Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

UK SAR Harmonisation

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

UK SAR Harmonisation

Old 25th Jan 2008, 09:17
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
cost calculations

Crab - I think those simplistic numbers you have used are a trifle naive. When presenting any business plan you also have to apportion a fair share of the basic overhead and you can bet your bottom dollar that the overhead for any military organisation is going to be very large (given its fundamentally different raison d'etre) when compared to any profit oriented commercial operator.

How many Captains/Group Captains, Commodores/Air Commodores, Air Marshalls and Admirals are there in UK forces?

How many aircraft/ships are there?

QED

G

Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 10:54
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cornwall
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NVG

There is a lot of argy bargy on this site about whether military or civil standards, procdures are best. Someone wisely said that there was good on both sides and that both can learn from each other. Some of the vitriol is surprising as there has been a good deal of move from the mil to the civvy side of late.

One area where there is a big difference though is NVG. If the SARH units crewed by commercial operators cannot use NVG then that would be a big reduction in capability. Are they going to be allowed to use them?

60 Sqn at Shawbury have some civilian crews and use NVG but that is due to the COMR arrangement I understand. NVG are not black magic but the rules need to be in place.
Artifical Horizon is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 11:43
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,289
Received 608 Likes on 266 Posts
Geoffers - there is a very good paper written by the SARF Commander that has more financial detail in it and shows how much it costs to run the SARF at the moment. I don't have the figures to hand but it certainly comes out a whole lot cheaper to have an update to the Sea Kings and have all mil crews doing UK SAR than the billions of pounds that will be spent on making profits for industry.

AH - the COMR route is the easiest way to get round regulatory and licensing issues so it will probably work out that way.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 12:38
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: PLANET ZOG
Posts: 313
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Crab.
£75k? Not all civvy pilots are on anything like that figure. Granted though, some probably are. SFO's, who make up a good proportion of the crews, are nowhere near even your Flt.Lt.'s figure.
Anyway, judging by an article in today's Torygraph, "10per.cent shortfall in aircrews for Iraq/Afghanistan,"I would say that their airships are looking for bums on seats from the SAR force. If not now, then certainly in the not too distant future!(Keep a low profile and they might not notice you all!)
Update the Sea King? To quote yourself, "Are you mad." More money down the Wasteland drain!!This is supposed to be a 20/30 year project so spend a lot of money now and that saves having to do it later, once at least!!
BTW. a source within the new MCA contractors was heard to say that maybe the 139 is perhaps not the right choice afterall!! A bit late for that I would suggest! Also the first 139 will be at Portland not Lee!! Evidently the full autopilot/autohover will not be certified in time to provide full 24hr. cover for Lee. Keep the S61's at Lee until it becomes available.
To judge by the same Torygraph article,(and I can only take it at face value, though they are allegedly MOD figures), the money would be better spent on getting the frontline aircraft sorted out first. "Tommy" would rather see a Chinnook coming over the horizon than know that the folks back home have got a nice updated "Yellow peril".
3D CAM is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 14:47
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,289
Received 608 Likes on 266 Posts
3D - the problem is that bums won't go to SH seats - people will leave because there will be a demand for SAR pilots to fill all the seats that had been military. Generally speaking, those that are on SAR are there because they love the job and have zero interest in going to war. People are already voting with their feet which is why we have a shortage of SH pilots in the first place. If you make all SAR military you have a huge pool of crews to rotate through SH and give the guys on the warfighting frontline the respite tours they are not getting at the moment. It is a win/win situation for the MoD but they just can't see it.

One of the reasons is that their financial horizon only seems to be 3 or 4 years ahead and money won't start changing hands until 2012 at the very earliest and the full charge won't be felt until about 2017 when all the flights would have changed over. Staff officers spend lots of their time trying to magic money out of nowhere and robbing Peter to pay Paul but they are mostly concerned with the here and now and not 10 years in the future when we will be really hurting, coughing up £ 3 - 5 Bn for 66 aircrew.

Upgrading the Sea King would defer the need for a new aircraft until 2025 and, with a big fleet all brought up to the same spec, give deployability options with hot and high lift as well (Carson blades would be part of the upgrade)
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 16:11
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
costings - again

Crab

You have missed the point. The costs of running the SAR Force may well be quantifiable but you HAVE TO take a contribution to overheads - (Whitehall etc).

Imagine for one moment that every role in the RAF was put out to tender. If nobody paid for the dozens and dozens of senior officers and the HQ admin support then they would have to find somebody else to work for. The fundamentally difference between the Military and the Civvies is that you have to go to war in the first wave. We may possibly end up joining you but only in extremis - I hope!!

