SARH to go
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So lets take this one stage further. Theoretically there is nothing stopping the other 2 consortia from reaching the same conclusions and pulling the plug themselves.
Should this occur then as I see it there are 2 options.
1. Mil retain their present commitment to UK SAR and the CHC 'interim' contract is extended ad infinitum. Crab @ gets his way & says told you so but significant mil money would need to be found at a time when every penny is heading to the sandpits.
2. SARH gets delayed by another 'few' years, maintain the staus quo and restart the bidding process from scratch if any company would look seriously at it??
Are either viable??
Should this occur then as I see it there are 2 options.
1. Mil retain their present commitment to UK SAR and the CHC 'interim' contract is extended ad infinitum. Crab @ gets his way & says told you so but significant mil money would need to be found at a time when every penny is heading to the sandpits.
2. SARH gets delayed by another 'few' years, maintain the staus quo and restart the bidding process from scratch if any company would look seriously at it??
Are either viable??
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever your politics on this one we need to remember that Crab is not an RAF spokesperson. THE MOD DO NOT WANT SAR. There has been no support for retaining SAR above that of gp capt.
The mil have not made this "as unatractive as possible". The contract has been put together by a joint MOD and MCA procurement team, heavily relying on legal and financial advisors. Just because they may have put together a contract that does not allow industry to hook itself up to the Government 'cash cow' should be seen a positive thing by any tax payer who has witnessed the previous PFI disasters.
In a situation where too many or all bidders pull the plug, they can usually be persuaded to re-enter the bidding (to ensure a healthy competition) through an agreement to meet their bid costs.
The mil have not made this "as unatractive as possible". The contract has been put together by a joint MOD and MCA procurement team, heavily relying on legal and financial advisors. Just because they may have put together a contract that does not allow industry to hook itself up to the Government 'cash cow' should be seen a positive thing by any tax payer who has witnessed the previous PFI disasters.
In a situation where too many or all bidders pull the plug, they can usually be persuaded to re-enter the bidding (to ensure a healthy competition) through an agreement to meet their bid costs.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: P
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a situation where too many or all bidders pull the plug, they can usually be persuaded to re-enter the bidding (to ensure a healthy competition) through an agreement to meet their bid costs.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point is that if your bid costs are being met by the Government then it gives you the opportunity to stay in the competition at no cost to you and to submit a final bid priced at a level where you feel that you can meet the contract and still make a worthwhile profit. So if there are unreasonable penalty clauses, you just price these back to the customer (UK Government). It becomes your commercial risk as to where you draw that line.
It is also worth remembering (from open source) that over 50% of the evaluation of SAR-H bids will be against the technical solution and not the price. In other words this contract is not guaranteed to go to 'cheapest compliant bidder'. There is scope to reward innovation and capability beyond the basic requirement.
Speculation: Bids of this size need to be underwritten by invest banks. I think I read something the other week about a bit of a hiccup in the banking world recently? Could there be reasons other than the ones quoted for UK Air Rescue to have pulled their bid?
It is also worth remembering (from open source) that over 50% of the evaluation of SAR-H bids will be against the technical solution and not the price. In other words this contract is not guaranteed to go to 'cheapest compliant bidder'. There is scope to reward innovation and capability beyond the basic requirement.
Speculation: Bids of this size need to be underwritten by invest banks. I think I read something the other week about a bit of a hiccup in the banking world recently? Could there be reasons other than the ones quoted for UK Air Rescue to have pulled their bid?
Max con is right, the MOD don't want SAR because it is not 'core business' ie non warfighting and non-deployable; but then neither are the Red Arrows
Sadly those senior officers would rather sacrifice all that Military SAR stands for (and all the PR it brings) just to comply with some management consultant-speak to streamline our business.
He is also right about the Govt 'cash cow' that so many businesses like to suckle - no-one feels bad about ripping off the taxpayer, it's like a 'victimless crime'. If none of the bidders can make a profit out of UKSAR then maybe it is a hint that, just like the other emergency services, SAR should remain as a non-commercial public service far removed from contracts, sub contracts, KPIs and penalty clauses.
