I can see the argument on both sides, although I would be surprised if the "military get first refusal" point is valid.

Perhaps someone can comment from a position of knowledge, but surely in the case of 2 incidents at the same time, allocation of SAR cabs would be decided on the balance of need (much like medical support) rather than 'military outrank civvies'.

Thus in practical terms, would it matter any difference to the ejectee bobbing up and down in his dingy?

Like Biggus, I'm no SARH expert, although I do have a little bit of FW SAR experience, and therefore retain some interest in this issue. I have no problem with this proposal which I'm sure will save a lot of cash together with plenty of distressed sailors and a few airmen. The cabs will be more modern and arguably more capable than the venerable SK and the crews will be of the same high standard - indeed I'm sure a sizeable number will simply migrate across.

However, in breaking the long standing link between the military and SAR operations
a few genuine questions come to mind such as:

1. Where does this leave the long term future of the ARCC?
2. Where in this statement is SAR coverage for the FI considered?
3. Does this de-linkage of SAR from the MT set weaken the argument for a future high end RMPA.

As far as CSAR goes , I'm sure this is being considered as we speak. It will be, won't it?

NUFC Err, as of 1556L no and no. Far too much celeb 'news' on the wires today to be bothered with insignificant announcements such as this. Although quite surprised they haven't picked up the very obvious link between the rescue last night and the future of the Valley SAR force ie PW :ugh:
PS well done to all the crew, I'm sure the conditions weren't pleasant.

1629L There it is - BBC got there in the end and no mention of PW shocker!

Smiter, what makes you so sure the servivce will be of the same high standard? when a civi company is involved every penny will be counted and have to be accounted for, crews will do much less training between jobs to keep the costs down, flying hours will be limited and I doubt very much the crews will be as current.

Surely, assuming the Navy gets it's new fixed wing carriers it will need an on board SAR helicopter service to rescue any downed air crew in mid ocean?

So who will cover MPA? SH/CHF/CHC? Not an insurmountable problem, but one that isn't mentioned in today's announcement.

Edited for spelling and pedantry.

I haven't seen whether the "Daylight hours only " SAR service for certain SAR Flts. eg. Chivenor will still be on the cards after 2016 .:confused:

Jay, I said the crews would be of the same high standard - obviously an assumption based on historical norms and the racing certainty that current RAF /RN SAR crews will be leaping across. Incidentally, given that fact, how are Manning / Drafters planning to manage the orderly transition from Mil SAR to Civ SAR assuming their existing personnel will be champing at the bit to grab a seat / strop on the future capability?

Whether the SAR service remains the same, I leave to those who have direct experience of both Mil and Civ. The present MCA (CHC) contract with S92 and AW139 appears very capable (yes, I've watched Highland Emergency!) and I certainly wouldn't want to argue on this forum that they fail to match military standards. You may disagree?

Granite, the Skimmers I'm sure will sort out their own SAR winching arrangements as they currently do. Whether or not they'll need it for any carriers is a moot point and I'm not going there for fear of awakening some sleeping Prune dragons. :eek:

Mountain Rescue
 

So what is happening to the RAF Mountain Rescue Service?

Surely that would free up a lot of money and people to concentrate on the front line...

Once upon a time Every U/T helicopter pilot went to Valley and did the SAR winching course. On an SH Squadron some used to practise if they were the only rotary facility available, ie Belize/Harriers. I, being the only person who had done the Valley course became, with zero further experience, the winching instructor, just in case we had to fish a Harrier pilot out of the Oggin.

I would expect, both Naval and Land based, that the basic training would be incorporated to cover such an eventuality. That is different from a full time SAR cover.

Could all those discussing CSAR vis SAR please look up some definitions for CSAR. :ugh:

Currently the SARF do not provide any CSAR what so ever, nor are they capable of such either. (in coming, no doubt).

This is going to no doubt turn into the standard bun fight that seems to develop any time the Mil vs Civ question is raised. Can't wait for the fun to start :}

Can we please put the SAR v CSAR argument to bed. Those that have been involved in both SAR and SH will tell you that the only real commonality is in the titles.

Good point from prOOne re. Lossie/Leconfield gap although the DofT Contract Notice stipulates operations to continue at or 'within the vicinity' of all current locations bar Boulmer and Portland (both to close in 2015). Could see the aforementioned bases moving south/north respectively?

More in-depth reading here for those interested:

UK Search & Rescue Helicopter Service - Publications - Department for Transport

CSAR, such as it is, has been the preserve of RAF and RN SH since about 2005/6. It was never the preserve of RAF SARF.