G

Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 16:29
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can't agree more with you Geoffers (long time no speak by the way!). As for updating the SK fleet - surely it can be done (Carson etc...) - and who knows maybe at least one of the bidders has considered this too? However, everyone has to step back and remember that MoD has virtually no cash at the moment other than some comiited to long running programmes and ops. And crab my old friend - not all the £3-5Bn is coming from MoD - the DfT has a signifcant input here, and it is going pay for a lot more than just the 66 mil aircrew of course - even Lossie might a new hangar ( at f****g last!!! ) Even some of the sacred cows might be up for the chop in the near future which is causing much angst in all 3 services. Whats for sure in my mind is that finding the cash for a SK3/5 update and then keeping it mil manned is not fianancially or politically feasible at the mo without chopping something more precious off the (underfunded) front line fighting capability - and that ain't gonna wash at all.
Tallsar is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 16:38
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,289
Received 608 Likes on 266 Posts
Jungly - it's not an either / or situation - if guys know there is a respite tour available then they are less likely to leave.

The military can post people where it likes so you can end up on SH whether you want to or not. But if you have a bigger pool to choose from and there is an increased opportunity to get back to SAR after a couple of tours SH, guys are far more likely to stay in and see their full careers out rather than banging out to civvy street.

Mil SAR is a fantastic PR tool and an excellent recruiting medium - you overstate the costs which are lower than civilianising it. The argument that SAR skills were transferred to the SH world was a weak one and should instead have been replaced by highlighting the highly professional nature of milSAR - emphasising that the same personal and professional qualities expected in any military flying were demonstrated by the SAR force 24/7.

Your belief that anything non-warfighting should be shed is why we are up sh*tcreek at the moment since our retention and recruiting across all 3 services is poor - why? because not everyone joins the military to go to war and if that is all you offer, they will go and get their kicks elsewhere.

If budgets are so important why are we agreeing to fund 70% of SARH???
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 16:48
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi crab - the 70% comes from both the historic funding norms (and both Depts agreed not to challenge this norm otherwise neither would move forward with a new programme) - and the top level responsibility that placed aero rescue on the MoD (rememebering that its not just rotary that the MoD contributes to that, plus the ongoing requirment to have deployed mil SAR capability - hence MoD sees a need for long term investment in the UK SAR force. We all know too that numbers notwithstanding (ie 66) - the money also pays for continued good PR for the mil. OK - we can argue (quite rightly) about whether its the best Value for Money route thats been chosen - but for sure its the only game in town at the moment. By the way - have you seen the post on Mil A'crew saying SAR-H has been scrubbed - who'e that provocative gentleman then?

Cheers
TS
Tallsar is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 17:10
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corps

because not everyone joins the military to go to war
Oh dear, now you'll get it in the neck!
leopold bloom is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 17:10
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
costs - yet again

why would MoD be willing to pay 70% of the costs?



At a guess I would say that MoD would love to see the back of this costly part of the service - at least the 'bean-counters' would. You see, when you are down to your last bullet, PR can't dig you out of the sh*t.


G
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 17:19
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: PLANET ZOG
Posts: 313
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Crab.
Didn't join up to fight?? Isn't that what the armed forces are all about? Things really have changed since I drew the Queens shilling!!
Anyway, what about the thread on the Military forum, RAF pulls out of SAR-H. You proffess to be in the know so come on, spill the beans.
Cost cutting??
3D CAM is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 17:51
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,289
Received 608 Likes on 266 Posts
3D - the thread on mil forum seems to be exactly what I was suggesting - keep it all mil and crack on
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 18:19
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: PLANET ZOG
Posts: 313
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Crab.
...or civilianise the lot!!
3D CAM is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 19:15
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Holding back the tide............

I think it was King Canute who thought he could hold back the tide. Since the first HMC unit came on stream the tide has only been going one way. It seems that no matter how black and white the evidence, emotions can play games with your judgment.

To avoid any more heartache I suggest that Crab bows to the inevitable and concentrates on ensuring that those many excellent aspects of MilSAR we have grown to respect are able to play their part come the inevitable.

I suspect that many of us ex mil guys who have also dabbled in civSAR enjoy the banter and the friendly rivalry but come the 'New Order' we just have to make the very best of what we have.