Let us not forget that the whole SARH process was born out of an MCA ambition to try and become the UK equivalent of the USCG and control all maritime assets - the same MCA who are still paying peanuts to many of their staff and still experiencing industrial action as a result.
Sadly those senior officers would rather sacrifice all that Military SAR stands for (and all the PR it brings) just to comply with some management consultant-speak to streamline our business.
He is also right about the Govt 'cash cow' that so many businesses like to suckle - no-one feels bad about ripping off the taxpayer, it's like a 'victimless crime'. If none of the bidders can make a profit out of UKSAR then maybe it is a hint that, just like the other emergency services, SAR should remain as a non-commercial public service far removed from contracts, sub contracts, KPIs and penalty clauses.
Let us not forget that the whole SARH process was born out of an MCA ambition to try and become the UK equivalent of the USCG and control all maritime assets - the same MCA who are still paying peanuts to many of their staff and still experiencing industrial action as a result.
Jungly AeO - I just pass on what I am told by people who are as close to the Mk4 plus's as it is possible to be - I won't name names.
I also know people who were directly involved with the Qinetic trials and testing of the Carson blades fit and using a non-folding head with bifilar absorbers makes a significant difference. Take the folding head off and you will see a significant reduction in drag but the speed issue is all about vibration not drag. You don't get an increase in speed from the Carson blades fit because the Release to Service won't let you go above 127kts - (again vibration issues and fatigue) what you get is that same speed at MAUM and at high altitudes. With fixed head and bifilar absorbers you would be at 140 kts plus in a smooth aircraft.
The fact that the RN elected to continue with the folding head says much about their dogmatic approach 'it is a Navy aircraft therefore it must have a folding head for shipborne work' even if the whole aim was to produce hot and high capability for land based ops.
I also know people who were directly involved with the Qinetic trials and testing of the Carson blades fit and using a non-folding head with bifilar absorbers makes a significant difference. Take the folding head off and you will see a significant reduction in drag but the speed issue is all about vibration not drag. You don't get an increase in speed from the Carson blades fit because the Release to Service won't let you go above 127kts - (again vibration issues and fatigue) what you get is that same speed at MAUM and at high altitudes. With fixed head and bifilar absorbers you would be at 140 kts plus in a smooth aircraft.
The fact that the RN elected to continue with the folding head says much about their dogmatic approach 'it is a Navy aircraft therefore it must have a folding head for shipborne work' even if the whole aim was to produce hot and high capability for land based ops.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In the Doghouse...
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Official Press Release
SAR-H Competition statement
The consortium companies of UK Air Rescue have unanimously taken the decision to withdraw from the SAR-H competition.
Allan Blake, Bid Director for the UK Air Rescue consortium, stated: “There is a wide range of commercial factors to consider in a programme as complex as this being delivered over 32 years. Having considered all of these factors the sponsor companies have agreed unanimously that UK Air Rescue should withdraw from the competition.”
Given that the SAR-H competition is ongoing, and for reasons of our commercial confidentiality, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.
Ends
SAR-H Competition statement
The consortium companies of UK Air Rescue have unanimously taken the decision to withdraw from the SAR-H competition.
Allan Blake, Bid Director for the UK Air Rescue consortium, stated: “There is a wide range of commercial factors to consider in a programme as complex as this being delivered over 32 years. Having considered all of these factors the sponsor companies have agreed unanimously that UK Air Rescue should withdraw from the competition.”
Given that the SAR-H competition is ongoing, and for reasons of our commercial confidentiality, it would be inappropriate for us to comment further.
Ends
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to get back on thread.
Here's a plan!
All the bidders pull out of SARH due to no profit.
AW step in and include civilian aircrew as part of the SKIOS2 package and paint Coast Guard on the side of the cabs.
