U.K. Military Crews Won't Be Part of SAR-H Deal
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E8ter..we are in angry agreement with each other I see.....save to say SDSR2015 is a long way away...and all those "buy back issues" etc will be seen in yet another (cutting?) light by then.....there is a case for continued mil investment in UK based rotary (IMO a transformed SARF)...depending on what roles and military style requirements you place on them, including their inter-departmental use too...an issue not addressed as yet except in the narrow SAR-H construct and which did little to address this properly. Another issue they could have tackled was vfm fixed wing provision too...and how sad the inevitable MoD protectionism of the Nimrod based capability now looks. Maybe it will ever be so given the UK Government's sad record on sorting inter-departmental issues effectively, despite all the ministerial rhetoric to the contrary.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's worth remembering that the announcement was made by Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport, not by the good Dr Fox - because it's all about the Maritime & Coastguard Agency's (MCA) cash IIRC. So if Dept for Transport (DfT) are the ones paying the bill, then the higher costs of MoD doing it for them will be very unattractive, even if it provides MoD with some positive PR / baseline CSAR capability / flex for SH / <<insert positive MoD point here>>.
I was - and remain - very sceptical of PFI in the forces (FSTA, anyone?); and I hate the idea of SAR being all civil (always happy to see big yellow taxi over Suffolk knowing that the best possible help is on the way). It's not rational - I'm sure the same guys in civvie suits would do a good job (eg FRL EW training) - but I want it to stay two shades of blue.
However.
If contractorisation is significantly cheaper and takes care of the capital spend on new cabs now (obviously more expensive long term), then DfT would only go down the mil-SAR route if the MoD matched the cost to DfT of a contractor solution - by MoD subsidising the costs, presumably.
Which given the state of the MoD budget is NOT going to happen. As has been said, we'd all like a 24 cab buy of Merlin SAR Mk. 4 (or whatever - like the shiney Canadian ones), but what are you prepared to cut furhter in the MoD to pay for it?
S41
I was - and remain - very sceptical of PFI in the forces (FSTA, anyone?); and I hate the idea of SAR being all civil (always happy to see big yellow taxi over Suffolk knowing that the best possible help is on the way). It's not rational - I'm sure the same guys in civvie suits would do a good job (eg FRL EW training) - but I want it to stay two shades of blue.
However.
If contractorisation is significantly cheaper and takes care of the capital spend on new cabs now (obviously more expensive long term), then DfT would only go down the mil-SAR route if the MoD matched the cost to DfT of a contractor solution - by MoD subsidising the costs, presumably.
Which given the state of the MoD budget is NOT going to happen. As has been said, we'd all like a 24 cab buy of Merlin SAR Mk. 4 (or whatever - like the shiney Canadian ones), but what are you prepared to cut furhter in the MoD to pay for it?
S41
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I shall state the obvious.....this thread is now verging well off topic...which I have assisted 
...there is a good thread on Rotorheads.....suggest all carry on there instead of risking repeating all the same points.....
As for mil aircrew retention...that of course wll be the bonus of maintaning the SK should SAR-H collapse....issues about re-equipment and transfer of funding or subsdies will then have been kicked into the long grass for at least another 10 years. As suggested above...this then opens up broader possibilities for what will come next, given there wil be a new government with yet another different take on our Defence and other government expenditure priorities..
...there is a good thread on Rotorheads.....suggest all carry on there instead of risking repeating all the same points.....As for mil aircrew retention...that of course wll be the bonus of maintaning the SK should SAR-H collapse....issues about re-equipment and transfer of funding or subsdies will then have been kicked into the long grass for at least another 10 years. As suggested above...this then opens up broader possibilities for what will come next, given there wil be a new government with yet another different take on our Defence and other government expenditure priorities..