The RN will still require SAR at sea as they have always done and, until CVF arrives, the capability will continue to be covered by front line RN helos at sea (viz this year's GAPAN trophy). The shore based RN force has always been on the back of the sea requirement, unlike the RAF SARF, and is why it comes as little overhead to the RN.

So long as CVF gets a single engined jet it is quite likely that there will be a SAR reqt on CVF....but this could be done by contract (as could the VERTREP requirement).

A very sad day for both forces but the writing has been on the wall for years.

Apparently the FI will continue to be RAFSAR until 2016 and thereafter tbc.

The loss of 3 Sqns and nearly 200 aircrew seems to be popular amongst the beancounter fraternity - few of the pilots (except the young thrusters) will go SH and there are no WSOP jobs for Radops and winchmen in the 'real' RAF.

One wonders how low numbers in the rotary world can be allowed to fall before critical mass is reached, especially once the withdrawal from Afghan takes place. Nothing for the Apaches or the Chinooks to do in UK, CHF back to exercising in Norway to justify their existence, the AAC trying to find a use for Wildcat; more cuts to military helos I would suggest, unless we find another country to invade!

Crab,

I am sure the maritime contingent capability will find plenty to do as the cruise the oceans in their naval task groups - much as the RN has done for centuries. Of more concern is the impact of a "quick in, quick out, no casualties" philosophy for the Army and rump of the RAF - tough times ahead methinks.

Re the SARF - not the beancounters, it is the justification for it to be a military capability that was the challenge. My view is that it still should be, but it is only an emotional argument. The same goes for the RAF MR teams - why military funded when the civvies are just as capable.

Seak1ng

No mention of what is happening to the RAF MRS. It wouldn't free up many people at all as only about 30 are full-time (8 on each of the 4 teams and some in the HQ); the majority of these are liable for op deployments in line with their peers anyway. The vast majority are part-timers in 'day jobs' who fulfill there MRS duties (2 weekends out of 4 training and 1hr NTM during the week) in addition to their primary duties. To put it another way, the permanent staff cadre or the MRS is roughly the same size as the Band of the Adjutant General's Corps (or many other military bands).

If the decision was taken to disband them then something would need to fill their APCM role. They provide the crash guard for the first 24-48 hours enabling the nominated Station to generate its PCM capability. I can't see a civvy MRT hanging around too look after a pile of smoking (and dangerous) wreckage. So long as military APCM remains a military responsibility, the RAF will need to generate teams of people on short NTM who can deploy rapidly and be trained and equipped to operate in some arduous conditions (crashes have a tendency to happen in some remote places).

If it is a military operation - it handles civilian emergencies out of humanitarian, training, PR & economic sense.
If it is a civilian operation - what does it do if a shooting match is going on?

Surely the argument for RAF MR is based around it being primarily a way to handle ac rescue, which happens to be very good at rescuing folk in wild areas who need assistance.

I may be wrong, but I don't think the civ MR teams have any experience/expertise in handling ac crashes, which is RAF MR responsibility from initial search, cordon and control etc. RAF MR was formed after embarrassing performance at the likes of the Beinn Eighe Lancaster crash, not to look after mountaineers.

Whilst given the right contract and personnel I can accept that SAR is perhaps equally good whether mil or civ, I don't see that volunteer civ MR teams will ever make a serious move towards the requirements of mil air accidents.

Edit:Climebear - your post didn't initially appear as I wrote, I wouldn't have repeated it had I been able to read it

How much rtoation of experience happens in the rotary world between SH and SAR crews over time. Is is a case of once on the SK fleet you generally stay there, or do the Puma/Merlin/Wokka mates cross over?

If I was an SH bod I think that after multiple tours to dangerous sandy places, I'd be glad or a change either as a QHI at Stawbs or at a pretty coastal location such as Chivenor :ok:.

All good I would say for long-term retention and for cross pollenation of ideas/knowledge/experience.

I'm therefore not in favour of going civvy with SARH and makes me think that it might work with the military-trained cadre "inherited" at the start, but how will the long-term training happen for future generations of SAR crews when this has gone?

MB

Someone's been smoking something:

From the Telegraph:

"Tim Ripley, a defence analyst for Jane’s Defence Weekly, said the cut would have “serious implications”. “The most significant impact will be on the ability of the UK military to respond to major emergencies at home. The Sea Kings are the only military helicopters held at high readiness, in large numbers, to respond to a natural disaster, nuclear accident or major terrorist incident.”"

Good spot, Airborne Artist.

When Justine Greening said,

The aircraft would form a modern fleet of “fast, reliable helicopters” that would lead to “major improvements in the capability available from the present mix of helicopters

I guess she means "to replace the slow, unreliable old ones we make the military struggle on with."