MOD Happy - SARH complete(ish), more money for the reds.
CG Happy - Phase one of world domination complete.
AW Happy - Winners of SARH bid via back door.
Crab Happy - Antiquated clapped out piece of junk that is the Mk3 in
Service for another 30 years.
Just a thought!!!!
Role1a
Here's a plan!
All the bidders pull out of SARH due to no profit.
AW step in and include civilian aircrew as part of the SKIOS2 package and paint Coast Guard on the side of the cabs.
MOD Happy - SARH complete(ish), more money for the reds.
CG Happy - Phase one of world domination complete.
AW Happy - Winners of SARH bid via back door.
Crab Happy - Antiquated clapped out piece of junk that is the Mk3 in
Service for another 30 years.
Just a thought!!!!
Role1a
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Moved
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jungly, so why the pseudonym? Presumably you are easily identifiable by those who know you and I guess that means your employer and contractor/s know who you are on this forum - would it not be better to do a "Nick Lappos" and be up-front all the way through the process?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Moved
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't remember why, but once I read a piece of paper that said it was the Official Secrets Act and then I signed a piece of paper and a Big Man smiled at me. It was not a nice smile.
Jungly - in your vitriolic outrage you have chosen to interpret some of my post incorrectly.
I know the Vd for the Sea King is 157 kts and with a reduction of a factor of 1.1 becomes a VNE of around 145kts. Then the RTS process adds in additional safety and fatigue factors resulting in the Service FE limit (not a VMax) of 127 kts.
My point about no greater speed with Carson blades is that 127 FE limit is available at MAUM (not normally the case) AND at higher DAs - so my statement that you get no increase in speed is entirely correct.
As for the trials - you will know then that with the full Carson fit, 145 kts is easily available without excessive vibration or T & B problems - the SUR for the Mk4s as with most SURs was a quick fix to give best bang for bucks which it has done but not without problems - you say there is no T&B issue, I have heard otherwise.
As for twaddle - you were the one authoritatively spouting about drag on the MRH limiting the performance - utter sh8te so don't throw stones
I am normally available on the phone on the SAR flt at Chivenor.
I know the Vd for the Sea King is 157 kts and with a reduction of a factor of 1.1 becomes a VNE of around 145kts. Then the RTS process adds in additional safety and fatigue factors resulting in the Service FE limit (not a VMax) of 127 kts.
My point about no greater speed with Carson blades is that 127 FE limit is available at MAUM (not normally the case) AND at higher DAs - so my statement that you get no increase in speed is entirely correct.
As for the trials - you will know then that with the full Carson fit, 145 kts is easily available without excessive vibration or T & B problems - the SUR for the Mk4s as with most SURs was a quick fix to give best bang for bucks which it has done but not without problems - you say there is no T&B issue, I have heard otherwise.
As for twaddle - you were the one authoritatively spouting about drag on the MRH limiting the performance - utter sh8te so don't throw stones
I am normally available on the phone on the SAR flt at Chivenor.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dubai
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yawn! Anyone else remember the Crabs saying the Whirlwind was the only proper SAR cab when the RN was using Wessex Mk1s. Or that suddenly their Wessex Mk2s were much better when RN started changing from Wessex Mk5s to Sea Kings. Deja vu, deja vu..... 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Sunnyvale Rest Home for the Elderly
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very Quiet
If Bristows can't see how to make money out of the contract it must make the other two consortiums think twice. I wonder if the recession will also make the government think twice about awarding such a big contract? How about a radical Sea King overhaul along the lines of the Carson/Sikorsky plans for the S61 and then leave SAR as it is?
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: the northern riviera
Age: 57
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sea King overhaul along the lines of the Carson/Sikorsky plans
I heard a while back that the Navy had put a load of SeaKings into storage with vastly fewer hours than the current SAR Fleet cabs. Allegedly Wastelands had offered to refurbish them to SAR standard for £1m a throw but the offer was not taken up. Never having worked rotary, I was wondering if this offer, if tied into the Carson blades / glass cockpit / re-engine upgrade would be a goer? The airframe is proven and able to withstand plenty of abuse. If SARH H was to be abolished, surely this would be money better spent than patching up the current SAR fleet. (just engineering curiosity - nothing more).