Last edited by Tallsar; 21st Dec 2010 at 10:58.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: in a state of flux
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note that my comments were dismissed in a fairly cavalier manner. This is unfortunate as it may lead those viewing the forum to conclude that the comments made in opposition to mine are correct. They are not. I will not enter in an argument as it is pointless. Rather, I implore all viewing to look at the FACTS... Do your own research (that way you will trust the numbers). How much would new helo's cost to buy, and run? 65% less than SOTERIA claim. How much to run them? Interesting - I note a lot of posters have said that the MOD is too expensive and hard to change. Really? Seems to me it is changing in unheard of ways at the moment - it employs some incredibly intelligent people - is it really unable to change? No, it is not. Now, those supporters of the civilian option will scorn and scoff and deride my comments, I am sure, but I am still right. Nikki may have CV's, but only from those who are unwilling or more realistically unable to revert to the mainstream MOD - a new employee who was so bad as a QHI his entire course refused to fly with him - you won't believe what position he has been given!- great, well done Soteria.... far more telling is to look at a list of those who have not applied. There exists a hunger and a desire in the MOD to provide an world leading SAR force, as has been the case for years - if a private contractor can match that service, then good, well done, and crack on. If they cannot, they will have blood on their hands. This is a disaster waiting to happen - I will document it all and report back with alacrity. Deriders may pour scorn on me, but when it comes to SAR, I care, and I know exactly what I am talking about. If others have been SAR crew, run Sqn's, and now run SAR contracts in Civvy street (albeit abroad), as senior managers, then you may berate me, otherwise please accept that I speak with a clear conscience and a heavy heart. And I assure you I am right.
If the SAR services are to be privatised I presume they will rely on ex RAF/RN/army personnel to crew and maintain the helicopters.
Given that PFI has proved to be a failure and that a private consortium will make money out of saving lives wouldn't it be a more sensible to purchase the helicopters (I'm sure a finance packages are used for military procurement similarly to the private sector ensuring that at least we own the helicopters) and use full time reservists to crew and maintain the helicopters etc.
Using ex RAF/RN/army personnel would enable the UK to keep trained personnel "in house" without the requirement to house them etc.
Given that PFI has proved to be a failure and that a private consortium will make money out of saving lives wouldn't it be a more sensible to purchase the helicopters (I'm sure a finance packages are used for military procurement similarly to the private sector ensuring that at least we own the helicopters) and use full time reservists to crew and maintain the helicopters etc.
Using ex RAF/RN/army personnel would enable the UK to keep trained personnel "in house" without the requirement to house them etc.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have we learnt nothing? This is just another case of jobs for the boys . . . on the board, that is.
Oh well, at least there will also be more jobs for ex-mil chaps in future.
Oh well, at least there will also be more jobs for ex-mil chaps in future.
Even senior insiders are in the dark on this one.
My best hunch for what it's worth:
The mil were expected to pay for 2/3rds of this. Now they are gone. Can MCA be expected to front up the whole amount, especially after they have just undegone a massive SDR of their own? Of course not. Where will the government go for the remainder?
Consequently I suspect Soteria are uneasy with the contract now and worried that IF they sign on the dotted line after confirmation the mil are history, then somewhere down the line they may be expected to carry more of the financial load...and this wasn't part of the deal.
The MCA are a shadow of their former selves after these savage cuts in their inventory - does anyone honestly feel they are capable of running an alien concept such as SAR-H before their cuts never mind after them? It requires specialist aviators to run a SAR outfit and the coastguard for all their expertise have zero, nil, nada aviation experience in the UK. They leave it to the helicopter companies themselves.
Soteria are going to have to renegotiate the contract, which means they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Sign up and be damned. Argue over the changes and the competition will return for seconds! There will be no prisoners
The government have just shot themselves in the foot with this.......
My best hunch for what it's worth:
The mil were expected to pay for 2/3rds of this. Now they are gone. Can MCA be expected to front up the whole amount, especially after they have just undegone a massive SDR of their own? Of course not. Where will the government go for the remainder?
Consequently I suspect Soteria are uneasy with the contract now and worried that IF they sign on the dotted line after confirmation the mil are history, then somewhere down the line they may be expected to carry more of the financial load...and this wasn't part of the deal.
