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.

Commercial SAR - how long before they start charging for a rescue?
Make sure your insurance is up to date!

Interesting point.
What happens in Australia?
Isnt all their coastal SAR private? (LifeFlight?)

MoD suspends helicopter rescue contract - 18 December 2010

Quote:

---

“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!

I imagine the cancellation of Nimrod MRA4 and the resultant cut in SAR capability and facilities, which the SAR-H negotiations would regard as "Government Furnished Services" and a given, may be a "possible issue" that would affect the bid. Perhaps SAR-H will be renamed SAR-H/FW and take another decade to negotiate.

“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

Tuc

It is the basis to which the SK was certified.
Very elderly 1960s standards.

There's a bit more background here:

UK halts £6 billion helicopter deal after bid issue

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 :mad:.

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.

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....

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...

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! :ok:

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.....

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!:ooh::)

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....:mad:

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.... :ok:

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

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...:}

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.

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 shall state the obvious.....this thread is now verging well off topic...which I have assisted :uhoh: ...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..

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.

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.

Chopa,


:D

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.......

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.

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?

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.....

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....

Well Said AutoRev :ok:

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!

:{:sad::ooh:

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.

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

Ok thanks for that info Tallsar, I didn't realise the C130 carried ASV radar.

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.

I retain a 1998 letter from a Gp Capt (Supplier) at Wyton justifying the proposed procurement of certain equipment for C130 on the grounds it was fitted with an Active Dipping Sonar.


(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! :ugh:

Erm in reply to both of them, it appears the Money has now gone to fund it as well..



never rains, but it pours...........:ugh:

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