them on the required answer to bids and afford access to key source documents; while refusing to speak to other bidders and carpeting them for daring to complain. (I don't agree with such favouritism, and wouldn't practice it, but it is nevertheless permitted; especially if a Government Defence Minister and his son are on the Board - perhaps just a coincidence).
Methinks a key phrase in the report was that the preferred bidder "was in trouble anyway". That, coupled with the relatively high profile and potential cost. Not forgetting the money other bidders have sunk into their bids. The words scape and goat come to mind.
Thanks. Accepted. I was making a general point, which I think you appreciate.
I listened to the BBC broadcast. There has to be more to this because what was reported is a non-story. If they want to stop the "revolving door", fine, but from what was said his move was within the rules. It is common practice. The officer concerned was probably annoyed he had to wait, because more senior staffs have the "requirement" routinely waived. A certain Reviewing Officer on the Mull of Kintyre crash is a case in point.
The concept if "Chinese Walls" has, to my mind, always been laughable. Only a fool would think (any) company would not seek to use their new employee's expertise - presumably that's why they recruited him. After all, it is acceptable for IPTs to visit one company and brief them on the required answer to bids and afford access to key source documents; while refusing to speak to other bidders and carpeting them for daring to complain. (I don't agree with such favouritism, and wouldn't practice it, but it is nevertheless permitted; especially if a Government Defence Minister and his son are on the Board - perhaps just a coincidence).
Methinks a key phrase in the report was that the preferred bidder "was in trouble anyway". That, coupled with the relatively high profile and potential cost. Not forgetting the money other bidders have sunk into their bids. The words scape and goat come to mind.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: gloucestershire
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cuckoopen
I have been reading these threads for a number of years but have never been inclined to post anything until now. And it is the wild generalisations made by Tecumseh about the SAR-H programme that has made me do it.
I speak as someone who has been involved in the SAR-H programme for a number of years and who spent his life in the RAF helicopter world. At the outset I would like to say that IMHO, if the Soteria bid had gone through we would have ended up with a first rate SAR service, crewed by professional aviators from the civil and military world, with a modern, SAR capable aircraft easily meeting, and at times exceeding, the demands set by the Government for the service. Yes, it would have been expensive over the life of the programme but that seems to be the nature of PFI deals in the UK.
Soteria was chosen after a very comprehensive review of all bidders returns and the results of that review are transparent and completely traceable.
The 12 bases would not have been ideal (or even necessary) but there were political issues to consider. Operationally, a different deployment plan would have been better but have you ever tried to close an ambulance station? MPs can get very heated. Logic does not form part of the argument.
Nevertheless, Tecumsehs point about the requirements is ridiculous. Reading his rant you might come to believe that if he had been involved all would have been well. The User Requirements actually evolved over an extended period as a result of much debate among a number of very experienced SAR operators and some detailed OA. These were translated into a set of quite complex system requirements, which were certainly not "vaguely worded and meaningless", and then passed to the potential contractors to form the basis of their responses. Those Contractor responses were actually very detailed and comprehensive rather countering the idea that there was confusion and misunderstanding about the requirements.
As part of the EU rules on acquisition a period of competitive dialogue then took place. This gave the contenders the opportunity to ask the Project Team as many questions as they wanted in order that they be in no doubt as to the capability the military (and the DfT) were seeking. Yes, there were a number of clarifications requested but in a project of this size it would be remarkable if there were not. The questions and the responses, unless there was a commercial reason not to do so, were shared across all interested parties. Queries about operational matters elicited a response from serving Subject Matter Experts (ex SAR Flight Commanders/Training Officers/Experienced crewmen) and MoD and MCA Consultants. Although I cannot speak for the legal and commercial aspects I am convinced that those teams were fully competent.
Soteria and the others took full advantage of this facility and thanked the PT for the refreshing opportunity There can be no excuse for anybody subsequently claiming that they did not understand anything. This is complete "tosh". Everyone was given as much time as they wanted and at the end of the period the potential contractors went away happy. It was also made clear to them that they could come back to the PT with supplementaries on the understanding that these would also be shared. There was absolutely no need for anyone to make private approaches to individuals. Information that was requested was freely given.
An what exactly is Tecumseh "on" when he mentions fast jets and submarines? I cannot follow this at all. Can anybody help?
So, Tecumseh, I suspect you are being facetious. It is a great shame that the conduct of a single individual seems to have ruined this programme. But the new Government was never keen on Browne inspired PFI deals - was this just too good an opportunity to "kill it off" without actually having to cancel it themselves? Just a thought!