Many years ago I was part of a team trying to sell a 3-base 'Turnkey' SAR package (based on S61s) on behalf of Bristow to the Chinese government. There was a defining moment after our presentation to State Economic Council Officials in Beijing in which the 'head-man' asked if the proposed system of dispatch, command and control, was the same as we use in UK. Of course nobody given a blank sheet of paper would have copied the crazy, turf-war based, fragmented, unjoined-up system we used at that time so we said "NO". Well, we instantly lost credibility and that was that. They knew our system by reputation and if they weren't going to get a carbon copy then we were not welcome. Little did they know!

This joining of forces may be the first step in making our SAR setup 'joined-up'. Now we have to focus on getting the rest of it right.

It's a bit like getting ambulances and fire brigades to join up and offer a truly multi-skilled service to our population. That will raise some hackles I guess but it will happen one day.... it has to..... its the only way to go, but first you have to fight off the vested interests, the bigots and the turf-warriors.

G

Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2008, 22:47
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: midlands
Age: 59
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well said that man!

Sorry, been away for a time.

Leopold. You need to read the entire document set! But I think you have by now. And yes there are much better things to do.

Crabb - not joined to go to war! I am trully surprised at people allowing that one to go with only 1 comment! And as for that thread on the mil forum! Tosh tosh and double tosh. ................................................ring ring. ring ring "whats that SAR-H cancelled? Oh b***er!"
SARREMF is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2008, 06:57
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,289
Received 608 Likes on 266 Posts
Geoffers - you make some valid points and I know to some extent I am p*ssing into the wind but your comments re Police/AA/Fire show how civilianising things doesn't make things joined up and how the civilian turf war warriors are even more protective of their empires. CHAS nearly died a death because the civilian operators couldn't agree with each other and declared UDI.

With a fully Military outfit, you have proper command and control and standard kit, procedures etc. If things go pear-shaped and there is a need to operate in hazardous conditions (nuclear, biological etc) you can order people in to those areas.

Command and control doesn't seem to be part of the SARH bid - the ARCCK isn't part of it and I'm not sure the MCA are ready to manage all the inland jobs (50% of our tasking). So the grand plan doesn't seem very joined up right from the outset does it?

SARREMF - I think the going to war comment has always been true even though you and I joined when the threat was from the Russian Hordes - you didn't go SH and, apart from NI, nor did I.
We would both have fought had we been asked to but spent the rest of the time rescuing people, it didn't make us less military.
Joining up to defend your country is one thing - joining up to exercise flawed foreign policy is another - if that is all we offer people, they won't join.

Yes the mil thread is bollo*ks but at some point there will be questions asked about the military paying for so much of SARH. A new building here and there won't compensate for the disparity in funding. I know it all comes out of the same big pot of public money in the end but using MoD budget for 'non-core' business doesn't seem to fit the dogma that we are constantly being fed from above.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2008, 07:17
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In my box!
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"war Dodger"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BRASSEMUP is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2008, 07:20
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Crab

I'm pleased to have found some common ground but please note that I did not mention the cops. Until we have a national police force and 43 forces all sing from the same Hymn Sheet we are wasting the effort.

Yes, an 'all military' solution would offer some uniformity but the military system itself has some devastating shortcomings. The ravages of the 'Peter Principle' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle) have more scope to work their evil magic in an organisation that relies on regular rotation or posting. It has been my experience that the encumbant dreams up some 'mega-plan', sells the idea to his superiors, gets a good promotion out of it and then the poor sod taking over the position is left to implement it. He had no idea why this mega-idea was introduced because he came from some other obscure part of the military machine.

Sorry Crab, in my 40 years in this job I've learnt that the most efficient units are those that are driven by profit. Somehow loftier ideals breed a nauseating bureaucracy and the 'my-way-is-best' mentality stifles initiative and innovation. If your only experience is within the RAF then you never have experienced the vitality of the civilian world and if that's the case you cannot criticise it - not justly anyway.

G

Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 26th Jan 2008 at 07:39.
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2008, 09:40
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: london
Age: 55
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Apart from the inevitable smattering of bickering , this has been quite a good thread!

In order to reassure the cynics, mostly military I suspect, could those who favour SAR-H (H=Helicopter by the way not Harmonization) please give a short list of previous PFI programmes that have been successful. By successful I mean remotely close to being on budget, on time and delivering the required capability. Please do not quote Government sources, they tend to be a little biased.

Once we have the list, we can look forward to a wonderful new UK SAR service. If no examples are forthcoming, could the SAR-H fans elaborate on what they base their unbounded optimism on.

HAL
HAL9000 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.