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: wallop
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab,
Very long back in the thread you mentioned kit being removed from the aircraft. Are you really suggesting that the Jock's box was ever removed for long range tasking??..
Surely its part of the fit of the aircraft?
Like all the "ancillary medical equipment"
Ralph
Very long back in the thread you mentioned kit being removed from the aircraft. Are you really suggesting that the Jock's box was ever removed for long range tasking??..
Surely its part of the fit of the aircraft?
Like all the "ancillary medical equipment"
Ralph
Ralph
Crab will no doubt get back to you shortly, but in the meantime, equipment such as the Jock's Box, seats etc (even a beam seat, not just the troop seats) can be, and has been, removed on occasion. None of the above is structural - it's just part of the role equipment, much like the rest - and can be taken out reasonably quickly and easily if required.
TOTD
Crab will no doubt get back to you shortly, but in the meantime, equipment such as the Jock's Box, seats etc (even a beam seat, not just the troop seats) can be, and has been, removed on occasion. None of the above is structural - it's just part of the role equipment, much like the rest - and can be taken out reasonably quickly and easily if required.
TOTD
Ralph - more often only some of the kit in the Jock's Box is removed but the whole thing can be taken out as well if max range is absolutely crucial. As SAR Sea Kings have got better equipped (including the FLIR turret) there are more compromises that need to be made and the crew have to decide what they will and won't take.
I do know of one occasion when everything was taken out and then only those items deemed essential for the job were put back on - unfortunately someone forgot that flying to Eire for refuel might require the IRISH map-pack......OOOps.
However, even without removing anything, the RAF Sea Kings can still far exceed the RoA of the S-92
Doc Brown - I believe the crews are very happy with the S-92 apart from the lack of MRGB ELS but I am told the 139 has been melting driveshaft covers as it was never designed to spend a long time in the hover. The small cabin is not popular either but it does go fast.
Another thread on the forum states that the ex-Bristows S 61s have been bought up and shipped off to Carson and that many Sea King and S61 operators are planning to keep using them way into the 2020s - a Carson refit of our Sea Kings plus some modern avionics would keep Mil SAR going for long enough for the Govt to save up to replace them instead of borrowing even MORE money (prudence, what prudence?) for a new MCA Empire.
There are rumours that there is to be a parlimentary debate over the future of SAR and I think some pointed questions will be asked by the shadow cabinet about the SARH process.
I suspect the credit crunch will end up putting the mockers on the whole thing since all public finances will come under the microscope as lending becomes far more selective.
I do know of one occasion when everything was taken out and then only those items deemed essential for the job were put back on - unfortunately someone forgot that flying to Eire for refuel might require the IRISH map-pack......OOOps.
However, even without removing anything, the RAF Sea Kings can still far exceed the RoA of the S-92
Doc Brown - I believe the crews are very happy with the S-92 apart from the lack of MRGB ELS but I am told the 139 has been melting driveshaft covers as it was never designed to spend a long time in the hover. The small cabin is not popular either but it does go fast.
Another thread on the forum states that the ex-Bristows S 61s have been bought up and shipped off to Carson and that many Sea King and S61 operators are planning to keep using them way into the 2020s - a Carson refit of our Sea Kings plus some modern avionics would keep Mil SAR going for long enough for the Govt to save up to replace them instead of borrowing even MORE money (prudence, what prudence?) for a new MCA Empire.
There are rumours that there is to be a parlimentary debate over the future of SAR and I think some pointed questions will be asked by the shadow cabinet about the SARH process.
I suspect the credit crunch will end up putting the mockers on the whole thing since all public finances will come under the microscope as lending becomes far more selective.