I speak as someone who has been involved in the SAR-H programme for a number of years and who spent his life in the RAF helicopter world. At the outset I would like to say that IMHO, if the Soteria bid had gone through we would have ended up with a first rate SAR service, crewed by professional aviators from the civil and military world, with a modern, SAR capable aircraft easily meeting, and at times exceeding, the demands set by the Government for the service. Yes, it would have been expensive over the life of the programme but that seems to be the nature of PFI deals in the UK.
Soteria was chosen after a very comprehensive review of all bidders returns and the results of that review are transparent and completely traceable.
The 12 bases would not have been ideal (or even necessary) but there were political issues to consider. Operationally, a different deployment plan would have been better but have you ever tried to close an ambulance station? MPs can get very heated. Logic does not form part of the argument.
Nevertheless, Tecumsehs point about the requirements is ridiculous. Reading his rant you might come to believe that if he had been involved all would have been well. The User Requirements actually evolved over an extended period as a result of much debate among a number of very experienced SAR operators and some detailed OA. These were translated into a set of quite complex system requirements, which were certainly not "vaguely worded and meaningless", and then passed to the potential contractors to form the basis of their responses. Those Contractor responses were actually very detailed and comprehensive rather countering the idea that there was confusion and misunderstanding about the requirements.
As part of the EU rules on acquisition a period of competitive dialogue then took place. This gave the contenders the opportunity to ask the Project Team as many questions as they wanted in order that they be in no doubt as to the capability the military (and the DfT) were seeking. Yes, there were a number of clarifications requested but in a project of this size it would be remarkable if there were not. The questions and the responses, unless there was a commercial reason not to do so, were shared across all interested parties. Queries about operational matters elicited a response from serving Subject Matter Experts (ex SAR Flight Commanders/Training Officers/Experienced crewmen) and MoD and MCA Consultants. Although I cannot speak for the legal and commercial aspects I am convinced that those teams were fully competent.
Soteria and the others took full advantage of this facility and thanked the PT for the refreshing opportunity There can be no excuse for anybody subsequently claiming that they did not understand anything. This is complete "tosh". Everyone was given as much time as they wanted and at the end of the period the potential contractors went away happy. It was also made clear to them that they could come back to the PT with supplementaries on the understanding that these would also be shared. There was absolutely no need for anyone to make private approaches to individuals. Information that was requested was freely given.
An what exactly is Tecumseh "on" when he mentions fast jets and submarines? I cannot follow this at all. Can anybody help?
So, Tecumseh, I suspect you are being facetious. It is a great shame that the conduct of a single individual seems to have ruined this programme. But the new Government was never keen on Browne inspired PFI deals - was this just too good an opportunity to "kill it off" without actually having to cancel it themselves? Just a thought!
Tuc,
Agreed.
It's also important to remember the influence that short-term contractors can have on projects. My first exposure to this was a chap who'd been working for a PT that shared a project with us for 18mths. As such he was exposed to a large amount sensitive information and, perhaps more importantly, was also involved in several anecdotal coffee bar conversations. I was shocked when a week later he turned up contracting for one of the Industrial partners on the same project....
Agreed.
It's also important to remember the influence that short-term contractors can have on projects. My first exposure to this was a chap who'd been working for a PT that shared a project with us for 18mths. As such he was exposed to a large amount sensitive information and, perhaps more importantly, was also involved in several anecdotal coffee bar conversations. I was shocked when a week later he turned up contracting for one of the Industrial partners on the same project....
Evalu8ter
I can think of a few in AbbeyWood who will not want reminding of the contractor whose Programme Manager was given his own workstation during contract negotiations, including password access to all MoD's internal commercial and financial discussions and e-mails. He flaunted it daily and took the royal p***.
(I almost called them a "bidder", but they didn't bid for the programme; they just bought the company who won).
We were told to wind it in when we voiced concern. I couldn't put a price on what this supine appeasement cost us. Forty or fifty million maybe. Only time in my career I've been formally asked by (another) company if my boss was taking a backhander.
I can think of a few in AbbeyWood who will not want reminding of the contractor whose Programme Manager was given his own workstation during contract negotiations, including password access to all MoD's internal commercial and financial discussions and e-mails. He flaunted it daily and took the royal p***.
(I almost called them a "bidder", but they didn't bid for the programme; they just bought the company who won).