The MCA are a shadow of their former selves after these savage cuts in their inventory - does anyone honestly feel they are capable of running an alien concept such as SAR-H before their cuts never mind after them? It requires specialist aviators to run a SAR outfit and the coastguard for all their expertise have zero, nil, nada aviation experience in the UK. They leave it to the helicopter companies themselves.
Soteria are going to have to renegotiate the contract, which means they are caught between a rock and a hard place. Sign up and be damned. Argue over the changes and the competition will return for seconds! There will be no prisoners
The government have just shot themselves in the foot with this.......
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC...empathise with much of what you say..its all entirely plausible...coupled with the (changed) assessment of Soteria's bankers concerning what you have said. A PFI's bankers worry more about the risks at all levels than even the customer! While the risks you talk of are to some extent intangible..they are the very sort that frightens the banking horses. Not withstanding the DfT/CG issues you noted....the very involvement of a high proportion of mil aircrew sent a clear commitment message which reassured those in the banking community...suggesting that HMG would always stand behind the programme..sometimes for unforeseen political reasons that can never be enshrined in a contract..and from what has been rumoured, was about to disappear.
As you say, all these issues have undermined the very solidity the customer was looking for in any bidder's bid construct giving Soteria no choice but to identify their concerns......or maybe it was nothing about this at all, but rather some very inappropriate goings-on in the bid process (I hope not!)
.....I gather the local rag in North Devon today quotes Min AF (the local MP) as saying "there may have to be a rebid"....although he says nothing of the cause....hopefully we will all hear more soon.
Given what's happened elsewhere in departmental budgets, its hard to believe that what will replace it will not be as shiney and expensive which by definition means either something smaller and radical (Mmmm unlikely) or a much truncated version of what we have in order to keep costs under control.
As you say, all these issues have undermined the very solidity the customer was looking for in any bidder's bid construct giving Soteria no choice but to identify their concerns......or maybe it was nothing about this at all, but rather some very inappropriate goings-on in the bid process (I hope not!)
.....I gather the local rag in North Devon today quotes Min AF (the local MP) as saying "there may have to be a rebid"....although he says nothing of the cause....hopefully we will all hear more soon.
Given what's happened elsewhere in departmental budgets, its hard to believe that what will replace it will not be as shiney and expensive which by definition means either something smaller and radical (Mmmm unlikely) or a much truncated version of what we have in order to keep costs under control.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The semi detached part of the UK
Age: 71
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Developments?
Already referred to on Rotorheads, but have a look at
MoD suspends contract sell-off after leak to winning bidder - Channel4 News
What next from the MoD?
MoD suspends contract sell-off after leak to winning bidder - Channel4 News
What next from the MoD?
PP,
Not wishing to appear cynical but this looks like a piece of theatre to me. Almost any project could have the same accusation laid at it thanks to the ease with which military/DE&S pers (esp contractors) move between the ECC/DE&S (and other senior mil/CS appointments) and Industry. Quite naturally, all bidding consortia engaged military specialists to help prepare their submissions - they would be mad not to. The problem is that the "cooling off" period for senior hands appear to have been enforced less than completely since BLiar intervened to help a certain retiring ex-VSO to secure a place with BAES upon leaving....
I would suggest that the Govt don't want to front up the cash as they have politically distanced themselves from PFIs, other Industrial partners are lobbying furiously for the work and the Govt doesn't want another bad news story on the heels of MRA4. Therefore, shift the blame onto some poor ex-MoD type and wipe your hands on making a decision.
Cynical? Yes, but stranger things have happened.....
Not wishing to appear cynical but this looks like a piece of theatre to me. Almost any project could have the same accusation laid at it thanks to the ease with which military/DE&S pers (esp contractors) move between the ECC/DE&S (and other senior mil/CS appointments) and Industry. Quite naturally, all bidding consortia engaged military specialists to help prepare their submissions - they would be mad not to. The problem is that the "cooling off" period for senior hands appear to have been enforced less than completely since BLiar intervened to help a certain retiring ex-VSO to secure a place with BAES upon leaving....