We were told to wind it in when we voiced concern. I couldn't put a price on what this supine appeasement cost us. Forty or fifty million maybe. Only time in my career I've been formally asked by (another) company if my boss was taking a backhander.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure anyone in the know will blame the gentleman concerned. He left the RAF and went to work for a private company in the full knowledge of the IPT, which he is perfectly allowed to do. If he used his knowledge of the SARH requirements to make sure his company's bid met those requirements than that seems quite sensible for both sides...
Would SARH have delivered a capable, reliable and safe (i.e. professional) SAR capability? I think it undoubtedly would as the many civilian SAR operators in the UK demonstrate, but I am not so sure - in the long run - it would have been in the best interests of the military rotary community or the taxpayer.
Some will argue from a resources perspective that SARH was the only deal in town and that the money isn't available for a Plan B... The only reason it isn't (right now) is because of the Government's obsession with PFIs to hide capital spending off balance sheet. Ultimately, the taxpayer pays and PFIs are expensive in the long run, both because of the higher cost of capital to private companies and because of the need to make a profit. Getting rid of RAF and RN SAR doesn't free up resources for the MoD, it just involves a transfer of resources to the DfT.
Others will argue from a military perspective that SAR has no place in an expeditionary military. Although the aircraft haven't deployed recently, the same is not true of the personnel. And then there is MCT, the paramedics, flexibility, morale
.
So with the faff over new Chinook, Merlin and SARH, perhaps there is an opportunity to properly analyse the cost of doing this differently. When we are no longer in Afghanistan, the taxpayer is going to value a SAR capability in the UK a lot more than deployable SH (rightly or wrongly). And what the masses want, politicians will provide (or be too scared to cut). If we could use this opportunity to develop a SAR capability that can also deploy in some useful roles we might do ourselves a favour.
Anyway, I've been arguing this to whoever has been silly enough to listen for years and I think I'm in a minority.
Would SARH have delivered a capable, reliable and safe (i.e. professional) SAR capability? I think it undoubtedly would as the many civilian SAR operators in the UK demonstrate, but I am not so sure - in the long run - it would have been in the best interests of the military rotary community or the taxpayer.
Some will argue from a resources perspective that SARH was the only deal in town and that the money isn't available for a Plan B... The only reason it isn't (right now) is because of the Government's obsession with PFIs to hide capital spending off balance sheet. Ultimately, the taxpayer pays and PFIs are expensive in the long run, both because of the higher cost of capital to private companies and because of the need to make a profit. Getting rid of RAF and RN SAR doesn't free up resources for the MoD, it just involves a transfer of resources to the DfT.
Others will argue from a military perspective that SAR has no place in an expeditionary military. Although the aircraft haven't deployed recently, the same is not true of the personnel. And then there is MCT, the paramedics, flexibility, morale
. So with the faff over new Chinook, Merlin and SARH, perhaps there is an opportunity to properly analyse the cost of doing this differently. When we are no longer in Afghanistan, the taxpayer is going to value a SAR capability in the UK a lot more than deployable SH (rightly or wrongly). And what the masses want, politicians will provide (or be too scared to cut). If we could use this opportunity to develop a SAR capability that can also deploy in some useful roles we might do ourselves a favour.
Anyway, I've been arguing this to whoever has been silly enough to listen for years and I think I'm in a minority.
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
Clearedtoroll
I don't think you are in a minority, or if you are, it's a big one. There are huge numbers in the business who think just as you do. Whether you get the Services to do it, or invent the Government Flying Service to run all the aircraft currently operated by or on behalf of at least 8 agencies (treating police as 1 and not 54 or however many Forces we have) on non-military Government tasks, there are economies of scale out there for the taking.
While you're at it, how about the Government Boating Service for the 11+ agencies that operate floating things?
Sven
I don't think you are in a minority, or if you are, it's a big one. There are huge numbers in the business who think just as you do. Whether you get the Services to do it, or invent the Government Flying Service to run all the aircraft currently operated by or on behalf of at least 8 agencies (treating police as 1 and not 54 or however many Forces we have) on non-military Government tasks, there are economies of scale out there for the taking.
While you're at it, how about the Government Boating Service for the 11+ agencies that operate floating things?
Sven
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: USofA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to wonder if the current SDSR plan has already taken SAR crews as a saving and how expensive will it be to 'buy them back'? If this is the case then what other part of the RAF / RN will take the hit and lose more people? Food for thought...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cuckoopen...a good post......well worth reading by all that ever wondered what sort of process we all went through in more detail...as you know...I could do nothing but support or agree with you.
I do agree however, that Tucum has rushed to a judgement in this case about RM activities on this programme....you have lanced that one....but his extensive experience has taught him that this is often not the case...and certainly in the past.....his view on submarine requirements etc were mean't to reflect on how bizarre and inapproriate the RM system has become in other projects using the MoDs conventional approaches.
As a former Bid Team member, while I would never subscribe to the a statement that the SAR-H IPT acted perfectly...clearly it didn't in at least one sad respect...nor was it consitituted in the way I would have like to have seen...but there is no doubt it did sterling work using a process that was intially unfamiliar, time consuming and demanding....and in the end of the 2 compliant bidders a winner was chosen...the sad bit is that the winner may well have gained advantage from the other goings on to the detriment of the other bidder...who knows at this stage.
However, given wider events, I am now glad it has all been kicked in to touch despite the immediate loss of the prospect of a shiney unfied and very competent SAR-H based UK SAR Force.....I only hope the opportunity of such a future development will not be lost for too long!
ClearedtoRoll
Ref your post and my last para...a minortiy we might be...but it is already getting bigger..even at ministerial level if my sources are right. And so it should after more than 8 years of UK National Resilience Policy development...and hence my last para to Cuckoopen...this is the straegic issue that should now influence any new UK SAR replecemnt policy/requirement...not the more narrow one that would have produced a perfectly competent UK SAR helo force...but not much else.
BTW your opening paras re mil pers moving to industry etc is prefectly valid in general cases ..and ever so if they move to an company that has already won the business that they were previously invovled in. However, it is not appropriate (and indeed illegal for senior personnel unless they are vetted and a waiver issued) for such people to move with knowledge to a company that is bidding for a contract and their information can help them then win the contract. Furthermore, in the SAR-H EU Competitve Dialogue process and rules as used in the SAR-H process....any inapproaite passing of any bidders confidential information required the immediate cancellation of the competition...so there we go.
I do agree however, that Tucum has rushed to a judgement in this case about RM activities on this programme....you have lanced that one....but his extensive experience has taught him that this is often not the case...and certainly in the past.....his view on submarine requirements etc were mean't to reflect on how bizarre and inapproriate the RM system has become in other projects using the MoDs conventional approaches.
As a former Bid Team member, while I would never subscribe to the a statement that the SAR-H IPT acted perfectly...clearly it didn't in at least one sad respect...nor was it consitituted in the way I would have like to have seen...but there is no doubt it did sterling work using a process that was intially unfamiliar, time consuming and demanding....and in the end of the 2 compliant bidders a winner was chosen...the sad bit is that the winner may well have gained advantage from the other goings on to the detriment of the other bidder...who knows at this stage.
However, given wider events, I am now glad it has all been kicked in to touch despite the immediate loss of the prospect of a shiney unfied and very competent SAR-H based UK SAR Force.....I only hope the opportunity of such a future development will not be lost for too long!
ClearedtoRoll
Ref your post and my last para...a minortiy we might be...but it is already getting bigger..even at ministerial level if my sources are right. And so it should after more than 8 years of UK National Resilience Policy development...and hence my last para to Cuckoopen...this is the straegic issue that should now influence any new UK SAR replecemnt policy/requirement...not the more narrow one that would have produced a perfectly competent UK SAR helo force...but not much else.
BTW your opening paras re mil pers moving to industry etc is prefectly valid in general cases ..and ever so if they move to an company that has already won the business that they were previously invovled in. However, it is not appropriate (and indeed illegal for senior personnel unless they are vetted and a waiver issued) for such people to move with knowledge to a company that is bidding for a contract and their information can help them then win the contract. Furthermore, in the SAR-H EU Competitve Dialogue process and rules as used in the SAR-H process....any inapproaite passing of any bidders confidential information required the immediate cancellation of the competition...so there we go.
Last edited by Tallsar; 9th Feb 2011 at 12:51.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RBS pulled out because the military pulled out. Soteria pulled out because RBS pulled out.
Soteria, having ordered the helicopters, invested millions in winning the bid and now it seems fair game to accuse the military of wrong doing in order to re-coup their loses.
Makes sense to me!
Soteria, having ordered the helicopters, invested millions in winning the bid and now it seems fair game to accuse the military of wrong doing in order to re-coup their loses.
Makes sense to me!
Soteria, having ordered the helicopters, invested millions in winning the bid and now it seems fair game to accuse the military of wrong doing in order to re-coup their loses [sic].