I would suggest that the Govt don't want to front up the cash as they have politically distanced themselves from PFIs, other Industrial partners are lobbying furiously for the work and the Govt doesn't want another bad news story on the heels of MRA4. Therefore, shift the blame onto some poor ex-MoD type and wipe your hands on making a decision.
Cynical? Yes, but stranger things have happened.....
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evaluator,
Whilst many here may share your cynicism, I fear this is more than 'theatre'.
Whilst the allegations against the un-named ex-serving officer now working for CHC (not a huge list of candidates, I grant you,) are serious, the withdrawal of RBS from the consortium is likely to be a huge obstacle to overcome.
Regardless of what plan B turns out to be, the inevitable delay to the programme, and associated costs, is not a good thing. Except maybe for the mil crews who will remain in SAR a bit longer ( that's if they haven't already dug an escape route based on previous transition schedules!)
There are very few winners in this sorry debacle. Another botched DE&S project is not the kind of press needed right now. Here's hoping this 'news' will result in a bit more information from MoD/DfT and a bit less uncertainty for the "UK" SAR Force.
You really couldn't make it up....
Whilst many here may share your cynicism, I fear this is more than 'theatre'.
Whilst the allegations against the un-named ex-serving officer now working for CHC (not a huge list of candidates, I grant you,) are serious, the withdrawal of RBS from the consortium is likely to be a huge obstacle to overcome.
Regardless of what plan B turns out to be, the inevitable delay to the programme, and associated costs, is not a good thing. Except maybe for the mil crews who will remain in SAR a bit longer ( that's if they haven't already dug an escape route based on previous transition schedules!)
There are very few winners in this sorry debacle. Another botched DE&S project is not the kind of press needed right now. Here's hoping this 'news' will result in a bit more information from MoD/DfT and a bit less uncertainty for the "UK" SAR Force.
You really couldn't make it up....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Said AutoRev 
If this all proves to be true...and lets not forget this is press "speculation" at the moment.......then it willbe a sorry day for UK SAR, and yet anothe rone for effective MoD/HMG procuremnt processes.
I understand your cycnicism Evalua8ter...but this rumoured inappropriate behaviour seems to have originated from within the IPT...and not anything to do with ex operators of any seniority embedded within the bidding teams......I pray it proves unfounded...as if proved true, it will be an real embarrasment and only further undermine the integrity of the system.
The whole thing depends on integrity and a level playing field...and if either the processes or individuals do not contibute honestly to this, then the whole thing deserves fall apart...it would appear this is what is happening with SAR-H...supposedly one of the most "Straight forward commercial style PFIs" that MoD has been involved in...to paraphrase someone very close to the programme!
If this all proves to be true...and lets not forget this is press "speculation" at the moment.......then it willbe a sorry day for UK SAR, and yet anothe rone for effective MoD/HMG procuremnt processes.
I understand your cycnicism Evalua8ter...but this rumoured inappropriate behaviour seems to have originated from within the IPT...and not anything to do with ex operators of any seniority embedded within the bidding teams......I pray it proves unfounded...as if proved true, it will be an real embarrasment and only further undermine the integrity of the system.
The whole thing depends on integrity and a level playing field...and if either the processes or individuals do not contibute honestly to this, then the whole thing deserves fall apart...it would appear this is what is happening with SAR-H...supposedly one of the most "Straight forward commercial style PFIs" that MoD has been involved in...to paraphrase someone very close to the programme!
Last edited by Tallsar; 28th Jan 2011 at 10:03.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or is it a case that, with the demise of the Nimrod, there is to be no top cover for long range rescue ops which could be out of radio contact. If the consortium were expecting cover then safety wise it has seriously altered the circumstances.
The Government couldn't possibly admit that this was the reason of course so they spin it.
The Government couldn't possibly admit that this was the reason of course so they spin it.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GG - a thought for sure...but I can assure you that the SAR-H contract did not hinge in any shape or form on the provision of Nimrods, or its top cover role. In fact, this already has been, and could be again, provided by other means (however less focussed), including the C130 the RAF that now has allocated the role too.
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GG...of course it doesn't ......and I would never suggest that the substitutes are a complete and fully effective replacement for what the Nimrod in any guise, would have offered. The C130 can of course, visually locate targets, and no doubt offer some degree of radar target aquisition, however inadequate. Its prime role will of course be to offer visual search, radio link top cover (although that will normally prove irrelevant given that a future SAR-H cab will have both satcom and HF.... )..and of course be in the overhead if things go wrong and offer some additional SAR/rescue equipment support.
.....the demise of the MRA4 has been tragic for so many reasons...and well covered in other threads...
....but the SAR-H programme was no way dependent on it as a programme bid process or essential element in the choices made.
.....the demise of the MRA4 has been tragic for so many reasons...and well covered in other threads...
....but the SAR-H programme was no way dependent on it as a programme bid process or essential element in the choices made.
I didn't realise the C130 carried ASV radar
(The company refused to quote on the grounds they could not be party to such rank incompetence. MoD Legal chose not to proceed with his next recommendation, that the company be sued. I wonder why).
And you wonder where the money goes!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,750 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
U.K. Military Crews Won't Be Part of SAR-H Deal
Already referred to on Rotorheads, but have a look at
MoD suspends contract sell-off after leak to winning bidder - Channel4 News
What next from the MoD?
MoD suspends contract sell-off after leak to winning bidder - Channel4 News
What next from the MoD?
Erm in reply to both of them, it appears the Money has now gone to fund it as well..
RBS pulls out of £6bn helicopter deal
Bank walks away from rescue service contract after claims MoD gave away sensitive information
The financial backers of a £6billion privatisation contract for search-and-rescue helicopter services have pulled out of the deal, it emerged last night.
The Royal Bank of Scotland, which was financing the Soteria consortium bid, confirmed it has pulled out of the deal, but declined to say why.
Read more: RBS pulls out of £6bn helicopter deal - Press & Journal
Bank walks away from rescue service contract after claims MoD gave away sensitive information
The financial backers of a £6billion privatisation contract for search-and-rescue helicopter services have pulled out of the deal, it emerged last night.
The Royal Bank of Scotland, which was financing the Soteria consortium bid, confirmed it has pulled out of the deal, but declined to say why.
Read more: RBS pulls out of £6bn helicopter deal - Press & Journal
Oh Plus Merde
Where does this leave the whole programme?
Given the cost of bidding and the time taken to set up the competition, I would have thought just about everybody involved would be pretty (descriptive expletives deleted) annoyed with the MOD.
Presumably the current arrangements will have to run on for a further number of years, with tired old Sea King getting ever more tired.
I'm just waiting for somebody to say that there are so few military aircraft likely to crash that the risk of the crew landing in the sea is so small that the military don't need an SAR capability and the crew can be left bobbin about in the oggin 'till a passing trawler picks them up.
Drifting slightly off thread, the following story is recounted in "The Strider", the magazine of the Long Distance Walking Association. Walker/climber calls 999 and gives map reference where they are in extremis. Call centre says 'don't know about map references, what's the post code'?
O-D
Given the cost of bidding and the time taken to set up the competition, I would have thought just about everybody involved would be pretty (descriptive expletives deleted) annoyed with the MOD.
Presumably the current arrangements will have to run on for a further number of years, with tired old Sea King getting ever more tired.
I'm just waiting for somebody to say that there are so few military aircraft likely to crash that the risk of the crew landing in the sea is so small that the military don't need an SAR capability and the crew can be left bobbin about in the oggin 'till a passing trawler picks them up.
Drifting slightly off thread, the following story is recounted in "The Strider", the magazine of the Long Distance Walking Association. Walker/climber calls 999 and gives map reference where they are in extremis. Call centre says 'don't know about map references, what's the post code'?
O-D